2.1. Introduction
The intent of this literature review is to provide a description of the study related to online learning in general, and the transition process in particular. In order to gain a comprehensive picture of this broad topic, I have provided several headlines that surrounding the online learning phenomenon, namely its background, definition, mode of instructions, pros cons, benefits, limitations, and recent status related to transition process. The review then covers information systems literature associated with process virtualization theory, which informs the emergent theory developed in the later chapters.
2.2. Online Learning
2.2.1. Background
Advanced industrial societies are currently undergoing a fundamental transformation from traditional economy to knowledge-based economy. In the traditional economy, the physical capital and material resources have been the driving force, whereas, the new economy is driven by human intellectual capital and knowledge. This transition is characterized by factors including globalization, increasing competition, knowledge and sharing transfer, and information technology revolution. Within this new economic, knowledge and skills are
11

12 become increasingly important both for the economical strength and social cohesion of the society. The structural and functional society transformations then raise the needs for major reform in education and training, aiming at reducing the risks for knowledge gaps and social exclusion (Sampson, 2001), including:
1. Personalized training schemes tailored to student’s objectives, background, style, and needs.
2. Flexible access to lifelong learning as a continual process, rather than a distinct event.
3. Cost effective methods for meeting training needs on a globally distributed workforce.
4. New learning models for efficient integration of training on workplaces.
5. Just-in-time training delivery.
The above needs call for a new paradigm of on-demand learning, and with the advancement of information communication technologies as a catalyst; together are fueling a transformation in modern learning in the era of the Internet, which commonly referred to as online learning.
2.2.2. Definition
Different terminologies have been used for online learning, a fact that makes it difficult to develop generic definition. Terms that are commonly used include e- learning, Internet learning, distributed learning, networked learning, tele-learning, virtual learning, computer-assisted learning, web-based learning, and also distance

13 learning. However, all of these terms imply that students is at a distance from the instructor, that students uses some form of technology (usually computer and
Internet) to access learning content and material, that students uses technology to interact with the instructor or other students, and that some form of support is provided to students (Ally, 2004). For the purpose of this study, I will use the term online learning throughout.
With the emphasis on percentage of contents that take place within online environment, Allen & Seaman (2010) defined online learning as a course which at least 80 percent of its contents are delivered online. Face-to-face learning includes that course in which 0 to 29 percent of the contents is delivered online; include both traditional and web-facilitated courses. The remaining alternative is blended or sometimes called hybrid learning is defined as having between 30 percent and
80 percent of the course contents delivered online.
Table 1. Type of course by online proportion (Allen & Seaman, 2011)
Proportion Type of course Typical description
0% Traditional Course with no online technology used, content is delivered in writing or orally.
1 – 29% Web-facilitated Course that uses web-based technology to facilitate what is essentially a face-to-face course. May use a course management system or web pages to post the syllabus or assignments.
30 – 79% Hybrid Course that blend online and face-to-face delivery. Substantial proportion of the content is delivered online, typically uses online discussion and has a reduced number of face-to-face meetings.
80+% Online Course where most or all of the content is delivered online, typically have no face-to-face meetings.

14
2.2.3. Instructional Mode
The online instruction include real-time (synchronous) and anytime, anywhere
(asynchronous) interactions. Synchronous learning is instruction and collaboration in real-time via the Internet, and typically involves tools such as live chat, audio and video conferencing, data and application sharing, virtual hand raising, joint viewing of multimedia presentations, and online slide shows. Whereas an asynchronous learning method use the time-delayed capabilities of the Internet, and typically involves tools such as email, threaded discussion, newsgroup and bulletin boards, and file attachments. Asynchronous courses are still instructor- facilitated but are not conducted in real-time, which mean that students and teacher can engage in course-related activities at their convenience rather than during specifically coordinated class sessions. In asynchronous courses, learning does not need to be scheduled in the same way as synchronous learning, allowing students and instructors the benefits of anytime and anywhere learning.
2.2.4. Pros and Cons
Traditional face-to-face education focuses on teaching, not learning (Ackoff &
Greenberg, 2008) and has been criticized for encouraging passive learning, ignoring individual differences and needs of the learners, and not paying attention to problem solving, critical thinking, or other higher order thinking (Appana,
2008; Banathy, 1994). Meanwhile, new advances in Internet-based technology have brought challenges and opportunities to education and training, particularly through online instruction. Some studies have shown that online instruction offers major breakthrough in teaching and learning since it facilitates the exchange of

