Artifact 4: Creating a Project Management Plan

When I started working on the project management plan, I first gathered and read literature on project management plans, what the suggested requirements for inclusion are, and what the different components look like. I hadn’t heard of some of the sections before, and others were more familiar. For example, a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) was new to me. I had to research what a WBS is and find some examples online to give me a direction of where to start (1.1, 1.4). Once I saw the simplicity of the finished diagram, things started to become clearer. The instructor had also given us a very detailed step-by-step guide which proved to be extremely useful. This was an excellent example for me on how creating a solid guide with scaffolding and options for additional reading or examples can be a huge help for students. One of my big takeaways was seeing how DE instructors can use the potentials of Web 2.0 technology to provide excellent instructional materials for their students (1.5, 2.3). The assignment guideline was created in Moodle, with a page dedicated to explaining each component of the plan. The write-up contained hyperlinks to other websites containing information and examples of the content and there were forums dedicated to student discussion about the assignment which were monitored by the instructor.

One of the challenges in this assignment, aside from the content, was deciding how to create the detailed tables and charts. I struggled for a long time trying to use the flowchart section of Word. I thought that since most of the content was descriptive and would be completed using that program, it would make sense to use its integrated features to create the charts as well (3.2, 3.4). I struggled with getting the software to do what I wanted it to, the arrows didn’t sit quite where I wanted, and the text was tedious to add to each box. After fighting with Word for a while I decided to try something else. I searched the web for flowchart creation software, and again, spent way more time that what I would have liked to, trying to get a chart that looked professional and conveyed my WBS information clearly. I tried using both LucidChart and SmartDraw, but the free programs were limited in their functionality or required me to download software. After creating multiple charts that I wasn’t happy with, and learning a series of new programs that I didn’t like, I decided that the best option would be to go back to basics and use Word after all (3.5, 3.6). For one thing, I was already familiar with the software, I knew it could make the charts there, just that they wouldn’t look quite how I had hoped.

I knew that the assignment was going to take a long time to complete, and I had gotten the point of realizing I didn’t have more time to spend learning new programs and re-making the same chart again. Word was able to do what I needed, although it didn’t have as professional of a look as what I wanted and took a bit of time to get all the data inputted. However, I also had come to the realization that my instructor would have asked us to use a specific program if our chart was meant to be something more than what we had available in the 365 Office Suite. Good instructional design involves leading students to use technology that appropriate for the task, and in this case, we had the Office Suite available, and it had the functionality we needed (1.7). Once I finally decided on the software and the calibre of result I would be getting, the rest of the WBS was uncomplicated and a clear stepwise process which I had no issues with (2.1, 2.5). This led me to recognize the importance of sharing technology offerings with students, especially if we don’t want them wasting time learning inappropriate software. Especially with students who are doing a project for the first time, I would always make clear what programs they should use for each part of the assignment, and if necessary give them time to learn how to use the program or offer supporting materials on how to use it (1.6, 1.8)

The next step of the project management implementation plan was coming up with a project schedule in the form of a Gantt chart. In practice, I have done scheduling for my secondary classes’ curriculum throughout the school year. While not necessarily a ‘project’ in the same sense of project management, it made sense to me to correlate it with something I had hands on experience with (1.12, 1.13). However, when extrapolating my teaching experience to a managerial or administrative role in overseeing a business decision I still felt uncertain. When deciding how long each task in the project might take, I had to use a bit of guesswork. I had to account for when someone might sign off on a contract, or if there was a long weekend and the necessary people might be absent. For example, if the project manager supplied the school with the paperwork on a Friday, they might not read it until Monday morning, and might not sign off and return the paperwork until Tuesday (or later)! This process made me critically analyze more of the business and administrative functions of an educational institution more so than I ever had in my teaching career (6.2, 6.3). My schedule had to fit within the proposed budget, but also be completed in time for the upcoming semester of classes to begin, which ended up being a difficult (although simulated) task. I needed to account for personnel, their potential travel expenses, wages, training of staff, wages of both staff and trainers, and material costs. The longer the schedule went, the more I had to pay my personnel, which adds up quickly!

The budget was also one of the components of the project management plan that I didn’t have a lot of experience with. I had to research what appropriate wages would be for a project manager and instructional designer, incorporate staff training hours for the new software, and cost of new supplies and technology resources for the school (5.6, 5.10). Part of the budget also included doing a basic needs analysis for the school to decide how best to deliver the new programs, and what learning management system would be appropriate for a small private academy (6.4, 6.5). Again, this was a good learning experience for me to broaden my understanding of the intertwining aspects and costs associated with technology changes through more of a business/financial lens (3.3, 4.2). In the past, I hadn’t been required to consider all the requirements such as who will train the staff, who will provide ongoing technology support for the staff and students, what new hardware would be required by the school, and who will create and design graphics and curricular materials (6.1). This also brought up questions of copyright and creating digital materials from existing curricular documents, which I hadn’t really considered all the implications of before diving into this project (2.9). The paper-based materials that the school currently used would have a certain license and would need to be approved for digital use. Any new materials would need a copyright expert to confirm correct usage, or a design expert to create new ones. The school is a franchise as well, so undertaking a shift in curriculum would likely be way beyond the scope of a single school site, and beyond the scope of my project.

In the end, the project management plan came together nicely, and I was able to account for most of the requirements for implementation of the distance education program at the school (4.1, 4.3). It was a good exercise in broadening my perspective of how complex an educational institution’s technology shift could be, and some of the considerations that are necessary for that sort of undertaking. I also gained perspective about the roles and responsibilities of project managers, and how they must be relentless in trying to understand and piece together an enormous amount of dynamic information, in addition to working cohesively with a diverse team of experts throughout the process (5.9).