DRAFT
LMS Futures Workgroup Strategy and Spring 2009 Roadmap
Version 0.9 2-25-09
The LMS Futures Workgroup recognized that the scope of learning management services was
very large with many ambiguities. The group decided to initially focus the scope of their efforts
to the LMS (Learning Management Systems such as Blackboard, Angel, Moodle, etc.). Given
the enterprise nature of this application for every CSU campus, the workgroup decided that
developing strategic planning recommendations for the LMS (systems) would be productive and
valued. After our first 2 meetings where we explored the range of issues within the LMS
domain, we need to define our plan for managing our workgroup to deliver on the goals defined
in the establishment of the workgroup (see appendix A for the list of deliverables).
Below are the three major activities of the LMS Futures workgroup and the “roadmap” of
processes, products, and milestones for Spring 2009.
1.
Align the benefits provided by the LMS with the goals in Access to Excellence
a. Process:
i. Draft-Review-Approve version
ii. Document is a product of the whole group. All will contribute to the report
and participate in all stages in the process. The CSU CO staff and
consultants will organize the input and feedback to produce the document for
review and approval.
iii. Member contributions will be made during meetings as scheduled and
asynchronously using online tools. The tasks and schedule for contributing to
the document will be presented and reviewed at LMS F virtual meetings.
b. Product:
i. Provides the strategic rationale for why the CSU system and campuses will
advance LMS initiatives.
ii. Provides assumptions/context for defining recommended aspects and
requirements of successful LMS implementations.
c. Milestones
i. March 15, 2009 version 1.0 approved by LMS F workgroup and distributed to
CSU stakeholders (Academic Council, ITAC, COLD, DATS, Faculty
Developers, etc)
ii. April 15, 2009 version 1.X approved by LMS F workgroup, informed by
consultation with CSU stakeholder groups
2. Defining recommended aspects and requirements of LMS implementations
a. Process:
i. Draft-Review-Approve version
ii. Document is a product of the whole group. All will contribute to the report
and participate in all stages in the process. The CSU CO staff and
consultants will organize the input and feedback to produce the document for
review and approval.
iii. Member contributions will be made during meetings as scheduled and
asynchronously using online tools. The tasks and schedule for contributing to
the document will be presented and reviewed at LMS F virtual meetings.
b. Product:
i. Provides the strategic “requirements” for what the CSU system and
campuses will deliver with LMSs
1. Instructional requirements for faculty and students
2. Business requirements
3. Administrative and accreditation requirements
4. Technology requirements
ii. Provides assumptions/context for:
1. Analyzing current baseline of LMS deployment
2. Identifying dependencies for successful implementation in these
areas:
a. Training
b. Technologies (including migration and
interoperability/integration)
c. Policies
d. Staffing
e. Financing/budgeting
f. Management
g. Etc
3. Opportunities for various levels of collaboration among CSU
campuses to support LM services.
4. Projects needed for the LMS Futures workgroup to fulfill its mission,
such as
a. Defining the balance between central and local services
b. Defining PeopleSoft integration strategies
c. Open vs proprietary LM services
d. End-user (e.g. students and faculty) needs assessment
c. Milestones
i. April 16, 2009 version 1.0 approved by LMS F workgroup and distributed to
CSU stakeholders (Academic Council, ITAC, COLD, DATS, Faculty
Developers, etc)
ii. May 16, 2009 version 1.X approved by LMS F workgroup, informed by
consultation with CSU stakeholder groups
3. Implement Tasks/Projects that the LMS Futures workgroup to fulfill its mission,
such as
 Defining the balance between central and local services
 Defining PeopleSoft integration strategies
 Open vs proprietary LM services
 End-user (e.g. students and faculty)needs assessment
a. Process:
i. Draft-Review-Approve version
ii. The smaller workgroup will generate the drafts and review their efforts with
the whole group. The whole group will approve the version. The CSU CO
staff and consultants will organize the input and feedback to produce the
document for review and approval. The LMS Futures workgroup can make
requests of other CSU groups to conduct the projects (e.g. ITAC, DATs,
COLD, Faculty Development Council, etc.)
iii. Member contributions will be made during meetings as scheduled and
asynchronously using online tools. The tasks and schedule for contributing to
the document will be presented and reviewed at the LMS F virtual meetings.
b. Product:
i. Project management plans (who, what, when, with what/who, why)
ii. Project results will be presented in reports
c. Milestones
i. May 1, 2009: version 1.0 of project plans approved by LMS F workgroup
and distributed to CSU stakeholders (Academic Council, ITAC, COLD, DATS,
Faculty Developers, etc)
ii. June 15, 2009: Status report on projects approved by LMS F workgroup and
ready for presentation to CSU stakeholder groups
Appendix A
Deliverables and Milestones for LMS Futures Workgroup from Letter of Invitation
Deliverables: The group will:
 Document the context for LM services and the time frame that will be addressed by the
working group’s recommendations. This will include an external environmental scan and an
analysis of the needs for and capacity of CSU campuses to support LM services.
 Document principles to guide the planning, analysis, and recommendations for LM services.
 Prioritize the scope of analyses and recommendations within the broader LM services.
 Review a business analysis of current the LM services environment and options for
implementing LM services.
 Develop and document the key functional requirements of LM services associated with
different stakeholders (e.g. faculty, students, staff, librarians, administrators). These
requirements can include:
 Campus infrastructure and support for successful deployment of LM services.
 Strategies for transitioning or migrating from one LMS product to another
 Integration of LM services with key existing technologies (e.g., student information
systems, identity management, library systems, eportfolio applications, digital
repositories).
 Support for a variety of pedagogical strategies enabling student engagement and
success
 Support for technology and pedagogical management processes for delivering
successful instruction
 Support for personalization and customization of learning management services
 Analyze and document the potential impact of different LM services and service levels on
student learning, faculty workload, and institutional service levels.
 Document opportunities for different levels of collaboration among the CSU campuses to
support LM services. Identify and document opportunities to share infrastructure, technical
expertise, support services, etc.
 Document how possible advances in technology may change LM services and their impact
on outcomes important to the CSU mission.
Draft Schedule
 December 2008: Initial conference call to review and discuss group’s first tasks and plan
agenda for upcoming meeting(s)
 January 2009, possible multi-day session for intensive work.
 April 2009, draft results from the group’s work will be ready for distribution to campuses
for their feedback and revision. We expect that the report will provide analyses of the
LM services environment, principles, draft requirements and draft recommendations on
how the CSU should proceed in planning and implementing LM services. Identification
of areas requirement further investigation will be included.
 April through May 2009: disseminate and obtain feedback on the group’s analysis and
recommendations from key constituencies.