curriculum management & educational delivery product selection...

Curriculum Management

& Educational Delivery

Product Selection Report JANUARY 4, 2012

Prepared for: Dr. Karen Joughin

Prepared by: UBC Faculty of Medicine, MedIT, Educational Technology Group

Version: 1.2

Version Date Author(s) Description of Change

0 August 9, 2011 Sylvia Lim Created

0.1-0.9 August 24 – November 30 Norm Daoust & Araz Hamian Edits

1.0 December 5, 2011 Araz Hamian Major revision – submitted to KJ

1.1 December 9, 2011 Araz Hamian Edits from ND, DL, MT, KT review

1.2 January 4, 2012 Araz Hamian Edits from KJ & minor edits from ND – submitted to TAC.

Curriculum Management &

Educational Delivery Product Selection

Report

January 4, 2012

2 of 28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Faculty of Medicine (FoM) will be replacing its current platform for educational technologies over the next two

years. This report presents the evaluation and decision for two of the key applications: the learning management

system (LMS) and the learning objects repository (LOR). The project that is undertaking this work is entitled

Curriculum Management and Education Delivery (CMED). CMED addresses three of the five investment

recommendations in the Faculty of Medicine’s Educational Technology Strategy: Curriculum Management,

Learning Objects and Online Health Education Platform.

The evaluation was conducted by the Faculty of Medicine’s MedIT Technology Enabled Learning (MedIT-TEL) group

with oversight by the CMED project sponsor, Dr. Karen Joughin. In summer of 2010, the MedIT-TEL group initiated

research into the educational technology options available to the FoM. The first step in that research was to

conduct an environmental scan of other medical schools. The second step was to define the FoM’s functional

requirements and map them to two solution types: the ‘all-in-one’ solution, and the modular, integrated solutions.

In March 2011, the FoM selected the modular, integrated solutions as their preferred option. This report

represents the next step, selection of the LMS and LOR applications.

In addition to the LMS and LOR, CMED will also incorporate a curriculum management system and a portal system.

The curriculum management system will be one45, the system currently in use by the Faculty. The portal system

will be selected in early 2012.

Two LMS products were evaluated: Blackboard Learn, a commercial off-the-shelf system, and Moodle, an open

source product. The FoM has chosen Blackboard Learn as its new LMS. Blackboard Learn was chosen as the new

UBC campus-wide LMS. This was a key factor leading to the FoM’s decision. Organizationally, the FoM will benefit

from the support that UBC IT will offer and UBC IT’s work to integrate Blackboard with other campus systems. The

FoM’s evaluation demonstrated that most, though not all, of the Faculty’s core functional requirements will be

met by Blackboard.

Two LOR products were evaluated: Xythos, a product which is part of the Blackboard suite of tools, and Equella,

another commercial off-the-shelf system. While Xythos and Equella both meet many of the functional

requirements, neither meets all of the requirements. In particular, there are several key requirements that Xythos

does not meet. A significant advantage of Xythos is that it is already integrated with the Blackboard LMS.

Organizationally, most of the same benefits as were identified for Blackboard hosted by UBC IT also apply to

Xythos. Based on a detailed evaluation, the sponsor determined that none of the functional differentiators are

significant enough to warrant choosing Equella over Xythos. Based on this, the FoM has chosen Xythos as its new

LOR.

The cost of the LMS and LOR was not a significant factor in these decisions. The FoM will use Blackboard and

Xythos under UBC’s campus-wide licensing arrangement with the vendor.

The key areas of risk for the FoM with the LMS and LOR decisions include:

1. Blackboard may not have a great deal of flexibility to adapt to changes in the MDUP curriculum.

2. The FoM will be using the same implementation instance of Blackboard as many other groups on campus. For this reason, the FoM’s administrative control over the UBC IT-hosted learning management system will be limited. The FoM may have longer waiting periods for configuration requests, and some requests may not be able to be accommodated if they do not align with the needs or priorities of the other groups.

http://www.medit.med.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/Educational-Technology-Strategy-Report19763.pdf



Report

January 4, 2012

3 of 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Document Objective .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Related Documentation ............................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Current State ................................................................................................................................................ 6

1.5 Functional Requirements ............................................................................................................................. 7

2 Solution Options ................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Learning Management System Discussion and Conclusion ......................................................................... 8

2.2 Learning Object Repository Discussion and Conclusion............................................................................... 9

3 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................... 11

4 Appendix B: LTAC and the Faculty of Medicine .................................................................................................. 12

5 Appendix C: CMED Functional Requirements ..................................................................................................... 13

6 Appendix D: CMED FUnctionality Overview ....................................................................................................... 16

7 Appendix E: CMED Design Principles .................................................................................................................. 17

8 Appendix F: Organizational Decision Factors and Evaluation ............................................................................. 18

8.1 Decision Factors and Weights .................................................................................................................... 18

8.2 Qualitative Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 19

8.3 Quantitative Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 23

9 Appendix G: Cost Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 27

10 Appendix H: Additional Discussion of the Options ......................................................................................... 28



Report

January 4, 2012

4 of 28

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 DOCUMENT OBJECTIVE

The objective of this document is to describe how two of the key technology components of the Curriculum

Management and Education Delivery (CMED) program were selected. Those two components are:

1. The learning management system (LMS); and

2. The learning objects repository (LOR).

The key audiences for this document are:

1. The CMED sponsor, Dr. Karen Joughin, and the Technology Enabled Learning (TEL) Alignment Committee.

2. Other stakeholders in the CMED program including Faculty of Medicine students, faculty and staff.

3. External audiences such as other medical schools.

1.2 RELATED DOCUMENTATION

Table 1 lists the key reference documents for this report. They are housed on the MedIT website and can be

accessed by clicking the name of the document.

Table 1: Reference documents for this report.

Resource Content

Educational Technology Strategy The educational technology strategy report with the investment

recommendations that led to the creation of the CMED program.

Environmental Scan Report Description of the environmental scan conducted of other medical schools.

CMED Program Phase I Systems

Analysis and Recommendations

Report

The recommendations report that analysed a wide range of options and

led to the decision to use a modular, integrated solutions rather than a

single, all-in-one solution.

MedIT Strategic Plan MedIT’s long-term strategic plan including guiding principles adhered to in

the analysis process outlined in this report.

