Open ECBCheck Manuel: Low cost, community based certification for E-learning in Capacity Building

Full text

Open ECBCheck -
Low cost, community
based certification for
E-learning in Capacity
Building
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, University Duisburg-Essen,
Mai 2010
Reference: Ehlers, U.-D. (2010): Open ECBCheck - Low cost, community
based certification for E-learning in Capacity Building
Correspondence address: Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg | Baden-Württemberg Cooperative State University
Friedrichstraße 14, 70174 Stuttgart
Deutschland | Germany
mail: ehlers@dhbw.de | ulf.ehlers@googlemail.com
skype: ulf.ehlers
web: www.dhbw.de | www.ulf-ehlers.net

0OCFIBMGPG
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Umschlag.indd 1 11.05.10 10:33

10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Umschlag.indd 2 11.05.10 10:33

Open ECBCheck
Low cost, community based certifi cation for
E-learning in Capacity Building
A Reader by Ulf Ehlers
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd III 11.05.10 10:16

IV
Preface

Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General,
gave a speech on 20 November 2001 on the occasion
of the launch of the United Nations Information and
Communication Technologies Task Force, in which
he addressed the wider potentials of ICT:
“The new technologies that are changing our world are not
a panacea or a magic bullet. But they are, without doubt,
enormously powerful tools for development. They create
jobs. They are transforming education, health care, com-
merce, politics and more. They can help in the delivery of
humanitarian assistance and even contribute to peace and
security.”
New media and e-learning are now playing a decisive role. They
have opened up entirely new opportunities for education and the
sharing of information and knowledge. “Electronically-supported
learning” or e-learning benefi ts from a wide variety of multime-
dia technologies, especially the Internet, which make it independ-
ent of place and time, and help make education more accessible
for disadvantaged people.
InWEnt has been working in the fi eld of Capacity Building
for E-Learning for almost ten years and all over the world. While
the fi rst years were centred mainly on e-didactics, content devel-
opment and e-learning technology, the focus has evolved towards
e-learning strategy and management as well as quality and accredi-
tation in e-learning.
As a consequence, InWEnt, in cooperation with the European
Foundation for Quality in E-Learning (EFQUEL), has initiated a
process that aims at defi ning and agreeing on international qual-
ity standards for Capacity Building in E-Learning.
Last but not least, InWEnt is especially proud of having moti-
vated the building of an international community of e-learning
practitioners who are actively involved in the enhancement of the
programme mentioned above. As a member of the international
advisory board of the Open ECB check initiative, together with a
consortium of leading development organisations, InWEnt is con-
tributing to the establishment of the international Quality Certifi -
cate for E-Learning in Capacity Building.
This publication explains the background for the development
of this quality label in consecutive steps. It covers the fi rst discus-
sions and the analysis of the state-of-the-art of quality in e-learning
and the existing quality concepts; it ends with a description of the
quality label for e-learning in Capacity Building.
It is of interest for all readers who would like to know more
about accreditation and quality in e-learning. It also gives insights
into the architecture and organisation of the “Open ECBCheck”
label – an open, community-based approach which will be continu-
ously improved through peer collaboration and bench-learning.
Günter Podlacha & Monika Soddemann
InWent E-Learning Center
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd IV 11.05.10 10:16

V
Table of Content
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ VII
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... VIII
1 The Rising Need for Quality ............................................................................... 9
1.1 Quality and Assessment: The Gap in eCapacity Building .............................. 9
1.2 The Development Methodology of Open ECBCheck ........................................ 10
1.3 Preview of the Book ................................................................................................. 10
2 Shifting Grounds – The State of Theory & Research for Quality in
eCapacity Building ................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Capacity Building ....................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Building blocks of What we Call Capacity Building ......................................... 14
2.3.1 Building Block 1: How CB is Embedded in an Organization ............................. 14
2.3.2 Building Block 2: Time Frame .................................................................................. 14
2.3.3 Building Block 3: Educational Sector .................................................................... 15
2.3.4 Building Block 4: Geographic Scope ...................................................................... 19
2.4 The Landscape of Capacity Building Organizations ......................................... 19
2.4.1 Type and Scope of Organization ............................................................................. 20
2.4.2 E-Learning Strategies of Capacity Building Organizations ............................. 21
2.5 Do we Talk About Programmes or Courses? ....................................................... 22
2.6 A Summary of Requirements for Quality in Capacity Building ..................... 23
3 Quality in E-Learning: A Study of the Needs and Requirements
of the Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 24
3.1 Methodology and Overall Design of the Study.................................................. 24
3.2 Choice of Sample ....................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Description and Analysis of Results ...................................................................... 26
3.3.1 Results of the Questionnaires.................................................................................. 26
3.3.2 Results of the Interviews .......................................................................................... 29
3.4 A Snapshot Summary of the Needs for Quality ............................................... 31
3.5 “Make it low cost and community based!” –
Overall Requirements for a Quality Label ........................................................... 31
4 How Open ECBCheck is Rooted in
Successful International Standards and Certifi cates ......................... 34
4.1 EFMD CEL...................................................................................................................... 35
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd V 11.05.10 10:16

VI
4.1.1 Description of EFMD CEL .......................................................................................... 35
4.2.1 Assessment of EFMD CEL .......................................................................................... 37
4.2 European University Quality in eLearning (UNIQUe) ....................................... 37
4.2.1 Description of UNIQUe .............................................................................................. 37
4.2.2 Assessment of UNIQUe ............................................................................................. 39
4.3 D-ELAN DELZert ......................................................................................................... 39
4.3.1 Description of D-ELAN DELZert .............................................................................. 39
4.3.2 Assessment of D-LAN DELZert ................................................................................ 40
4.4 ISO/IEC 19796-1 ......................................................................................................... 41
4.4.1 Description of ISO/IEC 19796-1 .............................................................................. 41
4.4.2 Assessment of ISO/IEC 19796-1 ............................................................................. 41
4.5 Conclusion on Assessment of Existing Standards and Labels ....................... 42
5 Development of the Certifi cate ......................................................................... 43
5.1 Architecture and Organization of the Open ECBCheck Quality Label
as a Community Based Peer-Review Process .................................................... 43
5.2 Selected Methods for Quality Development in Open ECBCheck .................. 45
5.3 Governance of the Open ECBCheck Label........................................................... 48
5.3.1 Organizational Structure of Open ECBCheck ..................................................... 48
5.3.2 Certifi cation Process ................................................................................................. 49
5.4 Selection, Adoption and Development of the
Quality Criteria Frameworks ................................................................................... 51
5.4.1 Development Methodology for Quality Criteria Catalogues
of Open ECBCheck ...................................................................................................... 51
5.4.2 Quality Criteria for Programme Certifi cation ..................................................... 53
5.4.3 Quality Criteria for Institutional Certifi cation .................................................... 55
6 Final Conclusions .................................................................................................... 57
References ................................................................................................................................... 58
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 62
About the author ...................................................................................................................... 64
InWEnt – Qualifi ed to Shape the Future ........................................................................ 65
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd VI 11.05.10 10:16

VII
List of Figures
Figure 1 Three levels of Capacity Building ..................................................................................... 13
Figure 2 Four Dimensions of Differentiation for Capacity Building ........................................... 14
Figure 3 e-Learning Territories according to the HELIOS Report
(MENON Network 2007, p. 34) ....................................................................................... 16
Figure 4 e-Learning territories relevant for Capacity Building ................................................... 17
Figure 5 Systematisation of Capacity Building Organizations ..................................................... 20
Figure 6 Three Phases of Innovation Diff usion .............................................................................. 21
Figure 7 “The Open ECBCheck will be a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building.
Please tell us if your organization in principle would be interested to obtain
such a quality label.” n=16 ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 8 “In case you are interested in obtaining a quality label for your e-Learning
activities: Please tell us what kind of label you/your organization would be
interested in.”, n=14 .......................................................................................................... 27
Figure 9 “There are a number of scenarios on how the Open ECBCheck can be used in
the fi eld of Capacity Building. Which ones would be interesting for you?” n=16.... 27
Figure 10 “Now we are interested if you already have quality guidelines/standards for
one or more of the following fi elds?” n=16 ................................................................... 27
Figure 11 “In the following we list motives for obtaining the Open ECBCheck label.
Please tell us from your perspective which of them would be relevant to
your organization. - Mark all relevant motives with an “X” in column
“Relevant? ”” ....................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 12 “In the following we list motives for obtaining the Open ECBCheck label.
Please tell us from your perspective which of them would be relevant to your
organization. Please rate the three most important in column “Importance”
from 1 to 3.”, n=12 ........................................................................................................... 28
Figure 13 Overall Requirements for a Quality Label for e-Learning in Capacity Building ........ 32
Figure 14 EFMD CEL Accreditation Process (EFMD n. d.a, p. 7) ................................................... 36
Figure 15 UNIQUe Certifi cation Process (UNIQUe Project Team 2007, p. 4) .............................. 38
Figure 16 “Qualitätsplattform Lernen” Certifi cation Process (DELZert n. d.) ............................ 40
Figure 17 Architecture of Open ECBCheck ...................................................................................... 44
Figure 18 Exemplary Life-Cycle of an Organization within the Open ECBCheck
community .......................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 19 Certifi cation Process of Open ECBCheck ........................................................................ 49
Figure 20 The increasing fi lter effect for criteria during the process .......................................... 51
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd VII 11.05.10 10:16

VIII
List of Tables
Table 1 Overview on Assessment Results ............................................................ 42
Table 2 Overview of Criteria for Programmes and Courses .............................. 54
Table 3 Overview of Criteria for Institutions ..................................................... 55
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd VIII 11.05.10 10:16

9
Information, knowledge, competencies and education are consid-
ered crucial elements for progress in developing countries, and
serve to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
agreed upon at the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000
by the international community of states. The agreement is com-
prised of a number of measurable goals that include the aims to
signifi cantly decrease poverty, disease, hunger, illiteracy, harm to
the environment as well as the discrimination against woman by
the year 2015. Among others, the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) (2006, pp. 7) views the lack of
adequate country capacity as one of the main obstacles to meeting
the MDGs on time - even if the funding of development efforts is
increased considerably during the following years. This position is
also supported by reports of the Commission for Africa (2005, pp.
135) and Sachs (2005, p. 99). The importance of Capacity Building
is now largely accepted by both donor organizations and partner
countries and has been explicitly articulated in the “Paris Declara-
tion on Aid Effectiveness” (n. a. 2005) which is based on the prior
declaration of the High-Level Forum on Harmonisation in Rome
(n. a. 2003) as well as the results from the Marrakech Roundtable
on Managing for Development Results (n. a. 2004).
Furthermore, the development community largely agrees on
the idea that information and communication technologies (ICTs)
are crucial for development progress and for reaching the MDGs.
Since the publication of “The missing Link”, a report of the Inde-
pendent Commission for World-Wide Telecommunications Devel-
opment, the importance of ICTs for developing countries has been
more accepted. At that time, the focus of interest was mainly put
on the development of (phone) infrastructure, but potential appli-
cations, including education, have already been mentioned. “The
telecommunications system in a developing country can be used
not only to disseminate information of immediate importance on
a national scale, but also as a channel for education, for strength-
ening the social fabric, for enriching the national culture” (Inde-
pendent Commission for World-Wide Telecommunications Devel-
opment 1984, p. 10). The importance of ICTs has since been dis-
cussed not only in terms of infrastructure, but also in terms of
building capacities - for the participation of developing countries
in a modern information society and in digitalised economies.
The Millennium Declaration dating from 2000 acknowledges
the importance of ICTs as a fundamental tool to achieving the
MDGs - that is especially helpful in the alleviation of poverty and
the improvement of education and health, as well as in improv-
ing the accessibility of government services (InWEnt 2005, p. 4).
The World Summit on the Information Society, with a fi rst phase
held in Geneva in 2003 and a second phase in Tunis in 2005, lead
to the agreement on a broad front - that ICTs are vital for devel-
opment progress and that primary education and literacy in ICTs
are essential to enable people to take an active role in the infor-
mation society. The use of ICTs should be strongly promoted at
all stages of education and human resources development accord-
ing to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2003,
pp. 4). Within this context the ITU reports, among others, about
a number of successful applications of e-Learning in developing
countries with a focus on education and learning (ITU, 2007).
However, the application of e-Learning in Capacity Building is
still considered to be in transition between an experimental state
and sustainable implementation, as e-Learning is not yet widely
used (Ehlers et al. 2007, p. 7). One important drawback in the
application of e-Learning for Capacity Building is the situation of
infrastructure and access to ICTs that is needed to effectively use
e-Learning, especially in rural areas that are considered to be one
potential benefi ciary. For instance, dela Pena-Bandalaria (2007,
pp. 1) mentions access to ICTs, divided into physical access to hard-
ware/software and the pre-requisite skills that are needed to use
technology, as well as the cost of access, as two main limiting fac-
tors for the use of ICTs in developing countries. More specifi ca lly,
Johnson and Thomas (2007, p. 456) highlight these constraints
within the context of Capacity Building with electronic distance
education for local governments in Africa.
1.1 Quality and Assessment:
The Gap in eCapacity Building
One potential for e-Learning in Capacity Building that has been
identifi ed in a recent study (Ehlers et al. 2007, p. 58) is the fi eld of
quality management. So far, there is neither transparency about
the quality of e-Learning programmes for Capacity Building, nor
about the quality of the organizations that offer e-Learning in
Capacity Building according to Ehlers et al. The study argues that
quality certifi cation, developed in consensus with a network of
Capacity Building Organizations, could lead to higher trust in the
1 | The Rising Need for Quality
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 9 11.05.10 10:16

10
still developing market of e-Learning for Capacity Building. Obser-
vations by the Operations Evaluation Department of World Bank
(OED) and Whyte support this view. In a report the OED stated that
“many projects have capacity building activities embedded in their
major operational components, but the objectives of these activities
tend to be ill defi ned and their achievement is poorly tracked and
reported” (2005, p. viii). Whyte (2004, p. 9), who conducted a so-
called landscape analysis of donor trends, also agrees that Capac-
ity Building activities “are often embedded in other programmes
and are not tracked separately.”
Within the Open ECBCheck Initiative we have been arguing
that for certain requirements, none of the existing approaches for
quality management or quality certifi cation can be applied one-to-
one to e-Learning in the fi eld of Capacity Building. To fi ll this gap
and to support the application of e-Learning in Capacity Building,
the aim of this book is to develop a quality label based on existing
quality approaches that fi t the special requirements in the context
of Capacity Building. This could lead to; higher trust in e-Learn-
ing for Capacity Building; higher effectiveness of e-Learning pro-
grammes and a broader application of e-Learning in Capacity
Building with an increased impact on development progress.
1.2 The Development Methodo-
logy of Open ECBCheck
In this book, we aim to explain the background for the develop-
ment of a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building in a
number of consecutive steps. First, the context factors for the qual-
ity label are analysed. An extensive literature review assesses the
state of the art of Capacity Building and e-Learning for Capacity
Building. Secondly, to ensure that all important context factors
are included and to fi nd out about requirements for a quality label
by experts of the fi eld, a study is conducted by means of a ques-
tionnaire and follow-up qualitative, explorative interviews with
experts in Capacity Building Organizations - with a fi nal analysis
of the results. The contextual factors derived from literature and
interviews form the requirements for the development of a qual-
ity label. Thirdly, a number of existing quality concepts, namely
UNIQUe, EFMD, CEL, D-ELAN, DELZert and ISO/IEC 19796-1,
are analysed if they (partly) fulfi l the requirements to fi nd out if
parts of the existing approaches may be used as best practice for
the newly developed quality label. In the last step, based on the
contextual factors and requirements as well as input from existing
approaches, a concept for a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity
Building is developed. The basic architecture of the label is sug-
gested, followed by the description of the concept of quality for both
programmes, and institutions. The fi nal part of the quality label
consists of a description of the governance system, including the
certifi cation process for institutions and programmes. Through-
out the book this newly developed concept will be referred to as
Open ECBCheck.
1.3 Preview of the Book
Chapter 2, Analysis of State-of-the-Art Theory, Research and Termi-
nology fulfi ls two requirements within this book. The fundamen-
tal concepts of Capacity Building and Capacity Building Organi-
zation are defi ned and characteristics are discussed based on a
review of existing literature on the topic. Secondly, requirements
for the development of a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity
Building are derived from this context analysis.
Chapter 3, Stakeholder and Market Evaluation, describes the
methodology and overall design of a study to obtain information on
Capacity Building Organizations’ requirements - by using a ques-
tionnaire and a series of extensive expert interviews, and presents
the results as well as the fi ndings on requirements. Based on the
key requirement results from chapters 2 and 3, an overall conclu-
sion on requirements for a quality label for e-Learning in Capac-
ity Building is deduced.
Chapter 4, Assessment of Existing Standards and Certifi cates, pro-
vides the analysis of selected current state-of-the-art quality labels
or certifi cates that are later used in parts, and adopted against the
requirements within the development of the quality label. Firstly,
each quality approach is described including context, relevant gov-
ernance bodies, the certifi cation or accreditation process as well
as the areas covered by its quality criteria. In a second step, each
approach is analysed for whether it fulfi ls the requirements from
the overall requirements model and whether or not parts may be
used as a best practice.
Chapter 5, Development of the Certifi cate, describes and refl ects
on the development of the quality label for e-Learning in Capacity
Building based on an adaptation and adoption of the best practice
approaches analysed in chapter 4 against the requirements. The
architecture and organization of the label with an open, commu-
nity based approach is developed, methods used for quality devel-
opment within the concept are refl ected upon, the governance
structure including governing bodies and a certifi cation process
are conceptualised and the methodology of selection, adoption and
development of quality criteria catalogues is considered.
Chapter 6, Conclusion, summarizes the key fi ndings of this
book and provides an outlook on further research questions. It also
includes critical acclaim for the achievements of the book.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 10 11.05.10 10:16

11
This chapter analyses the context of Capacity Building and Capac-
ity Building Organizations to derive requirements for the devel-
opment of a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building.
The term Capacity Building is defi ned and the current practice of
Capacity Building is characterised in four dimensions; organiza-
tional embedding, time frame, geographic scope and the educa-
tional sector, where a model of “e-Learning territories” (MENON
Network 2007, pp. 34; Delrio and Fischer 2007, p. 4) is adapted for
the context of Capacity Building. Furthermore, Capacity Building
Organizations are characterised in terms of type and scope of the
organization, and a model of innovation theory is used to describe
how e-Learning is integrated into Capacity Building Organizations
(Ehlers et al. 2007, pp. 44). Based on the fi ndings of the analysis,
a preliminary conclusion on requirements is drawn.
This book argues that for certain requirements, existing
approaches for quality management cannot be applied one-to-one
in the fi eld of e-Learning in Capacity Building. One important
source to derive requirements for a quality label for e-Learning in
Capacity Building is a detailed analysis of the context where the
label will be applied. Two concepts need to be discussed in more
detail for this analysis, Capacity Building and Capacity Building
Organizations. First, the concept of Capacity Building needs to
be defi ned and, based on an extensive literature research, how
Capacity Building works in practice and in which educational sec-
tors it can be found is analysed. Four dimensions are used for this
analysis: organizational embedding differentiates between Capac-
ity Building activities that are integrated into larger development
programmes and stand alone activities, time frame considers the
duration of Capacity Building, geographic scope covers the distinc-
tion between local, regional and international Capacity Building
activities and fi nally a model of “e-Learning territories” (MENON
Network 2007) is used to identify the main educational sectors
where Capacity Building can be identifi ed. Secondly, it is important
to analyse the target group for the quality label. The term Capacity
Building Organization is defi ned and organizations are character-
ised by the type of organization, the scope of activities of an organ-
ization and, with the help of a model of innovation diffusion, by
how e-Learning is integrated into the organization. Furthermore,
possible interests that these Capacity Building Organizations
may have in quality management are suggested and discussed.
Additionally, the terms programme and course have to be distin-
guished and defi ned for the context of Capacity Building - in order
to identify exactly what will be the object of quality assurance and
improvement efforts. Based on this discussion, fi rst insights on
requirements are drawn and used for the design of a small study
(chapter 3) that focuses on the requirements that Capacity Build-
ing Organizations have towards a quality label.
2.1 Capacity Building
This chapter introduces the concept of Capacity Building, dis-
cusses different current defi nitions of Capacity Building and
agrees on one comprehensive defi nition as the foundation for this
book. Furthermore, a three level approach to Capacity Building is
described (UNDP 1998, pp. 11) and the crucial concept of owner-
ship (OECD 2006, p. 7) is discussed.
Strategies and approaches for economic development in devel-
oping countries have changed considerably over time. At the
beginning of development assistance the focus was on provid-
ing fi nancial capital as well as engineering capabilities to support
development. In the 1970s, it was realised that the pure amount of
support was not the only key to development, but that the effi ciency
of investments also played an important role. Key determinants
of this effi ciency of investments were the (economic) incentives
that resulted from economic policies in the partner countries and
thus, reform of existing policies came to the fore. Not long after,
it was realised that policies were set on an existing foundation of
2 | Shifting Grounds – The State
of Theory & Research for Quality
in eCapacity Building
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 11 11.05.10 10:16

12
political, state and social institutions and that weaknesses in these
institutions were potential pitfalls for policy change and economic
development (Levy 2004, pp. 4). Therefore, (state) Capacity Build-
ing became of central importance to development efforts. In their
2005 evaluation of World Bank support for Capacity Building in
Africa the Operations Evaluation Department of the World Bank
stated that the performance of the public sector had to be improved
to achieve the goals set for economic growth, poverty reduction as
well as improvements in service delivery for citizens. To achieve
this, countries were required to complement any reforms with
Capacity Building (2005, p. vii). Among others, the OECD sup-
ported this position in their latest report on Capacity Building by
stating, “capacity is important because of its relationship to the
performance of country systems, particularly in delivering basic
goods and services, and providing a suitable policy and regulatory
environment for development to take place” (OECD 2006, p. 12).
Whyte (2004, p. 4) also included universities, research centres as
well as private (start-up) enterprises and service organizations into
the context of Capacity Building. Whyte emphasised that Capacity
Building is crucial to “achieving economic growth, reducing pov-
erty and equalising opportunity” and saw a renewed interest by
the actors in development cooperation (2004, pp. 4).
Defi nitions of Capacity Building
In this context, capacity refers to the “ability of people, organiza-
tions and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully”
according to a defi nition by the OECD (2006, p. 12). A further defi -
nition by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
the United Nations (UN) organization responsible for Capacity
Building issues, highlights that capacity has long-term relevance
and that human resources are a key in Capacity Development,
“capacity is defi ned as the ability of individuals and organizations
or organizational units to perform functions effectively, effi ciently
and sustainably.” This implies that capacity is not a passive state
but part of a continuing process and human resources are central
to Capacity Development (UNDP 1998, p. 10).
The efforts of donors and partner countries to strengthen
capacity are called Capacity Building or Capacity Development, a
term that can be used as a synonym for Capacity Building accord-
ing to Ehlers et al. (2007, p. 15). Nevertheless, in some cases, the
term Capacity Development is considered to be the more compre-
hensive, as it includes the development of whole organizations
or countries opposed to the term Capacity Building - that mostly
refers to education and training (Ehlers et al. 2007, p. 15).
There are numerous defi nitions for Capacity Building or
Capacity Development by different organizations, subsequently,
some will be discussed briefl y as they contain useful insights into
the characteristics of Capacity Building that will be used later
on. The German organization Internationale Weiterbildung und
Entwicklung (InWEnt) refers to Capacity Building in the context
of international development cooperation as further education,
human resources and organizational development. According to
InWEnt, Capacity Building is aimed at strengthening abilities of
partners to enable them to plan and implement sustainable devel-
opment strategies and policies. Further education is, in this case,
seen as one part of human resources development that has the
ability to infl uence the development of complete organizations
(2006, p. 1). The defi nition of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Tech-
nische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) stresses the results of the changes
in Capacity Development in targeting three levels; “The GTZ sees
capacity development as the process of strengthening the abilities
or capacities of individuals, organizations and societies to make
effective and effi cient use of resources, in order to achieve their
own goals on a sustainable basis.” (Gómez 2003, p. 3) This per-
spective will be discussed in more detail later on in this chapter.
The defi nition of OECD also incorporates the three levels of indi-
viduals, organizations and society but also stresses the long-term
aspect, as capacity has not only to be created but also adapted and
maintained over time, “capacity development is understood as
the process whereby people, organizations and society as a whole
unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over
time.” (2006, p. 12)
Ehlers et al. (2007, p. 16) try to concentrate different defi nitions
of Capacity Building in literature and propose the following defi -
nition: “Capacity Building means further education for individu-
als to empower them to shape and take part in their living spaces
as well as giving them the chance to develop competencies that
are needed at their workplace. It refers likewise to the empower-
ment of organizational learning, the development of management
structures as well as the design of legal and political frameworks,
to strengthen the capacity for independent advancement.” This
comprehensive defi nition will be used for this book.
Levels of Capacity Building
In the past, Capacity Building efforts were in most cases focuss-
ing on the development of organizations or individuals. As these
approaches have failed in many cases or did not produce the
desired outcomes - because they did not take into account the infl u-
ence of the broader environment, a more comprehensive approach
to Capacity Building has been proposed by the development com-
munity. The UNDP (1998, pp. 11) proposes three interconnected
levels that have to be taken into account if Capacity Building is to
be considered successful.
The fi rst and highest level is the system, or the so called ena-
bling environment that could cover a whole society or country if a
policy-programme is of national scale (e.g. governance) and has to
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 12 11.05.10 10:16