15 information and expertise while providing opportunities for all types of learners in distant or disadvantaged location. For example, a meta-analysis study found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia & Jones,
2009). The difference between student outcomes for online and face-to-face classes was larger in those studies contrasting conditions that blended elements of online and face-to-face instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face.
Despite online learning is gaining popularity, it is not free from criticism posed by traditional based faculty. Many educators and trainers do not support online learning because they do not believe it actually solves difficult teaching and learning problem (Conlon, 1997) while others remain skeptical because believing that teaching and learning are inherently social processes, and must consider
“ same-time same-place ” interaction central to a successful educational experience
(Uysal & Kuzu, 2009). People, particularly those who lack of familiarity with online learning are also frankly suspicious that the programs have either low quality or even no standards. Some critics also claim that online learning is not as effective as traditional classroom learning because of its lack of face-to-face interactions (Ward & Newlands, 1998; Bullen, 1998). Moreover, online learning also threatens to commercialize education, isolate students and faculty, and may reduce standards or even devaluate university degree (Gallick, 1998; Gibbs,
1998). As a result, the high attrition rates for students in online courses remain an issue (Frydenberg, 2007; King, 2002) because they feel social disconnectedness, missing familiar teacher immediacy, and likewise missing interpersonal

16 interactions and social cues they more typically have when learning face-to-face
(Kerr, 2011; Menchaca & Bekele, 2008; Gibbs, 1998)
Although most courses can benefit to some degree from an Internet component, not all courses can be effectively transformed from a hands-on classroom experience to a totally computer-based learning environment (Overby, 2008;
Nedelko, 2008; Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Furthermore, faculties cannot overlook the risks anticipated in financial management and technical support to faculty.
Within the periphery of technical support, a faculty needs to have sufficient allocation of revenues to units that take the risk of converting their face-to-face programs to an online one. Pilot projects such as these may warrant unnecessary yet important expenditure. A faculty needs to understand the importance of retaining professionalism in this transitional period. A team approach to course development and delivery is primary when testing and assessing this change in curriculum delivery (Appana, 2008). When considering the challenge of the effectiveness of online learning in comparison to traditional classroom learning, researchers have to ask themselves if it is really the physical presence of the instructor and student that is an essential element of learning; or, if not, then what elements are critics denouncing (Richardson & Swan, 2003).
While these concerns may be unwarranted, there is continuing research to accurately determine the benefits and pitfalls of online learning, particularly when compared to the more traditional face-to-face learning environment. Researchers and educators continue experimenting on how student’s online experiences differ from their experiences in face-to-face learning environments (Hannay &
Newvine, 2006; Shea, 2006; Neuhauser, 2002; O’Malley & McCraw, 1999).

17
Gaining knowledge about the processes and outcomes to online instruction as compared to traditional face-to-face environments will help educators and researchers make more informed decisions about future online course development and implementation (Appana, 2008).
2.2.5. Benefits
Previous studies have analyzed and revealed the potential benefits to online learning, and can be categorized as technological benefits, pedagogical benefits, and financial benefits.
2.2.5.1. Technological
With a number of benefits in taking online learning, student’s accessibility is one of the most particular benefits (Allen & Seaman, 2011; Coyner & McCann,
2004; Anderson, 2004; Valentine, 2002). Students can gain access to information including syllabi, course assignments, scoring guides, and supplemental material twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. Students do not have to physically be with the instructor in space and, depending on the method used, they do not have to be together in time as well. Furthermore, it also serves the needs of students from various backgrounds and age ranges. People who are unable to attend the traditional classrooms because of time, geography, financial consideration, family, and work constraints can have access to the online resources. Even instructors can enjoy the flexibility of teaching at home instead of going to campus, and there are fewer hours spent photocopying class handouts for their students (Lyons, 2004).

18
Another huge benefit to online learning is the ease and speed with which course materials may be updated (Appana, 2008). Practically, online material can be easily updated, and students are able to see the changes at ones (Anderson,
2004). Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates (1999) identified three factors that relate to how quickly a course can be developed and revised: the level of infrastructure in place to support online courses, the choice of software, and the appropriateness of the course design for an online learning environment. Many software packages, including Blackboard and WebCT, are in the market to assist instructors to create online programs (Lyons, 2004). With the help of theses software packages, a wealth of information can be posted for students to access quickly through the
Internet. Singh & Pan (2004) illustrated the essential functions of these software programs. First, online students can read or listen to an e-lecture over and over until they understood. The ability to gain input repeatedly helps to consolidate teaching concepts to students. Second, the conference function or the online discussion board serves as a public arena where students and instructors can post their questions and answer. This makes discussion of current events, controversial issues, and response to specific questions is very possible.
According to Taylor (2002), good software and meaningful applications provide substantial benefits for students, parents, and school administrators as well: vastly improved communication, greater accountability, better student compliance, and greater objectivity in evaluation. Encouraging student inter- communication also gives student feedback from their peers as well as from their instructor, and makes them feel as integral part of the group (Appana, 2008).
Moreover, the ability to measure results of one’s teaching serves a double

