Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Developing a Viable ASP Model for Distributed Learning
Michael E. Scheuermann
Drexel UniversityMay 17, 2004
What’s the Problem?
Many academic institutions that would like to launch distributed learning initiatives have neither the firepower to develop and support a robust system in-house nor the resources to purchase a course management system for their use alone.
Their choices and options become extremely limited when faced with these seemingly insurmountable challenges.
What Are Their Options?
• Limiting their online course offerings, if any• Using faculty Web sites
– to disseminate content
• Using public resources – to facilitate interaction between course participants
• Relying on EMail alone– for both of the above
• Utilizing textbook publisher-hosted apps• Trying out a low-level COTS application• Looking for partners
Today’s Session
• Drexel University partners with other academic institutions (six+) to provide hosting of online courses, faculty development and support, training, technical expertise, and, in some cases, their complete IT infrastructure.
• This ASP model represents but one alternative to academic institutions that struggle to provide meaningful and rigorous courses via distributed learning.
• This model and those used by session participants will be discussed.
Why Is This Important?
• There are myriad course management systems. – Robust, high-quality CMSs are expensive.– They are expensive for large institutions. – Many smaller colleges and universities cannot even
consider purchasing them for unilateral use. • Other issues surface:
– staff training and support, – faculty development and support, – help desk strategies, etc…
• This applies to many academic institutions.
Today’s Goals
Many institutions can gain from a lively discussion about various ASP models, tried and successful, or, tried and unsuccessful.
Participants will walk away from a synergistic session with real information that they can consider and put to use when they return to their institutions.
IRT ~ Drexel University
IRT is headed by Dr. John A. Bielec, the Vice President for Information Resources and Technology and Chief Information Officer (CIO) for Drexel University.
Core Administrative Systems (CAS) oversees the administrative database services for finance, human resources, and student information. Mr. Michael J. McCabe is the Associate Vice President for Administrative Systems.
Instructional Technology Support (ITS) manages and directs user support and training, web-based software development, the integration of electronic resources with academic departments, as well as management of the campus telephone system. It is directed by Dr. Janice M. Biros, the Associate Vice President for Instructional Technology Support.
Core Technology Infrastructure (CTI) is responsible for data/video communications, computing support for ongoing production systems and seamless support for all administrative and academic computing needs of the University. Mr. Kenneth S. Blackney is the Vice President for Core Technology Infrastructure.
IRT ~ Drexel University
Drexel Snapshot
• Private institution founded in 1891– Took on MCP (1850) & Hahnemann (1848) in 2002
after their parent’s bankruptcy
• History of technological firsts– Computer requirement for all students, ’83– Major completely wireless campus net, ’00
• Regional academic and administrative Application & Network Service Provider– Providing services to 6+ other institutions– KXP2 Internet2 connector for 16 schools
• Keystone Crossroads – 14 high schools + DU / DUCOM
Drexel IT Environment
• Near-corporate decision making model– Quick decisions to leverage short life cycles
• Centrally fund emerging technologies– Charge-backs act as disincentive to adoption, use,
and innovation
• Partner with vendors when possible– Guide their development direction– Get product early to begin integration
Drexel IT Philosophy
• Leverage existing technologies– Buy apps - then integrate them - instead of
developing apps from scratch• Enhance through add-ons, not changes
– Costs of developing add-ons is less than cost of supporting baseline modifications
• Respondus, Wibma, ePortaro, Discover, Waypoint
• Maximize user choice– Eliminate “one-size-fits-all” programs– Increase reach and convenience to users– Support “largest” number of devices
An Example: The DrexelOne Portal
Directory
Services Emai
l and
Calen
dar
MicrosoftExchange
SunOneMessaging
SCT
Banner
Onlinecourses
Internet
SunOneCalendar
SOAP
HTTP
SMTP
LDAP
Oracle OCI
LDAP
NT Domain
MobilePortal
WebPortal
Announcements Web service
Authen-ticatorWebService
Headline news Web service
SOAP SOAP
OleDB, LDAP HTTP
IMAP
Luminus
ASPs – What & Why
• Companies that provide access to applications over the Internet.
• Outsourcing switches from assets to access. By 2010, the IT utility providers will have 29% of the total IT services market.
(Gartner Group)
• Future companies will buy their IT as services provided over the Internet rather than owning their own hardware and software.