13
be defi ned at the beginning of a programme. The system can be
comprised of formal and informal organizations that are included
in the defi ned borders according to the UNDP (1998, p. 9).
The second and middle level is called the entity or the organi-
zation. A system could consist of several organizations. These
organizations may be formal (government organizations, minis-
tries), a private sector organization (e.g. companies) or informal
organizations (e.g. volunteer organizations). The UNDP approach
identifi es mission and strategy, culture/structure and competen-
cies, processes, human resources, fi nancial resources, informa-
tion resources and infrastructure as the dimensions of capacity on
the organization level. According to the UNDP, older approaches
to Capacity Building only focused on human resources processes
as well as organizational structure. To be more successful all
dimensions should be taken into account for Capacity Develop-
ment (1998, pp. 12).
The third and last level is the individual person or the member
of an organization. The majority of Capacity Building initiatives
focus on the individual person or small groups of individuals.
These individuals can either be members of the organizations that
are carr ying out the capacity initiative or people that are affected by
the initiative as receivers in any other way (UNDP 1998, p. 14).
This three level approach to Capacity Building is used by
numerous organizations that follow this multi level approach -
even if the three levels are labelled or defi ned slightly differently.
InWEnt (2006, p. 2) for example, uses the three levels; individual,
organization and system to describe their multi level approach.
The GTZ uses the levels people, organizations as well as institu-
tions and policies (Gómez 2003, p. 3). Most organizations also
state that the interconnection between the three levels of Capac-
ity Building is crucial. InWEnt for example, states that further
education as well as human resource and organizational develop-
ment are used on all three levels. According to InWEnt, these lev-
els are interconnected in a systemic way to achieve the best pos-
sible results (2006, p. 2).
Ownership
During recent discussions the idea of ownership has emerged as
yet another important element for the success of Capacity Building.
According to the OECD, ownership means that the roles of donors
and partner countries are redefi ned and that Capacity Building
is to be seen as an endogenous process that has to be lead from
within the partner country. Donors have to play a supporting role
in this process. Political leadership in the partner country as well
as the existing political and governance system are very important
parameters for all efforts to develop capacity (OECD 2006, p. 7).
Whyte (2004, p. 9) mentions one main reason for this trend: in
many cases donors observed that the organizations they had been
supporting failed the moment the external assistance from donors
was withdrawn; “factors such as leadership, local ownership and
nonviable business models” have been identifi ed as important ele-
ments for success in further analysis. This agreement is also fi xed
in the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (n. a., 2005).
According to the declaration, developing countries have the obli-
gation to lead all processes of Capacity Development. This is to be
realised by setting detailed objectives in the form of national devel-
opment plans. Donors, in their supporting role, have committed
themselves to add fi nancial as well as analytical support aligned
to partner countries’ development plans and objectives. Existing
capacities in partner countries have to be used and donors are
committed to harmonizing all support that is directed to Capacity
Building (n. a., 2005). The OECD also discusses a potential chal-
lenge for the ownership approach; a premise for country ownership
of development efforts is the existence of adequate capacity in the
country. If there is not suffi cient capacity in the partner country,
ownership will not emerge (OECD 2006, p. 13).
The relevance of Capacity Building is not only refl ected by the
general agreement of partner countries and donor countries that
Capacity Building is central for economic and political develop-
ment, but also by the amount of funds that are used for Capacity
Building initiatives and programmes. Whyte (2004, p. 8) estimates
that about a quarter of all Overseas Development Assistance (ODA)
is used for Capacity Building, most of which is directed towards
technical cooperation. T he OED states that the World Bank has pro-
vided around $900 million in administrative budget and grants as
well as around $9 billion in lending for Capacity Building between
1995 and 2004 in Africa alone (2005, p. xiii).
Figure 1 Three levels of Capacity Building
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 13 11.05.10 10:16

14
2.2 Building blocks of What
we Call Capacity Building
This chapter analyses the current practice of Capacity Building
activities in four dimensions; organizational embedding, time
frame, geographic scope as well as educational sector - where a
model of “e-Learning territories” (MENON Network 2007, pp. 34;
Delrio and Fischer 2007, p. 4) is adapted for the context of Capac-
ity Building. Based on this characterisation, fi rst requirements are
suggested that are later summarized in chapter 2.6.
To derive requirements for a quality label for e-Learning in
the fi eld of Capacity Building it is necessary to characterise how
Capacity Building works in practice and what methods are used
in Capacity Building. These requirements form the context to
which the quality label and certifi cation process has to be adapted
to. For Capacity Building, four dimensions of differentiation can
be identifi ed: organizational embedding, time frame, educational
context and geographic scope. An overview of these dimensions
is provided in fi gure 2.
Within the following four chapters, these four dimensions of
Capacity Building are discussed in more detail.
2.3.1 Building Block 1:
How CB is Embedded in an Organization
The dimension organizational embedding differentiates between
e-Learning for stand-alone Capacity Building activities and e-Learn-
ing for Capacity Building that is embedded in larger development
programmes.
In many cases, issues of Capacity Building are embedded in
larger development programmes and not addressed as the main or
sole task. The World Bank for instance has Capacity Building activ-
ities included in most of their development projects in Africa but
does not specify special Capacity Building targets for the projects
according to the Operations Evaluation Department of World Bank
(2005, p. viii). Furthermore the OED states that “many projects
have capacity building activities embedded in their major opera-
tional components, but the objectives of these activities tend to be
ill defi ned, and their achievement is poorly tracked and reported”
(2005, p. viii). Nevertheless, the OED identifi es that there are a
small number of World Bank projects that “address capacity build-
ing as the primary project objective, such as the new generation
of multi-sector capacity building projects” (2005, p. XV). Whyte
(2004, p. 9), who conducted a landscape analysis of donor trends,
also agrees that Capacity Building activities “are often embed-
ded in other programmes and are not tracked separately.” For the
purpose of the quality label, the Capacity Building part of a larger
programme could be seen as a programme in itself, as long as
there are defi ned Capacity Building targets within the larger pro-
gramme.
Besides embedded Capacity Building, one can also identify
stand-alone Capacity Building Activities that are not included in
larger development programmes and offered to (for example)
employees or public servants for further education. An example
of this are the International Leadership Training programmes
from InWEnt (2008b) that are offered to experts and executives
from companies and organizations in developing countries to
enable them to initiate and manage change processes in their
countries.
2.3.2 Building Block 2: Time Frame
Capacity Building can be differentiated by the time frame. Here,
one can identify short term and mid/long-term Capacity Build-
ing initiatives.
If Capacity Building is embedded in larger, long-term devel-
opment projects, Capacity Building programmes also tend to be
long-term because they accompany the overall project progress.
Also, funding for Capacity Building indicates the long-term ori-
entation. The OED (2004, p. XVI) mentions that the Institutional
Development Fund (a World Bank programme) supports Capac-
ity Building initiatives for a maximum three years. Whyte also
concludes that Capacity Building is a long-term process (2004,
Figure 2
Four Dimensions of Differentiation for Capacity Building
sEmbedded in Larger Programmes
sStand-alone Capacity Building Activities
Organisational
Embedding
sLong Term Capacity Building Activities
sShort Courses and Programmes
Time Frame
sE-Learning Territories According to HELIOS
Report
Educational
Context
sLocal level
sRegional Level
sInternational Level
Geographic
Scope
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 14 11.05.10 10:16

15
p. 9). But not only programmes included in a larger long-term
background have a longer duration. InWEnt for instance, offers
different International Leadership Training (ILT) programmes
that last for approximately two years (half a year preparation, one
year training based in Germany and half a year knowledge trans-
fer supported by coaching) and that are supported by e-Learning
through virtual working groups during the preparation phase as
well as e-Coaching during the knowledge transfer phase to name
a few examples (InWEnt 2008b).
Nevertheless, individual programmes can be signifi cantly
shorter. InWEnt states that their future education programmes
may last less than one week (InWEnt 2006, p. 4). Whyte (2004, p.
28) also identifi es a number of different modalities that are used
by donors in Capacity Building efforts where the individual activi-
ties range from short term trainings up to long-term advisors (that
also care for training to empower people to take over responsibili-
ties when the advisor leaves the organization) as well as degree
courses from linked universities (one developing country univer-
sity is linked with another university in the donor country).
2.3.3 Building Block 3: Educational Sector
Another important way of categorising Capacity Building is to
differentiate the educational sectors in which Capacity Building
can be found. A quality label has to be able to either include all of
these sectors or it has to be limited to a selected number of sec-
tors. The conclusion by Whyte (2004, p. 10) stating that Capacity
Building initiatives today tend to combine a number of activities
(probably from different educational sectors) within a single ini-
tiative suggests that a quality label should be able to cover vari-
ous educational sectors. Whyte (2004, pp. 10) also summarizes
a large number of methods that are used for Capacity Building:
“Broadly they fall into training and award programmes, study
tours and conferences, twinning arrangements, Centres of Excel-
lence, research or training networks and institutional support to
libraries, ICT, infrastructure, etc.” Relevant to the development of
a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building are the educa-
tion related activities.
Usually, education is classifi ed according to educational lev-
els/stages and/or fi elds of education. As education is very depend-
ent on the country and the local culture, most classifi cations only
apply to individual countries. A renowned international educa-
tional classifi cation is the International Standard Classifi cation of
Education (ISCED) by the United Nations Educational, Scientifi c
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), last revised in 1997, which
is used for “assembling, compiling and presenting statistics of
education” (UNESCO 1997). Nevertheless, there are reasons why
ISCED is not well suited to categorise e-Learning in Capacity Build-
ing. Most activities in Capacity Building belong to further educa-
tion and not to school and degree studies at university, which are
largely covered by ISCED. Another problem is that the multitude
of new e-Learning applications does not fi t into the range of tradi-
tional classifi cations. Furthermore, Delrio and Fischer (2007, p. 1)
argue that on the one hand, many other divisions of e-Learning are
possible (“e.g. by sector, purpose and target group”) that lead to a
growing differentiation of e-Learning and that on the other hand,
the development of technology allows for an increasing number
of scenarios for the use of e-Learning that do not completely fi t
into traditional categories. Based on these observations a model
of e-Learning territories is introduced by the HELIOS Consortium
(MENON Network 2007, pp. 34; Delrio and Fischer 2007, p. 4) to
systematise e-Learning activities.
The model that has been developed to systematise different
fi elds of e-Learning used in Europe can also be helpful if it is
applied as a tool for categorisation in the context of e-Learning for
Capacity Building. Still, it has to be kept in mind that some of the
territories defi ned in this model are not observable in the fi eld of
Capacity Building, and potential additions of new territories for
the use of e-Learning in Capacity Building might have to be con-
sidered. In a fi rst step, the e-Learning territories are described
according to the HELIOS report (MENON Network, 2007) and
in a second step the model is adapted to the context of Capacity
Building.
The report differentiates twelve e-Learning territories (see fi g-
ure 3) that are clustered by different means including the purpose
of e-Learning, the sector of education or training where they are
observable and others that are of “transversal” nature. Each ter-
ritory can be in a different stage of development, some are still
emerging fi elds while others are already in a stage of consolidation
(Delrio and Fischer 2008, pp. 2). The differentiation of the stage of
development of the territories is especially important for Capacity
Building as Capacity Building and e-Learning can be observed in
some of the territories while in others, so far, no Capacity Build-
ing or e-Learning takes place at all. In this chapter, each of the ter-
ritories is analysed for whether e-Learning for Capacity Building
already emerges, whether Capacity Building takes place in a terri-
tory without the use of e-Learning (possible areas where e-Learn-
ing could be introduced as an innovation) and whether there are
territories where no Capacity Building takes place at all.
All territories can be graphically represented in a coordinate
system according to two dimensions. The fi rst dimension is a con-
tinuum from formal learning to informal/non-formal learning. The
second dimension is formed by a continuum from intra-muros
(the transition of a learning group that is formed in presence into
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 15 11.05.10 10:16

16
a virtual environment) and extended learning context that includes
an expansion of “learning contexts, settings, persons and organi-
zations involved” (Delrio and Fischer 2008, pp. 2). An overview is
provided within fi gure 3.
The territory e-Learning at the Workplace includes the use of
ICT for learning in both private companies as well as in agencies
and public administration. E-Learning or learning is carried out
in the form of “structured training programmes fully online or
blended schemes […], e-learning chunks on demand/on the job.”
The authors consider return on investment, fl exibility in training
delivery, contribution to organizational change as well as knowl-
edge management important issues in this territory (MENON Net-
work 2007, pp. 51). Another territory is the use of ICT for Learning
Purposes within Tertiary Education. The territory implies the use of
ICT for learning in universities and colleges as well as in research
centres. The application of e-Learning in this fi eld includes; sin-
gle lectures placed online, courses in a mixed mode between
online and offl ine and whole degrees that can be obtained online
(MENON Network 2007, pp. 44). Virtual Professional Networks are
virtual communities that are aimed at professionals and are used to
facilitate a dialogue on certain issues. These networks are usually
inter-organizational and used as a means to distribute information
and to stay in contact with professionals in a certain fi eld. Within
these communities, learning in the community’s fi eld of interest
is an intended target for participants. Sometimes, as a side effect,
non-professionally related learning is also generated (MENON
Network 2007, pp. 75). Non-professional e-Learning Communities
is a territory closely related to the previous territory. Here, learn-
ing is transferred to the virtual space. The creation of this type of
Figure 3 e-Learning Territories according to the HELIOS Report
(MENON Network 2007, p. 34)
e-Learning could be initiated by training providers which try to
complement courses as well as by grassroots initiatives that share
one or some interests that are in some cases non-professional.
Within these communities, the purpose of learning is recognised
by all of its members. For Capacity Building, especially the comple-
mentation of courses through online communities is one possible
application (MENON Network 2007, pp. 82). The territory Inter-
organizational Development through e-Learning includes the use of
the networking capabilities of e-Learning for cooperation between
different organizations that neither rely on market or hierarchical
mechanisms for coordination. The authors of the HELIOS report
state that collaboration between different organizations has come
into focus because it has been recognised that innovation and shar-
ing of ideas is crucial for success in a global economy (MENON
Network 2007, pp. 78). Another territory of e-Learning is Com-
munities generating e-Learning as a Side Effect. This territory com-
prises virtual communities that do not have learning as a main
objective but regard the connection to other members as their
fi rst goal. Members of these groups share common interests, val-
ues that result from “either geographical or intellectual proximity,
demographic similarity, common hobbies, and belonging to the
same non-governmental organization (NGO) or charity, to name
a few” (ibid.). As a primary result of e-Learning in this case, infor-
mal and in many cases not intentional learning takes place. Often,
chat rooms, forums as well as blogs are the main tools in this ter-
ritory (MENON Network 2007, pp. 85). ICT for Virtual Mobility of
Learners is considered to be an instrument of internationalisation
within the HELIOS report; it is especially aimed at contributing
to the ongoing integration of the European countries. “Constitut-
ing elements of virtual mobility are: transnational lectures and/or
learning materials, cross-border recruitment of students, intensity
of communication fl ows, the international accreditation of learning
achievements, the multilingualism, complementary to both physi-
cal mobility and conventional learning” (MENON Network 2007,
p. 35). The territory Evolved Distance Education includes all educa-
tional settings where a teacher and his/her students are divided by
geographical distance and technology and possible meetings are
the means to bridge the gap. In many instances, distance educa-
tion is used to provide adults with a second chance in obtaining a
qualifi cation, reaching people disadvantaged by time, distance or
disabilities as well as updating the knowledge base of workers by
on-the-job training programmes. Traditionally ICTs are used as a
means of delivery but a wider use of ICTs is becoming more and
more widespread (MENON Network 2007, pp. 59). The territory
Training of Teachers on (and through) e-Learning includes two major
points. Teachers (and trainers) are probably going to use more
ICTs in classrooms and trainings and need to be prepared to be
able to use ICTs. Also, e-Learning is one tool that could be utilised
in the further education of teachers and trainers (MENON Net-
work 2007, pp. 62). The territory ICT for Learning Purposes within
INFORMAL
LEARNING
EXTENDED
LEARNING
CONTEXT
FORMAL
LEARNING
INTRA-
MUROS
e-Learning at
the Workplace
Individual
Development
through e-
Learning
Non-professional
e-Learning
Communities
Virtual
Professional
Networks
Communities
generating e-Learning
as a side effect
Inter-organisational
Development
through e-Learning
ICT for Virtual
Mobility of
Learners
Training of Teachers
on (and through)
e-Learning
Evolved
Distance
Education
ICT for Learning
in VET
Institutions
ICT for Learning
Purposes within
schools
ICT for Learning
Purposes within
Tertiary Education
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 16 11.05.10 10:16

17
Schools includes different types of schools from primary to second-
ary education where e-Learning could be used in class, for home
assignments or for twinning classes or complete schools (MENON
Network 2007, pp. 38). Another territory is Individual Develop-
ment through e-Learning. This fi eld comprises “the integration of
the ‘e’-component in individual daily life processes within wider
societal aspects aiming at individual development and enrich-
ment, personal growth and active citizenship” (MENON Network
2007, p. 35). The territory ICT for Learning Purposes in VET Insti-
tutions includes all education and trainings that “prepare learners
for careers of professions that are historically non-academic, but
rather related to a trade, occupation or ‘vocation’ (Vocational Edu-
cation and Training)” (MENON Network 2007, pp. 48).
Below, the e-Learning territories according to the MENON Net-
work are assessed on whether e-Learning for Capacity Building can
be already observed and examples are given. Moreover, there is an
analysis as to whether Capacity Building takes place in one of the
territories that is not yet supported by e-Learning.
There are a number of e-Learning territories defi ned by
MENON Network that are not relevant for a quality label for
e-Learning in Capacity Building. The territory ICT for Learn-
ing Purposes within Schools is not relevant to the case of Capacity
Building, as the rather narrow defi nition for Capacity Building
of this book does not include basic or advanced school education.
This does not mean that there are no e-Learning initiatives within
schools in developing countries resulting, for instance, from the
further education of teachers in this fi eld. Also, the territory Indi-
vidual Development through e-Learning does not fall into the fi eld of
e-Learning for Capacity Building considered in this book. Learn-
ing in this context may still be supporting Capacity Building by
developing individuals, but this learning is mainly generated by
informal and non-formal learning outside of any programme - or
institutional arrangement that could be covered by a specialised
quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building (MENON Net-
work 2007, pp. 68). ICT for Learning Purposes in VET Institutions is
also not an area that is covered by the defi nition of Capacity Build-
ing. It includes all education and trainings that “prepare learners
for careers of professions that are historically non-academic, but
rather related to a trade, occupation or ‘vocation’” (MENON Net-
work 2007, pp. 48). The last territory that is not relevant for a qual-
ity label for e-Learning in Capacity Building is Communities gener-
ating e-Learning as a Side Effect.
In the remaining territories, Capacity Building can be observed
that is in many cases already supported by e-Learning. However,
the territory Training of Teachers on (and through) e-Learning is not
as formal as in the European context therefore it needs to be repo-
sitioned within the grid. Provided these changes are applied to
Figure 4 e-Learning territories relevant for Capacity Building
the e-Learning territories according to the MENON Network, the
following picture (fi gure 4) emerges. Brighter territories are not
relevant for e-Learning in Capacity Building.
In the remaining territories Capacity Building can be observed
that is in many cases already supported by e-Learning or ICTs in
general. Within the following paragraphs, examples for each ter-
ritory are provided. Evidence on the territory e-Learning at the Work-
place is not documented extensively but a number of examples can
be identifi ed. One possible example is the Information Manage-
ment Resource Kit (IMARK) developed by the Food and Agricul-
ture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). IMARK consists
of a number of learning modules accessible online or on CD-ROM
that focus on different ICT related topics and are available for free.
These fully electronic modules are aimed at a professional audi-
ence in (government) organizations related to agriculture and are
therefore very likely to be used at the workplace for further educa-
tion (FAO 2008a, FAO 2008b, FAO 2008c). There are some Capac-
ity Building initiatives in the fi eld of ICT for Learning within Terti-
ary Education but these, in many cases, include twinning of uni-
versities to support the partner university (trainings, technical
assistance, and scholarships) or enable students from universities
in developing countries to study in western countries (Whyte
2004, p. 30). These activities do not fall into the scope of Capacity
Building as defi ned above. Still, Capacity Building is used within
the context of tertiary education for building tertiary education
institutions, one example being the support for the establishment
of a “Masters of Biodiversity Conservation” in Cambodia (Fauna
& Flora International, n. d.). Virtual Professional Networks that rely
on ICTs can also be found in the fi eld of Capacity Building and
INFORMAL
LEARNING
EXTENDED
LEARNING
CONTEXT
FORMAL
LEARNING
INTRA-
MUROS
e-Learning at
the
Workplace
Individual
Development
through
e-Learning
Non-
professional e-
Learning
Communities
Virtual
Professional
Networks
Communities
generating
e-Learning as a Side
Effect
Inter-organisational
Development
through e-Learning
ICT for
Virtual
Mobility of
Learners
Training of Teachers
on (and through) e-
Learning
Evolved
Distance
Education
ICT for Learning
in VET
Institutions
ICT for
Learning
Purposes
within Schools
ICT for Learning
Purposes within
Tertiary
Education
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 17 11.05.10 10:16

18
development cooperation. One important example is Knowledge
Management for Development (KM4Dev), a community of profes-
sionals in international development dealing with topics of knowl-
edge management and knowledge sharing. The community makes
use of a mailing list, a website as a resource base, “knowledge expe-
ditions” (learning alliances) as well as a wiki for sharing knowl-
edge. The community is also linked to an e-journal (KM4Dev Jour-
nal) that is described as “peer-reviewed and open access” (KM4Dev
n. d.). This initiative is supported by the Bellanet International
Secretariat, which has the “mission to promote and facilitate effec-
tive collaboration within the international development commu-
nity, especially through the use of information and communica-
tion technologies (ICTs)” (Bellanet International Secretariat,
2006). The related territory, Non professional e-Learning Communi-
ties can as well be observed in the fi eld of Capacity Building or
Development. Here, learning is transferred to the virtual space.
The creation of this type of e-Learning could be initiated by train-
ing providers that try to complement their courses, as well as by
grassroots initiatives that share one or more interests that are in
some cases non-professional. Within these communities, the pur-
pose of learning is recognised by all members of the community
and for Capacity Building, especially the complementation of
courses through online communities is one application (MENON
Network 2007, pp. 82). Examples for this territory can be found
within the courses offered by InWEnt that are complemented by
an online learning community that also serves as a retention func-
tion for Alumni (InWEnt 2008d). ICT for Virtual Mobility of Learn-
ers is also a territory that is relevant for Capacity Building. In the
original defi nition, this territory is considered important for the
ongoing integration of the whole European Union. If the underly-
ing ideas are considered, a number of these elements can also be
found in Capacity Building, “transnational lectures and/or learn-
ing materials, cross-border recruitment of students, intensity of
communication fl ows, the international accreditation of learning
achievements, the multilingualism, complementary to both phys-
ical mobility and conventional teaching” (MENON Network 2008,
p. 35). Inter-organizational Development through e-Learning is
another fi eld that could be relevant for Capacity Building in devel-
oping countries. The territory includes possible cooperative rela-
tionships between Capacity Building Organizations and others
that are supported by ICTs and e-Learning rather than by market
or hierarchy. One example could be electronic workspaces that are
used by two or more organizations to work together on a mutual
project. However, this territory might not be too relevant for a cer-
tifi cation with a label for e-Learning in Capacity Building. Evolved
Distance Education and the use of ICTs in open and distance edu-
cation (ODE) are issues of importance in developing countries.
One may argue that Capacity Building related activities could be
identifi ed in this territory, as qualifi cations obtained in ODE are
in many cases useable at the workplace and thus suitable for fur-
ther development of individuals. By defi nition, updating the knowl-
edge base of workers is an integral part in this territory. Some
prominent examples can be identifi ed where ODE is explicitly used
for Capacity Building: The Virtual University for Small States of
the Commonwealth (VUSSC), coordinated by the Commonwealth
of Learning (COL) is specialised in the delivery of “postsecondary,
skills-related courses” that aim at “strengthening [their] educa-
tional capacity and outreach” and alleviating the digital divide
(COL n. d.). Another important example is the African Virtual
University (AVU) that offers one degree programme as well as a
number of certifi cate courses that “are convenient online courses
designed to increase individuals’ knowledge and skills within a
one-year timeframe” and “that are delivered in a distance-learning
format, which accommodates multiple learning levels, while cre-
ating fl exibility to suit individuals’ work or life schedules” (AVU
n. d.). Training of Teachers on (and through) e-Learning has been on
the agenda of Capacity Building for some time and with e-Learn-
ing emerging, training of teachers and trainers on (and through)
e-Learning becomes more important. UNESCO (2002, p. 3) states
“for education to reap the full benefi ts of ICTs in learning, it is
essential that pre and in-service teachers are able to effectively use
these new tools for learning.” Within the “Education for All” ini-
tiative that includes six education goals to be reached by 2015 “to
meet the learning needs of all children, youth and adults”
(UNESCO 2007) UNESCO even published a handbook (UNESCO
2005) for teachers on how to effectively use ICTs in school. Also,
(ITC enabled) Open Distance Education is considered to be of high
importance to meet the challenge of education and skill upgrad-
ing of the vast amount of teachers that need to be trained [an esti-
mate of 3 million additional teachers are needed in Africa to pro-
vide basic education for all children plus further education for in-
service teachers according to Shabani (2005, p. 95)] as well as
teacher training in rural and remote areas (Shabani 2005, p. 98).
Reported examples of teacher training on and through ICT show
the emerging character of this fi eld. Many examples report pres-
ence workshops, with learning by doing character that sometimes
do not focus on the use of ICT for learning but on basic ITC knowl-
edge for teachers or self study with CD-ROMs (Janssens-Bevernage
et al. 2005). An example from Tanzania also shows that the use of
ICTs for teacher training still faces a number of problems. Mahenge
(2005, pp. 148) describes a proposal for action to use ICTs for dis-
tance education of teachers (pre-service as well as in-service) by
the Open University of Tanzania to overcome problems in timely
delivery of materials as well as contact to students. Ironically, at
that time, the university itself did not have access to the internet
as well as a suffi cient supply of computers (headquarters as well
as 22 regional centres). Aczel et al. (2007) also analyse the (per-
ceived) challenges of six non-governmental organizations based
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 18 11.05.10 10:16

19
in Africa, the Middle East and Asia in supporting teachers and
trainers with the use of ICTs in education in developing countries.
2.3.4 Building Block 4: Geographic Scope
The dimension geographic scope differentiates Capacity Building
in activities that are local, regional (e.g. Africa) and international
(a number of different countries).
Capacity Building activities can be found on a local level in dif-
ferent countries, especially when considering bilateral activities
between a single donor organization or country and one develop-
ing country.
Capacity Building can also be identifi ed on a regional level
where regional does not refer to a region within a country but for
instance to the whole of Africa. Again, International Leadership
Training from InWEnt is an example in this case. The courses
offered are explicitly directed towards and adapted to one (and sel-
dom more than one) of the regions Africa, Asia, Latin America or
Middle East (InWEnt 2008c).
In many cases, Capacity Building can be found on an interna-
tional level. This means Capacity Building initiatives are imple-
mented in a number of different countries and cultures around the
world with an emphasis on countries in Africa and Asia. Further-
more, these Capacity Building initiatives are carried out in coop-
eration between partner countries and different players in Capac-
ity Building, including “national governments, bilateral agencies,
multilateral development banks, private philanthropies as well as
new actors from public, commercial and non-profi t sectors” (Whyte
2004, p. 6). This likely leads to international teams who work on
Capacity Building issues and also in some cases, to a mixture of
international participants in trainings or workshops. One case is
the International Leadership Training by InWEnt that is carried
out in a number of regions (InWEnt 2008c).
The (sometimes) international character of Capacity Building
can lead to another conclusion that has to be taken into account
when there is the intention to create a quality label. Capacity build-
ing efforts face very different situations in partner countries,
including large differences in infrastructure (especially relevant
for ICTs), culture, development progress (least developed coun-
tries up to developing countries and sometimes emerging coun-
tries) as well as existing policies and organizations. This may lead
to the conclusion that the development of a quality label is biopt-
ional. Possible criteria or processes could be defi ned as being less
detailed thus leaving the space for country particularities or, a
label has to include criteria catalogues that as a consequence offer
minimum criteria that indicate solid quality of a programme or
institution and are relevant to all organizations in all contexts and
excellence criteria that demonstrate exceptional quality achieve-
ments of an organization or programme.
2.4 The Landscape of Capacity
Building Organizations
This chapter analyses and divides the multitude of organizations
that are involved in Capacity Building into three main areas that
are; type of organization, scope of organization as well as the inte-
gration of e-Learning within the organization, where a model from
innovation theory is used (Ehlers et al. 2007, pp. 44). Furthermore,
requirements for the development of a quality label are derived
based on this analysis.
Within the fi eld of Capacity Building one can identify a mul-
titude of different organizations that are involved - these organi-
zations will be referred to as Capacity Building Organizations
within this book. One main characteristic, shared by most if not
all Capacity Building Organizations, is that they are not providers
of learning services that offer their services to customers on an
open market, but that their services are an integral part of larger
Capacity Building programmes (Ehlers et al. 2007, p. 47). Ehlers
et al. (2007, p. 18) restrict the term Capacity Building Organiza-
tion to development cooperation organizations that have independ-
ent Capacity Building offers and that actively carry these out. This
excludes organizations that focus on research and studies [e.g.
the Centre for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn]
and organizations that only provide fi nancing for development
projects [e.g. Kf W Bankengruppe (Kf W) in Germany]. The pre-
viously stated restriction will be used for this book, an additional
restriction is that only organizations that offer Capacity Building
independently and are comprised of the target group of organi-
zations that could be interested in certifying programmes with
e-Learning elements or their whole organization. Nevertheless,
institutions that, for example, fi nance Capacity Building may be
the only one or main addressee for this quality label if they have
to decide about the distribution of funds and use a certifi cation
as one indicator for choosing institutions to spend money on, and
also as a tool for legitimisation.
To systematise the different organizations and to assess pos-
sible driving forces for these organizations to gain a certifi cation,
four possible main sources of interest in a quality certifi cation are
described and matched to the different kinds of Capacity Build-
ing Organizations. Organizations are classifi ed by scope and type,
including legal constitution and the source of funds that also infl u-
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 19 11.05.10 10:16

