Statement of Work Version 3.0, 1/11/05 Duke University – OIT, CIT, A&SIST Project: iLecture Proof of Concept Trial I. Introduction The purpose of this statement of work is to describe what resources are necessary and what work must be done in order to accomplish a proof of concept trial of the University of Western Australia’s iLecture software in real life conditions here at Duke. Included here are background information, a requirements statement, an overview of the iLecture system, a statement of scope for this trial, a goals and objectives statement, statement of leadership and roles for the trial, a risks statement, timeline with milestones, a preliminary budget, and additional information. The central goal of the trial is to prove the software’s functionality and the feasibility of a possible larger scale implementation at Duke University. Primary functional requirements include automated passive lecture capture; processing and distribution in multiple media formats and successful access of content by Duke students via Duke’s iTunes and streaming servers. II. Background Here at Duke, we continue to explore ways of making learning more efficient through the use of technology, and by taking advantage of advances in instructional methods and toolsets as they become available. The recording of lectures for later on-demand access by students is one important area we seek to explore further. We have been reviewing products for this purpose. Our interest is prompted in part by the iPod project, but also by an increasing number of Duke faculty who have expressed an interest in recording some part of their lectures (audio only or both audio and video, i.e., some or all visual components). We are looking for a product that makes this type of capture easy to accomplish, and that makes access to what is captured easy as well. Across the Duke campus, faculty carefully present their accumulated knowledge in classroom lectures or seminars. This knowledge/content represents a significant portion of what Duke students pay for in their tuition fees. Students do their best to capture the content of these lectures by listening carefully, taking notes, working together in study groups, etc. Recent advances in “capture and access” technology allow this lecture content to be recorded and made available over the Internet (or in other ways), allowing students to review it again and again. When captured, archived and made available for on-demand review, these recorded lectures and seminars can make learning not only more efficient, but more satisfying to students due to increased retention of content, i.e., improved learning. Manual methods of recording a live lecture or seminar often fail to capture all the necessary details, including class discussion. They often are biased or incomplete depending on the method used or the individual doing the capture, and in some cases, may contain errors. Even the act of manual capture can distract students and faculty from fully engaging in the lecture and classroom experience. Applications that automatically capture the oral and visual details of a live lecture, and automatically provide on demand access to that experience, have a distinct advantage to manual methods. Automated capture and access applications do what computers do best, record information in an accessible form. In return, students are free to fully engage in the lecture and to integrate the experience. Faculty are free from having to exert energy to capture content allowing them to focus instead on its delivery. Faculty who serve on the CIT Advisory Committee and the Academic Technology Advisory Committee have both reviewed the preliminary proposal regarding an iLecture trial and have responded favorably. III. Requirements We have identified our essential requirements for a “capture and access” product here at Duke. We require an application that: has been proven over time; provides for an enterprise solution; is not proprietary in its resulting media or access to it; that provides capture of both audio only as well as audio and any visual elements projected; allows easy authentication of student users; makes use of existing investments in classroom and campus infrastructure technology; requires minimal staff resources to maintain; is cost effective in its implementation; provides faculty control over scheduling; require minimal effort from faculty and allow students to review lecture content anytime, anywhere. The product iLecture, an academic enterprise solution developed at the University of Western Australia (UWA) beginning in 1999, and now in use across Australia in several universities, comes closest to meeting our stated needs. While homegrown systems have been in limited use in universities in this country (such as the eClass/Classroom 2000 system at Georgia Tech or the Cornell Lecture Browser), five enterprise solutions which are commercially available and comparable have been identified. (See Appendix I for a comparison of “capture and access” products). iLecture offers Duke the most promise in relation to our stated requirements. IV. iLecture Overview iLecture could be easily adapted to Duke. iLecture is a distributed system with permanently located digitizers in classrooms connected to processors and then to a central iLecture server. The system is completely automated. The faculty simply make a request to have it recorded, providing the lecture times and location. Authorization and signoff for permission by the faculty member is required. The capturing, encoding and uploading of the completed recording is automatically done. In the classroom, faculty need only turn the microphone on in the room at the time of the lecture. When the lecture recording is complete and processed here at Duke, it would automatically be uploaded to the Duke iPod site or to our new QuickTime Streaming Server (when you might want the video or PowerPoint captured). Students would then be able to access the lecture recording: the audio only, almost immediately; streaming media files, usually an hour from the end of the class. The element of simplicity for faculty is what has made iLecture a success in its previous implementations. No technicians must be present or scheduled for lecture hall installations where there is no need to reserve special equipment. A portable system can be scheduled on a case by case basis. Previously recorded or content from other sources can be processed through the iLecture system as needed. In venues where the digitizer is installed, the lecture is recorded and posted without any intermediary editing or production work. The sound quality is easily good enough for classes that intend it only as a back up to regular class attendance, but can be excellent as the quality is reflective of the quality of the microphone used in the room and the distance of the lecturer from the microphone. An important part of implementation is the administrative processes around iLecture that would be explored and evaluated in the Proof of Concept phase. This includes: booking process, permission to record, intellectual property considerations, system monitoring, as well as integration with WebAuth (for faculty and staff booking recordings or administering iLecture) and Blackboard. V. Scope The approach is to do a mini-implementation of the iLecture System in three primary venues. In addition, a second tier of testing with portable systems will be helpful in determining the flexibility of the system. Finally, professional schools who can dedicate the resources, both equipment and staff, may participate in the trial on a case by case basis. Primary venues include two primary lecture halls used heavily for undergraduate