July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

E-Learning as a Socio-Technical System:

An Insight into Factors Influencing its Effectiveness
K T Upadhyaya 1
Debasis Mallik 2

Abstract
Effectiveness of e-learning systems is a matter of debate in corporate and academics alike, with
researchers viewing it from course content and instructional design perspective, learner / teacher
perspective or delivery medium and technology perspective. We argue that e- learning systems
should not consider either of these perspectives in isolation. We analyze the e-learning systems
using the socio-technical systems approach, which treats a work system to be made up of two
jointly independent, but correlative interacting systems - the social and the technical. The technical system is concerned with the processes, tasks, and technology needed to transform inputs
to outputs. The social system is concerned with the attributes of people such as attitudes, skills,
values, the relationships among people, reward systems, and authority structures. Outputs of the
work system are the result of joint interactions between these two systems. We use Leavitt's
model to analyze e-learning systems as socio-technical systems. The model suggests that organizations form multivariate systems consisting of four interacting components - task, structure,
actor, and technology. We observe that an e-Learning system can fit the definition of a sociotechnical system, as they involve teachers and learners (actor), the organization and the environment (structure), the knowledge and skills being imparted (task) and the technology used for elearning (technology). In this research, we measure variables that represent these four components and understand their significance individually and their combined effect on effectiveness of e- learning systems. The outcome of this research tries to understand factors that influence the effectiveness of e-learning systems.
Key Words
e-learning effectiveness, Leavitt's model, socio-technical system approach.
1. Introduction
Electronic learning, or e-learning simply refers to training sessions or educational courses
delivered electronically. It could be courses delivered through a CD-ROM or it could involve
virtual classroom sessions, facilitated by a teacher interacting with students via the Internet or
satellite feed.
E-learning is less expensive than traditional classroom instruction. In addition, many expenses booking training facilities, travel costs for employees or trainers, plus employee time away from
the job - are greatly reduced. However, some firms that have spent large amounts of money on
new e-learning efforts have not received the desired economic advantages (Strother, 2002).
"The biggest growth in the Internet, and the area that will prove to be one of the biggest agents
of change, will be e-learning". John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco Systems, made the above
prediction in his keynote speech at the Fall 1999 Comdex Trade Show in Las Vegas. Almost a
decade later, people are still waiting for e-learning to fully deliver on its promise. Most
academics and practitioners in the e-learning field agree that e-learning has a vast potential for
bringing any place, anytime learning into the heart of organizational activity. In addition to
reducing geographical barriers and reducing travel and program overhead costs, it also enables
Prof. K T Upadhyaya, Assistant Professor, Durgadevi Saraf Institute of Management Studies (DSIMS), Mumbai, ktu@vsnl.net
Prof. (Dr.) Debasis Mallik, Associate Professor, S P Jain Institute of Management & Research (SPJIMR), Mumbai,
debasis.mallik@spjimr.org
1
2