1.3 BACKGROUND

1.3.1 CMED

The CMED program was launched to address three of the five investment recommendations contained in the

Faculty of Medicine’s (FoM) Educational Technology Strategy:

1. Curriculum management (CM);

2. Learning objects repository (LOR);

http://www.medit.med.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/Educational-Technology-Strategy-Report19763.pdf

http://www.medit.med.ubc.ca/initiatives/educational-technology-environmental-scan.htm

http://www.medit.med.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/CMED_Program-Phase_I_-_Final_Report21940.pdf



http://www.medit.med.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/meditstrategicplan17432.pdf



Report

January 4, 2012

5 of 28

3. Online health education platform (portal)1.

Earlier work on the CMED program consisted of investigation into solution options to address these three

investment recommendations, together with a new learning management system (LMS). The steps for that

investigation included:

1. An environmental scan of other medical schools in North America and abroad. This work concluded that

there are two distinct types of learning technologies used in medical schools: integrated (‘all-in-one’)

systems, and modular systems with several distinct technologies.

2. Following the environmental scan, a detailed analysis phase was conducted to determine the UBC FoM’s

requirements, and map them to both integrated and modular solutions. The report based on this

investigation was delivered to the TEL Alignment Committee (TAC). In March 2011, the TAC decided to

proceed with a modular system approach for CMED. This decision was driven by the Faculty’s desire to

limit the level of risk it incurs by choosing commercially available systems and integrating them together,

rather than taking the larger risk of choosing an ‘all-in-one’ product which may not have strong vendor

support. The trade-off for this decision is that the modular solutions tend to have reduced ability to meet

medical school functional requirements compared with the ‘all-in-one’ solutions. In addition, while this

approach allows the FoM to select the best available solution to meet the requirements for the LMS, LOR,

curriculum management, and portal individually, it presents additional complexity for the implementation

to integrate the modular solutions together.

1.3.2 UBC LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Although the UBC FoM Educational Technology Strategy investment recommendations did not specifically include

a new LMS, the FoM must migrate to a new LMS because its current system, WebCT Vista, is being

decommissioned by UBC. In June 2011, the UBC Learning Technologies Advisory Committee (LTAC) chose

Blackboard as the new LMS for UBC. Further information regarding that decision and the FoM’s involvement is

provided in Appendix B.

Following a pilot of Blackboard Learn in January 2012, courses will be migrated over two academic years and

WebCT Vista turned off by summer 2014.

1.3.3 SOLUTION OPTIONS EVALUATION BACKGROUND

The CMED project team initiated investigation into specific solution options for the LMS and LOR during summer

2011. The objective of the investigation and subsequent evaluation was to make choices for the LMS and LOR that

would best meet the educational needs of the FoM, as well as meet a number of key organizational drivers such as

supportability, and alignment with UBC’s overall technology direction.

In order to evaluate the solution options, CMED representatives held targeted consultations with the following

FoM groups and individuals:

CMED sponsor: Dr. Karen Joughin;

The Assistant Deans, MD Undergraduate Education:

1 This report does not address portal system selection. That decision will be made in early 2012.





Report

January 4, 2012

6 of 28

o Dr. Geoff Payne (at the time, Assistant Dean, NMP);

o Dr. John Anderson (Assistant Dean, IMP);

o Dr. Amil Shah (Assistant Dean, VFMP);

TEL Alignment Committee;

TEL MD Undergraduate Curriculum Renewal Technology Enabled Learning Working Group (TEL WG);

Council of Undergraduate Associate Deans (CUAD). While this was originally intended to be a

consultation, it was primarily an information session about CMED for the CUAD.

In addition to the above, FoM representatives were either members of, or held targeted consultations with, the

following non-FoM groups and individuals during the course of the system selection:

LTAC: FoM has representation on this committee;

Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology;

Specific groups at UBC IT including: Learning Applications, Architecture;

UBC’s Chief Information Officer.

1.4 CURRENT STATE

Table 2 below summarizes the current state of the UBC FoM’s learning technology platform. Each component is

described in the following sections.

Table 2: Summary of the current state of learning technology applications within FoM.

System UBC FoM Current State

LMS MEDICOL, based on WebCT Vista

LOR None (all content housed within MEDICOL)

Curriculum Management one45

Portal None (basic landing page only: MEd Portal)

1.4.1 LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The FoM currently uses WebCT Vista as its LMS. It is hosted, maintained and supported free of charge for all UBC

faculties, department and organizational units by UBC’s central IT group, UBC IT. Most educational programs in the

FoM use this system either to support blended learning (to complement face-to-face instruction) or in some cases

to deliver fully online education programs such as the Online Master of Rehabilitation Science (MRSc).

The MD Undergraduate Program (MDUP) currently uses WebCT Vista under the branding MEDICOL (Medicine and

Dentistry Integrated Curriculum On-Line). It is used in a blended learning mode to deliver educational resources

and facilitate communication in the MDUP and the initial years of the Dentistry program. MEDICOL is designed to

support learners in meeting the exit competencies of the MDUP curriculum. It acts as a secure centralized online

access point for curricular resources, such as lecture notes, handouts and presentations; it delivers self-directed

learning components, such as formative assessments (quizzes), online learning modules and virtual patients; and it

http://www.med.ubc.ca/education/MEdPortal/

http://www.med.ubc.ca/education.htm



Report

January 4, 2012

7 of 28

plays a key role in delivering recorded lectures and other audio/video resources. Collaboration tools, such as

discussions forums, are used by some instructors and student groups.

1.4.2 LEARNING OBJECT REPOSITORY

The FoM does not currently have a separate learning objects repository for storage, management and searching of

educational content and resources. All resources and content are housed within MEDICOL.

1.4.3 CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The FoM uses a commercial off-the-shelf software system called one45 for a number of key applications, including

curriculum management. The environmental scan referenced earlier indicated that one45 is one of the better

software applications currently available for mapping medical education curricula. One45 will continue to serve as

the curriculum management system for CMED. However, as there are some concerns about one45’s ability to

serve the FoM in the long term, this may be re-visited after the LMS and LOR are implemented.

1.4.4 PORTAL

The portal will act as the ‘front-end’ or initial point of access to the LMS, LOR and CM systems, and will play a

central role in offering users a seamless experience of the learning technology applications. FoM does not

currently have a full featured portal, but does have a ‘landing page’ called the Medical Education Portal (MEd

Portal) with links to the key applications typically accessed by students, faculty and staff.