(Your Next IT Strategy; Hagel and Brown; HBR 10/01) • Small companies using ASPs will grow from
140K in 2001 to over 3M in 2004.(Cahner’s In-Stat, 2000)
IT “ASP Network”
• A Net-centric strategy to provide IT services• Leverages IT resources and provides benefits
to partner institutions– Lowers IT Costs– Provides a more robust IT environment– Facilitates management scenarios
• Leverages and aggregates IT resources to provide benefits to vendors
The HE Environment Limits BothVendor and Institutional Solutions
Comprehensive Research Universities
Other 4 year Collegesand Universities
Community Colleges and 2 year institutions
Total
93 62
968 440Trade Schools
1,563 1,972
504 1,470
Number of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education By Segment
Public Private
Why Vendor Solutions Often Don’t Succeed
• Resources only available at the top of the pyramid• Hardware and software costs• Short technology life cycle• History of implementation failures• Lack of skills and support structure at the
institutional level• IT - strategic but not core mission to “schools in
the middle”
Vendor Challenge
• Optimize “feet on the street”• Leverage investment in current applications
– Time is the enemy (3 years is really 6 months in “Internet time”)
• Expand use of applications to other institutions
• Reinforce the ASP model as a solution to academic and business challenges
• Promote virtual services - a “click” away
Why Institutions Often Don’t Succeed on Their Own
• Lack of experienced IT leadership– One year of experience ~ ten times– Under-developed / non-existent IT strategy
• Limited technical skills– Dependence on products one knows– Risk ~ not a criteria in product “choice”
• Lack of resources– Short life cycle for technology
• demands continual renewal and cost– Competing institutional priorities
• IT fragility
Institutional Challenge
• Provide IT solutions– meet critical business and academic needs 24x7
• Optimize scarce resources to provide – robust server and network infrastructure– timely business and academic applications– professional skills and support structure
• Develop & document policies and procedures• Facilitate productivity – utilize Web, EMail
Institutional Choices
• Self develop• Best of breed• Single vendor• Outsource staffing of in-house facilities• Consortium – just doesn't work!• Managed service provider / co-location • Application Service Provider (ASP)
Consortia – Many Models ~ Mixed Results
• MAC initiative (UK)• HIS (Germany) AMUE (France)• Ladok (Sweden)• CASMAC initiative (Australia)• NERCOMP (US Regional – New England)• SEPCHE (US Local – Pennsylvania)
New Model ~ A Technology Flagship University-Based ASP
• Provides a solution to challenges faced by “colleges in the middle”
• Also provides a vertical channel for vendor application, product, and other sales
• Based on off-site “Service Provision” - Access, not on-site software and hardware - Assets
• Subscriptions, not site licenses• Leverages staff and skills• Strategic collaboration, choice – Federation
Why Drexel as a Provider?
• Higher education (HE) “full service” ASP today• Trusted technology provider in HE market• First to market – regional flagship focus• Four years of proven success • Other schools participating – concept works• Leadership and skills• Entrepreneurial environment• Infrastructure in place• Vendor relationships
Example: Progress to Date at Cabrini College
• IT leadership and staffing in place• Advisory structure in place• Help Desk in place• EMail and WebMail in place
– Virus protection standardized and controlled– 100 MB mail per mail box
Services Improved
• Course development in WebCT in place - 40 courses developed in 6 months
• Connection to Internet quadrupled• Wireless operational throughout campus• Web site hosting available • Server elimination begun• Proxy server in place for off-campus access
to the library
Totally Replaced ERP System
• IT policies, procedures, documentation, and standards dramatically improved
• Substantial savings on new PC purchases• Transition to SCT Banner administrative
applications– 8-month time period– July 2003 implementation– Hosted at Drexel
Example: Progress to Date at Neumann College
• Leadership in place• Fully-staffed Help Desk with evening and
weekend hours and tracking system• “Technology Thursdays” workshop series• Networking help for residence hall students • Student computer purchase recommendation• “Acceptable Use” policy in place • Official Email policy in place
Infrastructure Improved
• Assessed and tuned network and servers• Greatly-improved EMail performance • Inventoried all PCs on campus• Wireless access throughout Main campus and
in Life Center and Residence Halls• Extensive WebCT course development• Norton Anti-Virus software for all PCs• Faculty Web server online
Computing Facilities Expanded
• Creation of Public Access cluster• Renovation of 30-station classroom• Overhaul of library workstations with
dedicated support• State-of-the-art Faculty Resource Center for
instructional development ~ open and staffed• Videoconferencing facility ~ fully operational
Unintended Partner Benefits
• Business process changes – Best Practices• Cultural changes• Increased accountability• Cost avoidance (avoiding bad decisions) • Increased sense of urgency• Improved competitiveness
Schools Are Developing New Metrics
• Importance of quality and effectiveness of service
• Evaluating performance vs. peers rather than internal performance
• Recognizing the capability of access vs. owning assets
• Refocusing on academic core mission
Drexel’s Vendor Relationships
• Applications via Drexel vendor relationships – SCT ~ Banner administrative systems
• Finance, HR, Student Information, Portal• SCT Web products for faculty, staff, and students
– Hyperion ~ Brio ~ query report generation– WebCT ~ Course Management System– Oracle ~ database– SAP ~ business applications for educational use– Microsoft and Sun ~ OS, directory, EMail, etc.
