orgsync case study - university of wisconsin-stout

1
Implementation Timeline April 9 UW-Stout conducts selection process April 15 OrgSync is selected by UW-Stout April 15 Stout Implementation Team Formed (Becky Wolf Kaarbo, Ashley Noel & Darrin Witucki) May 27 UW-Stout OrgSync Community is created June 2 Stout Implementation Team completes Umbrella Training June 9 Stout introduces OrgSync to new freshmen (and parents) at summer registration June 29 OrgSync Pilot training conducted with leaders from 6 student organizations July - August Conducted 8 OrgSync demonstrations with various campus departments August Offered Portals to campus departments (sold 8 portals) Sep 14-15 OrgSync On-Site Training – 10 sessions / 149 org leaders attended Post-training – 402 personal profiles / 71% orgs active Sep - December Campus Implementation Team conducted 9 more training sessions Spring Semester Goals Results Hire an OrgSync Webmaster HIRED February 2010 Student Government set policy requiring OrgSync usage DONE March 2010 Conduct Recognition & Renewal Process through OrgSync DONE May 2010 Explore use of Stores Module for student organizations DONE Summer 2010 UW-System Growth Agenda Grant for an ePortfolio in OrgSync WRITTEN & AWARDED May 2010 Reach 100% adoption by student organizations DONE Spring 2011 OrgSync Statistics Demographics Implementation Case Study Highlights of Best Practices Hiring a student assistant to manage OrgSync and do trainings Hiring a student assistant to build websites and do web builder trainings Selling portals to other departments for $200 each (they have sold 11) Not mandating OrgSync in the first semester, instead getting students excited about it and mandating it in the second semester TM UW-Stout 78.6% 100% Student Organizations with OrgSync Portals 1,151 1,876 Number of Students using OrgSync Summer 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Spring 2011 23% 210 95% 3,918 Graduate Students Seniors Juniors Sophomores Freshmen 20% 23% 29% 25% 3% Male Female 56% 44%

Upload: orgsync

Post on 14-Jul-2015

561 views

Category:

Education


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: OrgSync Case Study - University of Wisconsin-Stout

Implementation TimelineApril 9 UW-Stout conducts selection processApril 15 OrgSync is selected by UW-StoutApril 15 Stout Implementation Team Formed (Becky Wolf Kaarbo, Ashley Noel & Darrin Witucki)May 27 UW-Stout OrgSync Community is createdJune 2 Stout Implementation Team completes Umbrella TrainingJune 9 Stout introduces OrgSync to new freshmen (and parents) at summer registrationJune 29 OrgSync Pilot training conducted with leaders from 6 student organizationsJuly - August Conducted 8 OrgSync demonstrations with various campus departmentsAugust Offered Portals to campus departments (sold 8 portals)Sep 14-15 OrgSync On-Site Training – 10 sessions / 149 org leaders attended Post-training – 402 personal profiles / 71% orgs activeSep - December Campus Implementation Team conducted 9 more training sessions

Spring Semester Goals ResultsHire an OrgSync Webmaster HIRED February 2010

Student Government set policy requiring OrgSync usage DONE March 2010

Conduct Recognition & Renewal Process through OrgSync DONE May 2010

Explore use of Stores Module for student organizations DONE Summer 2010

UW-System Growth Agenda Grant for an ePortfolio in OrgSync WRITTEN & AWARDED May 2010

Reach 100% adoption by student organizations DONE Spring 2011

OrgSync Statistics Demographics

Implementation Case Study

Highlights of Best Practices Hiring a student assistant to manage OrgSync and do trainingsHiring a student assistant to build websites and do web builder trainingsSelling portals to other departments for $200 each (they have sold 11)Not mandating OrgSync in the first semester, instead getting students excited about it and mandating it in the second semester

TM

UW-Stout

78.6%

100%

Student Organizations with OrgSync Portals

1,1511,876

Number of Students using OrgSync

Summer 2009

Fall 2009

Spring 2010

Spring 2011

23%210

95% 3,918

Graduate Students

Seniors

Juniors

Sophomores

Freshmen

20%23%

29%25%

3%

Male

Female

56%

44%