19 purpose. First, it helps to evaluate the progress that students are making. Second, it is part of the learning process for students. Effective evaluations also help the educators to assess the effectiveness of their own delivery method. Every instructor should perform detailed effectiveness-analyses on a regular basis, and this is possible quite easily in online courses (Taylor, 2002).
2.2.5.2. Pedagogical
In some cases, online learning has been shown to enhance the student’s learning experiences. For example, Weiner (2003) found that online learning significantly improved writing and computer skills in Cyber Schools in United
States. This study is consistent to previous research which reported that online learning environments lead to higher computer self-efficacy (Piccoli, Ahmad, &
Ives, 2001), higher critical-thinking skills (Alavi, Wheeler, & Valacich, 2001) and improved time-management skills (Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates, 1999).
The potential for global markets also leads to the opportunity for international partnerships. Pedagogical benefits due to international partnerships include access to international experts and students. For example, some online master’s level course in educational studies developed at the University of British Columbia is in partnership with the Monterrey Institute of Technology in Mexico and University of Toronto (Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates, 1999). As a result, students benefited from the highly diverse nature of fellow students due to collaborative components in the course, such as international discussion groups and collaborative assignments. Another example is a global project design to facilitate partnership between United States and international K-12 classrooms through

20 telecommunication technology (Lu, Diggs, & Wedman, 2004). The project was based on a conceptual framework linking three essential elements, which are information and learning, enabling technology, and global connections.
Another benefit of the online delivery method is that the associated anonymity can result in greater participation from all students, including the shy ones
(Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates, 1999). Students may adopt new personas and may not feel obligated or pressured to participate in online communications when they do not see each other (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). There is also evidence that a learner who for a variety of social, linguistic or cultural reasons is less likely to talk, discuss, or ask questions in a face-to-face classroom, may become very articulate in an online setting (Vonderwell & Savery, 2004). On the other side, the lack of visual cues allowed the instructor to treat all students in the same manner. As stated by Appana (2008), learner identity has emerged as a new strategic learning variable within online learning environments as it can be used as a deliberate learning strategy as in online role-plays or discussion forum with pseudonym postings. At other times, students may use online learning as an opportunity to reconfigure their learner identity.
Interaction is seen as central to an educational experience and is a primary focus in the study of online learning for a successful course (Garrison &
Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Picciano, 2002). Swan (2001) in her reports on an empirical investigation that explored relationship between student perception and design factors found that clarity of design, interaction with instructors, and active discussion among course participants are significantly influenced the student’s satisfaction and perceived learning. Another study of distance learning courses

21 also shown that interactive qualities appear to be a major factor in determining course quality as reflected in student performance, grades, and course satisfaction.
For example, Roblyer & Ekhaml (2000) found that student perform better in online courses due to the flexibility and responsiveness experienced in online learning. They also concluded that student’s satisfaction is positively impacted when the technology is transparent and functions both reliably and conveniently, when the course is specifically designed to support student-centered instructional strategies, and when the instructor’s role is that of a facilitator and coach.
2.2.5.3. Financial
According to Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates (1999), there are several points to be made about the economic benefits of online learning. First, the development of online courses requires analysis of cost, as their cost structures are different from both face-to-face teaching and print-based distance education. Second, institutions will need to change the way budgets are handled so they can track accurately the cost of different ways of developing and delivering courses. Third, while economies of scale are possible from online learning compared with face-to-face learning, they are not as great as for print-based courses; on the other hand, the amount and quality of student and teacher interaction is much higher than in print- based courses. Finally, online learning, under the right circumstances, and especially when developed through partnership, can fully recover their cost, and can be at least as cost-effective as conventional learning.
Bartley & Golek (2004) presented a cost matrix tool by which the cost of online education and training can be tabulated and compared with the cost of the

22 traditional education and training medium. They stated that cost factors were divided into capital and recurrent cost, production and delivery cost and flexible and variable cost. Capital costs are cost for the purchase of equipment or materials. Recurrent costs are cost that occurs on an ongoing basis. Production costs are those associated with the development of a course or program, while delivery costs are cost associated with the delivery or teaching of course materials.
After weighing the pros and cons of online learning, they concluded that the benefits to online learning are very real and one should be able to justify any additional cost in terms of what the educational institutes will gain.
Moreover, online learning has the potential to tap into markets, both national and international, which cannot be easily accessed with other more traditional forms of course or program delivery (Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates, 1999). For example, in Australia, Curtin University uses compressed video conferencing to reach remote students in Western Australia, and to enhance classes in business study by connecting with students in Singapore (Valentine, 2002). Moreover, with the establishment of online foundation and degree biology courses, University of
South Pacific be able to tap into student markets in the whole of South Pacific, and will be able to reach larger and wider market than is possible for a face-to- face course (Appana, 2008).
2.2.6. Limitations
Online learning limitations can be categorized as infrastructure limitations, personal issues, and limitations compared to traditional campus, where limitations that do not fit into these categories are considered as other limitations.

