It’s one thing to know what you need to do to create a high-quality, sustainable online program, but how do you know if you have all the elements you need in place to develop, implement, and sustain your program?

In the “Collaborating to Create the Online Student Life Cycle and its Ecosystem” section of this book, we explored the elements that make up student-centred, effective, and sustainable online programs as well as the units and roles of individuals who play an important role in its effective and healthy functioning. A key approach to creating the ecosystem, as readers of each module in this book will find, is collaborating with units and individuals who have the expertise to help you understand and assess which elements of the ecosystem are well-supported, where gaps may be present and how to fill them, and the initial and ongoing resources that will be needed to develop, implement, and sustain your program.

This unit presents tools to help determine how ready your department and institution are to do this work. Throughout the unit are prompt questions that you can reflect on and ask in conversation with various collaborators as you explore your readiness. These questions should help guide conversations around what is in place to help your online program and the students, faculty, and staff that interact with it, and each other, thrive. With the move to fully online programs still being relatively new for many intuitions, rarely does an institution excel in all the online ecosystem elements. In places where elements of the online ecosystem may not address the needs of your program, these conversations can also help you with short, mid-, and long-term planning to develop these elements and prioritize which should be developed first.

Determining Readiness to Develop, Implement, Administer, and Sustain Your Online Program

One of the first steps you should take in the process of online program development (aside from identifying collaborators) is to undertake a thorough assessment of the existing resources, infrastructures, policies, administrative procedures, etc., currently in place at your institution. From there, you can map out which elements of the online program ecosystem are already well developed, which are present but need more development, or which are not present at all. This approach allows you to realistically assess the resources and effort that will need to go into ensuring your program success and to create mid-, short-, and long-term plans based on priorities arising from your readiness assessment.

Not surprisingly, we suggest taking a collaborative approach to assessing intuitional and program readiness to develop online programs. Why? Because there are just so many areas of expertise, resources, and administrative procedures that network together in a successful online program ecosystem. It’s unreasonable to expect that any one person or small group would be able to undertake this assessment without reaching out to the types of collaborative units or roles you identified in the previous unit. If you have not yet identified these collaborators, we encourage you to do that before reading on or else use the questions below to start creating a list of collaborators you will need to work with to determine the answers, and then to document who they are using the last activity in the previous unit.

Several freely available or for-profit tools or frameworks to rate your institutional readiness to develop and implement online programs have been developed by for- and non-profit companies, and you can even employ a company to undertake these assessments for you. We’ve listed some of these in the unit resources in case your institution prefers to use a branded tool or has the resources and desire to use an external consulting company, but it’s not our intention to promote any one tool/service listed here or existing elsewhere over another.  We’ve also created an assessment tool for this work, which you can find in the workbook. As always, it is your institutional context and expertise that guides which approach to assessing your readiness you take.

Readiness assessment tools are usually comprised of “big picture” questions used to give you an overall rating of where your institution lies on the readiness continuum across several areas of effective online programs. What these tools often lack to accurately assess your readiness are guiding questions to help you determine where your reply should be on the readiness scale. For example, it could be challenging to rate your readiness response to the statement: “The technology delivery standards are highly reliable and operable with measurable standards being utilized such as system downtime tracking or tasking benchmarking” (Online Learning Consortium, 2018). Below we present guiding questions that will enable you to have conversations about what it means to be able to reply that you are, for example, at the exemplary level in response to the previous technology question. We’ve aligned these questions with the elements of the online program ecosystem rather than any readiness tool as each tool tends to find its unique way of structuring its assessment. However, the ecosystem elements are common across any online program, and so conversations prompted by the guiding questions will apply to any readiness assessment. In fact, you may even find that sustained, informed conversations about the prompt questions allow you to draft your readiness report, which is why we’ve included a workbook activity to help you create your own “big picture readiness” assessment.

