CLE Hosting Statewide Collective Action Shared e Learning

CLE Hosting Statewide Collective Action: Shared e. Learning Services in Ohio Cable T. Green Director of Technology Ohio Learning Network

Shared Services Vision v. 1 q The Ohio Digital Commons for Education (ODCE) will provide Ohio institutions with reasonably priced access to hosted, enterprise level collaboration and learning environments (CLE) including faculty and admin training, an integrated institutional & learning object repository within which students and faculty may archive and access digital content, and single sign-on to these services for all Ohio faculty, staff, and students.

Shared Services: The Big Picture q The ODCE asks “What are the mission critical e. Learning services most Ohio institutions are running or plan to run in the next 2 -3 years? ” q Those services become candidates for shared services hosting. q Current list includes: CLEs (Web. CT & Bb), institutional & learning object repositories, e. Portfolios, and Shibboleth (for SSO). Ø Exploring new solutions in OLN’s Open Source Pilot

Ohio Digital Commons for Education Technology Initiatives Grant Project q Enterprise CLE Hosting Ø The ODCE has partnered with Kent State University to provide Web. CT Vista (v. 3. x) hosting and with the University of Cincinnati to host Blackboard Learning System (v. 6. x). = Ohio Learning Network q Digital Resource Commons (DRC) Ø A digital content repository will extend Ohio. LINK's existing content distribution capabilities by providing tight integration with the hosted CLE environments. = Ohio. LINK q Federated Authentication (Shibboleth) Ø OSC is experimenting with Shibboleth to provide a federated authentication service between CLE hosting, Ohio. LINK's DRC services, and existing authentication systems in use on Ohio campuses. = Ohio Supercomputer Center

CLE Hosting Project Overview: Statement of the Problem q Over 110 institutions of higher education in Ohio with over 585, 000 students. q Nearly all of these campuses require CLE hosting and associated system administration, faculty training, digital content repositories, and authentication to online resources.

Why Collaborate? q Many institutions choose not to develop (or lack) the resources and staff expertise to deliver robust collaboration and learning environments (CLE) and content repository services as a 24 x 7 enterprise, with sufficient server capacity and disaster recovery capabilities to maintain these resource intensive services. Ø But all require CLE services – with associated system administration, faculty training and support, digital content repositories and so on. q Left to the independent efforts of each Ohio higher education institution, it is not likely that a robust shared infrastructure across institutions will develop, but rather basic, duplicative services will be created with limited State funds.

Timing is Right for Shared Services q Decreasing State budgets have prompted calls for increased inter-institutional collaboration (e. g. , Ohio Governor’s Commission on Higher Education and the Economy): www. chee. ohio. gov ØCalls for “shared services” q Educational technology has become mission critical q CLE is growing in complexity, cost, and importance q Outsourcing has become less alien to higher education

Timing is Right for Shared Services q CLE is a better candidate for shared services than legacy administrative systems q Third Frontier Network: 1, 600 miles of fiber backbone to connect higher education institutions and P-12 schools q Ohio Commons, OBR, Kent State, and UC eager to LEAD in this new K-20 e. Learning space

CLE Hosting Project Phases q Phase 1: Pilot Two & Four Year Public & Private Institutions of Higher Education q Phase 2: Additional Institutions in: Ø FY 07 (August 2006) & FY 08 (August 2007) q Phase 3: K-20: Add K-12? Ø Example = UC and Catholic Archdiocese

CLE Hosting Goals q Logistical Ø Enable institutions to move into enterprise level CLE hosting and services. q Intellectual Ø Facilitate collaboration, sharing, and community building around content and services. Ø Leverage existing CLE infrastructure and services in Ohio.