20
ences their timeframe for Capacity Building programmes (Whyte
2004, pp. 49). Secondly, the existing classifi cation of Capacity
Building Organizations by a model of innovation theory by Ehlers
et al. (2007, pp. 44) is used to derive the suggestion that a quality
label should consist of two parts, one to certify programmes and
another to certify whole organizations as organizations could be
interested in these different types of certifi cation according to their
e-Learning strategy. An overview of the characteristics of Capacity
Building Organizations can be found in fi gure 5.
A number of sources of interest in quality certifi cation can be
identifi ed. First, organizations could be interested in quality cer-
tifi cation as an instrument of legitimisation for the use of funds
or to obtain more fi nancial resources for Capacity Building. Gov-
ernmental organizations that receive funds from national budg-
ets and thus from the tax-payer have to especially ensure account-
ability towards the citizens of their country. This source will be
referred to as legitimisation. Secondly, organizations could be inter-
ested in a quality certifi cate to foster quality and innovation within
the organization. Quality certifi cation could in this case provide a
benchmark to assess if the organization or the offered programmes
are excellent. The certifi cation process could also provide a frame-
work to systematically think about quality in an organization. This
source will be referred to as quality/innovation. This area includes
measuring and improving cost and impact effi ciency of e-Learning
as well as guaranteeing success. Connected to this issue is the aim
of organizations to be able to benchmark their current activities in
the fi eld of e-Learning. Furthermore compliance with legal stand-
ards is a possible source of interest for organizations where a qual-
ity label could be of assistance. The last fi eld of interest is market-
ing or public perception. Two aspects might be relevant in this area;
the marketing effect could be directed towards current or future
employees to document a corporate culture of quality and innova-
tion, and the certifi cation of an organization or a programme pro-
vides an external marketing/public perception effect. Marketing
could be directed towards possible partner organizations as well
as future participants.
Type of
Organisation
sGovernmental
Organisation (GO)
sNon-governmental
Organisation
(NGO)
sFoundations
sPrivate Companies
sChurch Related
Organisations
Scope of
Organisation
sBilateral
sMultilateral
sInternational
E-Learning
Strategies
sProject Orientatio
n
sSystems
Orientation
sPotential
Orientation
Figure 5 Systematisation of Capacity Building Organizations
2.4.1 Type and Scope of Organization
Capacity Building Organizations can fi rst be differentiated by the
type of organization and furthermore by the scope of operation
range. The type of organization is, among other characteristics,
closely related to the sources of funding and the legal form and
has infl uence on the sources of interest in quality certifi cation.
The type of organization also has effects on the planning hori-
zon and the infl uence of the organization on the discussion about
Capacity Building. The following groups can be distinguished:
governmental organizations (GOs), non-governmental organiza-
tions (NGOs), foundations, private companies and church related
organizations.
For this classifi cation, all organizations that are by legal form
governmental organizations, mainly owned by one or more gov-
ernments, or with governmental representatives as members in
offi cial bodies of the organization are considered governmental
organizations. These organizations are also likely to receive most
if not all of their funds from governments. This would include for
instance InWEnt, by legal form a private company, with the Ger-
man Federal Republic being one of the owners and represented
in the directorate and the German Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation and Development accounting for about 80% of turno-
ver/budget (InWEnt 2008, p. 16). These organizations likely have
a high interest in quality certifi cation for legitimisation reasons,
as their sources of funding are taxes.
Non-governmental organizations are all legally constituted
organizations that have been created by private persons or organi-
zations where no government is represented at all. Nevertheless,
these organizations might receive funds from governments. In
many cases donations from private persons as well as compa-
nies are sources of funding for non-governmental organizations.
Because of that, the issue of legitimisation might be a strong incen-
tive for obtaining quality certifi cation.
Governmental organizations and non-governmental organi-
zations can further be characterised by the scope of organization
leading to division into bilateral and multilateral organizations.
Bilateral relations refer to relations between two states; bilateral
organizations are thus organizations that are funded only by one
state and work together with partner countries in bilateral projects.
A good deal of diplomacy is conducted in a bilateral manner, and
much development cooperation is provided bilaterally. Bilateral
governmental organizations are for example the Canadian Inter-
national Development Agency (CIDA) or the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) as well as many other
bilateral donor organizations (Whyte 2004, pp. 41). Multilateralism
refers (in international relations) to several countries that work in
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 20 11.05.10 10:16

21
concert on a given issue. Multilateral organizations have a multi-
tude of countries as members and sources of funding. The most
prominent multilateral governmental organization is the United
Nations system that includes a number of specialised agencies and
programmes (e.g. UNDP) that work on Capacity Building issues
(Whyte 2004, pp. 35). Funds for the UNDP come from different
sources (multilateral donor resources, bilateral donor resources,
local resources channelled through UNDP as well as regular (core)
resources) but the origin of these funds are in the end member
countries of the UNDP (UNDP 2008, p. 34) and thus governmen-
tal. Another differentiation considers whether organizations work
on a regional, local or on an international scale.
Another category of organizations that are active in Capac-
ity Building is foundations. Foundations are typically non-profi t
organizations with (usually) charitable purposes that in most cases
have a stock of assets that generate an income that may be used for
foundation purposes. According to Whyte (2004, p. 49) most foun-
dations that are active in international development are US based
foundations. Although the amount of funds that are provided by
foundations is considerably lower than those by governmental and
non-governmental organizations, Whyte (2004, pp. 49) consid-
ers one advantage to foundation work for Capacity Development
is that they are able to invest for a longer term than other organi-
zations. Examples of foundations active in Capacity Building are
the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation as well as Carnegy
Corporation of New York. Some foundations only provide funds
for activities of other organizations and are not included in the
above defi nition of Capacity Building Organizations (still they are
a potential addressee) but others like the Rockefeller Foundation
run their own activities in Capacity Building.
Private companies are organizations with the primary aim
of profi t generation. They may be active in Capacity Building for
instance as a contractor delivering services to governmental or
non-governmental organizations or they might be active in Capac-
ity Building in Public Private Partnership arrangements. For pri-
vate companies the legitimisation of fund usage might not be as
strong as the quality/innovation and marketing/public percep-
tion schemes.
2.4.2 E-Learning Strategies of Capacity
Building Organizations
Besides the type of organization as a characteristic to derive
requirements for, and possible interests of organizations in a qual-
ity label for e-Learning in Capacity Building, the way organizations
currently use e-Learning for Capacity Building leads to interesting
conclusions. Ehlers et al. (2007, pp. 44) use a model from inno-
Project
Orientation
Systems
Orientation
Potential
Orientation
vation theory to assess how e-Learning is integrated in Capacity
Building Organizations. The model divides the diffusion of inno-
vation into three main phases: project orientation, systems orien-
tation and potential orientation. These phases should be under-
stood as a continuum and organizations may change their status
over time - sometimes even rapidly. Figure 6 illustrates this con-
tinuum.
Project orientation includes all organizations that have made
fi rst experiences with e-Learning in one or more projects. The
focus lies on single projects and the organization does not provide
any additional services besides content generation. Neither broad-
ening the application of e-Learning nor strategic approaches for
e-Learning are planned in these organizations. E-learning is not
included in the organization’s strategy nor is there any e-Learning
strategy. Nevertheless it is considered possible that a project leads
to an isolated application of e-Learning.
Systems orientation means that e-Learning is used in a sys-
tematic way and capacities for e-Learning as well as own applica-
tions are built in an organization (e.g. economic, technical, didac-
tical and organizational capacities). Responsibilities and roles
for e-Learning are defi ned within the organization and in some
cases it may be possible that a department or an e-Learning cen-
tre is established within the organization. Additional services e.g.
tutoring, consultancy, etc. are offered in addition to content. Still,
e-Learning remains an additional component for the Capacity
Building activities of an organization. E-learning is integrated as
part of the organization’s strategy but no specifi c e-Learning strat-
egy exists for the organization.
Potential orientation refers to the strategic integration of
e-Learning in both organizational processes of an organization
and within all Capacity Building activities that are carried out. The
Figure 6 Three Phases of Innovation Diffusion
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 21 11.05.10 10:16

22
organization possesses an own strategy for information and com-
munication technology or e-Learning. The organization offers full-
fl edged, tutored e-Learning as well as blended learning and full
Capacity Building programmes by means of e-Learning. There is
an own department for e-Learning issues (or an e-Learning centre)
and the organization runs an own learning management system.
E-learning is considered to be an added value for Capacity Build-
ing and each programme is analysed for ways of implementing
e-Learning in a meaningful way.
A different stage for an organization in this innovation con-
tinuum suggests an interest in another kind of certifi cation that
refl ects the status of e-Learning in the organization. Capacity
Building Organizations that are in a project orientation stage could
be more interested in obtaining a quality label for single e-Learn-
ing projects/programmes or the e-Learning component of projects/
programmes because of a general interest in quality improve-
ment, legitimacy reasons towards funding agencies or tax-payers
or because of demand by partner organizations. A certifi cation of
the whole organization might not be of interest as e-Learning is not
yet considered to be of enough importance and the effort of one or
a few certifi cations of programmes is considered to be signifi cantly
lower than to certify the whole organization. The e-Learning parts
of Capacity Building might be uncertifi ed or other means of qual-
ity assurance are applied.
In contrast, organizations that are in the stage of potential ori-
entation could be more interested in certifying the whole organi-
zation than just a programme/project as e-Learning is an integral
part of their strategy. E-Learning is used in most Capacity Build-
ing initiatives and the effort to certify the whole organization is
potentially lower than to certify each programme/project of this
organization. There might also be an interest in being seen as a
high quality organization in e-Learning for Capacity Building that
could be signalised by a certifi cation of the whole organization as
an organization of excellence in the fi eld of e-Learning for Capac-
ity Building.
The categorisation of organizations with the innovation model
by EHLERS et al. suggests that a quality certifi cation model should
consist of two parts to suit best the different needs of organiza-
tions. One part can be used to certify the quality of single e-Learn-
ing programmes; this certifi cation should only be valid for the
unique programme that has been certifi ed. The second part should
be able to certify the quality of whole organizations in the fi eld of
e-Learning for Capacity Building. If an organization as a whole is
certifi ed, all e-Learning programmes that are carried out by this
organization should also be considered certifi ed. Further on, dis-
cussion will include whether the certifi cation of organizations is to
be divided into two parts, one that represents a minimum stand-
ard agreed on by all organizations and one excellence level that
takes into account more specifi c requirements of certain types of
organizations that have proceeded further.
2.5 Do we Talk About
Programmes or Courses?
This chapter provides a defi nition of the term programme includ-
ing a distinction from the word course for the context of this book.
This ensures that this unit of certifi cation for the label is clearly
understood.
Throughout this book the terms programme and course will
be widely used, especially the term programme, which is applied
with very different meanings in a number of contexts. Therefore
a clear defi nition for this book has to be provided. Wirth (2005, p.
39) identifi es loan or support programmes, political agendas, train-
ing programmes as well as educational software as possible con-
notations for programme. Within this book, the term programme
refers to an educational offer that consists of several content mod-
ules that may consist of a number of lessons. These modules or
lessons will in many cases build upon one another or enlarge the
topic of the programme. Furthermore, a programme includes
recurring and/or fi nal summative assessments or recurring forma-
tive assessments of student achievements and leads, in many cases
to either a formal degree or certifi cation/confi rmation about the
achieved results (Wirth 2005, pp. 39). With regard to the workload
and scope of a programme, the defi nition for this book will follow
the specifi cation of at least 100 hours of total workload (including
participation, self study, preparation for assessments as well as
the assessments itself) that is used (for instance) by the European
Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) within their
accreditation scheme “Programme accreditation for teChnology-
Enhanced Learning” (CEL) (EFMD n. d.a, p. 9) to reach a certain
complexity in terms of didactics as well as organization. Wirth
(2005, p. 41) notes that the defi nition of 100 hours workload as a
minimum for programmes may be considered randomly defi ned,
but with lack of alternatives it has to be considered suffi cient.
Opposed to programme, the term course refers to a much
shorter educational offer, for instance a short learning unit that
only consists of one module that might sometimes have a number
of separate lessons and that is fi nished within several hours.
Formative or summative assessment of student achievement is
not often observed. Both programmes and courses are required
to be at least 20% computer based in order to be considered tech-
nology enhanced, and belong to the scope of the label that will be
developed.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 22 11.05.10 10:16

23
2.6 A Summary of Requirements
for Quality in Capacity Building
This chapter summarizes the fi ndings on requirements for a
quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building that could be
derived from an analysis of state-of-the-art theory, research and
terminology. These fi ndings will then be used within chapter 3 as
a foundation for a study on requirements that stakeholders have
towards a label.
Discussion of the context of e-Learning for Capacity Building
has shown the diversity and internationality of the target group of
organizations that focus on activities that can often be found in
the educational territories e-Learning at the Workplace and Evolved
Distance Education. Other important activities are Virtual Profes-
sional Networks and Non-professional e-Learning Communities. While
the former can be addressed with quality tools or a quality label
for courses/programmes, the latter can only be covered by a label
at the institutional level. An important distinction can be made
at this point between tools and instruments for quality develop-
ment (which are frequently used in organizations’ internal quality
development processes) and quality labels or a quality certifi cation
that is a more comprehensive approach - covering different aspects
of a programme or a whole institution. Furthermore, differentia-
tion between a label for institutions and a label for courses/pro-
grammes can be understood in analogy to the continuum from
e-Learning activities with project orientation to e-Learning activi-
ties with potential orientation. It can be considered a valid assump-
tion that organizations exploring the advantages of e-Learning on
a project level would probably be more interested in a label for sin-
gle programmes - while organizations that have already included
e-Learning as an integral part of their strategy would probably aim
at certifi cation on an institutional level. The internationality and
diversity of organizations and activities suggest that a label both
for institutions and for courses/programmes should offer a mini-
mum level of criteria that is relevant for all organizations (within
the context), and an excellence level of criteria for organizations
that have proceeded further with the integration of e-Learning
within the organization and their activities.
Analysis of the state-of-the-art theory, research and terminol-
ogy has provided clear defi nitions of the terms used within this
book and important insights on requirements for the develop-
ment of a quality label for e-Learning in the context of Capacity
Building. It is important to fi nd out about interests, requirements
and constraints that Capacity Building Organizations in the fi eld
have towards such a label and the process of development. The
following chapter describes the methodology and overall design
of a study to obtain information on Capacity Building Organiza-
tions’ requirements through both a questionnaire and a series of
extensive expert interviews and presents the results as well as the
key fi ndings on requirements. Chapter 3 concludes with an over-
all synopsis of requirements derived from theory (chapter 2) and
through the study (chapter 3).
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 23 11.05.10 10:16

24
Analysis in the context of Capacity Building and Capacity Building
Organizations being the target group for a quality label has pro-
vided important insights into requirements for the development
of a quality label for e-Learning. It is important to fi nd out about
interests, requirements and constraints that these Capacity Build-
ing Organizations have towards such a label and the process of
development. Therefore, the research question to answer is “What
are requirements and constraints that Capacity Building Organi-
zations have towards a quality label and certifi cation process for
the fi eld of e-Learning in Capacity Building?” The study designed
to answer this question is conducted by means of a questionnaire
and a series of extensive expert interviews based on the insights
of chapter 2. The requirements that are derived will later be used
for the analysis of selected current best practice labels (chapter 4)
and as a foundation for the construction process of a quality label
for e-Learning in Capacity Building (chapter 5).
3.1 Methodology and Overall
Design of the Study
This chapter describes the methodology and overall design of a
study to fi nd out about requirements and constraints that Capacity
Building Organizations have towards a quality label for e-Learn-
ing in Capacity Building. The study consists of two major parts; a
questionnaire that is designed to correspond to the target group’s
constraints, and a semi-structured expert interview. First, results
3 | Quality in E-Learning: A Study
of the Needs and Requirements of
the Stakeholders

This chapter describes the methodology and overall design of a study to fi nd out about requirements and
constraints that Capacity Building Organizations have in creating a quality label for e-Learning in Capa-
city Building. A two-step approach is suggested consisting of a questionnaire designed to communicate the
constraints of the target group combined with a follow-up interview in the form of a semi-structured expert
interview. The results of both the questionnaire and the interviews are described in detail and are analysed to
derive further requirements for the development process. The chapter concludes with an integrated presenta-
tion of the requirements derived from the context analysis (chapter 2) and the study (chapter 3).
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 24 11.05.10 10:16

25
of the questionnaires are presented and analysed and in a second
step, the analysis of the interview results is outlined based on the
methodology of qualitative content analysis developed by Meyring
(2002, pp. 114).
The study focuses on the needs and requirements that organ-
izations have towards a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity
Building. As the requirements of Capacity Building Organizations
towards such a label have not yet been researched, the study has a
rather explorative character. Still, there are some assumptions that
can be derived from the analysis of chapter 2 that are used in the
design of a questionnaire and an interview guideline. The study is
conducted in a two-step approach that is described below.
First, all participants that are international experts and deci-
sion makers in the fi eld of Capacity Building receive a question-
naire (see Annex 1) by e-mail that is designed to correspond with
the target groups constraints. The questionnaire asks for possible
interests and motivation to obtain a quality label as well as the
organization’s current activities in the fi eld of quality develop-
ment for e-Learning. For each question, a list of possible answers
is provided to choose from, based on the results from the analy-
sis in chapter 2 (for instance one question asks, if the label would
be of more interest on a programme or institutional level, this
choice is derived from the innovation diffusion model described
in chapter 2). Most questions offer the possibility to add personal
answers (“other”). Fortnightly and about four weeks after the ques-
tionnaire has been sent, all participants that did not respond are
kindly reminded of the questionnaire and the study. The results
are analysed within chapter 3.3.1. Original data can be found in
Annex 3.
In a second step, all participants that fi lled in the question-
naire are asked for a short follow-up interview. The discussion is
conducted in the form of a semi-structured expert interview based
on a number of prepared questions in an interview guideline (see
Annex 3), it also touches upon the answers given in the question-
naire. The interview guideline does not contain any pre-defi ned
answers that can be selected by the interviewer during the inter-
view. Within the interview, participants are asked in more detail
about their current activities in e-Learning, about their general
opinion on a specialised label for e-Learning in Capacity Building,
their possible requirements and how such a label could support
them in their daily operations. Furthermore, participants are asked
about current quality initiatives/projects in their organization, the
resources dedicated to these activities and their general opinion
about a possible certifi cation process for obtaining the label.
For further analysis, all interviews are recorded digitally and
analysed sequentially according to the qualitative content analy-
sis method developed by Meyring (2002, pp. 114). First, all inter-
views are transcribed not word by word but according to the sig-
nifi cant content relevant for the research question. For example,
reception, introductory conversation or closings of a conversation
have not been transcribed (for all original transcriptions please
refer to Annex 4). In a second step, transcribed contents are para-
phrased. Information that is mentioned several times within one
interview is merged and potentially incomprehensible parts are
rephrased. In a third step, categories are derived in an inductive
process based on main categories suggested by the research ques-
tions (for instance, one main category is requirements towards a
label that is divided into sub categories, like governance). In a last
step, all interview transcriptions are processed line by line with
the fi nalised category system and all answers in one category are
pooled to be able to rate the importance of the arguments (e.g.
“most organizations stated that”, “only a few organizations are
interested in…”) to support the analysis and interpretation in order
to derive further requirements.
3.2 Choice of Sample
This chapter describes the target group for the study and the
chosen access to the target group via an existing research coop-
eration between the University of Duisburg-Essen and InWEnt.
The response rates are calculated based on Dieckmann (2001,
pp. 359).
The population for a study about requirements towards a qual-
ity label for e-Learning in Capacity Building includes all Capacity
Building Organizations (based on the defi nition in chapter 2.4)
that might be interested in obtaining such a label. Also, related
organizations that work together with these Capacity Building
Organizations could be possible addressees for a label and thus
should be integrated into a study. Within these organizations,
experts that are responsible for either quality management/devel-
opment and/or e-Learning are the target group for the question-
naires and interview.
The best possible access to such experts has been provided
through an existing research cooperation between the University
of Duisburg-Essen and InWEnt, providing contact to several organ-
izations within the context of Capacity Building that are interested
in the fi eld of quality in e-Learning. From each organization, one
or, if available, more experts were chosen to be contacted.
The questionnaire has been sent to a total of 25 people that
belong to different Capacity Building Organizations or Capacity
Building related organizations. Of these 25 experts 16 have sent
back a fi lled in questionnaire and of these 11 have participated in
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 25 11.05.10 10:16

26
a follow-up interview. According to Dieckmann (2001, pp. 359)
the response rate for the questionnaires RQ can then be calcu-
lated as follows:
100
16
25 0
64%
Q
Q
Q
Number of analysed Questionnaires
RAdjusted Initial Sample
R
R
Nu
m
b
e
r
A
1
6
2
5
0
0
6
4
%
10
0
As the expert interviews have been conducted only with those
that have returned the questionnaire, the response rate for the
interviews RI can be calculated on the basis of an initial sample
of 16 returned questionnaires:
100
11
16 0
69%
I
I
I
Number of analysed Interviews
RAdjusted Initial Sample
R
R
None of the experts had to be excluded from the initial sample
thus the adjusted initial sample equals the initial sample with 25
for the questionnaire and 16 for the interviews.
3.3 Description and Analysis
of Results
This chapter describes both the results of the questionnaires (chap-
ter 3.3.1) and the semi-structured expert interviews (chapter 3.3.2).
Based on these results, further requirements for the development
of a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building are derived
and combined with the results from chapter 2, and overall require-
ments are outlined.
In a fi rst step, quantitative results derived from the question-
naires are presented and analysed and are then enriched by the
presentation and analysis of results of the expert interviews that
are based on the qualitative content analysis developed by Meyring
(2002, pp. 114). Of interest for the development of the label are; the
current activities in the fi eld of e-Learning for Capacity Building,
the requirements that these Capacity Building Organizations have
towards the label, and the current investments that are directed
towards quality assurance and development and what a certifi ca-
tion process for the label in development could be like.
3.3.1 Results of the Questionnaires
The fi rst question; “The Open ECBCheck will be a quality label for
e-Learning in Capacity Building. Please tell us if your organization in
principle would be interested to obtain such a quality label.” focused
on the general interest of the organization in obtaining a quality
label for e-Learning in Capacity Building/Capacity Development.
Participants could choose between “yes”, “no” and “not sure” for
their answer. All questionnaires have been fi lled in correctly and
the number of valid answers is n=16. Of these, 11 (69%) have
answered that the label would be in principle of interest to obtain
for their organization, 3 (19%) answered that to obtain the label
would not be of interest and 2 (13%) participants answered that
they were not sure. However, in two of the three questionnaires
stating that the organization would not be interested to obtain a
specialised quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building, it was
mentioned that such a label would be of interest for partner insti-
tutions. In general, the answers to the fi rst question demonstrate
a high interest in a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Build-
ing. An overview on the results can be found in fi gure 7.
The second question, “In case you are interested in obtaining a
quality label for your e-Learning activities. Please tell us what kind of
label you/your organization would be interested in.” targeted fi nding
out what level the quality label could aim for. Participants could
choose one or both options of “programme level” and “institutional
level.” Out of 16 questionnaires two did not provide any answer
to this question, all other answers have been valid and thus n =
14, the results are illustrated in fi gure 8. A quality label at the pro-
gramme level only is of interest to 6 (43%) participants and a label
at the institutional level only for 4 (29%) participants. 4 (29%) par-
ticipants believe that a quality label would be interesting at both
the programme and institutional level.
Figure 7 “The Open ECBCheck will be a quality label for
e-Learning in Capacity Building. Please tell us if your organiza-
tion in principle would be interested to obtain such a quality
label.” n=16
Principal Interes t of Organisations to Obtain a Quality Label
11
3
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Yes No Not Sure
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 26 11.05.10 10:16

27
Question number three of the questionnaire offered a number
of scenarios of how the quality label could possibly be used by
organizations (“There are a number of scenarios on how the Open
ECBCheck can be used in the fi eld of Capacity Building. Which ones
would be interesting for you?”). Possible answers were; using the
label for quality certifi cation of their own e-Learning programmes
or institution as well as quality certifi cation for partner institutions
or e-Learning programmes of partner institutions. Another option
has been to use Open ECBCheck not as a certifi cation scheme but
as a quality guideline for e-Learning in Capacity Building. The last
option was that organizations would have motivation to be part of
an Open ECBCheck professional community of practice in the
fi eld of e-Learning for Capacity Building. This question has been
answered correctly in all returned questionnaires, thus n = 16.
Multiple options were allowed to be chosen. Most participants (13;
equalling 81%) have stated that they have an interest in being a part
Figure 8 “In case you are interested in obtaining a quality label
for your e-Learning activities: Please tell us what kind of label
you/your organization would be interested in.”, n=14
Figure 9 “There are a number of scenarios on how the Open
ECBCheck can be used in the fi eld of Capacity Building. Which
ones would be interesting for you?” n=16
Figure 10 “Now we are interested if you already have quality
guidelines/standards for one or more of the following fi elds?”
n=16
Quality Label on Program or Institutional Level
6
44
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Programme Level Institutional Level Both
Scenarios how to Use Open ECBChe ck
13
10
9
8
77
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Beei ng Par t o f a
Pro f essi o nal
Co mmunity around
Open EC BC heck
Open EC BC heck as
Qualit y Gui del ine and
Benchmar k
Open EC BC heck f or
ow n e-Learni ng
Pro g r ammes
Open EC BC heck f or e-
Learning Pro gr ammes
of Part ners
Open EC BC heck f or
ow n Inst it uti on
Open EC BC heck f or
Part ner Ins it uti ons
Current Quality Standards/Guidelines
10
77
66
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Co ntent Devel op ment e-Lear ning P edag og y e-Lear ning Techno log y eTut o ring / eTeaching Other Pro cesses Ori ented
Qualit y M anag ement
Syst em
of a professional community around Open ECBCheck. 10 partici-
pants (63%) have seen a possible application of Open ECBCheck
as a quality guideline or benchmark for their activities and 9 as a
quality label for their own e-Learning programmes (56%). Half of
all participants (8; equalling 50%) have mentioned the possibility
of using a label for e-Learning programmes of their partners. The
option to use a label for quality certifi cation of partner institutions
as well as a label for their own institution has been chosen by the
smallest number of participants (7; 44%).
The next question focused on the current activities of an organ-
ization in the fi eld of quality (“Now we are interested if you already
have quality guidelines/standards for one or more of the following
fi elds?”). All questionnaires have been validated and n = 16. In this
question there is the option of choosing more than one answer. The
results (illustrated in fi gure 10) show that most organizations are
somehow working on quality issues but with very different means.
Most activities focus on the area of content quality, which has been
mentioned 10 times (62%) as well as the fi elds of e-Learning peda-
gogy and e-Learning technology each with 7 nominations (44%).
About 38% of all participants have standards or guidelines in place
for eTeaching/eTutoring. The lowest number of participants (4;
25%) stated that their organization has a process oriented quality
management system in place. The results based on the follow-up
interviews on the questionnaire will show that design and scope
vary signifi cantly. Quite a number of participants also stated that
their organization has other means for quality development in
place (6; 38%). These include; “evaluation and accreditation”, the
development of quality standards for training and education based
on the ISO standard, “other General standards also applicable,
for instance an e-Learning quality model developed for national
assessment purposes” or “pedagogical quality guidelines for WBI
(World Bank Institute’s) learning programmes.”
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 27 11.05.10 10:16

