DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
City College of San Francisco
Executive Summary
Website Redesign and Portal Implementation Plan
BACKGROUND
The current City College of San Francisco web site (www.ccsf.edu) provides a
wide variety of content to many user groups. Many stakeholders at CCSF,
including administrators, Board members, faculty members, staff and students
believe that the site can be reworked to present a more unified, dynamic and
compelling presence to prospective students and external publics while also
providing easier access to information for CCSF students and employees. In
March, 2007, a Web Advisory subcommittee consisting of five faculty members
(Tom Boegel, Beth Cataldo [chair], Ophelia Clark, Smiley Curtis, Andrea Niosi),
four classified members (Attila Gabor, Joe Jah, Tom Hetherington, James Rogers),
two administrators (Martha Lucey, Mamie How), one student (Jesse van Fleet)
and five resources members (Nicholar Chang, David Yee, Louise Louie, Francine
Podenski, Richard Middaugh) was formed to define the requirements for a
redesign of the web site and the implementation of portal technology.
THE PROCESS
The Web Advisory subcommittee met regularly in order to draft an RFP,
evaluate proposals from prospective vendors and choose final candidates to
recommend for the redesign and portal implementation project. (Meeting minutes
are located at http://www.ccsf.edu/Offices/Shared_Governance/web.html)
The scope of the RFP included the:
 Complete redesign of the top-level pages of the CCSF Web site
within a new web portal based on recommendations from the vendor
 Redesign of those portions of the site targeted to prospective and
currently enrolled students
 Creation of templates for the redesign of the remainder of the site in
a manner consistent with the top-level pages
 Selection and implementation of a Web content management system
to manage site content
 Selection and implementation of a hosted student email system.
The subcommittee agreed to divide the work up into five phases (assessment,
prototypes, design, programming and implementation) so that CCSF could then
opt to purchase any phase from the vendor.
During this process, the subcommittee reported back to the various
stakeholders, including the Academic Senate Executive Council, the
Communications Committee, Information Technology Policy Committee (ITPC),
College Advisory Council (CAC), CCSF Board’s Technology Committee chair,
6/30/16
CCSF website redesign and portal implementation project
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Page 1 of 10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
the Teaching and Learning Technology Roundtable (TLTR) and All College
Council, which includes all department chairs, school deans and key classified
staff members.
The RFP for the Web Redesign and Portal Implementation was released in
May 2007. The opportunity was advertised in Public Bid Notices in The Examiner,
on the City/County Bid/Contracts website and to interested vendors on the CCSF
graphic design and website lists. Twenty-nine bid packets were mailed out to a
variety of respondents, including seven San Francisco vendors, seven small
business vendors and one union vendor. A May 7, 2007 bidder’s conference for
interested vendors attracted 30 representatives. Twelve proposals were received
from vendors by the June 4, 2007 deadline. Of these, ten proposals fulfilled the
requirements of the RFP. The ten valid proposals listed below were submitted to
the subcommittee for analysis and ranking using criteria set forth in the College’s
RFP.
Web Site Redesign and
Portal Implementation Proposals Received
Vendor
729 Solutions
Datatel
Earthbound Media Group
Initsoft Web Solutions
Interact
Intrafinity
Miri Technologies
SCT SunGard Higher Education
Managed Services (HEMS)
SoftOrigins Inc.
SWB Consulting
Trignos
The subcommittee, using the criteria listed below, evaluated proposals
certified by Purchasing as responsive to the RFP.
Criteria
1. Quality of Proposed Assessment & Planning
a. Quality of needs analysis plan
b. Quality of requirements document plan
c. Quality of proposed site audit
d. Reasonableness of time frame for assessment and planning
2. Quality of Proposed Web Site Design Process
a. Quality of referenced web sites
6/30/16
CCSF website redesign and portal implementation project
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Page 2 of 10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
3.
4.
5.
6.
b. Quality of usability testing methodology
c. Quality of proposed collaborative process between City
College representatives and vendor team
d. Reasonableness of time frame for design process
Quality of Construction, Programming & Testing proposal
a. Demonstrated expertise in web site construction,
programming and testing
Quality of Implementation, Training, and Documentation
a. Demonstrated expertise in web site implementation
b. Quality of proposed training to the CCSF technical staff
c. Quality of proposed maintenance documentation.
