an evaluation of portal solutions - university of maine system | home

1

AN EVALUATION OF PORTAL SOLUTIONS

FINAL REPORT

PRESENTED TO:

Rebecca Wyke Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration

PRESENTED BY:

Collegiate Project Services

May 12, 2010

631-G Harden Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 877.454.1290 www.collegiateproject.com

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Portal Categories that were Evaluated ...................................................................................................................... 5

Selected Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

Recommendation ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Purpose of this Engagement .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Specific Deliverables .................................................................................................................................................. 8

Portal Basics ................................................................................................................................................................... 9

What is a Portal? ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

Benefits of a Portal .................................................................................................................................................. 11

Portal Options .......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Current Portal Situation at UMS .............................................................................................................................. 16

Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 17

Focus Group Sessions .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Online Survey ........................................................................................................................................................... 17

Vendor Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................ 18

Results of User Needs Analyses ................................................................................................................................... 19

Student Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

Faculty Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 21

Administrative Staff Results..................................................................................................................................... 23

Technical Staff Results ............................................................................................................................................. 24

Analysis of IT Skill Sets and IT Staffing ......................................................................................................................... 25 A Comparative Analysis of Portal Solutions ................................................................................................................. 29

Comparison Factors ................................................................................................................................................. 29

A High Level Summary of portal options ................................................................................................................. 31

3

Portal Development Partner – Commercial Platform .............................................................................................. 35

Portal Development Partner – Open Source ........................................................................................................... 38

Turnkey COTS Portal ................................................................................................................................................ 42

Turnkey COTS SaaS .................................................................................................................................................. 46

Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium .............................................................................................................................. 49

Recommendations Going Forward .............................................................................................................................. 53

Recommendation 1: Turnkey COTS Portal (PeopleSoft) .......................................................................................... 53

Recommendation 2: Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium (CampusEAI Liferay) ............................................................ 55

A Note on Governance ............................................................................................................................................ 57

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................. 59

APPENDIX A: Quotation Statement of Work Sent to Vendors ................................................................................ 60

APPENDIX B: Costing Spreadsheets Sent to Vendors .............................................................................................. 64

Appendix C: List of Vendors that Contributed Data for this Project. ...................................................................... 66

APPENDIX D: Student Results from Open-Ended Survey Questions....................................................................... 68

APPENDIX E: Faculty Results from Open-Ended Survey Questions ......................................................................... 75

APPENDIX F: Administrative Staff Results from Open-Ended Survey Questions ..................................................... 80

Appendix G: Technology Staff Results from Open-Ended Survey Questions .......................................................... 87

4

Abbreviations Used in this Report

COTS Commercial Off-the-Shelf

CMS Course Management System

CPS Collegiate Project Services

DBA Database Administrator

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

FAQ Frequently Asked Question

IT Information Technology

LDAP Lightweight Directory Access Protocol

LMS Learning Management System

QSOW Quotation Statement of Work

ROI Return on Investment

ROM Rough Order of Magnitude

SaaS Software-as-a-Service

SIS Student Information System

SMEs Subject Matter Experts

TCO Total Cost of Ownership

UMS University of Maine System

XML Extensible Markup Language

5

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

The purpose of this engagement was to research the various options for providing a robust front-end portal and virtual self-service center for faculty, staff, and students, and to recommend one or more options going forward that will meet the needs of the various University of Maine System (UMS) institutions.

DATA COLLECTION

User needs and requirements for a portal were gathered in nine focus group sessions across the state. Eighty-four stakeholders representing all the UMS institutions participated in these two hour sessions, which included a total of 14 faculty, 18 students, 32 administrative staff, 15 technical staff, and 6 subject matter experts (SMEs) at the central office. A broad group of system-wide stakeholders also provided portal opinions in an online survey. A total of 1,191 individuals logged in and responded to the survey questions. This included 291 faculty, 614 students, 239 administrative staff, and 47 technical staff. Finally, 35 various portal providers and implementers were invited to supply information on costs, implementation timelines, available features, staffing recommendations, and other data. Fifteen of these vendors (43 percent) graciously provided valuable information which was extremely helpful in fulfilling the objectives of this study.

PORTAL CATEGORIES THAT WERE EVALUATED

Based on our research and our collective knowledge, the Collegiate Project Services assessment team identified and evaluated five different portal categories for comparative analysis. These were:

1. Portal Development Partner – Commercial Platform (e.g., SharePoint, WebSphere)

2. Portal Development Partner – Open Source (e.g., Drupal, Liferay, uPortal)

3. Turnkey1 Commercial Off- the-Shelf (COTS) Portal (e.g., Oracle, Sungard, PeopleSoft)

4. Turnkey Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) (e.g., CampusCloud)

5. Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium (e.g., CampusEAI – Farmington campus)

Each of these portal categories were evaluated on 14 factors, which included a rationale for proposing the option, benefits and drawbacks of the option, a variety of costs (acquisition costs, maintenance costs, implementation costs, total cost of ownership), implementation timeline, level of risk, and ROI considerations. 1 Turnkey software is defined in the main body of this report.

6

SELECTED FINDINGS

1. Each of the five portal categories has its strengths and weaknesses. Each has features that will help UMS to meet fiscal, academic, and strategic initiatives.

2. Most if not all portal options will satisfy the needs and requirements of the four university stakeholder groups that we canvassed (students, faculty, administrative staff, and technical staff).

3. The time to implement these portal solutions varied from a low of ten months (the open source consortium category) to a high of 18 months (for the development partner with commercial platform solutions and the development partner with open source solutions).

4. There was an exceedingly wide range of differences in Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of these options2. Projected over five years, the lowest estimated TCO was $3.0M - $4.4M. This was the average for the “Turnkey Non-Profit consortium” portal category. The highest TCO was $13.3M - $13.7M for the “Turnkey COTS SaaS” category.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on our analysis, we determined that the two “incumbent” options are best able to meet the requirements set forth by UMS for the portal solution. These were the “Turnkey COTS Portal (PeopleSoft)” and the “Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium (CampusEAI Liferay).” These two portal categories had several advantages for UMS institutions, and at the same time had the lowest Total Cost of Ownership over 5 years in the range of $3.5-$4.0M vs. the $5.0M to $13.0M of the other options.

THE REASONS FOR RECOMMENDING THE PEOPLESOFT PORTAL:

• The PeopleSoft portal is already implemented system-wide and integrated with the MaineStreet products, thus saving time and effort

• The PeopleSoft portal has a large installed base of customers

• The software code is maintained and updated by PeopleSoft (Oracle); PeopleSoft specific administrative policies and procedures are already in place at UMS

• Based on the “wish list” items we collected in our focus groups and online survey, the current version of PeopleSoft portal can handle all the user needs as we collected them. Since UMS already owns the PeopleSoft portal, we believe it has the potential to provide the lowest total cost of ownership and highest return on investment of the five portal options.

2 TCO was comprised of non-recurring costs and recurring costs over a five year period. Specifics of TCO are contained in the main body of this report.

7

THE REASONS FOR RECOMMENDING THE CAMPUSEAI LIFERAY PORTAL:

• Liferay is the leading open source enterprise portal

• CampusEAI is an organization that has created a customized set of support services, a private consortium of like-minded schools, and specific higher education solutions around the Liferay portal technology.

• Liferay has proven itself able to integrate with all key higher education administrative systems including ERP, learning management, e-portfolio, curriculum management, resource demand management and others.

• Liferay will deliver many if not all of the desired “wish-list” items within an acceptable amount of time and with a comparatively low total cost of ownership.

THE CHOICE FOR UMS

In selecting one of these two paths, UMS essentially must make a choice between relying on a well regarded commercial product (PeopleSoft) and a well regarded “open source” product (Liferay). Both paths have pros and cons and the good news is that UMS has experience with each. Total Cost of Ownership over time is fairly similar and risk factors equal out.

8

FINAL REPORT

AN EVALUATION OF PORTAL SOLUTIONS

Collegiate Project Services is pleased to provide the following report of findings and recommendations as a result of our evaluation of various possible portal options for the University of Maine System.

PURPOSE OF THIS ENGAGEMENT

The purpose of this engagement was to research the various options for providing a robust front-end portal and virtual self-service center for faculty, staff, and students, and to recommend one or more options going forward that will meet the needs of the various UMS institutions.

SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES

The specific deliverables of this evaluation were:

1. Develop a set of needs and requirements for a portal solution based on input from students, faculty and staff at the University of Maine System

2. Identify a set of proposed portal solutions (to include consideration of proprietary, custom and open source applications) that could meet the needs of the University of Maine System

3. Carry out a comparative analysis of these portal solutions, based on a common set of measurement factors

4. Recommend one or more portal solutions that will best meet the needs of the University of Maine System

5. Evaluate the extent to which the skill sets and the staffing levels of the UMS IT personnel are adequate to provide development and ongoing support of the chosen portal solution.

6. Produce a final written report of methodology, findings, and recommendations

7. Make an oral presentation of the report findings and recommendations

8. Develop a PowerPoint presentation of results for internal communication purposes

9

PORTAL BASICS

One of the most difficult questions facing any enterprise is where to invest limited information technology resources for the maximum benefit. Add the current market conditions of decreased budgets with no decrease in technology requests and performance expectations and the difficulty exponentially increases placing IT executives in an impossible position having to turn down project requests from customers while simultaneously having to promote the value of IT.

IT project Investment decisions can be distilled into two overriding considerations:

1. The value of the investments’ intended outcomes in terms that matter to the institution: its mission, its customers, its constituencies, etc.

2. The probability of success and the elements of risk associated with ensuring that an investment delivers as promised

This report presents the results of comprehensive polling, interviews and assessment of the broader University of Main System identifying the desires and needs of the users of the current and future technology. This report also presents various options and directions UMS can pursue to satisfy the articulated needs and the associated costs, benefits and risks. Collegiate Project Services will start out by first presenting our view and purpose of a portal and proceed from that point to lay out our analysis.

WHAT IS A PORTAL?

There are multiple answers to this question, but most would agree that enterprise portals create a common gateway to the data and services that the people throughout a school or system need to effectively share information, deliver constituent services more efficiently and work together on projects.

From a more technical perspective, an enterprise portal is a web technology that presents an integration and/or presentation platform using standards-based portlet specifications, web services, and diverse, accessible presentation technologies. For campus developers and information providers, the portal affords a standards-based means to aggregate information and to offer applications and information to end users via a variety of platforms including mobile. For end users, the portal is an integration platform that securely provides a central point for accessing, personalizing and configuring information and applications that are appropriate to their role(s) in the university.

Portals can be built on technologies already present on campus such as a content management system or database system. Or the school may acquire technologies built specifically as an enterprise portal environment. Most Higher Education portals should be able to deliver basic functionality out-of-the-box, especially if the portal is integrated with the schools’ student

10

information systems or other enterprise systems. Examples of basic functionality are:

• Record and share grades with students electronically

• Create online communities for students, faculty, administrators, and alumni to collaborate

• Facilitate sharing of best practices among faculty and administrators

• Enable students, faculty, administrators, and alumni to access your institution’s resources anytime from any connected device

• Post lesson plans, coursework, research content, and more to online document libraries

• Provide Web-based class registration, tuition and financial aid payments, and other services

• Create dashboards that show up-to-date student performance data to inform instruction and decisions

• Share information with your board of directors and community members

POPULARITY OF PORTALS

Portals have become popular among higher education institutions for various reasons. Many institutions believe that the technology will provide the impression that they’re on the cutting edge and offer the best service. Schools also perceive a portal instrumental in helping employees work more efficiently and be more productive by centralizing access to needed services and information.

However, an enterprise portal offers more than just centralization of data or access. Portals also eliminate the headache of multiple logins to various applications, websites and repositories. Portals provide an easily navigable environment to self-service business processes freeing up employees and reducing lines for service. Portals can create personalized environments letting organization target users for individualized services and information.

Portals appeal to college and university administrators, technologists, faculty, staff, and students alike because they consolidate information and services and allow university constituents secure, quick and convenient access to personal data. To reap the full benefits of portal applications schools develop, they must comprehend and meet users’ satisfaction requirements. That means paying as much attention to users’ feedback as to the technology and vendors selection process.

11

A BRIEF HISTORY OF PORTALS

Since 1995, software vendors have produced prepackaged enterprise portals. These software packages would be toolkits for enterprises to quickly develop and deploy their own customized enterprise portal. The first commercial portal software vendor began to appear in 1998. Pioneers in this marketing included "pure play" vendors like Epicentric and Plumtree Software . The space, however, quickly became crowded by 2002 as both application server vendors (such as, IBM, Oracle Corporation and Sun Microsystems) who saw portals as an opportunity to stave off the commoditization of application server technology as well as Business Intelligence vendors.

Open Source portal options began to enter the market about the same time and have become more popular as communities and feature sets come closer to matching competing product offerings (e.g., uPortal and Liferay portal platforms). Enterprises may choose to develop a single or multiple enterprise portals based on business structure and strategic focus while reusing architectural frameworks, component libraries, or standardized project methodologies.

The most nascent category is that of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). Hosted solutions arrived on the scene as the cost of bandwidth, storage and server hardware decreased. The cost savings passed onto customers comes from consolidation of operational costs shared across many different customers.

In the world of software development, there are two camps that compete for industry dominance. Microsoft leads the .NET platform and Sun Microsystems leads the Java platform.

PORTAL GOALS FOR UMS INSTITUTIONS

It is our understanding that UMS intends to use the portal as a way to provide easy access to information and self-help for all constituencies of each of the institutions within the Maine system through a single platform. The platform, although housed and maintained by System-wide Services, will be configured to provide school-specific branding (look and feel) and content, based on the primary institution associated with a user. In the longer term, the portal is expected to serve as the primary access point for all constituencies for access to web-based information and tools.

BENEFITS OF A PORTAL

Most institutions are facing the same scenario: rising enrollments, lagging state or private funding, increasing IT budget needs, and increased student and administration expectations. Systems and procedures in place for years begin to show their age very quickly when IT try to integrate new systems or stretch existing systems to do things not originally envisioned.

These challenges often lead to discussions about technology, specifically integrated web

12

campus portal technology. Portal technology could make a school more efficient, strengthen connections among multiple locations and allow working students to complete academic and administrative tasks online.

An enterprise portal solution can help UMS institutions to:

• Save time. There is a lot of time saved when a user can activate their own account, reset or retrieve their own password, and readily resolve most account issues using a robust FAQ area, contextual help, and training.

• Increase student engagement. Give students easy ways to connect with their professors and their peers to help get students more engaged in their classes.

• Facilitate anytime, anywhere learning. Provide students with single sign-on access to learning materials and campus resources—from library content to complete online courses—at any time, from virtually anywhere, and from any type of connected device. You’ll create a virtual campus that never closes.

• Make better decisions. Facilitate long-range strategic planning across all business functions and disciplines with accurate, readily-available data presented in intuitive and familiar formats.

• Let faculty focus on research and instruction. Make it easier for faculty to find instructional resources; assess students; record and track grades; and communicate with their colleagues and students, thus allowing more time and energy to focus on important research and to facilitate meaningful learning experiences that meet the unique needs of individual students.

• Streamline administrative tasks. Make it easy for students to register for classes, access financial aid information, pay their tuition, sign-up for lunch programs, report absences, and more from any computer.

• Connect with your community. Reap the benefits of strong connections with alumni and other members of the broader community by providing simple and customized ways to access information and connect with your institution.

13

STRATEGIC ADVANTAGES OF A PORTAL

An enterprise portal can yield substantial savings of time and money and an opportunity for the school to redesign many of its business processes. By performing redesign, substantial savings can be recognized in efficiency savings, cost avoidances as well as measureable increase in constituent satisfaction. Investments to offset returns typically include hardware, software, third party software, maintenance, security, staff time, and training.

The more integrated the approach, the more gained in ROI or value on investment. Integrated environments break down barriers between departments and campuses and encourage staff to become more customer-service focused, process and function driven, and cross-functional. For instance, newly found self-service capabilities in admissions can lead to improving enrollment processes. Because enrollment and student financial services provide a student-centered approach, the portal implementation process can enable a change in process such as using digital imaging to scan, index, and permit easy retrieval and tracking of paper documents for admissions and financial aid decisions.