Program Vision

• Does a strong vision for the program exist?
• Was the vision developed through a consultation process with all program stakeholders, e.g., faculty, staff, students, potential employers, impacted communities, equity-deserving groups, and technology and teaching specialists?
• Does the vision align with institutional strategies/priorities and the current state of the field?
• Does the vision account for why the program is delivered online?
• Does the program clearly communicate its vision to all stakeholders, including students, who interact with the development, implementation, and sustainability of the program?

Program Feasibility, Impact, and Approval

• How does the institution determine a program’s feasibility? Are there criteria that must be met and what processes are used to develop a feasibility assessment?
• What useful tools, templates, or processes are in place to successfully complete an online program feasibility/impact plan? e.g., guides for types of data should be collected and from where?
• What roles exist to assist programs with feasibility planning?
• Does program feasibility reflect conclusions drawn from a wide variety of evidence and reflect the strategic goals of the department and institution?
• Are there suggested timelines for feasibility and approval planning, and are they adequate for the task?
• Is there a dedicated quality assurance office (or equivalent) that assists programs in developing and submitting their approval application?
• What resources and roles exist to assist the program approval planning?
• Are program stakeholders widely consulted in the development of the feasibility and impact elements of the approval application?

Program Outcomes

• Do program outcomes for the program exist? If so, do they reflect the vision for the program?
• Were program outcomes created through a collaborative process involving faculty, staff, students, alumni, potential employers, impacted communities, equity-deserving groups, technology and teaching specialists, etc.?
• Are program outcomes used to map the progression of learning across the program? Who will do this work and how?
• What resources are available to assist in the creation and mapping of program outcomes, e.g., Centre for Teaching and Learning staff, department guidebooks or templates, quality assurance office?
• Is there a coherent “vision” for teaching and learning that runs across all courses, e.g., a signature pedagogy, set of core eLearning tools, and commitment to indigenization?

Course Design

• Are there quality guidelines in place (formally or informally) for online course development? Do the guidelines account for the difference between in-person and online course design considerations and learning approaches?
• What resources and roles are in place to create high-quality online courses? E.g., instructional designers, media designers or technology experts, librarians
• Are instructors engaged in the development of courses?
• Are the learning outcomes for courses clear and do they align with the instructional methods and assessments?
• Have essential considerations such as accessibility and equity been embedded in course design?
• Are course learning outcomes present and aligned with the program learning outcomes?
• Is course design student-centred with an emphasis on active engagement rather than passive learning?
• Does the technology chosen for the course align with the course outcomes and is it user-friendly? Are the courses easy to navigate and find information in?
• What resources are available to ensure that course content meets existing copyright requirements?
• Is there a plan to regularly review and update course material?

Teaching and Learning

• Do instructors have a strong online presence in the course?
• Are there opportunities for regular interaction among students and between students and instructors in courses?
• Do students have access to all resources and roles needed to complete their coursework (e.g., libraries/librarians, software, bookstore)?
• Are students able to track and self-assess their progress in the course?
• Do faculty feel engaged in the teaching process and connected to students?
• Is the course designed so that eLearning technologies assist rather than restrict or impede students and faculty in the course teaching and learning?

Program Feedback, Continuous Improvement, and Sustainability

• Is there an institutional review process that regularly reviews program effectiveness against program and institutional goals?
• Does the online program have a sustainability plan that looks at least 5 years into the future?
• Is a variety of data used to continuously assess and improve the program?
• Have adequate resources been earmarked for the ongoing renewal of the program?
• Are there opportunities to collect feedback on student course experiences and regularly review course design and content?
• What processes are in place to collect feedback from alumni, faculty, and staff on the value, relevance, and administration of your program both in the short and long term?
• How do programs communicate changes based on feedback to their stakeholders?
• Do faculty and staff related to the online program regularly receive reviews and feedback?

