Business Case: Continuous Student Feedback System

Business Justification

Background

Portfolio Goals: Guided by the Faculty of Information Technology’s (FIT) mission to increase the key performance index (KPI) that has a connection to student experience and satisfaction, it is upon the portfolio of projects that are projected to maximize student interaction.

Client Context: Monash University is a massive academic institution in Australia, with a total annual revenue that reached nearly AUD2 billion. More than AUD1.8 billion of that is specifically allocated for education and learning activities. FIT annually creates a large capital gain. ESI is looking for up to $1M from the surplus to allocate to capital investments in projects that will enhance the KPI associated with education.

Project Alignment: This project develops a digital mechanism that students can use to submit their feedback on units during the semester, so teaching staff has the possibility to react and change in real time.

KPI Connection: The proposed project is targeted at KPI-EDU-01 (Ranking higher for overall experience in the QILT Student Experience Survey compared to the average Go8) and KPI-EDU-02 (Incrementing student average building SETU score to 4.5) through a platform that allows concerns to be voiced by students quickly and then addressed.

Values: The project aligns effectively with Monash University’s promise to offer students an exceptional learning experience and is focused on creating a culture of continuing development of teaching and learning.

Current Situation and Problem/Opportunity Statement

Problem: The current system of obtaining student feedback by use of the single-SETU survey has, to some extent, limitations. The input should be too late in the semester, so it cannot be actionable; students need to see insight into how their feedback could be utilized, and the teaching team cannot get continuous feedback to make timely adjustments.

Opportunity: The FIT continues a looping feedback system, which allows it to address students’ needs and efficiency issues in a timely manner, and this shows its intention of using students’ voices as drivers for improving the learning environment.

Value Delivery: Through improving student experience and boosting satisfaction rates, this project provides a meaningful and lasting contribution to FIT’s efforts in getting and maintaining talented students, building its reputation, and reaching its strategic goals.

Consider: Issuing the problem and the opportunity in a way that these real users would feel the need and impact of this collaborative and responsive feedback process is cited.

Analysis of Options

Option 1: Establish continuous feedback on the student’s mode in Moodle.

The first option is to integrate an in-house real-time system of continuous feedback into Moodle by developing a module or a plugin that allows students to transmit input on a range of issues about the unit any time during the semester, with teaching teams being able to see it and react instantly (Monash University, n.d.). This option, which tackles the problem of prompt feedback and instant responses, at the same time, emphasizes the role of the class as an open forum for students to express their concerns. Thus, it is very helpful for those who might be shy or unsure of themselves in class.

Option 2: Provides integration with any third-party feedback platform.

Another line of action to think about would be joining a known feedback application platform. In this way, we will use a feedback solution that is available on the market and fit it together with Moodle, and thus, students will provide their feedback through an additional online platform (Driscoll & Cadden, 2010). Nevertheless, the issue arises as it provides a continuous communication channel; however, the students and staff may be required to navigate between Mooodle and the external feedback system that is created. Furthermore, there could be some equity and accessibility issues if the third-party platform does not ensure that standards of accessibility are fully met, as some students might not have full control over providing feedback effectively. However, integration of an already non-existent feedback platform into Moodle might be considered a relatively easy option in comparison to the construction of a brand new efficient feedback system within Moodle as such.

Option 3: Reinforce the status quo through the SETU mechanism.

An alternative technique should be introduced to strengthen the SETU student Evaluation of Teaching Unit (SETU) process. This could be in the form of remodeling the current SETU as various feedback cycles could be approved throughout the semester other than that with which the semester ends (Pozo Sánchez et al., 2020). In this model, the teaching staff would get every piece of feedback given to them, implement the changes, and share evidence of the same with students, creating a feedback loop. While the partial solution for the problem of lack of time for continuous feedback is given by this method, it is not the case that the important changes cannot be implemented until the very end of the semester if the system does not provide the desired level of responsiveness (Driscoll & Cadden, 2010). At the same time, the already existing SETU process depends on the students’ self-giving; the feedback may not be successful in practicing the voices of students who are disinterested or marginalized in the group. Nevertheless, this type of strategy affords a seamless and accessible mode of feedback for all students and prevents difficulties that integrating external platforms might create. Making SETU more robust is a phased process that moves on from the present system.

Recommendation

Option 1: Implement a custom-built continuous feedback system within Moodle.

Justification:

Developing a custom feedback tool integrated within Moodle offers several advantages. It provides a seamless and integrated experience for students and staff within the existing learning management system they are already familiar with. Additionally, building a custom solution allows for greater flexibility and customization to meet the specific needs of FIT and its stakeholders rather than trying to adopt an off-the-shelf product (Driscoll & Cadden, 2010). Perhaps most importantly, ensuring accessibility and equity by building on the existing Moodle platform, which already adheres to relevant accessibility standards, avoids potential barriers that could arise from integrating an external third-party feedback system. With a custom Moodle integration, FIT can create a tailored feedback process while maintaining a consistent and equitable experience for all users.

Ethical considerations and implications

• Privacy and data security: Ensure that students’ feedback is incredibly well-guarded. This might be by blocking their comments and guaranteeing that personal data is protected.
• Transparency and accountability: Ensure there are detailed methods of feedback processing and reporting back to the students. This way, there will be absolute transparency and trust.
• Potential for bias or discrimination: People must be allowed the opportunity to raise this concern if they feel that the practice of giving feedback to students and teaching staff is a form of unequal treatment to individual students or teaching staff.