A portal integrated to a central directory system frees faculty and student centric administrators by ensuring constantly up-to-date rosters, one-click access to accurate student contact info, collaborative tools for communicating with students on their preferred medium, and secure access to previously disparate and dispersed sources of information and applications.

A portal presents a popular front door for tens of thousands of unique visitors each month. The key is to use the portal as the tractor beam and relevant services to build the relationship. With a guest account feature and a little web development ingenuity, you can build an interface that allows potential students to identify themselves and match interests and connect to the existing student recruitment, student mailing list system or student information system, the UMS could see significant increases in early enrollments and provide key strategic data for future decisions. This kind of cross-fertilization of ideas and leveraging integration is where true “return” occurs.

COST SAVINGS AND COST AVOIDANCE EXAMPLES

Below are a few cost savings or cost avoidance examples that are attributed to or enabled by the presence of a portal. Some have already been realized by UMS. Others have not. Also, some of the items listed are not enabled exclusively by a portal. However, each one represents a way to directly affect the level of service an institution delivers to its constituents or a direct cost savings change that portal technology can enhance, deliver and simplify:

14

• Reduced back-office support for basic administrative functions

• Consolidated help desk

• Earlier registration for returning and new students

• Enrollment and retention increases

• Easily accessible and targeted messages for reminders to access online web admissions

• Web recruitment with targeted email plans. Email leads to new accounts, new accounts lead to informed prospective students, which in turn lead to a larger pool of applicants.

• Non-credit student services integrated into the portal

• Faculty class rosters, scheduled, and grade assignments online

• Advising online with what-if scenarios available to students and advisors

• Integrated and more efficient Learning Management System (LMS) support

• Dynamic account generation with single sign-on

• In-house, 24x7 services and consolidated help system

• Course resource areas automatically created and available for every course

• Personal web space dynamically available to support curriculum, web projects and course resource areas

• Intranet with many online services and paperless processes

• Mailing of student schedules and grades no longer needed

• Online handling of financial aid awards and book vouchers through the portal

• Significantly reduced paper mail due to portal, e-mail, and web services

While a portal solution is not a panacea for all higher education campus needs, it can address many of the challenges facing UMS – reduced funding, increased accountability of performance and outcomes, increased expectations for personalized interactions and convenience, and the need to remain competitive. A portal can lead to scalability benefits with easier administration, centralized identity administration, consistent interface, single sign-on access, ease of use, and maximum effectiveness of integrated applications.

15

PORTAL OPTIONS

Each school that has gone down the road of choosing and implementing a campus portal solution has chosen from one of these technology categories:

• Portal Development Partner – Commercial Platform (e.g. SharePoint, WebSphere) In this approach a software company is hired to build a custom portal using a proprietary licensed development platform such as Microsoft SharePoint or IBM’s WebSphere.

• Portal Development Partner – Open Source (e.g. Drupal, Liferay, uPortal) As in above, a software company is hired to build a custom portal, but in this case an open source development platform is used, such as Drupal, Liferay, or uPortal.

• Turnkey 3 COTS Portal (e.g. Oracle, SunGard, PeopleSoft) With a turnkey commercial off-the-shelf approach, a predesigned and built portal geared toward higher education is implemented.

• Turnkey COTS SaaS (e.g. CampusCloud) With commercial software-as- a- service (SaaS) offerings, a predesigned and built portal for higher education is implemented in a hosted environment in the “cloud.”

• Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium (e.g. CampusEAI - Liferay) Consortium delivering, a predesigned and built portal geared toward higher education which can be either campus based or hosted.

Regardless of the path or technology choice a school makes, there are pros and cons, risks and benefits. Each institution/system needs to carefully assess short and long term goals, budget, skill set, ROI measures and total cost of ownership. While not exhaustive, this report combines direct input from a wide variety of vendors in each category and provides the University of Maine System a good cross section of all the factors mentioned above to inform the best technology decision and direction.

3 We define a “turnkey” portal solution as one which delivers comprehensive functionality and integration capability such that deployment to meet UMS’s requirements is largely a configuration activity, rather than involving significant programming. This is in contrast to portal solutions that are basic frameworks, with integration, branding, security, and other capabilities involving heavy programming efforts.

16

CURRENT PORTAL SITUATION AT UMS

The University of Maine System is currently running two different portal technologies, but at this time neither is positioned to support the entire system to the level end-users are expecting.

The University of Maine at Farmington is in the process of implementing the Liferay community portal (open source software license). Farmington entered into a support agreement with CampusEAI, a web services firm that specializes in deploying Oracle and Liferay portals, to have that firm (1) provide technical support, (2) lock in a certain amount of professional services hours, and (3) gain access to a consortium of schools within the open source community and help them navigate the Liferay open source community environment.

The University of Maine System has also deployed the PeopleSoft portal as the underlying technology for MaineStreet. MaineStreet is a very basic implementation of the Campus Solutions capability (primarily links to administrative applications and information) and could be enhanced dramatically. This would require an upgrade to the most recent version of the software and additional professional services and IT effort to enable the basic capabilities listed in the beginning of this section. Underlying supportive technologies would also have to be added such as single sign-on, multi-campus support, and true application integration to come close to the expectations voiced by UMS users.

Feedback from multiple days of interviews with constituents from every campus indicates the following attitudes from strongest to weakest regarding a system wide portal:

• Portal must make navigating from one resource to the other more efficient and more user friendly

• Portal must allow for campus specific branding and personalization of content and capabilities

• Portal must allow for distributed administration even when centrally hosted

• Portal needs to include more collaborative tools or features to facilitate communication between student, students and advisors, instructors and student, and peer to peer

• Portal must integrate with critical administrative systems to trigger alerts and notifications to relevant users

• Portal should allow for users with multiple campus relationships and multiple roles

• Portal should not require large administrative staff or effort to maintain

• Portal should be able to allow for distributed contribution model

17

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Data for this evaluation came from several sources, including individual interviews, focus group sessions, an online questionnaire, and responses gathered from various portal vendors.

FOCUS GROUP SESSIONS

A total of nine focus group sessions were carried out over a two-week period March 15th- March 26th, 2010. The purpose of these focus group sessions was to quickly gather information from key stakeholders across the system.

There were separate focus group sessions for faculty, students, administrative staff and technical staff, representing all seven institutions. Participants of the focus group sessions were sent pre-work booklets to fill out and bring to the session. Each focus group session followed a structured process and was two hours in duration. The number of sessions and the total number of focus group participants were as follows:

Stakeholder Group No. of Sessions Total Participants4

Faculty 3 14 Students 3 18 Administrative staff 1 32 Technical staff 1 15 SMEs Central office 1 6

TOTAL 9 85

ONLINE SURVEY

The purpose of the online was to reach a broader group of stakeholders than those that participated in the focus group sessions. The survey was launched separately from each institution during the period of March 31 – April 2nd. Survey responses were collected during the period March 31, 2010 to April 5, 2010. The survey was closed on Friday, April 5 at midnight. Total number of participants of the survey was as follows.

Stakeholder Group No. of Participants

Students 614 Faculty 291 Administrative Staff 239 Technical Staff 47

TOTAL 1191

4 These numbers include some stakeholders who participated remotely through Polycom connections.

18

VENDOR DATA COLLECTION

An important part of our data collection for this project was direct contact with a large number of portal providers and portal implementers.

Thirty-five organizations with experience in developing portal solutions for higher education were identified, contacted, and asked if they would participate in providing estimates for licensing costs, implementation costs, implementation timelines, staffing estimates, skill set estimates, and other information of relevance to the UMS portal project.

A quotation statement of work (QSOW) and accompanying spreadsheet were prepared that defined at a high level the anticipated functionality and provisioning of how a portal system would be deployed for the system. Given the QSOW, participants were asked to draw upon their experiences from similar past portal implementations to provide rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimates of what they felt would be necessary in terms of time, skills, and budget to deliver the portal solution outlined in the QSOW. This document is attached as Appendix A.

To ensure a consistent response for all data elements, organizations were requested to provide their responses in the spreadsheet that accompanied the QSOW, which is shown in Appendix B.

VENDOR PARTICIPATION

Of the 35 organizations that were invited to participate, a total of 15 firms responded and willingly provided information for the University of Maine System’s benefit. This represented a 43 percent participation rate from our vendor set.

Collegiate Project Services and UMS are extremely grateful to those organizations who took the time and effort in providing helpful insight, guidance, and costing estimates for the study. A list of these contributors is shown in Appendix C.

19

RESULTS OF USER NEEDS ANALYSES

An important goal for this project was to assess student, faculty and staff needs for portal functionality. In particular, UMS was interested in the features that would enhance student interaction and improve overall satisfaction with university academic and administrative services.

We present below the highlights of user needs and preferences regarding portal capabilities from the online survey. We present these data separately for Students, Faculty, and Administrative staff.

STUDENT RESULTS

Students were asked for the degree of interest in the following possible portal channels. The response format ranged from “Not Interested,” “Nice to Have,” and “Must Have.” The results are shown in the table below:

Channels Not Interested Nice to Have Must Have Student Grades 14 3% 58 11% 467 87% My Account 16 3% 83 15% 437 82% Student Work-Study 168 32% 201 38% 161 30% Student Financial Aid 47 9% 93 17% 395 74% Your Advisor 58 11% 224 42% 256 48% Your Classes 13 2% 46 9% 479 89% Path to graduation/counseling 43 8% 182 34% 310 58%

Students were also asked what applications and features they would be interested in having. Their responses are shown below.

Applications/Features Not

InterestedNice to Have

Must Have

Web-based email (email search capability; director search) 104 19% 165 31% 266 50%

Web-based calendaring (course; personal) 133 25% 251 47% 152 28%

Targeted announcements (personal, campus) 102 19% 69 50% 165 31%

Course (access to info, materials, message boards) 36 7% 11 22% 384 72%

Group (file sharing, group chat, group rosters) 191 36% 230 43% 113 21%

20

ADDITIONAL STUDENT NEEDS AND PREFERENCES

The online survey for students also contained a number of open-ended questions. The responses to these questions were content coded and rank ordered by the frequency with which they were cited. The results of these student responses are presented in Appendix D.

Some of the highlights of the student responses shown in this appendix are:

• Academic channels students would like to see in a portal are references and resources, library and databases, class schedules and course descriptions, information about academic programs, and access to various news outlets

• Student services channels students would like to see include campus services, email and other communication tools, access to financial aid information and advice, easy access to library and references, and a variety of vehicles for advising and degree audits.

• Weaknesses that students see in MaineStreet are that it is not user friendly, difficult to navigate, needs consolidation and a single sign on, a layout that is not intuitive, and the lack of accurate and updated content.5

• Entertainment channels students would like to see include a number of news, sports, and weather outlets; videos, TV, and movies (Netflix, Bravo, Comedy Central, History channel, etc.): social networks (Facebook, MySpace; Twitter); music; and information about campus and civic events.

Specific responses to the following list of topics are shown in detail in Appendix D.

1. Best qualities of the existing portal 2. Weaknesses of the existing portal 3. Five most important services you would like to see consolidated in a portal 4. Top five entertainment sites you would like to see in the portal 5. Top five top student services sites you would like to see in the portal 6. Top five social group sites you would like to see in the portal 7. Top five academic sites you would like to see in the portal

5 It is important to note that many of the portal weaknesses that were cited by stakeholders (e.g., outdated information) are not necessarily portal related.

21

FACULTY RESULTS

Faculty members were asked for the degree of interest in the following possible portal channels. The response format ranged from “Not Interested,” “Nice to Have,” and “Must Have.” The results are shown in the table below:

Channels Not Interested Nice to Have Must Have Faculty schedule 97 40% 77 32% 69 28%

Advisor dashboard 84 36% 63 27% 88 37%

Faculty dashboard 82 35% 85 37% 64 28%

Faculty grade assignment 78 33% 62 26% 97 41%

My account 59 26% 79 34% 93 40%

Benefits 58 25% 111 47% 66 28%

Workflow/work list 139 62% 67 30% 20 9%

My reports (access to BI tools) 132 57% 65 28% 33 14%

Faculty were also asked what applications and features they would be interested in having. Their responses are shown below.

Applications/Features Not

InterestedNice to Have

Must Have



Targeted announcements (personal; campus) 73 30% 106 44% 61 25%

Course (access to info, materials, message boards) 41 17% 62 26% 137 57%


Real time communications with students 100 41% 79 33% 62 26%

Simplified course management tools 78 33% 83 35% 77 32%

Instant access to information for advising students 45 19% 52 21% 146 60%

Easily accessible information for every facet of job 60 26% 89 38% 85 36%

Access to human resources related services 63 27% 121 51% 53 22%

22

ADDITIONAL FACULTY NEEDS AND PREFERENCES

The online survey for faculty also contained a number of open-ended questions. The responses to these questions were content coded and rank ordered by the frequency with which they were cited. The results of these faculty responses are presented in Appendix E.

Some of the highlights of the faculty responses shown in this appendix are:

• Weaknesses of MaineStreet as cited by faulty include difficulty in navigating, not user friendly, unattractive and confusing layout, needs consolidation and one login, and the fact that it runs extremely slow at times and users are “timed out” repeatedly.6

• Student services channels that faculty would like to see in a portal are better access to course and registration information, better advising and degree audit capabilities, easy access to grades, GPA, and academic history; a variety of campus services, and clearer paths to student aid, scholarship, and financial aid opportunities.

• Entertainment channels that faculty would like to see include news (e.g., Bangor Daily News, BBC, CNN, Chronicle of Higher Education), videos (documentary films, C-Span, discipline-related YouTube channels, Folkstreams), music (Radio France, Radio Canada, UMaine Radio, iTunes, international music), and social networks.

Specific responses to the following list of topics are shown in detail in Appendix E.

1. Best qualities of the existing portal 2. Weaknesses of the existing portal 3. Five most important services you would like to see consolidated in a portal 4. Top five applications you would like to access in a portal 5. Top five entertainment sites you would like to see 6. Top five student services sites you would like to see 7. Top five information sites you would like to see


23

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF RESULTS

Administrative staff members were asked for the degree of interest in the following possible portal channels. The response format ranged from “Not Interested,” “Nice to Have,” and “Must Have.” The results are shown in the table below:

Channels Not Interested Nice to Have Must Have Emergency alert system 18 9% 83 41% 101 50%

Link to ERP self service capabilities 36 20% 80 45% 63 35%

Requisitions and purchase orders 63 32% 80 40% 55 28%

Web site administrative utilities 40 21% 94 49% 59 31%

Advisor/counseling dashboard 69 36% 70 36% 54 28%

Calendar of events 19 9% 81 40% 102 50%

Organization charts 45 22% 112 56% 44 22%

Tutorials 36 18% 109 55% 53 27%

Administrative staff members were also asked what applications and features they would be interested in having. Their responses are shown below.

Applications/Features Not Interested

Nice to Have

Must Have



Targeted announcements (personal; campus) 22 11% 90 45% 90 45%


Administrative (access to HR, Finance, FA, Advancement) 17 9% 44 22% 137 69%

ADDITIONAL STAFF NEEDS AND PREFERENCES

The online survey for administrative staff also contained a number of open-ended questions. The responses to these questions were content coded and rank ordered by the frequency with which they were cited. The results of these staff responses are presented in Appendix F.

Some of the highlights of the administrative staff responses shown in this appendix are:

24

• Important services administrative staff would like to see in a portal include self-service access to a variety of personal information, easy access to student information, ability to look up classes and see details such as course description, professor, class size, location, time and dates.

• Administrative staff also desire access to enrollment planning tools, better wish list data for registration planning, courses listed in alphabetical order, a staff directory with all contact information (easy to sort), and a directory of resources and organizational charts.

• As seen by administrative staff, the weaknesses of MaineStreet are that it is difficult to navigate, it’s not user friendly, must have a single sign on, it is poorly designed from a layout standpoint, drab, and has outdated information.7

Specific responses to the following topics are shown in detail in Appendix F.

1. Best qualities of the existing portal 2. Shortcomings of the existing portal 3. Five most important services you would like to see consolidated in a portal 4. Top five applications you would like to access in a portal 5. Top five entertainment sites you would like to see 6. Top five student services sites you would like to see 7. Top five information sites you would like to see

TECHNICAL STAFF RESULTS

All of the online survey items for the technical staff were open-ended questions. The responses to these questions were content coded and rank ordered by the frequency with which they were cited. The results of these IT staff responses are presented in Appendix G.

