1 of 27

From "how long is a piece of string?" to proper project planning

Solving the e-learning costing conundrum�Tamsyn Smith & James Allen, University of Southampton

23/10/25

2 of 27

The impossible request:�

What we don't know...

Scope and complexity

Learning outcomes

Target audience

Platform requirements

Media needs

Compliance requirements

Timeline expectations

"Can you give me a quote for some e-learning? I need it for a research proposal deadline on Friday."

Tamsyn

Let's start with a familiar scenario. A colleague contacts you – often with an urgent deadline – asking for an e-learning quote. They usually have a topic in mind, maybe a rough sense of duration, but little else. Yet they expect a reasonable answer.

The problem is, without understanding scope and complexity, any figure we provide is essentially meaningless. Are we talking about a basic knowledge check with some text and images? Or an immersive simulation with branching scenarios and professional video production? The development time – and therefore resource requirements – could differ by a factor of seven or more.

But here's the challenge: we can't just say "I don't know" or "it depends." Colleagues need answers for funding applications, research proposals, and budget planning. So, we end up giving educated guesses that often come back to haunt us when the actual project begins and turns out to be far more complex than anyone anticipated.

This is the "how long is a piece of string" problem – we're being asked to estimate something without the fundamental information needed to make that estimate meaningful.

�Think about your own context:

What information do you typically receive when someone first asks you about developing e-learning? What's usually missing? [Allow time for reflection]

3 of 27

Beyond monetary costing: Why systematic scoping matters

Appropriate resource allocation

Realistic timeline estimation

Stakeholder expectation management

Quality assurance

Different institutional contexts, same challenge:

Research universities: Formal costing for grant applications
Teaching-focused institutions: Capacity planning and workload allocation
Commercial training providers: Client quotations and project scoping
Internal learning teams: Resource allocation across competing projects

James

Before we share our solution, we want to acknowledge that different institutions approach e-learning development differently. Some of you work in environments where formal monetary costing is essential – perhaps for research grants or external client work. Others might work in contexts where it's more about understanding workload, capacity, and timeline.

What I've found is that regardless of whether you're assigning money or simply trying to work out if you can fit a project into your team's capacity, the underlying challenge is the same: you need to understand true project complexity before you can make any meaningful estimates.

Our calculator was designed primarily for our context – a research-intensive university where we frequently need formal cost estimates for grant applications. But the systematic questioning approach at its heart is valuable regardless of your institutional context, because it helps uncover hidden complexity and educate stakeholders about what e-learning development actually involves.

Audience engagement:

Quick poll: Which of these scenarios (listed in the bulletpoints) most closely matches your institution? [Show of hands for each category]

4 of 27

Building on research: Evidence-based time allocation

Chapman Alliance (2010): Industry benchmark study

249 organisations, 3,947 learning professionals
Level 1 (basic): 79 hours per finished hour
Level 2 (interactive): 184 hours per finished hour

Our framework: Three tiers for healthcare/HE context

Basic content: 113 hours per 60-minute course
Intermediate interactive: 534 hours per 60-minute course
Advanced simulation: 750 hours per 60-minute course
Includes: compliance requirements, SME involvement, accessibility implementation, review cycles

Tamsyn

Our calculator isn't based on guesswork – it builds on solid research evidence, particularly Chapman's 2010 benchmark study which surveyed nearly 4,000 learning professionals. This remains the most widely cited research on e-learning development time.

However, Chapman's figures represent general e-learning development. We've adapted these for our context – higher education content often with a healthcare context – where we have additional considerations like clinical accuracy validation, enhanced compliance requirements, and substantial subject matter expert involvement.

We've also incorporated more recent insights from other sources like ATD's 2023 research and practitioner data from Christy Tucker, as well as our own institutional experience. And crucially, we've started factoring in how generative AI is beginning to affect certain aspects of development time – though nowhere near as dramatically as some might hope.

What's really important here is that these figures include everything that's often overlooked in quick estimates: the multiple rounds of SME review that healthcare content requires, the time needed for proper accessibility implementation, the compliance overhead for public sector bodies, all the review cycles that actually happen in real projects.

When we say ~120 hours for basic content, that genuinely means basic – primarily text with images, simple knowledge checks, linear progression. The moment you add meaningful interactivity, realistic scenarios, or rich media, you're moving into our intermediate tier. And if you want immersive simulations using Cathy Moore's scenario methodology with multiple branching pathways, you're in the advanced tier.

Audience engagement:

Question for reflection: Do these figures surprise you? Are they higher or lower than what you've been working with?

5 of 27

What transforms "simple" projects into complex ones

Scenario-based learning

Moderate scenario (3–4 decisions): +~42 hours
Complex scenario (5+ pathways): +~75 hours
Multiple scenarios multiply quickly

Compliance requirements

PSBAR compliance including WCAG 2.1 AA: +35% development time
EAA compliance: Additional +5%

Subject matter expert involvement

Healthcare content: 35% of total time
General content: 30% of total time
Often underestimated or forgotten entirely

James

Let me show you what really drives development time up – these are the elements that colleagues rarely appreciate when making their initial request.

