DESIGNING LEARNING OBJECTS FOR PRIMARY LEARNERS

CASE STUDY 1- SCOTT ALLEN

DEB OGBURN
WALDEN UNIVERSITY

DR. RAY PASTORE

PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING EDUC 6145
FEBRUARY 21, 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
"SchoolsOnline is a national initiative to develop online digital learning resources in specified
curricular areas" (Ertmer, Quinn, Glazewski, 2014, p. 23) with a specific focus on Our Nation and
Society for years K-12 in Australia. SchoolsOnline has recently approved Scott Allen and his
team of designers to develop online resources for primary and secondary schools. The purpose
in the educational learning objects that are to be created is to "support the study of history,
geography, indigenous studies, environmental studies, values and cultural studies, and study of
civic life of particular regional and rural people" (Ertmer et al, p. 24).

In order to accomplish this, the Project Steering Committee will communicate needs, the
Review Panel of subject matter experts, and school education experts will make suggestions for
the learning objects and their context, the Project Manager will oversee three teams which are
the Writing Team who have technical experience, but not educational experience, the Design
Team lead by Scott Allen, and the Development Team. All teams will report to the Project
Manager, Gordon Anderson who reports to the Review Panel and Project Steering Committee.

Figure 1 Hierarchy

Project Steering
Committee
Review Panel
Project
Manager
Writing Team

Design Team

Development
Team

2.0 PURPOSE /SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work for the SchoolsOnline Our Nation and Society Learning Objects is to design
and develop high-quality online digital content organized around one or more of the following
themes:
o geographical, economic, environmental, ethical, ideological, and political systems,
and/or issues
o the way we are now
o what we want for the future
All of the above need to be covered in the overall project.
Not all of the above must be included in each individual learning object. (Ertmer et al, 2014).

3.0 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance for the SchoolsOnline Our Nation and Society Learning Object
Project is February1 - April 30, 2015, and spans 63 work days. All work must be scheduled to
complete within this timeframe.

4.0 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

The design team lead by Scott Allen, as well as the Development Team will perform the work at
their own facilities, with occasional meetings with the Instructional Design Lead, Scott Allen, per
the schedule listed in this SOW. SchoolsOnline will provide and arrange for meeting spaces
within its facility or by webinar for all required meetings with required personnel.

5.0 WORK REQUIREMENTS

The distinct teams, under the supervision of Gordon Anderson, the project manager, will be
responsible for performing tasks throughout various stages of this project. The following is a
list of these tasks which will result in the successful completion of this project:

Kickoff:
-

Writers will provide designers with 30+ design briefs.

Designers give feedback/revisions to submit to panel and committee that writers will
use as final product

Design Phase:
-

Writers provide final scenario for designers to work with

Designers create preliminary scenarios to submit to panel and committee for approval
Designers develop final scenario to submit for approval to go to developers

Build Phase:
-

Developers receive final plan

Developers create preliminary product
Developers make adjustments based on feedback

Implementation Phase:
-

Developers create final product

Final product is approved by PM

Project Handoff/Closure:
-

Project Manager will provide SchoolsOnline with all documentation in accordance with
the approved project plan
Project Manager will present project closure report to SchoolsOnline for review and
approval

6.0 SCHEDULE/MILESTONES
The below list consists of the initial milestones identified for the SchoolsOnline Learning Objects
Project which is scheduled to take 63 performance work days beginning on February 2, 2015
and ending on April 30, 2015, and include:

SOW Release

January 11, 2015

Period of Performance Begins

February 2, 2015

Final Learning Objects Plan Reviewed by All Teams

February 13, 2015

Writing Team Submits Proposal for Review

February 20, 2015

Approval by Review Panel/Steering Committee

March 6, 2015

Design Team Submits for Final Approval

March 20, 2015

Design Team Submits Approved Project to Developers

March 27, 2015

Design Team Plan Finalized/Developer Receive

April 3, 2015

Developers Submit Final Product for Review

April 23, 2015

Revisions (if necessary) submitted

April 28, 2015

Project Closure/Archives Complete

April 30, 2015

7.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA/OBJECTIVES/SUCCESS CRITERIA.

