Jim Farmer As presented at the Portals2007 “Up and Running” Conference 7 June 2007 | Gettysburg College, Gettysburg PA USA From pilot to enterprise portal Five years and counting

A portal is the toolbox of the knowledge worker

“Portals are a journey of increasing functionality for expanding communities."

In the beginning

Georgetown University Classic “portal”

Georgetown University The aggregation game…

Georgetown University Administrative Instruction Library Research The University Web World

Georgetown University With portlets Portal Framework Portal database Portlet A Portlet B Portlet C Portlet D

Georgetown University Aggregation today (by Yoodlee ) Financial, payment, airline accounts news Federated Banking activity Generated alerts

Georgetown University Multiple target devices From uPortal development, 2003

Georgetown University Multiple “themes”

Georgetown University ESUP Portail Project (France) Most successful open source project in higher education.

Georgetown University

Denison University

Georgetown University A brief history of portals

Georgetown University The evolution First YearFifth Year Content authority One or twoHundreds UsersPublic, studentsPublic, faculty, students, alumni, administrators PurposeBroadcast communication Data resource, transactions, learning delivery, research environment DriverSingle signonAuthorization, integration

Georgetown University Agenda The information environment Governance Content Security Configuration

The information environment An organizing perspective

Georgetown University A perspective The information environment

Governance

Georgetown University Governance defined Who gets to add, change, and delete content? Who gets to have access to what content? Who has final authority over style? Who is responsible for security of the site and for required recordkeeping?

Georgetown University Approaches to governance Current organizational structures should be used to resolve policy issues. Otherwise a change in processes is being “imposed” on the organization externally. The policy issues should be understood and communicated in a way they can be understood. “The Politics of Knowledge,” American Enterprise Institute, 21 May 2007

Georgetown University Commentary During the presentation an example was given where a special-purpose committee was used to gain resolution of portal issues. A similar example from Coventry University was given in a subsequent conference session. In both cases the portal was a college and university priority and had a fixed implementation date within six months.

Georgetown University Modeling the organization The IT industry view

Georgetown University Modeling the organization The higher education reality

Georgetown University Modeling the organization As users see it

Georgetown University Groups and permissions Separate database Real-time data access from authoritative source (e.g. integration with the student system) Informal data entry (Columbia University’s “ski club” spreadsheet) Groups of groups (courses, sections, and study groups) In version 3 of uPortal, an application independent of uPortal

Content The information environment

Georgetown University Portal coverage: first year Portal coverage

Georgetown University Portal coverage: second year Authication/Authorization Required

Georgetown University Portal coverage: third year Integration Required

Georgetown University Portal coverage: fourth year

Georgetown University Portal coverage: fifth year

Georgetown University Portal coverage: for the bold

Security policy

Georgetown University Security policy challenges Providing authentication and associated “Level of assurance” OMB Memo 04-04NIST Economically feasible authorization Document perspective (Hierarchical) Inherited by “rank” Groups and permissions Required recordkeeping

Georgetown University Evolution of security Single signon (Web signon) Groups and permissions Federated authentication and authorization

Georgetown University Portal security Implied authentication User logged on to the portal sufficient Implied authorization User authenticated; applications only require authentication of user Authentication Level of assurance Authorization or information the application can use to make an authorization decision

Georgetown University Level of assurance - proofing 1: Little or no confidence in the asserted identity’s validity. 2: Some confidence in the asserted identity’s validity. 3: High confidence in the asserted identity’s validity. 4: Very high confidence in the asserted identity’s validity. Office of Management and Budget Memo 04-04, 16 December 2003

Georgetown University Level of assurance - technical 1: Plaintext passwords or secrets are not transmitted across a network. 2: Single factor remote network authentication. At Level 2, identity proofing requirements are introduced. 3: Multi-factor remote network authentication. 4: Proof of possession of a key through a cryptographic protocol. NIST , April 2006

Georgetown University In higher education Level 0 – The identity of the user is not revealed, but the organization (college or university by IP address), the role (e.g. student or faculty), or other data (e.g. contract number) may be included for authorization. Library – “patron” and perhaps role: student, faculty, public Online Journal – college or university (e.g. JStor), contract number.

Configuration

Georgetown University Basic configuration Integrated Directory Computer A Groups and Permissions

Georgetown University Multi-application configuration Integrated Directory Computer AComputer B Groups and Permissions

Georgetown University SOA configuration Integrated Directory Enterprise Services Bus Computer B Groups and Permissions Computer A

Georgetown University Portal interface options Provider Application Connector External Application WSRPJSR 168

Georgetown University With portlets Portal Framework Portal database College announcements Regional library Learning system Administration WSRP JSR 168

Georgetown University Phased implementations Gradual changes for users; minimizes user training, problem resolution Reduced risk of broad failure Opportunity to modify in accordance with usage

Georgetown University Observations The portal technologies may be different, but the issues are similar (as this conference demonstrates). There are many ways to achieve a working portal, the “best” depend “upon local needs and environment.” Seek the one application that benefits a substantial number of users and drives adoption.

The end