1.5 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

During the previous phase of CMED, 56 functional requirements were identified for the overall system. In June

2011, the TEL MD Undergraduate Curriculum Renewal Technology Enabled Learning Working Group (TEL WG),

supplemented by representatives from the Health Professions Programs and the FoM Professional Development

program, agreed that those 56 requirements capture the key needs that should be met by the CMED applications.

The requirements were also categorized as high, medium, or low priority. The functional requirements are listed in

Appendix C.

Requirements were mapped to the four applications that will comprise the CMED system: LMS, LOR, CM system,

or portal. The majority of requirements belong in the CM system category. Figure 1 below shows a mapping of the

functional requirements to the application that could theoretically house that functionality. Appendix D provides

an overview of the major areas of functionality. Both Figure 1 and Appendix D are drafts, and some aspects will be

subject to change during detailed solution design. Based on the TAC’s decision to pursue a lower-risk, modular

approach rather than an ‘all-in-one’ solution, the selected systems will not necessarily meet all of the functional

requirements.





Report

January 4, 2012

8 of 28

Figure 1: Preliminary functional mapping of the requirements to CM, LMS, LOR, and portal applications.

2 SOLUTION OPTIONS

The sections below describe, for the LMS and LOR separately, what options were considered and how they were

evaluated. At the time of writing, both the LMS and LOR for the FoM have been selected in consultation with the

project sponsor. The LMS decision was ratified by the TEL Alignment Committee in September 2011, and the LOR

decision was ratified by the same committee in December 2011. This section describes in the decisions in succinct

terms; additional details, analysis, and discussion are provided in Appendices E, F, and G.

The CMED Project project team is following a number of design principles in the selection, design and

implementation of the CMED applications. They are described in Appendix E. Of particular note is that doing

custom development to develop features and functionality is not in scope for this project.

2.1 LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Two options were considered for the LMS. These are the same two options that were shortlisted by LTAC for the

UBC-wide LMS.

1. Blackboard Learn: a commercial product, widely used in higher education world-wide.

2. Moodle: an open-source product, the most commonly used and highly rated LMS by medical schools,

based on the CMED environmental scan.

The CMED project team carried out a functional assessment of both options, evaluated them based on a number

of organizational decision factors, and developed an order-of-magnitude estimate for the total cost of ownership.

Details are provided in Appendices F, G, and H.

The FoM chose to use Blackboard Learn as its LMS for the following reasons:

1. Functionality: Blackboard Learn is similar to Moodle in meeting the stated LMS essential functional

requirements, with the exception of one area – producing detailed analytics for usage of virtual patients.



Report

January 4, 2012

9 of 28

The FoM will need to explore alternate ways of producing these analytics if this is deemed to be a high-

priority requirement.

2. Organizational: Since UBC IT will be hosting Blackboard, the FoM will benefit from the implementation

and operational support, staff training, and other resources that UBC IT will offer to users of the central

LMS. The FoM will be able to leverage UBC IT’s work to integrate Blackboard with other campus-wide

software applications such as the Student Information System (SIS), and the Library’s ARES system for

electronic course reserves. Using Blackboard Learn will allow the FoM to continue to use CTLT’s

instructional and course design services and to build a stronger relationship with that organization.

Finally, using Blackboard Learn will require the FoM to strengthen its overall relationship with UBC IT,

positioning UBC IT to act as a strategic partner with the FoM. This can have significant benefits for the

FoM beyond the CMED program.

3. Cost: Although not a primary driver, it is worth noting that the FoM will be using Blackboard Learn under

UBC’s campus-wide license with the vendor, and will not need to pay separate licensing fees.

The key risks associated with the selection of Blackboard Learn hosted by UBC IT as the FoM LMS are:

Blackboard Learn may not have a great deal of flexibility for adapting to major changes in the MDUP

curriculum.

Since Blackboard Learn will be hosted by UBC IT, the FoM’s level of administrative control over the

application will be limited. This means that the FoM may have longer waiting periods for configuration

requests, and some requests for customization may not be able to be accommodated since the same

application will be used by many groups across campus.

2.2 LEARNING OBJECT REPOSITORY DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Two options were considered for the LOR:

1. Xythos: This LOR is included as part of the Blackboard suite of tools, and is already integrated with

Blackboard Learn.

2. Equella: This LOR is also a commercial off-the-shelf software system. It was the most highly ranked LOR in

the CMED environmental scan and CMED Program: Phase 1 System Analysis and Recommendations

report.

In September 2011, the TAC approved the project team to proceed with an LOR proof of concept focusing on

Xythos. The TAC directed the project team to either conclusively demonstrate that Xythos will not meet the FoM’s

essential needs, or to confirm that Xythos will be the LOR. This was based on the following assessment:

Functionality: The existing integration of Xythos with Blackboad Learn is a major advantage of this LOR

product. However, there were several key functionality differences between Xythos and Equella that

warranted further investigation. Based on the initial evaluation, it appeared that Equella offers a richer

feature set and it was not clear whether Xythos would be able to meet the FoM’s high priority functional

requirements.

Organizational: The organizational advantages to the FoM for selecting Xythos are significant, and are

similar to those described for Blackboard Learn. In addition, using Xythos would reduce the number of

hosts and vendors that the FoM needs to manage, consolidating all of the LMS and LOR support with a



Report

January 4, 2012

10 of 28

single host and vendor. However, using Equella would give the FoM greater administrative control over

the organization and management of its educational resources.

Cost: Cost is not a primary driver in the LOR decision. Xythos is available to the FoM under UBC’s site-wide

licensing agreement with Blackboard. Using Equella would incur additional costs, both one-time and

ongoing, for the FoM.

Between September and November 2011, the CMED project team carried out a proof of concept which consisted

of:

A more detailed evaluation of both Xythos and Equella. Equella was included to ensure that, if Xythos

cannot provide the required functionality, there would be a viable alternative.

Targeted follow-ups with the Xythos and Equella vendors regarding their products. This included a

demonstration provided by Equella to answer specific questions posed by the team, and email discussions

with both vendors.

The proof of concept focused exclusively on the key functional differences between the two products, as

identified in the initial evaluation, as well as some key technical questions related to the integration of the

products with other CMED applications. It was not an exhaustive feature analysis of either application.

The following section provides additional detail regarding the functional evaluation of the differences

between the two LORs.