The SchoolsOnline Learning Objects Project will provide resources that support students to:
develop understandings about contemporary society as a springboard for understanding
self and others and for examining the contributions needed to bring about preferred
futures
investigate interconnecting social, cultural, ecological and economic systems, political
and ethical issues, and alternative worldviews
develop values, understandings, skills, dispositions, and behavior associated with civic
decision making and with principles of the democratic process, sustainable futures, and
social justice (Ertmer et al, 2014)
The desire is that constructivist pedagogy is the basis for this project in order to recognize
learners "as the constructors of their own knowledge, values, and ethical outlook" (Ertmer et al,
2014). Due to the nature of this project the preferred constructivist pedagogy is a part of the
acceptance criteria which includes the following criteria:
provide multiple representations of reality and the complexity of the real world

present authentic tasks that encourage conceptualization

provide real-world, case-based contexts
support deep things
often involve student collaboration featuring social negotiation and cooperative
learning structures
support students to choose from among variety of possible solutions or approaches to a
problem
enable learners to make connections across disciplines and perspectives
Once all project tasks have been completed, the project will enter the handoff/closure stage.
During this stage of the project, the Project Manager will provide their project closure report
and project task checklist to the Director of SchoolsOnline. The acceptance of this
documentation will acknowledge acceptance of all project deliverables and that the vendor has
met all assigned tasks.

8.0 BUDGET
Figure 8: Staffing Budget (Information inspired by Morrison, Ross, Kalman & Kemp (2013, p.
398)

Task Descriptions

# of Total Days
out of 63 (3
months- FebApr 2015)

x Hourly
Rate

Total Cost

Oversee 3 teams, interview,

word process data,
communicate across teams,
report

12

200

19200

Instructional Analyze, communicate, draft,

Designer #1 write instructional materials,
(senior
create learning objects
level)

22

175

30,800

Instructional Analyze, draft, create learning

Designer #2 objects

15

125

15000

Instructional Analyze, draft, create learning

12

75

7200

Project
Manager

Designer #3

objects

Instructional Analyze, draft, create learning

Designer #4 objects

12

75

7200

SME

Create possible instructional

scenarios

200

4800

Educational
Expert

Create possible instructional

scenarios

200

4800

Writer #1

Write instructional scenarios

75

3600

Writer #2

Write instructional scenarios

75

3000

Writer #3

Write instructional scenarios

75

Developer
#1

Produce graphics and create

final learning object

100

3200

Developer
#2

Produce graphics and create

final learning object

75

1800

100,600.

10.0 CONSTRAINTS
Each deliverable must be submitted on time for the next deadline to be met, and approvals
must be obtained by the date required for the project conclude at its scheduled date.

10.0 STAKEHOLDERS
SchoolsOnline
Philip Smith (Project Champion)
Juana Smith (Review Panel Chairwoman, also avid supporter of project)
Australian administrators/teachers/students using the learning objects

Communities in districts using the learning objects

11.0 SIGNATURES
__________________________________________
<Gordon Anderson>

Date: ___________________

<Project Manager>
__________________________________________
<Scott Allen>

Date: ___________________

<Lead Instructional Designer >

__________________________________________
<Jane Doe >

Date: ___________________

<Writing/Research Team Lead>

__________________________________________
<John Doe>

Date: ___________________

<Development Team Lead for ScarletMedia>

__________________________________________
<Juana Smith>

Date: ___________________

<Review Panel Chairwoman>

12.0 ACCEPTANCE
Approved by:
__________________________________________
<Philip Smith>
< SchoolsOnline Project Committee Chairman>

Date: ___________________

PROJECT SCOPE
CASE STUDY 1- SCOTT ALLEN
OVERVIEW
1. Project Background/Purpose

SchoolsOnlines purpose is to create digital resources for use in K-12 classrooms in Australia.
The purpose of this project is to create online resources suitable for this specific set of learners
with the intent of supporting cultural studies specific to Australia, its history, geography,
indigenous, and environmental studies, as well as supporting the study of civic life, and values
(Ertmer, 2014).
2. Project Scope