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

learners to learn on the job and apply what they are learning, directly to daily work issues. As a
result, there has been a very strong latent demand, especially in organizations interested in using
e-learning systems to develop talented but overworked staff, and position for success in the
knowledge economy. Early results, however, were disappointing (Adams, 2010).
2. Literature Review
A study at Sun Microsystems reported that 75% of employees dropped out of self- directed
online courses. People couldn't find the materials fast enough, didn't have enough time to
complete the courses, got bored, and/or had too many interruptions while trying to learn at their
desks (Osberg, 2002).
A study at GE Capital found a 50% dropout rate in a 5 to 10 hour online course new
employees were mandated to take. Investigation showed that the difference between those that
completed the course and those that didn't was tied to whether managers reinforced the importance of the course and attendance was tracked. The conclusion drawn: the problem was
primarily motivational and not about technology issues or learning design (Frankola, 2001).
In a study conducted by a team at James Madison University, drop out rates of
approximately 30% were reported. The top five reasons for not completing online courses were:
lack of motivation (36%); instr uctional design related factors and learning style
mismatch (36%); time conflicts with work and family commitments (33%); learning what one
needed to know and being able to do the job before the end of the course (25%); organizational
support and follow-up on completion (negligible) (Wang, Foucar-Szocki & Griffin, 2003).
As we can see, the effectiveness of e-learning systems has not been able to live up to the expectations of stakeholders. Researchers and practitioners in the area of e-learning have looked at
this issue of effectiveness of e-learning systems. People have taken different views to understand the effectiveness, or rather, lack of it, of e-learning systems. Some of the views are described below:
Effectiveness of E-learning Systems: Wang et. al. (2003) argue that while Information
Systems' (IS) successful models have received much attention among researchers, little
research has been conducted to assess the success and/or effectiveness of e-learning systems in
an organizational context (Wang, Wang & Shee, 2007). Whether traditional IS success models
can be extended to investigate e-learning systems' success has been scarcely addressed. Based
on previous literature, citing successful IS models, this study developed and validated a multidimensional model for assessing e-learning systems' (ELSS) success from the perspective of the
employee (e-learner). This empirically validated instrument will be useful to researchers in developing and testing e-learning systems theories, as well as to organizations in implementing successful e-learning systems.
E-learning as an Information System: Holsapple and Lee-Post (2006) look at the e-learning
systems from an information systems development perspective. They introduce the e-learning
success model, which posits that the overall success of an e-learning initiative depends on the
attainment of success at each of the three stages of e-learning systems development: system
design, system delivery, and system outcome.
Use of technology to construct learning experiences in e-learning: Greenagel (2002)
argues that e- learning can change the way we learn in dramatic ways, but not if developers and
vendors continue to ignore measures of learning effectiveness. The e-learning industry
continues to emphasize cost savings and return-on-investment (ROI), but risks ultimate
indifference by end users (trainees) because the e-learning experience is seen as puerile, boring
and of unknown or doubtful effectiveness. The effectiveness of the course is less dependent
upon the enabling technology than on the skill with which the developer uses the available
technology to construct learning experiences appropriate to the trainee and to the topic.

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

Usability perspective of e-learning: Freire, Arezes and Campos, (2012) have viewed the
e-learning systems from usability perspective. They argue that principle problems identified with
e-learning could be interface problems, browsing problems, content problems, interaction problems or usability problems.
Learner perspective of e-learning: Strother and Alford, (2003) present three different views
of learning modalities from the literature: Kolb's Classification of Learning Styles, FelderSilverman's Learning Style Model, and Gardner's Multiple Intelligences. Each learning theory is
addressed as it applies to e-learning. A case is made for a blended learning model, which combines traditional online instruction with face-to-face interaction of a traditional classroom experience to better address multiple learner variables. However, authors argue that whatever pedagogical strategies are implemented in whatever modality - strict online learning or some variation
of a blended learning model - the multiple individual variables that are present in any
group must be addressed to provide the most powerful learning experience possible for all
learners.
Stakeholders needs and concerns in e-learning: Successful implementation of e-learning is
dependent on the extent to which the needs and concerns of the stakeholder groups involved are
addressed. Wagner, Hassanein and Head, (2008) discuss e-learning, describe the needs and
concerns of the various stakeholder groups, and derive a stakeholders' responsibility matrix to
summarize the responsibilities of each stakeholder group. Authors argue that fulfilling the
responsibilities described in the Stakeholders' responsibility matrix will address the needs and
concerns of each stakeholder groups, thereby encouraging the success of e-learning in higher
education.
Reference model for sustainable e-learning systems: Demirkan and Goul (2010) argue that
many e- learning service systems fail. This is particularly true for those sponsored by
joint industry/university consortia where substantial economic investments are required up-front.
They provide a reference model that addresses basic and advanced sustainability capabilities
that integrate partner, application, faculty, student, and e-learning service system issues.
Their validation of the reference model includes a mapping to the literature regarding recent
advances in e-learning service system infrastructures and supported capabilities. One outcome
of that validation step is a comprehensive set of capability assessment questions to be used
by consortia.
Technology acceptance model (TAM) of web-based e-learning tools: In a study (MartinezTorres, Marn, Garcia, Vazquez, Oliva & Torres, 2008) it is argued that lifelong learning, or the
promotion of student initiative, is the new paradigm of a learner-centered education. In this
context, e-learning tools can represent an effective way of supporting this new trend in
education. Assuming the premise that successful use of these web- based tools depends primarily
on a user's behavior, they examine (TAM) of web-based e-learning tools used in practical and
laboratory teaching.
2.1 Gaps in the Literature
A lot of work has been carried out in the e-learning area in different directions. Researchers have
looked at various dimensions of effectiveness of e-learning, as varied as course content, technology, techniques on one hand and the people aspect on the other hand. Despite this
comprehensive coverage, some gaps exist in the research.
Past research addresses each issue in effectiveness of e-learning as a standalone topic - treating
e-learning either as a technical matter or as a people issue. E-learning involves an interaction
between both people and process. There is a strong case for treating e-learning as a socio- technical system rather than a social system considering only the people aspect or technical system
considering only the standards and processes aspects. None of the studies consider the Indian
context.

