BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report version: FINAL v2, 14 June 2012 Author: Tim Neumann, Institute of Education, University of London, t.neumann@ioe.ac.uk 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Context ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Approach ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 4 BLE Requirements for a Web Conferencing System .......................................................................... 3 5 Market Review .................................................................................................................................................... 7 6 Shortlist Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 10 7 Decision Making .............................................................................................................................................. 14 8 Recommendation ............................................................................................................................................ 16 9 References ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 1 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 1 Executive Summary Between October 2011 and June 2012, a BLE Web Conferencing Working Group was established to carry out a review of Web Conferencing products with the aim to identify a preferred product for the provision of web conferencing at the Bloomsbury Colleges. This report presents a recommendation to the BLE Steering Group. The BLE Web Conferencing Working Group proceeded in three stages: In stage 1, a BLE requirements analysis was carried out alongside a market review of web conferencing product. A longlist of twelve products was identified and narrowed down to a shortlist of four products. In stage 2, the four shortlisted products were investigated. Vendors were invited to present their products, the products were assessed against the identified BLE requirements, feedback was collected from interested BLE colleagues, and information about pricing and implementation was obtained. This stage ended with an intermediate report to the BLE Steering Group and resulted in two products being selected for a direct thorough comparison. In stage 3, the two preferred vendors were approached for additional presentations to clarify detailed issues, including VLE integration, which emerged as a major factor for the final recommendation. The report ends with a recommendation to adopt Blackboard Collaborate at the Bloomsbury Colleges. 2 Context The Bloomsbury Colleges currently use Blackboard Collaborate (formerly Elluminate) for web conferences in a Software-­‐as-­‐a-­‐Service (SaaS) agreement with Blackboard. Blackboard Collaborate is integrated with both of BLE’s VLEs, Blackboard Academic Suite 8 and Moodle 2.1, and it can operate stand-­‐alone outside of the VLE. Following the buy-­‐out of Elluminate by Blackboard in 2010, Blackboard Collaborate redesigned the user interface significantly in 2011, though this upgrade has not yet been rolled out to the BLE, due to the retraining effort involved. The BLE secured favourable terms for the licence fees, but under the new management of Blackboard Collaborate, there are strong indicators that the licence fees might increase in the future. 2 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 The current Blackboard Collaborate licence is valid for the academic year 2011/12. Due to the factors above, the BLE Steering Group decided to review the use of web conferencing software with the aim to find an adequate system for the academic year 2012/13. 3 Approach To facilitate decision-­‐making, we collected basic data on how Blackboard Collaborate was used at the BLE Colleges, and what features were regarded as essential, desired and peripheral. A survey was distributed to a representative from each college, who was supposed to provide a summarised viewpoint from their college. We received one response each from Birkbeck, IOE, LSHTM and RVC, and a set of eight responses from SOAS. The responses were collated into a set or BLE requirements for a web conferencing system. At the same time, we conducted a light review of the current market situation of web conferencing systems to identify the major products. These products were compared against the BLE requirements. 4 BLE Requirements for a Web Conferencing System We asked a representative from each college to provide a summary view of web conferencing usage and needs. The areas were: 1. User Tools Representatives rated the importance of 11 functions available to web conferencing users (High/Medium/Low). 2. Technical Features Representative indicated the importance of 12 technical features of web conferencing systems (Must have/Would be good/No priority). 3. Type of use Representatives indicated how they were using Elluminate by rating six usage scenarios and returning the average and maximum numbers of participants. 4. Comments Representatives identified software that overlaps with web conferencing systems and provided general comments. Replies were collected via an online survey. The questions and prompts were based on the 2006-­‐2008 University of London Centre for Distance Education research project ‘MoSAIC’, along with a short web-­‐based review of current developments in web conferencing functionality. 3 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 The responses were collected from one identified representative from each college, who either consulted local Elluminate users or gave a college response based on past experience. The representatives were those learning technologists in a leading web conferencing support role. In the absence of such a person at SOAS, they submitted a set of eight responses from current Elluminate users and support staff. As the set of SOAS responses showed a rather disparate variety, we summarised their set by introducing a bias towards higher importance: The summary lists the highest rating that received at least two out of eight individual responses. 