15 learning objects will be created that are flexible enough for a teacher to use with a whole
class or for a student to work with independently. (Ertmer, p. 15). These learning objects will
utilize constructivist pedagogy, meet technical requirements of size (to be clarified prior to kick
off), and will be created using Flash, as well as focusing on the content specified which
includes history, geography, environmental studies, indigenous studies, and study of civic life in
Australia.
These learning objects will not be tailored to meet the needs of other content areas not
mentioned. Any changes to this scope must be approved by the project manager, and
instructional design lead in writing prior to kick off, or they will not be considered as a part of
this project, but may be considered for future projects. Subject matter experts are responsible
for ensuring that the 15 learning objects provided link to national, state, and territory syllabi
(Ertmer et al, 2014).
3. High-Level Requirements/Assumptions

The learning objects meet the following criteria:

Be of the correct file size defined as small by SchoolsOnline. A learning object is
defined as any digital resource that can be reused to support learning. This definition
includes anything that can be delivered across the network on demand smaller
reusable digital resources include digital images or photos, live data feeds, live or
prerecorded video or audio snippets, small bits of text, animations, and smaller webdelivered applications (Wiley, 2000).
Be developed using Flash
Be re-usable The size of a learning object fits with the context-reusability constraint
imposed by learning objects. Wiley et al. (2000) noted the inverse relationship between
the size of a learning object and its re-usability. As the learning objects size decreases
(lower granularity) its potential for reuse in multiple applications increases.(Wiley,
2000)
Use a constructivist pedagogy

Assumptions
Team member names for the Writing Team, and ScarletMedia were not provided
and have been assigned generic names such as Jane Doe, John Doe, and Juana
Smith.
Budgeting information provided in the SOW is subject to change, and is based on
assumption.

4. Overview of Deliverables

o
o
o
o
o
o
o

32 draft briefs
Top 15 briefs revised
15 briefs prepared
15 learning objects designed
15 learning objects revised
15 learning objects developed
15 learning objects tested/passing all requirements per scope

5. Primary Stakeholders and Roles

Gordon Anderson Project Manager

Scott Allen Lead Instructional Designer
Jeff Parker Instructional Designer
Penny Johnson Instructional Designer
Tracey Ward Instructional Designer
Jane Doe Writing/Research Team Lead (Team of 3)
John Doe Development Team Lead for ScarletMedia (Team of 2)
Juana Smith Review Panel Chairwoman
Philip Smith SchoolsOnline Project Committee Chairman
Teachers using new SchoolsOnline learning objects
Students using new SchoolsOnline learning objects
Administrators promoting/supporting the use of SchoolsOnline learning objects
6. Project Objectives and Success Criteria

The objective is to provide resources that

o Develop understandings about contemporary society as a springboard for
understanding self and others and for examining the contributions needed to bring
about preferred futures (Ertmer et al, 2014) for Australian K-12 students
o Investigate interconnecting social, cultural , ecological and economic systems, political
and ethical issues, and alternative word views(Ertmer et al, 2014) particular to K-12
students in Australia
o Develop values, understandings, skills, dispositions, and behavior associated with civic
decision making and with principles of the democratic process, sustainable futures and
social justice (Ertmer et al, 2014)
Success Criteria Provided by SchoolsOnline:
Provide multiple representations of reality and the complexity of the real world
(Ertmer et al, 2014)
Present authentic tasks that encourage conceptualization (Ertmer et al, 2014)
Provide real world, case-based contexts (Ertmer et al, 2014)

 Support deep thinking (Ertmer et al, 2014)

Often involve student collaboration featuring social negotiation and cooperative
learning structures (Ertmer et al, 2014)
Support students to choose from among variety of possible solutions or approaches to
a problem (Ertmer et al, 2014)
Enable learners to make connections across disciplines and perspectives (Ertmer et al,
2014)
(Note: all of the previous success criteria demonstrate the use of constructivist pedagogy
which is required for success in this project)
Meet technical specifications of small, as defined by SchoolsOnline
Be created using Flash
Be reusable

APPROVAL AND AUTHORITY TO PROCEED

We approve the project as described above, and authorize the team to proceed.