Scenario-based learning is incredibly powerful pedagogically, but it's also resource-intensive. When someone says "can we make it more interactive?", they often mean "can we add some scenarios?" What they don't realise is that each properly designed branching scenario – using Cathy Moore's methodology with realistic consequences and multiple pathways – adds over 55 hours of development time. If your project needs five scenarios, you've just added 275 hours.

Then there's compliance. We're a public sector body, so WCAG 2.1 AA compliance isn't optional – it's legally required under PSBAR. This adds 35–40% to development time. That's not just running an accessibility checker at the end; it's building accessibility in from the start: proper alt text for every image, keyboard navigation, colour contrast, screen reader compatibility, captions for all video content.

And here's the big one that almost everyone forgets: subject matter expert time. For healthcare content, we budget 35% of total development time for SME involvement (or 30% for standard projects). That's not passive review – it's active engagement in content validation, clinical accuracy checking, feedback incorporation, and often multiple review cycles. For a 500-hour project, that’s 150-175 hours of SME time. If your SME can only give you five hours a week, that’s 30-35 weeks just for the SME involvement, regardless of how quickly you can develop.

Audience engagement:

From your experience: Which of these complexity multipliers causes the most surprises in your projects?

6 of 27

From vague requests to defined projects: 20 essential questions

Resources and risk (Questions 14–20)

Timeline, SME availability, budget

Risk assessment and quality assurance

Compliance and delivery (Questions 8–13)

Regulatory requirements and accessibility

Platform selection and media specifications

Learning design (Questions 3–7)

Learning outcomes and instructional strategy

Content complexity and structure

Scenario and assessment requirements

Project fundamentals (Questions 1–2)

Purpose, audience, strategic alignment

Stakeholder management and governance

Tamsyn

So how do we get from "can you quote for some e-learning?" to actually understanding what's needed? Through systematic questioning.

We've developed a set of 20 carefully crafted questions, refined over years of team experience. These aren't random questions – they're specifically designed to uncover project complexity whilst simultaneously educating colleagues about what e-learning development actually involves.

The questions are structured to take someone through a logical journey. We start with project fundamentals – why are we doing this, who's it for, how does it align with strategy? This immediately surfaces whether we're talking about a quick training module or something that needs formal governance.

Then we move into learning design territory. This is where we start using pedagogical language deliberately – asking about Bloom's taxonomy, instructional approaches, scenario complexity. When a colleague has to think about whether they need problem-based learning or scenario-based learning, they start to appreciate that there are actual design decisions involved.

The compliance and delivery sections often contain the biggest revelations. "Do you need WCAG 2.1 AA compliance?" "Well, I don't know, do I?" "Yes, because you're a public sector body and it's legally required." Suddenly they understand why we can't just throw something together in PowerPoint.

Finally, the resource and risk questions get to the practical constraints – timeline, SME availability, budget. By this point, the conversation has completely changed from "give me a quote" to "let's work out what's actually feasible given these constraints."

Audience engagement:

Interactive moment: I'd like to hear from you. What would you add to this list? What questions are essential in your institutional context that might be missing from ours? [Take 2–3 responses]

Essential scoping questions for SME discussion: Essential Scoping Questions for SME Discussion.docx

7 of 27

Calculator structure: From inputs to insights

Let me show you how this actually works in practice. The calculator is built in Excel – deliberately chosen because it's accessible, widely available, and doesn't require specialist software or IT support.

It has seven sheets, but I’m going to focus on three right now. The Project Input sheet is where the conversation happens – this is where you work through those 20 questions with your colleague. We've used dropdown menus extensively to ensure consistency and help guide appropriate responses. You can't select "complex branching scenarios" and "PowerPoint" as your authoring tool – the calculator knows that's not compatible and will warn you.

The Calculations sheet is where the evidence-based magic happens. It takes all your inputs and applies the appropriate time multipliers, complexity factors, and compliance requirements. It's pulling from a Lookup Tables sheet that contains all our research-based values. Importantly, it provides confidence indicators – you'll see green indicators where we have high confidence in the estimate, yellow for medium confidence, and red flags where there are potential issues.

The Cost Breakdown sheet is designed for stakeholder communication. It provides an executive summary with clear visualisations – including a pie chart showing the cost distribution between development, media, SME time, and contingency. It breaks down exactly where the hours are going, provides time estimates, and shows what SME commitment is needed.

What's crucial is that this isn't just a costing tool – it's an educational tool that helps colleagues understand development complexity.

Visual suggestions:

Three screenshots showing each sheet (arranged vertically or in a flow diagram)

Arrows showing the flow: Input → Calculations → Breakdown

Highlight key features on each screenshot with callout boxes

Could use a "before and after" concept: vague request transforms through the three sheets into clear requirements

8 of 27

Live demonstration: The systematic questioning in action

Key features:

Dropdown menus for consistency
Real-time validation
Data confidence indicators
Helpful tooltips and guidance

James

Let me walk you through a live example. [Switch to Excel or show detailed screenshots]

Let's imagine a colleague has approached us about developing e-learning for a professional development course on foot health assessment for podiatrists. This is actually a real project we've costed recently.