2.2.1 FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION

Table 3 below shows the key functional differentiators between Xythos and Equella, and indicates which product

meets each requirement. The assessment is based on ‘out of the box’ functionality for each product.

Table 3: LOR functional evaluation results

# Requirement Xythos Equella

1 Connect to external LORs to share content with other schools and

organizations.

No Yes

2 Add copyright / usage policies to content collections, such as a dialogue box

with a licensing agreement that a user must accept before being allowed to

access a collection of learning objects.

No Yes

3 Allow users to rate content. No Yes

4 Assign content access permission based on students enrolled in a course in

the LMS.

Yes No

5 Support single sign-on based on open standards. This gives users the ability to

sign in once only, and then navigate to any of the CMED applications without

needing to log in again.

Yes No

In the context of priority given to UBC organizational factors, and although Equella was the preferred product for

functionality reasons, the project sponsor has indicated that the functional differences between Xythos and

Equella as presented above do not present a compelling reason to choose Equella over Xythos. For the areas



Report

January 4, 2012

11 of 28

where Xythos does not meet the requirements, the FoM will either find a work-around, or not meet the

requirement. Based on this, the FoM has chosen to use Xythos as its LOR.

3 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

1. MEdPortal Software application that provides consistent user experience and unified access to

various integrated systems (LMS, LOR, CM, etc.) via a Single Sign on.

2. LOR Learning Object Repository (LOR) software application used to centrally manage the

learning content and provide workflows to author, meta-tag, browse and search

content.

3. SSO Single Sign On (SSO) is feature that allows access to multiple systems via a single

username and password.

4. SLA An SLA is a service contract where the level of service is formally defined. It is often

used to define service response time, mean time between failures, or expected system

performance.

5. CM The Curriculum management/mapping system (CM) is a software application that

maintains the curriculum map, learning objectives, medical terms and taxonomies,

learning events and event schedule.

6. LMS The Learning Management System (LMS) is a software application that provides

learning activity management and delivery functions, collaboration tools, quiz and

survey features, activity tracking & reporting.

7. FoM UBC Faculty of Medicine

8. Hosting A managed hosting service is a type of Internet hosting in which the client leases an

entire server computer or one shared with other clients. Services such as server

administration, customer support, data storage, and bandwidth utilization are usually

provided by the hosting company as part of the service agreement. In most cases,

servers are housed in data centers providing redundant power sources and HVAC

systems. The server hardware may be owned by the provider, or in the case of

colocation, it may be housed or leased by at 3rd

party who operates the data centre.

9. MDUP UBC Medical Undergraduate Program.

10. MedIT Technology support group for the FoM. The CMED project is being managed by MedIT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_hosting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_centre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_power_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating,_Ventilating,_and_Air_Conditioning



Report

January 4, 2012

12 of 28

4 APPENDIX B: LTAC AND THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE

Over the past year, UBC’s Learning Technology Advisory Council (LTAC) and the Next Generation Learning

Technology Working Group have worked toward a decision on the next generation LMS at UBC, and the Faculty of

Medicine has had an active representative involved in the central LMS renewal process. The data and information

gathered as part of the process were considered in the context of strategic factors that would influence the

successful implementation of the recommended product, their respective product roadmaps, their ability to

support diverse types of learning, their overall fit with UBC’s current and planned technical capabilities and their

total cost.

The scope of LTAC’s work was focussed on the selection of an LMS to meet the needs of all faculties and

departments at UBC Vancouver and UBC Okanagan. In parallel to UBC’s LMS renewal process, the Faculty of

Medicine undertook a sequence of projects in 2010/2011, including CMED, that were aimed at analysing the

specific needs of medical education. This included an environmental scan of other medical schools, conducting an

internal needs assessment, and undertaking a product evaluation process that spanned beyond the LMS to

encompass various technologies that were used in the specialized field of medical education. The analyses

conducted to date indicate that although the LMS is an important component of the medical educational

technologies ecosystem, its features provide approximately half of the functionality required by the curriculum of

a distributed medical program such as UBC’s.

In the process followed by LTAC to reach an LMS product recommendation for UBC, a vote was taken by members

representing the Faculties, UBC Okanagan, and the AMS. Of the many systems considered, a final vote was cast to

decide on two LMS products: Blackboard and Moodle. The vote favoured Blackboard and in July of 2011, UBC

chose Blackboard Learn 9.1 as the next generation learning management system to replace WebCT Vista at UBC.

The same two final LMS products considered by LTAC, Moodle and Blackboard, also appear in the analysis of this

report as the Faculty of Medicine seeks to use an LMS product as one of several technologies to meet the needs of

medical education.

http://ltac.ubc.ca/

http://ltac.ubc.ca/lms-selection/who-was-involved/







Report

January 4, 2012

13 of 28

5 APPENDIX C: CMED FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Table 4 lists the high-level functional requirements that have been defined for CMED.

Table 4: High-level functional requirements for CMED.

# Name Description Priority

1 Single source of data Ensure all data is defined and captured in one place only. High

2 Manage / Access Curriculum

Map

Be able to create, access, browse and search the following through a curriculum

map structure:

- learning events

- learning objects

- learning objectives

- mapping taxonomies

- activities (quizzes, discussion board, wikis)

- faculty and student profile & group management

- curriculum reports

- learning activity analytics

High

3 Single Point of Entry / Single

Sign-On

For students, faculty members and staff, there is a single point of entry to all areas

of interest (curriculum, calendar, schedule, activities). Once a user has signed on to

CMED, all underlying systems inherit the authentication, roles and permissions from

the initial sign-on.

High

4 Display Curriculum Search

Results

View the curriculum search results in various levels of detail. Search results have

columns that show learning event along with block and class.

High

5 Search by Student or Student

Group

Search for learning content (objects, objectives and events) that relate to a

particular student or group of students through time, i.e. program trajectory

High

6 Manage Taxonomies Create customizable mapping taxonomies that allow for searching the curriculum

map.

High

7 Searchable and filterable across

all items

CMED should provide the ability to search across all designated items of interest.

The result set should then be searchable, sortable, and filterable.

High

8 Manage / Access Learning

Objectives

Learning objectives can be entered at the Year, Block, Week, and Session level. High


Map

Create report(s) that identify gaps / overlaps in the curriculum map. High

10 Manage Forums / Workspaces Provide collaborative work spaces with the ability to share documents and be linked

to learning events, program sites, interest groups, communities of practice.