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

3. Scope and Objective of the Study

In this paper, we argue that e-learning should not be considered as only a technical system consisting of the course content, technology, Learning Management System (LMS) and content management tools. Also, e-Learning should not be considered just from the human aspect and the
social systems consisting of learners, teachers and other stakeholders, of e- learning in isolation.
E-learning is a complex process dependent not only on these aspects in isolation, but also the
interaction between them. We suggest treating the e-learning systems as a socio-technical system.
The Socio-Technical Systems theory was developed by Trist (the investigator) and Bamforth
(a previous miner for 18 years at the research site) studying the British coal mining industry
during 1949 and 1950. They made observations that the behaviors of the systems are impacted
by the joint interaction of social as well as technical factors, and thus proposed the idea of sociotechnical systems. A lot of work has been done in this area at the Travistock Institute, UK
(Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems, 1972).
The Socio-Technical Systems approach assumes a work system to be made up of two jointly
independent, but correlative interacting systems - the social system and the technical system.
The technical system is concerned with the processes, tasks, and technology needed to
transform inputs to outputs. The social system is concerned with the attributes of people (e.g.
attitudes, skills, values etc.), the relationships among people, reward systems, and authority
structures. It is assumed that the outputs of the work system are the result of joint interactions
between these two systems.
In the current paper, we model the e-learning systems as Socio-Technical Systems. Applying the
model of Socio-Technical Systems suggested by Leavitt (Leavitt, 1964.), the e-learning
systems have been treated as a socio-technical system as depicted in fig. 1 Variables that
constitute Structure, Actor, Technology and Task components have been identified from
research papers. Using a structured questionnaire, ratings of each of these variables were
determined from the survey respondents.
This data was analyzed using multiple regression analysis to understand the interaction of these
components and their impact on the effectiveness of e-learning systems.

Figure 1: E-Learning Systems Modeled as Socio-Technical System (Leavitt, 1964)

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

4. Methodology and Hypotheses

In the current study, e-learning systems have been modeled as socio-technical systems, with four
interacting components, Structure, Task, Actor and Technology. The purpose of the current
study is to understand how these components individually and collectively impact the effectiveness of e-learning and thereby impact its effectiveness. In order to develop this understanding,
variables have been identified from research papers specifically referring to Leavitt's model.
These variables have been categorized in the four components of (STATe), the Structure, Task,
Actor and Technology components.
As there are multiple variables comprising the four components (STATe) impacting
effectiveness of e-learning systems, multivariate analysis has been chosen as the analytical framework. Using multiple regression analysis, an effort has been made to understand the interaction
of these variables categorized as (STATe). The model for the e-learning systems is depicted in
the figure 1.
4.1 Quantitative Modeling - Regression for effectiveness of e-learning with Leavitt's model
components
In the current research, regression analysis has been performed to understand the impact of
various factors on the effectiveness of e-learning. As discussed in the literature, the components
of Leavitt's model are: Structure (S), Task (T), Actor(A) and Technology(Te). In this model, we
perform multiple regression analysis by considering the overall e-learning effectiveness (OEE)
as dependent variable and the components - Structure (S), Task (T), Actor (A) and Technology
(Te) as independent variables.
E-learning effectiveness, which was considered as the dependent variable in the study, was measured in terms of the specificity, and relevance for the purpose of preparing for Project Management Professional examination and attainability of the certification.
The independent variables which were anticipated to influence the dependent variable: e-learning effectiveness are Structure, Actor, Task and Technology, as per Leavitt's Model.
Structure variables were measured in terms of organizational pressure for completing
certification, organization support for certification, and superior's help and guidance for the exam
(Braarud, 2001, Lee & Xia, 2002).
Actor variables were measured in terms of participants motivation levels to complete
certification, dedicating exclusive time for preparing for certification, their comfort levels in
using e-learning, their ability to correlate various concepts in the area of project management,
their belief about e-learning effectiveness, their liking for e-learning, their prior positive
experience with e-learning, and helpfulness and availability of the facilitator / coordinator to
answer queries while preparing for the examination (Robinson, 2001).
Task variables were measured in terms of module design, navigability through the module, smoothness of flow of the concepts, appropriateness of audio-visuals, animation, Chunking of information and comfort levels of colour combinations used (Rothrock, Harvey & Burns, 2005).
Technology variables were measured in terms of the Internet speed, problems of hanging /
slowing down of content streaming, working of the LMS, appropriate configuration of PC /
laptop for e-learning, availability of good audio system for clear audio, and time taken for logging
on / off from the LMS (Lyytinen & Newman, 2008).
Equation 1 describes the functional relationship between overall e-learning effectiveness and the
Socio-Technical Systems components Structure (S), Task (T), Actor (A), and Te (Technology).
OEE = (S, T, A, Te)

