Web Services in Higher Education Jim Farmer instructional media + magic, inc. New York University Friday · October 18, 2002 · New York, New York i n s

Web Services in Higher Education

Jim Farmer

instructional media + magic, inc.

New York UniversityFriday · October 18, 2002 · New York, New York

i n s t r u c t i o n a l m e d i a + m a g i c, i n c.

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Opinion

• Web Services technologies, including portals, are over-hyped, but real.

• These technologies have simultaneously demonstrated reduced investment and operating costs and improved service.

• Portal and Web Services technologies are “disruptive technologies.”

• Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) architecture is obsolete, and will be replaced by application component architecture.

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Observations

Successful portal/Web Services implementations typically have:• Top level commitment to simultaneously

reduce unit cost of administration and improve on-line services.

• CIO sharply aligned with business objectives.

• Re-engineered business processes.

• IT staff retrained in the new technologies.Based on presentations by the Universities of British

Columbia and Nottingham, and comments about

Linkoping University reported from the June 27-28, 2002 Swedish Higher Education Portals Conference

at Portals 2002, Nottingham, United Kingdom, July 1, 2002

Web services, a paradigm

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Web services

Offers

• real-time access to information • wherever it is located• by anyone• using multimedia

Changing

• the way work in done.• and the roles of customers and service

providers

Which implies

• organizational change and business process re-engineering

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Real-time access

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

The airline experience

• Single point of contact for the customer

• Direct communication between the passenger and the airline

• Intermediaries developed when value is added – travel agencies (when paper books were used for references)

• Development of customer-facing call centers

• Beware, the paradigm fails with increased complexity

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Administrative

Instruction

Library

Research

A Student’s Web World

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Students now expect...

• Customer service 24 hours a day,7 days a week

• Complete information from a single source

• Delivery by Web, e-mail, telephone, and facsimile, and, wireless devices

• response time of 15 seconds for telephone, 10 seconds for Web, and 2 hours for e-mail and facsimile

• access to a complete customer history

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Students expectations shaped by their ...

• Use of the Internet

• Life in a “real-time, information rich” environment

• Use of financial services portals

• Experience applying for federal financial aid

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

College students as users

“College students are heavy users of the Internet compared to the general population. Use of the Internet is a part of college students’ daily routine, in part because they have grown up with computers. It is integrated into their daily communication habits and has become a technology as ordinary as the telephone or television.”

“The Internet Goes to College,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, Sep 15, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

College students as users

• 20% began using computers between age 5 and 8, all by 16 to 18

• 86% go online

• 85% own their own computer

• 26% use instant messaging

• 72% check their e-mail at least once per day

“The Internet Goes to College,”

Pew Internet and American Life Project, September 15, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Future students

• “Internet-savvy students rely on the Internet to help them do their schoolwork—and for good reason.

• “Internet-savvy students describe dozens of different education-related uses of the Internet.

• “The way students think about the Internet in relation to their schooling is closely tied to the daily tasks and activities that make up their young lives.”

“The Digital Disconnect,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, August 14, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Future students

“Students report that there is a substantial disconnect between how they use the Internet for school and how they use the Internet during the school day and under teacher direction. For the most part, students’ educational use of the Internet occurs outside of the school day, outside of the school building, outside the direction of their teachers.”

“The Digital Disconnect,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, August 14, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Modes of Web Use

• Entertainment - “browse in a passive style that mimics the way we watch television”

• Socializing - peer-to-peer chat, casual e-mail, message boards, and multi-person chat rooms. “little tolerance for advertising”

• Shopping - dependent upon good user interfaces, easily frustrated

• Researching - Use the Internet like an encyclopedia, scouring search engines and online databases.

Joshua A. Fruhlinger, “Usage modes that work together,” WebTechniques, v. 6, nr. 12, December 2001

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Mixed modes that support each other

• Entertainment and Socializing

• Shopping and Researching

Joshua A. Fruhlinger, “Usage modes that work together,” WebTechniques, v. 6, nr. 12, December 2001

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Web services defined

“Web services are a set of standards for how systems connect to each other, and communicate information. It’s an extension of a distributed computing framework, which provides an open standard that most software vendors support.”

Chandra VekatapathMarket Manager, Web Services, IBM Corporation,

TheBusiness Integrator, Second Quarter 2002, pp. 5-11

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Value of Web services

“[Web services] provides a facility for an application or a system to collaborate with another application or systems regardless of how the applications are implemented, regardless of where they are implemented, or on which platform they are implemented.”


The Business Integrator, Second Quarter 2002, pp. 5-11

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Value of Web services

“Web services enable systems to collaborate with each other regardless of the underlying infrastructure.”

“Leverage existing infrastructure”

“Easily use business processes of your partners and customers.”


The Business Integrator, Second Quarter 2002, pp. 5-11

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

The business case

Originally, the exchange of data with others.

Now, integration between disparate application, disparate computer systems, disparate operating systems, disparate programming languages—the Enterprise Application Integration EAI bus.

”Getting access to stove-piped data is the primary reason for implementing Web services.”

Uttam NasrsuGIGA Information Group

At the FSA CIO Update ConferenceArlington, Virginia, May 8, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Value of Web services technology

Open standards Web service projects are taking one-fourth the time and costing one-fifth comparable projects using traditional technology. Performance is 2 to 10 times better than expected.• HFC Bank - IFX credit card application using XML, SOAP

and XSLT

• Deutsche Bank Bauspar - FixML security transaction integration using XML messages and XSL transformations

• Hypo Vereinsbank - Integration

Based on presentations at the XSLT [Invitational] Conference

Oxford, University, April 8-9, 2001

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Cost Savings, Federal Student Aid

8

Cost savingsFAFSA On the Web

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003

We

b F

ilers

(in

mill

ion

s)

-$10

-$5

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

Ann

ual C

ost

Sav

ings

(in

mill

ions

of

dol

lars

)

Annual Cost Savings

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Cost Avoidance, Federal Student Aid

9

Reengineer…Retire…Replace Modernize Systems to Serve More With Less

DLOS

DLSS

FFEL

CBS

CDS

DLCS

CPS

NSLDS

MDE

PEPS

DMCS

FARS

RFMS

TIVWAN

NSLDS

DLCS

CPS

FMS

CRM4FSA

IAOD

CSB

PEPS

FFEL

DLSS

NSLDS

DLCS

CPS

MDE

PEPS

DMCS

FMS

CRM4FSA

IAOD

CSB

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

DLOS

DLSS

TIVWAN

FFEL

CBS

DLCS

CPS

NSLDS

MDE

PEPS

DMCS

FARS

RFMS

TIVWAN

DLOS

DLSS

DLCS

CPS

NSLDS

MDE

PEPS

DMCS

FARS

RFMS

14+ Stove-piped

SystemsIntegrated

Modernized Solutions

FSA OperatingBudget

$700M

$800M

$600M

$500M

$400M

$300M

$900M

Student Aid Participants

30M

20M

40M

25M

35M

Integrated Modernized SolutionsModernization In ProgressStov e-Piped Legacy System

Legend:

~$622MFlat Line Budget

FMS FMS

NSLDS II

COD COD

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Web self-service

• Web self-service $ .06

• E-mail $ 6.00

• Telephone call $12.00

Forrester Research as quoted by Bonnie Azar Power in “Taking self-service out of the dark into Broad

Daylight,” Red Herring, No. 110, Feb 2001, pp. 36-37

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

No single vendor...

“It is a fact of IT life that no single vendor can provide all the software necessary to run a business.”

Christopher Koch, “Why Your Integration Efforts End Up Looking Like This,” CIO Magazine, v. 15, nr. 4,Nov 14,

2001, pp. 98-108.

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

“Best of Breed” strategy

“With Web services, best of breed becomes more feasible.”

“Web services will make best of breed more cost effective.”

Rick Bergquist, CTO of PeopleSoftas quoted by Heather Harreld and Mark Jones in

“Chasing suite success,” InfoWorld, Nr. 24, June 17, 2002.

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Components architecture

“Software has become so big that no company can do everything alone anymore.” “… the industry must adopt standards that would enable a variety of different software vendors to provide the parts needed to quickly build a sophisticated software system.”

Hasso Plattner, CEO SAP AG at the JavaOne Conference in San Francisco, March 2002, as reported by Reuters,

“Software's future is in components, SAP chief says,” March 27, 2002

Web Services, an information architecture

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

A Web service is

• An exchange of XML business messages

• using SOAP compliant data transport,

• described by WSDL,

• listed in a UDDI directory of services,

• for a remotely authenticated user (using WS-Security and SAML),

and, for most,

• presented using XSL transformations (XSLT)

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Web services standards

• XML “tagged” data contenteXtensible Markup Language (W3C)

• ebXML/SOAP data transportSimple Object Access Protocol (W3C)

• XSL transformations for presentationeXtensible stylesheet language (W3C)

• UDDI/WSDL directory servicesUniversal Description, Discovery, and Integration, (industry) and Web Services Description Language (W3C)

• SAML authentication and authorizationSecurity Assertion Markup Language (OASIS)

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

SOAP template

<soap:Envelopexmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/“soap:encodingStyle=“http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/”>

<soap:Header>…</soap:Header>

[SAML Assertions here]

<soap:Body>…</soap:Body>

[Application XML document here]

<soap:Fault>…</soap:Fault>

[Status and Error messages here]

</soap:Envelope>

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

SOAP data transport supports...

• Real-time data transport

• HTTP or HTTPS

• TCP or UDP using Microsoft’s proposed WS-Routing

• Batch data exchamge

• FTP or Secure FTP

• E-mail data exchange

• SMTPSee Jonathan Chawke,

“Making Apache SOAP Invocations using SMTP,”Apache Foundation, 9 March 2001

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

The standards

• Data XML

• Validation Schema

• Transport SOAP (real-time)

SMTP (batch)

• Security SAML

• Description WSDL

• Directory UDDI

• Transformation XSLTNote: Message content is not defined by any of these standards.

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Industry content standards

Industry Standards

Financial Services

Financial Reporting

ebXML compliant IFX

XBRL

Student loans

Financial aid

CommonLine XML

Common Record

Human Resources HR-XML, HumanML

Academic Records PESC and California

Community Colleges

Library In discussion

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Process content standards

Function Standard

Work flow WSFL and WfML

Portal Support WSRP

Presentation WSUI

Security Assertions

Security Access Control

SAML

XACML

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

EDI and Web Services compared

EDI Web Services

Network

Topology

Hub and spoke Network “cloud”

Processing cycle Over night batch Near instantaneous

Data representation

Positional Tagged

Response to change

High maintenance

Lower maintenance

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Why XML and SOAP?

“[XML and SOAP] will become a widely implemented ‘standard’ because they are simple.”

Barry Walsh, Indiana Universityat the FSA CIO Update Conference

Arlington, Virginia May 8, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Typical SOAP implementation

Portal Server

Data Provider

HTMLover HTTP

SOAP over HTTPS

College Target

Application Server

SOAP Messages

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Authentication and authorization

Access Provider Data Provider

Login & Password

TLSAuthentication

SAML Assertion

College Target

ebXML Security Profile 3

Non-persistent confidentiality and non-persistent authentication

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

JA-SIG Web Services model

HTTPSSOAP Business Message

HTTPSSOAP Business Message

University Agency

ScenarioUser: Student, staff, or facultyAccess Provider: University PortalData Provider: Agency Web Server

SIS

Portal

Web ServerUser App Server

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Meteor in a nutshell…

Lender

XML

Based on the prototype

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Diagram of Meteor Concept

Web ServicesHTML

MeteorXML

StudentStudent Access Provider Access Provider Data Provider Data Provider

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

As implemented in the prototype ...

Web ServicesSecure HTML

MeteorSecure XML

StandardBrowserStandardBrowser uPortaluPortal

MeteorSOAP

MeteorSOAP

MeteorSOAP

MeteorSOAP

DatabaseDatabase

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Data from multiple sources, locations

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Meteor list of loans

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Sample Meteor loan detail

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Meteor Channel in the uPortal

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Meteor XML Request message

>>(Tue Jan 09 11:50:58 EST 2001) Processing SOAP request...

<SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance"> <SOAP-ENV:Body> <ns1:getLoanHistory SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap/literalxml" xmlns:ns1="urn:ifx-loan-server"> <IFXRequestEl> <IFX> <SaisSvcRq> <RqUID/> <SPName>gov.studentclearinghouse</SPName> <LoanHistoryRq> <CustId> <SPName>gov.ssa</SPName> <CustPermId>448377707</CustPermId> </CustId> <DateOfBirth>1980-09-03</DateOfBirth> </LoanHistoryRq> </SaisSvcRq> </IFX> </IFXRequestEl> </ns1:getLoanHistory> </SOAP-ENV:Body></SOAP-ENV:Envelope>

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

California eTranscript - UML

• User Login

• Get Student List

• Select Student from List

• Select Transcript View Or Build Custom View

• Get Transcript

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

User login

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Get student list

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Select student from list

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Select transcript view

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Or build custom view

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Get transcript

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Web Services in higher education

• Digital library search and retrieval (Columbia, Cornell)

• Transcripts (California Community Colleges, Florida, Arizona, Ohio)

• Student Aid (NCHELP, U.S. Department of Education)

• Security (Internet 2 Shibboleth)

• Portals (JA-SIG)

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Web services and integration

“Application integration is proving to be the first killer app for Web services, as early adopters build on these standards [XML, SOAP, WSDL] to improve internal and cross-enterprise collaboration.”

“Indeed, integration is the common theme among Web services pioneers.”

Richard Karpinski, “Web Services Crack App Integration Nut,”

InternetWork, Nov 12, 2001, pp. 44ff.

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Full integration defined

[The separate products] are

• built using the same basic programming technologies

• share the same user interface, and

• use a common data model.


2001, pp. 98-108.

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Waves of Internet integration

1. TCP/IP Client-server

2. HTTP Browser-based Web-enabled applications

3. XML, SOAP, Business messaging

WSDL

Based on waves from Richard Karpinski, “Web Services Crack App Integration Nut,”


inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Middleware integration

“The note passing [business messaging middleware] mechanism makes upgrading the integration simpler and cheaper, and users can adjust the frequency of the note-passing to get to near real-time.”


2001, pp. 98-108.

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Approach to Success

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Current Web services standards

• XML serves as the foundation for other “languages” or protocols.

• SOAP defines the “envelope” used to deliver Web services messages and how they should be processed.

• WSDL is a version of an IDL, or interface definition language, and more granularly defines the methods, protocols, and data formats of a specific Web service.

• UDDI is a higher-level framework for companies to register themselves and their Web services

Richard Karpinski, “Web Services Crack App Integration Nut,” InternetWork, Nov 12, 2001, pp. 44 ff.

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Emerging Web services standards

• SOAP routing such as Microsoft’s WS-Routing

• Security such as IBM’s HTTP-Reliable and Microsoft’s WS-Security

Watch:

• WSCM Web Service Component Model for portal integration (includes WSUI)

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Spanning the worlds

“Web services protocols also span the [Microsoft] .Net and [Sun] Java worlds, which makes them perfect for stitching together heterogeneous application environments.”

Richard Karpinski, “Web Services Crack App Integration Nut,”


Portals

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Portal defined

• generally synonymous with gateway, for a World Wide Web site that is or proposes to be a major starting site for users when they get connected to the Web

www.whatis.com, May 19, 2001

• software integrating many divergent systems for presentation and use on the Web

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Classic “portal”

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Portal defined

Portal - an entry point or starting site for the World-Wide Web, combining a mixture of content and services and attempting to provide a personalized "home base" for its audience with features like customizable … pages and personal homepage construction kits.

From www.Auburn.edu/helpdesk/glossary/, Auburn University. March 24, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

With channels (portlets)

uPortalFramework

uPortaldatabase

Channel A

Channel B

Channel C

Channel D

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Why are portals important

• Makes knowledge workers more productive

• Preferred by users

• Market share

• Brand identity

• A viable architecture for information services

• Time to market

• Improved services

• Lower costs

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

A Student Portal

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Multiple Target Devices

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

CalPoly San Luis Obispo

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

University of British Columbia

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

University of California, Irvine

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Columbia University

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Denison University

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

University of Delaware

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Princeton University (prototype)

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Theme: matrix

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Some commercial portals

• Sun Microsystems (iPlanet)• Epicentric (Foundation Server)• Oracle (Application Server Portal)• IBM (WebSphere Portal/Jetspeed)• Computer Associates (Jasmine ii)• Microsoft (SharePoint Portal Server)• Sequoia (XML Portal Server)• PeopleSoft (PeopleSoft Portal)• Citrix (XPS)• Sybase (Enterprise Portal)• SAP AG (SAP Portals Enterprise Portal)

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Types of portals

• Enterprise [integration]

• Knowledge/document management

• Collaboration and messaging

• Front end to application servers

Jim Rapoza, “Enterprise value of portals is clear,” eWeek, September 13, 2001

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Common goals/different technologies

• System Integration & Consistency

• Single Sign-on & Security

• Personalization

• Collaboration

• Component Reuse

• Task Management & Workflow

• Internationalization

• Syndicated Content SubscriptionAdapted from Justin E. Tilton, “uPortal: An Open-Source,

Higher Education Web Portal,” The Educational Technology Standards Workshop, University of California at Berkeley,

July 31, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Students prefer

• Single sign-on even if that means revealing personal logons and passwords [aggregation/credential caching]

• Selection of content [channels] and layout [user profile]

• Common channel navigation and icons [consistent look & feel]

Justin E. Tilton, “uPortal: An Open-Source, Higher Education Web Portal,” The Educational Technology Standards

Workshop, University of California at Berkeley, July 31, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Value of a portal

…by driving all of your task-based web services through a single, customizable interface, the whole becomes greater than the parts. The most important element a portal brings to an institution is the ability to aggregate many tasks into a common authentication and interface.

James Watkins, Kansas University Medical Center,

on the JA-SIG –PORTAL listserv, May 17, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic


uPortalFramework

uPortaldatabase

Channel A

Channel B

Channel C

Channel D

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

RSS Channel

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Portal with channels

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Portal with channels shown

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

RSS channel hyperlink

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic


Internet

Student Information

System

Remote Content Provider

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Interface options

Provider

Connector

ExternalApplication

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Connectors may communicate

• By calls to the application

• By custom protocols over, say, “sockets”

• By standard protocols such as LDAP

• By business messages using Web services - XML, SOAP, UDDI

• As a remote channel (WSRP)

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Required capabilities

Type of Portal J SP Chat & Mail

ContentClassificationand Search

WebServices

Enterprise ? ? ?

Collaboration ? ? ?

Knowledgemanagement

? ? ?

Front end ? ? ? ?

uPortal

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Available services

Type of Portal Dir

ecto

ryA

uth

enti

cati

onR

oles

Gro

ups

Wal

let

Auth

oriz

atio

ne-

mai

l an

d c

hat

Web

Ser

vice

sX

ML,

SO

AP,

UD

DI

Wor

kflow

Cal

endar

ing

Annou

nce

men

ts

Enterprise X ? ? ? ? ?

Collaboration ? ? ? X ? X X ? ?

Knowledgemanagement

? X ? X ? ?

Front end ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Required authentication

Type of Portal Local Remote Anonymous

Enterprise X

Collaboration ? X

Knowledgemanagement

?

Front end ? X

uPortal

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Portlet Standards

• Restricted HTML, moving to XHTML fragments

• RDF Site Summary (RSS) 0.91 (Mar 1999) moving to 1.0 (Dec 2000) + Modules (continuing, e.g. streaming, events)

• WSRP (Web Services Remote Portlet) (Sep 2002)

• SOAP if the portal interprets the message

The Web Services Community

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Gleason’s “Transitive Trust”

SAML Assertions

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

ED/FSA “Transitive Trust”

7

FSA Systems/Datastores

FSA SECURITY BOUNDARY

Internet

FederalBridge CA

Higher EDBridge CA

School orOther Official

School/CREN/State Certificate Authority


Shared Secret(Username/Password)

Over SSL

Student, ParentOr Borrower

Personal data + PINOver SSL

AuthenticationGateway

(multi-protocol)

SingleSign-On

PIN Authentication


School Network/Portal

Transitive Trust – Technical Vision

Andy Boots, FSA CIO Technology Update, May 8, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

ED/FSA “Transitive Trust”

7

FSA Systems/Datastores

FSA SECURITY BOUNDARY

Internet


School/CREN/State Certificate Authority


Shared Secret(Username/Password)

Over SSL

Student, ParentOr Borrower

Personal data + PINOver SSL

AuthenticationGateway

(multi-protocol)

SingleSign-On


School Network/Portal

Transitive Trust – Technical Vision

Andy Boots, FSA CIO Technology Update, May 8, 2002

Digital CertificateSAML Assertions

Certificate validation

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

SAML Assertion

<SAML><AssertionID>AE0221</AssertionID>

<Issuer>URN:dns-date:www.CREN.test:2002-05-16:19283 </Issuer>

<ValidityInterval> <NotBefore>2002-05-16T12:34:00Z</NotBefore> <NotOnOrAfter/>2002-05-16T13:34:00Z</NotOnOrAfter> </ValidityInternal> <Conditions>

<Audience>http://www.CREN.test/school_list.html</Audience>

</Conditions> <Subject> <Account>K4356783</Account> </Subject> <Resources> <string>http://www.elseviser.com/Journal_X/ </string> <string>https://www.Alpha College.edu/SIS/ </string> </Resources></SAML>

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Required authentication

Type of Portal Local Remote Anonymous

Enterprise ? X

Collaboration ? X

Knowledgemanagement

?

Front end ? X

University

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

The facets of security

• Confidentiality – communicated in secret

• Integrity – unaltered, genuine

• Anonymity – having a name or identity that is unknown or concealed.

• Non-repudiation – validity of identification of the parties and the date and time of the message, and integrity of the contents

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Major barriers to implementation

• The ability to work together, both within the college or university and among institutions, on the details

• Education and training of current staff at all levels

• Claims on ownership of “business processes”

• Institutional cost of mandated changes

• Limited budgets

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Federal mandates

• Immigration and Naturalization Service

SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, on or after January 1, 2003

• Department of EducationCOD Common Origination and

Disbursements February 2004 (pilot began May 7, 2002)

• Department of Veterans AffairsVACert Certificates of attendance

sometime 2003

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Federal e-Authentication

Aut

hent

icat

ion

Nee

ds

Aut

hent

icat

ion

Nee

ds

None

Strong

Solution SetsSolution Sets

Non

e

One

-Tim

e

Passw

ord

Single Sign On

Bio

met

rics

PKI

Use

r ID

/

Passw

ords

PINS

Pen-b

ased

Signa

ture

Privileged Management

Digital Signature

Click-wrap

StrongWeak

John Sindelar, “Achieving the Vision of E-Government,” Nov 27, 2001

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

SAP Learning Management System

• Delivered by MySAP through a standard browser

• based on SCORM (ADL’s Sharable Content Object Reference Model) and IMS ([Instructional Management Systems] IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.) content

• in a WebDAV (IETF’s Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning) open-source content base

• using Web services for integration (PeopleSoft HR in Version 2)

• with a Windows-based authoring platform

Will Chatham, SAP Public Services, Inc. “E-Learning,” at e-Gov 2002 Conference, Washington, DC, June 26, 2002

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Opinion restated

• Portal and Web Services technologies are over-hyped, but real.

• These technologies have simultaneously demonstrated reduced investment and operating costs and improved service.

• Portal and Web Services technologies are “disruptive technologies.”

• Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) architecture is obsolete, and will be replaced by application component architecture.

The end

www.immagic.com

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

inst

ruct

ional m

ed

ia +

magic

Publisher’s Note

The following slides were taken from presentations made at the U.S. Department of Education Federal Student Aid (FSA) CIO Update held September 30, 2002 in Atlanta, Georgia.

Some slides were omitted in some of the presentations that would not effect the content.

Higher Education, Shibboleth, and the Liberty Alliance

Scott CantorMACE / The Ohio State [email protected]

Outline

What is Shibboleth? Why Shibboleth? High Level Architecture SAML and the Liberty Alliance Current Status

What is Shibboleth?

An initiative to develop an architecture and policy framework supporting inter-organizational sharing of secured web resources and services

A project delivering an open source implementation

An Internet2/MACE project with early intellectual and financial support from IBM/Tivoli

Example Scenarios

1. A member of the campus community accessing a licensed library resource

2. Students enrolled in a course across multiple universities accessing class materials and Learning Mgmt Systems

3. Research workgroups sharing controlled resources (the original web)

4. Intra-university information access

5. <your scenario here>

What is Shibboleth?

A system...

with an emphasis on privacy

users control release of their attributes

based on open standards (SAML) and available in open source form

built on “federated administration”

that exists!

Outline


Why Shibboleth?

Growing interest in collaboration and resource sharing among institutions

Better security tools will make deploying new applications more “painless” and more secure

Offer new services to constituents that leverage higher education’s role as an identity provider for millions of people

Stakes a role for higher education in the emerging federated identity space

Federated Administration in Shibboleth

Users registered only at their “home/origin”institution, or “identity provider”

Authorization information sent, instead of authentication information

when possible, uses groups instead of people on ACLs

identity still available for auditing and for applications that require it

Privacy

Higher Education has privacy obligations

In US, “FERPA” requires permission for release of most personal identification information

General interest and concern for privacy is growing

Shibboleth has active (vs. passive) privacy provisions “built in”

Outline


Shibboleth: High Level Architecture

Outline


SAML is…

… Security Assertion Markup Language

... an OASIS XML (soon to be) standard for exchanging authentication, attribute, and authorization information within and between security domains

… an industry standard supported by most major web security vendors for web SSO

… a security token explicitly profiled for use with the WS-Security specifications

SAML: Scope

SAML defines XML syntax for “statements” about past authentication events, user attributes, and authorization decisions.

SAML also defines how applications can ask “authorities” for such statements, and includes “profiles” for Web SSO.

SAML does NOT define specific trust models, attribute syntax, subject naming, or how to secure specific transaction flows.

Shibboleth messages and flows are SAML conformant.

Shibboleth adds to SAML:

• a lightweight PKI-based trust model

• privacy-preserving Subject naming

• standards for attribute syntax and semantics, derived initially from eduPerson 1.5

From SAML to Shibboleth

WS-Security

a proposed family of standards to add both general and specific security features to SOAP

submitted to OASIS by MS/ IBM/Verisignfor refinement by a new technical committee

currently, consists only of a high-level framework for embedding security “tokens” like SAML assertions into SOAP

orthogonal to Shibboleth, for now anyway

Liberty Alliance

Full Disclosure

I ’m not a Liberty spokesman, or a Liberty representative, nor did I have any influence on the Liberty specifications, apart from as a contributor to SAML.

This is an outsider’s view of the technical specifications, from the perspective of a SAML implementer and user.

Liberty Alliance

A consortium of businesses formed by Sun, developing a technical architecture for identity management, in the interest of furthering business partnerships and electronic commerce.

Specifications are developed in a closed*process, then released for public consumption without encumbrances.

Released 1.0 specification in J uly.

* contrasts with the public OASIS processes

Liberty Alliance: Scope

1.0 specification focused on SSO and federating identities between sites with which a consumer already has a relationship:

• Identity federation protocols via opaque mutual aliases, controlled by consumer

• SSO protocols “adapted from” SAML

• Extended information about authentication “context”

• A suite of distributed logout protocols

Shibboleth and Liberty: Future Directions

Future versions of the Liberty specs are expected to explore controlled attribute exchange between organizations.

Both Liberty and Shibboleth have to define what it means to live in a multi- federation world.

Many of the Liberty extensions/additions to SAML will be useful to Shibboleth.

Outline


SAML and Liberty

Both specifications have been published as 1.0 documents.

SAML has been widely (and independently) implemented by vendors, and by Internet2 in open source J ava and C++.

A J ava Specification Request for a SAML API is under development.

Liberty hasn’t indicated an intent to deliver a reference implementation. Open source versions may or may not be forthcoming.

Shibboleth

Specifications are in final draft form.

A second alpha release is available now, and the source code is publicly available.

Pilot implementations are beginning at a dozen or more institutions and a growing list of information providers and application vendors.

A feature-complete beta is due in October for the NMI 2 release.

For More Information

http://middleware.internet2.edu/shibboleth/

http://middleware.internet2.edu/opensaml/

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/

http://www.projectliberty.org/

… plus many open mailing lists available

1

EE--Government: Government:

The Path to The Path to Breakthrough Breakthrough Performance in GovernmentPerformance in Government

Jonathan WomerG2C Portfo lio Manager

Office of Management and Budget

2

Recent Surveys on Citizen Wants

Pew Report: The Rise of the eCitizen: How people use Government Agencies’ Web-Sites - April, ’02

• “Citizens on-line are learning to demand answers at Internet speed.”

• 68 Million American adults have used government Web sites –a sharp increase from 40 million in March 2000

http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Govt_Website_Rpt.pdf

Council for Excellence in Government: E-Government: To Connect, Protect and Serve – Feb. 26, 2002

Citizens overwhelmingly believe that E-Government leads to better government.

http://www.excelgov.org/techcon/0225poll/report.PDF

3

The President’s Views on Government Management

• The President’s vision for reforming government:

“…government needs to reform its operations-how it goes about its business and how it treats the people it serves.”

• The President’s remarks at the “21st Century High Tech Forum”:“Our government plans to spend $53 billion on information technology next year…It is important. It's important to make sure government functions better, but more importantly, it will help our taxpayers have better response to democracy and get better information more quickly. And so I'm pleased that we're working on e-government.”

• The President’s E-Government Memorandum to the Cabinet:

“E-government is important for making the federal government citizen centered and results oriented”

4

Four Segments in the Citizen-Centered Strategy

Individuals: building easy to find one-stop-shops for citizens --creating single points of easy entry to access high quality government services.

Businesses: reduce burden on businesses through use of Internet protocols and by consolidating myriad redundant reporting requirements.

Intergovernmental: make it easier for states and localities to meet reporting requirements, while enabling better performance measurement and results, especially for grants.

Internal efficiency and effectiveness: reduce costs for federal government administration by using best practices in areas such as supply chain management and financial management, and knowledge management.

5

Government to Citizen

Government to Government Internal Effectiveness and Efficiency

1. USA Service2. EZ Tax Filing 3. Online Access for Loans 4. Recreation One Stop5. Eligibility Assistance

Online

1. e-Vital (business case) 2. e-Grants3. Disaster Assistance

and Crisis Response4. Geospatial Information

One Stop 5. Wireless Networks

1. e-Training 2. Recruitment One Stop3. Enterprise HR Integration 4. e-Travel 5. Integrated Acquisition6. e-Records Management7. Payroll Processing

E-Government Initiatives and Managing Partners

Managing Partner

OPMOPMOPMGSAGSANARAOPM

Managing Partner

SSAHHSFEMA

DOI

FEMA

Managing Partner

GSATREASDoEdDOILabor

Government to Business

1. Federal Asset Sales2. Online Rulemaking

Management 3. Simplified and Unified

Tax and Wage Reporting4. Consolidated Health

Informatics (business case)5. Business Compliance

One Stop6. International Trade Process Streamlining

Managing

Partner

GSADOT

Treas

HHS

SBA

DOC

E-Authentication

6

Users Must Have a Unified View of data and Simple Business Processes In order to Reap Benefits From E-Government

11

Capture

Store

Query

Distribute

Analyze

Act

Learn

External Customer View

?

There are opportunities throughout the Information Value Chain: But what are the binding constraints on better decisions?

•Data Collection Improvements do not necessarily affect results

• Data Sharing Problem Sometimes Reflects too many conflicting Analysts or Decisionmakers

•knowledge management tools improve decisions, yielding better service, faster and at lower costs

7

Architecting Change: Government Processes and Organization Structures Must Become Citizen-centered, Not Agency Centered

Program Admin ComplianceServices to Citizens

Public Asset ManagementMarket able Asset ManagementDefense & Nat’l Security OpsDiplomacy & Foreign RelationsDisaster ManagementDomestic EconomyEducationEnergy ManagementInsurancePublic HealthRecreation & National ResourcesSocial ServicesR&D & Science

Regulated Activity ApprovalConsumer Safety

Environmental ManagementLaw Enforcement

LegalRevenue Collection

Trade (Import/Export)Transportation

Workforce Management

Support Delivery of Services

Internal Operations/Infrastructure

Legislative ManagementBusiness Management of InformationIT ManagementPlanning and Resource AllocationRegulatory Management

Controls and OversightPublic AffairsInternal Risk Management and MitigationFederal Financial Assistance

Human Resources Financial Management Admin Supply Chain Management


Inter-Agency Intra -Agency

Program Admin ComplianceServices to Citizens

Public Asset ManagementMarket able Asset ManagementDefense & Nat’l Security OpsDiplomacy & Foreign RelationsDisaster ManagementDomestic EconomyEducationEnergy ManagementInsurancePublic HealthRecreation & National ResourcesSocial ServicesR&D & Science

Regulated Activity ApprovalConsumer Safety

Environmental ManagementLaw Enforcement

LegalRevenue Collection

Trade (Import/Export)Transportation

Workforce Management

Support Delivery of Services

Internal Operations/InfrastructureInternal Operations/Infrastructure

Legislative ManagementBusiness Management of InformationIT ManagementPlanning and Resource AllocationRegulatory Management

Controls and OversightPublic AffairsInternal Risk Management and MitigationFederal Financial Assistance



Inter-Agency Intra -Agency

(On average 10 Cabinet Departments and agencies per Line of Business)

(On average 21 Cabinet Departments and agencies per Line of Business)

(All 24 Cabinet Departments and agencies per Line of Business)

8

In Conclusion, Success Requires A Passion for Solutions

• Measures of success linked to program performance

• Successful Management of Change Requires Innovation

• Transform: Unify and simplify around customer needs

• Address chronic problems, don’t ignore them, e.g.:– Good ideas that lack proper securi ty and business case– Opportunities to leverage partially funded, redundant IT

initiatives to get full benefit

• Prevent focus on just Web enabling

eGov Initiatives: eLoans

Charlie ColemanDirector, CIO Innovations

September 30, 2002

The Hype Cycle

TechnologyTrigger

Peak ofInflated

ExpectationsTrough ofDisillusion

Slope ofEnlightenment

Plateau ofProductivity

Online not always good

Channel man agement troubles

Government portals

Enterprisee-government

strategies

Single d ept online services Failures and no ROI

drive divestments

Back-officere-engineering

Governments focus on corePartner-sourcing for value-added services

1994–1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010

Visibility

E-governmentstagnates

Surveys andbenchmarking

Information-onlysites

Securit y issues

well adv anced

laggards

moderate progress

Inv olv e external partnersto solv e problems

Inv olv e external partnersto leapf rog

Area of uncertainty

Scoping eLoans

Original eLoans Business Case envisioned a “single point of entry” or “one size fits all” approach. However:

• Federal loan programs are diverse

• Over $240 billion/year is awarded in federal loans

• Over 80% are guaranteed and insured loans

• Less than 20% are direct loans

• Target customers are varied and may interact with many partners during the loan life cycle

eLoans Scoping PlanDistribute agency

survey and collect results

Identify partner agency “value

adds”

Identify private sector “value

adds”

“Value Add” opportunities

Deliver on Recommendations

Yes No

Validate vision with citizens

July August September

Form workgroups to finalize scope and plan for moving

forward

August / September

Develop justification for not proceeding

with eLoans initiative

August / SeptemberReceive go/no go decision

September

June

Value Add Opportunities

Value Add Workgroup ED HUD SBA USDA

FSA/RHS VA

Quick Win

eLoans Web Gateway

Mid-to-Long Term

B2G Lender Reporting Improvements FSA RHS

Risk Management Coordination (Sharing Lender / Citizen Data)

Electronic Lender Payments to Agencies

check () = participating = sharing informationshaded box = indicates lead agency

Agency Voting

eLoans Gateway

Develop a simple web site (as part of GovBenefits’ infrastructure) that educates citizens on federal loan programs and directs them to the best loan information at agency and private sector websites.

Goal

ED (lead), HUD, SBA, USDA, VAAgencies

FY03: Partner with GovBenefits to develop and implement the eLoans Gateway. Partner with commercial and federal search engines to increase visibility of the eLoans Gateway.

FY04: Enhance Gateway functionality per citizen recommendations.

Approach

• Citizens that use the web today are faced with an enormous amount of information on federal loan programs (a search on “federal loans”at Google gives 1.3 million hits and on FirstGov gives over 1,000 hits). The Gateway simplifies this search by providing access to the best available loan information on a single site.

• Increase awareness of and traffic to agency and private sector web sites• Build on existing GovBenefits architecture (reuse versus rebuild)• Leverage GovBenefits marketing capabilities

Benefits

Citizen

eLoans Gateway

eLoans Gateway

Commercial Search Engines

Google, Yahoo!, AOL, etc…

Small Business

Loans

Housing Loans

Farm LoansStudent

Loans

Veterans Loans

• Click individual clouds to learn more

OR • Click the Loan Wizardto see what programs you may be eligible for

Lenders / Business Partners

B2G Lender Reporting ImprovementsAnalyze agency systems and data for opportunities to coordinate improvements in lender reporting processes during the loan lifecycle.

Goal

SBA (lead), ED, HUD, USDA, VAAgencies

Thorough analyses that compare and contrast B2G loan lifecycle reporting strategies across loan programs will reveal specific opportunities for interagency resource sharing and B2G reporting synergies such as:• Streamlining data/reports• Isolating reporting redundancies or inefficiencies• Developing common data definitions • Providing a common interface for conducting business with the federal

government

Benefits

FY03: • Conduct an analysis of technologies, systems, and processes lenders

use to transmit data/reports to agencies during the loan lifecycle (includes working with private sector).

• Develop data model/inventory of lender reporting data collected during the loan lifecycle (includes working with private sector).

FY04: Conduct and evaluate pilot test of possible best practices with private sector.

Approach

Share citizen default data across agencies to improve risk management for federal credit programs.

Goal

FY03: • Web enable HUD’s CAIVRS (used to track and report borrower

government credit history) for non-HUD agencies and lenders. • Conduct a feasibility study on providing citizen access to CAIVRS. FY04: • Work with business partners and customers to analyze risk management

improvement opportunities. • Implement web enhancements for citizen access and business process

improvements.

Approach

Sharing Citizen Default Data

• Provides agencies and lenders with online access to borrower credit history versus using touchtone telephone system

• Enables agencies to better monitor credit programs (HUD realizes over $215 million in loss avoidance every year)

• Provides citizens with self-service access to CAIVRS credit report• Coordinates system improvements based on customer and business

partner feedback and other related initiatives (improves service delivery while reducing administration costs)

Benefits

HUD (lead), ED, SBA, USDA, VAAgencies

Risk Management Coordination -- Borrower

Share lender performance data across agencies to improve risk management for federal credit programs.

Goal

FY03: • Conduct a feasibility study on coordinating the sharing of lender

performance data across agencies.

• Begin implementation of study recommendations.

FY04: Continue implementation efforts.

Approach

Sharing Lender Performance Data

• Coordinates current agency initiatives and identifies potential best practices

• Provides agencies with cross-government information on lender performance

• Improves agency monitoring effectiveness by identifying high risk lenders, and enabling trend analysis and query capabilities

• Protects the public borrowers and restores public trust

Benefits

HUD (lead), ED, SBA, USDA, VAAgencies

Risk Management Coordination -- Lender

Explore opportunities to coordinate implementation of electroniclender payment systems and processes across agencies.

Goal

FY03: Assess feasibility of pay.gov as a possible solution for electronically collecting lender payments for the partner agencies. FY04: Begin implementation of proposed solution.

Approach

• Web-based application provides costs savings by reducing handling of “paper”

• Lender partners can get receipts in one day vs. several

• Pay.gov offers strong agency reporting capabilities • Pay.gov is willing to absorb costs of feasibility analysis,

development, implementation, and operations/maintenance (excludes agency FTE needs and changes to agency systems

Benefits

VA (lead), ED, HUD, SBA, USDAAgencies

Electronic Lender Payments

Private Sector Feedback

Met with key loan industry associations on August 14, 2002: • Support the eLoans initiative• Interested in:

• Continued participation/involvement• More uniform interface for doing business

with the government• Reducing cost, improving cycle time, etc.

“…MBA very much wants to continue to participate in …[the] eLoans effort […, and] would also like to see initiatives…that allow easier and more uniform interface with government agencies in a B2G environment.” Mortgage Bankers Association representative

Citizen Focus Group Feedback

Held citizen focus groups in September 2002 with students, homebuyers, small business owners, veterans, and farmers:• Citizens think it’s important for government and private

sector to work together in this effort• Citizens rated the Gateway concept a 5.3 on a scale of 1

to 6 and provided useful feedback• Encouraged eLoans to consult citizens on future

enhancements

“Work together!”, Student participant …in response to question on what was the one thing they would like to say to the partner agencies“[in reference to the Gateway, agencies should] put it out there … make it as good as you can, but don’t try to make it perfect from the start … and improve it over time.”, Housing participant

Charles HavekostE-Grants Program [email protected]

E-Grants:Fulfilling the President's Management Agenda

and PL106-107 Streamlining Goals

Size•Over 600 grant programs at 26 Federal agencies•$300B in grants to State and Local governments via 141K awards•$60B in grants to academia, non-profits and others via 71K awards

Variety•Many Types of Grants, Agencies, Applicants, and Award sizes •Types include Discretionary, Formula, Block Grants•Purposes include Research, Service, I nfrastructure, Security

Culture•Entrenched Grants Processes and Data Requirements

E-Grants Background

The E-Grants project will: Produce a simple, unified “storefront” for all customers of federal grants to electronically find opportunities, apply, and manage grants.

Facilitate the quality, coordination, effectiveness, and efficiency of operations for grant makers and grant recipients.

E-Grants Vision

Selected E-Grants Milestones•Pilot “Find Opportunities” tool (7/ 1/ 02) [done]•Define application data standards (10/ 1/ 02) [done]•Deploy unified application mechanism (10/ 1/ 03)

“Find Opportunity” Strategy•Use FedBizOpps model (www.fedbizopps.gov)•Standard synopsis data •Promote value-added repackaging

“Apply Electronically” Strategy•CCR/ BPN for Organizational Profile (www.ccr.gov)•Single System for submission of grant applications

•Avoids “many-to-many” costs and problems•Data standards for grant applications

•Core = SF424 + DUNS via TS194•Use standards to foster system-to-system interfaces and person-to-system interfaces

•Conform to E- Gov Architecture, including XML

E-Grants: Standards are the Strategy

Collaboration with Grant-Making Agencies•Ensure participation•Meet business process needs•Fulfill grant streamlining mandates

Collaborate with Applicant Communities•Ensure participation•Meet business process needs•Make the process of finding, applying for, and managing federal grants easier, less costly, and more electronic•Encourage collaboration on common solutions and interfaces

Work with E-Grants! [email protected]

E-Grants: Collaboration is the Key

Documents

Web Services in Higher Education Jim Farmer instructional media + magic, inc. New York University Friday · October 18, 2002 · New York, New York i n s