XCRI Readiness
In addition to the XCRI Self-assessment Framework and the Guide to Implementation, this section summarizes the method used by the XCRI Implementation Models (XIM) project to review a learning provider’s readiness for XCRI implementation.
Using elements from the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), the XCRI Implementation Models project developed a method to characterize an organization’s management of course advertising information. It describes the approach to processing and publication by assessing the organization’s position on a range of scales covering technical, process, information management, data analysis, resourcing, expertise, and other factors. This assessment, based on previous experience, formed a picture of the organization’s “XCRI readiness” and provided a framework for identifying problems and solutions.
XCRI Readiness Characteristics
| ID | Attribute | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Start | 0 | |
| 1 | Number of courses | Very Large |
| 2 | Complexity of provision | Highly Varied |
| 3 | Number of sources | Multiple |
| 4 | Quality of authoring | Poor |
| 5 | Data structures | Poorly defined |
| 6 | Update frequency | Less than once/year |
| 7 | Audit trail | None |
| 9a | Centralisation (UG) | Mostly decentralised |
| 9b | Centralisation (PG) | Mostly decentralised |
| 10 | Process capability | Ad hoc |
| 11 | Technical capability | Low |
| 12 | Organisational context | Hostile |
| 13 | Resources | Minimal |
Table 1: XCRI Readiness Characteristics
The scales of characteristics were designed similarly to CMMI, running from 0 to 4, where 4 is the most favorable. Most organizations’ values ranged from 0 to 3, with relatively few at 3.
For each attribute, a judgment was made regarding the organization’s position based on previous evaluations. The scales were operated by a single person during the XIM project, ensuring a consistent approach. Definitions are provided for each value on the scale.
Attribute Definitions
| ID | Attribute | Scale Values |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Number of courses | >500, 200-499, 50-199, 10-49, <10 |
| 2 | Complexity of provision | Ranges from large, complex programs with varied routes to simple single-type courses |
| 3 | Number of sources | Ranges from an unknown number of multiple sources to a single authoritative source |
| 4 | Quality of authoring | From poor (lacking quality control) to excellent (complete and correct information) |
| 5 | Data structures | From poorly defined, non-normalized, and poorly documented, to fully normalized, coherent, and well-documented structures |
| 6 | Update frequency | From less than once per year to continuous updates |
| 7 | Audit trail | From no audit trail to trackable and reversible updates for each significant field |
| 9a | Centralisation (UG) | UG data ranging from decentralised across departments to fully centralised |
| 9b | Centralisation (PG) | PG data ranging from decentralised to fully centralised |
| 10 | Process capability | From “ad hoc” process management to quantitatively managed processes with statistical control |
| 11 | Technical capability | From no technical skills to all required technical skills readily available |
| 12 | Organisational context | From a hostile environment to full commitment at all levels of the organisation |
| 13 | Resources | From minimal to abundant resources available for successful implementation |
Table 2: XCRI Readiness Attribute Scales
For each attribute, the most desirable value for XCRI readiness is the rightmost. The first three attributes (number of courses, complexity, and sources) are generally fixed and cannot be adjusted to aid implementation, while the remaining attributes are under the organization’s control, though not necessarily within the control of course advertising managers.
A diagrammatic representation of these attributes was used during the XIM project to compare factors and organizations. A template developed in Excel allowed for easy visual comparison, with larger areas of blue indicating greater readiness for XCRI implementation.
Minimum Characteristics for XCRI Readiness
A diagram of suggested minimum required characteristics for XCRI implementation shows that:
- Number of Courses, Complexity of Provision, and Number of Sources are fixed (value=0)
- Quality of Authoring and Data Structures are at medium to high levels to support transformation and mapping to XCRI
- Update Frequency and Audit Trail should exist in some form
- Some centralisation of data is preferable to avoid overly complex internal feeds
- Processes for supplying course advertising information externally should be capable of change
- Knowledge of relevant technologies and a willingness to initiate the implementation should be present, along with adequate resources.
Elements can be increased to compensate for deficiencies elsewhere. For example, if technical capability is lacking, resources could be allocated to buy in consultants or train staff. If data collection is highly centralised, new processes for XCRI outputs may be easier to design and deliver.
Figure 3: Minimum Characteristics for XCRI Readiness
Last Updated: Wednesday, 14 September 2011, 14:00