High

11 Manage Forums / Workspaces Support discussion forums, blogs, and wikis with the ability to create any of them in

any workspace, faculty page, or course page.

High


Map

Easily browse through the curriculum contents by being able to drill down to get

more information on areas of interest.

High

13 Calendar View schedules and related learning materials in different views - by month, week,

day. Also be able to filter calendar view for a specific class (i.e. only view the Year 1

calendar)

High

14 Manage Electives Integrate an elective selection system with the educational delivery system. High



Report

January 4, 2012

14 of 28


15 Patient Procedure / Encounter

Logging

Integrate access to the patient procedure and encounter logging system through the

educational delivery system

High

16 Manage Assessments Integrate with assessment tools (summative). High

17 Manage Activities Create quizzes and track responses. High

18 Reports - Curriculum Map Produce reports based on all elements in the curriculum map, delivery schedule,

faculty list, etc.

High

19 Calendar Support an editable and filterable calendar, including personal calendar events. High

20 Scheduling Support UI based scheduling for learning events. High


Map

Re-use the same curricular event structure and contents from the previous year to

the next year.

High


Map

Search the curriculum map by mapping taxonomies. High

23 Manage Learning Events Provide the ability to link learning activities (lab, lecture, PBL, clerkship) to learning

events such that users can browse or search events based on the various program

components.

High

24 Calendar / Content Display targeted content (schedules, objectives, groups, announcements) to specific

users that is relevant to them and their role/user permissions in the program.

High


Map

Search the curriculum map (objectives, events, objects) and filter by program

components (year, taxonomies, date, etc…), browse and display the results

(columns show more detail, i.e. filter by date), one central search page.

High

26 Roles and Permissions Single sign-on to all systems. High

27 Roles and Permissions Portal should provide deep linking to other integrated systems without requiring

users to re-login. For example, ability to link to clerkship / rotation system from

within the system.

High

28 Manage Communication to

Designated Users / Groups

Provide support for email communication to selected users or groups (optionally

with attachments).

High

29 Roles and Permissions System does not allow creation of duplicate accounts. High

30 User Interface Definition Provide ability to designate input attributes as mandatory (eg. designate text-entry

boxes as 'required' fields).

High

31 Manage Content Support the ability to upload a variety of multimedia content, and render that

content when it is selected.

High

32 Reports - Analytics Produce analytics on how often materials have been accessed and by whom. High

33 Curriculum - Workflow Support the ability to designate the date and time to release the following items to

students:

- learning objectives

- learning objects

- learning activities (i.e. wikis/blogs/chats)

- quizzes

High

34 Manage Content Users able to create a learning object and at the time of attaching it to the learning

event, it is also added to the LOR.

High

35 Manage Content Support the ability to add metadata of to learning content through tagging. High



Report

January 4, 2012

15 of 28


36 Curriculum - Workflow Support the definition of rules for approval and publication of learning content. High

37 Show Dependencies Among

Learning Objectives

Track and display dependencies among learning objectives. Show progression from

a 'basic' objective to a more 'complex' objective as students move forward in the

curriculum.

Medium


Map

Present a time-based map of curricular activities. Medium

39 Calendar When viewing the calendar, a pop-up box displays when hovering the mouse over

the learning event link.

Medium

40 Manage Dashboard Allow users to customize / personalize the configuration of what they see on their

dashboard.

Medium

41 E-Portfolio Integrate an e-portfolio within the educational delivery system. Medium

42 Manage Activities Create surveys and track responses. Medium

43 Single Point of Entry / Single

Sign-On

Support direct access to the clerkship & elective section in One45 (without a

separate login).

Medium

44 Calendar Allow users to add personal calendar events to their schedule in the learning

delivery platform.

Medium

45 Roles and Permissions Provide the ability to assign multiple roles and permission levels including:

Role: faculty, student, staff, administrator, super administrator

Permissions: read/edit/publish (at the year, block, week, or session level)

Medium

46 Manage Dashboard Have a "news and events" section that is shown on the main page when a user first

logs in. These can be targeted to select groups.

Medium

47 Manage Dashboard Be able to designate "standard components" that are automatically included within

a dashboard, and cannot be removed (eg. News and Events section, Notifications).

Medium

48 Manage Faculty / Staff Profile Provide profile pages for faculty and staff. Find faculty and staff contact information

in a faculty directory. Include contact info. For faculty members, include all courses

they are teaching or learning objects they have uploaded.

Medium

49 Manage Student Profile Provide profile pages for students. Find student contact information in a student

directory. Include contact info. Include all courses in which they are enrolled and

learning objects they have uploaded.

Medium

50 Manage Electives Integrate an elective selection system with the educational delivery Medium


Map

Graphically display curriculum objectives and objective coverage. Create graphical

representation to understand where related content is covered in the curriculum

and see if there are any gaps in learning.

Low

52 Manage Online Meetings Create online meeting space to remotely collaborate with other faculty / staff /

students, or hold webinars.

Low

53 Manage Learning Events Allow faculty to indicate AV or other requirements for a particular learning event in

the system (eg. a "VC recording required" checkbox).

Low

54 Roles and Permissions Provide the ability for roles and permissions to be set for different blocks. Low

55 Manage Content Provide the ability to indicate whether a reading is "Required" or "Recommended". Low

56 Curriculum - Workflow Support workflow-based routing and approvals for learning events. tbc



Report

January 4, 2012

16 of 28

6 APPENDIX D: CMED FUNCTIONALITY OVERVIEW

Figure 2 shows an overview of the desired high-level CMED functionality, and in which application it will be housed

(the LMS, LOR, CM system, or portal). The mapping of functionality to application is a preliminary draft, and some

aspects may change during detailed system design.

Figure 2: Overview of CMED functionality. Draft only, subject to change.



Report

January 4, 2012

17 of 28

7 APPENDIX E: CMED DESIGN PRINCIPLES

In the modular design approach that was mandated by TAC, the functional requirements will be met by multiple

educational software systems, each one addressing specific needs. In order to integrate multiple systems together

into a blended, cohesive user experience, the following design principles were established by the CMED project

team.

The CMED design principles are:

1. We are seeking a modular solution that integrates together the LMS, the LOR, and the OHEP, along with

the CM system, into a cohesive unified system.

2. Educational content should be housed in a content management system separate from the learning

management system and/or course section.

