E-Learning Maturity Model

The e-learning Maturity Model (eMM) was developed by Stephen Marshall at the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. It provides a means by which institutions can assess and compare their capability to sustainably develop, deploy and support e-learning. The eMM is based on the ideas of the Capability Maturity Model and SPICE (Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination) methodologies.

The underlying idea that guides the development of the eMM is that the ability of an institution to be effective in any particular area of work is dependent on their capability to engage in high quality processes that are reproducible and able to be extended and sustained as demand grows. Capability, in the context of this model, refers to the ability of an institution to ensure that e-learning design, development and deployment is meeting the needs of the students, staff and institution. Capability includes the ability of an institution to sustain e-learning support of teaching as demand grows and staff change.

The eMM divides the capability of institutions to sustain and deliver e-learning up into five major categories or process areas:

1. Learning - Processes that directly impact on pedagogical aspects of e-learning
2. Development - Processes surrounding the creation and maintenance of e-learning resources
3. Support - Processes surrounding the oversight and management of e-learning
4. Evaluation - Processes surrounding the evaluation and quality control of e-learning through its entire lifecycle
5. Organisation - Processes associated with institutional planning and management

Processes define an aspect of the overall ability of institutions to perform well in the given process area, and thus in e-learning overall. The advantage of this approach is that it breaks down a complex area of institutional work into related sections that can be assessed independently and presented in a comparatively simple overview without losing the underlying detail.

Capability in each process is described by a set of practices organised by dimension. The eMM supplements the CMM concept of maturity levels, which describe the evolution of the organisation as a whole, with five dimensions (Delivery; Planning; Definition; Management; and Optimisation).

The key idea underlying the dimension concept is holistic capability. Rather than the eMM measuring progressive levels, it describes the capability of a process from these five synergistic perspectives. An organization that has developed capability on all dimensions for all processes will be more capable than one that has not. Capability at the higher dimensions that is not supported by capability at the lower dimensions will not deliver the desired outcomes; capability at the lower dimensions that is not supported by capability in the higher dimensions will be ad-hoc, unsustainable and unresponsive to changing organizational and learner needs.

The key web site is http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/ Updates appear on the eMM Blog

Status

The eMM has evolved since its initial conception (2003). This evolution was informed by an initial assessment of capability in the New Zealand sector (2005), extensive consultation and workshops in New Zealand, Australia and the UK, and an extensive literature review examining a wide set of heuristics, benchmarks and e-learning quality research (2006). As well as a significantly improved set of processes and practices, the current version of the eMM differs most significantly in the change from levels of process capability to dimensions.

The methodology has been and is being deployed in Australia, New Zealand, UK and US.

eMM and ACODE

Within Australasia there are two major, different, but complementary benchmarking tools in use: the ACODE benchmarks for e-learning in universities and the eMaturity Model (eMM).

The eMM is widely used in the New Zealand context and has largely been funded by government agencies. The ACODE benchmarks have had greater use in Australia and have been focused on institutional self-assessment.

Both these methodologies were early developments and have been used to considerable effect across the higher education sectors in both New Zealand and Australia (Keppell, M. e.a., p.21). An analysis of the similarities and differences in topic coverage between the ACODE Benchmarks and version 2.3 of the eMM was made by Stephen Marshall.

References

Marshall, S. (2009) ACODE Benchmarks - eMM version 2.3 Concordance. Report to the Australasian Council of Open and Distance Education. Wellington, NZ, Victoria University of Wellington.

Keppell, M., Suddaby, G., Hard, N. (2011) Good practice report: technology-enhanced learning and teaching. Australian Learning & Teaching Council.

---

> Benchmarking
>> Main Page