«VOLUM E 1 1, N UM B E R 1 I S SN 2 1 6 8 - 0 6 1 2 F L ASH DR I V E I S SN 1 9 4 1 - 9 5 8 9 ON L I N E T h e In s t it ut e f o r Bu s i n e s s an ...»
Participants having reliable internet connectivity were likely to have better computing skills, which put them at a better position for eLearning (χ2=9.052; df=3; p-value=0.030). More still, those who indicated that workplace internet connectivity was very reliable were about 6.8 times more likely to be prepared for eLearning than their colleagues reporting that internet connectivity was very unreliable. ELearning is an educational mode that is entirely supported by the internet. Its success, therefore, depends on the availability and stability of the internet. As pointed out by key informants and up to 32.3% of the academic staff internet connectivity at the University is not available always. Besides, peripheral campuses experience difficulties accessing the University website or specific URL links. Frequent disappointment in accessing the internet is likely to reinforce user apprehensiveness, which in turn, discourages academic staff from developing their skills in searching for information to update their notes, communicate through e-mails or support their research activities. Given the nature of eLearning, stable and reliable internet connectivity is indispensable;
making it one of the key infrastructural systems that must be strengthened as a precursor to eLearning.
Lecturers are more likely to be prepared for eLearning where technical support for ICT-related challenges were addressed in time; thus, preparedness for eLearning was significantly associated with the timeliness of technical support (χ2=18.572; df=3; p-value=0.000). Furthermore, participants who felt that technical support was very timely were about 5 times more likely to be prepared for eLearning than their colleagues in the reference category. Providing computers and other ICT hardware may not be adequate without a strong, ubiquitous and omnipresent back-up support. At the time of the study, the technical support system in place is unpredictable; sometimes technicians respond very fast, other times they take as long as a week to address reported issues. Besides, some administrative units are readily supported more than the academic staff. This however, is attributed to shortage of technical support staff and centralization of support services.
The timeliness of technical support is one of the factors significantly associated with lecturers’ preparedness for eLearning. Inadequacy or untimely access to technical support is likely to encourage detachment between academic staff and their ICT facilities, including computers. In other words, lack of support encourages user apprehension in accepting technology to support and improve their work. Thus, some academic staff find it comfortable concentrating on traditional methods of teaching. In view of this, strengthening and decentralising ICT support to the departmental level is a key intervention that should be considered by the University to ensure that technical support to academic staff is readily available to help them open-up to technology and build confidence.
We are grateful to the University of Nairobi for granting the opportunity for to the first author to pursue the PhD degree in Distance Education. Secondly, we thank all the participants who took their time to provide the requisite information. Thirdly, we are indebted to Tom Odhiambo, an independent research consultant for reviewing the manuscript.
BIOGRAPHYNicholas Kut Ochogo is a lecturer at the University of Nairobi. He holds a Master’s degree in Project Planning and Management from the University of Nairobi and a doctorate degree from the University of Nairobi.
Dr. Charles M. Rambo is a Senior Lecturer and coordinator of Postgraduate programs at the Department of Extra Mural Studies, University of Nairobi, Kenya. His academic interests include financial management, GCBF ♦ Vol. 11 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2016 ♦ ISSN 1941-9589 ONLINE & ISSN 2168-0612 USB Flash Drive 494 Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings ♦ Volume 11 ♦ Number 1 small and medium enterprises, small-scale farming and education financing. His previous work appears in journals such as Journal of Continuing, Open and Distance Education, International Journal of Disaster Management and Risk Reduction and the Fountain: Journal of Education Research, African Journal of Business and Management, African Journal of Business and Economics, as well as International Journal of Business and Finance Research. He is reachable at the University of Nairobi through telephone number, +254 020 318 262; Mobile numbers +254 0721 276 663 or + 254 0733 711 255.
Dr. Joyce K. Mbwesa is a Senior Lecturer at University of Nairobi, Kenya. She is reachable at the University of Nairobi.
REFERENCESAbbad, M., Morris, D. and Nahlik, C. (2009). “Factors Affecting Student and Lecturer Use of E- Learning Systems in Jordan”, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.