Equation 1

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

Equation 2 describes the regression equation for Overall e-learning effectiveness.

OEE =

+ 1 S + 2 T + 3 A + 4 Te

Equation 2

= constant, 1 = coefficient for

In equation 2, OEE is overall e-learning effectiveness,
Structure component (S), 2 = coefficient for Task component (T), 3 = coefficient for Actor
component (A), and 4 = coefficient for Technology (Te) component.
Hypotheses of Model 1:
Null hypotheses

H01: 1 = 0, H02: 2 = 0, H03: 3 = 0, H04: 4 = 0

Alternate hypotheses H11: 1

0, H12: 2

0, H13: 3

0, H14: 4

4.2 Sampling and Data Collection

The data for the analysis was collected from primary survey, by using a questionnaire addressed
to respondents. It was divided into five categories, namely, Effectiveness Variables, Structure
Variables, Actor variables, Task Variables and Technology Variables. We have used 10-point
scale for the entire questionnaire for two reasons - one, the questions were perception-driven and
could have varied across respondents, based on their experience; two, to maintain uniformity
across responses we used a single scale as all of the variables are perception-driven. Other than
these 4 categories mentioned above, a set of questions covering background information of the
respondent was also included. These questions were mostly open-ended representing ratio scale
data. Overall, the questionnaire consisted of 40 questions, which required approximately 08
minutes of the respondent's time for completion.
For measuring overall effectiveness, 7 questions were used. These questions were designed to
understand the relevance of the e-learning module for the exam, how much the participant used
the e-learning module while preparing for the exam, how much of their success is attributable to
e-learning, did they understand the concepts better by using the e-learning module and so on.
Each of these were measured on a scale of 1-10 and the scores were added and then averaged to
a scale of 10 to get the "Overall effectiveness".
To measuring "Structure" variables, 7 questions were used to understand how much pressure
was put by the organization for attaining the certification, whether participants received recognition and rewards due to the certification, how much support was provided by the organization in
terms of arranging for training, guidance and paying for the certification fees. Each of these were
measured on a scale of 1-10 and the scores were added and then averaged to a scale of 10 to get
the value of "Structure" variable.
"Actor" variables were measure by using 10 questions, measuring aspects like the motivation
levels of participant to attain certification, their beliefs and attitudes towards e-learning systems,
their past experiences with e-learning systems. The participants were asked to rate each of these
on 1 to 10 scale. Scores for all the questions were averaged to get the score of the Actor variable.
For understanding the "Task" variables, 9 questions measuring aspects like difficulty level of the
concepts being taught, smoothness of flow of concepts in the module, navigability across the
modules. These responses were averaged to get the value of Task variable.
Similarly, to understand the "Technology" variables, 7 questions measuring aspects like internet
speed, appropriateness of the devices used for accessing the content, streaming speed of the
content. These responses were averaged to get the value of Technology variable.
The target audience for administering the research questionnaire were chosen from the group of
people who have attended the preparatory course for Project Management Professional
Certification. A small e-learning module was developed and posted on a website using as the
learning management system. To avoid bias related to any specific industry, the participants were

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

chosen from software, telecom, infrastructure as well as chemical industries.

