# An Organizational and Governance Model to Support Mass Collaborative Learning Initiatives
## 2 A Brief Overview of Related Work
### Establishing Adequate Learning and Performance Assessment Indicators and Metrics
To help better understand the role and features of the proposed indicators in OGM-MCL, we place them under four main classes:  
* _Input indicators_--which refer to the resources required for implementing the learning program (e.g., enough financial support, equipped environment, and staff);
* _Activity indicators_--which refer to the activities and operations in the learning program (e.g., motivation factors and active collaboration);
* _Output indicators_--which refer to the expected effects/changes achieved by the learning program in the short, intermediate, and long term (e.g., improved knowledge and developed relationships);
* _Impact indicators_--which refer to the learning program's contribution to higher-level strategic plans (e.g., civic awareness and promotion of collaborative learning). To make better judgments about the success of an MCL initiative, in addition to learning assessment at the individual level, the performance of the network/community (as a whole) needs to be measured. In general terms, the performance assessment has several meanings and is recognized as an extremely complex task because it simultaneously involves both tangible aspects (e.g., technological and human resources) and intangible aspects (e.g., network culture, users' interests, and trust) [50]. In the scope of this study, performance assessment is understood as a process that aims at achieving the goals of the collaborative learning initiative by improving the quality of operations and executions. In the literature, not only abundant concrete experiences but also several methods for performance evaluation have been reported, whereas each one can be used for a specific condition and purpose of the MCL initiative. According to [1], the methods for performance assessment fall into three main categories, namely, absolute standard methods (e.g., checklist and critical incident methods), relative standard methods (e.g., ranking methods and paired comparison), and objective methods (e.g., management by objectives and 360\({}^{\circ}\) appraisal). Evidence shows that there is good progress in the quality and quantity of introduced methods for performance assessment [53], and the identification of potential dimensions and related indicators has brought about quantitative measurements or qualitative observations that help describe changes [49]. For instance, [54] declares that there are three measurements that (as key dimensions) can affect the prosperity of a CN, namely, inputs (resources) to the collaboration, health of collaboration (factors such as trust and commitment), and outcomes of the collaboration. In another study [55], the performance assessment is viewed as a key success factor for the CN that relies on six dimensions: network models of action, network resources and competencies, network culture, financial perspectives, customer perspectives, and the performance of internal processes. In [56], the authors assert that the multi-dimensional performance facets of collaborative networks involve three dimensions (structural, relational, and behavioral), and each dimension has two associated indicators (type and governance, trust and commitment, and individual and collective levels); altogether, they can influence the success of a CN. Complementarily, findings of earlier studies [50] reveal that performance assessment builds upon a set of critical indicators that will be designated according to the network's structure and typology, network governance and power, performance assessment objectives, assessment timeframe, assessment level, data gathering frequency, criteria choice, etc. Indeed, identifying and selecting the appropriate indicators for performance assessment are broad endeavors and should not be limited to the consideration of tangible or intangible benefits. Rather, it should cover a spectrum of features that meets strategic, operational, technical, financial, and cultural aspects. There is also an increasing need for identifying different types of measures and indicators to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of CN.