Experience with Web Site Design and Portal Implementation
a. Demonstrated expertise in working on higher education web
sites
b. Demonstrated expertise in Portal implementation
c. Demonstrated expertise in Banner integration
d. Demonstrated expertise in Oracle integration
e. Demonstrated expertise in hosted email
Price and Affordability
a. Quality of budget proposal
The subcommittee assigned weights to these criteria. Every proposal was
scored using the above criteria and a total score was obtained. Proposals were
then ranked by the total scored earned. The Subcommittee used this ranking to
determine the top four proposals as shown below.
Highest Ranked Proposals
First Round
Score
Rank Vendor
(105 possible)
1
SCT Sungard HEMS
88
2
Earthbound Media Group 82
3
Interact
77
4
SWB Consulting
74
5
SolutionsIQ
63
6
729
62
7
Miri
60
8
Intrafinity
55
9
Softorigins
46
10
Initsoft
44
The firms that submitted the top four proposals were invited to campus on
July 12 and 13 to make an oral presentation of their proposal. The subcommittee
6/30/16
CCSF website redesign and portal implementation project
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Page 3 of 10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
provided each of these vendors with questions in advance. These questions were
used to clarify and gain further understanding about their proposals and asked for
a demonstration of example web site projects.
Three of the selected vendors presented. The Subcommittee agreed that one
vendor, SWB Consulting, clearly did not have the experience with educational
web sites to take on the scope of City College’s vision.
On July 13, 2007, the subcommittee decided to continue the process of
evaluating the top two vendors, Sungard HEMS and Earthbound Media Group,
and these vendors were notified of their status as semifinalists. At that point, we
requested two client references from each company and the ability to log onto
sample sites and CMS systems.
The subcommittee called references called and evaluated the web sites and
CMS systems during July and August. During these reviews, various members of
the group tried out the CMS system, looked at the web sites and called the
contacts, asking them 20 predetermined questions.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
1. Earthbound Media Group
Example sites:
Loma Linda University:
www.llu.edu/llu
www.llu.edu/maps
www.llu.edu/virtualtour
www.llu.edu/llu/viewbook
Warner Pacific College
www1.warnerpacific.edu/default.aspx
Caltech Technology Marketing Center
www.technologymarketingcenter.com
Qualcomm Career Portal:
www.qualcomm/careers.com
Earthbound Media Group describes their company as an “organic entity built
from a foundation of services that include business strategy and market research
and branding and creative development.” From Irvine, California, they consist of a
core team of eight employees and have been in business for eight years. Their
mission statement says their goal is: “To evolve the global landscape of
communications, marketing, media and technology in the field of education,
6/30/16
CCSF website redesign and portal implementation project
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Page 4 of 10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
healthcare, the arts and commerce through the use of innovative research methods,
a customer-centric philosophy and inspiring creativity.”
The subcommittee’s overall impression of EMG from both their submitted
proposals and in person was that they were a vibrant and creative group focused
on professional presentation. They had extensive experience working with
institutions of higher education and were keenly aware of the importance of
collaborative teamwork involving the various stakeholders in an academic setting.
We felt that they would perform well in assessing our needs and creating a strong
design that would support the CCSF mission. The subcommittee did bring up the
concern about their lack of portal implementation expertise at the time of the
presentation and discussed the issue extensively after the visiting team left.
In the follow-up report that EMG submitted, they spent some time
responding to our concern about their lack of expertise on implementing portal
technology. They have created portals for the Qualcomm careers site and the
Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center Board of Trustees.
However, these portals are limited in scope. They stated in this report that their
overall technical expertise and portal experience is best addressed by their ability
to identify and implement the most appropriate unified solution. Their response
demonstrated an awareness of the options ahead of us.
The example CMS system that they provided was Ektron CMS400.NET,
which is designed to on a Microsoft Windows web server platform. The CCSF
web site runs on Apache/UNIX system so it is incompatible with Ektron
CMS400.NET. Our subcommittee members experimented with this CMS and
concluded that it made formatted editing easy and looked like a word processor. It
did have some glitches, with certain features that seemed to be buggy.