3. The individual systems should interoperate with each other and with other FoM and UBC systems. In

order to facilitate this, each one should support industry standards, adhere to service-oriented

architecture & provide standardized connectors for system integration.

4. The modular solutions should be accessible via a standard single sign-on mechanism (login once with one

set of user credentials to access many systems).

5. Where possible, the systems should be independent products, sold by different vendors, in order to:

o Mitigate risk of vendor dependence by providing a simplified exit strategy.

o Facilitate future migration.

o Take advantage of industry standards and best practices for data management and archiving.

6. As articulated in the MedIT Strategic Plan, MedIT strongly prefers to use applications which are hosted by

an external party (external to FoM).

7. MedIT seeks to minimize the amount of custom software development it undertakes or contracts through

external vendors or consultants.

8. CMED will be designed and built to support existing curricula in FoM programs. Where possible, solutions

will be designed to accommodate future changes in the curricula.

http://www.medit.med.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/meditstrategicplan17432.pdf



Report

January 4, 2012

18 of 28

8 APPENDIX F: ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION FACTORS AND EVALUATION

This appendix is organized as follows:

The organizational decision factors and their respective weights contributing to the final decision are

listed;

A qualitative evaluation of each solution option is presented for each of the 8 organizational decision

factors;

The quantitative evaluation of the solution options against the organizational decision factors is

presented;

A concluding section summarizes the results of the organizational evaluation.

There were three solution options originally considered for CMED. While the body of this report has condensed

those solution options for readability, they are preserved in this appendix for readers who wish the additional

detail. The three solution options were:

Option 1: LMS: Blackboard;LOR: Xythos;CM System: one45;

Option 2: LMS: Blackboard;LOR: Equella;CM System: one45;

Option 3: LMS: Moodle;LOR: Equella;CM System: one45.

8.1 DECISION FACTORS AND WEIGHTS

Eight organizational and business decision factors were identified for the CMED system selection. In order to

determine which of those factors is most important to the FoM, weights ranging from 0-5 were assigned during a

sponsor meeting. A weight of ‘0’ means a decision factor has no impact on the final outcome. A weight of ‘5’

means a decision factor will have maximum impact on the final outcome. The MedIT managers also ranked and

weighed the factors through a forced-pair analysis exercise2. The decision factors and weights are presented in

Table 5. Each decision factor is defined in the following section.

Table 5: Organizational decision factors and weights.

Business/Organizational Factors Sponsor Weights

(out of 5)

MedIT Weights (relative)

1. Vendor / product roadmap including upgrades (2 - 4 years) 2 0.8

2. Barriers to exit 4 0

3. Integration complexity & application architecture 4 5

4. Migration complexity 2 1.7

5. Application support 3 5

6. Level of administrative control over application 4.5 4.2

2 Forced pair analysis is an objective method of ranking a set of criteria. It involves comparing each criterion against

all of the criteria in a pair-wise fashion and selecting which is more important.



Report

January 4, 2012

19 of 28

Business/Organizational Factors Sponsor Weights

(out of 5)

MedIT Weights (relative)

7. Overall Service Level Agreement (SLA) with provider 2.5 3.3

8. Security and privacy compliance 2 5

With this weighting system, the most important organizational decision factors for the FoM are:

1. Level of administrative control over the application for the FoM;

2. Barriers to exit (important to the sponsor; less so for the MedIT managers);

3. Application support (important for MedIT managers; less so for sponsor);

4. Integration complexity and application architecture.

8.2 QUALITATIVE EVALUATION

This section provides a brief qualitative evaluation for each solution option. Since one45 will be used regardless of

the LMS and LOR, it is not evaluated here. For brevity, LMS remarks for Option 2 are not repeated as they are the

same as for Option 1. Similarly, LOR remarks for Option 3 are not repeated.

8.2.1 VENDOR/ PRODUCT ROADMAP

Indicates the business risk associated with a vendor and whether the product’s development is active and it has a

clear product roadmap ahead.

Option 1

Although the company has been recently bought by a private equity firm Providence Equity Partners, the LMS

product (Blackboard) has a good roadmap and is a leader in terms of industry standards compliance. The

repository (Xythos) is one of Blackboard’s many recent acquisitions and has a mediocre roadmap.

Option 2

The repository, Equella, is owned by Australian company The Learning Edge and is an industry leading K-12 and

higher education content repository. It has been recently acquired by Pearson, a leading publishing company

which is also on the standards board (IMS) and the roadmap seems promising.

Option 3

Moodle is a widely used community driven open source product with services provided by many authorized

partners. It has a strong roadmap and is industry standards compliant.

8.2.2 BARRIERS TO EXIT

This decision factor is a measure of business risk that identifies the level of difficulty in replacing an application

with a comparable product. This includes the effort in migrating content, settings and customizations when a



Report

January 4, 2012

20 of 28

product has reached end of life or when another business driver warrants the change. A low score indicates an

elevated level of risk.

Option 1

The LMS has a standardized way for exporting courses using and new industry standard called IMS Common

Cartridge. The repository content may be able to be exported with unclear technical limitations; the product can

be purchased separately and with unclear licensing limitations.

Option 2

Repository content can be exported with some limitations.

Option 3

The LMS currently has limitations for exporting courses.

8.2.3 INTEGRATION COMPLEXITY

This decision factor identifies the complexity and technical risk involved in integrating various applications

together. It also includes evaluation of the application architecture and adherence to service-oriented architecture.

The degree of successful integration depends on factors such as, but not limited to, the product’s technology

platform, its adherence to data and interoperability standards, and the ability for custom software development

via an Application Programming Interface (API).

Note that the CM system’s (one45) integrations, their feasibility, timelines and cost will have to be discussed with

vendor; the lack of adherence to standards (such as IMS LTI) and the lack of an API present major risks regardless

of which option is chosen.

Option 1

As the LMS and LOR are already part of the same product suite, integration complexity will be very low but system

design and configuration will be required to use the LOR to its full potential.

Option 2

Existing integration of the LMS and LOR is limited; full integration requires effort by MedIT and the vendor and

represents a non-negligible amount of complexity and risk.

Option 3

Existing integration of the LMS and LOR is limited; full integration requires effort by MedIT and the vendor and

represents a non-negligible amount of complexity and risk.



