1. Professor Paul Bacsich and Charlotte Ash Sheffield Hallam University

2. Overview Based on a 6 month JISC funded study to assess the Hidden Costs of Networked Learning. Concentrate on the development and consequent evolution of the lifecycle model. Four sections:- F original five-stage model F testing and development F evolution of the final model F examples of application

3. Traditional financial management accounting 1. Difference between University-borne costs and Student-borne costs. 2.Distinctions between people and things. 3.Organisations have different kinds of people. 4.People do different things.

4. Extensive literature review lead to the identification of over 100 cost items Analysed currently available models for recording the costs of technology-enhanced learning systems. Including:- Orivel (1987) Cukier (1997) Rumble (1989) Moonen (1997) Crabb (1990) The original model

5. Analysis shows serious omissions in current frameworks with a view to exposing the hidden costs. 1.Students are not considered. 2.Staff are not considered. 3.Courses grow from nowhere and vanish into oblivion. 4.No connection between learning and the environment in which it takes place. The original model

6. Planning the learning experience/ environment Maintaining the learning experience/ environment Developing the learning experience/ environment Managing the learning experience/ environment Providing the learning experience/ environment Academic Staff Support Staff Students

7. Test Group One consisted of over 50 academics, administrators and senior management interviewed during the project. Seven Institutions were selected (from a sector wide survey) to represent:- research or teaching bias geographical split current status of Networked Learning activities Test group one

8. Omissions:- Senior Management Evaluation Flexibility Sustainability Employers Parents Positive response to Maintenance, Support Staff and Lifecycle approach. Simple methods have more impact on academics. “Hearts and Minds Buy-in” needed Test group one - results

9. Small workshop held at SHU with prominent educators and financial experts. Important to be equally as appropriate for costing traditional learning paradigms. Ommisions:- Quality Assurance and Evaluation Proposed four stage BPR model of:- DevelopMarket ProvideAssure Test group two

10. Original five-stage model dismissed as too complex. Reject four-stage model as unsuitable for purpose. Propose new three stage model. Staff and students removed as their place is more secure now stakeholder analysis is creeping into education. Results of testing process

11. Three-stage model Planning and Development Production and Delivery Maintenance and Evaluation

12. Evolution from 5 to 3

13. To ensure the viability of the new model we rechecked it against the literature. Rumble (1989) and Rumble (1997) Orivel (1987)Crabb (1990) Cukier (1997)Moonen (1997) Work in the training sector became relevant but not necessarily more comprehensive. Stahmer (1995)Hunt and Clarke (1997)Rechecking

14. Comparison of main models

15. Examples of use

16. Issues

17. Lifecycle model developed to assist Institutions who do not have own iteration. Wider context - illustrates a lack of consensus in the literature. Adequate costing throughout the course lifecycle is needed to inform resource planning and aid effective management of organisational change.Conclusions

18. Professor Paul Bacsich p.bacsich@shu.ac.uk URL: www.shu.ac.uk/virtual_campus/cnl/ Thank you for listening