28
The last question focused on possible motives that could be the
driving force to obtain a quality label like Open ECBCheck (“In the
following we list motives for obtaining the Open ECBCheck label. Please
tell us from your perspective which of them would be relevant to your
organization.”). This question had two steps to be completed. First,
participants had to choose all motives that they perceived as rele-
vant for their organization. The following options could be chosen:
marketing, legitimating the use of funds, compliance with legal
requirements, improve or measure impact effi ciency, improve or
measure cost effi ciency, benchmark with other organizations and
guarantee success of e-Learning programmes. Participants could
also specify other motives that might not have been included in
the given list. In a second step, participants were asked to rate the
three most important options from 1 (most important) to 3 (third
most important). This question was aimed at identifying priori-
ties as participants might just choose a high number of options in
the fi rst step as all might sound like a possible motive considering
the choice was not limited.
In answering the last question, most organizations (15; 94%)
rated the measurement and improvement of impact effi ciency of
e-Learning as a relevant motive. Also, benchmarking with other
organizations is regarded as an important motive with 15 nomi-
nations (94%) as well. The third most important motive with 12
nominations (75%) is the fi eld of marketing. The analysis of the
follow-up interviews shows that most organizations seem to focus
on marketing towards donor organizations rather than marketing
towards possible participants, something that is probably caused
by the market structure. Also mentioned by many participants is
the motive to measure or improve cost effi ciency of e-Learning
(11; 69%). A fairly important motive with 8 nominations (50%)
is guaranteeing the success of e-Learning programmes. The last
two options given, compliance with legal standards (6; 38%) and
Figure 11 “In the following we list motives for obtaining the
Open ECBCheck label. Please tell us from your perspective
which of them would be relevant to your organization. - Mark all
relevant motives with an “X” in column “Relevant?””
Figure 12 “In the following we list motives for obtaining the
Open ECBCheck label. Please tell us from your perspective
which of them would be relevant to your organization. Please
rate the three most important in column “Importance” from 1 to
3.”, n=12
legitimation (e.g. the use of funds) have seldom been mentioned as
a motive (5; 32%). Only one participant mentioned an option that
was not listed (1; 6%) which was “evaluation and accreditation.”
An overview of the results is provided in fi gure 11.
In the second step participants have been asked to rate the pri-
ority of the chosen items (“Please rate the three most important in
column “Importance” from 1 to 3”). To analyze the results and com-
pare the priority of all options directly, a simple point system is
used: If a motive receives fi rst priority three points are added to a
priority sum, if a motive is rated second, two points are added and
for a ranking of third priority, one point is awarded. As some par-
ticipants have not chosen the top three priority motives but rated
each motive from one to three, only n = 12 questionnaires can be
included in the analysis. Using the described system of points
for relevance, the following priorities (that do not completely cor-
respond with the number of nominations above) can be derived
from the answers in the questionnaires. An overview is provided
in fi gure 12.
By far the most important motive to obtaining a quality label
like Open ECBCheck is to measure or improve impact effi ciency of
e-Learning. This result corresponds to the number of nominations
in the fi rst part of the question. Also very important according to
the priorities is to guarantee success of e-Learning programmes as
well as benchmarking with other organizations. The former being
rated much higher compared to the position if only the number of
nominations is taken into account. The last fairly important motive
is marketing, which is not as relevant as the number of nomina-
tions in the fi rst question indicated. Not as important to partici-
pants are compliance with legal requirements, measurement or
improvement of cost effi ciency, legitimization and other factors.
Compared to the number of nominations in the fi rst part of the
Motives for Obtaining Open ECBCheck
15 15
12
11
8
6
5
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Measure/Improve
Impact Efficiency
Benchmark with
other
Organisations
Marketing Measure/Improve
Cost Efficiency
Guarantee
Success of e-
learning
Programs
Compliance with
Legal Standards
Legitimization Other
Rating of Priority of Motives for Open ECBChe ck
28
14 13
10
6
432
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Measure/Improv e
Impact Eff ici ency
Guarantee
Success of e-
Learning
Programmes
Benchmark wit h
other
Organisations
Market ing Compliance wi t h
Legal Standar ds
Measure/Improv e
Cost Effi cienc y
Other Legitimisation
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 28 11.05.10 10:16

29
question the most striking difference comes up in the area of meas-
uring or improving cost effi ciency. With eleven this motive receives
a rather high number of nominations but takes only a minor role
when priorities are considered.
3.3.2 Results of the Interviews
The following chapter presents and analyses the results from the
interviews. The interview questions can be divided into three
main areas; current activities that organizations have in the area of
e-Learning for Capacity Building; the organization’s requirements
for a quality label (to fi nd out how it would best suit the organi-
zation’s needs); what a reasonable investment of time and money
would look like; and how organizations believe a process of certi-
fi cation could be made. Answers to these questions are analysed
and grouped below.
3.3.2.1 Current activities in the Field of e-Learning
The results of the fi rst question in the interviews (“Can you please
tell me briefl y about your organization’s current activities in the fi eld
of e-Learning for Capacity Building?”) show that the current activi-
ties of Capacity Building Organizations in the fi eld of e-Learning
are very diverse and that some organizations are just at the infancy
stage of using e-Learning.
A number of organizations currently provide electronic learn-
ing materials on CD-ROM including digitally recorded lectures
from university synchronised with corresponding PowerPoint
slides, or interactive courses that are text and image based. The
distribution of materials on CD-ROM is motivated by the lack of
adequate internet connections in developing countries. Sometimes
these electronic resources are also provided via a learning man-
agement system like Moodle. An example of this is the faculty of
a university offering their course materials openly for all students.
Some organizations use collaboration tools based on learning man-
agement systems or wikis for their work or research in, or with
students from developing countries. Another organization is pro-
viding full online courses that last about 6 weeks to replace face-to-
face courses - these courses are accompanied by online tutors and
technology experts. Only a few organizations offer several distance
courses or degree studies of which a large part or all are e-Learning
based (e.g. AVU). The last area that can be identifi ed is the use of
blended learning concepts where traditional face-to-face courses
are supported or enriched by online preparation, follow-up work,
communities of practice or networking possibilities.
There are a number of organizations included in the study
that do not offer e-Learning themselves but are interested in a
quality label for partner institutions, or have an interest in Open
ECBCheck on a broader level to support or observe the develop-
ment process.
3.3.2.2 Requirements
If asked more generally about their opinion on a specialised qual-
ity label for e-Learning in Capacity Building (“In general, what do
you think about the idea of a specialised quality label for e-Learning
in Capacity Building/Capacity Development?”), organizations have
a rather positive opinion about such a label. This might be infl u-
enced by the choice of interview partners, who all have joined an
initiative to be involved in the development of such a label. Some
organizations mentioned that; “this is really an issue” or “well,
we think that is absolutely necessary.” Only one participant gave
a completely negative reply stating that “my university would not
be the slightest bit interested in ECBCheck” as the country already
has quality standards/requirements for universities in place, but
he stated that he is, in his professional role, interested in the devel-
opment of a label but personally has an “innate dislike for these
systems” because he sees such systems as a limitation. Organiza-
tions that are universities or connected to universities mentioned
academic freedom as an important factor to take into account dur-
ing the development of a quality label.
A second group of organizations were not interested in obtain-
ing a label for their own institution or for their own programmes
because they do not offer any e-Learning or other courses, or
because they stated having an interest in the development of a
quality label “on a broader level.” They would like to be part of the
community that is developing the label. Also, these organizations
are interested in such a label for their partner institutions, many
times in developing countries. They would either promote a label
in their network or state that; “if certain quality criteria come up
we might have our partners to meet these standards.”
It was mentioned that organizations would prefer having a
quality guideline that they can apply to their courses or institu-
tions rather than having a label with a full certifi cation process in
place. Furthermore, a certifi cation process should be well guided
and supported by a community to assist organizations in achieving
quality development and in the end, a successful certifi cation.
When organizations were asked how such a label could help
them in their work (“If you think about your activities in e-Learning
for Capacity Building/Development, how important is a quality label
for your e-Learning activities in your daily operations?”) answers were
concentrated in a few areas. One main area of interest is bench-
marking. Organizations would like to know if the courses offered
by their organization are of high quality and a few have also been
interested in comparing themselves to other organizations. In this
context, one organization mentioned the sharing of best practices
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 29 11.05.10 10:16

30
as an area of interest. This is one incentive for why organizations
would like to be a member of a community of practice around a
quality label.
Marketing has been mentioned as an important motivation for
obtaining a quality label. Organizations would like to “use a label
as a marketing tool to stand out in the crowd” in competition. It is
also perceived that donor organizations would rather invest funds
into organizations that fulfi l at least some basic quality criteria that
are assured by having a label. One organization mentioned that a
label “could raise the prestige of an organization with donors and
partners (an organization that takes learning seriously).” Interest-
ingly, very few of the organizations offering e-Learning mentioned
possible students or participants as a target group for marketing
with a quality label. Related to this, one organization mentioned
that they would like to ensure high quality content to retain stu-
dents, believing that people will not study with them if they do
not offer high quality content. Strikingly, none of the participants
mentioned that a label would help to measure or improve impact
effi ciency in daily operations although over 90% mentioned this
as a motive in the questionnaire and this factor has the highest
priority according to participants. Organizations that have been
interested in the label for programmes of partners or partner
institutions stated that they would not like to use a quality label
as a means to select partners or would make a label obligatory for
all partners.
Asked about current activities in the fi eld of quality develop-
ment for e-Learning, “Please tell us which activities you are currently
implementing in areas related to quality development for e-Learn-
ing (e.g. do you have quality criteria catalogues, programmes or
projects in this fi eld, initiatives?)” organizations outlined a variety
of approaches and activities. Often, organizations use or actively
develop quality guidelines or manuals showing “the best way how
to do it.” These guidelines are suggestions for the internal audience
of educators, teachers or people who are developing content. Some
organizations also suggest having simple checklists to ensure that
basic needs will not be forgotten. Also, peer-reviews of materials
and quality circles as well as courses on how to use e-Learning
for staff can be found within the participants organizations. One
organization mentioned internal research on the most appropriate
technologies. A few organizations have started to work on a project
to use ISO standards in their organization, noting that the work
with ISO will lead to a quality guideline as well. One organization
already works with ISO that has been proposed for e-Learning
within the organization.
3.3.2.3 Investment into Quality and Process
of Certifi cation
The last area of interest during the interviews was the opinion of
the interview partners about a possible process to obtain the quality
label, as well as what current efforts do these organizations dedi-
cate towards quality management as an indicator of how elaborate
a process certifi cation can be.
The answers to the fi rst question (“If you think about current
quality (management) initiatives/projects in your organization, can
you estimate how many resources are dedicated towards these initia-
tives?”) were few and rather diverse. A number of organizations
were mainly interested in the label for partner programmes or
institutions and did not answer this question. Other participants
stated that they did not have the necessary information to respond
to this question. The participants that answered gave very differ-
ent responses. In one organization, up to 30% of resources are cur-
rently dedicated towards the development of learning objects and
quality of content. Contrastingly, there are organizations with very
few employees where quality management is one of many duties
of one person and thus only a few resources are dedicated towards
quality management. It was also mentioned that resources are
scare, especially if organizations are operating or based in devel-
oping countries.
The second question (“Please think about the process of obtain-
ing the quality label, what could a process of certifi cation look like in
your point of view?”) resulted in many answers that highlighted
very different points.
Participants have mentioned that it is important to present
peer-approved ideas for criteria to a group of stakeholders and
agree on them fi rst to increase legitimisation of these criteria
(and the label), and to obtain fi rst hand experience from a kind of
pilot application that can be included in further development of
quality criteria.
Another issue that has been mentioned is the type and the
legitimisation of an organization or body that is awarding the cer-
tifi cate. One participant stated that “the real issue to me is who is
going to do this; who is going to judge what other people are doing”,
an issue connected to this is how to enforce such a quality label.
Two different models for such an organization have been proposed
by participants of the study: One suggestion was to create a kind
of membership organization of professional providers where you
have to apply to become a member and to be accepted you have to
fulfi l certain quality criteria. The opposing model was to create
an external body that is responsible for the certifi cation process,
again raising the issue of who this organization could be. In this
context is has been said that the model of a membership organiza-
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 30 11.05.10 10:16

31
tion would probably be the easier option to realise as there would
not be as many problems with legitimisation issues.
It has been mentioned that a certifi cation process bears major
political issues and that “in certain parts of the world there are
huge problems with corruption on that.” Related to the issue of a
possible process of certifi cation, one organization mentioned that
they have a kind of checklist for organizations to measure them-
selves against, a huge step even if these criteria are not enforced
or certifi ed. This corresponds to the view of some organizations
in chapter 2.3.2.2 stating that they would prefer a kind of quality
guideline instead of a label with a certifi cation process.
For many organizations, the cost of the certifi cation process is
also an issue, especially for organizations that are based or oper-
ating in developing countries that do not have as many resources
of time and money to spend on quality development. Still, one
participant mentioned that people in general are willing to put an
effort into something they expect to be valuable.
3.4 A Snapshot Summary
of the Needs for Quality
This chapter summarizes the requirements and remarks that can
be derived for the development of a quality label for e-Learning in
Capacity Building from the study on requirements and needs of
Capacity Building Organizations.
Most of the organizations that have participated in the study can
be considered quality conscious, as there are numerous quality ini-
tiatives, guidelines, standards etc. already in place. Based on the
current quality approaches, one may conclude that a quality label
should be able to incorporate these current approaches and not
force organizations to abandon their manifold quality activities -
as this would be a high barrier to obtaining a label or participate
in a community of practice.
Organizations in the target group also tend to have less
sophisticated quality approaches in place and do not have end-
less resources that can be dedicated towards quality initiatives.
Combined with the fi ndings from the questionnaire about organ-
izations being highly interested in measuring and improving
impact effi ciency and guaranteeing the success of e-Learning pro-
grammes, one may conclude that the target group does not focus
on excellence in their concept of quality, but rather on the effec-
tiveness of e-Learning programmes and the effective application
of resources to achieve the highest possible impact for progress in
developing countries. A quality label for this context should con-
sider this concept of quality. Still, there are a few organizations
that are advanced in the utilisation of e-Learning in their Capacity
Building operations. This supports the idea from chapter 2.6 that
it might be useful to have a quality label offering two possibilities
for an institutional or programme/course certifi cation; a basic level
that all organizations may agree on and; a level of excellence for
organizations that focuses on e-Learning.
Interview results strongly suggest that governance is an issue
of high importance for the target group of Capacity Building
Organizations. They have a high interest in being included in
the development of the label and many have suggested an inter-
est in a quality guideline instead of a label during the interviews.
A number of (political) issues have been raised on the question of
who could be a legitimate organization to award such a label in the
context of international development cooperation. With the result
that most organizations would like to be part of a professional com-
munity around the label and are aiming for benchmarking, and
even (sometimes) interested in sharing best practices, the best pos-
sible result is to aim for an open, community based (for instance
community of practice) approach of mutual recognition of quality
with a bottom-up agreement on criteria and the system itself. This
view is also supported by a number of organizations that are not
offering e-Learning themselves but work together with numerous
partner organizations and would like to use the label to support
these partners in quality development rather than choosing part-
ners based on a label.
Still, there should be in place some form of (self-) commit-
ment towards quality as the organizations would (in many cases)
like to use the label or a membership in a community of practice
for marketing towards other organizations or donors (interestingly
not towards possible participants). Consequently there is a need to
demonstrate that organizations involved in the quality label take
quality issues seriously.
3.5 “Make it low cost and
community based!” –
Overall Requirements for
a Quality Label
Through the context analysis (see chapter 2) as well as the study
on requirements and constraints of Capacity Building Organiza-
tions towards a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building
(see chapter 3), the distinct characteristics of the fi eld could be
elaborated upon and a number of unique requirements could be
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 31 11.05.10 10:16

32
derived. These requirements can be systematised into two major
domains. The fi rst domain is concerned with the fundamental
architecture of the label; the quality dimensions, criteria and meth-
ods of assessing and validating them. The second domain with
the governance system and processes, is concerned with the way the
label is awarded. An overview of the main aspects in both areas
is given in fi gure 13.
Subsequently, the core requirements are listed and described:
Architecture of the quality label
1. Coverage of e-Learning programmes as well as e-Learning institu-
tions: The label should offer the possibility to cover both sin-
gle programmes and institutions as certifi cation entity to con-
sider different e-Learning strategies of organizations. A qual-
ity label for single programmes is considered of more interest
for organizations that are in the stage of integrating e-Learn-
ing, rather project oriented and a quality label on the institu-
tional level is considered to be of more interest for organiza-
tions that have advanced to integrate e-Learning strategically
in internal organizational processes as well as all Capacity
Building activities.
2. Broad coverage and applicability through minimum and excel-
lence criteria: The label should offer the distinction between
minimum criteria that indicate solid quality of a programme or
institution and are relevant to all organizations and excellence
criteria that demonstrate exceptional quality achievements of
an organization or programme. While all organizations would
be required to meet at least the minimum criteria in order to
guarantee that they are conformant to the set standards, they
can create their own excellence profi le through scoring high on
the excellence criteria. The employed methodology for evalua-
tion is going back to the method of Qualitative Weighting and
Summation, described for the evaluation of learning software
for the fi rst time by Baumgartner et al. (2002) (see also chapter
5.2 for a more elaborated explanation of this method).
3.
Educational territories: For the study and the development of the
label the concept of educational territories rather than educa-
tional segments has proven itself to be valid. It emphasises that
e-Learning is not an own educational territory but a transversal
component which creates many different educational contexts,
some covering the traditional distinction between educational
segments, some creating new learning spaces. Considering
the educational territories, Capacity Building Organizations
focus their e-Learning activities largely on activities in the
educational fi elds e-Learning at the Workplace and Evolved Dis-
tance Education (see chapter 2.3.3 for the terminology used).
Further important activities are Virtual Professional Networks
and Non-professional e-Learning Communities. While the qual-
ity criteria that will be developed for the quality label can
potentially be used for internal assessment and as guidelines
by organizations or individual organization actors, the quality
label will cover especially those activities that are explicit and
formal e-Learning programmes. However, informal activities
like professional networks and community oriented learning
processes are more and more important in Capacity Building
Organizations. The way employees deal with technology in
order to form learning relevant contexts like communities then
plays an important role for the assessment of the institutional
readiness of Capacity Building Organizations
Governance of the quality label
4. Quality certifi cation as an open, community driven process: The
special characteristics of the Capacity Building community
suggests an open, community and learning based approach
of mutual recognition of quality with a bottom-up agreement
on criteria and the governance system as the fundamental
architecture of Open ECBCheck. While this is sometimes per-
ceived as a contradiction because quality certifi cation appears
often as an instrument of competitive distinction and not as
open, community and consensus oriented concept, the analy-
sis’ results show a clear preference for open models, oriented
towards peer-review processes. Transparency of the evalua-
tion processes on the basis of peer-review has been stated as
an important factor for acceptance.
5. Governance of the quality label: The specifi c context of Capac-
ity Building and of Capacity Building Organizations has to
be taken into account. It is not following primarily market
logic with free fl owing capital in which customers have to be
attracted, but rather a closed market structure that follows clear
rules and regulations. This has consequences for a governance
Figure 13 Overall Requirements for a Quality Label for e-Learn-
ing in Capacity Building
Architecture
sCoverage of e-Learning
Programmes as well as e-
Learning Institutions
sBroad Coverage and
Applicability through Minimum
and Excellence Criteria
sEducational Territories
Governance System
and Processes
sQuality Certification as an Open,
Community Driven Process
sGovernance of the Quality Label
sLow Cost Certification System
sLearning for Improvement
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 32 11.05.10 10:16

33
system of a quality label. Capacity Building Organizations have
a clearly identifi ed need for proving their effectiveness and effi -
ciency and need to work with transparent quality standards,
however, these quality standards cannot be easily imposed on
them from the outside. Due to the specifi c constraints of this
group of organizations, quality rules and regulations have to
be developed in a consensus process and a certifi cation proc-
esses as well. This requires developing a certifi cation system
around a community of organizations in which Capacity Build-
ing Organizations should be represented. The representation
of those who want to be certifi ed within the system of certifi -
cation is posing specifi c constraints towards the governance
system to be developed. In order to avoid confl icts of interest,
the different acting bodies of a quality certifi cation system
have to be clearly identifi ed and separated from each other, so
that decisions are based on consensus of many rather than on
interests of only a few. Such a certifi cation system would then
ensure high acceptance of the system within the community
of Capacity Building Organizations.
6. Low cost certifi cation system: The certifi cation system has to be
constructed in a way that can be operated on a low cost level
to be affordable for the majority of Capacity Building Organi-
zations and their clients in developing countries. Developing
a low cost system demands an exchange of services between
the stakeholders rather than a fl ow of capital for buying those
services. For Open ECBCheck, a thorough conceptualisation
of the costs factors of a certifi cation process has to be taken
into account. Within the development of Open ECBCheck two
concepts will therefore be explored. First, for assessment pur-
poses, a combination of self-assessment and peer-review of a
self-assessment report will be developed and secondly, the peer-
review services will be exchanged between those organizations
undergoing certifi cation processes.
7. Learning for improvement: The interview results show that the
certifi cation process should not only lead to a certifi cation of
a programme or institution but should be conceptualised as a
learning activity. In this case, self-assessment and peer-review
of a self-assessment report will be explored. The self-assess-
ment allows an organization a systematic analysis of strengths
and weaknesses of the institution or programme. Furthermore,
the peer-review of the resulting self-assessment report will not
only provide the organization with feedback on the self-assess-
ment and provided information, but also include a learning
report that focuses on possibilities for improvement that have
been identifi ed during the review.
Through the context analysis (see chapter 2) as well as the study
on requirements and constraints of Capacity Building Organiza-
tions towards a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building
(see chapter 3) the distinct characteristics of the fi eld could be
elaborated on and a number of unique requirements in the two
major domains architecture and governance system and processes
could be derived. These requirements will, in the following chap-
ter, be used for the development of a quality label. The methodol-
ogy that is used for the development itself is based on an analysis
of selected current state-of-the-art quality labels or certifi cates (see
chapter 4) that are in parts used and adopted against the require-
ments (see chapter 5).
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 33 11.05.10 10:16

34
Within chapters 2 and 3, the focus has been on analysing the
requirements of Capacity Building Organizations that need to be
considered within the development of a quality label for e-Learn-
ing in Capacity Building. The methodology that is now being used
for the development itself is based on an analysis of selected cur-
rent state-of-the-art quality labels or certifi cates that are in parts
used and adopted against the requirements that have been derived
within the previous chapters. Within this chapter, existing labels
or certifi cates are fi rst described and then discussed on the basis
of their requirements. Chapter 5 describes how the open ECB-
Check label is designed and how quality criteria are selected and/
or newly constructed. This methodology has a number of advan-
tages: It is effective to use existing parts and best practice of exist-
ing labels instead of developing Open ECBCheck completely from
scratch. Furthermore, the processes, methods as well as criteria
of these existing approaches have already been validated and have
been proven in practice.
Each label is fi rst described including; context, relevant gov-
ernance bodies and the certifi cation or accreditation process with
the methods used. Furthermore, an overview is given on the areas
covered by the quality criteria. In a second step there is an analysis
as to whether the label could be used within the fi eld of e-Learn-
ing for Capacity Building by comparing the requirements from
the overall requirements described in chapter 3.5 with the relevant
characteristics of the discussed label. During the analysis, parts
of the label that are potential best practices for the development of
Open ECBCheck are highlighted. Finally, chapter 4.5 summarizes
the fi ndings of the analysis.
As there is an abundance of possible quality approaches that
could be used as a potential best practice [Wirth (2006, p. 98) for
instance summarizes different publications on quality approaches
for the educational sector that, depending on the scope and defi -
nitions, report as many as over 140 available quality approaches]
one needs to select carefully, as best practice for the development
of a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building qualify only
quality approaches that fulfi l three main characteristics. These
quality approaches need to cover e-Learning and they need to be
international in scope. These approaches also need to be agreed
on by networks or consortia and do not come from one organiza-
tion only - to guarantee that there has been a consensus process
in place. Four potential best practice labels have been identifi ed
which all meet the three selection criteria: UNIQUe, EFMD CEL,
D-ELAN DELZert as well as ISO/IEC 19796-1.
●
EFMD CEL (teChnology-Enhanced Learning accreditation)
is specialised on the accreditation of management education
courses and programmes and is supported by the European
Foundation for Management Development, the Swiss Cen-
tre for Innovations in Learning (SCIL) as well as the Spirus
Applied Learning Solutions AG. (EFMD n. d.a, pp. 2).
●
UNIQUe (Europan University Quality in eLearning) is a
European initiative for quality of e-Learning in institutions
of higher education that is co-fi nanced by the European Soc-
rates programme. It has been developed within the scope of
the European Bologna process that includes the objective to
establish a “European dimension in quality assurance with
4 | How Open ECBCheck is
Rooted in Successful International
Standards and Certifi cates

In this chapter, selected existing quality standards and labels in the fi eld of e-Learning are analysed in
order to assess if and how they can be adopted to meet the previously described requirements for a quality
label in the fi eld of Capacity Building.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 34 11.05.10 10:16