Albirini, A. (2006). “Teachers’ Attitudes toward Information and Communication Technologies in Syrian Tertiary Institutions”, Journal of Computer and Education”. Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 373-398.
Aldrich, S.T. and Nelson, P.D. (1984). Advanced Quantitative Techniques for Social Sciences, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge.
Ashley, D. and Orenstein, D.M. (2005). Sociological theory: Classical statements (6th ed.). Boston:
Babbie, E. R. (1973). Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Becta (2003). “The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Pupil Learning and Attainment – Full report, March 2003. http://www.becta.org.uk/research/reports/impact2 Accessed in April 13 2010 Best, J.W. and Khan, J.V. (2004). Research in Education, 7th Edition. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.
Blankenship, W. (1998). Factors related to Computer Use by Teachers in Classroom Instruction, Doctorate Dissertation submitted to Virginia State University.
Dunn, S. L. (2000). “The Virtualization of Education”, Futurist. Vol. 34, No. 1, pp 34-39.
Farahani, G.O. (2003). Existence and Importance of Online Interaction. A PhD Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, USA.
Fowler, F. (1993). Survey Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gakuu, C.M. (2006). An Analysis of Factors that Influence Lecturer’s Attitude towards the Use of Distance Education and the Use of eLearning in Teaching. A PhD Thesis submitted to the School of Continuing and Distance Learning, University of Nairobi. Nairobi Garrison, D. and Anderson, T. (2003). ELearning in the 21st Century. London: Routledge Falmer.
Gulbahar, Y. (2005). “Technology Planning: A Roadmap to Successful Technology Integration in Schools”, Journal of Computers and Education. Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 324-366.
GCBF ♦ Vol. 11 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2016 ♦ ISSN 1941-9589 ONLINE & ISSN 2168-0612 USB Flash Drive 495 Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings ♦ Volume 11 ♦ Number 1 Hitt, C. and Hartman, L. (2002). “Distributed Learning: New Challenges and Opportunities for Institutional Leadership. American Council of Education/EDUCAUSE, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp 134-156.
Houtz, S. and Gupta, P. (2001). “Gender Roles, Computer Attitudes and Dyadic Computer Interaction Performance among University Lecturers in Egypt”. Journal of Organisational Behaviour. Vol. 20, No.
3, pp. 1-9.
Kariuki, J. (2006). ELearning in Kenya Universities: Random Reflections about ELearning in Africa.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001419/141952e.pdf. Accessed on June 14, 2010.
Keller, C. and Cernerud, L. (2002). “Students’ Perception of ELearning in University Education”, Learning, Media and Technology. Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 55-67.
Kerka, S. (2002). “Enticing Online Consumers: An Extended Technology Acceptance Perspective”, Information and Management. Vol. 39, No. 8, pp. 705-719.
Kihara, J. (2005). “Challenges Facing University Education”. Daily Nation Special Journal, July 28,
2005. Nairobi: Nation Media Group.
Mercado, C. A. (2008). “Readiness Assessment Tool for An eLearning Environment Implementation”, a paper presented during the 5th International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, December 11-12, 2008, Bangkok, Thailand Mugenda, O.M. and Mugenda, A.G. (1999). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: Acts Press.
Nachmias, C.F and Nachmias, D. (1996). Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 5thEdition. London:
Naidu, S. (2005). “Evaluating Distance Education and ELearning”. Encyclopaedia of Distance Learning, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 857-864.
Naidu, S. (2006). ELearning: A Guidebook of Principles, Procedures and Practices. New Delhi:
Commonwealth Educational Media Center for Asia.
Ndume, V., Tilya, F.N. and Twaakyondo, H. (2008). “Challenges of Adaptive eLearning at Higher Learning Institutions: A Case Study in Tanzania”. International Journal of Computing and ICT Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 47 - 59.
Ngai, E.W., Poon, J.K. and Chan, Y.H. (2007). “Empirical Examination of the Use of WebCT using TAM, Computers & Education. Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 250-267.
