Papers Presented at the 2nd National NADEOSA Conference
Held 21-22 August 2000

Author:
L Coleman (Pentech)

Title:
Collaborative materials development projects: the TELP experience

Abstract:
The TELP Engineering Materials Development Project started in March 1997. It proposed to develop and publish 8 foundation level engineering textbooks for technikon study. A consortium based project, its partners included five local Historically Disadvantaged South African technikon’s and four universities in the United States.

• description of the organisational structure of the project
• the management and materials development approaches used by the project and their benefits
• the lessons learnt from using the above approaches as they relate to the TELP Engineering Materials Development Project

Introduction

The TELP Engineering Materials Development Project started its work in March 1997 and is currently in its final two months of operation. The main task of this material development project, was to produce 8 foundation level engineering textbooks, aimed at technikon based engineering courses. The purpose of these text was specifically located at bridging the gap between under prepared learners enrolling at engineering courses at Historically Disadvantaged Technikon’s [HDT’s] and the more standard (often American and English) course text books commonly used at engineering faculties across South Africa. Thus rather than "reinventing the wheel" the purpose was to develop relevant and appropriate text for students at these institutions. In July 2000 the project published its 9^th and final title. The textbooks published by this project are currently in use at technikon’s and technical colleges across South Africa.

The project which is consortium based includes 5 [HDT’s] viz. Peninsula Technikon, ML Sultan Technikon, Mangosuthu Technikon, Eastern Cape Technikon and Technikon Northern Gauteng and 4 universities in the United States viz. MIT, Howard University, Clark Atlanta University and North Carolina A & T. In a period of just over 3 years this project has been successful in achieving its primary goal of publishing not only 8 but 9 foundational level engineering text books. The task set by the consortium was an ambitious one especially when considering that a) almost 90% of the staff appointed as authors and moderators had never published any materials before their involvement in the project, b) most of the institutions involved in the project had not worked on a materials development project that involved a consortium based approach or so many partners c) that the resource bases (i.e in relation to infrastructural support of e-mail, computers etc...) of the various institutions were very unequal, and finally the vast geographical spread of the various partners in the consortium had to be bridged. Against these challenges the project has been able to "deliver the goods".

The paper will focus its specific attention how the project was able to maximise certain strengths and compensate for certain weaknesses inherent in the project structure and organisation, particularly the organisation of our writing teams. Key to this was the manner in which management and collaborative materials development approaches were used to the benefit of the project. Through this description it hopes to detail the lessons learnt. It will not seek to assess and evaluate the textbooks the project has published.

Project Description

In order to fully appreciate the complex nature of the project, I would like to spend some time describing the organisation structure and modality of the project.

Organisational structure

Meredith and Mantel (1985) suggest that when new projects are initiated, two key issues usually arise. Firstly how to tie the project into the parent organisation and secondly how to organise and structure the project itself. In relation to the parent organisation, this project has been housed and managed from Peninsula Technikon [Pentech]. Based on the above author’s descriptions, the project was integrated into the existing organisation structure present at Pentech. Using Meredith and Mantels [1985] description of the major organisational forms used to house projects within a parent organisation, it can be argued that firstly the organisation structure which would best describe Pentech is that of a functional / traditional [Kerzner, 1984] organisation. Here all activities are performed within the functional groups and are headed by a departmental head [Kerzner, 1984: 96] (i.e Deputy Vice Chancellor, Dean, Head of Department) having responsibility for the functioning of a particular core task of the organisation. This organisational structure is further characterised by clearly defined levels of authority and responsibility and well-structured communication channels.[Kerzner, 1984]. Secondly the way in which the project itself was organised and structured was by vertu of assigning it to the functional unit that had the most interest in ensuring its success and would be most helpful in implementing it [Meredith and Mantel, 1985]. Thus the project fell under responsibility of the Dean of Engineering at Pentech. In additional the organisational structure of the project itself resembled the organisation structure of the parent organisation and as such was hierarchically based with clear lines of communication, responsibility and authority. [ see the Project organogram, attached]

The project had up to 50 participants involved in its activities and these represented a cross section of technikon staff in both lecturing and administrative functions, staff from the publishing industry and funders. I now turn my attention to a description of the structure and modality of the writing teams.

