10.3.2 Budgeting got Continuous Improvement

This topic addresses differences between traditional one-and-done learning design projects and the different paradigm of learning engineering calling for continuous (or continued) improvement after a learning product is first released.

From the Learning Engineering Toolkit

The Learning Engineering Toolkit does not present a PMBOK-style budgeting methodology, but it does directly address why funding a learning engineering solution differs from funding a one-and-done project. Its implementation checklist frames the budget domain around whether there is enough funding in place to support not merely launch but continued, sustained operation, and it lays out that a budget has to account for staffing, the technology and other materials involved, training, the rollout itself, monitoring, and later expansion [LET-16]. In other words, budgeting reaches well beyond the initial build.

The Toolkit is explicit that funding the creation stage is not enough. It points out that paying for the build is only one piece of actually putting a solution into practice, and it urges teams to check whether their funding source will hold steady beyond the research or pilot period so the solution can grow and reach additional users [LET-16]. A recurring failure it describes is having the money to develop, test, and pilot something while never seriously planning for growth and expansion until it is too late to do so [LET-16]. The Open edX example illustrates budgeting for the long term: from its inception the plan was to scale to thousands of courses and millions of students, and the team calculated a per-student and per-course return on investment to justify continued expansion [LET-16].

This budgeting-for-the-long-term posture aligns with learning engineering's commitment to continued improvement after release. The Toolkit describes data collection and review as a continuing activity that carries on while products and content are in real-world use, with fresh cycles of the learning engineering process kicked off as new insights emerge [LET-16]. It also frames continuous improvement as a shared team responsibility: in the iterating team function, every member is expected to help drive ongoing improvement by weighing what is working in the current cycle and spotting the difficulties or openings that the next one may present [LET-10]. Sustained funding makes those cycles possible; the Zambia case study, for instance, was funded for its full five years with a plan to transition administration of the platform to a local institution afterward [LET-16].

Sources from the Learning Engineering Toolkit

[LET-10]Dina Kurzweil & Erin S. Barry (2023). Chapter 10: Tools for Teaming. In Jim Goodell & Janet Kolodner, Learning Engineering Toolkit (pp. 255–267). Routledge / Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9781003276579
[LET-16]Jodi Lis, Jessie Chuang & Jordan Richard Schoenherr (2023). Chapter 16: Implementation Tools. In Jim Goodell & Janet Kolodner, Learning Engineering Toolkit (pp. 347–359). Routledge / Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9781003276579

10.3.2 Budgeting got Continuous Improvement

From the Learning Engineering Toolkit

Sources from the Learning Engineering Toolkit

Further Reading

Organizations, Conferences & Journals

Programs & Initiatives