Process Transformations That Sustain Distance Training: A Blend of the Best of Common Maturity Models into a Framework Free

According to Branch (2002), nearly 70% of all change initiatives fail. One of the key reasons organizations fail to successfully implement change is in neglecting to conduct an organizational needs assessment to gain understanding of the organization’s performance, external environment, and future vision to develop a viable strategy for change. The needs assessment should consider obtaining a baseline of the organization’s growth and development lifecycle process so a change process can be effective.

Rosenberg (2001) spells out what can make or break an elearning endeavor in his “Four C’s of Success: Culture, Champions, Communications, and Change,” and recommends focusing on change from start to finish. Starting early is important, but the change strategy itself is critical. It must be sustained long enough to beat old habits and become the preferred way of learning.

A survey of online teachers in higher education revealed inability to deal with cultural changes as the largest class of barriers to online learning. “Responses placed in this category included: faculty or student resistance to innovation; resistance to online teaching methods; difficulty recruiting faculty or students; lack understanding of distance education and what works at a distance” (Berge, 1998, Cultural Barriers, para. 1).

Organizational culture as defined by Curtis, Hefley, and Miller (2001) is reflected in shared values and the resulting patterns of behavior that characterize interactions among the organization’s members. According to Berge (2001), cultural change is a necessary element of organizational maturity. Where ongoing programs are transformed into delivery at a distance, a project management approach is helpful. Change management (Rosenberg, 2001) ensures an organization and its people are capable of executing a business plan, and involves establishing an environment for change. By improving performance, productivity, and motivation of the workforce, change management moves an organization toward its goals and improves the capabilities of its leaders to drive sustainable change.

Curtis et al. (2001) warn that although an organization’s culture can be transformed through the use of process standards, organizations often fail to implement them effectively because they attempt too much too soon (Branch, 2002).

A capability model is a standard industry tool for assessing the needs of an organization, documenting processes, and providing a multistaged template for growth. Such models help manage chaotic periods of transformation as an organization matures. Although models are not solutions in themselves, they provide a conduit for change and a vehicle for expressing an organization’s goals and objectives.

Curtis et al. (2001) define a capability maturity model as “an evolutionary roadmap for implementing the vital practices from one or more domains of organizational process” (p. 16). With few exceptions, most maturity models are composed of five levels, where level one typically represents an ad hoc state and a very low level of maturity, and level five represents the highest level of maturity and continuous process improvement. A maturity level represents a new level of capability within the organization, created by a change in one or more of the organization’s processes. The CMU/ SEI Capability Maturity Model, for example (Wesman, 2004), shows maturity as a sequential progression through each of the five capability levels. To progress to the next higher level, an organization must demonstrate achievement of a set of prescribed processes. A review of relevant maturity model literature suggests using a maturity model to support change incurred by process improvement produces several outcomes. In general, predictability, increased control, and improved effectiveness are three results that can be expected. According to Systems Engineering Capability Assessment and Training (SECAT), using a maturity model helps an organization transition from fire-fighting to operating according to plan. This decreases rework levels (SECAT, 1998).

The CMU/SEI People Capability Maturity Model is composed of five maturity levels. Curtis et al. (2001) describe each maturity level as “a well-defined evolutionary plateau that institutionalizes new capabilities for developing the organization’s workforce” (p. vi). Following are descriptions of each of the five levels.

Level 1—The Initial Level. Organizations at this maturity level have difficulty retaining talent, are poorly equipped, operate with ad hoc and inconsistent processes if they have defined practices at all. The Initial Level exhibits the following four characteristics: Inconsistency in performing practices, displacement of responsibility, ritualistic practices, and an emotionally detached workforce.

Level 2—The Managed Level. At the Managed Level, the workforce operates at the unit level. Practices implemented at this level focus on unit-level issues, and building workforce practices within each unit provides a foundation on which more sophisticated processes can be implemented as the organization matures. The organization’s capability for performing work is best characterized by the ability of its units to meet commitments. “This capability is achieved by ensuring that people have the skills needed to perform their assigned work and that performance is regularly discussed to identify actions that can improve it” (Curtis et al., 2001, p. 22). While the organization may exhibit a stable environment, frequent problems at this low level of maturity are identified as: work overload, environmental distractions, unclear performance objectives or feedback, lack of relevant knowledge or skill, poor communication, and low morale.