Writing Teams

The development of the 9 text was accomplished in a staggered approach with the 9 titles divided into 2 phases, with Phase I titles preceding the development and production of Phase II text. The 4 phase I titles were published in Feb 1999 and 4 phase II titles published in Feb 2000 and the 9^th and final title in July 2000.

Each textbook title comprised a four member writing team, with one key author, two South African subject or content moderators and one US moderator. A condition of the project was that all moderators had to be staff at a different institution from the author and each other moderator. This procedure was set in place to ensure that the texts produced would reflect the diverse teaching and content practices in place at the technikons in South Africa. It was further hoped that this practice would make the produced text relevant and applicable to the various technikons targeted to use them. Authors and moderators were selected on a ad hoc method which ranged from volunteering to participate in the project to being assigned the responsibility by their institution. All the writing teams comprised lecturing staff who had some experience in teaching the content or subject at their institution and here there was great variation of the amount of teaching experience and educational qualifications held by the various group members. In addition each team was assigned a professional editor who took responsibility for amongst other things the language editing, basic instructional design and all production related functions, (commissioning of illustrators, typesetters, setting print dye lines etc..) before the manuscript was handed over to the printers. All the authors were relieved of their lecturing duties (on full salary) for periods between 12 - 18 months to participate in the project. Moderators received shorter periods of leave to work on the project . There was great variation of the amounts of time off granted to the writing teams with some participants receiving more support in this regard from their institutions than others. All writing teams were set performance schedules to complete their writing and moderating. The writing teams had to attend an initial training workshop on the basic principles of materials writing and decide on the general outline for the textbook.(usually in consultation with the course syllabus for the respective subject). Authors were then required to write the various chapters and submit this to the moderator for review and comment. These comments would then be incorporated into the text by the author. If any disagreement arose, the author and specific moderators were encouraged to discuss and find a suitable solution to the presented problem. Once the author and moderators were in agreement about a particular chapter, the chapter would be forwarded to the editor and dialogue between the author and editor regarding any changes would then take place. This whole process usual took place via e-mail, telephonic and fax communications. The various writing teams got together at least twice during the duration of the development period to evaluate the text. This was usually conducted in the form of an intense 5 day workshop. The general role of the project manager [PM] during this period was to ensure that the writing schedules were being met, resolve any administration problems (communication or institutional (securing time off for participants from their institution) or resolving any interpersonal issues between the writing group members if these arose.

Resource infrastructure

The entire running, development and production cost of the project was covered by a funding grant via the TELP project funded by USAID. As a result each title was provided a total of R 150 000 for human resource replacement. This enabled our authors to spend full time on developing the text while their institution had funds to find replacement staff to take over their lecturing function. In addition the funding provided for the appointment of a full time project manager, travel and workshop expenses and the total production cost for each of the textbooks produced. The publisher (in our case Juta & Co) took responsibility for the cost of printing, marketing and distribution of the series.

Management approach

I would now like to explore some of the key features of the management approach used

by the project. As suggested earlier in the document, the organisation structure of the project mirrored that present in the parent organisation of Pentech (and in many respects the other technikons involved in the project). However, the management approach in use in the project could clearly be defined as adhering to the basic principles of project management. Projects are usually defined as a specific one-off activity to meet a specific goal or outcome, undertaken over a set period of time which has a specific allocation of financial resources or costs to ensure the attainment of its objectives. [Meredith & Mantel, 1985 & Kerzner, 1984] In relation to the TELP project under review, this would translate into the following scenario:

a) the specific objective: producing 8 foundation level engineering text aimed at under prepared students

b) duration of project: 42 months

c) cost allocation: R 2,9million

A further dimension which is introduced to the above equation is that of quality or as Kerzner suggest , performance. The quality or performance dimension as it relates here to the materials development project under review is the level of quality materials produced within the defined cost and time dimensions. So ideally a project management approach would seek to balance the competing demands of meeting the objective, within cost, within time and ensure suitable levels of quality. In relation to the writing teams in the TELP Project it was very much the attempt to balance the inherent shortcomings (i.e. low level of writing experience of authors) with the strengths (the contextual knowledge of the target audience shared by the authors).

