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