35
comparable criteria and methods” (Bijnens and Nascimbeni
2007, p. 1).
●
The D-L AN D-ELZert has been developed by a D-ELAN (Deut-
sches Netzwerk der E-Learning Akteure e.V.) expert commit-
tee for quality as an instrument for certifi cation of courses/
programmes as well as institutions, and for the support of
sustainable quality development and quality assurance. The
label itself has a focus on Germany, however the development
has included a wide range of existing international quality
approaches (D-ELAN n. d., pp. 2).
●ISO/IEC 19796-1 is a standard provided by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) that aims to provide
a common framework that “describes, specifi es and under-
stands critical properties, characteristics, and metrics of qual-
ity” (ISO 2005, p. 1). The so called Reference Framework for
the Description of Quality Approaches (RFDQ) is a process
model that is able to describe, compare as well as analyse exist-
ing quality management or quality assurance approaches (ISO
2005, p. 7).
4.1 EFMD CEL
Within the following chapter, the label EFMD CEL is described
(chapter 4.1.1) and analysed for whether it meets the requirements
derived in the requirements study (chapter 4.1.2) and which parts
could be a best practice for the development of Open ECBCheck.
4.1.1 Description of EFMD CEL
EFMD CEL (teChnology-Enhanced Learning accreditation) is spe-
cialised in the accreditation of management education courses and
programmes and is supported by the European Foundation for
Management Development, the Swiss Centre for Innovations in
Learning (SCIL) as well as the Spirus Applied Learning Solutions
Aktiengesellschaft. (EFMD n. d.a, pp. 2).
The governance structure of EMFD CEL (EFMD n. d.a, pp. 4)
consists of fi ve bodies that each have distinct tasks and roles within
the accreditation process and for the development of the label. The
power of decision-making is divided between all these bodies. The
strategic development of the whole EFMD CEL system is driven
by the EFMD CEL Supervisory Board - that consists of representa-
tives of the organizations that initiated the label. The Supervisory
Board decides on the eligibility of candidates for the accreditation
process, recruits new auditors, is responsible for the quality assur-
ance for all auditors and advises the Awarding Body. The EFMD
CEL Awarding Body is the body that decides on the awarding of
the label and certifi es offi cial auditors for EMFD CEL. The EMFD
CEL Advisory Board that brings together experts from the area of
technology-enhanced learning has the task of giving feedback and
advice on the quality framework as well as the accreditation process
to support further development of the label. Additional input for
the development of the label is given by the EFMD CEL Research
Unit that consists of researchers at the Swiss Centre for Innova-
tions in Learning to assure that the quality criteria as well as the
procedures are continuously improved based on scientifi c insights.
The Research Unit conducts market research for EFMD CEL and
the EFMD CEL Executive Offi ce is responsible for daily business
and is located at the University of Sankt Gallen.
The EFMD accreditation process (a graphical overview is pro-
vided in fi gure 14) is rather extensive and consists of eleven steps
that form a circle due to the need for reaccreditation after three
years. Organizations that would like to obtain the label start with a
fi rst inquiry and are provided with fi rst information on the process
and the eligibility of the discussed programme(s) (EFMD n. d.a, p.
8). In a second step, the organization applies formally with a fi lled
in data sheet about the programme that allows for a fi rst assess-
ment of the programmes quality. If need be, further information
may be requested (EFMD n. d.a, p. 8). In a third step, it is decided
whether the programme is eligible to start the EFMD CEL accred-
itation process. Eligibility implications are that the application to
enter the accreditation process has been accepted and that EFMD
CEL will support the institution/manager of the programme with
the target of accreditation as well as quality improvement, and
that the programme is considered to have a realistic possibility of
accreditation within the next years. The step of eligibility is con-
sidered important to ensure that any organization that enters the
process is aware of the criteria and process and has an assumable
chance of accreditation within a timeframe of three years to pre-
vent frustration or disappointment. The fi nal decision is taken by
the EFMD CEL Supervisory Board. If an organization is consid-
ered not to be eligible or decides to not yet start the process, EFMD
CEL offers the possibility to provide strategic advice for a certain
fee (EFMD n. d.a, pp. 8).
An organization that has been declared eligible may continue
the process of accreditation with a self-assessment, and necessary
support will be given. Based on a “Guideline for Self-Assessment”
(EFMD n. d.c) the organization is asked to draft a “Self-Assessment
Report.” According to the Introductory Guide, the self-assessment
“is intended to be self-critical rather than promotional and ana-
lytical as well as descriptive” (EFMD n. d.a, pp. 12) as the report is
supposed to support the accreditation process. Furthermore, the
Self-Assessment also has a learning dimension “to help the pro-
gramme management gain a clearer understanding of its strategic
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 35 11.05.10 10:16

36
position by assessing its strengths and weaknesses, by measuring
the principal constraints and opportunities determined by its envi-
ronment, and by looking realistically at the coherence between its
ambition and its resources” (EFMD n. d.a, p. 12).
As soon as the “Self-Assessment Report” is fi nished it will be
reviewed by the auditors in preparation for an on-site audit team
visit. If the report is not comprehensible, the organization can be
asked to fi ll the gaps during an extended deadline. Furthermore,
the auditors conduct interviews with participants of the pro-
gramme in advance (EFMD n. d.a, pp. 12).
When this step is fi nished, the “Audit Team Visit” follows as
the next step. Provided with all documentation as well as a guide-
line on how to conduct the audit visit, two auditors come for an on-
site visit. During the visit, the auditors meet and interview a range
of people connected to the programme including participants,
administrative personnel as well as teachers/instructors. At the
end of the Audit Team Visit the auditors meet with the programme
management and present their preliminary conclusions as well
as recommendations for improvement of the programme. Based
on these insights, audit team and programme management will
agree on (measurable) goals for quality improvement, which will
be recorded in the Audit Team Report. Again, this demonstrates
the important learning aspect within the EFMD CEL accredita-
tion process (EFMD n. d.a, p. 13). After the Audit Team Visit, the
chairperson of the Audit Team produces the Audit Team Report,
including the Audit Team’s assessment results of the programme
that are based on the EFMD CEL quality criteria, a description of
the goals and next steps that have been agreed on with the pro-
gramme’s management as well as a recommendation on whether
the programme should be accredited (EFMD n. d.a, pp. 13). To
ensure the commitment of the programme’s management the
draft of the Audit Team Report is sent by the Executive Offi ce to
the institution for confi rmation (EFMD n. d.a, p. 14).
The fi nal Audit Team Report as well as the recommendation
for accreditation are presented to the EFMD CEL Awarding Body
that takes the decision on whether a programme is accredited
or not. If questions arise regarding the fi nal report of the audit
team, the chairman of the Awarding Body will have the option
to send the report back to the audit team for a revision (EFMD n.
d.a, pp. 14).
If the Awarding Body decides positively, the CEL accreditation
will be awarded and will be valid for three years. After 18 months,
the institution has to submit a “Reporting on Results” document to
detail how the recommendations and goals agreed on in the Audit
Team Report are fulfi lled. The results provided will be taken into
account if the organization seeks to re-accredit the programme
after three years. This re-accreditation may start immediately with
the self-assessment (EFMD n. d.a, pp. 15).
EFMD CEL provides criteria for six different areas that are;
programme profi le, pedagogy, economics, organization, technol-
ogy and culture (EFMD n. d.a, p. 6). Programme profi le includes
criteria that cover information of participants, target group orien-
tation, qualifi cation of staff as well as programme objectives and
strategic aspects (EFMD n. d.b, p. 2). Pedagogy is concerned with
criteria for learning, added value of technology-enhanced learn-
ing, structure, content, interaction of participants, course develop-
ment and design, feedback for participants as well as assignments
and assessments (EFMD n. d.b, p. 2). The relatively small area
of economics covers the organization’s ability to make sure that
there are enough resources to achieve the programme objectives
and that resources are directed to both the support of running the
programme as well as the advancement of the programme (EFMD
n. d.b, p. 3). Technology includes criteria to evaluate if the cho-
sen technology is appropriate for the concept of the programme,
if there is a strategy for ICTs, if reliability is monitored and docu-
mented, if usability and accessibility are taken into account and if
future reuse of content and information is fostered by technology
(EFMD n. d. b, p. 3). Organization covers criteria for the infrastruc-
ture and support for a programme, human resources development
for staff operating the programmes, defi nition of processes that
need to be transparent for all staff involved, existence of continu-
ous evaluation for programme improvement as well as the respon-
siveness of an organization to complaints (EFMD n. d. b, p. 3). The
last area, culture, includes criteria for the leading management’s
Figure 14 EFMD CEL Accreditation Process (EFMD n. d.a, p. 7)
Not
eligible
N
o
t
elig
i
b
le
10.
Reporting on results concerning
the committed steps for improvement
after 1.5 years
4.
Auditors ’ Review of Self-
Assessment, Student Interviews
0.
Inquiry
1.
Application
2.
Eligibility
3.
Self-Assessment
5.
Audit Team Visit
8.
Awarding Body Decision
9.
CEL Accreditation, valid
for three years
7.
Programme manager ’s
commitment to steps to
improvement, factual
correction of the
Audit Team Report
11.
Application for re-accreditation
after 3 years
Not ready for
Audit Team Visit
Strategic
Advice
No
accreditation
6.
Audit Team Report, including
evaluation results, committed
steps for improvement and
Auditors ’ accreditation
recommendations
Audit Team Report is not
comprehensive or auditors ’
recommendations are not
comprehensible
negative
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 36 11.05.10 10:16

37
commitment to the programme, the consideration that is given to
the effects of workload, compensation and intellectual property
rights ownership on the staff’s commitment as well as expecta-
tions towards learners as well as staff. Furthermore, a criterion
exists that demands an explicitly stated philosophy of co-operation,
innovation as well as change (EFMD n. d. b, p. 4).
4.2.1 Assessment of EFMD CEL
The specialisation of EFMD CEL on the accreditation of manage-
ment education courses and programmes in Europe already sug-
gests that EFMD CEL might not be applicable to the context of
e-Learning in Capacity Building one to one. However, a number of
useful insights for the development of a label may be derived.
If EFMD CEL is analysed against the requirements (chapter
3.5), a number of restrictions can be identifi ed. With regard to the
architecture, EFMD CEL provides programme criteria, however,
there are no criteria provided for the institutional level that has
been suggested. There is also no distinction between minimum
and excellence criteria. However, the quality criteria of EFMD CEL
may be used as a foundation for the set of quality criteria for pro-
grammes/courses of Open ECBCheck as the quality framework
“represents a conclusive system of relevant factors based on sub-
stantial research” (EFMD n. d.a, p. 6) and it seems to be advisable
to rely on a set of already tested and scientifi cally based quality cri-
teria instead of developing quality criteria from scratch.
With regard to the importance of learning that has been high-
lighted within the requirements, one may derive a number of use-
ful insights for the design of the blueprint of the label from EFMD
CEL. The process of accreditation includes measures to support
learning and quality improvement within the organization that
applies for the label. The extensive self-assessment allows the
organization to gain a clear understanding of strengths and areas
of possible improvement, while the programme’s management
agrees on improvement steps after the audit team visit that are also
taken into account for possible reaccreditation. These ideas corre-
spond with the requirements and may be transferred, however,
the only possibility to profi t from these learning possibilities is to
start the process of accreditation. Additionally, EFMD CEL does
not include a community that allows for learning within a group of
organizations nor for sharing of best practice or benchmarking.
In terms of the resources that are demanded for a successful
accreditation with EFMD CEL it is apparent that the minimum
fee of 12.500 Euros for the fi rst programme and 8.750 Euros for
each additional programme (EFMD n. d.a, p. 17) plus the time and
resources consuming the audit team visit on site as well as a very
extensive preparation do not match with the requirements from
chapter 3.5 (EFMD n. d.a, p. 18). Furthermore, advice from EFMD
CEL experts costs 1.900 Euros per day, not including expenses
(EFMD n. d.a, p. 18), which is most probably too expensive for
most of the Capacity Building Organizations within the scope of
this book.
With regard to the accreditation process, EFMD CEL is an
external label with the use of external auditors and does not fulfi l
the requirements of the interviewed organizations that demanded;
a much stronger focus on the professional community, mutual rec-
ognition of quality, sharing of tools and best practices and raised
the question of the legitimacy of an external, not community
based, body for awarding the label.
A vital insight from the EFMD CEL accreditation process is the
importance of an eligibility check in the beginning to make sure
that the organization clearly understands the implications of the
process that it seeks to embark on to prevent frustration, and only
said organizations that fi t into the scope of the label apply. Moreo-
ver, the governance system suggests that it is advisable to divide
the decision powers for the eligibility decision from the fi nal deci-
sion on awarding the label and the peer-reviewers. It also seems
advisable to include a kind of advisory board as well as scientifi c
guidance into further development of the label.
4.2 European University Quality
in eLearning (UNIQUe)
Within the following chapter, the label UNIQUe (Europan Univer-
sity Quality in eLearning) is described (chapter 4.2.1) and analysed
(chapter 4.2.2). Whether it meets the requirements derived in the
requirements study will be analysed and if not, which parts could
be a best practice for the development of Open ECBCheck.
4.2.1 Description of UNIQUe
UNIQUe (Europan University Quality in e-Learning) is a European
initiative for quality of e-Learning in institutions of higher edu-
cation that is co-fi nanced by the European Socrates programme.
It has been developed within the scope of the European Bologna
process that includes the objective to establish a “European dimen-
sion in quality assurance with comparable criteria and methods”
(Bijnens and Nascimbeni 2007, p. 1). UNIQUe aims at supporting
“institutions of higher education to measure how successful they
are in technology-enhanced learning and to allow for continuous
improvement” (UNIQUe Project Team 2007, p. 2). The certifi cate
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 37 11.05.10 10:16

38
aims at accrediting whole institutions with the philosophy that
only a top-level institution will be capable of delivering the high-
est quality in learning.
The UNIQUe organizational structure consists of three main
bodies, the Supervisory Board that decides whether a university is
eligible to start the process of accreditation, an Advisory Board that
does not have any executive role but advises on further develop-
ment of the UNIQUe label and the Awarding Body (consisting of
renown experts) that decides independently about the awarding
of the label based on the input from a self-assessment and subse-
quent peer-review. Additionally, a UNIQUe Executive Offi ce exists
that coordinates all activities around the UNIQUe label (UNIQUe
Project Team 2007, pp. 7).
UNIQUe covers three main areas with its quality criteria;
learning/institutional context, learning resources and learning
processes. The area learning/institutional context includes criteria
for strategy and e-Learning, commitment to innovation and open-
ness to the community. The fi eld learning resources covers criteria
for resources for learning, students, university staff as well as tech-
nology equipment. The last area, learning processes, covers criteria
for IPR management, quality of the offer and personal develop-
ment/HR development (UNIQUe Project Team 2007, pp. 2).
The UNIQUe accreditation process (illustrated in fi gure 15) is
similar to the process of EFMD CEL and consists of six steps that
are inquiry, application, eligibility, self-assessment, peer-review,
awarding body and continuous improvement (UNIQUe Project
Team 2007, pp. 3). As part of the fi rst step - inquiry, the initial con-
tact between an organization that would like to obtain the accredi-
tation and the UNIQUe Executive Offi ce who informs on the whole
process of accreditation is explained.
If an organization wants to start with the accreditation process,
it has to proceed to step two, application, and fi ll in an “application
data sheet” that asks for basic information about the organization
that in turn allows for a fi rst assessment as to whether the UNIQUe
accreditation fi ts into the organization and if the organization
would be eligible. Criteria for this decision are whether a university
falls into the range of UNIQUe, has technology-enhanced learn-
ing in place and a reasonable prospect to fulfi l the UNIQUe qual-
ity criteria in a certain time frame. The decision on the eligibil-
ity of an organization may lead to a negative decision that results
in strategic advice for an organization and the possibility to apply
later or to a positive decision that leads to step three: eligibility. If
an organization advances to step three, the application has been
accepted and the organization may proceed with the accreditation
process as well as a process of quality improvement together with
UNIQUe. In this step, the organization’s management will learn
Figure 15 UNIQUe Certifi cation Process (UNIQUe Project Team
2007, p. 4)
more about the process by the UNIQUe Executive Offi ce includ-
ing a briefi ng about the following self-assessment.
The self-assessment is considered to be a critical stage of the
accreditation process. It is supposed to help the organization gain
a clear view of their own strategic position by assessing strengths,
weaknesses, constraints and opportunities. It also assesses whether
the resources that are available to the university correspond with its
targets related to technology-enhanced learning. The self-assess-
ment results are in a written self-assessment report that will be
used as a foundation for the following peer-review. Tools to sup-
port the self-assessment process are provided by UNIQUe. It is
noted that the self-assessment phase requires continuous dialogue
between the different stakeholders of a university.
The self-assessment results are used by the peer-review team
as one foundation for the preparation of a peer-review visit to the
university. The peer-review team will also receive all other doc-
uments that have been created during the process and rely on
extensive documentation in a peer-review guide. During this peer-
review visit, stakeholders of the university are interviewed by the
peer-review team to validate the self-assessment results. At the
end of the peer-review visit, the university’s management receives
preliminary conclusions as well as recommendations for quality
improvement from the peer-review team. Based on these recom-
mendations, future steps for improvement are agreed on with the
university and become one part of the peer-review report. This
Not
eligible
N
o
t
elig
i
b
le
10.
Reporting on results concerning
the committed steps for improvement
after 1.5 years
0.
Inquiry
1.
Application
2.
Eligibility
3.
Self-Assessment
8.
Awarding Body Decision
7.
Programme manager ’s
commitment to steps to
improvement, factual
correction of the
Audit Team Report
11.
Application for re-accreditation
after 3 years
Not ready for
Audit Team Visit
Strategic
Advice
No
accreditation
Audit Team Report is not
comprehensive or auditors ’
recommendations are not
comprehensible
negative
4.
Review of Self-Assessment,
report, Students and Teachers
questionnaire
5.
Peer Review Visit
9.
UNIQUe Certification,
valid for three years
6.
Audit Team Report, including
evaluation results, committed
steps for improvement and
Peer Reviewer ’ s accreditation
recommendations
Virtual Learning
community
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 38 11.05.10 10:16

39
report also includes the assessment of the university against the
UNIQUe criteria.
The peer-review report will be made available to the Awarding
Body that will decide on the accreditation of a university or raise
questions that have to be answered before the decision is taken.
The awarding body is independent in its decision and may disagree
with the opinion of the peer-review team. The result of the deci-
sion may be; accredited, not accredited, or candidate for accredita-
tion with some time for improvement.
The last stage of the UNIQUe accreditation process is continu-
ous quality improvement. This implies that an organization has
to provide a report on the progress of the steps of improvement
included in the peer-review report that will be considered in the
re-accreditation of the university after three years.
4.2.2 Assessment of UNIQUe
The UNIQUe label is focused on the accreditation of Universities
(thus institutions) in the European context. This focus suggests
the conclusion that UNIQUe cannot be transferred one to one to
the context of Capacity Building.
If UNIQUe is analysed against the requirements (chapter 3.5)
a number of restrictions for the application in the area of Capac-
ity Building can be identifi ed. With regard to the architecture,
UNIQUe offers criteria for institutions but no criteria for pro-
grammes/courses that are required. The criteria does not offer
a required minimum and excellence level. The quality criteria of
EFMD CEL may be used as a foundation for the course/programme
part of Open ECBCheck, just as the quality criteria of UNIQUe are
a possible foundation for the institutional criteria of Open ECB-
Check. While incorporating the criteria, one has to be aware that
they have been developed with a focus on universities. There are
probably a number of specialised criteria for universities that can-
not be transferred as well as some areas that are possibly relevant
for Capacity Building Organizations that are not yet covered.
UNIQUe is very similar to EFMD CEL with regard to the gov-
ernance structure and process of accreditation, thus very similar
insights can be derived. The process of accreditation also includes
measures for learning and quality improvement within the organ-
ization, as well as the agreement on steps for improvement with
the university management all of which is taken into account for
reaccreditation. UNIQUe also requires an eligibility check for
each university that would like to obtain the label and has a simi-
lar governance structure where decisions are divided between the
different bodies. Additionally, UNIQUe offers the participating
organizations a Virtual Learning Community for exchange, such
a community could also be used to support the discussion, learn-
ing, sharing of best practices and tools within the Open ECBCheck
community. The UNIQUe process also includes a peer-review visit
instead of audit team review.
Regarding required investment of resources; there is not yet
a fi nal answer, as the UNIQUe project is in the pilot stage and
no information on costs is available yet. Nevertheless, there is an
extensive peer-review visit planned and the described governance
structure will at least have to be sustained, two factors that sug-
gest a certain level of costs.
4.3 D-ELAN DELZert
Within the following chapter, the label D-ELAN DELZert is
described (chapter 4.3.1) and analysed (chapter 4.3.2). Also to be
addressed is whether the label meets the requirements derived
in the requirements study and if not, which parts could be a best
practice for the development of Open ECBCheck.
4.3.1 Description of D-ELAN DELZert
The “Qualitätsplattform Lernen” has been developed by a D-ELAN
(Deutsches Netzwerk der E-Learning Akteure e. V.) expert com-
mittee for quality as an instrument for certifi cation of courses/
programmes as well as institutions for the support of sustainable
quality development and quality assurance (D-ELAN n. d., p. 2).
The “Qualitätsplattform Lernen” integrates a number of estab-
lished tools for quality development or certifi cation as the “Leit-
faden für die Begutachtung von Fernlehrgängen” for distance edu-
cation in Germany, the quality labels “E-Learning QSEL”, Artset
LQW, EFQM, the quality label of the British Learning Association,
TUD-Gütesiegel, criteria of WebKolleg and Gütesiegelverbund
NRW as well as PAS 1032-1 and ISO/IEC 19769-1 (D-ELAN n. d.,
p. 2). The “Qualitätsplattform Lernen” includes three parts, the
fi rst (A) aiming at courses/programmes, the second (B) at basic
quality of institutions, and the third (C) at excellence for institu-
tions (D-ELAN n. d., p. 3).
The governance in terms of bodies of D-ELAN DELZert is not
complex. The label has been initiated by the Deutsches Netzwerk
der E-Learning Akteure e.V. (German Network of E-Learning
Protagonists) but the whole accreditation process, the workshops
as well as the awarding of the label are provided by a company
called DELZert Deutsche E-Learning Zertifi zierungsgesellschaft
GbR, that is closely related to Deutsches Netzwerk der E-Learning
Akteure e.V. as the board members are partners of the company.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 39 11.05.10 10:16

40
Each of the three parts of the label (course/programme, insti-
tution basic, institution excellence) provides associated qual-
ity criteria. The fi rst, for courses/programmes, includes criteria
for information about the course/programme, target group and
learning targets, structure, content, didactics, media (digital as
well as print), communication and collaboration, roles and activi-
ties, tasks, assessments and assignments, technology and evalu-
ation. The basic institutional level focuses on the establishment
by assessing the three areas of processes, learner orientation and
results. The institutional excellence level enlarges the scope of
criteria and adds the areas; policies and strategy, management,
resources, management of employees, innovation and public per-
ception (D-ELAN n. d., p. 3).
4.3.2 Assessment of D-LAN DELZert
D-LAN DELZert has been developed in a German context, however
due to the design and the high number of adopted international
standards, it may also be an important best practice for the develop-
ment of Open ECBCheck and cannot be transferred one to one.
As required, DELZert offers criteria and a certifi cation proc-
ess for both programmes and institutions, however, there is only a
distinction between minimum and excellence criteria for institu-
tions. The catalogues of quality criteria of D-ELAN DELZert are of
high interest for the development of Open ECBCheck for different
reasons. During the development of the label, numerous existing,
accepted and proven standards and labels as well as certifi cates
have been included, consequently the quality criteria catalogues
are most probably comprehensive and of assumedly high quality.
A further indicator of the assumedly high quality of the criteria is
that scientists from the fi eld of quality development and e-Learning
have been involved in the development. Furthermore, the quality
criteria already offers a basic as well as an excellence level for insti-
tutional quality as the results of the requirements study suggests
for the development of Open ECBCheck.
When considering the governance structure of DELZert,
a number of critical features can be identifi ed. With regard to
costs, D-LAN DELZert has different pricing for the three levels;
for a programme or course from 450 Euro to 1.500 Euro, for basic
institutional certifi cation 2.500 Euro to 6.500 Euro and for insti-
tutional certifi cation on excellence level 4.750 Euro to 11.500 Euro
not including travel and additional workshops. Re-certifi cation
costs 30% of this (DELZert n. d.b). Again these are probably too
high costs for the target group of Capacity Building Organizations,
especially those based and operating in third world countries.
Also, no possibility for a representation of the Capacity Building
Organizations is given.
Figure 16 “Qualitätsplattform Lernen” Certifi cation Process
(DELZert n. d.)
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Registration
Coordination
Target definition
Kick-Off-Workshop
Self-Assessment
Self-Assessment with guideline
Optional workshop
Audit
Review of results
Identification of improvement areas
Workshop
Catalogue of possible improvements
Certification
Documentation
Quality label and certificate
The certifi cation process itself consists of four steps that are
illustrated in fi gure 16. The fi rst step - registration, includes basic
coordination of next steps, the defi nition of targets and require-
ments for the certifi cation as well as time scheduling during an
obligatory kick-off workshop.
In the second step, the organization executes a self-assessment
of a course/programme or the institution itself based on guide-
lines that are provided. The self-assessment may be supported
by an optional workshop and is considered to be a large and cru-
cial part of the process. If an organization has already obtained a
label that has been included in D-ELAN DELZert, these criteria
will not have to be assessed a second time but are accepted for the
certifi cation process.
Then the self-assessment is reviewed and open questions
within the self-assessment as well as areas for improvement are
identifi ed. Based on this review, a catalogue of possible improve-
ments is provided. This step includes at least one workshop.
In the fi nal step, the organization documents the accomplish-
ment of improvements and the label is, if the requirements are
met, awarded. The label is valid for two years; afterwards, a reac-
creditation is needed (DELZert n. d.a).
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 40 11.05.10 10:16