Name

Title

Date

Review Chairperson
Writing Team Lead
Design Team Lead
Development Team Lead

_________________________________
Approved By (Steering Committee Chair)

_________________________________
Approved By (Project Manager)

___________
Date

___________
Date

SchoolsOnline Work Breakdown Structure

Steering Committee
Needs & feasibility
Project Brief
Approval of Final
Learning Objects

Review Panel
(SME/Educational
Experts)
Suggested Revisions
of briefs
Approval of 15 Briefs

Project Manager
(Gordon Anderson)
Needs & Feasibility
Resource Estimate
Cost Estimates
Schedules
Budget
Communication
Work Breakdown
Structure
Project Scope
Statement of Work
Approval of
plan/steps

Writing Team
32 Draft Briefs
Revisions of Draft
Briefs
Preparation of
Content

Design Team (Scott

Allen)

Needs Analysis
Selection of 15 Best
Briefs
Deigning of Full
Specifications for 15
Briefs
Revisions of Briefs
Technical
Specifications
Learning Objectives
Pedagogical
Specifications

Development Team
(ScarletMedia)
Creation of 15
Learning Objects
Revisions of Learning
Objects
Approval of
Technical
Specifications

Resource Allocation Plan

Task, Activity:

Needs analysis

Resource:

Resource:

Resource:

Resource:

Resource:

Duration:

Writing

Design

Development

Review

Steering

Team

Team

Team

Panel/SMEs

Committee/

Hourly

Hourly

Hourly

Hourly

Board

rate:$75 an

rate:$150 an

rate:$100 an

rate:$200 an

Hourly rate:

hour

hour

hour

hour

N/A

----------

6 hours

----------

----------

----------

6 hours

Completed

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

----------

32 draft briefs
written

Prior to
project
start

32 drafts
reviewed/15

(1hr x 4
----------

chosen for

designers)

2 hours

+ (1hr

further

collective)

development
Designers Revise
1st

Learning
Object

1hour x 4
----------

(Lead
Designer 2
hours

6 hours

additional)

Writing

10 hours x

Revisions

2 writers

----------

----------

----------

----------

10 hours

----------

20 hours X

----------

----------

----------

20 hours

1 hour

1 hour

----------

----------

----------

----------

complete for
draft 1
Final Full Design
Specs. Learning

4 designers

Object 1
SME Approval
draft 1
Finalize/Revise

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour x 2

1 hour x 4

draft 1

writers

designers

Board Approval

1 hour

1 hour

----------

----------

1 hour

1 hour
1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

Draft 1
Develop

30 hours x 2

30 hours

developers

----------

----------

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

1 hour

1 hour

Key Check Point

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

----------

1 hour

TOTALS PHASE

27

106

64

80

----------

4hours x4

----------

----------

----------

6 hours

Approved Draft
1/Template
Approve/ final
learning object 1
Sign off learning
object 1

1
Designers Revise
2-5

(2 add
hours lead
only)

Writing

20 hours x

Revisions

2 writers

----------

----------

----------

----------

20 hours

----------

40 hours X 4

----------

----------

----------

42 hours

1 hour

1 hour

----------

complete for
drafts 2-5
Final Full Design
Specs. Learning

designers +

Objects 2-5

2 hrs. add.
lead

SME Approval
drafts 2-5
Finalize/Revise

1 hour

1 hour

8 hours x 2

6 hour x 4

1 hour
14 hour

drafts 2-5

writers

designers

----------

----------

----------

Board Approval

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

1 hour

Approved Drafts

----------

----------

developers

----------

----------

Approve/ final

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

1 hour

1 hour

Key Check Point

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

----------

1 hour

TOTALS PHASE

61

209

135

152

----------

4hours x4

----------

----------

----------

6 hours

1 hour

Draft 1
Develop

65 hours x 2

65hours

learning objects
2-5
Sign off learning
objects 2-5

2
Designers Revise
6-10

(2 add
hours lead
only)

