1 Sakai Functionality Roadmap Indiana University MIT Stanford University University of Michigan JA-SIG (uPortal Consortium) Open Knowledge Initiative The Sakai Educational Partners (SEPP)

2 Rob Lowden Tools Team Lead Rob Lowden CMS Manager Indiana University

3 Outline I.Project Timeline Overview II.Tools Team Process IV.The Role of SEPP V.Next Steps & Summary

4 Project Timeline Overview Sakai Project Collaboration Originally Announced at Educause 2003 Melon Grant awarded 15 December 2003 Ambitious goals with an aggressive timeline A complex alignment…

5

6 Course Management Systems 4 different institutions 4 different approaches to CMS Great success with our various approaches

7 IU User photo & SIS info dynamically loaded 90K Faculty & Students each semester Averages 5 million hits a day with peak usage near 10 million hits in one day

8 UMich Open source / Standards based Educational CMS, Research, & Project collaboration system Synoptic views of all sites in private My Workspace

9 MIT Homework and Sectioning Tools for large classes Rich course materials / electronic reserves from libraries Customizable look and feel

10 Stanford Easy-to-use (No training required) Supports large lecture courses & language courses (section signup, grading, etc.) Easy-to-use (No training required)

11 Lessons Learned Our differences are our greatest strength Drawing on our past experiences to benefit our future direction Things were going GREAT!!!

12 Sakai Team

13 Sakai Team

14 Tools Team Process Where did we start and why… Identifying gaps… Collecting supporting documentation… Suggestions gathering process…

15 Tools Team Gap Analysis Identification of gaps –Criteria Clarifying documentation –Unique features Prioritization process –Let the voting begin…

16 Current Oncourse, Stellar, Coursework and CTNG features Current CTNG features List of over 200 items identified as gaps Clarification of gaps by Tools Team Survey of clarified gaps 1 vote from each core member Prioritized suggestions 1. Suggestion A 2. Suggestion B 3. Suggestion C Primary/backup owner assigned Gap Analysis

17 Tools Team Gap Analysis Full rich text capability via the browser Inline image placement Direct audio record HTML code view toggle option

18 Tools Team Gap Analysis Over 275 original gaps 42 prioritized gap items Current progress November 2004

19 Suggestions Gathering Process Overview –Detailed 5 step process –How does it work –Diagram and documentation

20 Step I - Communication Frequency Members Sources Submission of suggestion Review and refinement of suggestions

21 Step I – Communication (1 month iterations) Authorized form (Falcon tracking system) Suggestions gathered from Tools Team Team review and refinement Suggestion pool Tech lead assigns H, M, L development effort for locked suggestions Development difficulty estimated 1 week prior to Tools Team face to face meeting

22 Suggestion Form

23 Step II - Prioritization Pre-prioritization First round of voting Iterative list Accountability key

24 Step II – Prioritization Voting/ reviewing (face to face) Sakai Board sign-off Survey of current suggestions 1 vote from each core (1 week prior to face to face meeting) Prioritized suggestions 1. Suggestion A 2. Suggestion B 3. Suggestion C Primary/backup owner assigned

25 Step III - Specification Primary / Backup Standardization / procedure Review

26 Step III – Specification Use case scenario Activity diagram User interface design Complete package delivered to development team to begin development process

27 Step IV - Development Development lead Two way communication Iterative review and signoff

28 Step IV – Development ? development clarification Primary/backup suggestion owners available for: Quality assurance assistance or guidance Iterative development review

29 Step V - Implementation: signoff Style guide Testing Signoff Documentation

30 Step V – Implementation Assurance that all design adheres to style guide Testing as needed Final signoff by primary/backup suggestion owner – meets functional/non-functional specs Creation and completion of all supporting documentation (help, user guide, marketing, etc.)

31 Suggestions Gathering Process Complicated challenge –Numerous suggestions –Process –Communication –Transparency

32 SEPP How does the SEPP get involved?

33 SEPP Overview –Challenge –Role of SEPP staff in process –Communication –Coordination

34 Sakai Project Board Manages a set of requirements from the core institutions to fulfill the obligations of the Mellon grant Deploys a set of local institution staff that have been tendered to the control of the board

35 Requirements Exceed Resources Core institutions requirements and “wishlist” items exceed development resources Sakai Partners have many additional requirements and wishlist items General public has ideas for TPP-based tools and capabilities

36 Three Emerging Models Sakai Project Core –Board assigns staff to prioritized requirements –In time, SEPP staff may be assigned Ad-hoc Alliances –SEPP members or others commit to working on specific requirements and leverage SEPP coordination/communication model for a period of time Volunteers –Someone makes known their intent to work on a particular requirement

37 Matrix Req #BoardAllianceVolunteer UC-Davis & NYU … AZ State, IU, rSmart 427 Joe

38 Ad-hoc Alliances (recommendations) Based on mutual interest and timing Operate as a mini-project using the Sakai processes template Project leader is appointed Staff resources are tendered to the leader Project visibility via Sakai forums SEPP could have dozens of Alliances working on particular requirements/innovations at any time.

39 Summary & Next Steps The process… Tight timeline… Numerous requirements… Coordination & Communication key… Scale suggestions gathering process… Shift from 2.0 to 3.0 process…

40 Rob Lowden Tools Team Lead Rob Lowden CMS Manager Indiana University

41 Resources Documents –Available on the SEPP Chefproject.org site.