Part 5/5 of the MEAS Course on E-learning. Also see: http://www.meas-extension.org/meas-offers/training/online-courses "

1. Karen Vignare, Michigan State University

2. Understanding the Landscape
• Models and compatibility with mission, vision,
values, strategy
• Rubrics for baselines
• Measures of success
• Managing change in dynamic environment

3. Business Models
• Incremental
• Alliance
• Cost or profit center
• Overhead or service center
• Independent, for-profit

5. Respondents
College Classification Sample Percentage
Doctoral 31
Master’s 24
Baccalaureate 22
Associates 17
Specialty 2

6. Goals of Online Learning
• Rank Order (Most Important)
• Extension, surplus, brand value, diversity, on-campus
retention & speed to graduation
• Rank Order (Not Important)
• Speed to graduation, retention, diversity, surplus, brand
value & extension
• Rank Order (Combined top two ranking)
• Brand, extension, surplus, retention, diversity & speed to
graduation

7. Online Course Development
• How is it done?
• Individual faculty develop and deliver
• Individual faculty develop but others deliver
• Faculty team develops and delivers
• Faculty team develops and others deliver

8. Business Decision Making
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Business Planning Integrated Marketing Price Setting Ability to enter Ability to remove
Functions partnerships products from the
market
Ind Self Funded College Unit Self Funded College overhead

9. Student Services
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
es ort nc
e /... a..
.
rv ic pp rie e rs be
se l su pe
sto
m di t
en
t ic a ex cre
ud n
ni n
g /cu in
St Tech ar nts ll ed
ele de
it s
tu nro
r th se
l fo re d en
t
on
tro n -c stud
no
ty c for for
ali on ti o
n
Qu tenti ten
Re Re
Ind Self Funded College Unit Self Funded College Overhead

10. Curriculum Issues
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Ability to hire Ability to create Ability to create Ability to create
faculty instructors new customized new non-credit new credit
curriculum curriculum curriculum
Ind Self funded College Unit Self Funded College Overhead

11. Starting points and goals
• Most institutions began online learning programs
with 1 of 2 goals (Miller, Schiffman unpublished
paper)
• To extend access to programs
• To improve quality of existing programs
» e.g., retention, throughput
• What was your starting point?
• What were (are) your initial goals?

12. Value chain IMPROVEMENT LOOP
DESIG DEVEL DELIVE MAINT
N OP R AIN
BUSINESS DECISIONS
STUDENT SERVICES DECISIONS
CURRICULUM DECISIONS

13. Institutional “Fit”
• Why do some institutions succeed and others fail?
• Using technology to develop new delivery system is
complex
• The link among mission, vision, values, and strategy
is critical

14. Some words about costs
• Courses run from faculty time to $500,000 USD
• If you plan a course that can be shared amongst many
faculty short-term investment increases but long-term
costs are
• Programmatic costs (for a certificate to degree)—
USD $50,000 to $ 1,000,000
• Institutional costs USD $50,000 to $10,000,000

15. Some words about costs
• REMEMBER: US market now 50% of online belongs
to for-profit companies making billions—so if you
don’t build someone else will
• US universities went after high value markets first
• Graduate degrees mostly Master’s programs—
Business, Information Technology, Education,
Engineering

16. Some words about costs
• Then two year programs based on need to be
scalable (like community colleges)
• Focused on top 20 courses taught throughout the country
• Most charged a technology fee
• Only now ten years after launch is the US addressing
four year degrees
• Typically general degrees—Nursing, Education, Business,
Information Technology and Cross-Disciplinary degrees

17. Some words about sustainability
• US model is tuition based and grant/scholarship
funded
• Technology costs are generally shareable across the
university as on-ground services are expected to
move online
• All students will demand internet based services
• Current method of lecture based is actually a bad
investment but it is cheap enough that no one cares

18. MSU Case Study
• Functions needed for Scaling
• MSU current methods
• Vendor approaches
• Costs/Recommendations
• Comparative Survey amongst Big Ten

19. Discussion
• Lessons learned without investment market will
leave, will it happen here

20. Summary
• Best approach is to get started with grants and as a
group.
• Use collaborative approaches to build foundation
courses
• Allow universities to specialize with
blended/experiential curriculum

21. Terms of Use
© Karen Vignare, Michigan State University, MEAS project.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Users are free:
• to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to Remix — to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
• Attribution — Users must attribute the work to the
author(s)/institution (but not in any way that suggests that the authors/
institution endorse the user or the user’s use of the work).

22. Disclaimer
This presentation was made possible by the
generous support of the American people
through the United States Agency for
International Development, USAID. The
contents are the responsibility of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of USAID or the United States
Government.