Starting at the top, we enter basic project information: project name, duration – they're thinking 60 minutes – content type. Notice the dropdown for content type includes "clinical/healthcare" which triggers higher SME involvement multipliers.

Moving down, we select the platform. This is important because it affects development time significantly. They need this available to external professionals, so we're looking at Course Catalog rather than Blackboard. Notice the calculator immediately tells us this has hosting costs.

Now authoring tool selection. They want rich interactivity, so we're considering Articulate Rise 360 or Storyline. The calculator shows the development time implications: Rise is 70 hours per finished hour, Storyline is 150 hours. That's more than double. When you can see that difference explicitly, the decision becomes much more informed.

Here's where it gets interesting – scenario requirements. They initially said they wanted "some interactivity." Through our questioning, we've established they actually need 3–4 realistic clinical scenarios. We select "moderate complexity" scenarios with 3–4 decision points each. The calculator is already starting to work out the implications.

Assessment type – they need comprehensive multiple choice with detailed feedback for professional development. Number of questions: 25. Reflection activities: they'd like three structured reflection points. Each of these selections is adding to our time calculation behind the scenes.

Notice the validation indicators on the right – green ticks where we have high confidence, yellow warnings where there might be issues. If we'd selected incompatible options, we'd see red flags immediately.

Audience engagement:

Question while we're looking at this: What would you want to add to this input sheet for your institutional context? What's missing that you need?

Visual suggestions:

If using screenshots rather than live demo:

Multiple sequential screenshots showing the progression through the input sheet

Highlight or zoom in on key sections

Use callout boxes to draw attention to dropdown menus, validation indicators, and helpful features

Show examples of both valid and invalid selections (with the red warning flags)

9 of 27

Behind the scenes: Evidence-based calculations

[Screenshot of Calculations sheet showing breakdown]

What the calculator reveals:

Base development: 40 hours
Scenario development: 105 hours (3 scenarios × 35 hours)
Assessment creation: 35 hours
Reflection activities: 36 hours
Compliance overhead: 75.6 hours (40% of base)
Total development: 291.6 hours
Plus SME requirements:
Healthcare content: 35% of development time
SME hours needed: 102 hours
Timeline estimate: 12 weeks

Now let's see what the calculator tells us. [Switch to Calculations sheet or show screenshot]

For our foot health assessment example, here's what we're looking at. Base development for 60 minutes in Course catalog: 40 hours. That's just the platform time multiplier applied to the duration.

But then we add scenario development. We specified 3 moderate-complexity scenarios. The calculator knows that each moderate scenario in Rise 360 takes approximately 35 hours – that's based on Cathy Moore's methodology and our institutional experience. So that's 105 hours just for scenarios.

Assessment creation: 25 comprehensive multiple choice questions with detailed feedback, that’s 35 hours including the base setup time for the assessment framework.

Reflection activities: we wanted three structured reflection components, that's 36 hours total.

Now here's the element that often surprises people: compliance overhead. For public sector healthcare content with WCAG 2.1 AA, PSBAR and EAA compliance requirements, we add 40% to the development time. That’s 75.6 hours just for accessibility implementation, documentation, and compliance checking. You can see why we can't just "make it accessible at the end."

Total development time: 291.6 hours. That’s over 8 weeks of full-time work, or about 3 months in reality when you account for other projects and responsibilities.

But we're not done yet. For healthcare content, we require 35% SME time. That's an additional 102 hours. If the clinical SME can give us 10 hours per week, that’s 10 weeks of SME involvement. This often becomes the critical path constraint – it doesn't matter how fast we can develop if we're waiting for SME review.

The calculator provides confidence indicators throughout. You can see we have high confidence on most of these figures because they're directly based on our research evidence. Where there's uncertainty – perhaps because it's a novel scenario type – we flag that with yellow or red indicators.

Audience engagement:

Reflection point: How does this compare with your current estimation approaches? Are these figures broadly consistent with your experience, or surprisingly different?

Visual suggestions:

Annotated screenshot of the Calculations sheet

Consider a waterfall chart showing how hours accumulate

Pie chart showing time distribution (could pull this from the Cost Breakdown sheet)

Timeline graphic showing the 12 week estimate

Use colour coding: development (blue), scenarios (green), assessment (yellow), compliance (orange), SME (red)

Could show a "reality check" comparison: "What colleague expected: 2 weeks" vs "Actual timeline: 12 weeks"

10 of 27

Stakeholder-ready output: The Cost Breakdown sheet

[Screenshot of Cost Breakdown sheet showing executive summary]

Clear visualisation of:

Total project cost: £21036.19
Timeline: 8.3 weeks (minimum!)
SME requirement: 102 hours

Breakdown by category:

Development: 43%
Media: 21%
SME: 19%
Contingency: 17% (built in)
Plus scope comparison options

This is what we share with stakeholders – the Cost Breakdown sheet. It's designed for clear communication with people who aren't e-learning specialists.

At the top, we have the executive summary showing the total project cost. For our foot health example, that's just under £21,000 including contingency. That's for a 60-minute professional development course with moderate scenario complexity, comprehensive assessment, professional video production and all the compliance requirements.