Institutional Vision and Strategy

• Is there an institutional vision and strategy for online learning in place? Has it been clearly communicated to the faculties/departments, students, and general community?
• Does online learning appear to be a strategic priority and/or is it already part of the institutional “brand”?
• Where in the strategic planning cycle is the institution concerning online learning? Is there a plan to renew the strategy soon? If so, what possibilities are there for future vision and what strategies are there for online programs?
• Does the level of current or designated future resourcing align with the institutional vision and strategy? How does/can program developers access them?
• What future resources have been allocated for the development of online programs and who will be able to access them?

Policies and Procedures

• Are there clear and adequate policies and procedures at the institutional and program level that govern decisions specifically related to online learning where face-to-face policies are not sufficient? If so, what are they? If not, which still need to be developed?
• What is the program application and quality assurance process? Is there a commitment to ongoing continuous improvement of all programs?
• Do policies need to be amended so that fully online students don’t pay user fees for services to which they do not have access? Are there fees that only apply to online student services?

 Educational Technology Stack

• Which educational technologies are currently in place, and which units currently administer and provide support services for them? Do you have access to them? If not, what are the pathways and costs to access?
• Is there a technology renewal or sustainability plan in place that indicates their essential role in facilitating online learning? Have resources been set aside for their ongoing support and renewal?
• Are there clear governance structures in place for the selection and ongoing review of eLearning Technologies? If so, do they involve stakeholder (e.g., faculty, staff, student, etc.) consultation and participation?
• Do you have access to a reliable and current Learning Management System? Does it (or any integrated tools) allow for visual, audio, and video forms of communication?
• What other eLearning tools are available to your department or institution, e.g., peer-assessment, online labs, remote proctoring software. Do they currently meet the teaching and assessment needs of your program?
• Does the institution or program have a well-defined process and the expertise to evaluate technology risk assessment, e.g., privacy, security, systems integration, legal, data management
• Do the current technologies perform reliably? What difficulties might be encountered if there is a need to “scale up” to address additional enrolment growth, and are the resources available to do so? What contingency plans are in place in case of a prolonged service disruption?
• Is there reproduction or redundancies of digital services where economies of scale and better support services might be realized?
• Are eLearning tools compatible or built with accessibility-supporting devices and programs?
• Are there “low-fi” alternatives for students who may participate from communities with low internet bandwidth?

Marketing and Recruitment

• How easily discoverable is the program through internet searches and advertising?
• How does the institution connect with interested students and ensure that they have all their questions easily and fully answered?
• Is there the ability to track student interest in and follow up with students who show interest in the program?
• How does the institution or program support students in understanding how the program might fit their needs?
• How does the instruction or program help students understand how they will be supported as learners?
• How does the institution communicate what students will need to do to thrive?

Faculty Expertise and Readiness

• Do course instructors understand the pedagogical and course design differences between face-to-face and online instruction? If not, which resources are available for this professional development?
• Do course instructors have access to technical training for using instructional technologies? If not, which resources are available for professional development?
• How do instructors learn about new technology and other course design supports that may become available?
• What guidelines or standards are in place to define and communicate the faculty’s role in course design and teaching?
• Are there resources or processes in place to support the extra workload and longer timeline of designing an online course vs. a face-to-face course? If so, what are they?
• Is the instructor supported through a team-based approach to course design (e.g., they are not solely responsible for the subject matter, curricular design, and building of the course in the Learning Management System)?

Instructional Design and Educational Technology Expertise

• Are there instructional designers available to work with faculty on course design and, if so, how collaborative and sustainable is the course design project?
• Are there educational technologies and/or media designers available to work with faculty on course design? If so, what is the amount of digital development and consultation are they able to give?