CLE Hosting Goals q Financial Save Money ØLicense Savings (Bb = X%; Web. CT = X%) ØHosting and Support Savings üReduced costs by leveraging shared infrastructure ØOLN $$$ to reduce overall costs

Services Surrounding CLE Hosting q q q License negotiation (OLN) Hardware, Software , Backup, Updates (Hosts) Migration & Implementation Services (Vendors) Faculty and System Administration Training (Hosts) Bb and Web. CT Councils Ø Share best practices & training materials Ø Meet monthly online

Project Status? Phase 1: Pilot Running Now q Edison Community College = Enterprise Bb launched in August ’ 04. Ø Started with 22 courses / 541 students, now 244 courses, over 4640 students Ø FULL Datatel integration. q Marion Technical College = Enterprise Bb launched in September ’ 04. Ø Started with 70 courses / 1300 students, now 615 courses, over 3550 students q Capital University = Enterprise Bb launched in June ’ 05 q In Bb hosting discussions with one small & two large Community Colleges q Rio Grande Community College = Web. CT Vista launched in August ‘ 04 Ø Started with 232 courses / 1842 users, now 989 course sections, over 4300 users Ø Completely off Web. CT CE by Spring / Summer ‘ 06 q Youngstown State University = Web. CT Vista piloted since October ’ 04 Ø Now 117 course sections, over 950 students Ø Completely off Web. CT CE by Spring / Summer ‘ 06

Lessons Learned q The climate is ripe and right for collaboration Ø It’s about institutions sharing services and expertise, leveraging for a greater common good Ø Drawing on others’ expertise to focus on their core competencies and mission Ø CLE is a relatively new system/service – why ramp up for it? Ø A better service/product – ensuring the latest releases, features, etc. Ø Invite everyone to the party q CLE consolidation is a leadership opportunity Ø Emphasizing long-term project commitment Ø Keep the focus on the project goals

Lessons Learned q Partnership – not a business relationship, but run like a business Ø Vendors are willing to partner with good partners Ø Compromise, flexibility, patience, and shared decision making Ø Transparency with successes and issues q It can work, on time, with excellent client satisfaction. q Higher Education will spend money for long term savings and improved services Ø But there are issues – trust, ownership -- some institutions will not come even if it’s FREE.

Why Some Institutions did NOT Join q Perceived Loss of Control Ø Clients retain FULL Control ü Branding (URL, colors, logos, etc. ) ü System administration over virtual installation ü Authentication and SIS integration q “We can do it better, cheaper in-house. ” Ø Run a TCO of local vs. hosted technical capabilities, support, auxiliary services, and costs. ü Then compare the two.

Why Some Institutions did NOT Join q “I’ll loose my job” Ø Or might skilled staff be re-tasked to work on other high priority IT projects? Ø What are the opportunity costs of not moving to shared services? q Wrong Combination of Folks at the Table Ø Get the right people on the team ü Open-minded, experienced, looking toward the future Ø Project leaders involved in ALL negotiations ü Similar “levels” of players in all discussions

How much does it Cost? (Many Factors: Some Info Pending) q License Costs Ø Mi. CTA RFP results Dec ‘ 05 ü OLN will renegotiate with vendors in WI ‘ 06 Ø Current license fees used to ball-park for planning purposes q Hosting Costs & Service Level Agreements Ø Details in presentations Ø Oracle costs (in negotiations) – possible move to MS SQL q Integration Costs (optional) Ø Web. CT & Bb services teams Ø UC & KSU will discuss basic integration services included with hosting q OLN’s Roles Ø Banker, Negotiator (drive down costs), Project Manger, & Mediator

Cost Model + Hosting Fees + License + Integration Costs (optional) ---------Sub-Total - OLN Support ---------Total CLE Hosting Costs

Timeline for Joining CLE Hosting Ø Fall ‘ 05 ü Informal discussions with OLN, Host, Vendor ü Presentations at your institutions Ø Winter ‘ 06 ü All Costs (Licenses and Oracle) known v Mi. CTA RFP results • OLN renegotiates contracts with vendors ü New clients make decision to move to CLE Hosting ü Sign license agreements and SLA Ø Spring / Summer ’ 06 ü Testing, migrate courses, and faculty & admin training Ø Fall ’ 06 ü Full production in Hosted CLE

Questions?

For more information contact: Cable Green Director of Technology Ohio Learning Network cgreen@oln. org / 614 -995 -3240