Project and Deliverable Description

Deliverables:

• A custom Moodle plugin or module for continuous student feedback.
• Integration with existing Moodle infrastructure and data systems.
• Documentation and training materials for students and staff.
• Processes and workflows for reviewing, responding to, and communicating feedback.

Characteristics:

• Accessibility: Implementing WCAG 2.1 accessibility requirements to allow the system to be used by all users, including those with disabilities and special needs.
• Usability: Intuitive and user-friendly interface, full of clear instructions and tips for providing and responding to feedback.
• Scalability: Ability to deal with a large volume of feedback submissions and replies across a large number of sections and teaching teams.
• Reflect on User/stakeholder Needs: By implementing the proposed deliverables, learners’ requirements for fast and working feedback, together with the instructors’ demand for timely and useful information to improve students’ success during education, are met.

Budget Estimate & Financial Analysis

 Preliminary estimate of the costs involved:

Justification: The prediction is based on the IT contractor rates table provided by HAYS and considers competencies and experience in software development, integration, and project management. The custom development process allows FIT to receive a tailor-made solution that satisfies FIT’s specifications, and the contingency factor is a cushion that covers possible unanticipated expenses.

Summary:

Initial investment: $275,000

Projected benefits (based on increased student retention and improved QILT ranking):

Year 1: $100,000

Year 2: $200,000

Year 3 and beyond: $300,000 per year

NPV (5year horizon, 8% discount rate): $572,510.72

ROI: 10819%

Long-term Value and Nonfinancial Benefits

The feedback mechanism is expected to attain a large-scale value after the project is complete, irrespective of the initial investment. To develop a habitual improvement culture and directly respond to students, FIT can boost general recognition and attract more talented pupils (Richardson, 2005). Also, increased student satisfaction and retention rates would result in increased revenue and sustainability for the institution.

Nonfinancial benefits include:

• Strengthened relationships and trust between students and teaching staff.
• A more inclusive and equitable learning environment that values diverse student voices.
• Increased faculty-wide adoption of best practices in teaching and learning.
• Demonstration: I demonstrated my budget estimation and financial analysis to my tutors during the applied class on [DATE] and received confirmation that my analysis meets the minimum requirements.

Schedule Estimate

Timeline: The project is expected to be completed within 12 months from the contract start date, with a go-live date of [DATE].

Milestones:

Feasibility:

Although the Agile approach carries the advantage of having the capability to change, the risk of falling behind might still occur and affect the project timeline. Different occurrences of delays might stem from the rift in the requirements phase or from the poorly managed stakeholder engagement process. Apart from that, unanticipated technical problems or difficulties of integration may occur during this development stage, which will require an extra period of time and work (Johnson et al., 2019). As an action-oriented method to avoid these dangers, an individual project manager will be assigned to supervise the team and workforce involved in establishing the continuous feedback system (Richardson, 2005). Such would aid in the building of the prerequisites, smoothen out the kinks, and boost the execution of the tasks at hand.

Moreover, an extra 10% cover has been allowed in the financial section to deal with unexpected delays and possibly additional human resources that may occur. The pre-emptive approach enables the teams to have an option to remedy the problem during the early stages of the project without having a big effect on the deadline. You have successfully graduated past this distraction, and you can now focus on driving.

Development Approach

Approach: The project will follow an Agile development methodology, specifically the Scrum framework, with iterative development cycles and continuous stakeholder involvement.

Justification

In light of the project’s continuous feedback system, an Agile approach using the Scrum framework will be most appropriate. As a software development project with changing requirements and high user interaction, Agile methodologies will provide the flexibility and responsiveness required (Johnson et al., 2019). Scrum stresses constant communication with stakeholders and the use of feedback mechanisms that perfectly match the objectives of the project. Sprint review and demos will allow the students, teaching staff, and any other stakeholders to offer input directly, and the system will be improved iteratively through this process (Around Agency, 2023). Additionally, FIT has an underlying knowledge of Agile methodologies and the ability to organize cross-functional teams with the appropriate skills and competencies to manage Scrum successfully. The Scrum iterative nature, at the same time, melds with the project’s budgetary and time frame constraints, making a continuous delivery of value and adaption as required possible throughout the development process.

Uncertainty & Risk Analysis

Measurement & Quality Metrics 

References

Driscoll, J., & Cadden, D. (2010). Student Evaluation Instruments: The Interactive Impact Of Course Requirement, Student Level, Department And Anticipated Grade. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE), 3(5). https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v3i5.424

HAYS. (2024). Discover Salary Trends in our 2023 Salary Guide | Hays – Hays UK – Hays PLC. Hays UK. https://www.hays.co.uk/salary-guide/digital-guide

Johnson, A., Jacovina, M., Russell, D., & Soto, C. (2019). Challenges and Solutions When Using Technologies in the Classroom. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED577147.pdf

Monash University. (n.d.). SETU. Enterprise Intelligence and Insights. https://www.monash.edu/enterprise-intelligence-and-insights/setu

Pozo Sánchez, S., López-Belmonte, J., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., Sola Reche, J. M., & Fuentes Cabrera, A. (2020). Effect of Bring-Your-Own-Device Program on Flipped Learning in Higher Education Students. Sustainability, 12(9), 3729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093729

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099193

Financial Exhibits

Key Takeaway: The financial feasibility of the project, including calculations of Net Present Value (NPV) and Return on Investment (ROI), demonstrates the potential long-term value and profitability of the proposed initiative.