Writing

20 hours x

Revisions

2 writers

----------

----------

----------

----------

20 hours

----------

40 hours X 4

----------

----------

----------

42 hours

1 hour

1 hour

----------

----------

----------

----------

1 hour

developers

----------

----------

complete for
drafts 6-10
Final Full Design
Specs. Learning

designers +

Objects 6-10

2 hrs. add.
lead

SME Approval

1 hour
1 hour

1 hour

8 hours x 2

6 hour x 4

drafts 6-10

writers

designers

----------

Board Approval

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

Approved Drafts

----------

----------

Approve/ final

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

1 hour

1 hour

drafts 6-10
Finalize/Revise

14 hour
1 hour

Drafts 6-10
Develop

65 hours x 2

65hours

learning objects
6-10
Sign off learning

objects 6-10
Key Check Point

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

----------

1 hour

TOTALS PHASE

61

209

135

152

----------

4hours x4

----------

----------

----------

6 hours

3
Designers Revise
11-15

(2 add
hours lead
only)

Writing

20 hours x

Revisions

2 writers

----------

----------

----------

----------

20 hours

----------

40 hours X 4

----------

----------

----------

42 hours

1 hour

1 hour

----------

----------

----------

----------

1 hour

developers

----------

----------

complete for
drafts 11-15
Final Full Design
Specs. Learning

designers +

Objects 11-15

2 hrs. add.
lead

SME Approval
drafts 11-15
Finalize/Revise

1 hour
1 hour

1 hour

8 hours x 2

6 hour x 4

14 hour

drafts 11-15

writers

designers

----------

Board Approval

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

Approved Drafts

----------

----------

Approve/ final

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

1 hour

1 hour

Key Check Point

1 hour

1 hour

1 hour

----------

----------

1 hour

TOTALS PHASE

61

209

135

152

210hrs x

524hrs x

469hrs x

8hrs x $200

N/A

$75

$150

$100

$15,750

$78,600

$46,900

$1,600

---

$142,850

1 hour

Drafts 11-15
Develop

65 hours x 2

65hours

learning objects
11-15
Sign off learning
objects 11-15

4
Totals
Total Cost:

Gantt Chart for Case Study 1

SchoolsOnline Learning Objects: Communications Plan

COMMUNICATION PLAN
Communication Objectives
It is the objective of this communication plan to increase collaborations, inform investors, key
stakeholders and project team members of the project plan, and changes to the project plan.
Communication will be key to this project's success.

Communication Plan
Routine Communication

A daily status report will be posted of project milestones, progress, needs, and risks. A weekly meeting
involving the project team will evaluate the week's progress, and project information key to the success
of the following week(s). There are key milestone check off points that will also be communicated across
teams.
Project Team Directory
Role

Name

Email

Phone

Philip Smith

Organization/
Department
SchoolsOnline

Chairman of
the board
Chairman of
the steering
committee
Project
manager
Writing Team
Lead

psmith@schoolsonline.com

Juana Smith

SchoolsOnline

jsmith@schoolsonline.com

(03) 9555
5510
(03) 9555
5512

Gordon
Anderson
Jane Doe

SchoolsOnline

ganderson@schoolsonline.com

SchoolsOnline

jdoe@schoolsonline.com

Design Team
Lead (Lead ID)

Scott Allen

sallen@wu.edu

(612)3330000

Development
Team Lead
Writing Team
Member 2

John Doe

Walden
University
Education
Department
ScarletMedia

jdoe@scarletmedia.com

Graciela
Gracia

SchoolsOnline

ggracia@schoolsonline.com

(206)5551212
(03) 9555
5518

Writing Team
Member 3

Juana Johns

SchoolsOnline

jjohns@schoolsonline.com

(03) 9555
5511
(03) 9555
5515

(03) 9555
5519

Development
Team Member
2

Bruno Felps

ScarletMedia

bfelps@scarletmedia.com

(206) 5551115

Design Team
Member 2

Jeff Parker

jparker@wu.edu

(612)3331111

Design Team
Member 3

Penny
Johnson

pjohnson@wu.edu

(612)3331112

Design Team
Member 4

Tracey Ward

Walden
University
Education
Department
Walden
University
Education
Department
Walden
University
Education
Department

tward@wu.edu

(612)3331113

Communication Matrix

Communication
Project
Type/Description Stakeholder
(Audience)