The cost per learning hour figure is particularly useful for benchmarking and making comparisons. It's also a reality check – if someone's expecting high-quality e-learning for £2,000 per hour, this shows why that's not realistic.

The pie chart breaks down where the money goes. In this case, 43% is development time, 21% is media production (we included some custom graphics, professional photography, voice over and videography), 19% is SME time, and we've built in contingency because healthcare content development always has uncertainties.

Audience engagement:

Discussion point: Do you find this level of transparency helpful or potentially problematic? Does showing cost breakdowns strengthen or complicate stakeholder relationships in your experience?

Visual suggestions:

Clean screenshot of the executive summary section

Highlight the key figures: total cost, timeline, SME hours

Show the pie chart prominently

Consider a side-by-side showing full scope vs reduced scope with the costs clearly visible

Use callout boxes to highlight important features like "20% contingency included" and "evidence-based calculations"

Could add a "what this includes" callout listing: instructional design, development, accessibility, QA, SME review, etc.

11 of 27

Before and after: How the calculator transforms conversations

Before the calculator

Vague requests with unrealistic expectations

Time estimates pulled from thin air

Scope creep during development

Frustrated stakeholders and overworked teams

Projects that don't deliver quality

After the calculator

Systematic discovery of true requirements

Evidence-based, defensible estimates

Clear understanding of trade-offs

Informed scope decisions

Realistic timelines and resource allocation

Early pilot results:

Improved accuracy of project scoping

Better stakeholder understanding of complexity

Reduced scope creep

More realistic timeline expectations

Higher confidence in delivery

James

Let me show you what difference this makes in practice.

Before we had this systematic approach, the typical conversation went something like this: "I need some e-learning on topic X, maybe 30 minutes, how much will that cost?" We'd make an educated guess based on past similar projects, say something like "probably £8,000–£12,000 and 8–10 weeks." The colleague would commit that figure to a funding application. Then when we actually started scoping the project properly, we'd discover they actually needed complex branching scenarios, professional video production, and extensive SME review. The "maybe £10,000" project turned into a £25,000 project, and everyone was unhappy.

Now the conversation is completely different. We sit down with the calculator and systematically work through the questions. By question five or six, the colleague is already starting to understand the complexity involved. By the time we reach scenario requirements, they're making informed decisions: "Actually, maybe we don't need five scenarios – would three well-designed ones be more effective?"

The calculator forces us to surface assumptions early. When someone sees that their "simple" training module requires over 100 hours of clinical SME time, they understand why we need the lead clinician genuinely committed to the project, not just providing token review.

We're still in pilot phase, so take these findings as preliminary, but we're seeing really promising results. Project scoping accuracy has improved dramatically – we're much less likely to discover halfway through development that we've underestimated scope. Stakeholders have better understanding of complexity – they appreciate why quality e-learning takes time and resources. We're seeing less scope creep because we've discussed trade-offs up front. And crucially, team morale has improved because we're not constantly delivering bad news about blown timelines and budgets.

One unexpected benefit: the questioning process itself has improved our working relationships with academic colleagues. They feel heard and understood, and they appreciate that we're taking their requirements seriously rather than just giving a quick quote.

Audience engagement:

From your experience: What would successful implementation look like in your institution? What barriers would you need to overcome?

Visual suggestions:

Split screen showing "before" (chaotic, uncertain) vs "after" (organized, confident)

Could use visual metaphors: before = fog/confusion, after = clear pathway

Consider showing actual quotes (anonymised) from stakeholders: "I had no idea it was this complex" or "This really helped me understand what we were asking for"

Traffic light system: red (before) → green (after)

Perhaps include a simple graph showing improvement in estimate accuracy over time (even if pilot data)

Use icons: frustrated face → happy face, question mark → checkmark, etc.

12 of 27

Your expertise: What would make this work in your context?

1. What would you need to ask that we haven't included? Are there essential scoping questions we've missed?

3. Where do you lack reliable data for estimation? We've based our framework on Chapman, ATD, Moore, and our own experience, but are there areas where you simply don't have good benchmark data? This might be where we could collaborate as a sector

2. What institutional factors are critical in your setting that might not be as important in ours? For example, if you work in FE rather than HE, or in commercial training rather than public sector, what changes?

4. How would you need to adapt this approach for your context? Would you need different tiers? Different multipliers? Different outputs?

Tamsyn

Right, now it's your turn. I've shown you what we've developed, but I know that every institution is different, every sector has its own requirements, and you all have expertise I don't have.

I'd like to use the next few minutes to gather your insights on how this could work better, both for us and for you.

First question: What would you need to ask that we haven't included? Are there essential scoping questions we've missed? [Take 2–3 responses, encourage specifics]

Second: What institutional factors are critical in your setting that might not be as important in ours? For example, if you work in FE rather than HE, or in commercial training rather than public sector, what changes? [Take 2–3 responses]

Third: Where do you lack reliable data for estimation? We've based our framework on Chapman, ATD, Moore, and our own experience, but are there areas where you simply don't have good benchmark data? This might be where we could collaborate as a sector. [Take 2–3 responses]

And finally: How would you need to adapt this approach for your context? Would you need different tiers? Different multipliers? Different outputs? [Take 2–3 responses]

[Make notes of key responses on flip chart or have assistant take notes]

These are genuinely valuable insights – thank you. Some of these we'll incorporate directly, others might lead to developing sector-specific variants of the framework.