41
Within the process of certifi cation, the audit and awarding of
the label is carried out by an external agency, hence the question of
acceptance of the process and label within the international com-
munity of Capacity Building Organizations is raised. The partici-
pating organizations demanded a far stronger focus on the profes-
sional community of Capacity Building Organizations, mutual rec-
ognition of quality, sharing of tools and best practices - all factors
not explicitly supported by DELZert. There is no information about
possible community tools for exchange between organizations that
would like to or already have obtained the quality label. Again the
notion arises that the target of D-ELAN DELZert is not only the
certifi cation but also quality assurance and development and there
is a defi nition of a catalogue of possible improvements (there is no
information, about whether the accomplishment of these improve-
ment possibilities is considered within a re-accreditation).
4.4 ISO/IEC 19796-1
In this chapter, the reference process model ISO/IEC 19796-1 is
described (chapter 4.4.1) and analysed (chapter 4.4.2). If it meets
the requirements derived in the requirements study and if not,
which parts could be a best practice for the development of Open
ECBCheck are analyzed.
4.4.1 Description of ISO/IEC 19796-1
ISO/IEC 19796-1 is a standard provided by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) that aims to provide a com-
mon framework that “describes, specifi es and understands criti-
cal properties, characteristics and metrics of quality” (ISO 2005,
p. 1). The Reference Framework for the Description of Quality
Approaches (RFDQ) is a process model that is able to describe,
compare as well as analyse existing quality management or quality
assurance approaches. The process model consists of seven process
categories which each include a number of relevant sub-processes.
The process categories are; Needs Analysis, Framework Analysis,
Conception/Design, Development/Production, Implementation,
Learning Process, and Evaluation/Optimization. Processes are in
many cases interconnected, for instance results of evaluation of
demands and general conditions are the foundation for the design
processes (ISO 2005, p. 7).
The category Needs Analysis includes all processes that aim
at identifying the demands, aims and requirements of all stake-
holders. Four sub-processes are included: Initiation, Stakeholder
identifi cation, Defi nition of objectives and Demand analysis (ISO
2005, p. 8). The second category, Framework Analysis, includes
processes to identify and document the general conditions under
which the learning offer is developed. Processes that can be cov-
ered in this area are; Analysis of the external context, Analysis of
staff resources, Analysis of target groups, Analysis of the institu-
tional and organizational context, Time and budget planning as
well as the Environment analysis (ISO 2005, p. 9). Based on the
input of the fi rst two process categories the third category Concep-
tion /Design includes processes for the development of a concept
for the learning offer, such as; Learning objectives, Concept for
contents, Didactical concept/methods, Roles and activities, Organi-
zational concept, Technical concept, Concept for media and inter-
action design, Media concept, Communication concept, Concept
for tests and evaluation as well as Concept for maintenance (ISO
2005, p. 10). The fourth category is called Development/Production
and contains all processes that are needed to transfer the concept
into a product. Included are; Content realization, Design realiza-
tion, Media realization, Technical realization as well as the Mainte-
nance (ISO 2005, p. 11). The next process category, Implementation,
includes all processes that are necessary to transfer learning mate-
rials etc. from a development environment into the runtime envi-
ronment. Included are processes for Testing of learning resources,
Adaptation of learning resources, Activation of learning resources,
Organization of use and Technical infrastructure (ISO 2005, p.
12). The sixth category, Learning Process, includes all processes for
the realisation of a learning offer. Included are the processes for
Administration, the Activities itself as well as the Review of com-
petency levels (ISO 2005, p. 13). The last category, Evaluation/
Optimization, includes all processes that are needed for a system-
atic evaluation of quality and usability of a product. Included are
processes for Planning, Realization, Analysis and Optimization/
Improvement (ISO 2005, p. 14).
4.4.2 Assessment of ISO/IEC 19796-1
ISO/IEC 19796-1 offers a process model that allows for the descrip-
tion, comparison as well as analysis of existing quality manage-
ment or quality assurance approaches. It does not offer its own
normative criteria or a governance model with a certifi cation proc-
ess that could be included as best practice in the construction of
Open ECBCheck, as a result of that ISO/IEC 19796-1 has to be
excluded from the group of best practice quality approaches used
within the process of development. However, it offers a very valu-
able method for the validation of the developed label. The quality
criteria catalogue for programmes/courses can be mapped against
the process categories and associated sub-processes to analyse
which areas are covered by the criteria and which have not been
covered. Furthermore, it could be used during the process of devel-
oping the criteria catalogues to compare the existing approaches
to identify similarities and particularities. Both possible scenarios
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 41 11.05.10 10:16

42
for the use of ISO/IEC 19796-1 are described within the standard
(ISO 2005, p. 5).
4.5 Conclusion on Assessment of
Existing Standards and Labels
This chapter summarizes the results of the analysis of existing
standards and labels and provides an overview of which require-
ments have been fulfi lled and which have not.
The description and analysis of selected quality approaches
against the requirements that have been derived for a quality
label (chapter 3.5) has shown that all included quality approaches
are useful for quality assurance and development in their respec-
tive fi eld and offer certain advantages and best practice insights
for the development of a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity
Building. Apart from the process model ISO/IEC 19796-1, there
are a number of overlapping characteristics between the analysed
approaches including the use of extensive self-assessments as both
a learning opportunity for the organization and the foundation
for the accreditation or certifi cation process. The defi nition of (or
agreement on) steps for improvement as the result of the process
(besides the decision if on whether a certifi cation or accreditation
is granted) is another similarity. However, some distinct differ-
ences can also be observed, mostly resulting from the special con-
text of the respective quality approach. For instance, EFMD CEL
is specialised in the accreditation of management education pro-
grammes and does not offer any quality criteria for institutions. In
contrast, UNIQUe aims at quality assurance and development for
universities on an institutional level and does not offer any quality
criteria for the assessment of programmes. Furthermore, EFMD
CEL and UNIQUe rely on a peer-review of the self-assessment
results whereas D-ELAN DELZert includes an audit.
There are a number of requirements that are not met by all dis-
cussed quality approaches: There is no approach that offers criteria
on minimum and excellence levels for both programmes/courses
and institutions. Furthermore, all approaches focus on the certifi -
cation or accreditation process and do not offer the open, commu-
nity and learning based approach of mutual recognition of quality
as required by the international community of Capacity Building
Organizations. What’s more, the representation of Capacity Build-
ing Organizations within the governance system and certifi cation
process is not secured. All discussed approaches require a rather
high investment of money and time into the certifi cation process
that is most probably too high for the resource constraints of Capac-
ity Building Organizations, especially when operating in develop-
ing countries. For this reason, none of the existing approaches
can be applied one to one to the context of Capacity Building. For-
tunately, all approaches offer valuable best practice as a founda-
tion for the process of developing an Open ECBCheck within the
next chapter. The following table provides an overview of the four
quality approaches discussed within this chapter and states which
approaches meet the requirements for a quality label in Capacity
Building (see chapter 3.5).
Table 1 Overview on Assessment Results
The description and analysis of selected quality approaches
against the requirements (see chapter 3.5) has shown that all
selected quality approaches are useful for quality assurance and
development in their respective fi eld and each offers certain advan-
tages and best practice insights for the development of a quality
label for e-Learning in Capacity Building. However, none of the
labels or standards could fulfi l all requirements to be used for the
context of e-Learning in Capacity Building. The following chapter
develops a concept for a quality label based on the requirements
(summary in chapter 3.5) and best practices from the analysed
labels and certifi cates (chapter 4) that are used and adopted against
the requirements.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 42 11.05.10 10:16

43
5 | Development of the Certifi cate

This chapter describes and refl ects on the concept for a quality label, including; the fundamental architec-
ture of Open ECBCheck as an open quality community, a refl ection on selected methods that are used for qua-
lity development, the governance structure consisting of governing bodies and certifi cation process as well as
the development of the quality criteria catalogues for both programmes and institutions.
In chapters two and three, requirements of organizations towards
a quality label for e-Learning in Capacity Building have been iden-
tifi ed. The analysis shows that organizations have (in general) a
high interest in quality development in the fi eld of e-Learning
and also support the idea of a professional community besides
the label itself - that allows members access to guidelines, tools
and best practices. Below, the process of construction of a quality
label is described and a concept for the label is suggested. First, an
overview of the suggested fundamental architecture of Open ECB-
Check as an open quality community and a low cost quality label
with the corresponding certifi cation process is provided (chapter
5.1). Secondly, the methods that are used for quality development
and the certifi cation process of Open ECBCheck are discussed
(chapter 5.2). Thirdly, the governance structure of Open ECBCheck
is developed consisting of the relevant bodies as well as the certifi -
cation process for both programmes and institutions (chapter 5.3).
Finally, the development of the quality criteria catalogues for pro-
grammes/courses and institutions are described and an overview
of the relevant criterion areas are given (chapter 5.4).
5.1 Architecture and Organiza-
tion of the Open ECBCheck Qua-
lity Label as a Community Based
Peer-Review Process
This chapter describes the fundamental architecture and organi-
zation of Open ECBCheck that combines elements of an open pro-
fessional community, self-assessment, bench-learning and exter-
nal peer-reviews within the community to achieve quality certifi -
cation and development.
The analysis of the context and requirements of the Capac-
ity Building Organizations has provided a number of valuable
insights into the fundamental architecture and the governance
structure that is required by these organizations. Based on the
interview results it became apparent that the governance struc-
ture has proven to be one of the most sensitive aspects for the
overall organizational acceptance within the conceptualisation of
the Open ECBCheck label. A clear certifi cation requires clear gov-
ernance that includes external reviews to foster legitimacy. The
stakeholder analysis has shown that the acceptance of an external
certifi cation agency or an external label would be too low to guar-
antee a successful introduction of the label within the international
community of Capacity Building Organizations. Fur thermore, the
architecture needs to consider that Capacity Building Organiza-
tions are very interested in quality assurance and development but
face constraints when resources are considered.
A new concept has been developed, combining elements of
an open professional community, self-assessment, bench-learn-
ing and external peer-reviews within the community to achieve
quality certifi cation and development (for an overview, please
refer to fi gure 17). This approach ensures a high acceptance of the
label within the international community of Capacity Building
Organizations. Furthermore, the suggested governance system is
designed to be operated at a low cost to correspond to the resource
constraints of many Capacity Building Organizations.
Following the requirements (chapter 3.5), the basic and essen-
tial element of Open ECBCheck will be a professional community
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 43 11.05.10 10:16

44
benchmarking and bench-learning processes together with
other organizations from the fi eld. They also have the possi-
bility to use and adopt the provided Self-assessment question-
naire for a self-assessment in order to identify strengths and
areas for improvement within single programmes or the whole
institution. It is because of the unique characteristic of the
architecture that Open ECBCheck offers all these measures for
quality improvement without the need to enter a certifi cation
process, thus responding to the requirements of the interna-
tional community of Capacity Building organizations. To pro-
vide information, support the sharing of best practice as well
as discussion between member organizations, there should
be an online resource centre for Open ECBCheck including a
collaborative workspace.
●Level 3: In a third level, organizations that are also interested
in a more formalised review of their practices can undergo a
structured certifi cation process that, if successfully completed,
will lead to the awarding of a label. This process (discussed in
more detail in chapter 5.3.1) is based on an extensive self-assess-
ment supported by the Self-assessment questionnaire pro-
vided. The self-assessment is supposed to be rather self-critical
to assist the organization in working on quality issues rather
than promotional. As soon as the organization has fi nished the
self-assessment process, the results of this process are validated
through a peer-review with another organization from the com-
munity that has obtained the label. To make sure that there are
always enough organizations available as a peer-review partner,
it will be a requirement for obtaining the label to volunteer as
a peer-review partner for another organization.
Figure 18 illustrates the life-cycle of an organization within the
Open ECBCheck community. It is not compulsory that an organ-
Community of Practice around Open ECB Check
Declaration of intent
Community and Guidelines
Program level
e.g. pedagogy e.g.
instructional
design
Institutional level
Program level
e.g. pedagogy e.g.
instructional
design
Label and Process of Certification
Institutional level
self-assessment
peer-review
self-assessment
peer-review
Community level
Benchmarking
Learning
Sharing
Label level
Certification
Peer review
Self assessment
e.g. strategy e.g. processes
e.g. strategy e.g. processes
Figure 17 Architecture of Open ECBCheck
Figure 18 Exemplary Life-Cycle of an Organization within the
Open ECBCheck community
of organizations that are interested in quality issues in the fi eld
of e-Learning for Capacity Building. Organizations will be able to
join this community by signing a declaration of intent (Annex 5)
that demonstrates their interest and self-commitment in the area
of quality in e-Learning. This community offers an environment
in which members can professionalise their own quality practices
up to the point of certifi cation of their programmes, or even their
whole institution. One possible activity within this community
concerns the sharing of experiences and best practices and aggre-
gating these experiences into benchmarking and bench-learning
processes. Organizations that are also interested in a more for-
malised review of their practices can undergo a structured cer-
tifi cation process that, if successfully completed, will lead to the
awarding of a label. In order to allow this progression, a three level
approach is suggested.
●Level 1: Organizations may become members of a professional
community to demonstrate their interest in quality by signing
a declaration of intent (Annex 5). All members of this com-
munity gain access to guidelines, tools as well as best prac-
tices for both programmes and institutions. This includes the
access to the criteria catalogues and Self-assessment question-
naire for the self-assessment (the development of the criteria
is explained in chapter 5.4, the full Self-assessment question-
naire can be accessed online at http://www.ecb-check.org and
the criteria catalogues are available in Annex 7 and 8).
●Level 2: In a second level, member organizations can actively
get involved in quality development and professionalization
of their quality practices. They may get involved in the shar-
ing and adoption of best practices and aggregating these into
Membership in
Professional Community
Active Quality
Development and Sharing
Certification of
Programmes or Institution
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 44 11.05.10 10:16

45
ization completes the formal certifi cation process, however it is
recommended in order to benefi t from all possibilities for quality
development that are offered by Open ECBCheck.
In summary, the focus of Open ECBCheck will be supporting
organizations in benchmarking their quality practices, improving
their tools and learning from each other in a community based
exchange.
5.2 Selected Methods
for Quality Development
in Open ECBCheck
This chapter refl ects on the methods of benchmarking, bench-
learning, peer-review, self-assessment as well as qualitative weight-
ing and summation that are used within Open ECBCheck for qual-
ity evaluation and validation.
The conceptualised Open ECBCheck label makes use of fi ve
central methods for quality evaluation and validation that all
have distinct characteristics and potential advantages and disad-
vantages. These methods; benchmarking, bench-learning, peer-
review, self-assessment as well as qualitative weighting and sum-
mation, need to be discussed briefl y as a foundation for further
development of Open ECBCheck.
Benchmarking
Kamiske and Brauer (2003, pp. 10) summarize benchmarking
as the process of measuring and comparing one’s products, serv-
ices or processes with the best competitors or with acknowledged
market leaders (“best in class”). The target of benchmarking is
to learn by comparing with others, to identify best practice and
to adapt these methods, processes etc. for the own organization
to achieve improvement, and in the long-term, market leadership
or excellence. Benchmarking originates from the fi eld of reverse
engineering that is related to physical products, but the concept
has been transferred to services and processes. Camp (1989, pp.
15) highlights that benchmarking leads to objectives when best
practices are transferred into targets that may in many cases be
of a qualitative nature and indicate a direction of development in
the longer term rather than exact (quantifi able) short-term opera-
tional targets.
According to Camp (1989, pp. 16), benchmarking is divided
into four main stages, planning, analysis, integration and imple-
mentation with a concluding fi fth phase: maturity. Planning
includes the identifi cation of the benchmarking object, organiza-
tions that should be included in the comparison as well as a defi -
nition of methods and execution of data collection. This phase
includes a self-analysis or self-assessment that is already consid-
ered to be helpful to identify areas for improvement (Lemmergaard
2009, p. 172). In a second stage, gaps are identifi ed and possible
future performance levels identifi ed. The third phase; integration,
includes communication of results and setting of targets for the
next phase; implementation. Within this phase, a plan for imple-
mentation is developed, the implementation is executed and results
are checked. The closing phase maturity includes aiming for a
leading position and integration of benchmarking into the organi-
zation’s processes (Kamiske and Brauer 2003, pp. 15).
There are a number of restrictions associated with bench-
marking. First, learning from benchmarking is mostly concerned
with the past as the “best in class” organization or competitor has
already achieved this level. Secondly, it is argued that there is high
uncertainty in identifying the “best in class” organization or best
practice. Only a step-by-step approach towards a relatively well
performing organization is supposed to be possible (Kamiske and
Brauer 2003, p. 18). Lemmergaard (2009, p. 172) suggests that
benchmarking only focuses on current best practices and is not a
source of innovation and possible future best practice. Becker and
Gerhard (1996, pp. 784) also argue that one implicit assumption
has to be made to consider benchmarking successful; best practice
cases are not specifi c to one organization but need to be generaliz-
able to be transferable.
Bench-learning
Connected to benchmarking is the term bench-learning. Accord-
ing to Freytag and Hollensen (2001, pp. 26) who defi ne bench-
learning as the “process of learning from the ‘best in class’ with the
purpose of integrating these best practices in all organizational lev-
els of the company.” Benchmarking is the foundation and bench-
learning is the learning process that follows it. Thought needs to
be given to the issue of if, and how these identifi ed best practices
could be transferred to the own organization as well as how skills
and processes could be improved (2001, p. 30). They also distin-
guish bench-action as the actual implementation of all changes
that have been set as targets (2001, p. 31).
Peer-review
Peer-reviews have high practical relevance for external evalua-
tion as well as quality assurance and development according to
G
UTKNECHT
-G
MEINER
(2008, p. 19). They are central within research
and publishing of scientifi c papers (Weingart 2001, 284); on differ-
ent levels within the fi eld of education (educational systems, insti-
tutions, or levels of individual learners or teachers); in the fi elds of
medicine, nursing, social work and business related professions,
such as auditing (Gutknecht-Gmeiner 2008, pp. 60).
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 45 11.05.10 10:16

46
Gutknecht-Gmeiner regards the classifi cation of peer-review
as a method of evaluation as rather complex (2008, p. 51). Nor-
mally, peer-review refers to an external evaluation by experts that
belong to a different organization or, in some cases, may also be
colleagues within the same organization (for instance many cases
of peer-review in teaching). This review is supposed to support an
organization or individual in its efforts on quality assurance and
development. In contrast to other external evaluators, peers act
on the same level, as they possess similar knowledge, experience
and competencies as the evaluated individuals/members of an
organization and originate from similar organizations or contexts
(Gutknecht-Gmeiner 2008, pp. 51). An example is the evaluation
of teachers by teachers or the fundamental peer-review culture in
scientifi c publishing. Gutknecht-Gmeiner also mentions the syn-
onym “critical friend” (2008, p. 52) for a peer-reviewer that dem-
onstrates the special relationship. Peer-review is also clearly clas-
sifi ed as a qualitative method (that may also include quantitative
data as a foundation for analysis). Gutknecht-Gmeiner summa-
rizes that a peer-review may be used for both formative and sum-
mative evaluation purposes, depending on the specifi c review’s
design (2008, p. 51).
The design also includes the question about what exactly is
reviewed by the peer-reviewers, and there are a number of options
that differ in how close the review is to the subject of interest (e.g.
an institution). A review could focus on the self-assessment report/
results to assess if the report has been drafted well. The review
could also be more detailed and comprise itself of a review of the
data that is provided to prove the conclusions in the self-assessment
report, and/or additional on site visits and interviews with stake-
holders could be performed by the peer-reviewers to access more
data. Finally, the peer-review could focus on the subject of inter-
est itself, for instance whether a teacher observes a colleague in a
teaching situation (Gutknecht-Gmeiner 2008, pp. 51).
Hartz and Meisel (2004, p. 48) highlight that peer-review does
not focus on data collection but on a competent review of exist-
ing data to derive core issues, but peer-reviewers may collect addi-
tional data by a peer-review visit or interviews. Gutknecht-Gmeiner
(2008, pp. 51) summarizes that in practice, despite the fact that
there are numerous possible designs for peer-reviews, the follow-
ing procedures for a peer-review are well established: The basis for
the review is formed by an extensive self-evaluation by the insti-
tution or individual, followed by the external evaluation that is, in
many cases, accompanied by an on-site visit and leads to a fi nal
review report by the reviewers.
Peer-reviews are associated with a number of advantages. If
conducted in a formative way, peer-reviews include a (mutual)
learning possibility as the work together with the external expert
may provide insights for improvement and development on both
sides. Furthermore, peer-reviews are considered to have a rela-
tively good cost-benefi t ratio compared to an evaluation by poten-
tially expensive and specially trained auditors. It is also assumed
that colleagues or experts from the same fi eld of expertise are per-
ceived as more acceptable than external evaluators with possibly
no expertise in the evaluated subject matter (Gutknecht-Gmeiner
2008, pp. 23).
There are also a number of disadvantages and open ques-
tions discussed. Srciven (1991, p. 255) considers peer-reviews to
be “extremely shaky” and mentions (among others) halo-effects, a
possible secret-contract bias or the fear of possible retaliatory action
as problematic factors, but he sees a lot of potential for improve-
ment. Furthermore, it is questionable whether peers always pos-
sess the necessary qualifi cations in the fi eld of evaluation as well
as communication, social and personal skills and whether they
are in all cases as objective as reviewers who are not subject mat-
ter experts (Gutknecht-Gmeiner 2008, pp. 23; Beywl and Speer
2004, p. 19).
Self-assessment
Both benchmarking as well as a peer-review require a prior self-
assessment by the organization. Kamiske and Brauer (2003, p. 18)
consider (in a broader context) a self-assessment to be a regular
and systematic analysis of strengths and weaknesses of a company
or organization to determine one’s position, to identify areas for
improvement and to transfer these insights into implementation.
The initiative for a self-assessment is supposed to come from the
organization itself and the organization that conducts the assess-
ment is also responsible for the process. Usually, the self-assess-
ment is conducted against a set of criteria as for example in the
standards discussed in chapter 4.
The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM),
that offers the EFQM Excellence Model as a reference point for
a self-assessment, summarizes the advantages for an organiza-
tion in executing a self-assessment against the criteria as learn-
ing about strengths as well as areas for improvement, about how
close an organization is to excellence as well as where resources
should be directed to achieve the maximum benefi t (2003, p. 12). It
is stressed that “the primary purpose of undertaking a self-assess-
ment should be to drive improvement” (EFQM 2003, p. 11).
The EFQM manual discusses a number of data collection
methods that could be used for self-assessments that differ in com-
prehensiveness of results as well as in time or resources required.
Questionnaires are introduced as a method that is easy to use and
not very resource consuming and can be adjusted in elaborate-
ness; they are suggested for fi rst experiences with self-assessment.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 46 11.05.10 10:16

47
Furthermore, questionnaires could be used as a foundation for
more sophisticated methods. It is also suggested that an organi-
zation should rely on proven questionnaires (EFQM 2003, p. 35).
As a second method, an assessment workshop is suggested, where
after a phase of some weeks of data collection (for instance with
the help of a questionnaire, controlling etc.), the self-assessment
team presents and assesses the data collected and aims at reaching
a consensus on steps for improvement (EFQM 2003, pp. 38). Fur-
thermore, for the context of EFQM, the use of an “Award Simula-
tion” to conduct a self-assessment is suggested. The organization
completes the full documentation that would be needed to enter
the so-called “European Quality Award”, but instead of submitting
the results, a group of trained assessors from the organization itself
or from outside the organization checks the self-assessment.
Qualitative Weighting and Summation
Baumgartner et al. (2002) describe the method of Qualitative
Weighting and Summation as an approach for (product) evalu-
ation based on criteria catalogues. They argue that the currently
dominant method of Numerical Weighing and Summation (fi rst,
each criterion is weighted according to importance, secondly the
evaluand is rated in all criteria and fi nally the products of all rat-
ings with the corresponding weighing are summed up to one fi nal
score that indicates the relative rank of a product, organization or
service) has a number of disadvantages, including problems aris-
ing because of the existence of minimum criteria, existing inter-
connections between criteria, the assumption of linear scales and,
as the main factor, the question; what are the relevant criteria and
how should they be weighted (Baumgartner et al. 2002). It is also
considered to be problematic that the procedure of weighting is
not reproducible.
As an alter native the method of Qualitative Weighting and Sum-
mation is proposed by Baumgartner et al. (2002) and described in
the context of the evaluation of learning management systems. In
a fi rst step, all criteria are weighted based on non numeric char-
acters to avoid the effects of interval or ratio scales. Baumgartner
et al. consider the division into “Essential (E) / Very Valuable (*) /
Valuable (#) / Marginally Valuable (+) / Zero (0)” as a proven best
practice (2002). All criteria that are rated with “Zero” are excluded
from further analyses as they have been considered irrelevant. In
a second step, only criteria that have been weighted as essential
are assessed. This approach has a number of advantages. First, all
products that do not fulfi l the essential criteria can be excluded
from further analysis, signifi cantly reducing the time and effort
needed for the analysis. Secondly, products that do not fulfi l the
essential criteria but possibly score very high in other less impor-
tant areas do not distort the evaluation results. The third step is
only completed with products that fulfi lled all essential criteria and
that now only differ in criteria weighed from “Very Valuable” to
“Marginally Valuable.” All remaining products are rated with the
help of the remaining criteria. In addition rating, it is indicated if
the evaluator has experienced any uncertainty within the rating
process to ensure traceability in further steps of the analysis. The
ratings in the three different importance levels are then summa-
rized resulting in three aggregated values for each product [Sum
Very Valuable (*) / Sum Valuable (#) / Sum Marginally Valuable
(+)]. If no clear ranking can yet be observed at this stage of the
analysis, it is necessary to compare individual products on a case-
by-case comparison to reach a fi nal conclusion.
In this context, Baumgartner et al. (2002) mention two main
disadvantages of this method. Compared to numeric weighing,
the method is relatively complex and, more importantly, does not
offer a defi nite decision algorithm. As a consequence, the method
of qualitative weighting and summation sometimes needs to be
applied several times in an iterative process to reach a fi nal con-
clusion.
This chapter has provided a refl ection on strengths and weak-
nesses of central methods for quality evaluation and validation
within the Open ECBCheck label. Benchmarking and the con-
nected concept of bench-learning are concerned with learning
and improvement by comparing with other “best in class” organ-
izations or products and adapting these identifi ed best practices
within the own organization. Self-assessment is described as a
(usually) regular and systematic analysis of strengths and weak-
nesses of a company or organization to determine ones position,
to identify areas for improvement that are usually conducted with
the help of criteria catalogues. A peer-review is characterised as
a qualitative method for external evaluation by an expert on the
same level that is, in many cases, based on a prior self-assessment
and focuses on a review of existing data. Peer-reviews are consid-
ered to offer a mutual learning opportunity (“critical friend”) in
addition to the review itself and are regarded as offering a rela-
tively good cost-benefi t ratio. Finally, qualitative weighting and
summation is introduced as a method for (product) evaluation
based on criteria catalogues that offers a solution to the disadvan-
tages of the currently dominant method of numerical weighing
and summation.
These methods will now be used in chapter 5.3 where the gov-
ernance of the Open ECBCheck label is described in two parts.
First, the organizational structure of the label is described with
all relevant bodies and secondly, the certifi cation process to obtain
the label is conceptualised.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 47 11.05.10 10:16