Medium

Frequency Owner
Objective of
(Distributed Communication
by)

Status Updates

Client/Director

Written
reports

weekly

Project
Manager

Status Updates

Team Leaders

weekly

Budget and Billing

Report

Client/Director

Written
reports
Spreadsheet

Project
Manager
Project
Manager

Team Meetings

Project Team

Face to face

weekly

Project
Manager

Team Meetings

Project Team

Written
reports

weekly

Project
Manager

Informal check ins

Project team
members

Face to face
(voice to
voice)

daily

Project
manager

Team Status Reports

Project
Manager

Written
reports

weekly

Team Leaders

Milestone Check
Point

Steering
Committee/
Board

Face to face

Bi-monthly

Project
Manager

monthly

Customer is on board
with schedules, changes,
approach
Staff is on board with
approach, work load
Director
acknowledges/approves
margins
Team is on track,
communicates issues
early, celebrates
successes
Minutes of meetings,
bullet points, signature
required weekly (read
receipt)
No surprises, open door
policy with transparent,
informal
communications
Report actual progress,
projected future
progress, needs,
concerns and success
Ensure deliverable are
on time and meet
quality/technical

Project Phase Sign

Off

Steering
Committee/
Board

Face to face

On key
dates
outlined in
charter

Project
Manager

Quality Review

Client

Face to face

April 13

Project
Manager

specifications
Signal successful
completion of learning
objects in each phase so
that work may build on
past templates
Acceptable
performance/quality of
deliverables

Communication Control Summary information from Evans, (n.d). Course 19: Managing projects.
Retrieved from www.exinfm.com/training
Communication Flow chart

Designer 1
Design
Team Lead

Board

Designer 2

Designer 3
Project
Manager

Writing
Team Lead

Writer 2

Writer 3

Steering
Committee
Development
Lead

Developer
2

Communication Escalation Process

Priority
Priority 1

Priority 2

Definition
Major impact to project. If
not resolved quickly there
will be a significant
adverse impact to revenue
and /or schedule
Medium impact to project
which may result in some
adverse impact to revenue

Decision Authority
Board

Timeframe for Resolution

Within 4 hours

Steering Committee

Within 1 business day

Priority 3

Priority 4

and/or schedule
Slight impact which may
cause some minor
scheduling difficulties with
the project but no impact
to revenue
Insignificant impact to
project but there may be a
better solution

Project Manager

Within 2 business days

Project Manager

Work continues and

suggestions submitted via
the project change
process

Table from Project Management Docs (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.projectmanagementdocs.com/project-planning-templates/communications-managementplan.html
Sign off Form for Project Phase: Adapted from (Greer, 2010)

I have reviewed the following deliverables as of the date identified below:

I have found these deliverables to meet with my approval, with the following exceptions:

I give my approval to proceed with the development of these deliverables to the next stage in order to
meet the project objectives in a timely fashion.
I understand that any changes I request could result in the final deliverable date being pushed back, in
the need for additional resources, and additional cost. (Greer, 2010).

_________________________________
(Signature)

_________________________
(Title)

____________
(Date)

Communication Calendar to Date

Week
1

Date
Feb 16-20

Monday
1st learning object
draft chosen for
revision (DsT)

Tuesday
Team Lead
Meeting w/PM
Draft 1
Revisions Due
(WT)

Wednesday
Daily F2F or
V2V check
ins with all
team
members
and PM

Thursday
Content
prepared for
SME
approval
(DsT)

Feb 23-27

Web Conference
with Writing
Team/Design
Team and PM to
hand off revisions

Team Lead
Meeting w/PM
Board Approval
of Object 1

Daily F2F or
V2V check
ins with all
team
members
and PM

F2F meeting
with PM and
Design Team

Mar 2-6

Budget Report for

February sent
Team Lead
Meeting w/PM
moved up from
Tuesday due to
check point
meeting F2F