Some of the highlights of the IT Staff responses shown in this appendix are:

• The major benefits of having a portal are seen as one-stop “shopping” for information, an improved online experience, and better communication

• Major concerns IT staff have about acquiring and implementing a portal are cost, getting the right product, ability to effectively implement, and staffing issues

• The IT staff sees that the weaknesses of MaineStreet are the lack of a single sign on, not user friendly, difficult to navigate, slow at times, poor aesthetic design, and not “branded” uniquely for each institution, reducing its value as a marketing and retention tool


25

• The services IT staff would like to see in a new portal are self-service access to information in a single place, email and communication tools for collaboration, accurate and updated information for parents, prospective students, and applicants, and a source for announcements and news, and calendaring capabilities.

Specific responses to the following list of topics are shown in detail in Appendix G.

1. Best qualities of the existing portal 2. Shortcomings of the existing portal 3. Important services IT staff would like to see in a new portal 4. Benefits of having a portal 5. Concerns about acquiring and implementing a portal 6. Questions the IT staff want answered before implementing a portal 7. Top five applications the IT staff want integrated in the portal today if it were in place 8. Portals IT staff members have implemented in the past 9. CMS’ the IT staff will likely use 10. Search engines the IT staff will likely use 11. IT staff’s ability and budget to send necessary staff to training 12. Should the IT staff integrate the portal with an LDAP server 13. Does the IT staff want to integrate the portal with a central ID Mgt server 14. How the IT staff plans to achieve single sign on 15. How the IT staff will ensure privacy

ANALYSIS OF IT SKILL SETS AND IT STAFFING

One of the goals of this project is to determine the technical proficiency and the capacity for the IT staffs to implement a new portal and support ongoing maintenance of the portal. The chart on the next few pages show staffing recommendations and technical skills required for each of the five different portal solutions. The last column of the chart indicates the staffing gap that must be filled in order to support and maintain a new portal, both at UMS and the individual institutions. SEE CHART ON NEXT PAGE

26

Portal Category Option

Staffing Recommendations Skills Required UMS Resources Gap

1 Product Development Partner: Commercial Platform

During Implementation

• Project Internal Owner • SMEs • Steering Committee • Network Admin • Website Mgr • Future System Admin/Users

On-going

• SMEs • Steering Committee • System Admin • Website/Portal Content Mgr • System Admin/Users • Java Developers

During Implementation • DBA • Network Admin • System Admin • Web Development On-going • DBA • System Administrator • Single Sign-on/Authentication • Java or .NET development • XML

System Wide• 1 DBA • 1 System admin • 1 Web developer • 1 Integration Specialist/Analyst • 2 Java or .net developers

Per Campus (larger campuses) • .25 System admin • .25 Web developer • .5-1 Java or .net developers

2 Product Development Partner: Open source

During Implementation• Project Internal Owner • SMEs • Steering Committee • Network Admin • Website/Portal Mgr • Future System Admin/Users • Developers On-going • SMEs • Steering Committee • Network Admin • Website/Portal Mgr • System Admin/Users • Developers

• DBA • Network Administration • JAVA Web Development • Single Sign-on/Authentication • XML



27



3 Turnkey COTS Portal

During Implementation• Project Internal Owner • Steering Committee • Network Admin from each

campus • Website/Portal Mgr from key

campus locations • Future System Admin/Users

from each campus On-going

• Steering Committee • Network Admin • Website/Portal Mgr from key

campus locations • System Admin/Users from each

campus • Programmer Analyst

• DBA • Network Administration • JAVA Web

Development/PeopleTools • Single Sign-on/Authentication • XML



4 Turnkey COTS SaaS

During Implementation• Project Internal Owner • ERP Admins • Business analysts • Steering Committee Ongoing • ERP Admins • Business analysts • Steering Committee

There would need to be significant effort from current IT and administrative resources to create the hosted instance in preparation for a cut over from MaineStreet to SaaS solution, or from FirstClass to SaaS mail solution; but the biggest effort will be in determining the gaps in functionality if systems on campus are being traded out, the integration of the SIS, other ERP applications, and critical academic and administrative solutions.

System wide• 1 Systems Admin • 1 Network Admin

28



5 Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium

During Implementation

• Project Internal Owner • Steering Committee • Network Admin • Website/Portal Mgr from key

campus locations • Future System Admin/Users • Programmer analyst

On-going

• Steering Committee • Network Admin • Website/Portal Mgr • Programmer analyst

• Business/Technical Analyst

• DBA

• Network Administration

• JAVA/Web Development (min. 2)

• Single Sign-on/Authentication

• XML

• Scripting (Perl, JAVA, PHP)



29

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PORTAL SOLUTIONS

As pointed out earlier in this report, the Collegiate Project Services team has identified five viable categories of portals for UMS consideration. These are:

Portal Development Partner – Commercial Platform (e.g., SharePoint, WebSphere)

Portal Development Partner – Open Source (e.g., Drupal, Liferay, uPortal)

Turnkey COTS Portal (e.g., Oracle, Sungard, PeopleSoft)

Turnkey COTS SaaS (e.g., CampusCloud)

Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium (e.g., CampusEAI – Farmington campus)

COMPARISON FACTORS

In this section of the report we will describe and analyze each of these five portal categories on several factors. These factors are:

1. Description of the option category 2. Rationale for the option 3. Benefits of the option 4. Drawbacks of the option 5. Acquisition costs 6. Maintenance and upgrade costs 7. Implementation costs 8. Implementation timeframe 9. Technical skill sets needed 10. Level of risk 11. Hardware costs 12. Staffing and training costs 13. Total cost of ownership (5 years) 14. ROI factors

Our assessment of these factors for each option will be based on data collected during this project as well as our collective knowledge of portals and portal options.

30

A NOTE ON IMPLEMENTATION PHASES

For purposes of this study vendors were asked to provide estimates of costs to implement numerous portal capabilities and features. These portal capabilities were further broken out into two distinct groupings or phases which could be implemented separately.

The first phase of the portal implementation consisted of core components that UMS deemed to be essential and required. The second phase consisted of capabilities and features that UMS identified as highly desirable. These capabilities and features are described in more detail below.

Phase I (Required Capabilities)

• Single installation with individual campus branding and content

• Single sign-on access to Blackboard, PeopleSoft, Google Apps

• Real-time integration with PeopleSoft to do the Following:

- Direct jumps to specific areas, e.g. Student Center, Faculty Center

- Class schedule for students

- Class rosters (with optional student photos) for faculty

• User customizable front page (weather, news feeds, social networking, etc.)

• Unified help application for individual campus content

• Campus specific and UMS searchable directory

• Document repository

• E-mail: Gmail

Phase II (Highly Desirable Capabilities)

• Bookstore: Sequoia

• One Cards - UMaine - Blackboard and USM plus other C-Bord

• Parking, dining, etc.

• Multi-institutional support so that each school can have their own branding, personalized channels and services, and show institutional specific information that can be managed by each school’s system administrator(s).

• Single sign-on and session management

• Centralized LDAP directory server and Web server

• CAS or equivalent authentication

• Robust security framework

• User and group management

31

• System administration tools

• Web-based e-mail and calendar, with handheld calendar sync

• Targeted announcements, message boards and virtual chat rooms

• Automated group portals and course management environments

• Customized campus portals with channelized content

• Ability to customize content, views and layout at institution and end-user levels

• Publish-and-subscribe channel model

• Out of the box content and application channels

• Web 2.0 integration to services like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.

A NOTE ON TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP

The rough order of magnitude TCO was estimated for a five year period using a net present value calculation of 5% for readily identifiable direct costs to implementing the portal system. The direct costs included both recurring and non-recurring costs such as hardware, software licensing & maintenance, professional services, and UMS staffing and training requirements.

A HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF PORTAL OPTIONS

The summary chart on the next few pages provides a high level description of each of the five portal options on the fourteen factors described above.

DETAILED PORTAL CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS

Following the high level portal comparison chart, we present several pages of detailed description of each of the five portal categories.

32

Portal Development Partner – Commercial Platform

Portal Development Partner – Open Source

Turnkey COTS Portal Turnkey COTS SaaS Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium

Option Description

These are portals that are the result of the cumulative effort of a software services company hired to build a custom portal using a proprietary licensed development platform such as Microsoft SharePoint or IBM’s WebSphere.

Portal development partners that build a practice around open source. They can train, install, customize and even provide long term support.

A comprehensive portal application comprised of a proprietary code base created by its vendor. Designed to be installed and configured with minimal programming or customization; the code base is maintained, updated, and enhanced by the vendor.

A SaaS option. The license model is a right-to-use license, or ‘pay-as-you-go’, typically on an annual basis, and the application is hosted by the vendor in a single shared instance on common, shared hardware.

Has most of the characteristics of a traditional open source solution except that the institution becomes a member of a community to share development and to obtain a services agreement with the consortium.

Rationale UMS needs are not overly complex and are within the capabilities of this technology. Handles individual branding and user management within a central instance. Takes fewer resources.

This is a viable option for UMS due to the presence of an open source instance at the Farmington campus, indicating an openness to community development.

Turnkey COTS solutions tend to be the most mature, stable, full-featured, and flexible.

This model typically represents a cost/control tradeoff; customers accept as-is functionality and the risk of shared database and infrastructure in exchange for shared costs.

This model allows schools to reduce the risk associated with choosing and deploying open source software. Further, UMS has an existing relationship with the CampusEAI consortium.

Benefits • Customized made-to-order solution

• Based on stable and proven software platforms

• Impact to current projects and resources can be minimized

• Customized, made to order solution

• UMS “owns” the code


• Development partner firms available to help

• Mature products • Full featured • Large installed base • Code base

maintained and updated by vendor

• High level of security • Already integrated to

ERP and other applications

• Full featured • Code base

maintained and updated by vendor

• Application lifecycle management performed by vendor

• Infrastructure is state of the art

• Less expensive than COTS, COTS SaaS, and traditional development

• Less risky that the traditional open source model

• Eliminates license fee costs

• UMS history with this model

33




Drawbacks • Longer implementations

• Expensive due to professional services

• No single company to turn to if problems

• Updates expensive

• Longer implementations

• Expensive implementations

• Must be maintained by the school

• No single firm to turn to if problems

• Costly and high TCO • Management effort

required by customer

• Reliant on vendor timeline and priorities for features and capabilities

• Infrastructure model carries risk and cost

• Heavy external network traffic

• High license cost • Extremely small

installed base

• Feature set not as rich as COTS portals

• Ability of consortium to keep up with technology lags

• Consortia can “lock” schools into substantial services

Acquisition Costs

$61K – $108K $3K - $15K $400K - $462K N/A N/A

Maintenance, Upgrade costs

$24K - $42K $58K - $102K $59K – $70K $2.1 Million $65K

Implem. Costs Phase 1 Phase 2

$453K – $519K $377K – $430K

$127K – $150K $241K – $283K

$69K – $148K $93K – $141K

N/A N/A

Implement Timeline

12 - 18 Months 10-12 Months 10 Months 6 Months 8 - 12 Months

IT Skill Sets • DBA • Network admin • Web developer • Single sign on/Auth • Java or .net

developers (less than five system wide

• XML

• DBA • Network Admin • Single Sign-on/Auth • XML • Java or .NET

developers (less than 5 system wide)

• DBA • Network Admin • Single Sign-on/Auth • XML • Java or .NET

developers (less than 5 system wide)

N/A • Business/Technical Analyst

• DBA • Network

Administration • JAVA/Web

Development (min. 2)


• XML • Scripting (Perl, JAVA,

PHP)

Level of Risk Medium Medium Low High Low to Medium

Hardware Costs

$75K - $100K $75K - $100K $75K - $100K N/A $75K - $100K

34




Staffing Costs

$418K - $654K $406K - $635K $384K - $599K $129K - $196K $405K - $639K

TCO – 5 yrs Phase 1 Phases 1 and 2

$3.2 M - $4.8M

$3.6M - $5.3M

$2.9M - $4.6M

$3.2M - $4.9M

$3.2M - $4.6M

$3.3M - $4.8M

$13.3M - $13.7M $3.0M - $4.4M

ROI Factors Since this is a custom solution, the portal could include any feature that would produce substantive and strategic ROI

Since this is a custom solution, the portal could include any feature that would produce substantive and strategic ROI.

Built-in supported capability to integrate the portal with the main ERP. These portal solutions deliver on reducing administrative overhead.

Eliminates the need for hardware. Reduction of staff required, resulting in cost savings. However, high TCO makes break even on ROI very difficult.

If costs are managed, quicker ROI can be calculated on development cost and software licensing savings

35

PORTAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNER – COMMERCIAL PLATFORM

Description: This category references portals that are the result of the cumulative effort of a software services company hired to build a custom portal using a proprietary licensed development platform such as Microsoft SharePoint or IBM’s WebSphere. The solutions generally fall into two technology camps, .NET or JAVA. Organizations rarely support both and make a decision to support one direction or the other. The portal technology choice can impact technology choices for other enterprise systems because of this. Once skill sets in one technology are developed and matured, technology choices for future systems leverage the organizations experience and expertise.

This approach has advantages in that the portal can be heavily customized to meet the needs of the customer. The process requires close attention to a discovery and requirements gathering process to ensure that what is built meets the needs of end users. There are many companies that have developed portal expertise and web/portal development practices ranging from offshore firms to the large consulting firms. The capabilities are typically limited to the platform so articulation of needed functionality, skill set represented in the organization, and ability to maintain the delivered solution upfront is absolutely essential. These types of projects tend to match the budget, so clear communication and process controls need to be in place to ensure that the project does not over run the budget or exceed the projected development timelines. This option typically takes longer to implement, but the result is a made-to-order solution. As the development engine is commercial, there are typically up front licensing fees and ongoing maintenance costs.

Rationale:

Portal Development Partner – Commercial Platform was chosen as a viable category for UMS due to three factors. First, UMS has limited staff with the skill set to build its own portal. This can be remedied with training and new hires, but both add cost in comparison to other portal acquisition options. Development partners would give UMS immediately qualified resources to develop relevant functionality and help the system understand the skill sets that would need to be hired in the future if continued development is in the plan.

Second, the voiced needs and desires CPS captured from UMS constituents indicated a desire for very specific features that could be used as the basis for requirements for new development. Many of the features were not overly complex and within the capabilities of many of the portal/technology platforms.

Third, the system is unique in its geographic distribution and campus need for individual branding and user management within a central instance. A custom solution would be a way to ensure UMS meets all primary goals and needs from a portal solution.

36

Benefits:

• Customized made-to-order Solution

• Solutions are typically based on stable and proven software platforms


• Professional Services firm brings with it experienced and skilled resources

Drawbacks:

• Implementations are often longer than other portal options

• Often more expensive due to professional service costs

• Requirements driven process can lead to scope outside of business need

• Technology licenses often do not match higher ed models

• Updates and software issues are expensive

• No single company to turn to if technology does not operate as intended (professional services firm, technology platform company, third-party integrated solutions, hardware company, etc.)

Acquisition Costs: $61,209 - $108,474

Maintenance, Upgrade Costs: $23,901 - $41,688

Implementation Costs: Phase 1: $453,149 - $519,283 Phase 2: $376,903 - $429,549

Implementation timeframe: 12 - 18 months

System Resources Required:

Typical team consists of:

Provided by professional services firm

• Project Lead/Consultant

• Project manager

• 2-3 key .NET or JAVA developers

• Business Analyst

• Database expert (DBA)

• Security Expert

• Web Designer

• Trainers

37

Provided by School/Client

• Project Internal Owner

• SMEs

• Steering Committee

• Network Admin

• Website Mgr

• Future System Admin/Users

IT Skills Needed:

• DBA


• Web Development


• Java or .NET development

• XML

Level of Risk:

Overall, this option carries a MEDIUM risk rating due to the cost, length of implementation, correct requirements identification, and long term viability of the solution.