An additional feature of the management approach by which the project could be characterised is the way it sort to effectively develop complimentary and interlinking relationships between higher education institutions, industry and international funding organisations. This dimension was fundamental to ensuring the success of the project. In many respects this aspect also relates to the organisational management approach employed by the project. Clearly without the funders, USAID, a project of this scale and employing some of the organisational and structural arrangements as described earlier could not have been undertaken in the first place solely by any one or even a combination of the HDT’s involved in the project. In such a context they clearly lacked the financial resources and the production and publication experience and expertise to make a project of this nature a reality in the period of time suggested. The input and commitment from Juta our industry partner, was invaluable in this respect. Not only did they ensure that quality of the materials produced were appropriate , but they also ensured that the time dimensions were adhered to. Additional benefits of our industry linkage with Juta has ensured that the TELP Engineering Series has been and is marketed and distributed throughout South Africa, allowing the textbooks to reach a far wider audience than the original consortium grouping. The HDT’s were able to complement and add to this relationship by providing the authors who are situated within an academic context which services previously disadvantaged and under prepared learners, possessing what George Subotzky refers to as the "counter-advantage of tacit and explicit knowledge of their context" [1998:73]. This interlinking relationship helped to ensure that in many respects the text produced are both relevant and appropriate in terms of content, context and form to the learning needs of the target audience.

Benefits

I believe that by adopting this approach in the management of the project the following benefits were gained.

• The guiding principles of project management viz. Meeting the objective within cost, and time while ensuring appropriate levels of quality helped to delineate the boundaries and limits of the project. All decisions made or possible solutions presented were guided by an evaluation of how it would impact on the time, cost, quality and ultimately if it would affect the achievement of our objective /s. E.g. During the final review of one of the text a serious copyright infringement was discovered about one month before publication. The manuscript at that stage was already with the printers. To ensure the quality, credibility and integrity of the text the following decision was taken: To appoint an external consultant (within the content area at cost) to review and rewrite where necessary, the affected section of the text where this was necessary. Because the date of publication was non-negotiable it was decided that the author would not be tasked with the responsibility of rewriting the section. This decision was also motivated by the fact that the author had a history of not meeting handover deadlines. The author was however informed of the decision that had to be taken, and sent a copy of the revisions that had been made.
• By using a project management approach, the principle of ensuring that the various strengths of our writing team participants were fully utilized was applied. Our writing teams were characterised as being weak in terms of author writing knowledge and experience but strong in terms of financial resources (which allowed us to ‘buy-in’ expertise in the fields of editing, knowledge of the print process & instructional design) and learning context and subject content knowledge (shared by our authors and moderators). This management approach allowed for the complementary and compensatory interaction within the writing teams which inturn allowed for the development of textbooks which were acceptable to the moderators in terms of content and context.

• By developing a interlinking relationship between funders, materials’ development and publishing experts and the authors who have a clear knowledge and understanding of the contextual reality of the target audience the project was able to produce the type of learning material we have. In many respects the project has achieved what George Subotzky regards as "partnerships and consortia oriented towards reconstructive development, which would facilitate the production and application of appropriate knowledge and skills for social reconstruction." [1998:72-73]

Materials Development Approach

Previously I mentioned that the TELP Engineering Materials Development Project, attempted to develop relevant and appropriate foundation level engineering textbooks. The rationale behind this was to develop materials that attempted to bridge the educational gap between previously disadvantaged and under prepared learners and the technological and mathematical conceptual understandings required by such types of courses. The project proposers’ argued that the standard materials being used at technikons at the time did not significantly assist learners in this category to gain the basic necessary understanding for their respective courses. It was proposed that the development of materials that catered more to the learning needs of these learners might be better suited to achieving this aim.

