SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond Learning Outcomes: Impact of Organizational Flexibility on Strategic Performance Measures of Commercial E-Learning Providers

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The success of e-learning courses is normally measured in terms of the learning outcomes delivered, but when it comes to the success of the organizations that are in the business of delivering commercial e-learning courses, delivering learning outcomes only does not suffice. Commercial e-learning providers, to remain successful, have to meet the main expectations of the learners hidden behind the successful completion of the e-learning courses. The main expectation for a learner could mean obtaining a skill certification leading to a better paying job or a successful attempt at securing a place in a reputed university which uses tough entrance examinations in the admission process. This study based on an ‘Action Research’ conducted on two commercial e-learning providers belonging to the non-formal education domain in India and conducted over a period of 3 years concludes that organizational flexibility plays a very important role on the strategic performance indicators of commercial e-learning providers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D. A., & Mascarenhas, B. (1984). The need for strategic flexibility. The Journal of Business Strategy, 5(2), 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long Range Planning, 44, 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelou, G. N., & Economides, A. A. (2007). E-learning investment risk management. Information Resource Management Journal, 20(4), 80–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S., & Nath, S. (2016). Intelligent E-learning systems—An educational paradigm shift. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 4(2), 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. R., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, J., & Hamilton, I. (2002). Beyond E-learning: Approaches and technologies to enhance organizational knowledge, learning, and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Waal, A. A. (2004). Stimulating performance-driven behaviour to obtain better results. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(4), 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhir, S., & Sushil. (2017). Flexibility in modification and termination of cross-border joint ventures. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(2), 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppink, D. J. (1978). Planning for strategic flexibility. Long Range Planning, 11(4), 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. (1991). Strategic flexibility for high technology maneuvers: A conceptual framework. Journal of Management Studies, 28(1), 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, L., Johnston, R., Brignall, S., Silvestro, R., & Voss, C. (1991). Performance measurement in service business. London: CIMA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghalayini, A. M., & Noble, J. S. (1996). The changing basis of performance measurement. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16(8), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghalayini, A. M., Noble, J. S., & Crowe, T. J. (1997). An integrated dynamic performance measurement system for improving manufacturing competitiveness. International Journal of Production Economics, 48, 207–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenagel, F. L. (2002). The illusion of e-learning: Why we are missing out on the promise of technology. https://www.league.org/sites/default/files/privatedata/imported/occasional_papers/0802.html.

  • Haldar, A., Rao, S. N., & Momaya, K. S. (2016). Can flexibility in corporate governance enhance international competitiveness? Evidence from knowledge-based industries in India. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(4), 389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, L. A. (2009). The antecedents of E-learning outcome: An examination of system quality, technology readiness and learning behavior. Adolescence, 44(175), 581–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanji, G. K., & Sá, P. M. (2002). Kanji’s business scorecard. Total Quality Management, 13(1), 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive performance (pp. 71–90). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, T. (2013). After setbacks, online courses are rethought. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/11/us/after-setbacks-online-courses-are-rethought.html?_r = 0. Accessed 29 July 2014.

  • Lynch, R. L., & Cross, K. F. (1991). Measure up—The essential guide to measuring business performance. London: Mandarin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medori, D., & Steeple, D. (2000). A framework for auditing and enhancing performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(5), 520–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy (pp. 66–75). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A. D. (1994). Performance measurement system design-third phase draft of the fourth section of the performance measurement system design workbook. Cambridge: Centre for Business Performance, Judge Institute of Management Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quilter, D. R. (2000). E-learning—A panacea or a culture change? Internet article, Adval Group Plc. https://static.aminer.org/pdf/PDF/000/287/420/cultural_chang_for_the_e_world.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2013.

  • Radun, V. (2015). E-learning and competitiveness in higher education industry: Future trends and directions. In The sixth international conference on e-learning (eLearning-2015), 24–25 September 2015, Belgrade, Serbia.

  • Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital era. USA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. J. (2006). Beyond E-learning: Approaches and technologies to enhance organizational knowledge, learning and performance. Boston, MA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perception of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruth, S. R. (2006). E-learning: A financial and strategic perspective. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 1, 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seufert, S. (2001). E-learning business models, strategies, success factors and best practice examples. In Academy of management (AOM) 2001, Washington.

  • Shih, K.-P., Chen, H.-C., Chang, C.-Y., & Kao, T.-C. (2010). The development and implementation of scaffolding-based self-regulated learning system for e/m-learning. Educational Technology and Society, 13(1), 80–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimizu, K., & Hitt, M. A. (2004). Strategic flexibility: Organizational preparedness to reverse ineffective strategic decisions. Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 44–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, A. K. (2014). Act for effective strategy execution: Mediating role of adapt. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(4), 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, C. (2002). Getting the organization to adopt E-learning—from challenge to action. http://www.oktopusz.hu/domain9/files/modules/module15/2632B148C2D3250.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept 2011.

  • Sushil, (2005). Flexible strategy framework for managing continuity and change. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 1(1), 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2010). Flexible strategy game-card. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 11(1 and 2), iii–iv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2012). Flowing stream strategy: Managing confluence of continuity and change. Journal of Enterprise Transformation, 2(1), 26–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2013). Flowing stream strategy: Leveraging strategic change with continuity. New Delhi: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2014). Duality of enterprise and stakeholders on flexibility front. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(3), 179–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2015). Strategic flexibility: The evolving paradigm of strategic management. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16(2), 113–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2016). Strategic flexibility in ecosystem. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(3), 247–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, M. J. (2009). The model of strategic E-learning: understanding and evaluating student e-learning from metacognitive perspectives. Educational Technology and Society, 12(1), 34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W. (1996). Towards the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W. (1997). Building flexible organization for fast moving markets. Long Range Planning, 30(2), 148–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W. (1998). Building the flexible firm—How to remain competitive. UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodill, G. (2004). Where is the learning in e-learning. Operitel Corporation Publication. https://bonlinelearning.com.au/publications/wp_elearning_analysis.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2010.

  • Yadav, N. (2014). Flexibility aspects in performance management system: An illustration of flexible strategy game-card. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(3), 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Wosnitza, M., & Schroeder, U. (2015). A cluster analysis of MOOC stakeholder perspectives. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(1), 74–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecollabs Infomix Pvt. Ltd., JSSATE-STEP, C-20/1, Sector-62, Noida, 201 309, India

    Srikanta Acharya

Authors
  1. Srikanta Acharya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Srikanta Acharya.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author confirms that there is no conflict of interest with any individual or organization with respect to this research paper. The author also confirms that he has received appropriate approvals from the participating organizations and that the participating organizations were not disadvantaged and their data have been anonymised. The names of the organizations and descriptions about them have been withheld to protect their confidentiality.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Acharya, S. Beyond Learning Outcomes: Impact of Organizational Flexibility on Strategic Performance Measures of Commercial E-Learning Providers. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 20, 31–41 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-018-0199-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-018-0199-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation