Final Project

 

 

 

 

Stacy Phelps

CET 765

Leadership in Technological Change

Dakota State University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer - The information used in this report is fictitious and in no way represents a real situation. This report was written solely as an academic exercise in an educational leadership class at Dakota State University.

 


1.

Goal: Identify associate level tribal college institutions that are potential candidates for distance science and information technology based baccalaureate degree programs from Oglala Lakota College.

 

2.

The team members included:

Cindy Pearson: An institutional liaison that has extensive experience in working developing partnerships with other tribal colleges to support offering degree programs via distance.

 

Elizabeth Davis: Registrar that will provide necessary input about course transferability and student registration needs.

 

William Hines: Technical Services Director that will provide the valuable input in regards to the technical aspects of delivery the degree programs. 

 

Mary Pourier: Vice President for Instruction at OLC has extensive experience in developing distance education programs and is in charge of allocating and assigning faculty and resources to this project.

 

Mike Fried: Math and Science Department Chair who will be directly responsible for assigning faculty, requesting training, and developing courses rotation schedules. In addition Mike has been teaching via distance to at-distance students for the past four years.

 

Jill Janis:  An OLC student that will graduate this spring with a degree in which she has had over 75% of her course work taught at distance.


 

3.     Flowchart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


4. 

 

During the spring 2003 semester, a grant-funded program at Oglala Lakota College (OLC) determined that it had committed to reaching out to associate level tribal colleges students to have access to science and information technology degree programs at a baccalaureate level.  Based on the structure of OLC and the traditional students profile of tribal colleges it was determined that distance delivery was the only feasible method to accomplish this.  A committee was formed to examine the potential of several regionally located two-year tribal colleges.  The intent of the committee was to identify issues associated with this concept and how to uniformly assess institutional readiness.  Mary Pourier was selected as the team leader because she had the most experience with facilitating working groups and, as the Vice President would be in the best position to implement the groupÕs findings.

 

At the initial meeting Mary provided an overview of the purpose of the committee.  She identified that one of the programs at the institution had an obligation to their funding source to disseminate the baccalaureate degree programs that have been developed in science and information technology to associate degree granting tribal college students using distance education. Several of the people represented different departments within OLC that would provide valuable insight and would be apart of implementing the findings in their departments and offices, so Mary decided to have a brainstorming session that would focus on identifying criterion to assess the different colleges.  She chose to use popcorn brainstorming for this. As the activity began many of the ideas focused not around identifying the appropriate criteria for selecting partners, but more so was in relation to if OLC was prepared to delivery the degree programs. Mary attempted to move beyond these concerns but saw that the members of the team were not able to focus on the original goal. 

 

Mary decided that in order to reach the goal of establishing criterion they would first have to address the initial concerns of the committee members.  The meeting was getting unproductive based on heated discussion so Mary took a break and decided when the group members returned she would have them identify their concerns in relation to institutional readiness at OLC by using the Crawford Slip Diagram process.  Mary handed out several post it notes to each member of explained that each of the group members would write down what they thought was needed in order to attain institutional readiness for this process but to use no more than six words per paper.  Mary went on to say that this would be completed without discussion.  The activity began and Mary placed each of the ideas on marker board. After a few minutes when no one else was writing ideas Mary ended the activity. 

 

As the group had been sitting for awhile and getting restless, Mary wanted to capitalize on their energy and get them up and moving so she facilitated the development of an affinity diagram to help organize the concerns. She told the group to arrange the post it notes on the board in columns that they felt were similar.  She stated that this was to be done without speaking again.  The group began rearranging the post it notes and narrowed the work into three columns of ideas.  The group categorized the concerns into the following columns:

 

OLC Infrastructure

Market

Assessment

Projected Costs

Total Institutional
students

Define Success,
define failure

Needed Hardware

How many potential
STEM students

What is success

Online Course
Stability

Existing 2-yr science or IT degree

Timeline

ID and Prioritize OLC
Faculty role

Currently using
online or at distance courses

Is there OLC need

Faculty Training

Do they need OLC
degree programs

 

