Perspectives on Project Management Methods

Projects are increasingly being carried out with the support of project management methods (PMMs). PMMs include standards such as the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) and also process-based methods such as PRINCE2. PMMs are buttressed and promoted by professional bodies and reinforced by accreditation schemes which qualify practitioners in their use. The evidence on the roles played by PMMs is diverse. PMMs can be viewed from many perspectives including organisational routines, co-ordination mechanisms, structures of controls and rational choice. This paper discusses the perspectives that can be applied to PMMs to help understand how they can best be used. Two case studied are presented in which the organisations are assessed against the 10 perspectives to gain an initial view from the very limited sample of whether the list of 10 has validity

The Kaleidoscope of Voices: An Action Research Approach to Informing Institutional e-Learning Policy

The EU policy framework (EU, 2020) is designed to encourage and support digital competency, offering this as a solution in addressing the huge gap in digital skills. Digital competence and capability are an essential for enhancing immediate and enabling life-long learning (EC DIGICOMP, 2013). Measuring Digital Skills across the EU (2014) estimated 39% of the workforce had insufficient digital skills, while 64% of those in disadvantaged groups have insufficient digital skills for the workspace. This policy agenda is reflected in UK Government policy documents, the House of Lords (2015) reports that 2.2 million people can be categorised as ‘digital muggles‘. Yet Labour force studies (UKCES, 2015) indicate 300,000 recruits are needed to invent and apply new technologies. This reflects earlier work by Frey and Osborne (2013) whose model shows that as technology adaptation and use speeds up, low-skill workers will be replaced. The challenge for Higher Educational Institutions is how best to embed these skills, and enable and facilitate institutional change? Heppell (2016) states: ‘the use of digital technology in education is not optional’. This paper draws from the experience of a single university and evaluates their approach to managing change. Our methodology is located within an action research framework (Norton, 2009). Informed in conjunction with a ‘Panel of Experts’, thought-leaders drawn from industry and academia, and incorporating a strong student voice, we believe this approach is relevant for complex and policy based studies, as the framework can encompass a mixed methods technique (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Findings indicate that strong research and technological leadership, building internal alliances with key stakeholders, focusing on the ‘middle out’ (Bryant, 2016a) and a partnership approach to working with the Students Union all contribute to a transformational and shared approach to institution-wide change at a time of complexity and contestation in Higher Education policy

Digital Competence and Capability Frameworks in Higher Education: Importance of Life-long Learning, Self-Development and Well-being

The paper compares the EU’s 2013 and 2016 digital competence (DigComp) framework with the UK education’s 2009 and 2015 digital capabilities (DigCap) framework. The similarities are in the increased focus on data within privacy/overall literacy and the inclusion of well-being. Among the differences, DigComp focuses on life-long learning whereas DigCap is more holistic. This is explained by diverse target audiences, as DigComp has to be relevant to various stakeholders across the EU, whilst DigCap serves the UK higher and further education sector. Although education is dominant within DigCap, both frameworks agree on the importance of digital skills, knowledge and attitudes to the fields of education, training and employment. The paper discusses a UK HE case study of a technology enhanced learning toolkit. It concludes by arguing for a human-centred approach to digital competence and capability frameworks, in which learning, self-development and wellbeing play a vital role

Digital Competence and Capability Frameworks in Higher Education: Importance of Life-long Learning, Self-Development and Well-being

The paper compares the EU’s 2013 and 2016 digital competence (DigComp) framework with the UK education’s 2009 and 2015 digital capabilities (DigCap) framework. The similarities are in the increased focus on data within privacy/overall literacy and the inclusion of well-being. Among the differences, DigComp focuses on life-long learning whereas DigCap is more holistic. This is explained by diverse target audiences, as DigComp has to be relevant to various stakeholders across the EU, whilst DigCap serves the UK higher and further education sector. Although education is dominant within DigCap, both frameworks agree on the importance of digital skills, knowledge and attitudes to the fields of education, training and employment. The paper discusses a UK HE case study of a technology enhanced learning toolkit. It concludes by arguing for a human-centred approach to digital competence and capability frameworks, in which learning, self-development and wellbeing play a vital role