Enrolment, Tracking, Credentialing

• Is there an efficient system in place that allows the institution to easily track, record, and share different types of credentials?
• What processes are in place to verify the identity of online students when they enrol?
• Is the process for applying for credentials clearly communicated and straightforward?
• Are there minimal or no costs associated with students accessing or sharing their credentials?
• Is there technology in place for online students to easily access a record of their credentials within a reasonable amount of time?
• How accessible is the credential should a student wish to share it with another party (e.g., future employer, school, or virtual resume)?
• Will the value of the credential be easily understood by other institutions, employers, volunteer organizations, etc.?
• Do online students have the same status as face-to-face students and, if not, does this impede their access to certain resources that require a digital sign-in and/or licensing?
• What processes are in place to ensure students know how to access the course, orient themselves to the program, and meet the technical (e.g., technology) requirements of the program before the first day of class?

Academic Support Services

• Are the same academic supports available to online students as those studying face-to-face? If so, are they offered in a way that is accessible to online students, e.g., video conferencing, toll-free numbers, chatbots, including students with disabilities?
• Is there access to academic and career counselling, online tutoring, writing help, accessibility, and medical accommodations services, etc.?
• Is there an effective communication plan in place to ensure students know where to go for the appropriate academic service?

 Technical Support Services

• Are there opportunities for students to practice or train on the course technology, in particular prior to high-stakes activities such as assessments?
• Does the IT help desk offer virtual consultations and a toll-free phone number? And are they available evenings and/or weekends for students who are in different time zones or are completing their degree part-time in addition to their full-time careers?
• Do the program and its courses include information on how students can access technical support?

Health and Wellness Support Services

• Are the same health and wellness supports available to online students as those studying face-to-face? If so, are they offered in an equitable way that is accessible to online students when they are needed?
• Is there an effective communication plan in place to ensure students know where to go for the appropriate service?

Co-Curricular and Social Engagement

• Are there strategies in place that enable online students in the program and institution to connect with one another both within and outside of their studies?
• How does the institution or program develop a sense of community among its online students?

Now that you’ve come to the bottom of this rather long list of questions, you may be feeling overwhelmed at the depth and breadth of information you need to assess your readiness. Remember, you don’t (and shouldn’t) answer all these questions on your own. You have already identified the units and roles that can help you with the answer. The goal is to obtain an honest and accurate representation of where your strengths in online program development and implementation already lie and where there is a need for improvement. As you will see in the next section of this module, it’s very unlikely that you will find yourself in the “perfect” position to develop a program. What an institutional readiness plan will allow you to do, however, is be realistic about whether there are any “mission critical” gaps in your online program vision (e.g., a key eLearning tool will not support the number of learners you will have in the program or you have no way to support faculty knowledge or readiness online course development and no forthcoming resources to do so) that need immediate solutions to move forward vs. those that you are aware of that can be addressed over the mid- or long-term (e.g. developing alumni networks or improving the communication of supports for online learners).

Models for the Distribution of Online Program Expertise, Resources, and Development Processes

Now that you have a good idea of which elements of the online program ecosystem are well-developed, need to be developed, or need to be improved in relation to your program, you can give some consideration to where the expertise and resources for those elements might be ideally located now and in the future. As we’ve seen throughout this Module and discuss more in the Module on Sustainability, the ecosystem elements function as part of a larger network or system, where changes to one can ripple out to affect others, in turn impacting online students, and the faculty and staff that support your programs.

Three main models guide the distribution of the elements of online program administration, expertise, and resources: 1) Centralized, 2) Decentralized, and 3) Outsourced. Which model your department or institution chooses depends largely on your context, including your institutional vision for online learning and where you are along the continuum of program development readiness.

The three models are presented here in “textbook” form. In practice, the lines between them can be blurry in places, and you may move among them as part of your short-, mid-, and long-term program development planning. The three short cases studies included below illustrate what they might look like “in action.”

Centralized Model

In a centralized model, all or most online program expertise, infrastructure, and resources that are common to any online program are located at the level of the instruction or shared across one or more institutions. They are available to all faculties or departments (e.g., market research, marketing and recruitment, educational technology stack tools, instructional design and educational technology expertise, enrolment and credentialing systems, student support services). The primary role of the department or faculty is to provide discipline-based program guidance, expertise, and instruction (e.g., lead the program visioning and learning outcomes process, identify subject matter experts for the team-based course design process and teach courses, decide on the core teaching elements of the program as it fits the discipline, provide any student support services specific to the discipline).