Audience engagement:

Core interactive section – this is the main audience participation moment

Consider having:

Flip chart or whiteboard ready to capture responses

Post-it notes if audience is large enough to do small group discussions first

Digital polling tool if available (Mentimeter, Slido) for gathering input

Visual suggestions:

Simple slide with the four discussion questions clearly listed

Could use icons for each question type (lightbulb, building, data chart, tools)

Leave plenty of white space – this slide is meant to facilitate discussion, not be information-dense

Consider having a QR code that links to a survey if you want to gather input beyond the session

Could include social media hashtag if conference has one for continued conversation

13 of 27

One framework, multiple applications

Potential adaptations:
For institutions without formal costing:

Focus on time/capacity estimates
Workload allocation planning
Project prioritisation decisions

For different sectors:

Corporate training: Client deliverables and profit margins
FE: Funding requirements and student contact time
NHS: Compliance emphasis and clinical governance

For different team structures:

Solo practitioners: Realistic workload assessment
Large teams: Resource allocation and capacity planning
External vendors: Transparent client communication

Key principle: The systematic questioning remains valuable regardless of context

Based on what you've just shared, let me talk about how this framework might adapt to different contexts.

If you're in an institution that doesn't do formal monetary costing, you can still use this approach for time and capacity estimation. The calculator can output workload hours rather than costs, helping you make decisions about what's feasible given your team's capacity. It becomes a prioritisation tool: if you have 800 hours of capacity this quarter and three potential projects requiring 200, 400, and 600 hours respectively, you can make informed decisions about what to commit to.

For different sectors, the core framework remains but the emphasis shifts. In corporate training, you might need to add profit margins and client deliverable specifications. In FE, you might need to align with funding body requirements and consider how e-learning time translates to student contact hours. In the NHS, clinical governance processes and specific compliance requirements become even more critical.

Different team structures also affect implementation. If you're a solo practitioner, this becomes a tool for realistic workload assessment – helping you understand what you can genuinely deliver in the time available. For large teams, it's about resource allocation and capacity planning across multiple simultaneous projects. For external vendors, it's about transparent client communication and avoiding the "scope creep and disappointment" cycle.

What remains constant is the value of systematic questioning. Whether you're producing a formal cost estimate or simply trying to work out if you can fit a project into your capacity, understanding true complexity up front is invaluable.

The calculator itself is built in Excel deliberately – it's modifiable. You can adapt the lookup tables, change the multipliers, add institution-specific questions, modify the outputs. What we're offering is a starting framework that you can make your own.

Visual suggestions:

Four quadrants showing different contexts (HE research, teaching-focused, commercial, NHS)

Central core showing "systematic questioning approach" with branches to different applications

Consider a matrix: rows = different contexts, columns = what changes vs what stays the same

Icons for each sector/context

Could include a "modifiable framework" graphic showing the Excel structure with annotations about what can be customized

14 of 27

Limitations and honest reflections

Current limitations:

Based primarily on UK HE context
Healthcare/clinical content emphasis
Limited data on AI impact (rapidly evolving)
SME rates vary widely by discipline
Platform-specific to our institutional choices

Ongoing development

Validating with more diverse project types
Incorporating feedback from pilot implementations
Monitoring AI impact on development time
Exploring sector-wide benchmark data collection
Developing guidance for different institutional contexts
Media costings

What we still need:

More comprehensive sector benchmark data
Evidence on long-term project accuracy
Understanding of AI's true impact
Validation across different institutional types

James

I want to be honest about the limitations of what we've developed.

First, this framework is heavily influenced by our context – a UK research-intensive university, primarily developing healthcare and clinical content. If you're developing business training or creative media content, some of our multipliers may not apply as directly.

Second, our emphasis on healthcare content means we assume quite high levels of compliance and SME involvement. If you're developing less regulated content, you might find our estimates conservative.

Third, the AI impact is still evolving. We've started incorporating some efficiency gains we're seeing from generative AI – particularly in content analysis, initial storyboarding, and graphic creation – but this is a rapidly moving target. Tucker's recent data suggests AI is saving 80–110 hours on typical projects, but we're still learning what's realistic and sustainable rather than just hype.

Fourth, SME rates vary enormously by discipline. We've used general academic rates, but if you're working with consultant clinicians or leading researchers, the SME cost component could be much higher.

And finally, our platform and authoring tool time estimates are specific to the tools we use – Blackboard Ultra, Totara, Course Catalog, Thinglink, Articulate Rise 360, and Storyline 360 primarily. If you're using different tools, you'll need different baselines.

We're continuing to develop this framework. We’re validating with more diverse project types – not just healthcare but engineering, social sciences, business. We're actively incorporating feedback from our pilot implementations and will have fuller data by the end of this academic year. We're closely monitoring AI's impact, though I suspect it will be several years before we have truly reliable long-term data on this.