teaching on campus (Griffith Theatre in the Bryan Center and the CIEMAS Auditorium) and one seminar room, to be determined. A second tier of testing with portable units in general A&S classrooms and in the JHFC. One of the CIT lab computers will be able to digitize other recorded materials on an as needed basis to test processing other source media through the system. Duke’s professional schools of Law, Business, Medicine and the Environment all have expressed interest in participating in the trial as well. Given these school’s provision of the necessary equipment and availability of their support staff, access to both the iLecture central administration system, support from UWA’s iLecture team and the iLecture server will be made available to them during the trial effort. Installation of two central processing units and the iLecture server will be handled by a systems team made up of staff from OIT and A&SIST. Professional schools that participate will also provide systems support for their own efforts and work with the larger systems team. Room for placement of the central processing units and iLecture server has been made available in a newly designated server room in the John Hope Franklin Center where other servers will soon be relocated. Systems would be maintained remotely by existing systems personnel from OIT and A&SIST. The Duke trial implementation of the iLecture system would be utilized over a several week period. Careful documentation will be made of problems, concerns and utilization of the recordings by students. Additional documentation for evaluation of student response both to the availability of lectures, as well as the quality and accessibility of recordings, will be made. The mini-implementation would consist of an installation of all system components in February 2005, with recording of selected lectures continuing through midterm. Lecture availability could continue following the evaluation right on through exams depending on student and faculty interest. Evaluation would be accomplished by three groups working as a team using in part metrics already developed at UWA. These groups include: faculty users, their students, and a technical team made up of CIT, OIT and A&SIST staff, all to be determined. Evaluation will focus on the level of student and faculty satisfaction, utilization by faculty, level of use by students, the quality of capture and the ease of access to capture lectures. Comparison of data from Duke with that of data collected in Australian universities should prove to be useful. VI. Goals and Objectives The central goal of the test is to prove the iLecture software’s functionality and the feasibility of a larger scale implementation here at Duke University. Primary objectives to demonstrate with this software include: automated passive lecture capture of high quality; adequate processing and distribution in multiple media formats; and successful access of content by Duke students via Duke’s iTunes and streaming servers. VII. Leadership and Roles Michael Fardon of the Uiversity of Western Australia and others from his office there have been working with the following staff from Duke University to develop this Statement of Work. Lynne O’Brien, Director of the CIT, provides overall direction of this trial. Fred Westbrook, serves as the Trial Manager for OIT. Kirk Griffin is CIT’s technical lead. Hannah Arps serves as A&S’s technical lead. Kevin Witte has provided advice and consultation. VIII. Risks Any equipment purchased can be redeployed within OIT. Travel expenditures for the UWA implementation team would not be recouped in any case. We’ve attempted to minimize this risk with careful upfront evaluation and comparison of iLecture to similar products. Human and technical resources must be drawn from several groups (CIT, A&SIST and multiple departments from within OIT). These groups have plenty already to do, yet the promise or potential for such a system is within the operational goals of all of these groups. The risk will be minimized by careful planning, consultation with stakeholders in advance, and the goodwill these groups have toward working together. Faculty using it may find they do not like the look of the captured lectures, or the ways students use them; they may feel inhibited by the recording technology, and students may choose not to make use of the recordings. On the other hand, faculty may like the technology and may expect its further implementation in other venues before the end of the trial; other faculty who have an interest is using this technology may not have access to it during the trial period. Students may expect a wider implementation before the trial is completed. In any case, managing well the expectations of faculty and students alike will be an important part of this trial. IX. Timeline Milestones for this trial of iLecture are outlined below, with the first milestones completed. 1. Non-disclosure agreement signed between UWA and Duke for the purpose of sharing of information concerning iLecture. Preliminary discussions commenced, Summer, 2004. 2. The cross campus iLecture leadership determined from OIT, CIT and A&SIST staff (as stated in this Statement of Work). Fall/Winter 2004, meet regularly with each other and with the iLecture team from UWA by phone on a weekly basis as possible. 3. Technical specifications reviewed and made available to numerous staff in OIT, CIT and A&SIST. October/November 2004. 4. Venues reviewed, related staff contacted and professional schools invited to express an interest in the trial, December, 2004. 5. Determine feasibility of a Proof of Concept iLecture Trial using a preliminary Statement of Work, and vetting with several constituent groups (Academic Technology, CIT Advisory Committee and others). 6. Recommend to proceed with the iLecture trial to Tracy Futhey, Vice President for Information Technology and CIO, Duke, January, 2005. 7. Negotiation and final signoff by UWA and Duke University on final Statement of Work soon after Duke approval. 8. Network and systems staff from OIT and A&SIST review in detail technical specifications and provide additional feedback/recommendations regarding implementation, January 2005. 9. Review and final determination of administrative processes around trial deployment, January, 2005. 10. Develop specific purchase recommendations for final equipment, in tandem with UWA, by January 31, 2005 11. Order primary venue and secondary tier equipment, January 31, 2005 with delivery soon there after. 12. Visit by iLecture staff to assist and direct implementation, February, 2005. 13. Configuration and deployment of equipment, February, 2005 14. Training related Duke staff, February, 2005 15. Testing, February, 2005 16. Begin recording of lectures, mid to late February, 2005 17. Monitor availability, quality of recordings, once begun 18. Evaluation, April 2005 19. Publish evaluation toward possible partnership determination with University of Western Australia at completion of evaluation 20. Business plan development, if implementation is continued. 21. System development (WebAuth, Blackboard, other), May – June, 2005 22. Full Phase determination for expanded implementation, Summer 2005 X. Additional Background: An iLecture overview and sample encoding might be gathered from these sites: o http://ilectures.uwa.edu.au/ilectures/ilectures.lasso?ut=1&id=29924 o http://ilecture.uwa.edu.au Capture and access product comparison, Appendix I Duke iLecture Trial Budget, Appendix II Technical Description and Administration System Overview available on request, restricted access due to non-disclosure agreement XI. Approval for Duke University for University of Western Australia