My model will probably be highly influenced by the Diamond model that emphasizes the importance of front-end analysis in curriculum design in the higher ed context. While my model will target staff curriculum and training (rather than student curriculum) I think Diamond's emphasis on front-end analysis would hold true outside of the faculty boundary but within the University boundary.
SU's cultural framework certainly embraces such things as inclusiveness, the use of solid data for decision making, and shared governance, which are best addressed by involving people in the process early in any project - again underlining over emphasis on the front-end analysis component of the model.
Additionally, from an organizational development standpoint, the Chancellor has been trying to develop a new culture that supports her vision of Scholarship in Action. That vision is full of ideals that should effect the future of work here and, ultimately, how staff members should attack their jobs. (Like Diamond, Kaufman placed emphasis on the "desired" state. My model may also be informed by Kaufman's work.) Conceptually, that has not yet been analyzed or digested....and certainly, it has not been articulated. A full scale analysis of that would be most helpful to the training component. Cornell, for instance, completed a cross campus job review to categorize jobs and create a university-wide competency model that has been used as a basis for several practices including staff training and performance reviews. Again, this further supports last evening discussion about how consequences (or the lack thereof) link to training efforts.
So, all in all, front-end analysis will most likely be an important component to my model.
Mickey -
ReplyDeleteSince I am embarking on an FEA project (for IDE-712) that is similar in context with yours, I thought I should share with you my approach. Before having even looked at anyone's model, I felt I should make my own assessment of the system as whole (SOE), and try to separate the intertwining sub-systems into their own schematic. In my case, I am examining SOE's mission to employ their website for self-promotion and for serving as a "channel", broadcasting branded content the same way a TV station would. In SOE's case, however, they are still seated in the old "static website" paradigm where "someone over there does it" rather than it being a dept.-wide, systemic effort. The FEA aspect of it, in my eyes, requires looking at least 3 things - staff, content workflow, and technical logistics - through the filter of the ideal functionality of the new paradigm, informed by the mission statement. By looking at the sub-systems first, it may be possible to ask a certain question about, say, protocol procedure, and in the consequence of solving it, "cure" a logistic problem elsewhere. At some point, all three systems may be combined into a plan that reflects realistic implementation. I don't know if this "good policy", but I would rather rely on my own power of observation first, and then introduce the model, rather than the other way around - especially since, in your case, you are familiar with the system better than anyone else.
Mickey,
ReplyDeleteI agreed, it does look like the Diamond model is well suited for your project. I can't really tell from looking at his model if he includes this idea or not but I was thinking that since this is higher education everything, whether it's a curriculum design or a course design will need approval from someone in the administration. So I'm thinking you might want to consider including Administration support in your model. I also like his "ideal" state but I am thinking he is leaving out a piece. I think that the customer (learner) should be surveyed to obtain their vision of an ideal state. The difference between your imagined ideal state and the customers is the gap that needs to be filled. I think he makes an assumption that we know what the ideal state is supposed to be, which may not be true.
---Gary___