Strategic Issue
Issue: Whether consideration of course management functionality is within the scope of the
implementation of a new Student Information System (SIS).
PRISM #: 080
Student System Project Contact (PRISM Issue Owner): Robert LeHeup
Scope Type:
Issue Priority:
General |
Critical |
School/Unit Issue |
High |
Medium |
Coordinating Project |
New Functionality
Low
Impact Statement:
 Best practice is to interface course management functionality with the SIS.
 Currently, the University centrally funds the development and support of Toolkit, an ITC-developed course management tool.
Other course management tools, including Blackboard and the proprietary Darden Solutions tool, are used by schools such as
Commerce, Nursing, SCPS, and Darden. These schools individually procure course management tools and pay licensing and
support fees on their own.
 The Toolkit is comprised of approximately a dozen course management functionalities including the ability to send email to
students individually or in the aggregate; to post announcements or syllabi; to distribute materials; and to submit final grades.
It is also the tool through which online course evaluations are accessed for all courses with the exception of courses offered
through Darden, Law, and Medicine.
 Approximately 88% of on-Grounds and 67% of off-Grounds courses utilize at least one of the Toolkit functionalities. A
relatively high percentage of these courses, 74%, utilize email functionality while a much lower percentage, 12-15%, utilize
announcements or final grade submission. Approximately 42% post syllabi and course materials through Toolkit.
 Interfaces have been created between the Toolkit and ISIS for grade submission and class list production and between the
Toolkit and the online Course Offering Directory. No other course management system links to ISIS or other centralized
services, however.
 The multiplicity of course management tools in use across the University results in costs that are tied to the distributed
purchase and maintenance of software and the individuals who maintain and support it.
Options and Implications:
1. Consideration of course management functionality—including functionality developed or in use at the University, commercial,
off-the-shelf solutions, or functionality delivered by a new SIS—is outside the scope of the implementation of a new SIS. In
this option, multiple stand-alone course management tools, some of which may not interface with a new SIS, will continue to
be used across the University. The University will not harness its procurement power or achieve institutional benefits and
efficiencies afforded by a central course management tool that interfaces with a new SIS.
2. Consideration of course management functionality—including functionality developed or in use at the University, commercial,
off-the-shelf solutions, or functionality delivered by a new SIS—is within the scope of the implementation of a new SIS. In this
option, the University will seek the course management solution that meets the requirements of the greatest number of users,
that interfaces best with the new SIS, and that leverages the benefits of delivered functionality.
Recommendation:
 Option 2: Consideration of course management functionality—including functionality developed or in use at the University,
commercial, off-the-shelf solutions, or functionality delivered by a new SIS—is within the scope of the implementation of a
new SIS.
Dependencies:
 The desire of the University to support a single course management system in conjunction with the implementation of
PeopleSoft .
 The allocation of resources to the redevelopment of the Toolkit within an open source code collaborative framework.
 The resources associated with creating an interface between PeopleSoft and a specific course management system. An ITCdeveloped course management tool such as the Instructional Toolkit may require a custom interface whereas PeopleSoft may
provide a third-party interface with commercially-available course management systems.
Next Steps (if in scope):
 The Provost should convene a working group to evaluate third-party/off-the-shelf, proprietary, and open source course
management tools and to develop options and a recommendation as to which course management tool best meets the needs of
the University.
Deadline for Executive Committee:

Decision by Executive Committee: Option 2: Consideration of course management functionality—including functionality
developed or in use at the University, commercial, off-the-shelf solutions, or functionality delivered by a new SIS—is within
the scope of the implementation of a new SIS.
Executive Committee Reviewer/Approver: Full Executive Committee
Signature of Reviewer: Gene Block
Date: April 18, 2006