23
2.2.6.1. Infrastructural
In order to be participated in online course, students need necessary hardware such as desktop or notebook computers. Therefore, one of the major infrastructure limitations of online learning is the necessity of computer hardware and relevant resources. Kearsley (2000) stated that online education involves the use of computer networks for learning and teaching. This means that students may need to buy or rent computer equipment and have Internet access in order to be able to follow the online education. According to World Bank data, the 8.5 million computers in Indonesia in 2008 are mainly found in urban areas used for commercial and business purposes both at home and in the office. Moreover, computer penetration is not relative to the number of Internet user, which reported by Internet World Stat reached 35 million until March 2011 with 14.2 percent of penetration rate. The number of computer in Indonesia is lower than the number of Internet users due to the lifestyle of the Indonesians. Many of them are occasional and find it more economical to share or rent computer than owning one. As a result, online learning may not be widespread in Indonesia yet.
Another infrastructure limitation related to online learning is Internet coverage, such as limited bandwidth. While online learning is supposed to be a multimedia- rich learning environment, the limited bandwidth may hinder the learning process as the downloading of multimedia materials may take a longer time (Wong,
2007). For example, Collins (2002) evaluated the Northern Arizona University pilot program for delivering training to students at homes using a combination of satellites and Internet technology. He found that the video frames transmitted via

24 the Internet could freeze up and the audio could be interrupted at times. Baker
(2003) even mentioned that video conferencing might not be feasible for learners who rely on the slow Internet connection from their homes. Related to Indonesia, the expensive price of bandwidth makes only a few people who have high-speed
Internet access. As a result, it is not surprising that many online learning courses are still text-based interfaces.
2.2.6.2. Personal Issues
Vonderwell & Savery (2004) mentioned that assessing student readiness is essential for successful learning experiences. Students need to be prepared for changing demands related to online learning with respect to technology, learning management, pedagogical practice and social roles. Moreover, online learners need to understand the dynamics in online setting, how online learning works, interactions, relations, perceptions, and role of learners and instructors. Learners should have an understanding of the instructor’s role as a facilitator or a guide.
Learners may have expectations of instruction, and they may feel that the instructor is not teaching when in fact teaching is in the form of facilitating, guiding, scaffolding learning. For many students, the successful classroom learning made possible by caring teachers who provided emotional and intellectual support, inadvertently making the students depend on their teacher.
When these students move into an online environment where the requirement for self-directed and self-managed learning is far greater, they often may experience anxiety (Vonderwell & Savery, 2004)

25
Further research also indicated that the domain of online learning was new to students and many lacked fundamental computer skills and were newcomers to the Internet (Dearnley, 2003; Lynch, 2001). This lack of experience impinged on their ability to adapt the new learning environment. Students were faced with the need to integrate technology with human interaction in order to communicate effectively, but most of them had no idea how to accomplish the task, and they feared they would not understand the course content if no one tell them what to do
(Vonderwell & Savery, 2004; Lynch, 2001).
2.2.6.3. Comparison to Residential Campus
Lacking physical interaction is another limitation in online learning. With no further opportunity for face-to-face communication, students quickly felt disconnected from campus, their motivation dwindled, felt isolated, missing familiar teacher immediacy, and likewise missing interpersonal interactions and social cues, and they appeared unable to initiate any self-direction in learning
(Kerr, 2011; Menchaca & Bekele, 2008; Lynch 2001; Gibbs, 1998). For example, student said that they missed the facial and hand gestures, from which important cues can be deriver (Meyer, 2003). Lacking physical interaction also reported to affect the student’s completion rate (Haigh, 2004). As a result, higher than average attrition rates remain an issue for online learning (Frydenberg, 2007;
King, 2002).
McCracken (2004) also criticized that online learning does not provide facilities like traditional campus, such as internship, volunteer opportunities, and access to physical library, book stores, career and development counseling. Even

26 some educational institutions tried to provide these facilities, she further pointed out problem such as budget, compatibility of software, and college policies hindered the development of integrated supporting systems.
Furthermore, online learning may not be suitable for certain group of learners, especially science students who need extensive physical laboratory experiments
(Nedelko, 2008; Vernon, 2002; Bourne, Harris, & Mayadas, 2005; Rovai &
Jordan, 2004). Not all courses can be effectively transformed from a hands-on classroom experience to a totally computer-based learning environment. Courses that require hands-on skills may be best suited for traditional learning program, while those requiring many case studies, discussion, and papers can easily transfer to the Internet.
2.2.7. Online Learning Transition
According to Hiltz & Turoff (2005), we are in the process of migrating from face-to-face courses that using objectivist, teacher-centered pedagogy and offered by tens of thousands of local, regional, and national universities to online courses using digital technologies to support constructivist, collaborative, student-centered pedagogy, offered by a few hundred virtual universities that operate on a global scale. Online learning is a new phenomenon that has the potential to substitute both distance learning and the traditional face-to-face learning. This is because its process will penetrate the common face-to-face classes and radically change the nature of what is thought of as the typical education course.