Total Cost of Ownership 5 years: Phase 1: $3,205,729 - $4,832,788 Phases 1 & 2: $3,602,469 - $5,284,944

TCO was estimated for a five year period using a net present value calculation of 5% for readily identifiable direct costs to implementing the portal system. The direct costs included both recurring and non-recurring costs such as hardware, software licensing & maintenance, professional services, and UMS staffing and training requirements.

ROI Factors:

Because this option results in a custom solution, the resulting portal could address or include any feature that would produce substantive and strategic ROI. In other words, if the current initiatives of UMS are to drive up enrollment and retention numbers, and increase distance education course offerings, then the portal solution could be built to include features that interact with the student Information system, recruiting software and include tight integration with curriculum management and learning management systems in order to directly address those issues. The ROI risk is whether the developed solution delivers the intended results and justifies the cost of development. The ROI risk decreases relative to the cost of development and effectiveness of technology performance.

38

PORTAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNER – OPEN SOURCE

Description:

Portal Development Partner – Open Source category is very similar to the category above with one major difference – the platform upon which the portal solution is built is software that is available in source code form for which the source code and certain other rights normally reserved for copyright holders are provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software at no cost.

Most often, open source software is available within the public domain. Open source software is often developed in a public, collaborative manner. Two of the most popular open source portals in higher education are uPortal and Liferay. These portal options and a few others have built respective communities around their solutions that continue to improve and support the products. All leading solutions also have affiliate partners or vendors that have built a practice around the open source product. As a result UMS will be able to find multiple credible and capable companies that can help train, install, customize and even provide long term support.

Organizations are drawn to the open source route not only because of the absence of license fees but also because of the collaborative development process of open source initiatives. A number of open source portal projects are active today that provide different levels of features and functionality. When evaluating open source portal software, companies should pay attention to the support and customization requirements necessary to meet their needs, as well as the strength of the community resources that are available to draw upon.

The development challenges of the commercial platform option above are the same if not harder because of the young code base. The cost of the platform is free and does not require any annual maintenance fees. However, most of the cost of the project is the cost of labor. Open source portals are mature enough to deliver an impressive set of features. Some of the more complex requirements such as multi-institutional support from a single instance may be difficult to build

Rationale:

Portal Development Partner – Open Source Platform was chosen as a viable category for UMS due the wealth of viable open source portal options that have hundreds of referenceable higher education implementations. Additionally, one of the UMS campus locations, Farmington, has already investigated Liferay, the leading open source portal technology, as a viable alternative to their current eCampus portal. The challenge presented with most options presented in this report is that UMS has a skill-set/resource gap in some of the more prevalent portal development languages. Finding a development partner or a consortium would be needed in order to mitigate the risk of a development project for a portal. The Liferay open source platform delivers collaborative features sought after by UMS end users. Features like this will minimize customization requirements later. With an experienced development

39

partner, UMS could realize the benefits of an open source solution while still tapping into veteran deployment skill sets.

As pointed out above, UMS has limited staff with the skills required to build its own portal. This can be remedied with training and new hires, but both add cost compared to other portal acquisition options. Development partners would give UMS immediately qualified resources to develop relevant functionality and help the system understand the skill sets that would need to be hired in the future if continued development is in the plan.

A development partner option was also included to address the voiced needs and desires CPS captured in focus groups. UMS constituents indicated a desire for very specific features that could be used as the basis for requirements for new development. Many of the features were not overly complex and within the capabilities of many of the portal/technology platforms.

Benefits:

• Customized made-to-order solution based on open source technology

• Certain Open Source portal platforms have proven to be stable and successful software platforms


• Development partner firm brings with it experienced and skilled resources

• Participate in collaborative open source environment as skill sets improve

Drawbacks:

• Customized implementations are often longer than other portal options

• Custom implementations are typically more expensive due to professional service costs

• Requirements driven process can lead to scope outside of business need

• Open Source solutions, while they have proven to be stable and adequate, lag a bit in innovation and in some cases have found it hard to avoid being replaced by newer approaches and technologies

• Customized implementations carry the burden of having to be maintained by the school rather than a software company

• No single company to turn to if technology does not operate as intended (professional services firm, technology platform company, third-party integrated solutions, hardware company, etc.)




40

Implementation timeframe: 10 – 12 months



Provided by professional services firm

• Project Lead/Consultant

• Project manager

• 2-3 key JAVA developers

• Business Analyst

• Database expert (DBA)

• Security Expert

• Web Designer

• Trainers



• SMEs


• Network Admin

• Website/Portal Mgr

• Future System Admin/Users

IT Skills Needed:

• DBA


• JAVA Web Development


• XML

Level of Risk:

Overall, this option carries a MEDIUM risk rating due to the variability and speed of open source development, length of implementation, correct requirements identification, and long term viability of the solution.

Total Cost of Ownership 5 years: Phase 1: $2,931,146 - $4,588,330 Phases 1 and 2: $3,184,847 - $4,886,721

41

TCO was estimated for a five year period using a net present value calculation of 5% for readily identifiable direct costs to implementing the portal system. The direct costs included both recurring and non-recurring costs such as hardware, software licensing & maintenance, professional services, and UMS staffing and training requirements

ROI Factors:

ROI factors are similar to the customized commercial platform discussed above. Because this option results in a custom solution, the resulting portal could address or include any feature that would produce substantive and strategic ROI. In other words, if the current initiatives of UMS are to drive up enrollment and retention numbers, and increase distance education course offerings, then the portal solution could be built to include features that interact with the student Information system and recruiting software, and include tight integration with curriculum management and learning management systems in order to directly address those issues. The ROI risk is whether the developed solution delivers the intended results and justifies the cost of development. The ROI risk decreases relative to the cost of development and effectiveness of technology performance.

In addition, the Open Source factor increases ROI by eliminating cost, becoming part of a community to share and benefit from co-development efforts. There are very active and impressive open source developments in the portal area specifically that should give UMS comfort in heading down this path. As additional portal or portlet integrations are made to key administrative systems by UMS or open source community partners, these benefit the entire community.

The danger to ROI benefits that differ from commercial or COTS options is to consider the likelihood that the open source platforms could fail to keep up with technology advances due to limited R & D investment.

42

TURNKEY COTS PORTAL

Description:

The Turnkey Commercial Off-the-Shelf Portal category describes a comprehensive portal application comprised of a proprietary code base created by its vendor typically procured on a full-use/annual maintenance license model. A turnkey COTS portal is designed to be installed and configured with minimal programming or customization; the code base is maintained, updated, and enhanced by the vendor. Each customer implements and manages its own instance of the application.

Most major ERP software offerings include an integrated portal. In fact, UMS is currently running the PeopleSoft Self-Service portal (MaineStreet), albeit a scaled down, older version of the portal, to tee-up the self-service functions available in the PeopleSoft HR, Financials, and Student (Campus Solutions) systems. CPS received a response from SunGard detailing their Luminis portal, which was originally built to integrate with SunGard Banner customers, but is now ERP agnostic.

Turnkey COTS portals are comparative in price to moderate custom portal builds, but they require an annual maintenance fee to receive upgrades and support. These types of portals tend to have many unique and powerful features with an eye towards integration. Commercial vendors often rely on other technologies to deliver a full-featured solution so integration infrastructures are key. This approach results in a plus for the customer as ROI value and constituent happiness depend on access to many different point solutions running on campus. This category of portals is the only one that offers powerful multi-campus capabilities built-in allowing the school to not only brand the portal differently for users logging in from each campus, but data and access security separation runs deep throughout the portal functionality. This sophisticated capability would be very expensive to build in either a SaaS or development portal option.

Rationale:

UMS requires multi-institutional capabilities in order to meet the individual campus and end-user needs. Also PeopleSoft is already running centrally. Users are comfortable with the technology, and some skills sets to manage and maintain PeopleSoft are already in place. Essentially PeopleSoft is the incumbent that will only look better if the portal is upgraded and features are turned on. Other COTS options in the industry should not be ignored. Most COTS options are mature and feature rich. There are obvious and hidden gems in these solutions that should be carefully assessed before discounting their non-PeopleSoft status.

This is the traditional software model, and as such the products in this category tend to be the most mature, stable, and full-featured, and flexible. They also tend to have the highest total cost of ownership due to the license, implementation, and internal management models.

43

Benefits:

• Mature, market-proven products • Full featured • Large installed base • Code base maintained and updated by vendor • High level of security • Already integrated to ERP and other applications

Drawbacks:

• Costly • Could require an RFP process to acquire if incumbent Is not selected • Reliant on vendor timeline and priorities for foundation feature set and capabilities • Management effort required by customer




Implementation timeframe: 10 months



Provided by vendor

• Project manager (not in all cases)

• Functional/Technical Implementation Experts

• Integration Developers

• Trainers




• Network Admin from each campus

• Website/Portal Mgr from key campus locations

• Future System Admin/Users from each campus

44

IT Skills Needed:

• DBA


• JAVA Web Development


• XML

Level of Risk:

Low risk due to the mature aspect of the product, reputation of the vendor, large user base to call for references, published roadmaps of features available and proven methodology for implementation

Total Cost of Ownership 5 years: $3,165,988 - $4,656,121 $3,263,455 - $4,804,531

TCO was estimated for a five year period using a net present value calculation of 5% for readily identifiable direct costs to implementing the portal system. The direct costs included both recurring and non-recurring costs such as hardware, software licensing & maintenance, professional services, and UMS staffing and training requirements

ROI Factors:

The ROI with this option is the built-in supported capability to integrate with the main ERP, accessing not only self service functions, but harder to reach core administrative procedures and data/information. The platforms in this category are rich with collaboration capabilities. SunGard’s collaborative offerings (integration to Twitter, Facebook, Blogger, GoogleTools) as well as group and course tools are very impressive and provide a “sticky” aspect to the portal that brings users back and keeps satisfaction high. Likewise, PeopleSoft also has very strong capabilities such as built in communication tools between faculty and students, integration with learning management systems and easy extensibility of the user interface.

This category delivers on the promise all portal solutions make to reduce administrative overhead and busywork with built in password recovery features, Single Sign-on management, database and LDAP directory integration, and user and group permissions and security management features. Integration with multiple vertical vendors and dedicated team to keep the technology moving at a pace equal to the market are a huge plus and ensure the investments upfront are not lost over 5-10 years.

An Additional Analysis

Collegiate Project Services carried out an additional and separate cost analysis of a licensed version of Interfusion Solutions’ CampusCloud portal product, to be included and compared with the other Turnkey COTS portal solutions in this category.

45

For this offering we calculated the total cost of ownership, to include a $3.5M one time up-front costs described in the promotional materials to include licensing, customization, integration, as well as an annual 12% maintenance cost. Additionally, estimated hardware and staffing costs to support the option were also applied to be consistent with similar vendor offerings in the study. The TCO was determined for a five year period using a net present value calculation with a five percent rate of interest as was used for all TCO calculations in the study.

Our results indicated that the best estimate of five-year TCO is in the range of $8.5M and $9.7M. Note that this estimate does not include call center costs or increases in maintenance fees over time.

The remaining COTS portals in this category had a five-year TCO in the range of $3.3M - $4.4M. Since the TCO for CampusCloud was such a dramatic outlier, we dropped this data point from the Turnkey COTS category so as not to distort the typical costs for this portal category.

46

TURNKEY COTS SAAS

Description:

A COTS SaaS solution has most of the characteristics of a traditional COTS solution—proprietary code base, maintained by the vendor, implementation with no programming. The primary differences are that the license model is a right-to-use license, or ‘pay-as-you-go’, typically on an annual basis, and the application is hosted by the vendor in a single shared instance on common, shared hardware.

Rationale:

The COTS SaaS is the traditional software model with a twist. This model typically represents a cost/control tradeoff; customers accept as-is functionality and the risk of shared database and infrastructure in exchange for shared costs. While this category is relatively new and untested, the fervor of “Cloud Computing” solutions hitting the streets and existing vendor relationships with UMS encouraged the inclusion of this category.

Benefits:

• Moderately featured • Code base maintained and updated by vendor • Application lifecycle management performed by vendor • Keeps staffing requirements at status quo or even provides opportunity to reduce • Infrastructure is state-of-the-art

Drawbacks:

• CampusCloud instance of this portal category represents significant risk and cost • Heavy external network traffic will hamper performance • Shared instance and hardware could add risk over which UMS has little control • Extremely small installed base • Very new models in higher education ; no evidence of any large universities that have adopted SaaS

for main administrative systems • Integration capabilities with ERP and third party systems at a deep level is unclear • Smaller point solution integration would be problematic and unclear • High TCO makes break-even point in ROI very difficult

Acquisition Costs: N/A

Maintenance, Upgrade Costs: $2,124,084

Implementation Costs: N/A

Implementation timeframe: 6 months

System Resources Required: N/A

47


Provided by vendor



• Developers

• Integration Developers

• Trainers



• ERP Admins

• Business/technical analysts


IT Skills Needed:

All the major implementation work is the burden of the SaaS vendor. Obviously there would need to be significant effort from current IT and administrative resources to create the hosted instance in preparation for a cut-over from say MaineStreet to SaaS solution, or from FirstClass to SaaS mail solution, but the biggest effort will be in determining the gaps in functionality if systems on campus are being traded out, the integration of the SIS, other ERP applications, and critical academic and administrative solutions.

Level of Risk:

High due to three factors:

1. Model: There is no referenceable case that indicates any SaaS higher education solution is meeting the needs of a large university or university system. Throughput and performance could be a major issue when the portal needs to interact and display functionality of system running at UMS such as showing account balances, grades, course schedule, dispersements, or reports.

2. Integration: It is unclear whether the SaaS vendor will allow for 50-200 channels to be written to integrate with large and small systems on campus and whether the integration will be bi-directional and synchronous. The System is placing a very key purpose of IT effort in the hands of an outside vendor.

3. Viability of the SaaS vendor: The level of effort to move operations from the System and campus locations to a central vendor location and the upfront implementation effort could all be lost if the company does not exist a year from now or even 5 years from now. While there is

48

no guarantee that any company will survive the crazy ups and downs of today’s economy, SaaS vendors should be evaluated through the Dot Com bust lens carefully looking at the viability of the company’s business model and its financial backing.

Total Cost of Ownership 5 years: $13,261,863 - $13,681,346

ROI Factors:

Reassignment or reduction of infrastructure staff burden typically creates cost savings and is a clear advantage as long as the systems and operations the SaaS solution is providing can a) integrate, and b) meet functional and strategic objectives of the system. Also, going to a SaaS solution eliminates the need for hardware and related costs for redundancy and fail-over. CampusCloud’s chosen business model (per user technology fee) off-sets and buries any cost benefit unless UMS passes this cost directly onto users. This is not the only model used for SaaS though we have seen it before for other commercial SaaS offerings.

49

TURNKEY NON-PROFIT CONSORTIUM

Description:

The offered solutions of the category Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium have most of the characteristics of a traditional development open source solution except there is the promise of a community to share development effort and a services agreement with the consortium that entitles the school to a certain amount of services hours. TheFarmington campus is currently under contract with CampusEAI, an organization that facilitated a consortium of schools to develop and maintain higher education portals. The consortium’s solution offerings have grown over time.

This type of arrangement provides an institution with a knowledgeable organization to help it through an implementation of the portal. In the CampusEAI case, the portal technology expertise was first based on the Oracle portal, but for the past year the consortium has been helping schools deploy the Liferay community license. The consortium, in order to ensure sustainability, requires that any school that wants to join the consortium pay a consortium fee which is either presented as just that – a consortium or membership fee – or a multi-year services contract that not only yields membership and access to source code and enhancements, but also a base set of professional service hours. Some consortia offer SaaS (hosting) services, and managed services as well as deployed options, The services agreement for a deployed portal will be based on a minimal set of hours each year, but can vary upward based on the number of integrations or services you want the consortium to perform for you.

The model allows schools to reduce the risk associated with choosing and deploying open source software, to share the cost/burden of deploying software in general, and be part of a group of schools with a shared technology and solutions interest. However research has shown that by comparing feature by feature, integration service to service, support offerings to support offerings, etc., it is clear that for the consortium model to provide value over investment much of the work needs to be performed by the school as well as the consortium, otherwise costs rise to create a 5 year cost of ownership equal to COTS solutions.