Decentralized Model

In this model, all or most online program expertise, infrastructure, and resources are located within the specific faculty or department or shared across several related disciplines, but they are not available to all faculties or departments developing an online program at the institution.

Outsourced Model (Full Service or “A la Carte”)

Outsourcing or contracting out expertise is the practice of shifting all or some of the business processes, program design and/or student supports for online learning from in-house to an outside contractor or other organization. In some cases, Online Program Management (OPM) companies will provide full-service models where almost all elements of the online program are designed and implemented by the OPM. Other service providers may offer an “a la carte” style of service, meaning that an institution or department doesn’t need to commit to the online program development and administration fully residing with an outside company. A provider may also specialize in a particular element of online program design. In these cases, the institution or department might contract out one or more program design elements such as Marketing and Recruitment, Course Design, Instructional Design or Media Development, or Learning Management System/eLearning tool development, administration, and maintenance.

Tables 1.1 through 1.3 outline the general advantages or disadvantages of each model (Tables adapted from Western University, 2020.)

Table 1.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of a Centralized Model of Online Program Development and Administration

Table 1.2: Advantages and Disadvantages of a Decentralized Model of Online Program Development and Administration

Table 1.3: Advantages and Disadvantages of an Outsourced Model of Online Program Development and Administration

Case Study I: (Mostly) Centralized Model

The Continuing Education Department (CED) at Azure University has been developing stand-alone credit and non-credit online courses and micro-credentials for over 3 years. The University’s Strategic Plan, now 1.5 years old, included expanding online learning to raise enrolment across most academic units and becoming a “destination” for online learning in identified disciplines. The CED now has a strong mandate to develop fully accredited online programs for professionals looking to upgrade their skills in the areas of marketing, communication, and language acquisition. They currently use a successful combination of contracted out and in-house resources for assessing demand for and marketing new courses developed for post-degree learners and plan to use the same processes for their online program development. Because the CED is new to program development, they will work with the Centre for Teaching and Learning to facilitate program visioning, program learning outcomes creation, and curriculum mapping alongside CED subject matter experts and stakeholders. The institutional Quality Assurance Office will partner with them to conduct a program feasibility study and apply for program approval once possible programs have been identified. Although the CED has its Instructional Designers and Media Specialists (a reflection of how much earlier they began offering online courses than other departments in the university), there is an agreement between the CED and the university that a certain amount of “overflow” instructional design and media specialist work—due to the rapid increase in the number of new courses the CED will be developing— will be taken on by a central unit recently created to help all departments improve their online offerings. The CED has a three-year plan to migrate its registration and credentialing process to the Office of the Registrar for greater efficiency, cost savings, and quicker customer service, and it has recently begun holding conversations with the central Student Experience, EDI, and Indigenous Initiatives Offices at their institution and the two local Colleges to look for opportunities for further collaboration and resource sharing as they develop the courses in their program.