27
Recent survey of higher education in the United States reported that more than
6.1 million students were taking at least one online course during the fall 2010 term (Allen & Seaman, 2011). This report also notes that online education is becoming an important long-term strategy for many postsecondary institutions.
Many colleges and universities in the United States are now providing distance education to students all over the world, and some even collaborate to offer online classes (Lyons, 2004). For example, University of Phoenix has claimed to be the specialists of online programs while Yale and Stanford University in the United
States joined hands with Oxford University in England to offer classes to their alumni since 2000. Some universities even provide degree program via the
Internet without any residency requirement (Lyons, 2004).
With respect to the theory development for transition process towards online learning, only several literatures that truly focused on this area. For example,
Norma (2002) mentioned that vision of the course and the process of the transition from the classroom to the web must be considered carefully. She then suggests three levels of transition from classroom to online classes, namely transfer, translation, and transformation. Simon, Jones, & Silver (2007) argued that deciding to convert a traditional course to the online format requires a course developer to consider several steps, namely envisioning the course, understanding the process converting the content to online content, planning the transition, and developing the online content. Otherwise, Phelps, Ledgerwood & Barlett (2000) emphasized the role of the project management methodology in the learning organization for managing the transition to online learning, while Barett (2010) stressed the importance of recruitment and hiring methods used in the traditional

28 hiring versus online hiring of educators. In addition, Palloff & Pratt (2000) mentioned the transition to the online classroom can be successfully achieved if attention is paid to several key areas, which are technology familiarity, guidelines and procedure establishment, achieving maximum participation, promoting collaboration, promoting reflection, and evaluation.
2.3. Process Virtualization Theory
Process virtualization theory is the most recent information systems theory that proposed by Overby (2008) as a conceptualization of migration phenomenon from physical mechanisms to virtual environment which happening in many contexts, including distance learning, electronic commerce, and social networking. Based on a fact that some processes are more amendable to virtualization than other, this theory is designed to explain these variance.
2.3.1. Terms and Definitions
A process is defined as a step to achieve an objective. For example, consider a course taught by instructor to students in university as a process. The objective of this process is to ensure that students gain knowledge or experience, and the steps involved include scheduling study, conducting exercises, asking and answering questions, discussion, assignment, exam, etc. Many processes can be conducted either physically or virtually. A physical process involves physical interaction between people and between objects. Traditionally, learning process has been a physical process, where instructor and students are collocated at a physical classroom in which they interact. A virtual process is a process in which the

29 physical interaction among people and objects in the physical process has been removed (Overby, 2008). The emphasis on “ in the physical process ” is necessary because virtual processes tend to require that participants interact with a physical interface device such as computer, telephone, etc. Thus, virtual are not completely devoid of physical interaction, but they are devoid of the physical interaction that characterizes the physical process. To continue with learning example, this process may be conducted via online learning mechanism that permits the instructor to teach the students with no physical interaction. The transition from physical process to virtual process is referred to as process virtualization (Overby,
2008).
The definition of process is broad and designed to apply not only to business process such as product development or inventory management, but also to non business processes. Whereas the definition of virtual is designed to describe the absence of physical interaction between people or between people and objects
(Overby, 2008). This definition is consistent with that often used in the context of virtual teams. For example, Fiol and O'Connor (2005) argued that the degree to which a team is virtual determined by the extent of physical, face-to-face interaction among team members, not by the geographical dispersion of team members or the use of technology to mediate interaction. However, dispersion and technology use may be the characteristics of being virtual, but they are not determinants of it.
A physical process can be virtualized either with or without information technology. For example, consider the process of learning which traditionally involved physical interaction between students and book as well as students and

30 instructor. One way to virtualize this process is through correspondence which was allowed since at least the 19 th century (Holmberg, 2005). Another way to virtualize the process is through an internet website, such as that provided by
University of Phoenix. In the first case, the process is virtualized via paper-based mechanism, and in the second case, the process is virtualized via an information technology based mechanism. This illustrate that process may be virtualized via different virtualization mechanism, defined as the means by which a process is made virtual. Most contemporary virtualization mechanism is based on information technology, but it is not requirement for process virtualization
(Overby, 2008).
Moreover, the definition of virtual should not be confused with the use of the term as it relates to computer architecture. In other words, process virtualization is different than server virtualization, operating system virtualization, etc.
The last definition point is that process virtualization encompasses process automation. To see the relationship, consider that processes are composed of a tasks and actors. When a task is virtualized, it may be also automated, but it doesn't have to be. If the task is automated, then the actor is replaced by an information systems. If the task is not automated, then the actor maintains the responsibility for the task. For example, consider the following reductionist version of the book buying process and how Amazon has virtualized it. Assume that the process has two actors, a customer and a salesperson, both of whom engage in tasks. The customer peruses the books and makes payment, while the salesperson recommends books and collects payment. Amazon has virtualized each of these tasks by allowing them to be completed without physical interaction