Rationale:

UMS already has a relationship with the CampusEAI Consortium via the Farmington campus. The category is a viable method to developing and meeting functional and strategic goals and the incumbent representation of this category, currently in the development process, is a known entity to the UMS. UMS has exhibited the ability to build and maintain solutions internally and assuming the right skill set it represented, able to innovate and meet end-users needs. The solution’s TCO is variable based on how long UMS desires to be part of the consortium. This consideration is tied to the acquisition of JAVA and portal development experience.

50

Benefits:

• Less expensive than the traditional development model

• Less expensive than the COTS SaaS and COTS vendor portal options

• Less risky than the traditional open source model

• Eliminates license fee costs

• Consortia in higher ed tend to work very well together for a common good

• Farmington’s Liferay instance is being deployed using a consortium model; therefore there is a precedence set for the UM system

• Mature consortia have proven good experience with integrating key capabilities and systems

Drawbacks:

• Feature set, while adequate, is not as rich as COTS portals especially in the areas of collaboration, integration, personalization, content management integration, LMS integration and multi-institutional integration

• Consortia have been known to “lock” school into substantial services agreements

• The promised lists of channels/portlets and community collaboration and actuals don’t always match

• Ability of consortium to keep up with technology trends tends to lag.

• Cost advantage can disappear depending on the level of dependence and length of agreement with consortium

• Consortia create two tiers for resolving support issues – consortium development work vs. open source community code.

Acquisition Costs: N/A

Maintenance, Upgrade Costs: $65,000

Implementation Costs: N/A

Implementation timeframe: 8 – 12 months


Varies by deployment and consortium agreement

Provided by consortium



• Integration Developers and or advisors

• Trainers

51




• Network Admin from each campus

• Website/Portal Mgr from key campus locations

• Future System Admin/Users from each campus

IT Skills Needed:

• Business/Technical Analyst

• DBA


• JAVA/Web Development (min. 2)


• XML

• Scripting (Perl, JAVA, PHP)

Level of Risk:

Low to Medium based on placing trust in a consortium rather than a single company, but on the other hand this option defrays the risk of developing a solution as an individual school. Risk diminishes over time as consortium becomes more mature and stable and as UMS independence and experience increases.

Total Cost of Ownership 5 years: $3,022,435 - $4,456,586

TCO was estimated for a five year period using a net present value calculation of 5% for readily identifiable direct costs to implementing the portal system. The direct costs included both recurring and non-recurring costs such as hardware, professional services, and UMS staffing and training requirements

ROI Factors:

If costs are managed, quicker ROI can be calculated on development cost and software license savings. Because there is only basic functionality delivered with the underlying portal platform (Liferay, uPortal, JBoss, JetSpeed, Oracle), any specialized value of addressing business process automation or integrated applications with administrative or business needs would be obtained at an additional cost. The benefit would be having help deploying these features. This option is one of the quickest paths to deployment and therefore could start to make a difference sooner. Lastly, depending on how UMS participated in the consortium and the quality of the consortium, value could be realized quickly from the shared expertise and clearinghouse of shareable components.

53

RECOMMENDATIONS GOING FORWARD

1. Portal Development Partner – Commercial Platform (e.g. SharePoint, WebSphere) 2. Portal Development Partner – Open Source (e.g. Drupal, Liferay, uPortal) 3. Turnkey COTS Portal (e.g. Oracle, SunGard, PeopleSoft) 4. Turnkey COTS SaaS (e.g. CampusCloud) 5. Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium (e.g. CampusEAI - Farmington Campus)

Listed above are the categories of portal offerings CPS strategically aligned to the requirements gathered from both UMS technical and functional users. These categories were chosen and presented because in one way or another they provide a viable methodology for UMS to build or obtain an effective platform that presents new ways to collaborate, more efficient ways to access information and applications, and creates synergies that encourage business process automation and re-architecture.

Each of the five portal categories has its strengths and weaknesses. Each has aspects that are good for UMS to help meet fiscal, academic, or strategic initiatives. Our conclusion is that two options surface as better choices due to multiple factors. Both are represented by incumbent technology already running in the system. Addressing each category one at a time will allow the solutions’ advantages to become apparent, and thus adding to the comparative data presented in an earlier section of this report.

RECOMMENDATION 1: TURNKEY COTS PORTAL (PEOPLESOFT)

There are several solid reasons for USM to implement the PeopleSoft portal.

While some users we interviewed were not enthusiastic about MaineStreet or PeopleSoft, in almost every case the frustrations could be resolved with new but included features coupled with a few custom enhancements. Selecting this option could result in a new system portal in 10 months, and will consume far fewer dollars than is believed to be needed. Further, the PeopleSoft product is full featured compared to some of the other options, it has a large installed base, the code is maintained and updated by the vendor, and it is already integrated to the other ERP suite applications. Further, the ongoing maintenance is already part of current operational budgets.

The PeopleSoft portal product has been deployed at UMS institutions with a basic configuration as the user interface for the MaineStreet applications. Due to the lack of capability in the installed version of the PeopleSoft portal, UMS has limited their implementation and configuration efforts to date on this portal product.

It should be noted that last year, the UMS IT staff conducted extensive research into the then-current capabilities of PeopleSoft Portal and determined at that time that the product’s capabilities were not

54

sufficient to serve as the enterprise portal solution for the system. However, at that time there was no information available on the now-current release of the product (version 9.1); the earliest available information released by Oracle was in October 2009, and the current version was only recently released. There is significantly more capability in the current version than in the installed version; the new product has the functionality to deliver on the requirements identified by the UMS constituents.

The current version of the PeopleSoft Enterprise Portal is 9.1. In combination with the PeopleTools 8.50 release, the PeopleSoft Portal 9.1 release delivers a rich set of Web 2.0 capabilities. Some of the Web 2.0 capabilities delivered with PeopleSoft Portal 9.1 include:

• Wikis (collaborative authoring)

• Feeds and publishing (ATOM,RSS)

• Tagging (social bookmarking)

• Blogs

• Related content services – discussions, tags, and links

• Document sharing and management

• Community calendaring

• Discussion forums

• Action items

• Polling

PeopleSoft Portal 9.1 and PeopleTools 8.50 delivers a new feature called Collaborative Workspaces. These allow groupings of collaborative functions based on institution, department, class, business function, and an organizational unit that the users want. Collaborative workspaces can be established and maintained by users, minimizing administrative impact on the UMS IT staff. Each workspace also carries its own branding, allowing a group-specific look and feel.

Based on estimates from Oracle, the cost of the upgrade and the professional services to enable a full service portal is $200,000. This includes $56K for Phase I implementation services, $84K for Phase II implementation services, and an estimated $60K for upgrade services.

Collegiate Project Services also emphasizes the subtle but critical feature of multi-institutional functionality that PeopleSoft applications and portal supply out-of-the-box. This powerful functionality allows each institution to brand the portal for their users by role. This allows for differentiation of presented look and feel, access to resources, available portal channels or portlets and security. It is understood based on vendor input that PeopleSoft and SunGard are the only solutions that have this feature as part of their basic offerings.

Finally, when we pulled out the data for the PeopleSoft costs separately (as part of the Turnkey COTS portal category), the PeopleSoft application had the lowest TCO of all five portal options. If implemented fully, the advantages of this application compared to the costs would produce a very high ROI.

55

One caution regarding this option is that we don’t know of very many referenceable schools on the newest version of PeopleSoft. CPS’ investigations have resulted in positive feedback on the new version, but there are not many schools that have spent a lot of elapsed time with this version.

RECOMMENDATION 2: TURNKEY NON-PROFIT CONSORTIUM (CAMPUSEAI LIFERAY)

The second category recommendation that delivers the most value to the UMS is the Turnkey Non-Profit Consortium. Collegiate Project Services can strongly endorse this category offering due to the presence of an existing instance, the known quantity of the organization and the technology, the basic delivered functionality, and ease of set up.

The Farmington campus is in the process of deploying an instance of the community license (open source) version of the Liferay portal with the help of CampusEAI. CampusEAI is an organization that consists of a professional services firm supporting various consortia of users who have adopted various technologies for which CampusEAI has developed expertise. CampusEAI has created a consortium to provide support for organizations that prefer to deploy the open source or community version of the portal. LifeRay Inc., the company behind the open source version of the Liferay portal, also offers an enterprise license option that is a fully supported product with associated license and maintenance costs. Not all of the innovations that are created by Liferay Inc. are added to the open source version.

Farmington joined the CampusEAI consortium to leverage their experience and deployment resources. The annual consortium fee for the single campus is $25,000. The quoted consortium fee for the entire system is on $65,000. This fee includes at least the following:

• Real-time integration with PeopleSoft

• Learning Management Systems

• E-mail

• Resource Scheduling

• Bookstore: Amazon

• UMaine Campus Card

• Multi-institutional support

• Single sign-on & session mgmt

• Centralized LDAP directory &Web server

• CAS or equivalent authentication

• Robust security framework

• User and group management

• System administration tools

56

• Web-based e-mail & calendar w/hand held sync

• Targeted announcements, message boards & virtual chat rooms

• Automated group portals and course management environments

• Customized campus portals with channelized content

• Ability to customize content, views & layout at institution and end-user levels

• Publish-and-subscribe channel model

• Out of the box content and application channels

Integration with some ERP services (PeopleSoft) has been completed. Additional custom development could be contracted and still remain under the costs of other solutions. While the CampusEAI solution is built on an open source platform and does not deliver out-of-the-box the level of PeopleSoft module integration represented by the PeopleSoft portal, some of the work needed to bridge the gap has already been investigated by the Farmington IT shop and the effort has been deemed reasonable.

The consortium fee includes services by CampusEAI to integrate the PeopleSoft to the portal (this most likely does not equate to the multiple PeopleSoft channels for each ERP module that would be delivered by Oracle). Experience with both the consortium and the software is in progress due to this Farmington’s membership in the CampusEAI consortium. UMS will still want to investigate CampusEAI’s Liferay portal to be up to the multi-institutional functionality in all aspects listed previously. Not having this feature or function will significantly hamper UMS’s ability to meet individual campus autonomy and personalization requirements.

Additional staff will need to be hired to service and maintain the technology centrally. Additional JAVA developer resources will be needed to contribute enhancements to the consortium; however, Campus EAI can also be engaged for managed services, for hosting and for custom work. Conversely, UMS may not always need CampusEAI or its expertise as the System increases its technical proficiency. UMS will need to determine over time if the value they are receiving from CampusEAI is worth the annual support fee. If over the next few years UMS feels they have developed the right internal skill set and experience interacting with the Liferay open source community, UMS may actually reduce the TCO of this solution by going independent.

A key to getting value from any IT investment is to make sure it is tied into the institution’s business processes for the good of the constituents. Many portals will affect UMS’ ability to reduce administrative tasks by streamlining, automating, or even eliminating steps in your business processes for the good of students, faculty, staff, and other customers. But due to the unique economic conditions, due to the low risk threshold UMS would like to follow, and due to significant investment of time and effort in PeopleSoft solutions and LifeRay, both options would serve the UMS well.

57

THE CHOICE FOR UMS

In selecting one of these two paths, UMS essentially must make a choice between relying on a well regarded commercial product (PeopleSoft) and a well regarded “open source” product (Liferay). Both paths have pros and cons and the good news is that UMS has experience with each. Total Cost of Ownership over time is fairly similar and risk factors equal out.

A NOTE ON GOVERNANCE

CPS has found that the most successful portal implementations have followed similar guidelines. These guidelines may vary slightly by implementation, but they need to be present in some form.

Steering Committee: A steering committee needs to be formed that involves stakeholders from each targeted constituent group and each functional area integrated into the portal. This committee needs to meet every 2-4 weeks initially and no less than 6-8 weeks as the portal is up and running. The committee determines the priority of the channels/portlets that will be developed and deployed and sets the personality, the focus and purpose of the portal. The committee should create a list of “wishes” that they would like to see available in the portal. Many of those wish list items are listed in the appendices as the result of CPS interviews.

The committee must have a chair that is respected and knowledgeable about both functional and technical considerations. The chair must be able to diplomatically drive discussions to a consensus and keep the portal project moving forward on schedule and in alignment with executive initiatives.

Portal Project Owner: This person can also be the Steering Committee chair, but the project owner is better filled by a project manager skill set that focuses well on multiple tracks and priorities. The project owner ensures that the dependencies of both functional and technical efforts are satisfied and steady progress is made. The steering committee chair is able to handle global issues or make others aware that can solve them. The project leader is aware of the day-to-day details of portal development.

Executive Sponsorship : The portal must have executive sponsorship. Not only will the project take multiple months to officially deploy and then continue in maintenance mode, but it will also involve many resources in different capacities and of different types. The campus leadership needs to believe in the portal’s purpose and understand its long-term plan and purpose to help funnel current and future initiatives to interact with the portal, and to ensure the necessary resources are made available.

Campus Involvement/Outreach: Campus portals are successful because they meet school goals and constituent goals at the same time. The more the project involves the campus, the more the community

58

can help ensure the right priorities and functions are present. Stakeholders need to feel that the portal is their project, not a technology project.

Communications Plan: In conjunction with the last item, a well thought out communication plan can help appropriate expectations to be formed. The plan should communicate the portal’s purpose and capabilities. The plan needs to communicate the so-what to all of the constituents so they have a vested interest in the success of the portal. Lastly, the portal communications plan should provide the foundation for the launch of the portal and answer many of the FYI questions that arise with change and new processes.

By putting these important measures in place, UMS can ensure that the portal will be well understood, its plan and purpose will be kept on track, and its short and long-term focus will remain true to the constituents and campus priorities.

59

APPENDICES

A. Quotation Statement of Work Sent to Vendors

B. Costing Spreadsheet Sent to Vendors

C. List of Vendors that Contributed Data for this Project

D. Student Results from Open-Ended Survey Questions

E. Faculty Results from Open-Ended Survey Questions

F. Administrative Staff Results from Open-Ended Survey Questions

G. Technology Staff Results from Open-Ended Survey Questions

60

APPENDIX A: QUOTATION STATEMENT OF WORK SENT TO VENDORS

Quotation Statement of Work (QSOW) Enterprise Portal – Content Management

Background and Purpose of this QSOW

The University Of Maine System (UMS) has retained the services of Collegiate Project Services (CPS) to assess and recommend available portal options for providing a robust front-end and virtual self-service center that offers students, as well as faculty and staff, an easily accessible and navigable entry point to the University of Maine’s ERP (PeopleSoft) and other critical academic and administrative applications that include but are not limited to learning management, library, e-mail, wiki, Web 2.0, etc. UMS intends to move forward with a system-wide portal project this year. It is critical that UMS find a portal technology that meets the high level functional requirements included in this SOW quote request and that it fully understands the costs associated with deploying the technology.

The University of Maine System is a network of seven (7) public universities in Maine each with a distinct mission and regional character. Approximately 34,700 students are enrolled at these institutions. The table below lists each school in the system and the number of faculty/staff along with student headcount and FTE for each campus location. Many of the students and faculty have relationships with more than one campus and receive different services from each. The need for a portal is driven by the need to consolidate costs of deployment, maintenance, and skill-set development. Additionally the state has many remote and geographically dispersed students and faculty, The expectation is that the portal will assist in consolidating the delivery of and access to educational offerings, key information, and essential academic services. Lastly, the University of Maine constituents are hopeful the portal environment will either provide or integrate with community building technologies such as wiki, collaboration and community building technologies to enhance both the classroom and university experience.

UMS will utilize a two phase approach in deploying a portal centrally to be accessed by all schools individually. Phase 1 will consist of core components that UMS deems to be required. After the initial launch, a Phase 2 may follow to target additional content and features.

CPS is in the data collection phase of determining which portal options will meet the requirements of UMS, and based upon preliminary research of your company we would like to include your portal offering in our report to our client. Accordingly, our next step is to request that you provide us a non-binding quotation for the (1) acquisition (licensing), (2) implementation (professional services), and (3) maintenance/upgrade costs for your portal product(s). This QSOW has been created to assist you in the preparation of your quotation. Again, this quotation is non-binding and will only be used for the purposes of creating a budgetary cost estimate. Any binding quotes will be solicited directly by the UMS.