Feedback from the references told us:
1. EMG clients rate the services provided as excellent including:
a. Support of the website design process, including market research, focus
groups, executive interviews to collect information to direct design process
b. Design of marketing material that positioned the school appropriately
c. Generation of a lot of creative ideas
d. Understanding of academic web sites
e. Selection and implementation of website hardware and software
f. Understanding of political framework and bringing consensus and creating
team-work among teams that rarely worked together
g. Working closely with the IT team to ensure they were involved and felt like
an important part of the team.
h. Identifying and solving problems quickly
i. Finding workarounds that wouldn’t affect the budget.
j. Staff training
k. Ongoing support and maintenance of the website
6/30/16
CCSF website redesign and portal implementation project
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Page 5 of 10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
2. They deployed Teamsite by Interwoven and Ektron as content management
systems (CMS)
3. They developed and supported third-party applications for integration into the
web sites
Estimated Costs:
Phase 1 –
Phase 2 –
Phase 3 –
Phase 4 Phase 5 –
Assessment
Prototyping
Design
Programming Implementation
$78,750
$82,625
$36,375
$184,875
$17,000
Total Cost: $399,625
(Total Costs do not include software or hardware purchases or travel)
2. Sungard Higher Education Managed Services
Example sites:
Valencia Community College
www.valenciacc.edu/
Saint Peter’s College
www.spc.edu
Chippewa Valley Technical College
www.cvtc.edu/pages/1.asp
Becker College
www.becker.edu/pages/1.asp
San Juan College
www.sjc.cc.nm.us/pages/1.asp
Bridgeport
www.bridgeport.edu
SunGard Higher Education Managed Services is a group within Sungard Higher
Education that focuses on “customized portfolio of higher education technology
management services that support every major academic and administrative
solution on the market.” They are located in Maitland, Florida and are supported
by Sungard Higher Education, which provides “web consultant and management
services to analyze the effectiveness of its external web site, make strategic
recommendations for improvement in the site’s architecture, navigation, and
design and manages the implementation of those improvements.” Sungard Higher
Education has more than 2,600 employees worldwide. A number of full-time
Sungard Education Managed Services employees would be selected to work on
6/30/16
CCSF website redesign and portal implementation project
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Page 6 of 10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
the CCSF project. The Sungard Higher Education Managed Services group was
incorporated July 20, 2006.
The Subcommittee’s overall impression of the Sungard Higher Education
Management Services group from both their submitted proposal and in person was
that they were a thorough and organized team. They had extensive experience
working with higher education institutions and were clear on the process and
procedures in developing web sites. The two people who demonstrated their
example sites were knowledgeable and approachable, appearing to have solid
understanding of the issues that we raised. One concern that was voiced at the time
was the lack of variation in their color choices and design solutions for the
demonstrated web sites. The subcommittee had an extensive discussion about this
issue after the visiting team had left.
The SunGard HEMS team submitting the proposal in response to the City
College RFP has not implemented a large portal project, which was a surprise for
the subcommittee. Sungard HEMS did provide us with references regarding the
Sungard Luminus portal platform. However, the references called informed us that
this portal was installed and configured with the help of a Sungard consultant from
a different group. The feedback from the references we spoke to was very positive,
reflecting the ease and speed of implementation of this portal platform with
existing Sungard software, such as Banner.
The CMS example that SunGard HEMS provided was Site Builder, which
was designed to work on a Microsoft Windows platform, which is incompatible
with CCSF’s existing environment. They said, however, that they would wrap
their services around, and help us choose, a CMS of our choice. The CMS that was
used as an example CMS didn’t have a word processor-like editor so the member
of the subcommittee experimenting with the CMS had to edit in HTML. There
were also a lot of pop-up messages that were off-putting for the user.
References indicated that SunGard HEMS played a limited role the in the
actual design process, instead focusing primarily on technical issues. Although
they do have designers as a part of the support staff, their roll did seem limited in
scope. In both cases, Sungard HEMS was taken on to perform the services as a
part of a larger IT contract with Sungard.
Feedback from the references told us:
1. SunGard clients rate the web services provided as excellent including:
a. Support of the website design process
b. Team listens and to understands academic needs. Sungard Manager has
been an academic administrator and instructor and it shows in the way he
deals with people.
c. Selection of website hardware and software
d. Deployment of the Site Builder Tool as a content manager
e. Training (although limited to a core group of users who later trained college
staff)
6/30/16
CCSF website redesign and portal implementation project
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Page 7 of 10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
f. Ongoing support and maintenance of the website
g. Development of third-party applications for integration into the web sites
h. Team is very accessible to solve problems.