Applying a life cycle approach to project management methods

Project management is increasingly important to organisations because projects are the method by which organisations respond to their environment. A key element within project management is the standards and methods that are used to control and conduct projects, collectively known as project management methods (PMMs) and exemplified by PRINCE2, the Project Management Institute’s and the Association for Project Management’s Bodies of Knowledge (PMBOK and APMBOK. The purpose of this paper is to apply the life cycle approach to PMMs, stimulate debate on the accuracy and merits of the life cycle approach and to facilitate the development of the life cycle in the future. Currently no life cycle process exists for PMMs. Developed from desk-based research and empirical evidence, a life cycle has been proposed consisting of five stages: Select, Embed, Tailor, Operate and Develop. The stages are explained and a call made for further research to develop and validate the life cycle model

Trends in Project Management 1966 – 2015

This study charts the trends and changing emphases in project management in the last 50 years. A quantitative, positivistic study, using frequency analysis and 116,202 records from online databases, this paper uses a priori categories to search for project management keywords in the period 1966 to 2015. The key findings were that the categories of project management methods, project success and stakeholder management were likely to see an increase as the topics for publications but that the remaining 13 categories were expected to feature in fewer publications in alignment with the reduction in project management publications generally. The paper provides data on citations in project management publications and lists the 30 most cited authors in project management. It is intended that this paper will be of benefit to those studying project management, to academics who work in this sphere and to others interested in this subject area

Optimising disruptive approaches: extending academic roles and identities in higher education

Responding to the changing landscape of higher education (HE) requires the development and implementation of flexible and imaginative approaches to continually inspire, engage and support academics and professional services staff in delivering high quality student-centred learning experiences. At Bournemouth University (BU), the cross-university Centre for Excellence in Learning (CEL) was created to promote, support and co-ordinate pedagogic initiatives and embed the explicit valuing of teaching and learning into all aspects of university life. It represents a collaborative, inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary model with multiple stakeholder voices. Operationalised through the secondment of academics two days a week, and taking a thematic approach, Theme Leaders 'bid' for the secondment, and drive forward an agreed agenda. The BU 'Fusion' corporate strategy promotes clear links between Pedagogy, Professional Practice and Research, complemented by the current CEL themes of: Employability; Innovation in Technology Enhanced Learning and Innovative Pedagogies; Assessment and Feedback. We believe that the sustainability and creativity required to deliver this agenda are promoted through the building of strong networks, the sharing of challenges and the collaborative development of solutions, however, as academics moving into the realms of learning development, our roles and identities are constantly being challenged, contested, and reframed by the responses of peers, students and our wider disciplinary roots. This paper offers a model for mapping and managing change and optimising these and other 'disruptive' practices within HE institutional settings, and considers the flexible and blended academic identities that facilitate this approach

Moving academic advising online: enabling student aspiration and reflection

The purpose of academic advising is to help students to achieve their potential. It is a system viewed positively by both staff and students (Chan et al, 2019) with academic and personal gains reported by students (Mu and Fosnacht 2019). Academic advising is a central and vital activity in engendering a more student-centred and personalised approach to learning and achieves this by attending to students’ individual needs and aspirations (Gordon et al 2011). Yet, despite its importance, VLEs are ill-equipped to support the cross-module and multi-year needs of either the student or advisor. At our institution, we are piloting a technology-based and systematic approach to academic advising in one department of 520 students and 21 academic advisors. Interactions between advisors and students occur twice per semester with a majority of group sessions for first and second year students transitioning to a majority of one-to-one sessions for final year students. Agenda are issued for all group sessions to ensure a common approach across advisors with the focus reflecting the level of study and timing in the academic calendar. Over the last three years, we have evolved from no discussion or recording of personal goals and aspirations to the current pilot which records advisor and student interactions in an online survey tool wherein students set academic targets and reflect on their engagement and effort. This data is captured in Jisc Online Surveys and augmented with detailed data on attendance and module outcomes before being uploaded into the VLE. For advisors, this foundation of data provides a comprehensive picture of students enabling advisors to play a more effective role in supporting the student to academic and personal success. For students, it provides a consistent, single location from where multi-source data can be accessed throughout their studies enabling students to review and refine their goals within the necessary context of their past performance achievements and engagement. In this paper, we report on the pilot and explain the limitations of the VLE and how they have been overcome to create an effective, accessible and secure system for advisors and students. We evaluate student engagement in the academic advisor process and in the pilot and analyse the range and scope of the targets set by students. This information is augmented by qualitative data from staff and students that is being used to develop and improve the pilot. Our paper will be of interest and benefit to other institutions seeking (1) practical solutions to the use of technology to support academic advisors within/outside the VLE and (2) to optimise the academic advising process through the improved use of information to better understand students’ needs and aspirations and thereby enhance student outcomes and the achievement of their potential

Institutional compassion: a co-design approach to developing digital wellbeing

Higher Education Institutional digital strategies are a contested area. On the surface, well-versed narratives of digital strategies, institutional culture change and technical infrastructure to drive innovation are well documented in University public plans; however, the UCISA/JISC (2019) digital leadership in Higher Education report cites 70% of IT leaders expressing concerns about significant barriers to successful digital rollout. Organizational culture is the most significant, and one-in-four cite the of lack sponsorship from institutional executive teams. Changing the working practices of academics is of particular note in the literature, and thus models that can frame the changes and offer an evidence base drawing together national and international drivers are essential. Two of these, the European Union (EU) and JISC digital competency frameworks have been revised, and include for the first time some limited considerations around lifelong learning, wellbeing and self-development. Thus student digital wellbeing has finally making it onto the digital frameworks. It is timely to share the findings of our three year ‘ontology of digital toolkits’ study. Taking a mixed methods approach, and comprising a survey of TEL leaders (n=36), in-depth interviews and content analysis from seven UK HEIs, our findings identified 4 common themes; the role of the educator in engaging with TEL; the development of TEL toolkits as an institutional norm; a schism where educators are perceived as providers and students as receivers; and finally the gap identified by learners, both staff and students, as they struggle with archaic HEI structures which fail to acknowledge desires for lifelong learning and address digital wellbeing. Our findings indicate that staff attitudes to Technology Enhanced learning (TEL) remain problematic; students are not yet being fully developed as digital co-creators, and digital wellbeing is an area poorly covered sector wide. Current commercially created resources on digital wellbeing tend to be a series of apps and webpages, (often using images of white, female, middle aged women holding cups of tea, see https://learndigital.withgoogle.com/digitalgarage/course/digital-wellbeing) that typically (and paradoxically) suggest ways of digital detox, as if disconnection somehow magically produces ‘digital wellbeing’. Such resources typically do not address, what the EU project on wellbeing describes as “peer pressure, cyber-bullying, oversharing of personal information [which] can all cause significant problems, inhibiting a young person’s development as a confident online learner and citizen.” (EU Digital Wellbeing 2019) We reflect on the possibilities going forward to support institutions as they continue to shape their policies toward the digital, offering a Digital Learning Maturity Model (DLMM). This model enables self assessment and benchmarking and encompasses the new dimension of institutional compassion, co-designed and with our learners. Our presentation explains the origin and purpose of the DLMM, provides information on how institutions can assess themselves against the five level of maturity and makes the case for institutional compassion as a key element in digital strategies. The presentation will be of interest to those institutions wanting to benchmark their digital strategy and those seeking to provide greater prominence to staff and student wellbeing

Student digital wellbeing survey interim results - August 2021

The interim findings of a survey of 92 students in Higher Education on the subject of digital wellbeing. The survey asks about confidence in using learning resources, internet access, accessing study materials online, how much control students should have over the technology they use and whether institutions are doing enough to support students