What we really need as a sector is more comprehensive benchmark data. Chapman's 2010 study was groundbreaking but it's now 15 years old. We need updated, sector-wide data collection that accounts for current tools, current pedagogical approaches, and current technological capabilities. This might be something we could collaborate on – if multiple institutions tracked actual project time using a consistent framework, we could build a much richer evidence base.

We also need evidence on long-term accuracy – are our estimates actually proving accurate six months, a year, two years down the line? We're starting to track this but it's too early for meaningful conclusions.

And we need validation across different institutional types. Does this framework work as well in teaching-focused universities? In FE colleges? In private training providers? We simply don't know yet.

So what I'm sharing today is very much a work in progress. It's the best we can do with current evidence, but it's not the final word.

Visual suggestions:

Use a "caution" or "under construction" motif without being too negative

Two columns: "Current limitations" (left) and "Ongoing development" (right)

Icons: warning triangle for limitations, progress arrow for development

Consider a timeline graphic showing "Where we are now" and "Where we're heading"

Could include a visual metaphor: building under construction, journey in progress, etc.

Use colour coding: amber for limitations, green for development work

Perhaps a small chart showing "Confidence levels by area": High (compliance), Medium (platform times), Low (AI impact)

15 of 27

Making this work available to the sector

CURRENT STATUS:

Piloting internally across multiple projects

Refining based on real-world use

Documenting implementation guidance

PLANNED RELEASE:

WordPress site with downloadable calculator

Full documentation and user guide

Question set openly licensed (CC BY-SA)

Video tutorials for implementation

Target: summer 2026

WHAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ACCESS:

Excel calculator (modifiable for your context)

Complete question framework

Lookup tables with evidence sources

Implementation guidance

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Seeking feedback from early adopters

Open to collaborative improvement

Potential for sector-wide benchmarking initiative

Tamsyn

So how can you actually get hold of this and use it?

We're currently in pilot phase, using the calculator across multiple internal projects to validate and refine it. Based on what we're learning – and based on the feedback from sessions like this – we're developing comprehensive documentation.

Our plan is to make it available through our WordPress site. You'll be able to download the Excel calculator itself, which is fully modifiable – you can adapt it for your context, change the lookup tables, adjust the multipliers, add your own questions. It's not locked or protected.

The question framework will be openly licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, meaning you can use it, adapt it, and share it, as long as you credit the source and share improvements under the same terms.

We're also developing implementation guidance – not just "here's a calculator" but "here's how to use it effectively with stakeholders, here's how to adapt it for different contexts, here's what to do when the estimated cost exceeds the available budget."

We'll include case study examples showing how it's been used for different project types, anonymised of course but giving practical illustrations of the questioning process in action.

And we're very much seeing this as the start of community development rather than a finished product we're releasing. We're actively seeking feedback from early adopters, we're open to collaborative improvement, and there's potential here for a sector-wide benchmarking initiative if there's interest.

I'll have the website URL at the end of the presentation, but I want to be honest – it's not quite ready for release today. We're probably looking at [insert realistic timeline – perhaps 2-3 months?]. But if you're interested in being an early adopter and helping refine it, please do get in touch.

The key principle here is that we're all facing the same "piece of string" problem. If we can share approaches, share data, build evidence together, we all benefit. This isn't about commercialising a tool – it's about solving a common professional challenge collaboratively.

Audience engagement:

Show of hands: Who would be interested in being an early adopter and providing feedback on the framework?

Visual suggestions:

Timeline graphic showing: Current pilot → Documentation → Beta release → Full release → Community development

Icons for different types of resources: Excel file, documentation, video tutorials, case studies

CC BY-SA license badge prominently displayed

QR code linking to sign-up form for updates (if available)

Visual showing "What's included": calculator icon, question list icon, guidance document icon, etc.

Consider a "community" visual: connected nodes, collaboration icons, etc.

Contact information clearly displayed

16 of 27

Getting started with systematic scoping

You don't need the full calculator to start:

Minimum viable approach:

Use the '20 question' framework for scoping conversations

Start tracking actual project time honestly

Compare estimates vs actuals systematically

Build your own evidence base over time

Building institutional buy-in:

Start with one willing stakeholder

Document the improved outcome

Share success stories internally

Gradually expand adoption

Critical success factors:

Senior leadership support for realistic timelines

Willingness to have honest conversations

Commitment to tracking actuals vs estimates

Culture that values quality over speed

Quick wins:

Better scoping conversations immediately

Reduced scope creep

More realistic stakeholder expectations

Improved team morale

James

We want to be practical here. Some of you might be thinking "This all sounds great but it's a huge undertaking for my institution." Let me suggest a minimum viable approach.

You don't need to build the full calculator to benefit from this approach. You can start simply by using the 20 question framework for scoping conversations. Next time someone asks for an e-learning quote, sit down with them and work through those questions systematically. You'll immediately have better conversations and better understanding of true requirements.

Then start tracking actual project time honestly. Not what you said it would take, not what you hoped it would take, but what it actually took. Compare your estimates to actuals systematically. Over 5–10 projects, you'll start to see patterns that let you build your own institutional evidence base.

