Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Sakai Functionality Roadmap
•Indiana University•MIT•Stanford University•University of Michigan
•JA-SIG (uPortal Consortium)•Open Knowledge Initiative•The Sakai Educational Partners (SEPP)
3
Outline
• I. Project Timeline Overview
• II. Tools Team Process
• IV. The Role of SEPP
• V. Next Steps & Summary
4
Project Timeline Overview
• Sakai Project Collaboration Originally Announced at Educause 2003
• Melon Grant awarded 15 December 2003
• Ambitious goals with an aggressive timeline
• A complex alignment…
5
6
Course Management Systems
• 4 different institutions
• 4 different approaches to CMS
• Great success with our various approaches
7
Oncourse @ IU
• User photo & SIS info dynamically loaded
•90K Faculty & Students each semester
•Averages 5 million hits a day with peak usage near 10 million hits in one day
8
CTools @ UMich
•Open source / Standards based
•Educational CMS, Research, & Project collaboration system
•Synoptic views of all sites in private My Workspace
9
Stellar @ MIT
•Homework and Sectioning Tools for large classes
•Rich course materials / electronic reserves from libraries
•Customizable look and feel
10
CourseWork @ Stanford•Easy-to-use (No training required)
•Supports large lecture courses & language courses (section signup, grading, etc.)
•Easy-to-use (No training required)
11
Lessons Learned
• Our differences are our greatest strength
• Drawing on our past experiences to benefit our future direction
• Things were going GREAT!!!
12
Sakai Team
13
Sakai Team
14
Tools Team Process
• Where did we start and why…
• Identifying gaps…
• Collecting supporting documentation…
• Suggestions gathering process…
15
Tools Team Gap Analysis
• Identification of gaps– Criteria
• Clarifying documentation– Unique features
• Prioritization process– Let the voting begin…
16
Current Oncourse,
Stellar, Coursework and CTNG features
Current CTNG features
List of over 200 items
identified as gaps
Clarification of gaps by Tools
Team
Survey of clarified gaps
1 vote from each core member
Prioritized
suggestions
1. Suggestion A
2. Suggestion B
3. Suggestion C
Primary/backup owner assigned
Gap Analysis
17
Tools Team Gap Analysis• Full rich text
capability via the browser
• Inline image placement
• Direct audio record• HTML code view
toggle option
18
Tools Team Gap Analysis
• Over 275 original gaps
• 42 prioritized gap items
• Current progress
• November 2004
19
Suggestions Gathering Process
• Overview– Detailed 5 step process– How does it work– Diagram and documentation
20
Step I - Communication
• Frequency
• Members
• Sources
• Submission of suggestion
• Review and refinement of suggestions
21
Step I – Communication (1 month iterations)
Authorized form
(Falcon tracking system)
Suggestions gathered
from Tools Team
Team review and refinement
Suggestion pool
Tech lead assigns H, M, L development effort for locked
suggestions
Development difficulty
estimated
1 week prior to Tools Team face to face meeting
22
Suggestion Form
23
Step II - Prioritization
• Pre-prioritization
• First round of voting
• Iterative list
• Accountability key
24
Step II – Prioritization
Voting/reviewing
(face to face)
Sakai Board sign-offSurvey of current
suggestions
1 vote from each core (1 week prior to face to
face meeting)
Prioritized
suggestions
1. Suggestion A
2. Suggestion B
3. Suggestion C
Primary/backup owner assigned
25
Step III - Specification
• Primary / Backup
• Standardization / procedure
• Review
26
Step III – Specification
Use casescenario
Activity diagram
User interface design Complete package
delivered to development team
to begin development
process
27
Step IV - Development
• Development lead
• Two way communication
• Iterative review and signoff
28
Step IV – Development
?development clarification
Primary/backup suggestion owners available for:
Quality assurance assistance or guidance
Iterative development review
29
Step V - Implementation: signoff
• Style guide
• Testing
• Signoff
• Documentation
30
Step V – Implementation
Assurance that all design adheres to style guide
Testing as needed
Final signoff by primary/backup suggestion owner – meets functional/non-functional specs
Creation and completion of all supporting documentation (help, user guide, marketing, etc.)
31
Suggestions Gathering Process
• Complicated challenge– Numerous suggestions– Process– Communication– Transparency
32
SEPP
• How does the SEPP get involved?
33
SEPP
• Overview– Challenge– Role of SEPP staff in process– Communication– Coordination
34
Sakai Project Board
• Manages a set of requirements from the core institutions to fulfill the obligations of the Mellon grant
• Deploys a set of local institution staff that have been tendered to the control of the board
35
Requirements Exceed Resources
• Core institutions requirements and “wishlist” items exceed development resources
• Sakai Partners have many additional requirements and wishlist items
• General public has ideas for TPP-based tools and capabilities
36
Three Emerging Models• Sakai Project Core
– Board assigns staff to prioritized requirements– In time, SEPP staff may be assigned
• Ad-hoc Alliances– SEPP members or others commit to working on
specific requirements and leverage SEPP coordination/communication model for a period of time
• Volunteers– Someone makes known their intent to work on a
particular requirement
37
Matrix
Req # Board Alliance Volunteer
1 2 3 ...
234 UC-Davis & NYU
… AZ State, IU, rSmart
427 Joe
38
Ad-hoc Alliances (recommendations)
• Based on mutual interest and timing• Operate as a mini-project using the Sakai
processes template• Project leader is appointed• Staff resources are tendered to the leader• Project visibility via Sakai forums
• SEPP could have dozens of Alliances working on particular requirements/innovations at any time.
39
Summary & Next Steps
• The process…
• Tight timeline…
• Numerous requirements…
• Coordination & Communication key…
• Scale suggestions gathering process…
• Shift from 2.0 to 3.0 process…
41
Resources
• Documents– Available on the SEPP Chefproject.org site.