2. The references checked have outsourcing contracts with SunGard Managed
Services that cover all IT services
3. The budget is set within a larger IT contract with Sungard so the individual
budget isn’t scrutinized by team
4. SunGard continues to provide support and other assistance under long-term
contracts to the reference institutions.
Phase 1 –
Phase 2 –
Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Assessment
Prototyping
Design
Programming Implement
$50,000.00
$33,078.00
$20,252.00
$44,398.00
$23,323.00
Total Cost: $171, 051
(Total Costs do not include software or hardware purchases or travel)
SUMMARY
Based on the results of the reference checks, the conclusion is that each vendor has
strengths but neither has demonstrated the full compliment of experience including
design and portal implementation necessary to fulfill all requirements in the RFP
to the standards that we would expect. EMG has significant and impressive design
and management experience, including the incorporation of video and media
within websites and branding for higher education web sites, and would be
capable of facilitating involvement of users in the re-design of the CCSF website.
However, EMG lacks large portal implementation experience on the scale that we
are seeking.
SunGard Higher Educational Managed Services lacks the design capabilities
offered by EMG but is stronger on the technical development and support skills.
Evidence of the Sungard Higher Educational Managed Services ability to install,
configure and deploy portals did not come from reference checks. We did not find
the ability to integrate web services with other applications such as Banner and
student email from either group. We believe that CCSF has done an extensive
search for a company that could comply with our needs and that perhaps the RFP
outlined skills that are not currently found within one company, whether it be a
large or small one. However, we believe the Committee has several options to
move forward, including:
1. Select a vendor based on demonstrated technical expertise (SunGard
HESM seems to have the edge) and work with this vendor to develop a
design process heavy on user involvement.
2. Select a vendor with design experience understanding that we will have a
more hands-on role in the technical decision-making process for the portal
implementation. (EMG is stronger here)
3. Divide the scope of work into two major components:
6/30/16
CCSF website redesign and portal implementation project
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Page 8 of 10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
a. Website redesign (Phases 1-3)
b. Portal development/implementation (Phases 4-6).
Options One and Two come with significant risks. Option One could result in a
new website lacking in a design that is dynamic and represents the look and feel
that City College needs to appeal to our constituency. Option Two offers the
potential of a website with superior graphic design and appeal that is unable to
comply with the underlying technology when it comes to implementing portal
functionality.
Option Three suggests using EMG for the design and SunGard Managed Services
for the portal development implementation. This option might result in the same
outcome as Option Two unless we consider another means by which we could
implement Option Three.
We could select Option Three and do the following:
A. Choose EMG to do the complete the scope of work related to re-design.
B. Choose SunGard Consulting Services (in lieu of SunGard Higher Education
Managed Services) to implement a portal (in this case SunGard would want
to implement Luminus)
If affordable and chosen by the subcommittee, this approach should result in an
appealing web design within a functional web portal that integrates with Banner.
We currently are waiting pricing for the SunGard Luminus product as well as the
cost of implementation from a Sungard consultant.
TOTAL COST OF OPERATION:
During this process, it has become clear to the subcommittee that these costs do
not take in total cost of operation. Many other considerations need to be discussed
as we make this decision, including the number of IT staffing that will be required
to switch over to portal technology and a CMS system. Our early estimates after
conferring with the potential vendors, lead us to thinking that we will need to add
at least two full-time staff members to the IT department to run the portal, manage
the servers and keep up the website. To effectively leverage the new features that
the portal will offer, we also think that an additional full-time position should be
added to the marketing department. These are just initial suggestions about how
CCSF can evolve their staffing needs to adequately meet the demands of the new
technology. The various stakeholders have underlined that it is important to
consider the staffing issues at the same time as making these other important
decisions.
In addition, we need to consider the cost of additional hardware and
software. Because this committee has set out primarily to find an outside vendor to
6/30/16
CCSF website redesign and portal implementation project
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Page 9 of 10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
conduct the redesign and implementation, we have not focused on finalizing the
cost of software and hardware implementation. These costs will become apparent
as we make decisions during the process of working with the outside vendor.
6/30/16
CCSF website redesign and portal implementation project
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Page 10 of 10