1. A New Cost Analysis Model for Networked Learning Charlotte Ash Sheffield Hallam University, UK

2. Introduction  Charlotte Ash, Professor Paul Bacsich and three other researchers  Sheffield Hallam University, UK  6 month study  Funded by the JISC, part of the Funding Council for Higher Education in the UK  Aim - to produce a planning document and financial schema that together accurately record the Hidden Costs of Networked Learning

3. Terminology  Networked Learning  synonymous with ‘online learning’ and ‘technology enhanced learning’  Hidden Costs  costs which are fundamentally unrecorded (staff and student personally incurred costs) or absorbed into larger budgets (and consequently can not be attributed an individual activity)

4. Examples of Hidden Costs  Increased telephone call bills for students due to Internet usage to access lecture notes, course conferencing and assignments  Entertainment expenses incurred by academic staff at conferences but not reimbursed by the Institution  The usage of research funding to bolster teaching resources - or visa versa

5. Distance Learning to Networked Learning  Long tradition of costing open and distance learning  Greville Rumble (1997), Tony Bates (1995)  DL born out of need to reach greater numbers of students than capable using conventional methods  NL is an extension of DL for the Information Age  In addition, the educational climate dictates that conventional classroom-based models need to be costed too

6. Moonen’s Barriers to Costing  No agreement about which costs to take into account  Reliable data unavailable - no systematic collecting  Costs are unstable and evolving  Some data is confidential and not publicly available Moonen, 1997 Bacsich et al, 1999  Each previous methodology uses a different vocabulary - therefore we need to uniform the structure before analysis can take place

7. We found these barriers to Networked Learning  Lack of training in new technologies  Lack of transparent tools  Lack of pedagogical evidence to support a move  Lack of standards  Lack of water-proof network

8. And these barriers to costing  Reluctance to consider timesheets  Reluctance to acknowledge overtime  Inconsistency and non-granularity of internal accounting  Worries about the move to Activity Based Costing  Inhibition of innovation once the costs are know  “Cost of Costing”  “Cost of having done the Costing”

9. CNL proposed...  Three schema to assist the recording of costs:  A Course Lifecycle Model  A Financial Schema  A Planning Documents  Each will be presented and followed by discussion on the key issues

10. The Course Lifecycle Model

11.  Cost items recorded from literature  Current educational costing models analysed  Traditional financial accounting deemed inappropriate for exposing hidden costs  Consultation with academic staff at SHU  Five stage cyclic model proposed  With three stage human resources model

12. The five-phase model

13. Lifecycle model - testing  During the Institutional interviews  academics, management and administrators  At a one day workshop  experts in online learning from education and industry A three-phase model was proposed...

14. Course Lifecycle Model Planning and Development Production and Delivery Maintenance and Evaluation Three-phase model of course development

15. Breakdown of three- phase model

16. Discussion Points  How well does this model resonate with your view of the course lifecycle?  Is it simple enough to promote usage or in its simplicity does it overlook the main areas of importance?  What changes need to be made to make this course lifecycle model comprehensive and acceptable to those who will use it?

17. Financial Schema and Planning Document

18. The Financial Schema  Traditional financial model underpinning the UK HE sector is defective in four ways: No Stakeholders Crude Overhead Allocation No Division of Academic Time No Account of Individual Activities

19. Planning Document and Financial Schema Multi-level Activity-Based Costing Flexible Overheads Three-phase Course Lifecycle Model Based on previous works Multi-stakeholder Time Division Time recording

20. Financial schemas analysed  Analysed around 10 different schemas  Opted for an Activity Based Costing system  Based the schema on the 1997 KPMG and Joint Funding Councils work  Factored in the 1999 Flashlight Cost Analysis Handbook  Also included work by other authors in the area

21. Financial Schema  See paper for examples of costs in each category

22. Planning Framework  Based on HEFCE 1999 - an appraisal framework  Factored in the pedagogic framework from Bates (1995)  Forms a series of guidelines for planning Networked Learning activities  Making it apparent when, and which costs, to record

23. Caveats  Further development, consultation and testing is needed  Conventional Teaching and Learning must be costed by the same methodology to allow for comparisons  Need to locate and trial finance software for the new era of Activity Based Costing

24. Discussion  How universal should the methodology be?  Should each institution adopt its own spin on an accepted methodology?  Should international partners be expected to provide the same level of information for joint activities?  Will there be sector-wide analysis of the costing information provided or should it be for internal purposes only, except when jointly agreed upon by those involved?

25. Top Level Conclusions

26. From the Study In order to accurately record the Costs of Networked Learning you must have a universally accepted method of what costs to record and how in place from the start which takes into account all stakeholders

27. From the Literature Much of the literature formed interesting background reading but failed to travel far enough towards operational conclusions to be taken (individually) as a basis The KPMG, and later JPCSG, work was of interest - as was the US Flashlight work Examples were taken from the training sector for their focus on Activity Based Costing

28. From the Sectoral Survey The survey established that Networked Learning is taking place - quite extensively- in the UK There is no accepted method of what to record and how - or even whether costs should be recorded

29. From the Case Studies Six Universities chosen from the survey to represent the sector, plus Sheffield Hallam University Networked Learning is mainly delivered by a small number of enthusiasts but pockets of innovation are starting to influence a wider audience Universities were moving towards Networked Learning for similar reasons - improving access and quality without increasing costs

30. The Future

31. Further Work  CNL Phase Two - starts May 2000  Takes theoretical framework and develops practical handbook - trails in three departments and faculties  Moving into other areas - the real cost of IT, business models for learning, etc.  Moving into the evaluation of effectiveness - substantial work within the FE sector

32. Details about the project can be found at - http://www.shu.ac.uk/virtual_campus/cnl/ Thank you for listening