2. Copyright Gordy Pace, 2006. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non- commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

3. Presentation outline 1.Panel introductions 2.About CampusEAI 3.Portal projects compared 4.Community source model 5.Collaborative development 6.Question & answer

4. About CampusEAI Consortium of 140 primary, secondary, and postsecondary education institutions and corporations in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, China, and India. Facilitate the development, exchange, delivery and support of community source software and digital content.

5. CampusEAI solutions CEAI Portal: Community source solution CEAI Collaboration Suite: Integrated e-mail, calendar, content services, real-time collaboration : Student-produced programming : IP television solution

6. CEAI portal solutions/services Solutions –CEAI Vault – community source software –Oracle 10g portal software –Hardware –Professional services – implementation, installation, training, testing & documentation –Support –Membership Consulting Services –Software development –Application server –Identity management –Training Staffing Resources

7. Portal projects compared

8. Campus community 15,200 students 1,312 faculty 1,892 staff 97,000 alumni 9,500 students 500 faculty 318 staff 35,575 students 3,211 faculty 3,847 staff 13,960 students 800 faculty 1,300 staff 79,000 alumni

9. Portal platform UPortal Prometheus (2002) Oracle

10. Current status In production since September, 2005 In production since August, 2006 In production since January, 2006 Production release Fall 2006

11. IT staff dedicated to project 1.5 FTE + support of 5 additional staff including students 0.8 FTE + support of 4 additional staff No FTE – 3 staff resources as needed 1.5 FTE + support of 7 additional staff, including students

12. Major enterprise systems Homegrown legacy student system Oracle HR/Payroll MS Exchange Diebold CS Gold – Food Services Desire2Learn LMS Homegrown Events Calendar Datatel (student, HR, finance) MS Exchange Blackboard- WebCT LMS Innovative library system OWLnet (Student Self Service) Mirapoint Email Blackboard Employee Self Service Library Resources Performance Development System MyBackPack (central disk space) SunGard HE Banner (student, finance, HR) MS Exchange email Blackboard Voyager library system CBORD food service

13. Key applications in portal Food Service portlet real-time balance add money Events Calendar Online Bill Financial Aid Registration Library Databases Webmail Personal Calendar Inbox File Storage Blackboard- WebCT OWLnet (Student Self Service) Mirapoint Email Blackboard Employee Self Service Library Resources Performance Development System MyBackPack (central disk space) Email Messaging Banner Blackboard Housing Calendar IPTV Employment RSS feeds Customization

14. Goals of project Maintain functionality of previous portal Provide framework to handle multiple constituents Improved user interface Single sign-on Hosted Portal Solution Integrated Online Services Recognize savings via consortium Maintain SSO functionality of old Portal Independent Portal Technology Robust, scalable back end Work with existing iPlanet LDAP architecture Identity management Single sign-on Systems integration Enhance recruitment & retention

15. Why CampusEAI? Shared repository of information and code Centralized support Grant Equipment Licensing Training Consortium Partnership Hosted solution Single vendor covering many of our needs Shared repository of information and code Support grant to cover license Deployment help Cost CampusEAI grant Oracle

16. Community source model Strengths, weaknesses, challenges and opportunities

17. Strengths Shared work, expertise, ideas Understanding institutional needs better than outside vendors Central organization for coordination and support Embedded community culture (i.e., education)

18. Weaknesses Lack of consistent coding standards and development methods Communication (time, distance, tools) Bottlenecks with central organization (communication flow, QA of portlets) Leadership over a “herd of cats”

19. Challenges Disparity in portal goals and requirements among members Managing growth of Consortium to reach out to new members, support existing members, and maintain the consortium itself Creating a common purpose among members that elicits participation

20. Opportunities Better tools for collaboration and communication Code sharing Expertise sharing Determination and application of standards Economies of scale regarding portlet solutions Getting beyond the technology

21. Community Source Open Source (+) Flexibility Control TCO (-) Resource intensive Lacking support Vendor Product (+) “One throat to choke” Best practice Industry experts (-) Cost Lack of control Vendor Lock-in

22. Collaborative development Approaches, successes and challenges

23. Approaches Organic –Members would freely share portlets in the central depository. Minimally successful Centers of excellence –Members with common systems and goals write requirements and develop/test portlets Informal institution-to-institution connections –Valuable. Critical for immediate institutions, but inefficient for the community Community development center –Better tools for sharing code, collaborating and communicating

24. Two levels of portlets Vault The consortium provides a vault of supported community-source portlets/channels for Oracle Portal and uPortal Repository Unsupported portlets and portlet code available to members through the community development center

27. Successes UM customization portlets Temple’s Mirapoint e-mail portlet Single sign-on CampusEAI login portlet Training and whitepapers Remote authentication to library databases Student email and other services

28. Question & Answer