Building institutional buy-in is crucial and it takes time. Start with one willing stakeholder – someone who's open to trying a different approach. Use systematic scoping for their project, document the improved outcome, and share that success story internally. Use it to gradually expand adoption rather than trying to implement everywhere at once.

Critical success factors: You need senior leadership support for realistic timelines. If your institution's culture is "we need this in two weeks," systematic scoping will reveal that's unrealistic, but you need leadership backing to actually say no or negotiate scope. You need willingness to have honest conversations about what's feasible. You need commitment to tracking actuals vs estimates – otherwise you're just guessing in a more elaborate way. And fundamentally, you need a culture that values quality over speed.

But here's the good news – you can get quick wins. Better scoping conversations happen immediately, from the first time you use the framework. You'll see reduced scope creep because you've discussed requirements up front. Stakeholders have more realistic expectations because they understand the complexity. And team morale improves because you're not constantly delivering bad news about blown timelines.

You don't have to wait for the perfect system. Start with the questions, start tracking your time, start building your evidence. That's valuable in itself.

Audience engagement:

Practical planning: What would be your first step when you get back to your institution? [Allow time for mental processing, maybe 30 seconds silence]

17 of 27

Beyond project costing: Broader professional implications

For learning technologists:

Evidence-based professional practice
Articulating expertise and value
Moving from tactical to strategic conversations
Professional credibility and authority

For the sector:

Establishing professional standards
Building shared evidence base
Improving project success rates
Better demonstrating value of quality e-learning

For stakeholders:

Understanding true cost of quality
Making informed trade-off decisions
Realistic resource planning
Better alignment of expectations with reality

For learners:

Higher quality learning experiences
More effective pedagogical design
Better accessibility implementation
Content that achieves intended outcomes

Tamsyn

I want to step back and talk about what this means beyond just project costing, because I think there are broader implications for our profession.

For us as learning technologists, this is fundamentally about evidence-based professional practice. We're often seen as technical support rather than professional designers. When we can say "this approach is based on Chapman's research with nearly 4,000 practitioners" rather than "this is what I reckon," we're establishing professional credibility. We're articulating our expertise in ways that stakeholders can understand and respect.

It also shifts the nature of our conversations from tactical to strategic. Instead of "can you make this course?" we're discussing "what are we trying to achieve and what's the best way to achieve it given these constraints?" That's a fundamentally different professional relationship.

For the sector as a whole, this is about establishing professional standards. We're not making this up as individuals – we're building on shared evidence, developing common frameworks, working towards sector-wide benchmarks. That's how professions mature and gain recognition.

If we can improve project success rates – fewer projects that overrun, fewer disappointed stakeholders, fewer burned-out practitioners – that benefits everyone. And crucially, it helps us demonstrate the value of quality e-learning. When stakeholders understand what goes into effective e-learning, they appreciate why it's worth investing in properly.

For stakeholders, this enables informed decision-making. They can understand the true cost of quality, make real trade-off decisions between scope and resources, plan realistically, and align their expectations with what's actually achievable. That's respectful of their position as well as ours.

And ultimately, for learners – which is what this is all about – better project scoping leads to higher quality learning experiences. When we have adequate time and resources, we can implement proper pedagogical design, ensure thorough accessibility, and create content that genuinely achieves its intended outcomes rather than being a rushed compromise.

So yes, this is a costing calculator. But really, it's about professionalising our practice and improving learning outcomes. That's why it matters.

Visual suggestions:

Four quadrants or circular diagram showing the four stakeholder groups (learning technologists, sector, stakeholders, learners)

Arrows showing how improvements for one group benefit others

Could use a pyramid: learners at top (ultimate beneficiaries), with the other groups supporting

Icons for each stakeholder group

Consider a "ripple effect" visual: stone dropped in water, concentric circles expanding

Use the full UoS colour palette to differentiate the groups

Perhaps include representative quotes or benefits for each group

18 of 27

Key takeaways

1. Systematic questioning transforms vague requests into defined projects

3. Transparency improves rather than complicates relationships

2. Evidence-based estimation is possible and valuable

4. Start simple and build over time

James

Let me pull together the key takeaways from today.

First: Systematic questioning transforms vague requests into defined projects. Those 20 questions aren't just data gathering – they're an educational conversation that helps stakeholders understand e-learning development complexity. And the framework works regardless of whether you're doing formal monetary costing or simply trying to estimate capacity and timeline.

Second: Evidence-based estimation is possible and valuable. We're not making this up. Chapman's research, ATD's data, Cathy Moore's methodology, Christy Tucker's practitioner experience – there's a solid evidence base we can build on. Adapt it for your context, but start from evidence rather than guesswork. And crucially, track your actuals so you can refine over time. Your institutional data becomes part of your evidence base.

Third: Transparency improves rather than complicates relationships. I was initially worried that showing detailed breakdowns would lead to stakeholders questioning every line item. The opposite has happened. When people understand why things take time, they respect the process. They appreciate being able to make informed decisions about trade-offs. Shared understanding reduces conflict rather than creating it.