While publishing the 8 (9) textbooks might have been the key deliverable for the project , running parallel to this process was a clear developmental agenda, i.e. to develop the capacity of HDT’s to nurture and support new and innovative materials developers. In many respects the development agenda favoured a more collaborative approach to the materials development process especially in light of the fact that most of the authors were in-experienced materials developers. It was suggested that such an approach was more likely to provide for peer support to the new writers in terms of content, style and structure. The collaborative materials development approach as adopted by the project embodied the following characteristics:

• all work produced by the key author had to be moderatored by at least the two SA moderators for both content and form
• suggestions and comments raised by moderator relating to the work produced by the author had to be discussed and debated within the working group and all attempts had to be made to incorporate these comment into the manuscript,
• responsibility for factual correctness of information was shared by all members of the writing team,
• moderators were often called on to co-write units or sections of units and in many cases the moderators often acted as co-authors to the text,
• the structure and outline of content covered by the manuscript was negotiated and had to be agreed on by all members of the writing team, and
• the content and form of the final manuscript was vetoed by all members of the writing team including the US moderators.

Benefits

In many respects the beneficial experiences of this method of materials development are similar to those noted by Mike Adendorff [1998] of the SAIDE Study of Education project.

This approach used in the TELP project as with the Study of Education project resulted in the following benefits:

• an opportunity for novice authors to develop their skills in a ‘friendly’ and supportive environment, where peer review and affirmation was encouraged,
• it brought together a diverse group of people representing different HDT’s, educational backgrounds, learning and teaching experiences, teaching methods and life experiences (including gender, race, cultural etc...experiences) which impacted positively on not only the materials being produced but also on personal relations,
• this diversity resulted in the creation of more relevant examples, illustrations, activities and practice methods which are more appropriate for the learners targeted by the textbooks, and
• it provided a valuable opportunity to debate and discuss issues relating to content, curriculum development, learning and teaching styles and methods and generally provided an opportunity for these technikon lecturers to share and reflect on their classroom practice.

Lessons Learnt

Many people in the publishing industry often use the analogy of "giving birth" to describe the process of publishing materials. Specifically the idea that the pain of the birthing process is usually forgotten almost seconds after the baby is born and the proud parent first see their child. Similarly it is very easy to forget the "pain" and the many difficulties and challengers experienced during the past 3 ½ years of this project and only highlight the positive and beneficial outcomes, like having published nine textbooks. Any critical reflection, especially if the aim is to improve the practice, needs to take cognisance of both the positive and negative aspects so that a clear picture of the lessons learnt can be drawn.

The aim of this paper is to highlight the lessons learnt by the TELP Engineering Materials Development Project as a result of utilizing the project management and collaborative materials development approaches as described above. These lessons document the perceptions of the PM in relation to her role as both manager of the production process and facilitator of the more developmental and educational processes.

• Identify the management approach that would best suit the nature of the project. Take into account the possible constraints and benefits a particular approach might bring to the materials development project. With TELP I soon realised the projects management approach had to adapt to the management approach used in the parent organisation. So I had to work through the various functional structures which existed at the technikon’s if I wanted certain results. The benefits of using a project management approach was clearly demonstrated through the TELP process. Especially in terms of keeping us focussed on meeting our objectives and providing us with an approach which allowed us to utilise the strengths but at the same time compensate for any weaknesses of our participants.

• Identify early on in the project what the key focus of your project is. i.e "Is it about producing x amount of text within a specific time’ or about ‘developing the highest level of quality text’ (in which ever way you want to define it) or about ‘developing the level of experience of your authors’? Whatever your key objective is, it is also about compromise between issues of product (producing set amount of text within a fixed period) and process (concerned with the learning experience and quality assurance measures). The more time spent on process the less likely you will be able to produce within a fixed time period. Conversely if product is the priority process tends be neglected. It is my opinion that the TELP project focussed more on product (publishing nine textbooks which were subject to a level of quality assurance that could be only accommodate within the time constraint we faced). Process (especially in term of the capacity building of the authors and moderators) was seen as a more secondary function. I am not suggesting that either option is the correct or incorrect way of approaching materials development, merely that they are different and suit different focusses. In my experience the product and process do not combine easily i.e. it is difficult to give each aspect an equal footing. A more common situation is a situation where one is given prominence at the expense of the other. Choosing the focus that best suits the nature of the project helps guide the management process.