This questionnaire was administered to 10 participants, as a pilot survey and then modified to
address certain understanding issues. The modified questionnaire was given to 250 participants.
After accounting for non-response and eliminating incomplete questionnaires, 108 completed
questionnaires were analysed.
Coding / decoding was performed on the data collected from the questionnaire as follows:
1. Effectiveness variable: was calculated directly by the rating given by the participants. This
was rounded off.
2. Structure, Actor, Task and Technology variables: For each respondent, responses for all
the variables under each of these categories were aggregated. The score for each respondent
for each category was divided by maximum score possible (number of questions in the category x 10) and then rounded off to get the score for the category. Multiple regression analysis was performed on this data to arrive at the conclusions.
5. Analysis and Interpretation
Regression analysis of the S-T-A-Te variable with the effectiveness variable shows that Structure, Actor, and Technology (though not in this sequence) have direct and positive relationship
with Overall effectiveness of e- learning. In other words, if organizational structure components
are favorable, performer of the task is suitable for the task and the technology is adaptable, it
will result in higher overall effectiveness of e-learning. As it can be seen from the results, if
structure variables are conducive and actor are willing, ready and suitable to learn, and technology is suitable for delivering the content, the course content design have lesser role in the overall
effectiveness of e-learning. If people are willing and motivated to learn, and/or the organization
is placing emphasis on the course, e-learning delivery can be effective. The course and its design
have little influence on the effectiveness.
Table 1.0: Regression for overall effectiveness of e-learning with S-T-A-Te Components
Dependent Variable: OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
Method: Least Squares
Sample: 1 107
Included observations: 107
Variable

Coefficient

Std. Error

t-Statistic

Prob.

C
TASK
TECH
ACTOR
STRC

2.95
0.03
0.14
0.34
0.24

0.36
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.03

8.28
1.14
3.20
6.25
7.06

0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00

R-squared

0.67

Adjusted R-squared

0.67

F-statistic

53.98

Prob(F-statistic)

0.00

It can be seen from the results of regression analysis, the R2 value is 0.67919 and adjusted R2
value is 0.67. This indicates that 68% of the variability in the dependent variable (i.e., Overall
effectiveness of e-learning) can be captured by the independent variables namely, Structure,
Actor, and Technology. The fourth independent variable, i.e., Task did not emerge as an
independent variable with much influence on the dependent variable. The Adjusted R2 value is
slightly lower than the R2 value, as the number of observations that support the regression is not

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

too high. As observed, null hypotheses of all three independent variables namely, Structure,
Actor and Technology have been rejected at 99 percent level of confidence, thereby reinforcing
the fact that these three variables have a very high influence on the dependent variable - overall
effectiveness.
Since all coefficients are positive, we can infer that Structure, Actor, and Technology (though
not in this sequence) have direct and positive relationship with overall effectiveness of elearning. Task, as we see, does not have any significant impact on overall Effectiveness.
The above results of regression is generated without checking for the presence of multicollinearity
or heteroscedasticity. For heteroscedasticity, we have used the White's Test. The Obs*R-squared
is the test statistic of the White's Test. This test statistic is asymptotically distributed as a ChiSquare. The degrees of freedom, in this case, is the number of slope parameters. At a 5 percent
level of significance, this Chi-Square value is compared with the Scaled explained SS. If the
White's test statistic value of 36.3414 is greater than the Scaled explained SS of 34.4915, we can
reject the null hypothesis which states that there is no heteroscedasticity.
Table 2.0: Results of Heteroscedasticity Test: White
Heteroscedasticity Test: White
F-statistic
Obs*R-squared
Scaled explained SS

3.37
36.34
34.49

Prob. F(14,92)
Prob. Chi-Square(14)
Prob. Chi-Square(14)

0.0002
0.00
0.00

Next, we also tried to check for the presence of Multicollinearity. For this we used the Variance
Decomposition Analysis. In the table given below, we could not identify condition indices above
the commonly used threshold level of 15 to 30. As there were no condition indices exceeding the
threshold level, we also could not identify variance proportions above 90 percent. In general, a
multicollinearlity problem is detected when a condition index is identified to be above the threshold level and the corresponding proportion of variance above 0.90 for two or more variables. As
this phenomenon is absent, we can infer that there is no indication of the presence of
multicollinearity in the data. The details of the above discussion is presented in the table below.
Table 3.0: Coefficient Variance Decomposition
Coefficient Variance Decomposition
Sample: 1 107
Included observations: 107
Eigenvalues
Condition