And fourth: Start simple and build over time. You don't need a sophisticated calculator to begin. Start with systematic questioning in your next scoping conversation. Start tracking time honestly. Start building your institutional evidence base. Scale the sophistication as needed, but don't let "perfect" stop you from starting with "better."

The piece of string problem is solvable. Not perfectly, not with absolute precision, but well enough to transform how we work and how we're perceived. That's what I wanted to share with you today.

1. Systematic questioning transforms vague requests into defined projects

20 essential questions covering fundamentals through to risk

Educational tool as well as scoping tool

Works regardless of institutional context

2. Evidence-based estimation is possible and valuable

Build on established research (Chapman, ATD, Moore)

Adapt for your institutional context

Track actuals to refine over time

3. Transparency improves rather than complicates relationships

Stakeholders appreciate understanding complexity

Informed trade-off decisions are better decisions

Shared understanding reduces conflict

4. Start simple and build over time

Begin with systematic questioning

Track time honestly

Develop institutional evidence base

Scale sophistication as needed

19 of 27

Resources and further reading

Key research cited:

Chapman, B. (2010). How long does it take to create learning? Chapman Alliance LLC
Defelice, R. (2023). Want to speed up training development time? TD Magazine
Moore, C. (n.d.). Scenario based training examples. blog.cathy-moore.com
Tucker, C. (2025). Time estimates for elearning development. christytuckerlearning.com
Piskurich, G. M. (2015). Rapid instructional design (3rd ed.). Pfeiffer

Request access to the beta calculator:

Tamsyn Smith T.M.Smith@soton.ac.uk
James Allen J.E.Allen@soton.ac.uk

Tamsyn

For those who want to dig deeper into the research evidence, here are the key sources we've built upon.

Chapman's 2010 study remains the foundational benchmark – if you only read one thing, read that. It's comprehensive and has stood the test of time remarkably well.

Defelice's 2023 ATD article provides updated data and is particularly interesting on what speeds up or slows down development time.

Cathy Moore's blog has extensive resources on scenario-based learning methodology – her examples are practical and immediately applicable.

Christy Tucker has recently updated her time estimates incorporating AI impact – very relevant for current practice.

And Piskurich's book on rapid instructional design has an excellent section on SME involvement that informed our approach.

For the calculator itself, we're finalising the website – I'll be sending the URL to everyone who's signed up for updates. If you're interested in being an early adopter and providing feedback, please do get in touch using the email shown here.

And obviously, I'm very happy to continue conversations about this. If you want to discuss how it might work in your context, share your own approaches, or collaborate on developing sector benchmarks, please do connect.

[Show QR code if available for sign-up]

Right, that's brought us to about 25 minutes, which leaves us good time for questions and discussion.

Visual suggestions:

Clean, organized layout with clear sections

References in proper APA format (as per user preference)

QR code prominently displayed

Contact information clearly legible

Consider small book/document icons next to each reference

Possibly include thumbnail images of the key sources if available

Make sure the "how to access" information is very clear and visually distinct

Could include social media icons if applicable

Use UoS branding but keep it clean and professional

20 of 27

Thank you

Questions and discussion

Contact:

Tamsyn Smith T.M.Smith@soton.ac.uk
James Allen J.E.Allen@soton.ac.uk

James

Thank you very much for your attention and engagement. We've really valued your input during the session – some of the points you raised are things we'll definitely be incorporating as we continue developing this framework.

We've got about 10 minutes for questions and discussion now. Please do ask anything – whether it's about the technical details of the calculator, how we've handled particular challenges, how this might work in your context, or anything else that's come up for you during the presentation.

Who has the first question?

[Facilitate Q&A for remaining time]

Facilitating Q&A – anticipated questions:

"What about projects that don't fit your three tiers?"

Acknowledge the tiers are broad categories
Calculator actually provides granular calculations based on specific inputs
The tiers are communication tools more than rigid boundaries

"How do you handle stakeholder pushback when the costs are higher than expected?"

Scope comparison options in the calculator help
Show what's achievable within budget
Evidence base makes it harder to argue with
Sometimes the answer is "not feasible with this budget" – better to know up front

"What about updating existing content rather than creating new?"

Currently assumed as percentage of new vs existing content
Updates can be surprisingly time-consuming depending on age of content and platform changes
This is an area where we need better data

"How do you account for different levels of developer expertise?"

Acknowledge our figures assume competent practitioners
Novices will take longer, experts might be faster
But team averages tend to level out

"What about content that doesn't need WCAG compliance?"

Explicitly built in for public sector
Calculator could be modified to remove compliance overhead if genuinely not required
Though would question whether it's ever appropriate to exclude accessibility

"How has AI actually affected your development time?"

Honest answer: still learning
Seeing efficiency gains in content analysis, initial drafting, graphic creation
Not seeing huge time savings in actual build or review cycles
Quality control still takes human time

1 of 27

2 of 27

3 of 27

4 of 27

5 of 27

6 of 27

7 of 27

8 of 27

9 of 27

10 of 27

11 of 27

12 of 27

13 of 27

14 of 27

15 of 27

16 of 27

17 of 27

18 of 27

19 of 27

20 of 27

21 of 27

22 of 27

23 of 27

24 of 27

25 of 27

26 of 27

27 of 27