Oblinger, D., and Oblinger, J. (2005). “Educating the Net Generation”. EDUCAUSE E-Book, http://www.educause.edu/eductingthenetgen, Accessed on July 2, 2010.
Omwenga, E. (2004). “A Model for Introducing and Implementing ELearning for Delivery of Educational Content within the African Context”. African Journal of Sciences and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 35Preston, B.J. (2000). “ELearning Policy Issues: Global Trends, Themes and Tensions”. Journal of eLearning, Vol.33, No. 1, pp. 44-52.
GCBF ♦ Vol. 11 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2016 ♦ ISSN 1941-9589 ONLINE & ISSN 2168-0612 USB Flash Drive 496 Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings ♦ Volume 11 ♦ Number 1 Roberts, N., Hutchinson, W. and Little, G. (2003). “Barriers to Using Technology for Teaching and Learning in Dutch Universities”, Educase Quarterly. Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 22-28.
Romiszowski, A. (2004). “Factors Leading to Success or Failure of an Educational Technology Innovation”. Educational Technology, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). ELearning: Strategies for Building Online Learning in the Digital Age. New York: McGraw-Hill Saekow, A. and Samson, D. (2011). “E-learning Readiness of Thailand’s Universities Comparing to the USA’s Cases”. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 554-567.
Selim, H. (2007). “An Empirical Investigation of Student Acceptance of ELearning”. Computers and Education, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 343-360.
Shepard, M. (2008). “Use of Online Teacher Education in Remote, Indigenous Areas Central”, American Journal of Indigenous Education. Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 54-70.
Tavangarian, D., Leypold, M., Nölting, K., and Röser M., (2004). “Is ELearning the Solution for Individual Learning?” Journal of eLearning, Vol.1, No. 1, pp. 1-15.
The MENON Network, (2007). ELearning for Innovation. HELIOS Annual Report, Helsinki, 2007.
Trombley, K.B. and Lee, D. (2002), “Web-based Learning in Corporations: Who is Using it and Why, Who is not and Why not?” Journal of Educational Media, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 137-146.
Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000). “Gender, Social Influence and their Role in Technology Acceptance Behaviour among Academic Staff in Public Universities, India”, Management Information Systems Quarterly. Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 115-139.
Volery T. (2000). “Critical Success factors in Online Education”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 321-334.
Wuensch, K.L. (2006). Logistic Regression with SPSS.
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/spss/logistic.sav Accessed in April 4, 2010.
Ya-Ching, L. (2006). “An Empirical Investigation into Factors Influencing the Use of an ELearning System”. Online Information Review, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 517-541.
GCBF ♦ Vol. 11 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2016 ♦ ISSN 1941-9589 ONLINE & ISSN 2168-0612 USB Flash Drive 497 Global Conference on Business and Finance Proceedings ♦ Volume 11 ♦ Number 1
Project risk management has been recognized as a means for analyzing and responding to risks in complex, multi-stage undertakings. However, in spite of the critical role that information systems have played in recent organizational life, there has been slowly increasing research literature currently available as to the practice of project risk management in relation to information system (IS) development. The reasons for the lack of attention paid to IS development project risk management remain unknown. This paper revisits this topic (Snyder, 2011) to evaluate future progress in the success of IS projects. One of the key recent changes in risk management is addressing Cloud Computing.
JEL: D81 KEYWORDS: Risk Management, Project Management, Cloud Computing
INTRODUCTIONOrganizations today are much more concerned about the effects of competition than they were in the past;
therefore, no organization would like to stand the risk of being overtaken by other competitors on the same playing ground with equal opportunities (Achimuga, Babajide, Oluwaranti, Oluwagbemi, Gambo, 2010).
Project risk management has increasingly received attention as a critical process in responding to ongoing failures in project management. According to a study by Wet and Visser (2013) “global research indicates that the success rate of software projects worldwide is currently low, and has been low for the past few decades. The application of risk management has improved the success rate of software projects worldwide.” With significant business now done via the cloud, several vendors (SAP, 2015; Innotas, 2015; Intaver,