University of Maine System (Numbers are approximate)

Campus Faculty/Staff Headcount FTEUniversity of Maine (UM) 11,818 10,084

University of Maine at Augusta (UMA) 4,977 2,684University of Maine at Farmington (UMF) 2,174 2,105University of Maine at Fort Kent (UMFK) 1,102 779University of Maine at Machias (UMM) 1,023 641University of Maine at Presque Isle (UMPI) 1,455 1,125University of Southern Maine (USM) 10,009 7,269University System Totals 4,579 FT/1,230 PT 20,670 FT/11,888 PT 24,633Source: UMS and National Center for Education Statistics (2008)

61

Our Objectives The objectives of this QSOW request to you is to determine estimates of: 1. Acquisition/licensing costs of your portal solution 2. Cost of professional services that will be needed from your organization to meet the scope of work detailed in

the Project Scope section of this document. 3. Ongoing annual maintenance and upgrade costs of your portal solution. 4. An implementation timeline 5. Skill sets and staffing necessary to support your portal solution 6. Hardware and any 3rd party costs that will be necessary to make your portal solution meet the requirements.

Project Scope

#1 – Acquisition/Licensing Costs (not including hardware): The purpose of this section is to identify “one-time” up-front costs for implementing your portal solution. Please estimate the costs for: • Licensing or other fees for the portal. If the product is open-source with no licensing please so indicate. • Any third party licensing fees needed (compilers, etc.) Please enter your cost estimates on the attached spreadsheet. #2 – Professional Services Costs: The purpose of this section is to identify any costs related to professional services which would include consulting, training, project management, programming, etc. It is further divided into two parts which represent required vs. highly desirable features for the portal. Part A (Phase I): The items below have been identified as “required capabilities and features” for any portal solution adopted by UMS and will be implemented in the first phase of their portal implementation. Please provide an estimate of the cost for these required items. You may break the estimate out by each item or provide a single estimate for all of the items: Required Integration: • Single installation with individual campus branding and content • Single sign-on access to Blackboard, PeopleSoft, Google Apps • Real-time integration with PeopleSoft to do the Following:

- Direct jumps to specific areas, e.g. Student Center, Faculty Center - Class schedule for students - Class rosters (with optional student photos) for faculty

• User customizable front page (weather, news feeds, social networking, etc.) • Unified help application for individual campus content • Campus specific and UMS searchable directory • Document repository • E-mail: Gmail Please answer Yes/No to each integration on the attached spreadsheet. Also, enter your cost estimates on the attached spreadsheet.

Please provide answers to the following items and record them in the attached spreadsheet

62

Part B (Phase II): The items below have been identified as “highly desirable capabilities and features” for any portal solution adopted by UMS and will be implemented after the initial phase. Please provide an estimate of the costs for the items below. Please enter your cost estimates on the attached spreadsheet. If the portal or your organization cannot provide any of the integrations below please so indicate in the appropriate row on the attached spreadsheet: Highly Desirable Integration: • Bookstore: Sequoia • One Cards - UMaine - Blackboard and USM plus other C-Bord • Parking, dining, etc. • Multi-institutional support so that each school can have their own branding, personalized channels and services, and show

institutional specific information that can be managed by each school’s system administrator(s). • Single sign-on and session management • Centralized LDAP directory server and Web server • CAS or equivalent authentication • Robust security framework • User and group management • System administration tools • Web-based e-mail and calendar, with handheld calendar sync • Targeted announcements, message boards and virtual chat rooms • Automated group portals and course management environments • Customized campus portals with channelized content • Ability to customize content, views and layout at institution and end-user levels • Publish-and-subscribe channel model • Out of the box content and application channels • Web 2.0 integration to services like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.

#3 – Maintenance/Upgrade Costs: Recurring annual maintenance costs for software fixes, upgrades, and customer support. This would include 3rd party products that are required, memberships, etc. If maintenance is a percentage of licensing costs, please list that percentage. #4 – Suggested Timeline: With the requirements in #2 above (Part A) as a guideline, please estimate the time to implement your portal solution (in months) for the Phase I implementation, with as many milestones identified as possible. With the requirements of #2 above (Part B) as a guideline, please estimate the time to implement your portal solution (in months) for the Phase II implementation, with as many milestones identified as possible. Example milestones are: I: Project Planning and Initiation II: Design and Prototyping III: Implementation IV: QA/Testing V: Deployment and Post-Implementation Support Please enter your responses on the attached spreadsheet

63

#5 – Suggested Staffing and Skill Sets: Expertise needed to support the portal:

• Skills (E.g. Oracle, J2EE, Java, etc.) • Estimated staff FTE necessary to support portal by skill set..

Enter skills and FTEs on the attached spreadsheet. #6 – Suggested Hardware: Hardware needed to support the portal:

• Server(s) (memory, processor, storage, etc.) • Miscellaneous (storage, security, etc.)

Please Note Thank you for helping the University of Maine in their goal of learning about various portal

options. As part of our final report to UMS, Collegiate Project Services will acknowledge the support that you have provided the UMS. As this is not an official RFI/RFP process (non-binding); we can therefore answer your questions directly. However, please understand that our client is only in the early stages of implementing a portal solution. In addition to the information requested above, we would also be very grateful for any insights and guidance you may be willing to also provide in the following areas:

Constraints with respect to networking, hardware, etc. Security and data protection Additional information that should be included in an RFP A description of any capabilities not listed above that your portal solution provides that would

provide additional distinct advantages for USM.

64

APPENDIX B: COSTING SPREADSHEETS SENT TO VENDORS

66

APPENDIX C: LIST OF VENDORS THAT CONTRIBUTED DATA FOR THIS PROJECT.

Blue Zone Systems Pvt Ltd Niraj Joshi +91 9820140665 [email protected]

http://www.bluezone.co.in

ITWorx Ahmed M. Saeed +202 2 6736025 [email protected]

http://www.itworx.com

S M Macario Software Pvt. Ltd Sudhir Jangir 408-689-2689 [email protected]

http://www.smmacario.com

CampusEAI Consortium Jasreen Kaur 216-589-9626 x349 [email protected]

http://www.campuseai.org

Navayuga Group Swaroop Kuppa 805-823-3965 [email protected]

http://www.navayugagrp.com

Innominds Software Inc. Pavan Madiraja 408-329-1728 [email protected]

http://www.Innominds.com

SunGard Higher Education Jim Brigadier 469-964-3243 [email protected]

http://www.sungardhe.com

BlueTech, LLC (BlueVolt) Josh Blank 503-223-2583 x231 [email protected]

http://www.bluevolt.com

Oracle Paul O'Brien 203-414-2780 [email protected]

http://www.oracle.com

Interfusion Solutions (CampusCloud) Clay Curtsinger 321-299-8073 [email protected]

http://iftsupport.com/campuscloud.html

CIBER Inc. Tom Payne 513-321-4090 [email protected]

http://www.ciber.com

Rosetta Judy A. Thaxton-Borlin 216-896-8920 [email protected]

http://www.rosettamarketing.com

67

Unicon, Inc. David Lipari 480-558-2434 [email protected]

http://www.unicon.net Microsoft Corporation Cynthia Hanna 513-418-1200 [email protected] http://www.microsoft.com

Fishbowl Solutions, Inc. George Sokol 312-961-1530 [email protected]

http://www.fishbowlsolutions.com

Website Information Robert Half Technology 800-793-5533 http://www.roberthalftechnology.com/

68

APPENDIX D: STUDENT RESULTS FROM OPEN-ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS

BEST QUALITIES OF THE EXISTING PORTAL (STUDENTS)

Listed below are the five most frequently cited best qualities of the University of Maine system’s portals by students. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the student survey.

Rank Qualities Sample Comments1 User Friendly Centralizes and indexes a great deal of the content on campus;

attractive; easy to find and use quick links and search bar; easy to maneuver and navigate; clean, organized, and easy to get around; can do everything on one site; straightforward; clearly displayed information.

2 My Account/ Self-Service

Ability to see financial aid and bills; ability to view grades, transcript, class information, and class schedule; ability to see degree progress; course sign-up and wish list feature; update personal information; add money to a MaineCard; employment services.

3 Easy Access Easy access to a lot of information in one place; convenient; accessibility of different portals from the university website; accessibility to student information/my account; have access to almost everything I need related to my enrollment; can access information quickly; easy to sign up for classes; easy access to quick links.

4 Email & Communication Tools

Messaging, posting of course content, having an email system with a viewing window, generating mailing lists, and searching for email addresses by name of student; forums and discussion groups for classes; live chat; conference folders provided for classes, in which faculty and students can contact the whole class; communication between professors and students.

5 Learning Management System

Efficient access to supplemental class information, discussion boards, semester grading, email, and rosters; works well for online assignments and receiving grades; interaction for students and professors enrolled in a course; my professors post everything we need on Blackboard and we can print them off at our own pace; great for online classes; great place to perform all required assignments.

69

WEAKNESSES OF THE EXISTING PORTAL (STUDENTS)

Listed below are the five most frequently cited weaknesses of the University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the student survey.

Rank Weaknesses Sample Comments1 Not User Friendly Not intuitively laid out; complicated and confusing; difficult to

identify where the information you need will be; frustrating to learn and use the system; the help sections are not helpful; terrible menus; it’s far too complicated and unreliable; things are not very clear; some of the phrases used to select sites are misleading; not a clear path to find things easily.

2 Difficult to Navigate Too many clicks to get to one area, complicated to get back to where you just were; when I hit the browser's back button, I have to log back in again; there are too many loading screens and unintuitive paths to get to information; some links don't go directly to desired location; there are too many navigation procedures, that are lengthy, and very time consuming; there is not always a direct easy pathway; the information is too scattered, so there are too many pages to navigate through;

3 Needs Consolidation & One Login

Incorporate all existing portals into one and it would be much easier for students to access their data and communicate with instructors and peers; all the separate portals means multiple usernames and passwords, plus it all seems so fragmented when I need to have several of the portals open simultaneously; it would be nice to have one stop for everything; lack of connection between the many portals; all online university resources should be accessible through a single portal; services are split up between all the different systems, so you have to learn how to use them all; you have to repeatedly put in various passwords to access places at deeper levels;

4 Design The layout is not intuitive; the text is small and difficult to read; the language is unclear; the page design is extremely cluttered and poorly organized; the layout is somewhat confusing; consistency is lacking; frames do not fill out a larger monitor to utilize the entire screen; must scroll down within a frame for information rather than scrolling down in your browser; seems old and out of date.

5 Content Would like to see news, events, and alerts about things happening on campus that people should be aware of; information is often out of date and irrelevant; most department and group websites are not updated; sometimes information on Blackboard and MaineStreet is not accurate; needs more contact information available; search results are often old or irrelevant.

70

IMPORTANT SERVICES STUDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the ten most frequently cited services interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the student survey.

Rank Services Sample Comments1 Courses &

Registration Ability to review and sign up for courses; a way to save classes and print them out; a more flexible and accessible method for searching classes; class scheduling and printer-friendly schedule; course descriptions and information; course catalogue and check sheets; class availability; ease of adding and dropping classes; display required books for each class; evaluation of professors; planning features for future semesters; wish lists; an automatic pre-requisite check; a link to a 4-year class schedule.


A news and events blog; networking with peers and classmates; meeting scheduler; ability to share folders and schedules with others; instant messaging; chatting with faculty about questions; chatting with financial aid and business office representatives online; discussion and message boards; social and professional networking; shared course materials and communication with instructors and classmates; web conferencing ability; Skype; VChat; Elluminate; email access; Google Voice.


Access to materials posted by professors and online homework assignments; assignments and syllabi for each class posted in one place; all classes use one site to use for class work, homework, exams, and quizzes; class announcements; online classes; course communication; schedule of all class events; grades.


Quick access to student information; access personal academic records; view class schedule; a place to upload and store files; ability to order transcripts and other school documents; access to registration, financial aid, tuition, and bills; work account and employee time sheets; to-do lists; transfer information; notifications regarding payment; MaineCard services.

5 Human Resources & Finances

Employment and volunteer opportunities and services; employment status; time cards for employees; health insurance; list of vacations and holidays; payroll services; tax information; job resources.

6 Academic Records Current and past grades; academic history; academic progress; transcripts and transcript request; courses taken; GPA status and student standing; list of certificates and degrees earned; Registrar access.

7 Financial Aid Financial aid history and status; FAFSA; grants, scholarships, and fellowships; student loans; financial aid applications and awards; loan information and repayment status and deadlines on previously taken funds; Stafford loans application; financial education assistance.

71

Rank Services Sample Comments8 Advisement &

Degree Audit Degree progress report; degree status; graduation requirements and application progress; advisor contact information and meeting times; a checklist to show what courses you have completed and what you have left to complete; a list of classes required for your major; online advising; interactive degree audit; suggested curriculum.

9 Campus Services Bookstore; computer services; housing and dining services; health and counseling services; job opportunities; work-study information; access to tutoring, mentoring, and advice; parking and bus services; career services.

10 Announcements & News

Important campus alerts and notifications; announcements about cancellations and closures; campus news; friendly reminders; newsfeed; events; weather.

ENTERTAINMENT CHANNELS STUDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited entertainment channels interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Rank Channels Sample Comments1 News, Sports,

Weather Local news and weather; Portland Press Herald; Huffington Post; MSNBC; New England Cable News; BBC; The Boston Globe; New York Times; NPR; Sports Illustrated; ESPN; Chronicle of Higher Education; CNBC; CNN; CSPAN; Bangor Daily News; campus news; EOnline; Wall Street Journal; UMaine Today; MaineToday; The Maine Campus; The Onion; headline news; entertainment news; MPBC; National Geographic.

2 Videos, TV, Movies SurfTheChannel; movie listings and sites; Netflix; Biography Channel; Bravo; Comedy Central; Discovery Channel; FX; History Channel; local television schedules and listings; MTV; NOVA; PBS; TBS; TMZ; True TV; TV Guide; university television station; Break.com; CollegeHumor.com; Hulu; YouTube.

3 Social Networks Facebook; MySpace; Twitter.

4 Music iTunes; Napster; Last.fm; Pandora; music sites and online radio stations; WMPG; campus radio; music downloads.

5 Events Campus events and activities; local bands, art, entertainment; music events; student plays and entertainment; university field trips; blood drives; Pollstar; Civic Center events; university entertainment; sporting events.

72

STUDENT SERVICES CHANNELS STUDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited student services channels interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the student survey.

Rank Channels Sample Comments1 Campus Services Student Success Center; bookstore; dining and residential

services; Health Center; computer labs; information technology; housing services and residence life; parking and commuter services; campus safety; work study; fitness and recreation center; job announcements/postings; help desk.


Campus notices; announcements and news; FirstClass; email; student, teacher, and group web hosting; ease of contact with other departments; student group conferencing for class projects.

3 Financial Aid FAFSA; financial aid advice and assistance; financial aid information and availability; financial aid status; loan providers; Stafford Loan information; Sallie Mae; scholarship sites; available scholarships, assistantships, and work-studies; Upromise; loan counseling.

4 Library, References, Research

Electronic reserves; libraries; library search; library resources; Google Scholar; library services; URSUS; APA reference site; Bookrags; dictionary; encyclopedia; Wikipedia; SparkNotes; EasyBib.

5 Advisement & Degree Audits

Advising check sheet; advising network; degree information and requirements; degree progress report; counseling; online advising via video or instant message chatting.

73

SOCIAL GROUP CHANNELS STUDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited social group channels interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the student survey.

Rank Channels Sample Comments1 Social Networks Deviantart; Facebook; Flickr; Google Buzz; LinkedIn; MyLife;

MySpace; Ning; Ravelry; Tweetpad; Twitter. 2 Forums &

Message Boards A Bulletin Board System or an Invision Power Board for class discussions; bulletin board for the sale of used books, etc.; campus activities board; campus sports schedules and news; Craigslist, FirstClass Forum; Pushpullbar; spotlights of students and what they have accomplished at the university.

3 Blogs Blogger; Bloglines; Blogspot; LiveJournal; Tumblr; Wordpress; a blog for professors to keep students informed of absences and room or schedule changes.