Level 3—The Defined Level. At the Repeat-able or Defined Level, although they are performing basic workforce practices, organizations are inconsistent in how they are applied across units—and in general-the entire enterprise. Standardization of practices does not occur because the common core of knowledge and skill have not been defined. The primary objective at this level is to develop competencies to achieve business objectives. Absence of critical workforce competencies poses a severe risk to the organization.

Level 4—The Predictable Level. An organization achieving the Predictable Level is able to manage performance quantitatively and is able to predict the capability for performing work. It can use competency-based processes and measure the capability of its workforce in performing tasks. At this level (Curtis, Hefley, & Miller, 2001), when an organization is committed to competency-based processes, it can begin integrating multidisciplinary workforce processes.

Level 5—The Optimizing Level. The entire organization is focused on continual improvement at Level 5. The organization employs quantitative management activities founded in the Predictable Level as a template for improvement. “Maturity Level 5 organizations treat change management as an ordinary business process to be performed in an orderly way on a regular basis” (Curtis et al., 2001, p. 27).

SPICE is a major international initiative to support the development of an International Standard for Software Process Assessment (SPICE, 1995).

Level 1—Performed-Informally. Practices of processes are not rigorously planned and tracked. Performance depends on individual knowledge and effort. There is a general agreement among individuals within the organization that an action should be performed and when it is required.

Level 2—Planned-and-Tracked. Processes are planned and tracked. Performance is based on specified procedures and is verified. Products meet standards and requirements.

Level 3—Well-Defined. Processes are planned, tracked, and well-defined using approved, tailored versions of documented organization-wide standards.

Level 4—Quantitatively-Controlled. Measures of performance are collected and analyzed, leading to a quantitative understanding of process capability. The organization has an improved ability to predict performance that is objectively managed.

Level 5—Continuously-Improving. Processes undergo continuous refinement and improvement and effectiveness and efficiency targets are established based on organizational business goals. Continuous process improvement is established.

A four-stage model used by Berge (2001) to describe stages of technological maturity (or capabilities) in an organization’s distance learning endeavors presents maturity levels as such (pp. 15-16):

Stage 1. Separate or sporadic distance learning events occur in the organization.

Stage 2. The organization’s technological capability and infrastructure can support distance learning events.

Stage 3. The organization has established a distance learning policy, procedures are in place, and planning occurs.

Stage 4. Distance training and learning have been institutionalized in the organization as characterized by policy, communication, and practice that are aligned so that business objectives are being addressed.

Elements that foster organizational change are present in transitions to (Berge, 2001) Stage 3 and Stage 4, with a stable and predictable process in place to facilitate the identification and selection of content and of technology to deliver distance training. With a strategic planning process in place (Berge, 2001), budgeting, communication, workforce development, policymaking, and other management processes enable positive change within an organization.

THINQ (2004), a learning management software vendor, developed the five-stage Learning Management Maturity Model (LM3) described below.

Stage I—Ad Hoc. In Stage I there is no consistent process within the organization used to manage learning. Individual business units may adopt and implement their own processes and tools to meet their needs. The organization is unable to quickly determine training costs, outcomes, or if it even occurs, and therefore operates at high risk due to a lack of accountability, visibility and control (THINQ, 2004, Stage I-Ad Hoc, para. 4).

Stage II—Managed Learning. In the Managed Learning stage, a consistent approach to learning management is adopted and a learning management strategy is defined and executed. The organization is able to quickly determine training costs, outcomes, and has access to training activity across the enterprise. Evaluation tools are in place.

Stage III—Competency-Driven. The organization focuses on building a learning culture in Stage III. New technologies play a key part in the efficiency of the organization. The workforce engages in collaboration, uniting instructional designers in the content design and review process. A learning content management system (LCMS) is in place and is used for centralized storage of learning assets. Reuse of content is part of the policy.