Report

January 4, 2012

21 of 28

8.2.4 MIGRATION COMPLEXITY

This decision factor indicates the complexity, effort and technical risk associated with migrating data, business

logic, and system settings from the existing LMS, WebCT Vista, to the new LMS and LOR. All of the options present

some risk since all courses will need some re-design to link learning content to the LOR.

Option 1

UBC IT will support the basic migration of LMS courses (part of campus wide initiative); due to its complexity

MEDICOL will need to be migrated and redesigned by the FoM. The work required to implement and populate the

LOR must be absorbed by FoM.

Option 2

The work required to implement and populate the LOR must absorbed by FoM and the addition of Equella as a

separate product adds complexity.

Option 3

Both LMS and LOR migration will have to be managed by FoM without support from UBC IT.

8.2.5 APPLICATION SUPPORT

This decision factor indicates the business risk associated with how well the applications can be supported. This

includes the effort required by the FoM to provide tier 1 and2 end-user support, application support

(configuration, maintenance, user roles and permissions management, etc.), internal training and staffing

coverage, the time required to resolve support issues, and the ability to ensure service continuity.

Option 1

UBC IT will provide hosting, hardware and tier 3 software support for the LMS and LOR (part of the campus wide

initiative); tier 1 and tier 2 client and application support will be provided by MedIT for the LMS, LOR and CM.

Option 2

LOR hosting and tier 3 support will be provided by an external vendor.

Option 3

External provider(s) will manage hosting, hardware and tier 3 software support for the LMS & LOR.

8.2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL

This decision factor the business and technical risk associated with the level of control FoM will have over

applications. This includes the required privileges to use all system capabilities and the ability to extend the

functionality by integrating 3rd

party tools and other systems.



Report

January 4, 2012

22 of 28

Option 1

As the LMS/ LOR will be a shared instance with the rest of UBC, FOM will have limited administrative control and,

and the FoM’s ability to extend product capabilities; governance and processes are unclear at this time.

Option 2

The FoM will have full administrative control over the LOR.

Option 3

Both LMS and LOR will be dedicated instances and the FoM will have full administrative control with ability to

extend product capabilities and integrate 3rd

party tools.

8.2.7 OVERALL SLA WITH PROVIDER

This decision factor evaluates the existence of, and the protection offered by, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with

a vendor or service provider (see Glossary).

Option 1

An SLA will exist between UBC IT and Blackboard. No SLA exists between UBC IT and FoM, and service expectations

are currently unclear. An SLA may be developed in the future. The lack of SLA between FoM and UBC IT represents

a risk.

Option 2

There would be a standard SLA with the LOR vendor.

Option 3

FOM would have standard SLAs will the LMS provider and LOR vendor.

8.2.8 SECURITY & PRIVACY COMPLIANCE

Application security indicates the level of exceptions in the security policy of an application or the underlying

vulnerabilities through flaws in the design, development, deployment, upgrade, or maintenance of the system.

Privacy compliance indicates the system’s ability to protect and control access to personal information in order to

adherence to UBC policies, FIPPA and FoM policies.

Option 1

The LMS and LOR are merged in an industry leading product that has the capability to adhere to security and

privacy standards. All systems will be hosted in Canada.

Option 2

All systems will be hosted in Canada.



Report

January 4, 2012

23 of 28

Option 3

The LMS and LOR are industry leading products that have the capability to adhere to security and privacy

standards. All systems will be hosted in Canada.

8.3 QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

This section presents the quantitative evaluation of the three solution options based on the organizational decision

factors. In the evaluation, a lower score always indicates a higher level of risk for the FoM. The evaluation is

presented in two sections:

1. Summarized in figures and qualitative highlights;

2. The full quantitative results matrix.

8.3.1 SUMMARY OF THE QUANTATIVE EVALUATION

The following three figures show:

1. The weighted score (sponsor’s weights) for the three solution options against the organizational factors.

2. The raw scores for the three solution options against the organizational factors.

3. The total weighted score for the three solution options.

Highlights of this evaluation include:

The numerical scores indicate that Option 1 (Blackboard/Xythos) is most favourable based on the

organizational factors, Solution 2 is in second place and Solution 3 is the least favourable. This is true

using the raw scores, the sponsor-weighted scores, and the MedIT managers-weighted scores.

The key differentiator in the organizational evaluation is Application Support. The scores for the decision

factor vary considerably between the three options. MedIT’s ability to provide support is best with Option

1 since it requires the least implementation and ongoing support effort, the least amount of change to

MedIT’s existing support model, level of e-learning expertise and capacity. The continued support from

UBC IT and CTLT for Option 1 make it the most practical and least risky from a support perspective.

Option 3 was the least favourable based on organizational factors. MedIT’s ability to provide support

would be poor since the FoM would no longer receive IT or instructional design support from UBC IT and

CTLT respectively. The FoM, including MedIT, would have to build additional technical capabilities,

undergo staff retraining, recruit personnel with different skills and/or outsource service in order to

provide existing levels of service to its clients.



Report

January 4, 2012

24 of 28

Figure 3: Evaluation of the solution options against the business and organizational factors (scores using sponsor's weights).

Figure 4: Evaluation of the solution options against the business and organizational factors (raw scores).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Vendor /Product

Roadmap

Barriersto Exit

Integrationcomplexity

Migrationcomplexity

ApplicationSupport

AdminControl

OverallSLA withprovider

Security& Privacy

Comp.

Option 1: Blackboard & Xythos Option 2: Blackboard & Equella Option 3: Moodle & Equella

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Vendor /Product

Roadmap

Barriersto Exit

Integrationcomplexity

Migrationcomplexity

ApplicationSupport

AdminControl

OverallSLA withprovider

Security& Privacy

Comp.

Option 1: Blackboard & Xythos Option 2: Blackboard & Equella Option 3: Moodle & Equella



Report

January 4, 2012

25 of 28

Figure 5: Total scores for the organizational factors for the solution options, using the sponsor's weights.

8.3.2 FULL QUANTITATIVE RESULTS MATRIX

Table 7 shows the raw evaluation data, and the weighted scores using both the sponsor’s and the MedIT

managers’ weights. The evaluation was done using 10-point scale where the least favourable score is 0 and the

most favourable is 10. The evaluation was completed by testing demonstration systems, and through direct

interaction with vendors and potential managed hosting providers. The total results are indicated in the right-most

three columns labelled “Raw Score”, “Weighted Score (sponsor)”, and “Weighted Score (MedIT Mgrs)”.