48
5.3 Governance of the
Open ECBCheck Label
This chapter describes the governance structure of the Open ECB-
Check label in two main parts. First, the organizational structure,
consisting of an International Advisory Board, an Administrative
Offi ce, an Awarding Body as well as a group of peer-reviewers is
outlined. Secondly, the certifi cation process to obtain the Open
ECBCheck label is conceptualised making use of the methods
self-assessment, peer-review and qualitative weighting and sum-
mation that have been discussed (chapter 5.2).
The analysis of requirements has shown that the governance of
the quality label is of crucial importance for the development and
acceptance of Open ECBCheck. It has been shown that the label
needs to be developed with the inclusion of and operated by the
community of Capacity Building Organizations themselves. Fur-
thermore, the governance structure needs to consider the resource
constraints of many Capacity Building Organizations, especially
when operating in developing countries. Below, the development
and the structure of the suggested governance system for both
programme/course certifi cation and institutional certifi cation is
described and discussed. The development is based on the adop-
tion of existing governance systems and certifi cation processes
that have been analysed and discussed within the assessment of
existing standards and certifi cates (see chapter 4) and that are
compliant with the requirements of Capacity Building Organiza-
tions. To begin, the offi cial bodies including their formation and
rights as well as responsibilities are described. Then the process
that organizations have to undergo if they seek the Open ECB-
Check label for either the institution or a programme is concep-
tualised and described.
5.3.1 Organizational Structure
of Open ECBCheck
The assessment of existing standards and certifi cates in chapter
4 has shown that for a label, the distinction between the assess-
ing body and the awarding body is of high importance to guaran-
tee independence of the awarding decision, to improve reliability
and to foster credibility of the label. Furthermore, it is suggested
to be important to incorporate scientifi c support on quality crite-
ria and the methods used for evaluation into the construction, as
well as the further development of the label. All processes related
to the label, including the awarding process, the improvement of
the label, meetings of bodies, information for member organiza-
tions as well as the community - need at least a basic level of coor-
dination and administration. Based on these requirements, the
governance of Open ECBCheck relies on four distinct bodies or
groups that are; the Open ECBCheck International Advisory Board,
the Open ECBCheck Administrative Offi ce, the Open ECBCheck
Awarding Body and a group of Peer-Reviewers which are described
in the following section in more detail:
1.
The Open ECBCheck International Advisory Board consists
of 30 organizations that are either deeply committed organi-
zations from the fi eld of Capacity Building or expert organi-
zations in the fi elds of e-Learning and Quality (e.g. research
centres, universities). Each organization may have one repre-
sentative in the Advisory Board that needs to appoint a deputy
in the event that he or she is unable to attend a meeting or not
able to carry out a duty. The “Open ECBCheck International
Advisory Board” is responsible for the strategic development
of Open ECBCheck to continuously adapt the label to the com-
munities needs. The board also drives the development of the
quality criteria for both institutions and programmes/courses
as well as the criteria for institutions based on current insights
from research. Finally, the Advisory Board is also a potential
pool for peer-reviewers with expert knowledge.
2. The Open ECBCheck Administrative Offi ce is responsible for
the smooth operation of the OpenECBCheck community
label. This responsibility includes being the fi rst access point
for all parties involved in the label, especially the fi rst contact
to, and information for organizations that are interested in
joining the initiative or obtaining the Open ECBCheck label.
The Administrative Offi ce is also responsible for all coordina-
tion processes for the Open ECBCheck label, e.g. follow up on
running accreditation processes or organization of meetings
etc. Furthermore, the Open ECBCheck Administrative Offi ce
is responsible for the administration of the Open ECBCheck
web pages as well as all collaborative tools used by members
and bodies of the community. Administration of the webpage
includes another important task; the Administration Offi ce is
also responsible for updating the offi cial list of programmes/
courses as well publishing the names of organizations that
have successfully obtained the label on the web pages of Open
ECBCheck. This list is the only reliable source for external
parties to be sure a member organization has obtained the
label. Another important responsibility of the Open ECBCheck
Administration Offi ce is to keep an overview of the available
peer-reviewers, this includes keeping track of their Open ECB-
Check peer-review experience, providing information on the
peer-reviewers to organizations that start the peer-review and
all necessary coordination processes for the peer-review.
3.
The Open ECBCheck Awarding Body takes the fi nal decision on
whether a label is awarded for a programme/course or institu-
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 48 11.05.10 10:16

49
tion. This group consists of a mix of experts from the fi elds of
e-Learning and Quality as well as of members of the Capacity
Building community. The members are elected by the Advi-
sory Board and cannot be members of the Advisory Board at the
same time. The Awarding Body receives a peer-review report
on the self-assessment from the peer-reviewers together with
a recommendation on whether the label should be awarded or
not. Based on this information, the Awarding Body decides
with a majority decision about awarding the label. The division
between the bodies responsible for the decision and review of
the self-assessment is important to guarantee independence
of the awarding decision, to improve reliability and to support
credibility of the label itself. This separation of responsibili-
ties also requires that none of the appointed peer-reviewers is
a member of the Awarding Body.
4. The Peer-reviewers are of crucial importance for the process
of awarding the Open ECBCheck label and for providing the
reviewed organization with a learning opportunity. They are
responsible for the peer-reviews of institutional or programme
related self-assessments and write a self-assessment review
report for the Awarding Body as well as the learning report for
the institution. Analysis has shown that it is crucial that peer-
reviewers are members of the community of Capacity Building
Organizations, however they cannot be members of the Award-
ing Body of Open ECBCheck. Details on how the peer-review
is conducted are provided within chapter 5.3.2.
This chapter has outlined the organizational structure of ECB-
Check that relies on four distinct bodies or groups that each has
specifi c rights and duties within the Open ECBCheck framework.
Within the next chapter, the certifi cation process used for the certi-
fi cation of both programmes and institutions is conceptualised.
5.3.2 Certifi cation Process
The analysis of existing standards and labels in chapter 4 has
shown a number of best practices for the process of awarding a
label for programmes/courses as well as institutions. It is consid-
ered important to include an eligibility check at the beginning
of the process to allow only institutions or programmes/courses
into the process that are covered by the scope of the label and to
sensitize for the seriousness of the process. Furthermore, exist-
ing certifi cation processes rely on extensive self-assessments that
provide both a learning opportunity for the organization itself as
well as the foundation for a peer-review or audit, resulting in inde-
pendent audit body decision as well as the agreement on steps for
improvement. Below, the certifi cation process for both institu-
tions or programmes/courses for Open ECBCheck is suggested
Figure 19 Certifi cation Process of Open ECBCheck
based on these best practices that have been adopted and adapted
to the requirements derived earlier (chapter 3.5). This process is
divided into six steps that are described in more detail in the fol-
lowing section.
The organization that seeks to obtain a label for either the
whole institution or a programme/course needs to contact the
Open ECBCheck Administration Offi ce for a fi rst inquiry (0. in
fi gure 19). In this step, the applying organization is informed by
the Administration Offi ce about the process that needs to be com-
pleted to obtain the label - as well as the accompanying costs and
tasks. If the institution decides to continue the process, the eligi-
bility application will follow.
In the second step, (1. and 2. in fi gure 19) the applying insti-
tution has to fi ll in a brief questionnaire (see Annex 9) either for
the institutional process or the process for a programme/course
to fi nd out whether the institution or programme/course meet the
scope of Open ECBCheck and whether or not the organization or
programme/course have a realistic chance of obtaining the label.
The application form is evaluated by the Administration Offi ce
who then decides whether the institution or programme/course is
eligible. If it is decided that the institution or programme/course is
not eligible, the Open ECBCheck Administrative Offi ce provides
the institution with feedback on the reasons as well as advice on
the question of reapplication in the future - highlighting the issues
that would have to be addressed. If the organization is seen as eli-
gible the process can be taken further. As the analysis of existing
standards and labels has suggested, this eligibility application is
Not
eligible
8.
Reporting on results in the areas for
improvement and advice that are given
within the Learning Report
4.
Peer-Review of Self-Assessment
Report
0.
Inquiry
1.
Application
2.
Eligibility
3.
Self-Assessment
6.
Awarding Body Decision
7.
Open ECBCheck Label,
valid for three years
9.
Re-Application after 3 years
Not ready for
Peer-Review
Feedback
and Advice
No
Certification
5.
Peer-Review Report, including
evaluation results and Learning
Report as well as
recommendations for
certification
Peer-Review Report is not
comprehensive or
recommendations are not
comprehensible
negative
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 49 11.05.10 10:16

50
important to make sure that a programme or course falls into the
scope of Open ECBCheck. In the case of programme certifi ca-
tion, an organization needs to understand that the process takes
on a certain level of seriousness to be completed and that the pro-
gramme or institution has the potential to successfully complete
the certifi cation process.
Self-assessment (3. in fi gure 19) of the organization is very cru-
cial. The organization will be provided with a ToolKitSelf-assess-
ment questionnaire (the ToolKitSelf-assessment questionnaire is
based on Microsoft (MS) Excel and provided in digital form online
at http://www.ecb-check.org) that is the foundation for the institu-
tion to perform an extensive self-assessment based on a catalogue
of quality criteria (overview in chapter 5.4, the full list of criteria is
provided in Annex 7 for programmes/courses and in Annex 8 for
institutions). The criteria and the full ToolKitSelf-assessment ques-
tionnaire are available before starting the process due to the com-
munity architecture described in chapter 5.1, this allows for good
preparation prior to the process. The self-assessment is evidence
based and organizations that conduct the assessment are not only
required to record self-evaluations for each criterion within the
ToolKitSelf-assessment questionnaire, but they are also required
to provide proof for their rating. This proof may be provided in
the form of protocols, concept papers, curricula, information bro-
chures or any other document that may prove the self-rating.
The self-assessment has two targets. It is an assessment of the
quality of programmes/institutions and forms the foundation for
the decision if a label will be granted and therefore needs to be
thorough, extensive and contain enough proof in the self-assess-
ment report, which will be the result of the self-assessment. The
self-assessment has a learning function for the organization and
will provide the organization with the possibility to identify areas
of improvement as pointed out in the methodology chapter (5.1).
If the organization performing the self-assessment for either the
institution itself or a programme/course believes that the self-
assessment report is fi nished, it can be submitted to the Open
ECBCheck Administration Offi ce.
During the self-assessment phase, the Administrative Offi ce
also proposes two peer-reviewers that will receive the self-assess-
ment report for review. These peer-reviewers are also members
of the Open ECBCheck community and should belong to Capac-
ity Building Organizations that have successfully completed the
certifi cation. While assigning peer-reviewers, the Administrative
Offi ce has to take into account that there are no known potential
confl icts of interest (e.g. the institution of the peer-reviewer may
be a competitor of the institution providing the self-assessment,
also the institutions may be close partners, a sign of possible posi-
tive prejudice). Furthermore, the assessed institution may object
to one of the proposed peer-reviewers in case signifi cant reasons
exist. Institutions are also obligated to inform the Administrative
Offi ce about any possible positive prejudice.
When the self-assessment report is fi nished and the peer-
reviewers are set, the peer-review process begins (4. and 5. in fi gure
19) based on a peer-review guideline (see Annex 10). For each cri-
terion, the reviewers assess whether the rating of the organization
is reasonable with regard to the provided proof and description by
the organization. Within the process, not only the required docu-
ments and proof that are provided is assessed, but also the provided
information is reviewed on comprehensibility and possible areas
for improvement are identifi ed. Three criteria need to be satisfi ed
for a positive result of the peer-review: clarity of provided infor-
mation, comprehensiveness of provided information and validity.
Clarity of information relates to whether or not the provided infor-
mation on a criterion is clearly understandable. Comprehensive-
ness ensures that all necessary information has been included to
back up the rating of a criterion within the self-assessment. And
fi nally, validity is related to whether or not the rating of a criterion
is reasonable in light of the provided proof. However, neither the
programme/course nor the institution is reviewed directly. Also,
no peer-review team visit to the organization is included, as such
a visit would likely be too time and resource consuming for most
Capacity Building Organizations, especially smaller ones oper-
ating in developing countries. If data or details are unclear or
unsatisfactory, peer-reviewers will have to ask the organization
via the Open ECBCheck Administrative Offi ce to provide miss-
ing or update incomplete parts of the self-assessment report. The
additional data or details have to be provided within an acceptable
timeframe defi ned by the Administrative Offi ce. Depending on
the amount of revision necessary, the timeframe is suggested for
up to two weeks.
The peer-reviewers then write a peer-review report based on
the provided self-assessment and materials to proof the results.
This peer-review report contains three main areas. The reviewers
provide the organization with a summary of the self-assessment
review including, most importantly, all criteria where the peer-
reviewers disagreed with the self-assessment rating with a corre-
sponding reason. Secondly, the peer-review report includes a rec-
ommendation on whether an institution or a programme should
be awarded with the Open ECBCheck label that is considered by
the Open ECBCheck Awarding Body. Thirdly, the peer-reviewers
write a detailed learning report that highlights those shortcom-
ings and contains improvement possibilities and suggestions. As
learning is one main goal of Open ECBCheck, the learning report
should go, both in coverage and detail, beyond the steps agreed on
for improvement that are included with for instance UNIQUe or
EFMD CEL and provide the receiving institution with advice and
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 50 11.05.10 10:16

51
best practice for each of the criteria where improvements are sug-
gested. As soon as the peer-review report is completed it is submit-
ted to the attention of the Administrative Offi ce.
In the fi nal step (6. and 7. in fi gure 19) the Awarding Body
will be provided with the anonymous peer-review report for a pro-
gramme/course or institution. The decision on the granting of
the label will be taken by simple majority vote of the Awarding
Body and does not need to correspond with the suggestion of the
peer-review report. If the peer-review report is not satisfactory, the
Awarding Body will have to send back the report for a revision via
the Administrative Offi ce. Again, the Administrative Offi ce has to
set an appropriate deadline. If the decision is positive, the Award-
ing Body will inform the institution about completion of the proc-
ess as well as the Administrative Offi ce so that they can update
the offi cial register of institutions or programmes/courses that
obtained the label. The Awarding Body then forwards the learn-
ing report from the peer-reviewers to the organization for further
improvement. The label is valid for three years and an organiza-
tion needs to report on achievements based on the learning report
(8. in fi gure 19) and may re-apply (9. in fi gure 19) for certifi ca-
tion. If the decision is negative, the Awarding Body will inform
the institution about the reasons for not awarding the label and
will provide the learning report for possible improvements. Any
institution or programme/course will need to wait for about one
year before a re-application will be possible. The Awarding Body
Figure 20 The increasing fi lter effect for criteria during the
process
Selection and Harmonisation: Criteria Frameworks
Selection and Harmonisation: Criteria
Expert Validation
User Validation: Pilot Trials
Increasing filter effect for criteria
has to offer advice to the organization on what would be the mini-
mum required changes to make a reapplication reasonable. The
Administration Offi ce has to be informed about the rejection to
make sure that there is no reapplication before the one-year wait-
ing period.
5.4 Selection, Adoption and
Development of the Quality
Criteria Frameworks
This chapter describes the development methodology of selecting,
adopting and adapting existing quality criteria from best practice
approaches (an analysis of these approaches has been conducted
within chapter 4) into one comprehensive catalogue of quality
criteria for programmes and one for institutions and provides an
overview of these quality frameworks. A detailed list of all criteria
for programmes/courses is provided in Annex 8, the correspond-
ing list for institutions is provided in Annex 9.
5.4.1 Development Methodology for Qua-
lity Criteria Catalogues of Open ECBCheck
To develop quality criteria catalogues for both institutions and
programmes - two principle approaches may be used. The fi rst
one would be to derive quality criteria from existing theory about
quality in e-Learning. The second option is to use existing crite-
ria from closely related standards or labels that have been identi-
fi ed as possible best practice in chapter 4. These quality criteria
need to be selected, adopted and adapted into one comprehensive
catalogue of quality criteria for the context of Capacity Building.
For the development of Open ECBCheck, the second approach is
chosen as it offers the advantage to base development on already
proven and validated criteria catalogues from existing approaches.
Below, the methodology for this process consisting of four consec-
utive steps is described. Figure 20 illustrates the increasing fi lter
effect for criteria during this process.
The fi rst step (Selection and Harmonisation: Criteria Frame-
works) has been to identify related criteria catalogues (chapter
4) that could be used as the foundation for the process. For the
quality of courses or programmes, EFMD CEL as well as D-ELAN
DELZert have been chosen, for quality of institutions, UNIQUe as
well as D-ELAN DELZert. As D-ELAN DELZert already integrates
numerous other quality labels or norms, there are indirectly more
sources of criteria (for an overview, please refer to chapter 4.3.1).
ISO/IEC 19769-1 has not been selected, as this standard does not
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 51 11.05.10 10:16

52
offer a normative framework - but a process model that allows for
the description, comparison as well as analysis of existing qual-
ity management or quality assurance approaches. It has, however,
been integrated to demonstrate the compatibility with important
international standards.
In a second step (Selection and Harmonisation: Criteria), the
quality criteria catalogues of the existing standards or labels have
been compared and integrated into one comprehensible catalogue
for both programmes/courses and institutions in a summative
and analytical process to make sure that no important area of
quality criteria is left out. The focus has been to identify a core of
mutual dimensions and corresponding criteria that are consid-
ered of importance for quality in e-Learning in general. Criteria
are unifi ed into one criterion and criteria that are too specifi c for
the special context of only one of the best practice labels have been
deleted from the new criteria catalogues. For instance, UNIQUe
includes a number of criteria that are only relevant for the context
of universities and too specifi c for the context of Capacity Build-
ing Organizations. The process has been supported by the refer-
ence model of ISO/IEC 19796-1 that offers the possibility to map
the criteria of a label against the process categories to assess which
areas are covered and which are not. Additionally, the criteria have
been rephrased or adjusted to the context of e-Learning in Capac-
ity Building where necessary.
As the criteria, that are rather abstract constructs, are used as
the foundation for the self-assessment and possibly conducted by
staff of Capacity Building Organizations not yet having experience
with the application of quality criteria, reliability and validity of the
self-assessment results are issues to consider. To ensure high reli-
ability and validity, organizations need to be supported with fur-
ther information on the criteria to guarantee full understanding
and correct application. Additional information on each criterion
needs to be added within the provided ToolKitSelf-assessment
questionnaire. A further description for each criterion in the con-
text of Capacity Building is added. This description should support
the correct understanding of each criterion and thus the reliability
of self-assessment results. Reliability and validity of the evaluation
results should also be supported by the addition of guidance and
guiding questions that help organizations to assess criteria as well
as the additional guidance of what kind of document could be use-
ful to prove that a certain criterion has been met.
Step three (Expert Validation) focuses on the validation of the
generated criteria catalogues with experts. The criteria catalogues
have been validated two times in an expert discussion (expert
validation) with an expert from the fi eld of quality in e-Learn-
ing and within a workshop with experts and Capacity Building
Organizations. Within the expert discussions each criterion has
been analysed for whether it is relevant for the context of e-Learn-
ing in Capacity Building, whether it is phrased well, whether it
is grouped into the right category and whether the division into
basic and excellence criteria is reasonable. Also assessed was if
the description is phrased well and if the developed guidance and
guiding questions (that should support the organization with the
self-assessment) are relevant for the criteria. After each expert
validation, the two criteria catalogues have been revised in detail.
Furthermore, the criteria catalogues have been validated within a
workshop of about 30 experts from Capacity Building Organiza-
tions as well as universities and international organizations (a full
list of participants is provided in Annex 6). Within the workshop
all experts were divided into small groups and provided with a part
of the criteria list. Each group could decide about agreeing or disa-
greeing with the provided criteria (regarding the relevance of the
criterion for e-Learning in Capacity Building as well as the com-
prehensibility) or whether they had been unclear in their decision.
Moreover, the groups could add comments, rephrasing suggestions
and questions for wording or unclear terms as an example. After
a certain time frame, groups rotated to ensure that each criterion
was reviewed by a number of experts. At the end of this process,
all criteria that were rated as unclear by a majority of experts were
given to the groups in order to work on suggestions for improve-
ment. In the end, these suggestions were discussed amongst the
entire group of experts. After the workshop, the collected feedback
and generated suggestions on the quality criteria were included in
the criteria catalogues in another revision.
The fourth (User validation: Pilot Trials) and last step of vali-
dation was conducted with a smaller group of volunteering insti-
tutions that were present at the above mentioned workshop. The
six institutions have been provided with the MS Excel based
ToolKitSelf-assessment questionnaire, including all quality criteria
needed to support them with the application to one or more of their
courses or programmes and, if applicable, to their institution. The
aim of this pilot phase has been to assess if the ToolKitSelf-assess-
ment questionnaire, that was developed to assist quality develop-
ment and the self-assessment process is understandable, easy to
use and supports the assessment. Furthermore, the phrasing of
the quality criteria has been reassessed. The evaluation results as
well as comments on both single criteria have been sent back by
the institutions. Two sources of information could be used for the
following revision of the criteria catalogues and ToolKitSelf-assess-
ment questionnaire - institutions have provided direct feedback on
their experience with the quality criteria and ToolKitSelf-assess-
ment questionnaire while assessing their programmes and insti-
tutions have provided their evaluation results. If evaluation results
for one or more criteria suggest that these criteria have not been
understood correctly this could be another indicator for necessary
improvements of criteria catalogues.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 52 11.05.10 10:16

53
The feedback received from the pilot application suggests that
the criteria was well understood and the MS Excel based ToolKit-
Self-assessment questionnaire has overall proven to be useful. The
results from the pilot application also show some areas for improve-
ment. As none of the assessed programmes has fulfi lled all prede-
fi ned minimum criteria, one may conclude that the confi guration
of the Open ECBCheck Quality Criteria is very demanding. Con-
sequently, the confi guration of minimum and excellence criteria
needs to be reviewed if all criteria that have been defi ned as mini-
mum are really this crucial or if some of the minimum criteria
should possibly be changed into Excellence criteria within the cri-
teria catalogues. Also, the rating rules for minimum and excellence
criteria have not been applied correctly in all cases. Some organi-
zations used the scale for Excellence criteria from 0 = not realised,
to 3 = realised excellently for minimum criteria. To assist organiza-
tions in the use of the ToolKitSelf-assessment questionnaire, input
fi elds have been edited and now contain a drop down menu that
only allows for choosing ratings from the appropriate scale.
5.4.2 Quality Criteria for Programme
Certifi cation
This chapter provides an overview of the areas that are covered by
the programme/course quality criteria of Open ECBCheck and
are divided into seven main areas (for an overview, please refer
to table 2).
The fi rst area, Information About and Organization of the
e-Learning Programme, is concerned with the basic information that
is provided about the programme for learners as well as the general
programme organization and qualifi cation of staff. It is important
that (potential) participants are well informed about a programme
in order to choose the right programme and allow for a good ori-
entation. Participants need information on learning methods
and forms, intended learning outcomes, contact persons as well
as requirements in terms of connection and computer confi gura-
tion. Connected to this is a realistic time schedule and workload of
a programme, ensuring that no participant is overburdened. Fur-
thermore, an appropriate staff qualifi cation is required to ensure
that the programme is delivered at a high quality.
Target Group Orientation highlights the importance of includ-
ing the learners perspective at all times while developing, running
and evaluating/improving a programme or course. A programme
needs to refl ect the requirements of the target group (stakeholders
and more importantly participants) and to achieve this, stakehold-
ers need to be involved in the development process. Throughout
the duration of the programme, learners need to be supported by
counselling services, attention to low achievers and complaints
management are necessary to achieve the best possible learning
experience. Finally, it is vital to include evaluation results from
earlier programmes to improve the programme according to par-
ticipants needs.
The third area, Quality of the Contents is concerned with the
quality of provided materials including a gender/diversity per-
spective on the provided content. If content is to be profession-
ally balanced and corresponds to the current state-of-the-art in
science, it is important to apply principles/guidelines for content
development. Furthermore, gender aspects and cultural differ-
ences need to be taken into account. To achieve excellent quality it
is also important that a programme offers the possibility for self
directed learning.
Didactical Design focuses on the quality of the learning expe-
rience based on the general learning design, the question of how
learning materials support learners, the quality of eTutoring
(learner support) and how assignments and exams are designed
and used within the programme or course. Here it is important
to note that there is no didactical design that guarantees learner
success or quality in all cases, but which kind of didactical design
supports the programme specifi c learner needs and learning
objectives best needs to be considered. Accordingly, the criteria
do not propose one design but demand that the didactical design
needs to refl ect the learning objectives, is adequate for the target
group, requires networked thinking, supports motivation of par-
ticipants and supports the aspired social learning goals. Moreo-
ver, the sequence of self-learning, online-learning and presence
phases needs to be meaningful for the programme’s design.
Another crucial area for success of e-Learning programmes is the
availability and quality of eTutoring for optimal learner support.
Learners should receive regular feedback from eTutors that possess
the necessary educational qualifi cations. This area highlights the
importance of collaborative learning and demands an explicit and
didactically justifi ed use of collaborative learning forms. Finally, it
is vital to include assignments and exams to allow students a regu-
lar self-assessment of their achievements and to monitor partici-
pants’ progress in order to identify possible weaknesses and areas
where support is needed.
The criteria for Media Design focuses on accessibility and usa-
bility of the media provided to learners. This is important to ensure
that as many people as possible are able to access media and to
ensure the ease of use of the learning environment. Of interest
in this area are, among others, navigation support and structure
of pages/media.
Technology: Equipment & Infrastructure is concerned with the
question of how technology supports an optimal learning experi-
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 53 11.05.10 10:16

54
ence, including the reliability of all systems that are used. Within
this fi eld, the requirement that the chosen technology needs to be
fl exible and is able to support different learning scenarios is most
crucial. This is important with regard to the didactical design that
needs to correspond to learners’ needs thus; technology needs to
act as an enabler and not as a limiting factor. Additionally, accessi-
bility from different platforms, stability and optimisation of down-
load speed are included within this fi eld.
The last area, Evaluation & Review, comprises all factors that
ensure the continuous improvement of a programme or course
as well as the review on whether learners have met the desired
learning outcomes. It is considered of importance that learner
achievements are regularly assessed through assignments and
exams. This serves the purpose of allowing learners to assess their
strengths and weaknesses and fi nd out when students need extra
support - or a programme has to be improved to better suit learn-
ers’ requirements. It is considered crucial that the organization
has an evaluation plan in use for a programme to support contin-
uous improvement. A regular review of instructional materials is
considered vital as well.
A detailed list of all quality criteria for programmes and
courses can be found in Annex 7. Every criterion is listed includ-
ing a more detailed description for better understanding. Guid-
ance on how this criterion can be evaluated as well as suggestions
on how to meet this criterion could be documented. If a criterion
is also relevant for courses and if it is a minimum or excellence cri-
terion in the standard confi guration - that is used for the process
of awarding a label.
Table 2 Overview of Criteria for Programmes and Courses
Areas Sum Minimum Excellence
A Information about and organization of the
e-Learning Programme
A.1 General description, objectives and programme organization 6 6 0
A.2 Technical and organizational requirements 2 2 0
Sum 8 8 0
B Target Group Orientation
B.1 Target Group Orientation 6 2 4
Sum 6 2 4
C Quality of the Contents
C.1 Quality of the Contents 3 2 1
Sum 3 2 1
D Didactical Design
D.1 General Learning Design 6 5 1
D.2 Motivation 1 1 0
D.3 Learning Materials 5 3 2
D.4 eTutoring 4 4 0
D.5 Collaborative Learning 4 4 0
D.6 Assignments & Learning Progress 6 3 3
D.7 Exams 1 1 0
Sum 27 21 6
E Media Design
E.1 Media Design 4 4 0
Sum 4 4 0
F Technology
F.1 Technology 4 4 0
Sum 4 4 0
G Evaluation & Review
G.1 Evaluation & Review 3 3 0
Sum 3 3 0
Tot a l 55 44 11
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 54 11.05.10 10:16