0.13
0.00

0.00
0.01

0.00
0.01

0.00
0.04

3.47
1.00

Variance Decomposition Proportions

Associated Eigenvalue

Variable

C
TASK
TECH
ACTOR
STRC

0.99
0.09
0.34
0.06
0.03

1.00
0.01
0.02
0.92
0.23

2.17
0.01
0.60
0.00
0.62

9.49
0.85
0.01
0.00
0.09

1.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

Eigenvectors
Associated Eigenvalue
Variable

C
TASK
TECH
ACTOR
STRC

-0.99
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.02

0.02
-0.07
-0.12
0.94
-0.30

-0.03
0.08
-0.76
0.10
0.62

0.00
-0.90
0.21
0.08
0.38

-0.07
-0.43
-0.58
-0.30
-0.61

Based on the above two tables, we concluded that our data suffers from heteroscedasticity but
does not have multicollinearity problem. Hence, we decided to run a fresh multiple regression
using the White heteroscedasticity - consistent standard errors and covariance.
Table 4.0: Regression for Overall Effectiveness of e-learning with S-T-A-Te Components
- Revised after Heteroscedasticity Test
Dependent Variable: OVEFF
Method: Least Squares
Sample: 1 107
Included observations: 107
White heteroscedasticity - consistent standard errors & covariance
Variable

Coefficient

Std. Error

t-Statistic

Prob.

C
TASK
TECH
ACTOR
STRC

2.95
0.03
0.14
0.34
0.24

0.32
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.04

9.08
1.17
2.62
4.57
5.55

0.00
0.24
0.01
0.00
0.00

R-squared
F-statistic

0.68
53.99

Adjusted R-squared
Prob(F-statistic)

0.67
0.00

Despite these results are free from heteroscedasticity, we observe that there is no significant
change in the overall results.
6. Conclusion
Understanding of e-learning and the factors affecting the effectiveness of e-learning is of primary importance to academic and industry researchers. As this research discusses concepts of elearning, it is very useful to those working in the area of e-learning. Organizations spend high
amount of their training budget on such systems and hence a loss of investment, or at least a
deferred or diminished ROI is likely if the system does not produce an effective e- learning
environment. Therefore, it is important for industry to understand and appreciate the factors
that impact effectiveness of e-learning.
Looking at the findings from the analysis, we can see some aspects of e-learning emerge as very
important from perspective of effectiveness. These aspects are as follows:

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

6.1 Organizational Aspects

1. It can be seen from the results that if the organization places high importance on e- learning,
it is received well by the learners. Thus it can be concluded that if there is a organization
level importance given to e-learning, it can significantly improve the effectiveness of elearning.
2. The organization must perceive e-learning as a large and long-term payoff activity.
Strategic managers must believe it is important to use e-learning, not only for cost-saving but
also for continuous learning of the learners.
3. The interest towards e-learning must be shared by the managers with their executives, and
learners. A clear communication regarding organizational perception of importance of elearning must be conveyed to the lower levels of hierarchy in the organization. This sets the
expectations correctly and aligns the people with the organizational thinking on this issue.
4. In order to generate high level of satisfaction with e-learning, the results and benefits derived
from it should be highlighted across ranks and files of the organization. A high level of
satisfaction will lead to more interest being shown in e-learning in future in the organization.
6.2 People Aspects
The people aspects of e-learning have been identified as the second important factor, after the
Structure component factors. This corroborates with the basic premise of the SocioTechnical Systems theory that systems do not consist only of technical processes and techniques
for performing the processes. They are also guided by the Structure and Actor components of the
systems.
1. In order to motivate the people for e-learning, a formal recognition and reward system must
be put in place. Efforts and results obtained by the team must be acknowledged and appreciated. Results and progress of the learners using e-learning should be monitored closely.
2. Organization must provide appropriate training for the people using e-learning. The team
members must be aware of the features and functions of the LMS and CMS in the trainings,
focus should also be on people issues such as perception, beliefs and attitudes along with
methodology, tools and techniques for e-learning. This will not only improve their capabilities, but also correct their beliefs, perceptions and attitude towards e-learning, thereby
improving its effectiveness.
The paper provides an insight to the organizational factors that impact successful e-learning. This
will help the organizations set up a comprehensive e-learning system suitable to the trainings and
on-the-job learning that they want to impart. The paper also provides an insight to the human
factors that impact successful e-learning. This will help the organizations to choose developers as
well as trainees with proper attitudes, knowledge and skills suitable for the e-learning system
being developed. The paper also looks at the various factors under the influence of various
stakeholders in the e-learning system and its surrounding. Understanding these factors and
influencing them to effectively manage the stakeholders can yield good results for successful elearning.
6.3 Limitations of the Study
The study is restricted to the project managers using e-learning for PMP certification and
organizations in India. The study does not consider other countries, other subjects and other
participants. Although it is believed that the same findings can be applied to other countries, it
would be interesting to find out if they also experience similar situations while using e-learning
for other purposes.
Further, in this study, the number of respondent is not very high. Uniformity of the trend in the