The color coding for the raw and weighted scores indicates:

1. Green = highest ranking option;

2. Yellow = second ranking option;

3. Red = third ranking option.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Option 1:Blackboard &

Xythos

Option 2:Blackboard &

Equella

Option 3: Moodle& Equella

Weighted



Report

January 4, 2012

26 of 28

Table 6: Scoring of the solution options against the organizational decision factors. The total scores appear in the right-most 3 columns. The

bottom 3 rows show the Standard Deviation (SD) of the scores for each decision factor.

Highlights of this evaluation include:

The decision factors with the greatest standard deviation indicate where the 3 options differed the most.

i.e. where some options scored high and others scored low in a particular category. They are outlined at

the bottom of the table above with green indicating the largest standard deviation and red the lowest. A

large variance in a particular column means that decision factor had a relatively large impact on the final

scores.

Using the raw scores, the areas where the three options varied the most were:

o Application support,

o Migration complexity, and

o Integration complexity, administrative control, and overall SLA with provider (tied).

Using the sponsor’s weights, the areas where the three options varied the most were:

o Application support;

o Administrative control;

o Integration complexity.

Comparing the evaluation between the sponsor’s weights and the MedIT managers’ weights, highlights

include:

o MedIT management put heavy emphasis on the ability to provide support, pushing Option 1 well

into the lead.

o MedIT management put more emphasis on administrative control and the importance of strong

products that will integrate well.

Solution Options Vendor /

Product

Roadmap

Barriers

to Exit

Integration

complexity

Migration

complexity

Application

Support

Admin

Control

Overall SLA

with

provider

Security &

Privacy

Comp.

RAW

SCORE

Weighted

Score

(Sponsor)

Weighted

Score (MedIT

Mgrs)

1. Blackboard+Xythos

Raw 7 7 8 8 9 5 4 7 55

Weighted Score (Sponsor) 14 28 32 16 27 22.5 10 14 163.5

Weighted Score (MedIT Mgrs) 5.6 0 40 13.6 45 21 13.2 35 173.4

2. Blackboard+Equella

Raw 8 7 6 8 5 6 5 7 52

Weighted Score 16 28 24 16 15 27 12.5 14 152.5

Weighted Score (MedIT Mgrs) 6.4 0 30 13.6 25 25.2 16.5 35 151.7

3. Moodle+Equella

Raw 8 6 5 4 2 8 7 7 47

Weighted Score 16 24 20 8 6 36 17.5 14 141.5

Weighted Score (MedIT Mgrs) 6.4 0 25 6.8 10 33.6 23.1 35 139.9

Raw Standard Deviation (SD) 0.58 0.58 1.53 2.31 3.51 1.53 1.53 0.00

Weighted SD (Sponsor) 1.15 2.31 6.11 4.62 10.54 6.87 3.82 0.00

Weighted SD (MedIT Mgrs) 0.46 0.00 7.64 3.93 17.56 6.42 5.04 0.00



Report

January 4, 2012

27 of 28

9 APPENDIX G: COST EVALUATION

The total cost of ownership represents how much it will cost the FoM to purchase and implement the systems, as

well as the ongoing operational costs to maintain and support the systems. The total cost of ownership for Year 0

(implementation year) and the first year of operation was estimated for the three options, including:

Onetime costs3:

o Integration with other systems

o Customization/configuration

o Training

o Data migration

Annual costs:

o Software licenses

o Vendor support

o Hosting and maintenance

o Ongoing customization/configuration and enhancements

The following table shows the cost estimates. These are order of magnitude estimates for illustration and

comparative purposes only. They are not to be used for budgeting without extensive validation.

Table 7: Cost estimates, one-time and annual, for the solution options.

Solution One-time costs Annual costs Notes

1: Blackboard+Xythos $88,000 $26,000 Most cost-effective option

Licensing costs will be covered by UBC’s campus-wide license

2: Blackboard+Equella $123,000 $104,000 FoM to pay Equella licensing

3: Moodle+Equella $155,000 $122,000 Least cost-effective option

Potentially higher depending on support and integration costs

3 Other one-time costs such as project resources are not included as they are assumed to be approximately equal amongst the three options.



Report

January 4, 2012

28 of 28

10 APPENDIX H: ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF THE OPTIONS

The discussion below was extracted from an earlier version of this report, when all three options were still being

considered. It is presented here for the information of those readers who are interested in this background

information.

Option 1 presents the FoM with the least amount of business/organizational risk largely due the hosting,

support, staff training and additional resources provided by UBC IT. This option would allow the FoM to continue

to develop its partnership with UBC IT and leverage future benefit from UBC’s integration of LMS with other

software systems at UBC. Option 1 would also allow the FoM to continue to benefit from the instructional and

course design services offered by CTLT. With no licensing or hosting costs, Option 1 is the most cost effective

option for the Faculty of Medicine. From a functional perspective, while it meets most of the functional

requirements, it offers the least breadth of features and flexibility to adapt to major changes in the MDUP

curriculum. It has the potential to improve in the longer term as the vendor adds functionality currently on their

roadmap. Finally, Option 1 offers the FoM the least amount of administrative control. Requests for system

integration, configuration and major changes must be administered by UBC IT in light of considerations such as

resourcing, policies, stability, security and the needs of other Faculties and departments at UBC. This may result in

FoM requests not being addressed on a timeline that suits the Faculty.

Option 2 provides many of the same support benefits as Option 1 with regard to the LMS. However, the Equella

LOR would provide added functionality such as the ability to rate content, manage copyright and license

agreements and share educational resources across the health professions. It would provide a greater amount of

administrative control over the management of educational content. As a separate product, the LOR would

necessitate additional licensing fees, a service level agreement and hosting service with another vendor, and a

greater effort for MedIT to integrate the system and provide ongoing configuration and support, adding additional

organizational risk.

Option 3 provides the FoM with the greatest flexibility in terms of adapting to changes in the curriculum,

integrating 3rd

party tools such as analytics tracking for virtual patients, and allow the FoM to benefit from the

work other medical schools have done to integrate the Moodle LMS with medical education technologies. From a

support and change management perspective, this option introduces the greatest amount of risk as significant

changes would have to be made within MedIT including retraining of staff, software development to integrate with

other UBC systems and the FoM would no longer benefit from the IT support provided by UBC IT or the

instructional design services offered by CTLT.

curriculum management & educational delivery product selection...

Documents