31 with the books or between the customer and the salesperson. Amazon has automated the book recommendation and payment tasks by replacing the salesperson actor with information systems. However, it has not automated the book perusal task, the responsibility for which still lies with the customer. Thus, the entire process has been virtualized, but only certain tasks within it have been automated.
2.3.2. Construct and Relationship
Process virtualization theory is based upon the premise that some processes are better suited for being conducted virtually than others (Overby, 2008). For example, some shopping process such as those for office supplies and music have proven to be amenable to virtualization, while other shopping process such as those for houses, grocery, and perfume have proven to be resistant. Similarly, online learning programs are more successful for certain educational process than others. In other words, not all the processes are equally virtualizable. Process virtualization theory seeks to explain this variance. This provide the theoretical framework to predict which processes are likely to be conducted virtually in the future, as well as to explain the level of success achieved by current and historical process virtualization initiatives (Overby, 2008).

32
Figure 1. Constructs of process virtualization theory (Overby, 2008)
2.3.2.1. Dependent Variable
The dependent variable in process virtualization theory is process virtualizability, which describes how suitable a process is being conducted after the traditional physical interaction between people or between people and objects has been removed (Overby, 2008). Operationally, process virtualizability can be measured in two ways. First it can be measured as adoption or use of virtual process. Second, it can be measured as the quality of the outcomes of virtual process. In other words, the dependent variable of process virtualizability is continuous, not discrete, and should be thought of as a question of degree, not of kind (Overby, 2008).
2.3.2.2. Independent Variables
The independent variable of process virtualization theory can be divided into two categories. First as the characteristics of the process, and second is the characteristic of the virtualization mechanism. The independent variables that

33 represent characteristics of the process are sensory requirements, relationship requirements, synchronism requirements, and identification and control requirements. Each of these constructs is proposed to have negative effect on process virtualizability. In other words, as each of these requirements increases, the process becomes less suitable to virtualization.
Sensory requirements refer the need for process participants to be able to enjoy a full sensory experience of the process participants and objects (Overby, 2008).
Sensory experiences including tasting, seeing, hearing, smelling, and touching other process participants or objects as well as the overall sensation that participants feel when engaging in process, like excitement, vulnerability, etc. As consequences, the lack of physical interaction makes it difficult for participant in a virtual process to establish a sensory connection to object or other people because they cannot directly taste, smell, or feel them. Research on education suggest that interaction between students and learning material is important for effective learning (Moore & Kearsley, 1996) If this interaction is sensory in nature, like mixing chemicals in a science class, it may be difficult to replicate in a virtual setting.
Relationship requirements refer to the need of the process participants to interact with each other in a social of professional context (Overby, 2008). Such interaction often leads to knowledge acquisition, trust, and friendship development. However, research suggest that relationship development purely in virtual environments tends to be weaker, less developed, and more fleeting than corresponding relationship in physical environment (Park and Roberts, 1998;
Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Mesch & Talmund, 2006). Research on formal

34 educational process also lends support to this proposition. Three types of interaction have been identified as important in education, which is student to learning material, student to student, and student to instructor. Student to student and student to instructor interaction provide a context in which an individual can objective his taught (Salomon and Perkins, 1998). Objectification involves sharing thoughts and ideas so that they can be discussed, critiqued, and elaborate upon, which help individuals learn. Opportunities for objectification and interaction are straightforward in an educational process whereby students, materials, and the instructor are physically collocated. These opportunities can also be provided in virtual environment, although the establishment, marketing, and monitoring of some type of collaboration forum is usually required (Lynch,
2002). This means additional steps are necessary to virtualizes the process, which makes the process more resistant to virtualization, although virtualization itself can still be accomplished.
Synchronism requirements refer to the degree to which the activities that make up a process need to occur quickly with minimal delay (Overby, 2008).
Synchronism typically comes naturally in physical process because participant and objects are close so they can interact with little delay. By contrast, virtual process is abstracted away from one another and from process objects, which can introduce delays into the process. In formal education, synchronous participation is important for class discussion and test administration as instructors may not want some students to receive a test before others. Synchronous participation also aids in pedagogy as instructors can provide immediately feedback about work of students or clarify concepts (Salomon and Perkins, 1998). Synchronous

35 participation is straightforward in a classroom based setting. It can also be achieved in a virtual education process, but requires extra steps to create and maintain a real time collaboration forum (Lynch, 2002).
Identification and control requirements refer to the degree to which process participants require to identify other process participants and the ability to exert control over their behavior (Overby, 2008). Virtual process is susceptible to identity spoofing and control problems because participants cannot physically inspect others to confirm their identity. For example, in a correspondence course, it is difficult to detect the level of student involvement in a work product or to grant and control access to course resources. Although online learning environments provide function for granting and controlling access to resources, confirming authorship of work product remains problematic.
Representation refers to information technology's capacity to present relevant information to a process, including simulations of actors and objects within the physical world, their properties, and characteristics, and how we interact with them (Overby, 2008). Representation allows many sensory requirements such as sight and sound to be replicated in technological based virtual process (Suh and
Lee, 2005). While the sense of smell and touch has been harder to replicate, although advancements in olfactory and hap-tic interface technology, respectively, hold promise (Overby, 2008). Many sensory aspects associated with interaction between student and learning material in formal education can be represented via simulations technology, for example in the form of better learning instruments than the physical objects themselves (Pea, 1993). The representation capability of

