Recently in Distance Education Collaborative Category

Just attended the 6/29/05 meeting (w/ Ag Ed, EIT, Ag Comm) to discuss "the potential of creating a collaborative focused on the development and delivery of internet and other distance education products." (quoted from Larry's 6/21/05 email). Here's what I think I heard, just for the sake of documentation:

1. The idea: Distance Education - as a topic encompassing such things as web presence, eLearning, ePublishing, marketing, etc - is broader than the skillset any of any of the three individual groups. As a result, (a) customer groups within the organization often don't know who to contact for help, (b) any help that's provided is likely to conform only to the immediate needs of the customer, often (c) without any consistency or linkage to Extension as a whole and (d) without including the skills of the group(s) NOT involved. Thus, a collaborative umbrella approach might offer a more systematic, inclusive way of addressing customer problems and would also provide an entry point for customers needing this kind of help. Further, it might eliminate some of the "Lone Ranger" approaches to solving problems.
   
2. Would likely be managed by a coordinating board of some kind.
   
3. Per Ellen Ritter, the focus of this group would be more strategic in nature (as opposed to "action-oriented" or tactical). I'm not sure what this means since a strategic approach is, to me, a broad set of objectives or guidelines (low level of detail). A project would still have to be accomplished by a working group (high level of detail) which might be led by an individual from another unit. Ellen said as much. (But if the coordinating board is concerned with strategic issues, then who decides who will participate in a joint project or what the priorities are? Does this mean a second group - like a screening committee - would be involved?)
   
4. Rather than this being an exploratory meeting, it came across more as a done deal. In fact, Scott pointedly said that the three unit heads are 100 percent behind the idea and have already sold Margaret Hale on the idea.
   
5. Next action: People in attendance were asked to give some thought to volunteering to be part of an advisory group to put together some specific recommendations on how to proceed further to make this become a reality, and to notify their unit heads if they wish to do so.
   

Some observations & questions:

1. What other alternatives have been investigated? We have a management structure already in place; why couldn't those managers develop their own working relationship - formally or informally - to address this problem? What will this collaboration accomplish that our managers can't?
   
2. This approach is essentially the introduction of a set of rules. If rules are to be effective, they have to be enforced. How's that going to work? Will we periodically need to list all our projects and pass them by the screening committee to see how they measure up against the rules? Will this have the effect of stifling initiative?
   
3. If a customer calls me directly and I can help him, I'll do it if there's a way. If I can't, then he'll call someone else - maybe Larry, maybe whoever. I think that approach would still be the case even if there's this so-called "entry point". People will call whoever can give them results. If/when they conclude that going through the screening committee simply slows down their projects, they'll find another approach. And nothing will have changed.
   

I can see something like this working if it's kept low-key and relatively informal. If it becomes bureaucratic and cumbersome, though, it'll just be another committee.

Back in the "old days", the powers-that-be decided that WordStar, dBase and SuperCalc (spreadsheet) were going to comprise the official Extension software suite. An Ag Economist, of all people, decided that a spreadsheet called Lotus 1-2-3 was his preference. A lot of people agreed with him. Maybe there's a moral in there somewhere.

~ja