4 Student Organizations Athletics; Campus Crusade for Christ; Greek Life; Residence Life; Student Government;

5 Live Chat AOL Instant Messenger; Skype; Yahoo Instant Messenger.

74

ACADEMIC CHANNELS STUDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited academic channels interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Rank Channels Sample Comments1 References &

Resources Google Scholar; APA; Encyclopedia Britannica; Aris; OWL at Purdue; EasyBib; Dictionary.com; JSTOR; law dictionary; LexisNexis; NASW; Oxford English Dictionary; Westlaw; Wikipedia; WorksCited4U; Wolfram|Alpha; links to outside research, scholarly journals, and governmental information; Merriam-Webster dictionary and thesaurus.

2 Library & Databases Academic search premier; access to library databases; EBSCO; E-Reserves; Libraries; Library of Congress; MaineCat; URSUS; library search engines.

3 Courses Class schedules; course descriptions; course catalogue; class search; current classes; core requirements; RateMyProfessor.com; YouTube utilized by instructors for coursework; instructors; online classes; gen ed requirements; lectures outside the classroom; new classes being offered; textbook search engine like Amazon; testimonials from students who have taken the classes; alternative opportunities to gain credits; intra-class communication; link to textbook publisher sites.

4 Academic Programs Business; continuation colleges; distance learning; Engineering; English; geology; graduate school; Human Services; law schools; Liberal Studies; medical schools, Physics; Psychology; Math; Art; department websites; Women’s Studies.

5 News CNN; National Geographic; Nature; MPBN; NPR; New York Times; Time; eSchool News; news subscriptions; The Chronicle of Higher Education; PhysOrg.com; Wired News.

75

APPENDIX E: FACULTY RESULTS FROM OPEN-ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS

BEST QUALITIES OF THE EXISTING PORTAL (FACULTY)

Listed below are the five most frequently cited best qualities of the University of Maine system’s portals. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the faculty survey.

Rank Qualities Sample Comments1 User Friendly Consistency across screens; everything is in one central location;

clear and simple menus make it easy to find anything; easy to understand and navigate; quick connections to MaineStreet, directories, calendar, etc.; extremely useful for finding important information; has simple, straight-forward links to key things I need; the menus are user-friendly; like the search functions.


Ability to get my class rosters and check my class schedules; advisee lists; deficiency and proficiency reports; grades; faculty link; being able to check compensation history and leave balances; can find everything I need; check student records and get informal transcripts; check financials, enrollments, and course availability; provides information and downloads which are helpful to instructors; waitlist feature helpful for courses that have filled; able obtain comprehensive information on any student; access to all the necessary documents for my work as a professor.

3 Easy Access Easy access to student data; ease of getting to my most frequently used sites; I can find information quickly; ability to access information for multiple functions in one location; once you are logged in, you can easily access so many things; ready access to the directory, calendar, academics, etc; can access many pages and functions; quick access to important documents.


Has a lot of powerful applications for classroom interaction and management; direct links to courses; can post current grades; can gain access to URSUS and academic and scientific databases; has a link to the Faculty Center; you can develop four year plans, academic notices, and all academic services can be found on one page.

5 Courses & Registration

Quick access to course information and enrollment; easy navigation to find courses; capable of keeping track of how many students are enrolled in a given course; can do a course search without logging in; can access current and past courses and rosters, as well as advising information in one place.

76

WEAKNESSES OF THE EXISTING PORTAL (FACULTY)

Listed below are the five most frequently cited weaknesses of the University of Maine system’s portals. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the faculty survey.

Rank Weaknesses Sample Comments1 Not User Friendly Not intuitive; information categories are too fragmented;

awkward, cumbersome procedures; I find the menu choices a difficult fit with a university environment; inflexible, chaotic organization; fragmentation; lacks intuitive ease of use and linking of various elements; it is not clear how to find things because the names often have no meaning for me; it is ridiculously difficult to access basic information; it is tedious to use; terminology is strange; there is no help and no shortcuts; very complex.

2 Difficult to Navigate Too many clicks to get anywhere and can't easily get back; can’t use the “Back” button; cumbersome navigation; counter-intuitive terminology; search feature too complicated; hard to find important pages right away; no ability to navigate between sections of the portal; too many layers to get to what you’re looking for; often directs me to the wrong or slightly relevant site for information.

3 Design Poorly organized and too many links; poor graphics; unattractive; very confusing layout; very awkward and clunky; small font; extremely crowded; inconsistent; it is too "busy", too much space is taken up by images, the menus are not well designed, and the search function generates way too many out of date hits.


I don't like having to log on separately to the Blackboard and MaineStreet page; no common login; cannot do things in two areas at once; too many different access points; not having everything in one place; I dislike how you can't log back into Mainestreet unless you properly log out or you clear the cache in your browser; it would be nice to integrate MaineStreet, Blackboard, Google Applications, etc. more closely into the portal framework.

5 Slow, Loading Problems, Downtime

“Processing, processing, processing...;” runs extremely slow at times; the user is “timed out” repeatedly; sometimes the portal is too “busy;” response time to go back is too slow; it is frequently is out of service for one reason or another; slow access to information; it's slow to move from item to item.

77

IMPORTANT SERVICES FACULTY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the ten most frequently cited services interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the faculty survey.

Rank Services Sample Comments1 Courses &

Registration Access to course and enrollment information; access to course offerings and catalog; ability to order textbooks for courses; ability to identify course equivalents at al campuses; access to enrollment numbers for a class other than one you currently teach; access to lists of students in a given course; build a schedule; class rosters; course availability by department; course descriptions; real-time registration; pricing of courses;


Email access; a Facebook of current students; blogs; communication among faculty across various campuses; email class; FirstClass; list serves; intranet features; instant messaging with faculty and students; live chat feature for students enrolled in a faculty member's class to facilitate communication; discussion boards for faculty; place to post comments and get answers; student and faculty forums; receive notification by e-mail when a student adds or drops my class, after classes have started;


Ability to access campus disk drives from home; account tracking; storage drives; easier access to grant/account information; easier way for students to update contact information; time sheets; employee resources; classes, list serves, and advisee list; class roster with photos; personal information; personnel records; student records; status of students admitted and registered.


Online courses; improved teaching support; easy access to the library; easy access to current and previous syllabi; full audio and video streaming capabilities on class websites; quick access to course information; ability to manage students.

5 Advisement & Degree Audit

Academic services; access to advisees and their academic histories, 4-year graduation tool; a place for students to set out a “graduation plan;” advisee materials and advisor tools; degree progress report; easy access to advisee checklists; degree audit;

6 Academic Records Access to student records; can submit grades and see academic records of advisees; grade submission; access to student transcripts; documentation of student work, faculty activity, etc.;

7 Directory A to Z directory; access to student, faculty, and staff contact information; people finder; department directory; campus resources.

8 Library Access to library sites; e-reserves; access to library databases and electronic resources; online journal subscriptions; library search tools; URSUS.

78

Rank Services Sample Comments9 Human Resources &

Finances Ability to buy parking passes online; better project accounting; budgeting information; leave balances; paycheck; benefits; compensation history; Human Resources tools, online entering of leave; payroll and balances; policies and procedures; travel forms and reimbursement.

10 Calendar & Events A functional calendar; announcements for campus-wide activities; a printed calendar and schedule; academic calendar at a glance; campus events; campus-wide meeting calendar; school schedule; system-wide calendar including all departments; up-to-date campus calendar.

APPLICATIONS FACULTY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited applications interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Rank Channels Sample Comments1 Email &

Communication Tools Email; announcements; student notices; blogging and wiki applications; personal calendar; shared calendars; Adobe Connect; FirstClass conferencing; forums; group file sharing; group communication and web page; group folder and collaboration site; Groupwise; intranet; podcasting; real-time communication with students; Skype; contact directory.


Course management tools; class offerings, schedules, prerequisites; class rosters; course catalog; course descriptions; course conferences; course registration and planning tools; course requirements; course search; courses on other campuses which transfers between campuses; student wish list; Moodle; online class materials; Schedule Explorer; web course; drop and add information for classes.

3 Academic Records Access to information for advising; advisee rosters; advising applications; advising dashboard; advising files and materials; easier ability to look up information on drop-in advisees; how students are progressing in graduating on time; student grades and transcripts; degree audit; academic services.


Faculty schedules; faculty and staff resources; pay approval for student workers; advising; personal information; payroll and benefits; personal web page.


Budget; pay information; university departments and websites; work-study; benefits; PARS; campus documents and forms; policies and procedures; financials.

79

ENTERTAINMENT CHANNELS FACULTY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited entertainment channels interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the faculty survey.


Weather Bangor Daily News; BBC; Chronicle of Higher Education; CNN; eCampus' current news; campus and local news; Maine Public Broadcasting Network; Maine Public Radio; MSNBC; National Geographic; New York Times; NPR; news channels and RSS feeds; Psychology Today; Science Digest; State Legislature News; TED; Black Bear Schedules; CNNSI; UMaine Sports; Weather.

2 Videos, TV, Movies Folkstreams; local movie and TV listings; Comedy Central; C-Span; TV5 Monde; discipline-related YouTube channels; documentary films; Hulu; YouTube.

3 Music iTunes; Pandora; Radio Canada; Radio France; WUMM; UMaine Radio; Shazam; international music.

4 Social Networks Facebook; Twitter.

5 Shopping Amazon.

STUDENT SERVICES CHANNELS FACULTY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited student services channels interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the faculty survey.

Rank Channels Sample Comments1 Courses &

Registration Searchable course catalog; add and drop classes; class information; course lists with full descriptions; course management applications; course requirements for graduation; schedule; Schedule Explorer; real-time registration information.


Advising with contact information and access to chat with the advisor; advising materials and tools; advisor scheduling; job market trends; career services; checklists for major progress and graduation; degree audits; clear information on requirements in an accessible format; internships, research assistantships;

3 Academic Records Access to grades and GPA; transcripts; academic history; class history; Merrill Center links; Registrar.

4 Campus Services Peer educators; study skills; tutor program; writing center; Resident Life; disability services; bookstore; student employment; forms; student services; university services; work-study.

5 Financial Aid Clearer financial aid paths; links to student aid resources; scholarship searches.

80

APPENDIX F: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF RESULTS FROM OPEN-ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS

BEST QUALITIES OF THE EXISTING PORTAL (ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF)

Listed below are the five most frequently cited best qualities of the University of Maine system’s portals. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the administrative staff survey.

Rank Qualities Sample Comments1 Easy Access Easy to find information; access to personal features quite easy; I

can access many sites through the home page’s quick links; offers access to many different services in the university; I like the quick click through to MaineStreet, Blackboard, and email; quick access to the resources most commonly used.

2 User Friendly Easy to navigate and use; laid out well; best quality is the drop-down menu on the side; the search engine generally is very accurate; very helpful.


I can access my pay records, my vacation records, etc.; enter vacation and leave times; I use it for student and faculty information; can be customized; one-stop shopping; financials and payroll information; admissions information; registration, financial aid, billing, and advising are all in one place; you can run your own reports; wealth of information available in this one place; personal information and time recording; flexible; encompasses a wide range of databases; grades, schedules, forms and documents, course offerings, and faculty/staff search.


Post job notices, internships, and Capstone opportunities; make announcements to the Muskie Student Organization sites; email access; ability to create "stationery" for frequently sent emails; list of all students, faculty, staff, and alumni for ease of addressing emails; Adobe Connect Pro; FirstClass; access to notify my students in one email per class as a faculty; message boards for students.

5 Learning Management Tools

Ability to email from Blackboard to participants; ability to customize the layout and look of your interface; ability to add and edit information within the course ad organization; ability to link to external resources; great for students to have contact information for faculty, staff, and students with photos; can check classes, forms, and find people.

81

WEAKNESSES OF THE EXISTING PORTAL (ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF)

Listed below are the five most frequently cited weaknesses of the University of Maine system’s portals. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the administrative staff survey.

Rank Weaknesses Sample Comments1 Difficult to Navigate Too many "clicks" to get to destination; access to information is

not easy and is time consuming; the homepage should be one screen with drop down menu items; it's very easy to get lost; using the tabs are not intuitive at all; not dynamically searchable; pages are inconsistent; menu labeling is not intuitive; vital information for parents/students is difficult to find; search feature is not helpful.

2 Not User Friendly Too many steps and too many procedures even to do simple things; the site is not very logically organized; poorly named labels make it less than clear which route to head down; confusing; it isn't always obvious what I need to click on to get what I want; difficulty getting information because the information is not out in the open; favorites and home screen are not easy enough to use that it makes them worthwhile; it’s not intuitive; it is not easily searched; it is sometimes hard to find your desired link; would like to see less screens and more links.


Too many login places; I don't like having to go to two different places to do things and then remember two logins and passwords; having to log in to each resource separately and being dropped if not in constant use; have to login into each portal and then go through so many steps to get to what I need or want.

4 Design Too many items on each page; outdated links; there are very few similarities in how departments display their information; horrible, embarrassing design with stupid movements and awful, unnecessary streaks of color; information is not always in a logical place; poor display of data; too much going on with the moving pictures on the top and left side; visually drab.

5 Content Information is dated; information overload; needs employee directory with current contact information; information is not always current on departmental web pages; data is old; keep front page current; university news is not up to date.

82

IMPORTANT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the ten most frequently cited services interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the administrative staff survey.

Rank Services Sample Comments1 My Account/

Self-Service Ability to create stationary and forms; ability to update personal information; access to Praxis information; critical administrative reference material; easy access to student information; employee records; enterprise applications and workforce administration; Faculty Center; faculty schedules; immunization records for state mandated immunizations; personal tax and salary data; sick time hours; simple online ways to pay money owed; student academic records.


Online courses; ability to look up classes and see details such as description, professor, class size, location, time, and dates; ability to see course offerings from other campuses; books needed for classes; class rosters with photos and student contact information; class scheduling with visual calendars; course management services; course materials; course payment; course schedule and enrollment planning tools; courses listed in alphabetical order; easy to use course catalog; registration dates; Schedule Explorer; sign up for classes; wish list data for registration planning.

3 Email & Communications

Email access; Skype; instant messaging; a way to make appointments; ability to get connected to the appropriate staff when there is something on a page that you don't understand; ability to share information with work groups; access to BOT discussions; better messaging system; better ways to poll, survey, and fill out forms; blogs; campus discussions; FirstClass; Connect Pro; easy place to access videotaped conferences; Groupwise; group conferences; live chat with Admissions, Financial Aid, and the Advising Center Staff; message board for campus happenings; shared folders for a course or department; sync up with other social media; Google Wave.

4 Directory A-Z departmental directory; A-Z list of campus sites; student, faculty, and staff directory with all contact information; easy to sort directory; directory with photos; People Search; easy to find directory; faculty bios and contact information; directory of resources; organizational charts.


One bill for all campuses; ability to make payments; access to student bills; budget; central supply and other vendor supply ordering; inputting a payment plan; MaineCard services; OfficeMax; PaymentNet; secure site for online payment available to departments; tuition calculation; human resources function;

83

Rank Services Sample Commentsapproving and reporting time; benefits summary; easy access to common forms; a way for students to see which work-study jobs are open, in what offices, and when they are filled; payroll and compensation; university policies and procedures; vacation hours; SWS Human Resources Compensation web pages; SWS Labor Relations web pages; job openings in all UMS campuses.


Access to university news; breaking news highlighted; campus-wide alerts and announcements; customizable RSS feeds; press releases from all campuses; public awareness “did you know” news about the university; quick access to all time-sensitive information, like deadlines for withdrawals from classes; UMaine Today; emergency messages; targeted alerts; weather.

7 Campus Services Business Office; Academic Affairs; Campus Solutions; community information; health services; dining information; disability services; information technology; Student Life; housing services; Student Center; Student Success; parking services; web resources; work-study.

8 Calendar & Events Academic calendar; access to important times and dates; calendar of events that allows you to show and hide events by category; calendar with class integration and sync able with iCal, Google, etc.; academic year and campus calendar that are complete, thorough, and clear; shared calendars; updated daily events on campus; academic and social event calendars.

9 General Information Central place to find campus information; a link for “Never Been to USM? Click Here;” current and accurate information; information about other campus offerings; information needed by staff; information on what’s going on at the system; a pull down menu of key areas most want to look at; about the university; alumni data; campus visit request form; clearer paths to needed information and functions; opportunities for the general public; options for virtual tours without having to go to YouTube; quality content; standardize information format; table of contents organized by user – administrator, finance, faculty, student, etc.