Daily F2F or
V2V check
ins with all
team
members
and PM

Mar 9-13

Key Check Point

catered lunch
for onsite team
with web
conferencing
for offsite
members
Celebration of
Success/Lessons
learned in prep.
For next phase
Team Lead
Meeting w/PM

Mar 16-20

Team Lead
Meeting w/PM

Daily F2F or
V2V check
ins with all
team
members
and PM

Mar 23-27

Team Lead
Meeting w/PM

Daily F2F or
V2V check
ins with all

F2F meeting with

SMEs and PM

Daily F2F or
V2V check
ins with all
team
members
and PM

Phase 2 sign
off/Critical
Check

Friday
Weekly
status report
whole project
team
Minutes of
report sent
out
electronically
Weekly
status report
whole project
team
Minutes of
report sent
out
electronically
Weekly
status report
whole project
team
Minutes of
report sent
out
electronically

Weekly
status report
whole project
team
Minutes of
report sent
out
electronically
Weekly
status report
whole project
team
Minutes of
report sent
out
electronically
Weekly
status report
whole project

team
members
and PM

WT=
Writing
Team

DsT =
Design
Team

before
phases 3 and
4. F2F
meeting
with PM and
Board

team
Minutes of
report sent
out
electronically

DvT=Development
Team

Project Monitoring/Tracking to Date

Project Closeout Checklist

Approval of the Project Closeout and Assessment Report indicates an understanding and formal
agreement that the project is ready to be closed. By signing this document, each individual agrees all
administrative, financial, and logistical aspects of the project should be concluded, executed, and
documented as described herein.
Approver Name

Title

Signature

Date

Section 1.

General Information

Project Name

SchoolsOnline- Case Study 1

Project Start Date

Project End Date

February 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Project Sponsor(s)

Title

Department

Division

Philip Smith

Director

Board Chairman

SchoolsOnline

Project Manager

Title

Department

Division

Gordon Anderson

Project Manager

NA

SchoolsOnline

Section 2.

Final Deliverable/Deployment Checklist to be filled in by all team members listed

in Section 4.

Respond to each question. For each no response, include an issue in Open Issues section.
Item

Question

Response

2.1

Do you agree that the product and/or service is ready to be deployed?

Yes

No

2.2

Do you agree the product and/or service has sufficiently met the stated business goals
and objectives?

Yes

No

2.3

Do you fully understand and agree to accept all operational requirements, operational
risks, maintenance costs, and other limitations and/or constraints imposed as a result of
ongoing operations of the product and/or service?

Yes

No

2.4

Do you agree the project should be closed? If no, please explain:

Yes

No

Rate your level of satisfaction with regards to the project outcomes listed below

2.5

Project Quality

Yes

No

2.6

Product and/or Service Performance

Yes

No

2.7

Scope

Yes

No

2.8

Cost (Budget)

Yes

No

2.9

Schedule

Yes

No

Section 3.

Project Documentation Checklist to be filled in by Gordon Anderson.

Respond to each question. For each no response, include an issue in Open Issues section.
Item

Question

Response

3.1

Have project documentation and other items (e.g., Business Case, Project Plan, Charter,
Budget Documents, Status Reports) been prepared, collected, filed, and/or disposed?

Yes

No

3.3

Were audits (e.g., project closeout audit) completed and results documented for future
reference?

Yes

No

3.4

Identify the storage location for the following project documents items:

Item

Document

Location (e.g., Google Docs, Webspace)

Format

3.4a

Business Case

Electronic
Manual

3.4b

Project Charter

Electronic
Manual

3.4c

Project Plan

Electronic
Manual

3.4d

Budget Documentation and Invoices

Electronic
Manual

3.4e

Status Reports

Electronic
Manual

3.4f

Risks and Issues Log

Electronic
Manual

3.4g

Final deliverable

Electronic
Manual

3.4h

If applicable, verify that final project deliverable for the project is attached or storage location is identified
in 3.4.

Section 4.