Provider Benefits
• Lower university IT costs as a % of budget• Provide more robust IT environment• Provide an additional income stream
– reinvestment, not profit
• Facilitate management scenarios– Collaboration– Consolidation
Services and Applications Drexel CoM Cabrini Neumn PCOM Rosemt SSHE Wilkes
ServicesIT Leadership/Strategy
Desktop support Server support Help Desk Training Networking Internet2 gateway
ApplicationsEmail Online Courses Storage Library Finance (consult)
Human Resources Student Info. System Alumni Portal
Academic Software (SAP) 15 schools of business across the United States
Low-Hanging Fruit ~ Quick-Hit Applications
Portal applications EMail Web hosting Course management Academic computing Storage Affinity relationships
More Difficult
Administrative Systems• Student Information• Finance• Purchasing• Human Resources and Payroll• Institutional Advancement
Library Administration Clinical Practices
Can Virtual Learning Be Far Behind?
• Repository approach ~ sharing courses– thousands of online courses added to global
repository daily
• Focus to date has been on:– new markets and – nontraditional students
• Hybrid environment ~ becoming the norm• Quest for higher quality, cost avoidance
– Virtual Classics Department (ACS)
Schools Are Leveraging Drexel Assets
• IT staffing• Operational staffing• Software and business applications• Hardware and network• Via:
– specialists– internal consultants / shadowing– ASP services – external relationships
• Lowering IT costs
Leveraging Works Both Ways
7
4
6 28
44
312
0
Organization /Cost Center
Staff Paid
Staff Avail
Leverage Benefit
Drexel University 50.21 83 65%
College of Medicine 26.84 75 179%
Faculty Practice Group 2.90 3 3%
ASP Partner Schools 15.05 55 265%
TOTAL 95.00
Without Leveraging - the First Dollars are Spent Twice
Drexel University
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 5 10 15
IT Spending
Pe
rfo
rma
nc
e/C
ap
ac
ity
Small Partner School
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 5 10 15
IT Spending
Pe
rfo
rma
nc
e/C
ap
ac
ity
A spending level of 3 yields a performance level of 9
A spending level of 9 yields a performance level of 81
Leveraged ~ Both Organizations Benefit Dramatically
Drexel and Partner
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 5 10 15
IT Spending
Pe
rfo
rma
nc
e/C
ap
ac
ity
Partner Drexel Combined
IT Spending 3 9 12
Performance 9 81 144
• Partner schools’ spending remains constant, but performance increases 1500%
• Drexel spending remains constant, but performance increases 78%
dcollege.netDelivery Structure
dC
olle
ge.N
et
Drexel University Partners
•Colleges at themiddle of thepyramid
•Affinity partners•Others…
Virtual Administration
• The dot.com “bleeding edge” wave is over• Major “close followers” position for next wave:
– Microsoft ~ .Net Strategy• Passport services offerings
– Cisco ~ Intelligent Network Services Strategy• Virtual organization serviced via a “network of networks”
– Sun ~ Open Net Environment ~ services on demand– IBM ~ e-Business On-Demand Computing– HP ~ Adaptive Computing Strategy
• The Next Competitive Advantage– Virtual Administration via the net – access not assets
Virtual Administration is Just “A Click Away”
• Leverage the ASP model for other outsourced digital services – Finance– Human Resources– Facilities– Students – Institutional Advancement– Alumni
Finance
• ePurchasing– Purchasing card – Paymentech.com– Furniture and office supplies – Staples.com– Laboratory supplies – FisherScientific.com– Computing equipment – Dell.com Gateway.com
• eTravel– Expedia.com Travelocity.com
• eTransactions– AJDrexelbank.com Verisign.com
Human Resources
• ePayroll– ADP.com
• eBenefits– Retirement – TIAA-CREF.com– Health Insurance – IBX.com
• eRecruitment – Monster.com
Student
• eFinancial Aid– SallieMae.com– PHEAA.org
• eAdmissions– Collegenet.com
• eBookstore– BarnesAndNoble.com– eFollett.com – Amazon.com
How Will HE Institutions Handle the Move from Assets to Access?
• Strategic advantage or disadvantage• Provider, consumer, or both• Impact on structure and governance
– Administration, academic course delivery, faculty
• Student populations– Digital / Information Divide ~ narrowed or widened
• Impact on revenue and expenditures– Facilities, technology, cost-avoidance opportunities
What’s Next for “Institutions in the Middle”?
• Don’t stop with IT services • Resource limitations impact other services• Recognize limits on internal business process
growth and development • Business process inadequacies are routine• Compensation, skills, and support ~ a problem• Virtual administration the next wave ~ followed
by virtual (collaborative) learning