10 Forms, Documents, Reports

A repository of reports; access to appropriate reports by role; access to forms and documents with effective search mechanisms; access to internal forms and policies; access to web forms; allow pdfs and other forms to be saved; Discoverer; easily search and sorted important forms and documents; link to forms; more reporting features for the end user.

84

APPLICATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited applications interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the administrative staff survey.

Rank Channels Sample Comments1 Email &

Communication Tools Announcements; class cancellations, late start, faculty cancelled; emergency alert system; targeted announcements and alerts; blogs; academic calendar; calendar of events; community calendar; FirstClass; Groupwise; email access; instant messenger; internal wikis hosted on the university server; intra-campus messaging; live chat to Admissions, Financial Aid and the Advising Center; meeting maker; intranet; reporting tools; video conferencing; university-wide web-based chat for students; virtual conferencing; directories; room scheduling; shared documents; technical assistance; public forum for campus activities; public forum for public safety; information exchange.


Billing; budget access and information; complete tuition, fees, payment refund information; paying student workers; payable time for employees; purchasing; PaymentNet; payroll functions; supply order; access to forms and administrative information; forms and documents; policies and procedures; union contracts; workflow; time sheet reporting and approval; service request forms; OfficeMax ordering process.


Administrative tools and functions; faculty schedules, web pages, and syllabi; Student Center; National Student Clearinghouse; personal information; Student Service Center; work-study awards and balances; parking services database.


Registration dates; student tracking and registration; present and past class rosters; class schedules; course and enrollment planning tools; course capture link; course search; course withdrawal dates.

5 Academic Records Campus Solutions; student electronic files for administrative staff; access to all students in major; access to student’s full academic history; student information academic records; student transcripts and other documents; advising tools; advising worksheet; advising dashboard.

85

ENTERTAINMENT CHANNELS ADMINISTRATIVE STFF WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited entertainment channels interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the administrative staff survey.


Weather Academic National Updates; BBC; Bangor Daily; Boston Globe; Christian Science Monitor; Chronicle of Higher Education; CNN; local news; Fox News; Franklin Journal; Maine Public Broadcasting Network; Maine Public Radio; Maine Today; MSNBC; National Geographic; New York Times; NPR; Time; US News and World Report; Washington Post; WBUR Boston; ESPN; Sports Illustrated; Weather Channel; NOAH weather channel; Daily Bulldog; Higher Education Today; Huffington Post; Portland Press and Herald; Maine Sunday Telegram; Juancole.

2 Social Networks Facebook; LinkedIn; MySpace; a Student Life-Networking; Twitter; Who's Who on Campus.

3 Videos, TV, Movies RottenTomatoes; TV Guide; WCSH6; Fora.tv; YouTube; Hulu.

4 Events Campus and local community events; campus entertainment; student life activities; Collins Center for the Arts events.

5 Music Pandora; WERU; WMPG; iTunes.

86

STUDENT SERVICES CHANNELS ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited student services channels interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the administrative staff survey.

Rank Channels Sample Comments1 Courses &

Registration Administrative functions; class schedules; core classes; course management system; course search and registration; course catalog and guide; date or registration for courses; student enrollment information; live chat with registration; course reserves; sample videos of courses; curriculum management.


Academic and program advising; quick access to advisors; Advising Center & Student Services Center; Advisor/Counseling Dashboard; live chat with advisor; career counseling; Center for Human Development; internship and job postings; degree requirements; degree transfer information; path to graduation/degree audit.

3 Financial Aid Chat with Financial Aid; FAFSA and other student financing links; financial aid how to and when; Bursar; government sites related to TRIO programs (OMB,COE,DOE).

4 Campus Services Bookstore; dining services; Health Center; housing services; computing support and information technology; parking and ride share services; disability services; fitness center; learning support; Student Success Center; tutoring and study skills; system wide servies.


Calendar; emergency alert system; message boards; live chat with professors; real-time communication with students and staff; email access; Facebook; Twitter; messages about graduation and enrollment periods; key dates displayed, i.e. withdrawal; highlight a faculty, staff, or student regularly on the home page; student notices – what’s happening on campus; groups; university social networks; a university blog aggregator page; Meebo; Skype; Ovoo; Elluminate; more polycom; Second Life for online training simulations and synchronous virtual meetings; Diggs; FailBlog; Wordpress; GoodReads; Slideshare; Adobe Connect; Webspiration; LiveJournal.

87

APPENDIX G: TECHNOLOGY STAFF RESULTS FROM OPEN-ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS

BEST QUALITIES OF THE EXISTING PORTAL (TECHNICAL STAFF)

Listed below are the five most frequently cited best qualities of the University of Maine system’s portals. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the IT survey.

Rank Qualities Sample Comments1 User Friendly The A-Z directory is the best, it is easy to find a link; ease of use,

one stop shop; I appreciate the alphabet index to move around with; easy to navigate; simple, uncluttered; navigation is clear and concise; ability to use both student and employee capabilities at once with a single sign-on; single location for student and course information; consistent interface; has handy links to many resources students use; updated regularly.


Able to manage benefits and report time off online; access to HR forms and manuals; academic records are accessible online; has a large amount of student and university data; able to enter and check vacation and sick time; enter time sheets and look at paycheck information; I like the employee section and the fact that I can look at my information and make changes when needed.

3 Easy Access All employee and student information is in one spot with one login; convenient; I can access it from anywhere; the ability to have multiple services that we use the most available in one spot; provides tons of university applications and information that I use all the time and can't get anywhere else.


Course content is available; home page panels are customizable.


FirstClass.

88

WEAKNESSES OF THE EXISTING PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited weaknesses of the University of Maine system’s portals. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Rank Weaknesses Sample Comments1 Needs Consolidation

& One Login Email functions are duplicated with FirstClass and MaineStreet; slightly inconsistent look and feel across modules; no way to affect an update to preferred name across university systems; no single sign on, no place that I have all the links and access that I need for a typical day in the life; no integrated login to Blackboard and Mainestreet; we have a different user id than other portals so I need to keep track of two usernames and passwords; a communication system that factors in staff's physical location and campus affiliation so that any matters emails are delivered.

2 Not User Friendly I often get very frustrated by not finding what I want to look at; information seems buried under layers of other data; layout is sometimes confusing; complicated for students to use, because I get calls all the time on how to get where they need to be; does not have views to all the information that is needed; it's very tedious getting to the information I need; not intuitive; not much online help.

3 Difficult to Navigate Clunky navigation, browser support isn't universal; applications are confusing and require many clicks; finding personal information is difficult, so re-label links for students and staff to find and change information easier; it takes a lot of clicking to get where you want to go; navigation is not intuitive; too many clicks required to complete almost any given action; navigation is horrible.

4 Slow, Downtime, Loading Problems

Pages take excessively long to load; features sometimes fail probably due to administrative complexity; slow at times.

5 Design Poor aesthetic design, too cluttered; it is not "branded" to distinguish UMaine from other UMS institutions, reducing its value as a marketing and retention tool.

89

IMPORTANT SERVICES IT STAFF WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NEW PORTAL

Listed below are the ten most frequently cited services interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Rank Services Sample Comments1 My Account/Self-

Service Staff functions; student information; access to personal data; grading features; password reset options; quick lookup of accounts; bring information to me about things I should be doing without me having to go check multiple places; ability to see key personnel data succinctly reported, especially leave and disability balances; MaineCard functionality; X: drive; allows students to login and reset their account.


Communication tools for collaboration with applicants, accepts, etc; community bulletin board with information about events, free press, and student affairs; FirstClass, access to email; share information and documents with other users; mailing list CRM functionality; online meeting with desktop sharing; social networking.

3 General Information Accurate and updated information on linked pages; campus branding; campus information; details on how to get to some information sources; information for parents; links on homepage of things I often do; prospective student information; recruiting functions; up-to-date/recent information; use basic terminology, not acronyms or tech speak.


Alerts relevant to employees; campus news; searchable university media, research, and events; news that students want; current news feed.

5 Calendar & Events Link to calendar; local events on campus; one page that shows everything happening on that day; Gmail calendar; a listing of current and future sports events, concerts, and local events within the community.


Assignments tools; grading.

7 Campus Services Campus Solutions; testing tools; academic tools; Computer Connection.

8 Directory A-Z directory; department office addresses and phone numbers; phone directory; lists of faculty, staff, and other employee phone numbers.

9 Library Libraries; library management system; library resources.


Course information; Course Management System; manage course lookup and scheduling in one place.

90

BENEFITS OF HAVING A PORTAL (TECHNICAL STAFF)

Listed below are the three most frequently cited benefits interview respondents find in having a portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the IT survey.

Rank Benefits Sample Comments1 One-Stop Shop One stop shopping for information necessary for my work;

everything in one place; access to and ability to manage vast amounts of useful information in one location; an easier entry to our complex web of systems in multiple locations; having the ability to integrate portlets from local data and system-wide data together to produce a usable, informative launching pad for students, faculty, and staff; having all the things I need to do accessible from one screen;.

2 Improve Communication

Better communication between departments; better communication that gets all the information to all the people; get the information to me that I need to function efficiently; better communication with schools, parents, alumni, prospects, applicants, and students; great opportunity to stay connected and deliver important information.

3 Improve Online Experience

Less confusions; making it easier for students to gain access to the things they will use the most or will need to access to complete necessary paperwork to enter and continue in college; improve the online experience for our students when dealing with system; consistency of navigation; convenience; easier to find most commonly used functions.

91

CONCERNS ABOUT ACQUIRING AND IMPLEMENTING A PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited concerns interview respondents have about acquiring and implementing a portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Rank Concerns Sample Comments1 Cost Another overpriced poorly designed package that will have costly

maintenance fees; cost given the current economic climate; cost, because there are open source solutions that will be considerably less expensive to than any simple RFP will discover; waste of money; spending extra funding for a new system/portal that no one knows a lot about rather than using the existing system and upgrading to a portal standard that everyone is already familiar with; if this portal has a cost, I vote against it, at least until budget problems are resolved; we already pay too much for existing "portals" and I would guess, again, based on the small amount of information I have seen, we would not be utilizing the current portals, just adding another expense.

2 Company/Product Getting the right product that permits campus individuality; afraid of not having everything students will need; I don’t want it to be non-intuitive, I want it to be easy to use; it must be designed to be easy to navigate, visually appealing, and fun to use; log in information needs to be referred to by one name as well as the student ID number; it must be maintained and accurate; I have heard mentions of a company called CampusEAI and would highly recommend they are avoided at all costs.

3 Implementation Ability to effectively and securely implement; that it is done correctly and implemented in a way that helps everyone on every campus; fear of losing information and confusing users in the transition; it needs to be done correctly the first time.

4 Staffing Another new system will stress already limited resources with staff training and development; too big to manage; waste of resources; to be successful, this needs to be well supported.

5 No Concern I have no concerns, because I find it incredibly useful and can't imagine functioning without it.

92

QUESTIONS THE IT STAFF WANT ANSWERED BEFORE IMPLEMENTING A PORTAL

Listed below are the five most frequently cited questions interview respondents want answered before implementing a portal. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Rank Questions Sample Comments1 Why Do We Need

It/How Will It Work How will it work and can it be changed if it doesn't meet the students needs; what are the real benefits other than a pretty face; what problems are we really trying to solve in that a portal is the best solution to the problems identified; why do we need it; will information and services be easier to find while still maintaining functionality; will FirstClass be replaced; will it be as good as eCampus; will you have two portals - one for internal and one for external users; more description about what this is going to include; are we getting rid of the current things and replacing them with this or are we just going to add this to the long list of repetitive software already used here on campus; why has the university, with all of its technical resources, not looked at developing its own portal and interfacing it with discrete components of PeopleSoft.

2 Costs/Funding What is the costs; is any money saved by implementing a portal; what is the final cost; why are we wasting money; what kind of funding do we have to implement a new portal; why are we doing this when we are also cutting IT staffing, who will run it, manage it, babysit it.

3 Student/Faculty/Staff Needs

I'd ask students what they want, and study the paths students take to get to what they need; have the students, faculty, and staff all been consulted on what they need.

4 Security I think the biggest thing that should be addressed is confidentiality because so much information is available, particularly password security, not sharing usernames and passwords or other information with anyone, etc.; how to implement security.

5 Staffing What kind of human power do we have to implement a new portal.

93

TOP FIVE APPLICATIONS THE IT STAFF WANT INTEGRATED IN THE PORTAL TODAY IF IT WERE IN PLACE

Listed below are the five most frequently cited applications interview respondents would like to see in the new University of Maine system’s portal if it were in place today. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Rank Applications Sample Comments1 Email &

Communication Tools Access to email; Groupwise; RSS feeds; list serves; FirstClass; campus networking – educational, research, events (public folders, chat, etc.); any 2.0 service to improve communication; Google applications; directory services; phone directory; Twitter; Facebook.

2 Self-Service MaineStreet; schedule, courses, human resources, financials; campus card system; X: drive.


Blackboard; WebCT; better course search.

4 Campus Services Libraries; library resources; student services; printing on campus; Maine Care Service; employee services; academic testing tools; university map, events, information, and directory.

5 Portal Tools Content Management; Network Management; UserID Management.

PORTALS THE IT STAFF HAS IMPLEMENTED IN THE PAST

Listed below are portals interview respondents have implemented in the past. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Portals TotalNone 7 UMF’s eCampus 3 Homegrown 1 Joomla 1 Liferay 1 UMPI Computer Services 1 WordPress 1

94

CMS’ THE IT STAFF WILL LIKELY USE

Listed below are Course Management Systems interview respondents will likely use. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

CMS TotalUnsure 15 Drupal 4 Wordpress 2 Etomite 1 Joomla 1 Media Wiki 1 Movable Type 1 UMPI Computer Services 1 Open Source 1

SEARCH ENGINES THE IT STAFF WILL LIKELY USE

Listed below are search engines interview respondents will likely use. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Search Engines TotalGoogle 16 The Current One 2 Bing 1 Build Our Own 1 Chrome 1 Novell 1 URSUS 1

95

IT STAFF’S ABILITY AND BUDGET TO SEND NECESSARY STAFF TO TRAINING

Listed below interview respondents answered to their ability and budget to send necessary staff to training. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Ability and Budget Sample Comments TotalNone/Zero If the portal requires training, then it should not be used; the

ideal would be one page of features and directions, along with assistance from peers, which should be enough.

14

Limited In the summer months, we could spare staff for training as we have students to cover the phones, but I am not sure if money is available for training costs; we do not have a training or travel budget, but we will do what we can to get this implemented; can the staff do web-based training or polycom, etc.

3

SHOULD THE IT STAFF INTEGRATE THE PORTAL WITH AN LDAP SERVER

Listed below interview respondents answered whether they should integrate the portal with an LDAP Server. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

LDAP Server TotalYes 16 Unsure 3 No 2

DOES THE IT STAFF WANT TO INTEGRATE THE PORTAL WITH A CENTRAL IDMGMT SERVER

Listed below interview respondents answered whether they want to integrate the portal with a central IDMgmt Server. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

IDMgmt Server TotalYes 9 Unsure 6 No 5

96

HOW THE IT STAFF PLANS TO ACHIEVE SINGLE SIGN ON

Listed below are the products interview respondents would consider using to achieve single sign on. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Single Sign On TotalUnsure 7 RubyCAS 4 LDAP 3 Shibboleth 2

HOW THE IT STAFF WILL ENSURE PRIVACY

Listed below are interview respondents’ ideas on how they will likely ensure privacy. The items in the table are rank-ordered according to the frequency with which they were mentioned in the survey.

Sample Comments Encryption and account for each user; RubyCAS; SSL; training, education, and confidentiality agreements; I use only my dedicated computers for access, so I encrypt my account, passwords, and other vital information with an encryption program that I wrote; little private information should be exposed directly to the portal, it should remain in the system of record; there should be inactivity timeouts so that if someone walks away from a machine, it’s not open for the next person to snoop; users would be limited to the public information only if they have entered an incorrect password and after multiple bad attempts, disable them for a time.