• The development of constructive and mutually beneficial relationships between local and international funder organisations, industry and higher education institutions are recommended. The TELP project would not have been a reality had the relationship between the three parties not been established. This relationship was however an equal one in that each party brought together a particular aspect which assisted in the success of the project. Had either of the parties been absent the level of success which this project has achieved might not have been possible. Furthermore all parties in this relationship were able to learn something from each other. The HDT’s gained more experience of the writing and publishing process, how to manage materials development project of this scale and the authors in particular gained valuable developmental exposure to the materials development process. Industry (Juta) gained a deeper understanding of the learning and teaching context which exist at HDT’s. The funders on the other can benefit from the assurance that their funding has resulted in a tangible result i.e. nine published textbooks and in a less tangible development journey of increasing the quality of materials developers and project management capacity at HDT’s.

• Collaborative materials development projects are largely about interpersonal communication relationships and processes. This team approach to materials develop relies on the development and maintenance of "healthy" interpersonal relationships both between team members and between the team and the support structures (i.e. PM, Production managers etc..). The experience of the TELP project seems to suggest that where this type of relationships existed the writing and indeed development potential was greatly increased. The PM often had to negotiate and facilitate these relationships both within the team and between the team and support structures in order to find suitable solutions. This maintenance of interpersonal relationships is not an easy or uncomplicated process especially when you are working towards deadlines and don’t want to alienated your key authors. The level of problems and bottlenecks interpersonal problems can cause should not be underestimated.

• Collaborative materials development projects can effectively and successfully facilitate the development of less experienced writers. It is also more likely to encourage novice writers to participate in such materials development projects as it seeks to balance the weaknesses and strengths they bring to the process. Its important to acknowledge that while novice writers may lack the writing skills and experiences these can be compensated for as we have done in the TELP project. The strength of their contextual knowledge of the learning and life experiences of their students is a strength which any materials development project can fully utilize.

The above descriptions details just one of many different experiences gained as a results of being a participant in the this unique project. No doubt each participant experienced some degree of learning and development whether positive or negative, or whether it was about materials development or interpersonal relationships. It is hoped that this paper helps to describe some of these experiences of the TELP Engineering Materials Development Project, and helps to facilitate a better understanding of collaborative materials development projects that adopt the approaches (in terms of organisational structure and management) we have.

Notes

1. TELP refers to the Tertiary Education Linkage Project which is an inter-institutional funding agreement which covers all Historically Disadvantaged Higher Education Institutions in South African. TELP is funded by the United States Agency of International Aid [USAID]
2. The titles of the course textbooks cover the following Engineering disciplines: Civil Engineering (Construction Materials and Methods & Drawings (S1 & S2), Electrical Engineering (Introductory Digital Systems, Circuit Analysis & Electronics), Mechanical Engineering (Mechanics and Drawing) and Chemical Engineering (Physics).
3. This structure was further replicated at the other technikon’s where the Dean’s of Engineering became the main functionary responsible for the projects implementation at that particular institution.
4. Some moderators were granted less lecturing time so that they could assist in project work while others completed most of their tasks in their own share time.
5. These workshops were conducted in the first 12 months of the project. It was organised and facilitated by the Centre for Curriculum Design and Development at Technikon South Africa, our initial service provider. The CCDD through mutual agreement withdrew from the entire project in January 1999.
6. The textbooks developed and published by the project is referred to as the TELP Engineering series.

 References

Adendorff, M (1998) Collaborative , cross-institutional materials development, in OLTDE, 4 (3) pg 4-7
Kerzner, H (1984) Project Management. A systems approach to planning, scheduling and controlling. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Meredith, J and Mantel, S (1985) Project Management, A Managerial Approach. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.
Subotzky, G (1998) Higher Education and business - Forging Partnerships to meet global competitiveness and reconstructive development. In Education Africa Forum, Second Edition, Hofmeyr, J and Perold, H (eds), Education Africa, Pinegowrie

|  NADEOSA Homepage |  2nd NADEOSA Conference Papers Index  |
Global Distance Education Network - South African resources  |

Send comments on the web site to the web designer