55
5.4.3 Quality Criteria for Institutional
Certifi cation
This chapter provides an overview of the areas that are covered by
the programme/course quality criteria of Open ECBCheck that
are divided into three main areas (for an overview, please refer
to table 3).
Education & Learning is concerned with the quality of fac-
tors that are directly connected to the learning experience of the
learner - including the resources that can be used by learners,
how learners are supported by the organization through staff and
services, qualifi cation and information of staff as well as the par-
ticipation of learners/target group orientation in development of
programmes or courses. An overview on the areas and number
of corresponding criteria is provided in table 2. Criteria in this
area stress the importance of including stakeholders and, more
importantly participants - to achieve quality, beginning with a
needs assessment and participation of learners as a foundation
for the development of programmes or courses and then, continu-
ing with processes for monitoring learning progress to be able to
react to participant’s needs during programmes up to the evalu-
ation of the participants learning experience. That will allow for
further improvement during and at the end of a programme. It is
considered important for the context of Capacity Building to sup-
port students in acquiring the necessary ICT skills to take part in
an educational offer. Learning support services are crucial in this
fi eld, including possibilities for communication among students
and staff, technical and pedagogical support to students, an opti-
mal learning environment as well as clear procedures for dealing
with complaints. Besides the support for participants, this area
highlights the importance of providing support to staff to deliver
quality learning. Staffs need to be qualifi ed and given opportuni-
ties for professional development. Technical support needs to be
available as well as design and delivery guidelines - as reference.
Regarding the learning resources, it is considered signifi cant to
base learning resources on a pedagogical model and to apply con-
tent quality standards as well as to introduce procedures for tests
and regular updates for all resources.
Organizational Strategy & Innovation focuses on how innova-
tion is fostered and on how the quality of e-Learning and e-Learn-
ing itself are embedded into/or represented in the institution’s
strategy. It is considered important that e-Learning is at least
present within mission statements or strategic documents of an
organization, if not as an integral part of the strategy. This idea is
also supported by the assumption that organizations on a potential
orientation level (see chapter 2.4.2) are seeking a certifi cation at
the institutional level. E-Learning is in this case, used to change,
innovate and improve educational practice. The organization has
Table 3 Overview of Criteria for Institutions
Areas
Mini-
mum
Criteria
Excel-
lence
Criteria
A Education & Learning
A.1 Students’ Learning Experience 6 0
A.2 Learning Support Services 62
A.3 Staff (Teachers, Tutors, Facilitators) 3 4
A.4 Learning Resources 51
Sum 20 7
B Organizational Strate-
gies & Innovation
B.1 Strategy (eLearning & IPR) 52
B.2 Commitment to Innovation 14
B.3 Openness to the Community 03
Sum 69
C Organizational Processes
C.1 Organizational Processes 30
Sum30
D Technology: Equip-
ment & Infrastructure
D.1 Technology: Equip-
ment & Infrastructure 41
Sum 41
Tot a l 33 17
to have a policy in place for educational quality, a clear defi nition
of successful education as a foundation and has to have processes
in place that ensure the continuous transfer of evaluation results
into teaching or management practice. In terms of innovation, the
existence of procedures for Intellectual Property Rights and Copy-
rights are considered crucial.
The third area Organizational Processes concentrates on the
quality and documentation of all processes (organizational proc-
esses as well as processes for development of e-Learning pro-
grammes/courses) of an organization that are related to e-Learn-
ing. In this area it is considered of importance that an organization
has clearly defi ned and documented processes and procedures in
all areas that are related to e-Learning to allow for a constant qual-
ity of services. This is connected to the requirement that all staff
involved within e-Learning has clearly defi ned roles and respon-
sibilities that are transparent and documented.
The last area, Technology: Equipment & Infrastructure looks
at the question of how technology supports an optimal learning
experience, including the reliability of all systems (e.g. backup) as
well as data security. This area stresses that ICTs employed by an
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 55 11.05.10 10:16

56
organization are a means to support an optimal learning experi-
ence for participants and needs to be reliable, secure and fl exible
enough to allow for multiple didactical scenarios in order to react
to students needs. Furthermore, the learning system needs to cor-
respond to usability requirements of learners.
A detailed overview of the quality criteria for institutions can be
found in Annex 8. Every criterion for institutions is listed includ-
ing a more detailed description for better understanding. Guidance
on how this criterion can be evaluated as well as suggestions of
how meeting this criterion could be documented are also included.
What‘s more, it is stated whether it is a minimum or excellence cri-
terion in the standard confi guration that is used for the certifi ca-
tion process.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 56 11.05.10 10:16

57
6 | Final Conclusions
This book conceptualized a quality label for e-Learning in Capac-
ity Building to foster the application of e-Learning in this fi eld as
suggested by a recent study. Because of the distinct characteris-
tics of the community of Capacity Building Organizations it was
assumed that none of the existing approaches for quality manage-
ment or certifi cation could be applied one-to-one to this context.
Nonetheless, the chosen methodology for the development of a
quality label valued existing approaches through an analysis of
selected current state-of-the-art quality labels or certifi cates that
were adopted and adapted against the requirements. These were
derived by this book through an analysis of state-of-the-art theory,
research and terminology (chapter 2), a subsequent study based on
a questionnaire and follow-up expert interviews (chapter 3). Sys-
tematised in two domains were the architecture of the label and,
more crucially, the governance system and processes. The analysis
of EFMD CEL, UNIQUe, D-ELAN DELZert and ISO/IEC 19796-1
(chapter 4) confi rmed the assumption that the studied approaches
offer valuable best practice insights - but cannot be used one-to-one
in the context of Capacity Building, as they do not meet all require-
ments. The quality label (chapter 5) was (based on the require-
ments) conceptualized as an open, community and learning based
approach of mutual recognition of quality, with representation of
Capacity Building Organizations to ensure high acceptance. This
community allows for access to guidelines and tools and learning
from each other in benchmarking and bench-learning processes.
To avoid confl icts of interest, the different acting bodies of Open
ECBCheck were clearly identifi ed and separated. The certifi ca-
tion process was especially designed as a learning activity and is
comprised of extensive self-assessment as well as a peer-review of
a self-assessment report as a method for quality evaluation and
validation. Organizations are not only provided with feedback on
the self-assessment, they are also provided with a learning report
that highlights areas for future improvement. These methods,
together with the exchange of peer-review services between the
members, ensure that the demand for a low cost label is met. The
quality criteria frameworks for both institutional and programme
quality with minimum and excellence criteria allow for a broad
coverage of activities. A pilot application of the quality criteria
and self-assessment ToolKitSelf-assessment questionnaire pro-
vided generally positive feedback from the target group, includ-
ing suggestions for improvement. Further research is suggested
to evaluate how well Open ECBCheck supports Capacity Building
Organizations in practice.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 57 11.05.10 10:16

58
Aczel, James C.; Peake, Stephen R.; Hardy, Pascale (2008): Design-
ing capacity-building in e-learning expertise: Challenges and strat-
egies. In: Computers & Education 50 (2), p. 499-510.
African Virtual University (AVU) (n. d.): Academic Programs.
http://www.avu.org/
inner.asp?active_page_id=|233|227|130|224|36|81|133|59|235|230
|57|25|59|136|137|247|199|247|88|2|5|229|230|84|33|195|250|204
|236|221|65|94|229|226|32|14|138|216|97|96|118, page retrieved
on 2008-10-07.
Baumgartner, Peter; Häfele, Hartmut; Maier-Häfele, Kornelia (2002):
Evaluierung von Lernmanagement-Systemen: Theorie - Durch-
führung - Ergebnisse. In: Hohenstein, Andreas; Wilbers Karl (Eds.)
(2002): Handbuch E-Learning, Fachverlag Deutscher Wirtschafts-
dienst, Köln.
Becker, Brian; Gerhart, Barry (1996): The Impact of Human
Resource Management on Organizational Performance: Progress
and Prospects. In: Academy of Management Journal 39 (4), p.
779-801.
Bellanet International Secretariat (2006): About Us. Bellanet Inter-
national Secretariat. http://www.idrc.ca/ict4d/ev-84612-201-1-DO_
TOPIC.html, page retrieved on 2008-08-31.
Beywl, Wolfgang; Speer, Sandra (2004): Das A-B-C der wirkungso-
rientierten Evaluation. Univation GmbH (Ed.), Köln.
Bijnens, Helena; Nascimbeni, Fabio (2007): UNIQUe – European
University Quality in Elearning. http://unique.europace.org/pdf/
eden_unique%20abstract.pdf, page retrieved on 2008-11-09.
Camp, Robert C. (1989): Benchmarking. The Search for industry
best practices that lead to superior performance. ASQC Quality
Press, Wilwaukee, Wisconsin.
Commission for Africa (2005): Our Common Interest. Report of the
Commission for Africa. Commission for Africa, London.
Commonwealth of Learning (COL) (n. d.): A Virtual University for
small States of the Commonwealth. http://www.col.org/colweb/
site/pid/100, page retrieved on 2008-08-26.
dela Pena-Bandalaria, Melinda (2007): Impact of ICTs on Open
and Distance Learning in a Developing Country Setting: The Phil-
ippine experience. In: International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning 8 (1), p. 1-15.
Delrio, Claudio; Fischer, Thomas (2007): HELIOS: Redefi ning
e-Learning Territories. In: eLearning Papers, 4, http://www.elear-
ningeuropa.info/fi les/media/media12725.pdf.
DELZert Deutsche E-Learning Zer tifi zierungsgesellschaft GbR (DELZ-
er t) (n. d. a): Qualitätsplattform Lernen: Das Instrument zur Qual-
itätssicherung in der Bildungsbranche. Zertifi z i e r ung. htt p ://
www.delzert.de/joomla/index.php?option=
com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=37, page retrieved on
2008-12-17.
DELZert Deutsche E-Learning Zer tifi zierungsgesellschaft GbR (DELZ-
er t) (n. d. b): Qualitätsplattform Lernen. http://www.delzert.de/
download/Broschuere_DELZert.pdf, page retrieved on 2008-12-
17.
Deutsches Netzwerk der E-Learning Akteure e.V. (D-ELAN) (n. d.):
Qualitätsplattform Lernen vorgelegt vom D-ELAN Fachausschuss
Qualität.
Diekmann, Andreas (2001): Empirische Sozialforschung. Grund-
lagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. 7th Edition, Rowohlt Taschen-
buch Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg.
DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (2004): PAS 1032-1:
Aus- und Weiterbildung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von
e-Learning - Referenzmodell für Qualitätsmanagement und Qual-
itätssicherung - Planung, Entwicklung, Durchführung und Eval-
uation von Bildungsprozessen und Bildungsangeboten, Beuth,
Berlin.
References
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 58 11.05.10 10:16

59
European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) (n. d.
a): EFMD CEL Introductory Guide. http://www.efmd.org/attach-
ments/tmpl_1_art_041115dbvf_att_
060329bysd.pdf, page retrieved on 2009-01-12.
European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) (n. d.
b): EFMD CEL Quality Criteria Overview. http://www.efmd.org/
attachments/tmpl_1_art_060329ecvg_
att_060419omhr.pdf, page retrieved on 2009-01-12.
European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) (n. d.
c): EFMD CEL Guide to Self-Assessment. http://www.efmd.org/
attachments/tmpl_1_art_060329ecvg_
att_060419mkfo.pdf, page retrieved on 2009-01-13.
European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) (2003):
Assessing for Excellence. A practical guide for successfully devel-
oping, executing and reviewing a Self-Assessment strategy for
your organization. European Foundation for Quality Manage-
ment, Brussels.
Ehlers, Ulf-Daniel; Aimard, Virginie; Gwardak, Lukas; Dembski, Sven
(2007): Potentiale von E-Learning für Capacity Building. Studie
“E-Learning by InWEnt”, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen.
Fauna & Flora International (n. d.): Resuscitating science and edu-
cation in Cambodia. http://www.fauna-fl ora.org/cambodiauniver-
sity.php, page retrieved 2008-10-03.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
(2008a): IMARK Modules – Introduction. http://www.imarkgroup.
org/modulesintro_en.asp, page retrieved 2008-10-03.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
(2008b): Management of Electronic Documents - Description.
http://www.imarkgroup.org/ modu ledescrA_en.asp, page retr ieved
2008-10-03.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
(2008c): Investing in Information for Development. http://www.
imarkgroup.org/moduledescrD_en.asp, page retrieved 2008-10-
03.
Freytag, Per V.; Hollensen, Svend (2001): The process of bench-
marking, bench-learning and benchaction. In: The TQM Journal
13 (1), p. 25-34.
Gómez, Ricardo (2003): Policy Paper No. 1 Capacity Development
for Sustainable Development. A Core Task of the Deutsche Ges-
ellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Deutsche Ges-
ellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn.
Gutknecht-Gmeiner, Maria (2008): Externe Evaluierung durch
Peer Review. Qualitätsicherung und -entwicklung in der berufl i-
chen Erstausbildung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wies-
baden.
Hartz, Stefanie; Meisel, Klaus, Deutsches Institut für Erwachsenen-
bildung (Eds.) (2004): Qualitätsmanagement. Studientexte für
Erwachsenenbildung. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld.
Independent Commission for World Wide Telecommunications Devel-
opment (1984): The Missing Link. International Telecommunica-
tion Union, Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2005): Infor-
mation Technology - Learning, Education, and Training - Quality
Management, Assurance and Metrics - Part 1: General Approach.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2003): Declaration
of Principles. Building the Information Society: a global chal-
lenge in the new Millennium. International Telecommunication
Union, Geneva.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2007): ICT Success
Stories. Digital Education & Learning. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/
ict_stories/themes/education.html, page retrieved on 2008-11-
23.
InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH
(InWEnt) (2005): Mainstreaming ICTs for Development: the Key
Role of the Private Sector. InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung
und Entwicklung gGmbH, Berlin.
InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH
(InWEnt) (2006): InWEnt Capacity Building. Personal- und Organ-
izationsentwicklung in der internationalen Zusammenarbeit.
InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH,
Berlin.
InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH
(InWEnt) (2008): Geschäftsbericht 2008. Global Governance.
InWEnt, Berlin.
InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH
(InWEnt) (2008b): International Leadership Training: Programm-
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 59 11.05.10 10:16

60
Struktur. http://gc21.inwent.org/ibt/GC21/area=gc21/main/de/
modules/gc21/ws-ILT-topportal/ibt/xhtml/struktur.sxhtml, page
retrieved 2008-09-08.
InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH
(InWEnt) (2008c): International Leadership Training - ILT-Kurse
nach Ländern / Regionen. http://gc21.inwent.org/ibt/GC21/
area=gc21/main/de/modules/gc21/ws-ILT-topportal/ibt/xhtml/
laender_ueberblick.sxhtml, page retrieved on 2008-08-31.
InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH
(InWEnt) (2008d): Capacity Building – Netzwerke. http://www.
inwent.de/capacity_building/netzwerke/
index.php.de, page retrieved on 2008-09-18.
Janssens-Bevernage, Anouk; Cornille, Bart; Mwaniki, Nyaga (2005):
Integrating ICT in Teacher Training: Refl ections on Practice and
Policy Implications - A Case Study of the Learning Resource Centre
at the Kenya Technical Teachers College. In: Etta, Florence; Elder,
Laurent (Eds.) (2005): At the crossroads. ICT Policymaking in East
Africa. East African Educational Publishers, Nairobi, p. 153 - 165.
Johnson, Hazel; Thomas, Alan (2007): Sustainable development
and African local government: can electronic training help build
capacities?. In: Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education 37
(4), p. 447-462.
Kamiske, Gerd F.; Brauer, Jörg-Peter (2003): Qualitätsmanagement
von A bis Z. Erläuterungen moderner Begriffe des Qualitätsman-
agements. 4th Edition, Carl Hanser Verlag, München.
KM4Dev (n. d.): About KM4Dev. http://www.km4dev.org/index.
php/articles/
htmlpages/580?, page retrieved on 2008-08-31.
Lemmergaard, Jeanette (2009): Acquiring and sharing knowledge
through inter-organizational bench-learning. In: Lytras; Miltiadis;
Tennyson, Robert; Ordonez de Pablos, Patricia (Eds.) (2009): Knowl-
edge Networks / the social software perspective. Information Sci-
ence, Hershey, Pa, p. 168-180.
Levy, Brian (2004): Governance and Economic Development in
Africa: Meeting the Challenge of Capacity Building. In: Kpun-
deh, Sahr; Levy, Brian (Eds.): Building State Capacity in Africa.
New Approaches, Emerging Lessons. World Bank, Washington,
S. 1-43.
Mahenge, Satoki T. (2005): ICTs and teacher training: Proposal
for action: A case study of the Open University of Tanzania. In:
UNESCO (2005): Capacity Building of Teacher Training Institu-
tions in Sub-Saharan Africa. UNESCO, Paris, p. 146-153.
Mayring, Philipp (2002): Einführung in die qualitative Sozialfor-
schung. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim und Basel.
MENON Network (2007): e-Learning for Innovation. HELIOS
Yearly Report 2007. MENON Network, Brussels.
n. a. (2003): Rome Declaration on Harmonization. ht tp://www.un-
kenya.org/RomeDeclaration.pdf, page retrieved on 2008-05-23.
n. a. (2004): Joint Marrakech Memorandum. http://www.mfdr.
org/documents/
1JointMemorandum05feb04.pdf, page retrieved on 2008-05-24.
n. a. (2005): Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Ownership,
Harmonisation, Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/
11/41/34428351.pdf, page retrieved on 2008-05-23.
OECD (2006): The Challenge of Capacity Development. Working
Towards Good Practice. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OED (2005): Capacity Building in Africa. An OED Evaluation for
World Bank Support. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Sachs, Jeffrey D. (Ed.) (2005): Investing in Development: A Prac-
tical Plan to Achieve the Millenium Development Goals. Earths-
can, London.
Scriven, Michael (1991): Evaluation Thesaurus, 4th Edition, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park.
Shabani, Juma (2005): Quality education for all and lifelong
learning in Africa: The Role of Teacher Traninig Institutions. In:
UNESCO (2005): Capacity Building of Teacher Training Institu-
tions in Sub-Saharan Africa. UNESCO, Paris, p. 91-99.
UNDP (1998): Capacity Assessment and Development in a Systems
and Strategic Management Context. Technical Advisory Paper No.
3. UNDP, New York.
UNDP (2008): Annual Report 2008. Capacity Development:
Empowering People and Institutions. UNDP, New York.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 60 11.05.10 10:16

61
UNESCO (1997): International Standard Classifi cation of Ecuca-
tion ISCED 1997. http://www.unesco.org/education/information/
nfsunesco/doc/isced_1997.htm, page viewed on 2008-07-23.
UNESCO (2002): Information and Communication Technologies
in Teacher Education. A Planning Guide. UNESCO, Division of
Higher Education, Paris.
UNESCO (2005): Information and Communication Technolo-
gies in Schools. A Handbook for Teachers or How ICT can create
new, open learning environments. UNESCO, Division of Higher
Education, Paris.
UNESCO (2007): Education for All (EFA) International Coordi-
nation. The six EFA goals. http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/
ev.php-URL_ID=53844&URL _DO=
DO_TOPIC&URL _SECTION=201.html, page retrieved on 2008-
09-07.
UNIQUe Project Team (2007): UNIQUe Information Package.
Agreement number: 2006 – 1425 / 001 -001. http://unique.
europace.org/pdf/
UNIQUe%20info%20package_RH_FINAL.pdf, page retrieved
on 2008-11-09.
Weingart, Peter (2001): Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis
der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wis-
sensgesellschaft. Velbrück, Weilerswist.
Whyte, Anne (2004): Landscape Analysis of Donor Trends in Inter-
national Development. The Rockefeller Foundation, New York.
Wirth, Markus Alexander (2005): Konzepte und Methoden zur
Beurteilung der Qualität E-Learning-gestützter Aus- und Wei-
terbildungsprogramme. EUSL-Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Pader-
born.
Wirth, Markus A. (2006): An analysis of international quality
management approaches in e-learning. In: Ehlers, Ulf-Daniel; Paw-
lowski, Jan Martin (Eds.) (2006): Handbook on Quality and Stand-
ardisation. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 61 11.05.10 10:16

62
AG Aktiengesellschaft
AVU African Virtual University
CD-ROM Compact Disc Read-Only Memory
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
COL Commonwealth of Learning
D-ELAN Deutsches Netzwerk der E-Learning Akteure e.V.
DELZert Deutsche E-Learning Zertifi -
zierungsgesellschaft GbR
EFQM The European Foundation for Quality Management
EFMD The European Foundation for Man-
agement Development
EFMD CEL EFMD teChnology-Enhanced
Learning accreditation
e.g. for example
et al. et alii (and others)
e. V. eingetragener Verein
FAO Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion of the United Nations
GbR Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts
gGmbH gemeinnützige Gesellschaft mit
beschränkter Haftung
GO Governmental Organisation
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Tech-
nische Zusammenarbeit
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
ILT International Leadership Training
IMARK Information Management Resource Kit
InWEnt Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwick-
lung gGmbH/Capacity Building International
ISO Organization for Standardization
ISCED International Standard Classifi cation of Education
ITU International Telecommunication Union
KfW KfW Bankengruppe
KM4Dev Knowledge Management for Development
LQW Lernerorientierte Qualität in der Bildung
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MS Microsoft
n. a. no author
n. d. no date
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
NGOs Non-governmental Organisations
OED Operations Evaluation Department of World Bank
ODA Overseas Development Assistance
ODE Open and Distance Education
List of Abbreviations
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 62 11.05.10 10:16

63
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-oper-
ation and Development
ECBCheck E-Learning in Capacity Building Check
p. page
PAS Publicly Available Specifi cation
pp. pages
RFDQ Reference Framework for the Descrip-
tion of Quality Approaches
SCIL Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning
SIDA Swedish International Develop-
ment Cooperation Agency
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scien-
tifi c and Cultural Organization
UNIQUe European University Quality in eLearning
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
VET Vocational Education and Training
WBI World Bank Institute
VUSSC Virtual University for Small States
of the Commonwealth
ZEF Center for Development Research, Uni-
versity of Bonn/Zentrum für Entwick-
lungsforschung, Universität Bonn
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 63 11.05.10 10:16

64
About the author
Dr. Ulf-Daniel Ehlers is Professor for technology enhanced learn-
ing at the University of Augsburg, Germany. He has been an
Assistant Professor in the Department for Business Information
Sciences of the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany and has
been an Adjunct Associate Professor of the Graduate School for
Management and Technology of the University of Maryland Uni-
versity College. He holds degrees in English Language, Social Sci-
ences and Educational Sciences from the University of Bielefeld,
where he fi nished his Ph.D. with honours in the fi eld of Technol-
ogy Enhanced Learning in 2003, and was awarded his habilitation
in 2008 from the University of Duisburg-Essen.
Ulf is an internationally recognized researcher and innovator
in the area of E-Learning. He has developed the Learners’ Quality
Model for e-learning, which is a basis for learner centred quality
development in e-learning. He is working as advisor to govern-
ments and non-governmental organisations in the fi eld of learning
and development cooperation and is member of several advisory
boards and editorial committees.
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 64 11.05.10 10:16

65
InWEnt – Capacity Building International, Germany, is a non-
profi t organisation with worldwide operations dedicated to human
resource development, advanced training and dialogue.
InWEnt works together with people in key positions, assisting
them in shaping change processes in their own countries. Our
capacity building programmes are directed at experts and execu-
tives from politics, administration, the business community, and
civil society. InWEnt qualifi es people who pass on their knowledge,
thereby working towards long-term, structural change.
Our Clients
As an organisation of international cooperation, we are commis-
sioned by the German federal government, the German business
sector, and the German Länder or federal states and make an
important contribution to an equitable and sustainable develop-
ment. 60 percent of all our programmes are implemented at the
request of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and
Development (BMZ). In addition, we conduct programmes for
other German federal ministries. We are also working in coop-
eration with German companies in public private partnership
projects.
On an international level, InWEnt works together with the Euro-
pean Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund,
the World Trade Organisation, and the United Nations.
Our Programmes
The programmes for people from developing, transition and indus-
trialised countries are tailored to meet the specifi c needs of our
partners. InWEnt offers practice-oriented advanced education and
training, dialogue sessions, and e-Learning courses through our
own internet platform Global Campus 21®. After the training
programmes, our participants continue their dialogue with each
other and with InWEnt via active alumni networks.
InWEnt provides support for the activities of the German business
sector in developing and transition countries. We are increasingly
focusing on the successful model of public private partnerships
(PPP) that can be designed to incorporate economic, social, and
environmental goals.
InWEnt also prepares experts from the fi eld of international coop-
eration for their time abroad. By offering exchange programmes
and arranging scholarship programmes, InWEnt thus provides
young Germans with the opportunity to gain professional expe-
rience abroad.
Our Offi ces
InWEnt gGmbH is headquartered in Bonn. In addition, InWEnt
maintains fourteen Regional Centres throughout the German
Länder, providing convenient points of contact for all regions. Our
foreign operations in Beijing, Cairo, Hanoi, Kiev, Lima, Mana-
gua, Manila, Moscow, New Delhi, Pretoria, São Paulo, and Dar es
Salaam are usually affi liated with other organisations of German
Development Cooperation.
InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH
Capacity Building International, Germany
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 40
53113 Bonn
Phone +49 228 4460-0
Fax +49 228 4460-1766
www.inwent.org
InWEnt –
Qualifi ed to Shape the Future
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 65 11.05.10 10:16

66
E-Learning Centre of InWEnt, Global Campus 21,
and GC 21 E-Acadmey
The E-Learning Centre of InWEnt coordinates all e-learning activi-
ties of InWEnt, and the Global Campus 21®.
Meanwhile we can build on more than ten years of experience
in e-learning. While the fi rst years were centred mainly on e-didac-
tics, content development and e-learning technology, the focus has
evolved towards e-learning strategy and management as well as
quality and accreditation in e-learning. We pass on our competen-
cies to our partners in international cooperation.
The Global Campus 21® is Inwent’s learning platform on the
Internet. It is based on a learning management system using mod-
ern web technology. Since its inception in the year 2000, Global
Campus 21 has become one of InWEnt’s trade marks. Participants
from all over the world use our online courses and virtual work-
rooms, to learn together, discuss and share their experiences, and
collaborate on projects.
Global Campus 21® can also be used by other development
cooperation institutions and by private businesses. Its reliability,
multilingual structure, the qualifi ed advisory services provided
by our e-learning centre and the low user costs make it an attrac-
tive instrument in international human resources and organiza-
tional development.
Global Campus 21® is fi nanced by a grant from the German
Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and
by orders of our customers.
Global Campus 21 E-Academy
The Global Campus 21 E-Academy helps gain, extend and pass on
professional know-how, managerial skills and leadership experi-
ence in developing countries by means of new learning media.
E-learning for managers, specialists and leaders: Decision-
makers need to keep their professional knowledge up-to-date and
to master tools and methods which assist them in organising
their work and the work of others. Therefore, training is a contin-
ual task that encompasses the entire working life. Our range of
courses supports experts and executives in developing specialist
and intercultural skills.
Support for businesses and institutions: Should you wish to
make use of e-learning in your organisation, the Global Cam-
pus 21 E-Academy would be pleased to assist you as a business
partner. We will provide you with the necessary help from plan-
ning to implementation. Please contact us, and we can discuss
the terms.
Contact
InWEnt – Capacity Building International, Germany
Div. E-Learning, Int. Knowledge Communities, Documentation
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 40
53113 Bonn
Phone +49 228 4460-0
Fax +49 228 4460-1766
www.globalcampus21.inwent.org
www.gc21-eacademy.org
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Inhalt.indd 66 11.05.10 10:16

10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Umschlag.indd 2 11.05.10 10:33

0OCFIBMGPG
10-30525_Open-ECBCheck-Umschlag.indd 1 11.05.10 10:33