36 information technology also facilitates the virtualization of process with high sensory and relationship requirements.
Reach refer to information technology's capacity to allow process participation across both time and space (Overby, 2008). With respect to reach across time, information technology allows many processes to be conducted throughout the day. For example, e-commerce permit shopping (including actual product acquisition in the case of download-able information goods) even when the physical store are closed. With respect to reach across space, information technology permits people located around the world to participate in the same process. For example, online learning processes respectively to all location and participants with Internet connectivity. Reach facilitates the virtualization of process with high relationship and synchronism requirements.
Monitoring capability refer to information technology's capacity to authenticate process participants and track their activities (Overby, 2008). For example, research on formal education has shown that online learning environments provide significant capabilities for monitoring participation of students (Arbaugh,
2000). Authentication system such as identification and password combinations, digital certification, and biometric tokens can capture who is participating in a process, associated database entries capture what these participants are doing and when. Monitoring capability facilitates the virtualization of process with high identification and control requirements.
Representation and reach are each posited to have a positive main effect on process virtualizability (Overby, 2008). First, if a virtualization mechanism has

37 powerful representation capabilities, then the process to which it is being applied will be easier to virtualizes than if the mechanism had weak representation capabilities. Second, some virtualization mechanism provides better reach than others. A virtual process with extended reach is more likely to be useful to greater number than one with limited reach, thereby increasing its adoption and use. The main effect of monitoring capability is equivocal and likely to depend on the empirical context to which the theory is applied. In some cases, enhanced monitoring capability may create a level of process accountability that leads to improved outcomes. In other cases, enhanced monitoring capability may cause people to reject the virtual process because they do not want their activities monitored, thereby hindering process virtualizability (Overby, 2008).
In addition to their main effects, the characteristics of the virtualization mechanism also moderate the relationship between the characteristics of the process and process virtualizability (Overby, 2008). First, representation moderates the relationships between sensory requirements and process virtualizability as well as between relationship requirements and process virtualizability. If the virtualization mechanism capable to provide high fidelity of representations of sensory experiences, then the negative relationship between sensory requirement and process virtualizability will be attenuated. Second, reach moderates the relationship between relationship requirements and process virtualizability as well as between synchronism requirements and process virtualizability. Reach allows an increased number of people to participate in a process, which provide additional opportunities for relationship development
(McKenna & Bargh, 2000). Reach also permits people who are not physically

38 collocated to participate in a process at the same time (Alavi, Wheeler, &
Valacich, 1995). Third, monitoring capability moderates the relationship between identification and control requirements and process virtualizability. Information technology based authentication system facilitate identifying who is engaging in a virtual process, technological based rights management system facilitate controlling the tasks participants are authorized to conduct, and database records of participant activities make it easier to audit participant behavior.
2.4. System Development Life Cycle
The System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) is the process of understanding how an information systems can support business needs by designing a system, building it, and delivering it to users (Dennis, Wixom & Tegarden, 2009). This process has a similar set of four fundamental phases, namely planning, analysis, design, and implementation. Each phase is itself composed of a series of steps, which rely upon techniques that produce deliverable specific documents and files that provide understanding about the project.
2.4.1. Planning
The planning phase is the fundamental process of understanding why an information system should be built and determining how the project will go about building it. This phase consists two steps:
1. Project initiation, where the system business value to the organization is identified. Most of ideas for new systems come from outside the

39 information systems area in the form of system request. A system request present a brief summary of a business need, and it explains how a system that supports the need will create business value. Then, the information systems department works together with other department that generated the request to conduct a feasibility analysis, including technical, economic, and organizational feasibility. Finally, the system request and feasibility analysis are presented to an information systems approval committee, which decides whether the project should be undertaken.
2. Project management, where the project manager creates a work plan, staffs the project, and puts techniques in place to help the project team control and direct the project through the entire SDLC. The deliverable for project management is a project plan, which describe how the project will go about developing the system.
2.4.2. Analysis
The analysis phase answers the questions of who will use the system, what the system will do, and where and when it will be used. During this phase, the project team investigates any current systems, identifies improvement opportunities, and develops a concept for the new system. This phase has three steps:
1. Analysis strategy, developed to guide the project team efforts. Such a strategy usually includes an analysis of the current system (called the as-is system) and its problems, and then ways to design a new system (called the to-be system).