Stage IV—Integrated Performance. At this stage the organizations strategy is well defined, learning and performance management are institutionalized and integrated into the business planning process and visible. Characteristics of the LM3 Stage IV (THINQ, 2004) are evidenced in a shared commitment to learning, thinking systematically, and a high degree of accountability.

Stage V—Optimized Workforce. The Optimized Workforce stage, success in shareholder value and net worth are measured. The organization has a flexible, learning and performance-centric structure and has an established approach for continuous improvement, so that the work done by the people, and the learning that occurs before, during, and after, are directly linked to the organization’s goals (THINQ, 2004, Stage V-Optimized Workforce, para. 1).

Neuhauser’s (2004) proposed Online Course Design Maturity Model (OCDMM) is another five-level framework, consisting of the following stages:

Level 1—Initial. The goal of the Initial phase is to introduce face-to-face students to using communications technologies such as e-mail and document transfer on the Internet on an optional, unregulated basis.

Level 2—Exploring. The Exploring stage examines enhanced communication between student and instructor and introduces face-to-face students to Web-based information between face-to-face sessions.

Level 3—Awakening. Using text in various formats, the Web, and discussion, faculty and students are “awakened” to the possibilities of online instruction for enhanced learning outcomes.

Level 4—Strategizing. In the Strategizing phase, students and faculty form partnerships, strategize the use of multimedia resources, and use group learning and assessments.

Level 5—Integrating Best Practices. At this level all best processes are integrated, and technology is exploited to provide an effective learning environment that is manageable for students, motivating, and sensitive to learners’ needs (Neuhauser, 2004).

Sustainability is an attempt for permanence (Seufert & Euler, 2003), and in terms of distance training, means developing stable structures that are integrated institutionally and result in fundamental changes in instruction. Employing a maturity model as a framework (Moore, 2004), organizations can aim for a specific level or stage, make assessments to benchmark their relation to the model, and create a strategy to reach their maturity goals. Following is a proposed framework for sustaining distance training in the workplace, integrating a blend of best-practice elements selected from the aforementioned maturity models.

Level 1—Ad Hoc. At this level, the distance training efforts are chaotic (Berge, 2001), separate, or sporadic. Related to People CMM (Curtis et al., 2001), there is inconsistent practice, displaced responsibility, and emotional detachment. THINQ (2004) characteristics of the Ad Hoc Level reveal incomplete, informal approaches with unpredictable outcomes. Performance depends on individual knowledge and effort (SPICE, 1995), and there is little or no organization to support development. A systematic approach for change management as a part of organizational development, support for teaching/learning outcomes, and establishment of a system of incentives are also typically neglected (Seufert & Euler, 2003).

Little or no technology is required. At the ad hoc level, Saba (2003), suggests that in general, faculty can teach with a white board, a flipchart, or a piece of chalk and a blackboard, and the addition of emerging technological devices or processes would simply increase cost and complexity.

In discussing organizational requirements, Bates (2000) and Levy (2003) list several organizational barriers to implementing technology. The greatest inhibitor is lack of faculty interest in using the technology for teaching. Technology-based teaching requires more skill and effort than traditional face-to-face classroom teaching. “When the rewards for appointment, tenure and promotion are driven primarily by research accomplishments, there is no incentive for professors to put more effort into their teaching” (Bates, 2000, Barriers to change, para. 1).

Change needs to happen. According to Seufert and Euler (2003), sociocultural changes have to be proactively supported in order to reach a permanent attitude and behavior modification of the involved target groups.

Level 2—Managed and Replicated. At the Managed and Replicated level, through an interdisciplinary team (Berge, 2001), distance training events are replicated. The team responds to the needs of staff and management and makes recommendations for the management of distance learning throughout the workforce.

Use of distance training technology is supported across the enterprise (Berge, 2001; Levy, 2003; THINQ, 2004) and an elementary approach to learning management is established. Quick access to training activities is available and visible. The organization uses a common set of tools and processes for training development. A method for evaluation is in place.

The organization’s ability to develop a systematic plan of action for using the technology is a key factor in whether or not it will be used successfully. The largest challenge (Bates, 2000) is the failure to use technology strategically, and without cultural change, this will not happen. Moore writes, “As a learning organization matures, so does the level to which IT supports and engages learning technologies to cultivate a continuous learning culture” (Moore, 2004, Extending Learning Maturity Through Relationships, para. 3).

Level 3—Competent and Capable. At the Competent and Capable Level, the organization focuses on building a culture of learning (THINQ, 2004), and (Berge, 2001) “a stable and predictable process is in place to facilitate the identification and selection of content and of technology to deliver distance training” (p. 16). Competency models are in place (THINQ, 2004) and competency-based learning and skill assessments are used. The workforce moves from operating in “fire-fighting” mode to “operating according to plan,” (SECAT, 1998), and the transition from Level 2 to Level 3 brings “improved morale and a coherent culture.”

New learning technologies are instrumental (THINQ, 2004) in improving the efficiency of the organization, and knowledge transfer is a product of collaboration and mentoring. The organization exploits Web-based resources (Neuhauser, 2003) and utilizes Web technology to increase the learning capabilities. Curtis (2001), however, warns of a misconception that use of communication and information technologies (CIT) can make course delivery more efficient: “There appears to be an implicit assumption that efficiencies can be achieved through the use of CIT, but it is clear that setting up to use such technologies entails high infrastructure and staff development costs and may require the ‘re-engineering’ of course delivery processes” (p. 21).

Level 4—Predictable and Stable. The organization possesses “a quantitative understanding of process capability and an improved ability to predict performance. Performance is objectively managed” (SPICE, 1995, p. 3). The organization has (Berge, 2001) an established distance education identity and is conducting orderly assessments of its distance training. Seufert and Euler (2003) find support for the learning culture at this level is a “fundamental element of a sustainable change,” more personal responsibility is placed on learners, and it becomes more important to promote self-guided learning within a team or workgroup.

Criteria for improved outcomes (Marshall & Mitchell, 2002) rather than mere reaction or perception are developed and established. Costing data is gathered regularly and used to ensure maximal use of resources. The organization has identified a set of standard pedagogical methods, tailored to the workforce.

Use of shareable and reusable content becomes the norm. Learning packages start to tie into other enterprise applications and sharing information. Further advances along this “framework show a more sophisticated world in which learning technologies are interoperable—not only sharing data but also providing value to other systems” (Moore, 2004, Extending Learning Maturity Through Relationships, para. 1).

Level 5—Optimizing and Continually Improving. Level 5 organizations are “running on all cylinders and driving maximum business value from their e-learning programs” (Maskell, 2003, Introducing LM3, para. 5). Core business functions are web-enabled (Rosenberg, 2000) and internal work and communication is online. The workforce is well prepared to succeed and is considered technologically advanced. The organization defines elearning to include knowledge management, performance support, and other web-enabled learning. The organization constantly evaluates learning needs to determine appropriate methods for any given situation.

Success is measured in shareholder value (THINQ, 2004) and net worth, and learning is “inextricably linked to the organization’s goals” (Stage V-Optimized Workforce, para. 1) The organization is flexible, and learning and performance-centric in structure. Continuous and rapid correction can occur with little disruption to business. Change management is a standard process (Curtis et al., 2001) and process improvement is perpetual throughout the enterprise. The daily work routine and learning activities are integrated with business objectives. Business benefits of e-learning are demonstrated (Rosenberg, 2000) and the organization continues to scale up capability.

Level 5 organizations develop standards-compliant materials (Neuhauser, 2003) that enable them to be used by others. High use of shared, reusable learning objects is evident. Level 5 distance training is learner-centric (Neuhauser, 2003), individualized, and personalized. The program is able to identify learning style preferences among individual learners and administers guidance for content based on abilities and knowledge. Distance training and education becomes transparent and sustained (Berge, 2001).

A maturity model is a framework that classifies the evolution of a system from a less ordered, less effective state to a highly ordered, highly effective state (Moore, 2004, Maturity Models and Learning Technologies, para. 1). Using a maturity model, however, should not be an exercise in “cherry picking.” Still, the goal is not to rise to a higher maturity level for its own sake, but rather to more effectively or efficiently achieve the organization’s goals (Berge, 2001; Curtis et al. , 2001; Marshall & Mitchell, 2002