Train Other
personnel

Is technology
infrastructure available

 

Implement
Blackboard Software

 

 

Inform and Win-over
OLC faculty

 

 

 

Mary and the group agreed that although these were valuable concerns that this team was not the ideal group to address these issues.  William Hines suggested that their team should deal with the concerns of the Market column that the Instructional Affairs committee at OLC, of which three member of this team were apart of, would be best suited to address the other issues.   The group reached consensus that this was the most appropriate method for ensuring OLC was capable of delivering degree programs and felt with these concerns noted that they could focus on identifying criteria for selecting institutions for potential partnerships.  Mary had noticed that the meeting had exceeded the established meeting time and that people were no longer on task. Mary felt that a break time brainstorming exercise would be a very appropriate tool to use for identifying criteria but because the college was decentralize many of the team members were separated by great distances most of the team members would not be able to meet until after two weeks.  Mary suggested that she would utilize technology and create a discussion board where the team members would expand on the Market ideas from the first affinity diagram and begin to identify criterion.  The team members agreed that they could do this and felt comfortable with, and had access to technology to participate.  Mary adjourned the meeting.

 

Mary created a discussion board to facilitate the Break Time Writing activities for the group members. In her opening post on the discussion board, Mary stated that the group members would be writing ideas for establishing criterion to select tribal college partners.  She encouraged each of the group members to check back each day over the next week to add ideas, review the other team member's posts and to capitalize on each otherÕs ideas by adding to each individual posting.  Mary remind everyone that at the moment they were just listing ideas and not making any decisions in relation to potential criterion at the time. After one week Mary posted a message and instructed the group that they were done collecting criterion and the next step in the process would be to sort out the criterion.  Mary asked if the team could meet in the coming week during agreed upon meeting time. 

 

One week later the group came together and Mary presented suggested criterion on individual post it notes.  Mary opened the discussion and thanked everyone for their activate participation on the discussion boards.  Mary stated that the team needed to reduce the number criterion to a manageable number so that they could continue working towards select potential partners.  Cindy Pearson pointed out that before they could establish criterion for ranking and selecting partners, they may need to establish a method of identifying if an institution should be evaluated an d that this would eliminate wasted time and efforts of the team and other institutions.  Cindy suggested that the team should develop a flow chart to establish if an institution should be assessed.  The team performed a sorting activity to determine what the initial criterion should be from the original marketing category of the first affinity diagram.  The team selected three priority areas for the flow chart that would be used to complete an initial evaluation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


After the flowchart was completed for the team to use, Mary decided that the group should now sort through the results of the bulletin board based break-time brainwriting activity.  Mary listed the results of the brainwriting activity and decided that she would facilitate the prioritization techniques, multiple voting to reduce the number of criterion to a manageable set of information.  Based on the initial number of the criterion suggested, Mary determined that each group member would be able to vote four times and that each vote had the same weight attached to the criterion that they felt was most appropriate.  The intent of the multiple voting activity was to determine the most significant criterion for assessment of each of the potential partners.   At the conclusion of the multiple voting activity Mary complied the results and based on the nature of the information that was going to be collected, felt a matrix diagram was going to provide the best tools for evaluating potential partners.

 

After a short break Mary explained to the team members that they had done a great job of narrowing the criterion to the following:

 

STEM
students

2yr ES or NR
degree and/or IT

Video Conference
system and Internet Access

Science Labs
available

Number of math, science, IT Faculty

 

The criterion was then prioritized according to a point scale established by the team members for each of the criterion.