40
2. Requirements gathering, the analysis of this information, in conjunction with input from project sponsor and many other people, leads to the development of a concept for a new system. The system concept is then use as a basis to develop a set of business analysis models, which describe how the business will operate if the new system is developed. The set of models typically includes models that represent the data and process necessary to support the underlying business process.
3. System proposal, where the analyses, system concept, and models are combined into a document, and presented to the project sponsor and other key decision makers who decide whether the project should continue to move forward.
2.4.3. Design
The design phase decides how the system will operate, in terms of the hardware, software, and network infrastructure; the user interface, forms and reports; and the specific programs, databases, and files that will be needed.
Although most of the strategic decisions about the system were made in the development of the system concept during the analysis phase, the steps in the design phase determine exactly how the system will operate. The design phase has four steps:
1. The design strategy is first developed. It clarifies whether the system will be developed by own programmers, whether the system will be outsourced to another firm, or whether the company will buy an existing software package.

41
2. The basic architecture design of the system, which describes the hardware, software, and network infrastructure to be used. The interface design specifies how the users will move through the system and the forms and reports that the system will use.
3. The database and file specification are developed. These define exactly what data will be stored and where will be stored.
4. The program design, which defines the programs that need to be written and exactly what each program will do.
2.4.4. Implementation
The implementation phase is the final phase that usually gets the most attention, because for most systems it is the longest and most expensive single part of the development process. It also during this phase the system is actually built or purchased. This phase has three steps:
1. System construction is the first step. The system is built and tested to ensure it performs as designed. Because the cost of bugs can be immense, testing is one of the most critical steps in implementation. Most organization give more time and attention to testing than to writing the programs in the first place.
2. Installation, the process by which the old system is turned off and the new one is turned on. It may include a direct cutover approach (in which a new system immediately replace the old system), a parallel conversion approach (in which both the old and new systems are operated for a month or two until it is clear that there are no bugs in the new system), or a

42 phased conversion strategy (in which the new system is installed in one part of the organization as an initial trial and then gradually installed in others). One of the most important aspects of conversion is the development of a training plan to teach users how to use the new system and help manage the changes caused by the new system.
3. Support plan for the system, including a formal or informal post- implementation review as well as systematic way for identifying major and minor changes needed for the system.
2.5. Unified Modeling Language
The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a standard set of diagramming techniques that provides a graphical representation rich enough to model any system development project from analysis through implementation (Dennis,
Wixom & Tegarden, 2009). Today, most object-oriented systems analysis and design approaches use the UML to depict an evolving system. The UML uses a set of different diagrams to portray the various view of the evolving system. The diagram are grouped into two board classifications structure and behavior. The structure diagrams include class, object, package, deployment, component, and composite structure diagram. The behavior diagram include activity, sequence, communication, interaction overview, timing, behavior state machine, protocol state machine, and use case diagram. The following table gives the brief explanation for each UML diagram.
Table 2. UML diagrams summary (Dennis, Wixom & Tegarden, 2009)

43
Diagram Name
Structure Diagrams
Function
Class Illustrate the relationships between classes modeled in the system
Object Illustrate the relationships between objects modeled in the system. Used when actual instances of the classes will better communicate the model
Package Group other UML elements together to form higher-level constructs
Phase
Analysis, Design
Analysis, Design
Analysis, Design,
Implementation
Deployment Show the physical architecture of the system. Can also be used to show software components being deployed onto the physical architecture
Analysis, Design,
Implementation
Component Illustrate the physical relationships among the software components
Composite Structure Illustrate the internal structure of a class, i.e., the relationships among the parts of a class
Design,
Implementation
Analysis, Design
Behavioral Diagrams
Activity Illustrate business workflows independent of classes, the flow of activities in a use case, or detailed design of a method
Sequence
Analysis, Design
Model the behavior of objects within a use case. Focuses on the time- based ordering of an activity
Analysis, Design
Communication
Interaction
Timing
Model the behavior of objects within a use case. Focuses on the communication among a set of collaborating objects of an activity
Analysis, Design
Illustrate an overview of the flow of control of a process
Analysis, Design
Analysis, Design Illustrate the interaction that takes place among a set of objects and the state changes in which they go through along a time axis

Use Case Capture business requirements for the system and to illustrate the interaction between the system and its environment
Analysis
44
Recently, using UML to model system is very popular because it is a very efficient tool to help the developers to construct their object oriented programming structure. For example, Peng & Jin (2010) apply UML to design graduation project management, Banerjee (2010) uses UML-based approach to design a secure model of an online learning system, and Soler et al. (2010) use
UML class diagrams to design a web-based e-learing system. According to these authors, UML is a good and efficient tool that is able to well reflect the requirements of the users and also a suitable application to test whether those requirements can be implemented in the real systems. Through using UML, complicated user requirements will become simple, clear, and easily transferable into the functionality of the system. However, as noted by Sanchez & Monzon
(2001) and Dorsey (2004), UML is not capable of capturing an abstract requirements or objects in some specific circumstances. For instance, it is highly unlikely to use UML to represent the user expectation about system security, stability, availability, and flexibility, because UML is the tool that links or connects the requirements with the actual operations or actions that occur in the real systems.