10

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

responses suggests that the model can be extended to a large sample size. This can be taken up,
with availability of time and funding to conduct the research across a larger sample.
6.4 Scope for Future Research
The recommendations made in this paper are on the basis of findings of the research. It would be
interesting to conduct experimental research in this area where the suggestions and
recommendations are actually implemented in e-learning for teaching / training other subjects to
different types of participants, and its impact measured to validate the findings and
recommendations.
References
Adams, J. (2010). A four-level model for integrating work and e-learning to develop soft skills
and improve job performance, The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 4(4), 48-68.
Braarud, P. O. (2001). Subjective task complexity and subjective workload: Criterion validity for
complex team tasks, International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5(3), 261-273.
Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems. London: Tavistock Institute Document 527.
Revised in The Emergence of a New Paradigm of Work. Canberra: Centre for Continuing
Education, Australian National University, 1978. Also in Design of Jobs, edited by L.E.
Davis and J.C. Taylor. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, (1972), 11, 157-86.
Demirkan, H., Goul, M., & Gros, M. (2010). A reference model for sustainable e-learning
service systems: Experiences with the joint university/teradata consortium, Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(1), 151-189.
Frankola K (2001), Why online learners drop out, Workforce, 80(10), 52-58.
Freire, L. L., Arezes, P. M. & Campos, J. C. (2012). A literature review about usability evaluation
methods for e-learning platforms, Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and
Rehabilitation, 41, 1038-1044.
Greenagel, F. L. (2002). The illusion of e-learning: Why we're missing out on the promise of
technology. On line learning.
Holsapple, C. W. & Lee-Post, A. (2006). Defining, assessing, and promoting e-learning
success: an information systems perspective. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 4(1), 67-85.
Leavitt H.J. (1964). Applied organization change in industry: structural, technical and human
approaches. In: New Perspectives in Organizational Research (Cooper, W.W., Leavitt,
H.J., Shelly, M.W. eds) Chichester: Wiley; 64-71.
Lee, G. & Xia, W. (2002, December). Development of a measure to assess the
complexity of information systems development projects. In International Conference on
Information Systems 23.
Lyytinen, K. & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: A punctuated
socio-technical change model, European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 589613.
Martinez-Torres, M. R., T. Marn, S. L., Garcia, F. B., Vazquez, S. G., Oliva, M. A., & Torres,
T. (2008). A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory
teaching, according to the European higher education area 1. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 27(6), 495-505.
Osberg, C. (2002). How to keep e-learners online. T and D, 56(10), 45-46.

11

July-December, 2013

Business Perspectives and Research

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions
in a componential framework, Applied linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
Rothrock, L., Harvey, C. M. & Burns, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and quantitative
architecture to assess team task complexity in dynamic environments, Theoretical Issues
in Ergonomics Science, 6(2), 157-171.
Strother, J. & Alford, R. (2003). Addressing Learner Variables in an e-Learning
Environment. In A. Rossett (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on e-Learning in
Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2003 (pp. 1971-1977).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Strother, J. B. (2002). An assessment of the effectiveness of e-learning in corporate training
programs, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1),1.
Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible for e-learning success
in higher education? A stakeholders' analysis. Educational Technology & Society,
11(3), 26-36.
Wang, G., Foucar-Szocki, D. & Griffin, O. (2003). Departure, Abandonment, and Dropout of
E-learning: Dilemma and Solutions, James Madison University.
Wang, Y. S., Wang, H. Y., & Shee, D. Y. (2007). Measuring e-learning systems success in an
organizational context: Scale development and validation, Computers in Human
Behavior, 23(4), 1792-1808.

12

Copyright of Business Perspectives & Research is the property of K. J. Somaiya Institute of

Management Studies & Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.