Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jim Farmer
As presented at theAACRAO Technology Conference
July 24, 2006 | Denver, Colorado USA
Interoperability: Better service,lower costs now
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Preface
This presentation was prepared for executives and staff in information technology at colleges and universities.
The first part—context—provides data that can facilitate a conversation with academic and business executives, and perhaps provide some insight into economic distortions that have developed in campus IT.
The second part—economics of interoperability—demonstrates how the integration of separately architected and developed applications leads to exponential increases in the cost of maintenance.
The third part—interoperability—explores different views of interoperability, how current technology can reduce costs and, incidentally, increase services. This leads to strategies for improving interoperability with examples from current practice.
Context: What business arecolleges and universities in?
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityFrom the IT perspective
Information Technology, Allocated Staff
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Doctorate Masters Bachelors Associates Other
Type of Institution
Per
cen
t of S
taff
InstructionResearch
Administration
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Instruction supported?
Colleges and Universities with Course Management Systems
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
All Doctorate Masters Bachelors Associates Other
Type of Institution
Per
cen
t of C
olle
ges
an
d U
niv
ersi
ties
200220032004
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Responsible for instruction technology?
Functions Reporting to theInformation Technology Administrator
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2002 2003 2004
Per
cen
t of C
olle
ges
an
d U
niv
ers
itie
s Instructional TechnologyMedia ServicesDistance EducationLibrary
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Staffing instruction technology
Instructional Technology Staffing
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2002 2003 2004
Ful
l-tim
e E
quiv
alen
ts
StaffStudent EmployeesTotal FTE
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Staffing instructional technology
Instructional Technology Staff 2004
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Doctorate Master Bachelors Associates Other
Ful
l-tim
e E
qui
vale
nts Total FTE
StaffStudent Employees
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Who pays?
• Students• 52% of the colleges and universities charge a
technology fee; 57% of the doctorate universities charge. ($30 to $695 per student reported)
• All via higher textbook charges (since this funds multimedia, test questions, faculty support, and, in some cases, student access to publisher’s online resources). Estimated $400.
• Colleges and universities• From operating and capital budgets; about
$832 per full-time equivalent student for all of IT.
And the available application systems?
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Age of enterprise systems
Age of Major Information Systems
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
All Doctorate Masters Bachelors Associates Other
Type of Institution
Age
in Y
ears
as
of 2
004
Course Management SystemLibrary Information SystemStudent Information System
Data from Educause Core Data Summaries for 2002, 2003, and 2004
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Switching systems?
Planned and Estimated Actual Change of Application Systems
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Course Management System Library Information System Student Information System
Per
cent
200
3 -
2004
PlannedEstimated Actual
Data from Educause Core Data Summaries for 2002, 2003, and 2004
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Outsourcing?
Plans to Outsource Administrative Systems
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
All Doctorate Masters Bachelors Associates Other
Type of Institution
Per
cen
t of C
olle
ges
an
d U
niv
ers
itie
s
200220032004
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Summary
• More IT resources are devoted to administration than instruction or research.
• Almost all institutions have a course management system.
• Colleges and universities would like to change systems, but don’t.
• CMS is the least mature, the least expensive, and the most often changed.
The economics of interoperability
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Where do IT funds go?
D e m a n d f o r R e d u c i n g C o s t s
I n s t i t u t i o nD e m a n d s
I T B u d g e tC o n s t r a i n e d b y
M a i n t e n a n c e
“ O n a v e r a g e , I T m a i n t e n a n c e e a t s u p m o r e t h a n $ 6 o u t o f e v e r y $ 1 0 i n t h e I T b u d g e t . “
C I O C h a l l e n g e : M a i n t e n a n c e C o s t sJ i m M i d d l e m i s s , W a l l S t r e e t &
T e c h n o l o g y , J u n 2 0 0 4
A s b u s i n e s s e x e c u t i v e s h a v e b e c o m e m o r e a p p r e c i a t i v e o f h o w I T a n d s y s t e m s i m p a c t t h e i r b o t t o m l i n e a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h c u s t o m e r s , t h e y h a v e b e c o m e u n d e r s t a n d a b l y m o r e d e m a n d i n g .
L i n k i n g B u s i n e s s A n d I t S t r a t e g i e s T o g e t h e r : F o u r F a c t o r s F o r S u c c e s s ,
M a r i a n n e B r o a d b e n t a n d E l l e n S . K i t z i s , J a n 2 0 0 5
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityWhere the IT dollars go
Mårten Mickos, MySQL AB, Open Source Business Conference 2005
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityCost relative to average
Relative Cost of Software Maintenance
-250%
0%
250%
500%
750%
1000%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Enterprise Applications
Re
lativ
e c
ost
5%
10%
15%
20%
Average
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
An example: a list of publications
• The PeopleSoft HR system uses the HR-XML resume standard.
• The OSP electronic portfolio uses their own format.
• Faculty use George Mason University’s proposed .bib format.
• Legal XML citation formats
Unique connectors (combinations):
C = number of nodes * (number of nodes – 1)
2
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityThe 6 connectors and 12
software nodes.
HR-XMLOSP
.bibLegalXML
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Using SOA, 1 connector and
1 software node.
HR-XMLOSP
.bibLegalXML
SOAP hub
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Identity Management
• Shibboleth because• Web single signon
+ Federation
Use cases
Access to journals and electronic documents
Outsourced services integrated with local services
Financial aid access (Meteor)
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Proposed Georgetown projects
• Shibboleth and JSTOR by professional association (Vivarium)
• Shibboleth and Blackboard
• Shibboleth and SunGard Banner
• IMS Common Cartridge
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Who is interested?
• The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) in the UK, the Department of Education, Science, and Training (DEST) in Australia, SURF in the Netherlands, and New Zealand Ministry of Education.
• The U.S. Department of Education.
• The University of British Columbia in Canada (SOA Workshops). See educationcommons.org.
• JA-SIG (with multiple software products).
• Sun Microsystems Inc., and Georgetown University “Centre of Excellence, Scholarly Systems,” and other SCEs.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Summary
• The demand for integration continues to increase based on student demand and faculty and staff productivity—a full range of real-time, Web services.
• Integration is becoming more complex.
• Integration is very expensive.
• And maintenance continues to be expensive throughout the life of the software system.
Interoperability defined
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityWhat is interoperability?
Interoperability defined
“With respect to software, the term interoperability is used to describe the capability of different programs to exchange data via a common set of business procedures, and to read and write the same file formats and use the same protocols.”
Wikipedia, 10 J uly 2006
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityPractical interoperability
• “I plug it in. It works.”
From the JA-SIG Winter Conference 2006Author declines to be cited
___________________________
1. No programming required to install.
2. Its function is solely dependent upon the interface.
3. Maintenance depends only on the stability of the interface.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
The commercial approach
• Service-oriented architecture
• Use standard SOAP messaging with standard message content.
• Use headers and encryption to provide security independent of the message “payload.”
• Use open standards to define the message content.
• Components and workflow
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityCommercial perspective
Edward Screven, Oracle Corporation, Open Source Business Conference 2005
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Some examples
• The SAP student system (at the University of Kentucky and Purdue University)
• The Meteor system (now being extended to campuses, prototyped by the uPortal team using open standards in 2001; production2002)
And soon
• Oracle Fusion systems (using Fusion middleware)
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
“Standards”
Standardization and standards
Standardization or standardisation, in the context related to technologies and industries, is the process of establishing a technical standard among competing entities in a market, where this will bring benefits without hurting competition. It can also be viewed as a mechanism for optimising economic use of scarce resources.
Common use of the word standard implies that it is a universally agreed upon set of guidelines for interoperability.
Wikipedia, 10 J uly 2006, emphasis added
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Some specifications
• PESC for transcript (course data), financial aid, admissions, and test scores.
• IMS for student learning, content
• HR-XML for resume and career portfolio
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security for international student visas and other data
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Software frameworks
http://www.e-framework.org
Framework definedFramework defined
In software development, a framework is a defined support structure in which another software project can be organized and developed. A framework may include support programs, code libraries, a scripting language, or other software to help develop and glue together the different components of a software project.
Frameworks are designed with the intent of facilitating software development [and maintenance], …
From www.wikipedia.org, 18 July 2006
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
A commercial framework
http://www.e-framework.org
Eclipse, a successful frameworkEclipse, a successful framework
More than 65% of all computer programmers now use the Eclipse open source “industry standards” development environment.
Released to open source by IBM November 2001, by 2004 175 vendors supplied “plug-ins” and 600 open source projects were completed or underway.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
The e-Framework, one perspective
http://www.e-framework.org
eFramework eFramework and standardsand standards
industry andeFramework
eFrameworkspecific
industry
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
An interoperability strategy
• Base systems selection on open standards and ten-year costs.
• Replace high maintenance—typically older—systems with component-based, service oriented systems.
• Where possible, use frameworks to reduce the number of interoperations.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Agile transformation
The tools of process re-engineering
• Systems Oriented Architecture (SOA) using open standards
• Open standard workflow
• Business process documentation (UML)
• Business intelligence applications
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Summary
• The long-term costs of maintenance are much more significant than the cost of implementation.
• Careful attention to software selection, modification, and maintenance will reduce costs significantly and reduce financial risk.
• The key specifications have become standards.
Homework required
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Observations from IT
• We can do it immediately or we can do it right; but we cannot do it right immediately.
• We can “hack” a solution over the weekend (but can’t convince you that this will cost a lot in the long run).
• We never have time (or budget) to “go back” and improve the quality of code or documentation.
And now we are paying the price
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Primary references
• James Farmer and Justin E. Tilton, “The Use of Virtual Learning Environment Software in UK Universities 2001-2005,” im+m, 16 June 2006.
• James Farmer and Justin E. Tilton, “Software Trends in Higher Education: 2002-2004,” im+m, 25 July 2006.
• James Farmer, “e-Framework: Using technology effectively,” Joint Information Systems Committee, 19 July 2006.
• Ian Dolphin, Jim Farmer, and Robert Sherratt, “Tools and Resources Interoperability for the Virtual Research Environment (VRE),” University of Hull, 13 July 2006.
• Jim Farmer, “Open Source: Risk, Rewards, and Realities,” ACM Computing Services Management Symposium, San Diego, California USA, 10 April 2006.
• Jim Farmer, “Open Source in Higher Education,” Open Source Software: Days of Dialogue, California State University-Monterey Bay, Seaside, California, February 9, 2006.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Credits
This presentation is based on materials developed for Georgetown University, the UK Joint Information Systems Committee, and Oxford University.
im+m’s Jon Allen provided graphical design and graphics, and suggestions on presentation.
Justin Tilton jointly authored the primary references.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Permissions
im+m publications and this presentation are available under the Creative Commons license. Information in this presentation was taken from public sources or with permission and can be redistributed.
The presentation itself can be reproduced and redistributed provided there are no changes made to the content. Attribution is not required.
Supplementary material
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Open source changes business model
Larry M. Augustine, Medsphere Systems, Open Source Business Conference 2005