Case Study II: (Mostly) Decentralized Model

The business department at Granite College was an early adopter of online programs, having offered online versions of most of its diplomas for the last 8 years. They have slowly been building their capacity to research, market, develop, and teach online programs, and they can lead the visioning and planning for new and existing programs almost entirely within the department. When provincial funding became available for the development of micro-credentials, they decide to introduce a certificate in Organizational Communication that can be obtained through a stackable series of micro-credentials—a first for the department. They use their departmental in-house expertise to undertake market research and consult with other colleges who have offered stackable micro-credentials. Working with the institutional Quality Assurance Office, they develop their feasibly plan and can go forward with the program approval process. At a departmental retreat, they identify an opportunity to develop much of the course material through the process of revitalizing a certificate that is due for renewal, then work with educational developers from the institution’s Centre for Teaching to map out the learning pathway through the program. The courses are developed by the department’s in-house subject matter experts and course design teams, then taught using the institutionally available eLearning tools. While students usually go through the Office of the Registrar for enrolment and credentialing, the department will need to adopt a digital micro-credentialing platform as there is currently no such technology available at the institution. The department has agreed to take this work on as a pilot to assess if it is feasible for the institution to develop or adopt a micro-credentialing platform in the next 3-5 years. Granite College has been building out its technical, academic, and wellness services over the past three years as part of a strategic commitment to making continuing education more accessible to adult learners in the workplace, so remote and after-hours access to these services is very good. The business department has transitioned over to using the technical and wellness services for its online program but still prefers to direct students to the robust academic, co-curricular, and career counselling services developed in their department because of how they offer opportunities for students in the department to network with other learners, mentors, and the business community.

Case Study III: (Mostly) Outsourced Model

The Faculties of Science and Social Science at Maple University have documented increasing demand for their unique interdisciplinary degree in Climate Change. Based on information from applications over the past 3 years and external market research commissioned by the Faculty of Science, the program is projected to attract continued interest resulting in potential long-term growth—far more than the physical space at the university will currently allow. After conducting a feasibility study, the program applied for and received a university Special Initiative Grant designed to support curricular innovation in areas of strategic importance for the university, of which addressing climate change is one. A readiness assessment of Maple University and the program’s home Facilities indicates that the current Learning Management System and remaining educational technology stack can support an online degree program, but that little other infrastructure, resources, or policy exists to support fully online degrees, and faculty are not particularly fluent in online teaching: not surprising, as this will be the first online program at Maple. Program leaders have been in conversation with leaders at several other institutions who have been offering online programs for at least five years, and they are currently working with university governing bodies to create new policies and procedures for the faculty and students who will be associated with the online version of the degree. Current instructors in the face-to-face version of the program have worked with the Centre for Teaching and Learning and the central Instructional Technology unit to map existing program and course outcomes and to create a “menu” of available technology and digital teaching and learning activities that are currently available to online students and faculty. In addition, a 3-year program lead role has been hired to oversee the project of creating the online program, as have two limited-term faculty members who have experience in online instruction. An outside company has been hired to create the online courses with the Lead and new faculty members, based on the mapping work already done with the current program and using the guidelines provided by Instructional Technology Unit. The Faculties will also share the cost of hiring a marketing and recruitment company that specializes in online students and are exploring both external and internal access to student technical and academic supports–an identified priority area. A long-term goal of the program to use revenues from incremental growth to fund a permanent program manager, permanent faculty roles that specialize in online learning, and a Digital Media Specialist so that ongoing course revisions can be undertaken by the program.

Reflecting on the Case Studies

As the case studies above demonstrate, there is no “right way” to structure where online program expertise, resources, and administration procedures should lie. The structure of where these elements lie in the case studies is grounded in institutional context and history, particularly around early, mid-, or later adoption of online program development; institutional structure and vision; revenue streams; and where the priority lies for developing elements of the online ecosystem. While mostly reflecting a particular model, each has incorporated elements of centralized, decentralized, or outsourced support as they navigate the process of creating an effective online program. Where these elements lie over time may change based on long-term planning for greater effectiveness, efficiency, and desired ownership over the development process.

Unit Reflection and Resources

Key takeaways from this module:

• Before beginning the work of designing and implementing an online program, do a complete assessment of the resources, collaborators, policies, procedures, and technology that are related to online learning at your institution and department
• Create a plan that prioritizes any development of the online program ecosystem in the short-, mid-, and long-term and discuss what the impact will be on student, faculty, and staff experience in the areas where you need to make improvements across time. Be honest about whether you are currently equipped to develop the program or if key elements still need to be in place before moving forward
• Choose a model for program development support that works for your institutional context and consider how it might be adjusted to meet your long-term vision for the program and/or institution