 

# of students

 

 

# of faculty

5 if < 10

 

 

 

1 if <2

10 if >10<20

5 for 1 degree

10 for both

10 for both

10 if >4

15 if >20

10 for both

5 for VC or comp.
Lab only

5 for Science or IT lab

5 if >2<4

STEM
students

2yr ES or NR
degree and/or IT

Video Conference
system and Internet Access

Science Labs
available

number of math, science, IT Faculty

 

Based on the initial criterion of the flow chart ten institutions were selected for evaluation using the criterion and the scale of the matrix diagram.  A scale based on readiness of an institution was established as well. A score of 55 is the maximum, but institutions that had scores of more than 50 were considered high target priority.  A score between 40 and 50 was considered medium priority, and anything less then 40 was considered low target priority. The team members decided that between the five of them each of them would call two of the ten institutions and collect the data over the next week and report the results in via email to Mary who would compile all of the information. The compiled matrix diagram was emailed to each of the team members as follows:

 

 

# of students

 

 

 

# of faculty

 

 

5 if < 10

 

 

 

1 if <2

 

 

10 if >10<20

5 for 1 degree

10 for both

10 for both

10 if >4

 

 

15 if >20

10 for both

5 for VC or comp.
lab only

5 for Science or IT lab

5 if >2<4

 

 

STEM
students

2yr ES or NR
degree and/or IT

Video Conference
system and/or Internet Access

Science and/or IT Labs
available

Number of math, science, IT Faculty

Total

Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blackfeet
Community College

10

5

5

5

10

35

Fort Peck
Community College

10

10

10

10

5

45

Nebraska Indian
Community College

5

5

10

5

10

35

Cankdeska Cikana
Community College

15

5

10

5

10

45

Chief Dull
Knife College

10

5

5

5

5

30

Fort Belknap
College

15

10

5

10

10

50

Fort Berthold
Community College

15

10

10

10

10

55

Little Big
Horn College

10

5

10

5

5

35

Little Priest
Tribal College

15

10

10

10

10

55

Stone Child
College

10

10

5

10

10

45

Turtle Mountain
Community College

15

10

10

10

10

55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

high potential

total>50

med. Potential

40>total<50

low potential

total<40

 

 

 

In order to view the results in a simpler format at the upcoming meeting the Math and Science Department Chair, Mike Fried suggested to Mary that she should use a chart to represent the institutions in relation to the overall score from the matrix diagram.  The chart can be found below:

 

Chart 1: matrix results

 

At the next meeting Mary presented the matrix diagram and the chart to the team.  The team members felt the matrix diagram and the results provided OLC with valuable data that would be used in targeting institutions.  Mary decided that she needed to discuss the four low priority schools to determine a plan of action with them.  Mary used the tool negative questioning in order to gain consensus from the team in relation to handling four low priority institutions. From the negative question activity Mary determined that the group felt that even though the schools were listed as low priority, that after the high and medium priority institutions were contacted for partnerships that they would revisit these schools and apply the same process to determine if the institutional readiness had improved.   

 

The team revisited the first activity and all agreed that OLC had to ensure that the concerns of the first activity were addressed and implemented prior to deploying these programs.  They also agreed that the institutional affairs committee was the best avenue for addressing these concerns.  The team also supported Mary proceeding ahead with contacting and establishing relationships with the six other institutions.

 

5.     Examples of data collected

 

Data that was collected was specifically related to institutional readiness for partnership capacity. Access to compatible technology, availability of science and information technology degree programs, total students that could be targeted, number of science, math and information technology faculty members, and the availability of labs to support science and information technology degree programs.

 

6.

 

Total quality management (TQM) is a process that is most effective when implemented and initiated from an organizations primary leadership and is embraced throughout that organization.   TQM provides a holistic and systematic approach to identifying problems or issues and provides a structure that fosters participation and input from all vested parties. An aspect of TQM that forces it to be an effective method for problem solving is that TQM when used correctly forces the users to remain focused on the problem or issue at hand and to seek solutions to specific problems or issues.  When patience is used with TQM a team can examine the problem from a systems view.  If used correctly the tools and processes of TQM ensure a well-planned and comprehensive solution. 

 

I feel that the philosophy that makes TQM an effective method of systemic problem solving is the inclusiveness.  All people involved have an opportunity to be leaders in activities and each person has an equal input (different TQM tools ensure this) throughout the process.  The inclusiveness of TQM motivates all people involved to take ownership and establish a sense of responsibility in each of the team members or personnel within an organization.  It is this philosophy that makes TQM a critical asset of system wide problem solving.