Project Team

List resources specified in the Project Plan and used by the project.
Name

Signature

Role

Type
(e.g., Contractor,
Employee)

Gordon Anderson/_____________________________________

Project Manager

SchoolsOnline Employee

Jane Doe/____________________________________

Writing Team
Leader

SchoolsOnline Employee

Scott Allen/_____________________________________

Design Team
Leader

Contractor

Name

Signature

John Doe/_____________________________________

Role

Type
(e.g., Contractor,
Employee)

Lead Developer

Contractor

Graciela Gracia/____________________________________ Writing Team

SchoolsOnline Employee

Juana Johns/_____________________________________

Writing Team

SchoolsOnline Employee

Bruno Felps/_____________________________________

Developer

Contractor

Jeff Parker/_____________________________________

Designer

Contractor

Penny Johnson/____________________________________

Designer

Contractor

Tracey Ward/_____________________________________

Designer

Contractor

Section 5.

Project Lessons Learned: to be fill in by all team members listed in section 4.

Identify lessons learned specifically for the project. State the lessons learned in terms of a
problem (issue). Describe the problem and include any project documentation references (e.g.,
Project Plan, Issues Log) that provide additional details. Identify recommended improvements
to correct a similar problem in the future.
Problem Statement

Section 6.

Problem Description

References

Recommendation

Post-Implementation Support Plans: to be filled in by PM and Team Leaders

Identify plans for post-implementation activities after project closeout. Refer to the Benefits
Realization review gate for information about the Post-Implementation Review of Business
Outcomes deliverable.

Action

Planned Date

Assigned To

Frequency

Post-Implementation Review of Business Outcomes

(actual review)
Post-Implementation Review of Business Outcomes
(approval)

Section 7.

Open Issues: to be filled in by all team members listed in section 4

Describe any open issues and plans for resolution within the context of project closeout. Include
an open issue for any no responses in the Final Product and/or Service Acceptance Checklist
and the Project Artifacts Checklist sections.
Issue

Planned Resolution

Project Closeout Template from NYU, (2015). www.nyu.edu

APPROVAL
DOCUMENT APPROVED BY: _________________________ ON __________________________________

Rationale Statement:
These estimates are based off of information from Case Study 1: Scott Allen. The assumptions are as
follows:
SchoolsOnline has assembled teams based on past successful projects (3 writers, 4 designers, 2
developers)
Assuming constant SME presence and availability/ as well as board availability
Assuming 32 draft briefs were finished prior to project start
Assuming team will work 100% of 6 of 8 hour day
Assume 70% learning curve
Assume first learning object takes 60 hours to create and serves as template for following 14
learning objects. (This is a fixed cost)
Some figures are guesses and will be verified at check points to adjust according to best
information
The writing team is employed by SchoolsOnline, and were compensated for 32 drafts prior to
project kickoff

Gordon Anderson is employed by SchoolsOnline

Travel costs were incurred prior to project kick off and are not included in budget costs, as this
meeting was required in order to decide project feasibility

References

Chapman, B., (2010). How long does it take to create learning? [Research Study]. Published by
Chapman
Alliance
LLC.
www.chapmanalliance.com.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.slideshare.net/bchapman_utah/how-long-does-it-take-to-createlearning?ref=http://www.chapmanalliance.com/howlong/
Ertmer, P., Quinn, J., Glazewski, K., (2014). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Evans, M., (n.d.). Course 19: Managing projects. Retrieved from www.exinfm.com/training
Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects!
(Laureate custom Ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.
Kaplan, K., Defelice, R., (2009). Time to develop one hour of training. Retrieved
from:https://www.td.org/Publications/Newsletters/Learning-Circuits/Learning-CircuitsArchives/2009/08/Time-to-Develop-One-Hour-of-Training
Litten, D. (2015). PMP certification video primer: Estimate activity durations. Retrieved from:
http://www.pm-primer.com/estimate-activity-durations
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective
instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008).
Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Project Management Docs, (n.d) Free Project Management Templates. Retried from
http://www.projectmanagementdocs.com/project-documents.html
Wiley, D., (2010). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a
metaphor and a taxonomy. Retrieved from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc