Presented by: Tom Hadrava Georgii Kalnyskyi Roy Sharon Joseph Vavra

 The Campus Mobile Applications Project was created and sponsored by Dr. Shaun M. Lynch  It is a continuation of the:  2003 UWS Wireless Infrastructure Project and Applications Projects  2007 Campus Mobile Technologies Project

Background  Goals of the previous projects:  Researching types of technology existed and used  Enhancing use of technology on campus  Fostering learning abilities of students  Fostering teaching abilities for faculty

Background Continued  Campus Mobile Technology Project studied the technological, “hardware” part of mobile technology, especially devices that were used by students on campus.  Objective of the Campus Mobile Technology Project was to research what students bring for a mobile technology

Project Goal  Identify mobile applications and services that can be supported by the campus infrastructure  Recommend an approach to connect students, faculty, and staff together and with academic resources to enhance learning and working environment.

Project Objective  Research mobile applications and services for Campus  Evaluate how UWS could benefit from their implementation  Create a list of alternative approaches  Document research  Present the recommended alternatives to the project sponsor.

Project Scope Project scope included:  Cellular phones, smart phones  Handheld computers  MP3 players (Podcasting)  Web Enabled Devices Outside of the project scope:  Implementation of either services or applications

Research  The following steps were taken during our research:  Brainstorming  Evaluation  Detailed research  IIT Services Interview  Determination of final research objectives

MapQuest Mobile notification on the cellular phone via text message Facebook Mobile Windows Mobile Palm (WinCE) Download personal information via USB drive at a Kiosk UWS Facebook Mobile Text Messaging Service Java Mobile Applications iPod GPS navigation WiFi navigation Google Mobile iPhone Pocket PC Android (G Phone) Internet Applications UWS Mobile Website Podcasting Digital Library E Readers Yahoo Mobile Twitter Mobile Zoho Mobile

 After the brainstorming process was completed, we assigned each approach for further research.  We broke each research item into four categories:  Very difficult  Hard  Moderate  Easy

 The team developed a research packet on ALL the research items.  The format was:  Research Topic  Description  Benefit to the University  Research  Examples

 There were multiple themes identified  The two themes that we decided to pursue are:  Mobile Platforms  Web Services

 A Mobile Platform is a software platform on top of which other programs, called application programs, run  It can run on mobile devices such as mobile phones, smart phones, PDAs, and handheld computers.

 Evaluated the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each approach to identify the risks  The quality standards were identified and rated for each critical approach

Costs  Things to consider with cost are:  Devices  Services/data plan  Protection warranty  Mobile Application Specialist

 All data was estimated from AT&T, because AT&T had the lower prices compared to other networks in the area  The Mobile Application Specialist wages are comparable to other Universities.

Human Resources  We recommend the hire of a mobile application specialist with the implementation of a mobile application  The individual to be hired should be specialized in:  Networking  Mobile applications  IT infrastructure

 Google Mobile  Microsoft Office Live  Yahoo Mobile  Zoho Suite

 Evaluated the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each approach to identify risks  The quality standards were identified and rated for each critical approach

 ed Dr. Mary Schoeler to set up an appointment to meet with the IIT department.  The participants were:  The project team  Dr. Mary Schoeler - Chief Information Officer with IIT  Mr. Tom Janicki - Team Leader of IIT Infrastructure Services

IIT Interview  Results sought:  Clarification of the types of technology used on campus  Types of technology that will be implemented in future  The principles of application and service selection

 Barriers to be aware of:  Capacity of Wi-Fi verses Capacity of Cellular networks  Reliance  Redundancy  Ownership  Applications

 Platforms:  Windows Mobile  Google Android  Apple iPhone  SaaS  Google Mobile  Zoho Mobile  Yahoo Mobile  Windows Office Live

 Approaches with current UWS infrastructure  Ranking of approaches  Unexplored themes

 Determined that all critical approaches will work with no change to the UWS’s network.  The mobile platforms all run on a cellular based service, which is completely separate from the university’s network. Only the most advanced smart phones can connect to an Wi-Fi network

 Web services only require a mobile web browser, the only exception to this is Microsoft Office Live  UWS already owns licenses for Microsoft Office, so a transition would be straightforward Microsoft Office Live has to already own Microsoft Office  The addition of a mobile application specialist would be recommended

 Combined the knowledge from our first research with our department research  The team was able to rank each critical approach

ServiceUtilityCostCost/Utility Android313 iPhone232 Windows Mobile121 ServiceUtilityCostCost/Utility Google Mobile212 Microsoft Office Live323 Yahoo Mobile414 Zoho Suite111

 Navigation  Podcasting  Specifically discarded:  PALM  notification via text message  Social networking  Twitter Mobile

 Platforms:  iPhone would be beneficial to raise awareness and interest in mobile technology  Windows Mobile would be a better choice in terms of implementation cost, and utility  Web services:  Zoho Mobile would best fit for a business application  Google Mobile would be best fit for application versatility

 Additional research includes:  Evaluate costs  Evaluate security issues  Update risk and quality standards  Test the approaches before implementation  Negotiate with vendors

 Zimbra is an server with the ability of web connection and connection to wireless applications.  S 60 is a very versatile mobile platform for Nokia, Samsung, and Panasonic mobile devices.  Mobile Campus is a community based application/service that other Universities are using in the Southeast United States.

 Additional detailed research needs to be done  Need to address the issues covered  Map out a course of action  Communicate the availability of mobile application

 The University of Wisconsin – Superior Campus Mobile Applications Project Team would like to thank the following people who helped in the project.  Dr. Shaun M. Lynch — Project Sponsor, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Wisconsin – Superior, for all his guidance, motivation, support, and very interesting and challenging project. The completion of the project would not be possible without his help.  Mary J. Schoeler —Assistant Vice Chancellor, Instructional & Information Technology and Chief Information Officer, for her consultation and time to answer our questions.  Tom Janicki — for his participation in the IT focus group, time for answering our questions.

Mobile applications are in the future, how near is up to you… = )