4.1 User Tools Representatives rated 11 functions based on a three-­‐option response: High importance, medium importance and low importance. Five tools were regarded as highly important by all colleges: Audio/VoIP, Text Chat/Messaging, Whiteboard/Live annotation, Instant Polling & Emoticons and Recording. Four tools received a ‘High’ rating from three or four colleges: Application/Desktop Sharing and Recording Download/Conversion (four colleges), and Web Tour/Co-­‐Browsing and Offline Session Preparation (three colleges). Only two out of eleven tools received just two ‘High’ ratings from the five colleges: Quiz and Video/Webcam. 1. User Tools Birkbeck IOE LSHTM SOAS RVC Video / Webcam High Medium Medium High Medium Audio / VoIP High High High High High Text Chat / Messaging High High High High High Whiteboard / Live annotation High High High High High Application/Desktop Sharing High High High High Medium Instant Polling & Emoticons High High High High High Web Tour/Co-­‐Browsing High Medium High High Low Quiz High Low High Medium Medium Recording High High High High High Offline Session Preparation High Medium High Medium High Recording Download/Conversion High High High Medium High The results show some consensus of what the most crucial functions of a web conferencing system are. Interestingly, Video/Webcam is one of the functions that three colleges do not regard as crucial, which indicates that they clearly see web conferencing as a separate product from video conferencing. 4 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 While Web Tour/Co-­‐Browsing was rated ‘high’ by three institutions, this is a function that could possibly be imitated by desktop/application sharing or pasting a link into the text chat box, so it might be included from a mandatory set of requirements, if all colleges decided to use the same system. The Quiz tool received the lowest average rating overall and is therefore of least importance to a shared web conferencing system, though an alternative would be needed for Birkbeck and LSHTM, who rated this tool ‘High’. 4.2 Technical Features Technical features are parts of a web conferencing system that determine a system’s performance and compatibility with devices and other systems. A different three-­‐option response was used: Must have, Would be good, and No priority. Consensus in this area was considerably lower, with LSHTM establishing the highest demands, followed by SOAS, and RVC the lowest, followed by Birkbeck. Of all 12 criteria, only three were consensual: OS compatibility with Windows and Mac OS X were a must, whereas a Telephone Conferencing Bridge was only a ‘nice to have’ function, with the RVC even indicating no priority. Three criteria only received a ‘Must’ from LSHTM: H.323/SIP Support, Encrypted Communication and OS compatibility with Linux/Unix. The other criteria regarded as crucial (all by LSHTM with the exception of Multi-­‐Language Support) showed a conflict between IOE and SOAS: Whereas the IOE requires Low Bandwidth Support and Flexible Permission Assignment, SOAS needs Mobile Connectivity and Multi-­‐Language Support, both non-­‐priority criteria for the IOE. 2a. Technical Features Birkbeck IOE LSHTM SOAS RVC Telephone Conferencing Bridge Want Want Want Want No priority H.323/SIP Support Want Want Must Want No priority Encrypted Communication Want Want Must Want Want Low Bandwidth Support Want Must Must Want Want Mobile Connectivity Want No priority Must Must Want Breakout Rooms/Sub Groups Want Want Must Must No priority Flexible Permission Assignment Want Must Must Want No priority Multi-­‐Language Support Want No priority Want Must No priority Preserve PP Animations No priority No priority Must Must Want Windows Must Must Must Must Must Mac OS X Must Must Must Must Must Linux/Unix Want No priority Must Want Want 2b. OS Support 5 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 Overall, LSHTM and SOAS have the highest overlap, while Birkbeck and RVC would effectively go along with any system. The IOE has two specific demands. 4.3 Type of Use Looking at the types of use, interactive sessions appeared to be run most frequently, thus highlighting a general need for such a tool at roughly all colleges. 3a. Current Use Birkbeck IOE LSHTM SOAS RVC Presentation Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Lecture Occasionally Frequently Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Workshop Occasionally Frequently Frequently Occasionally Frequently Meeting Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Frequently Occasionally Classroom Recording Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Screen Recording Occasionally Occasionally Frequently Rarely Occasionally 3b. Session Sizes Average 20 15 10-­‐25 4-­‐20 10-­‐15 Maximum 40 30 100 25 30+ There were, however, differences in the use pattern: Again, LSHTM and SOAS were rather similar with one exception: SOAS did not appear to use Elluminate for Screen Recordings, for example to create animated voice-­‐over demonstrations, which was a frequent use case at LSHTM. Classroom Recording was not relevant to LSHTM and SOAS, presumably because Echo360 was used for this purpose. But an overall picture across all colleges emerged that Elluminate was seen as a multi-­‐purpose tool that was used in different contexts. Average group sizes were roughly consistent, ranging from 4 to 25 participants, with a group size of 10-­‐20 representing all five colleges. A 50-­‐seat-­‐per-­‐session maximum licence would be enough for Birkbeck, IOE and SOAS, whereas LSHTM needs at least 100 simultaneous seats, and RVC was planning to go well beyond its current maximum of 30. 4.4 Comments We asked which overlapping tools were used, and responses listed the products below. It was also noted that none of these products came close to what Elluminate did. •
•
•
•
•
Camtasia (or Jing/other screen recording software): Birkbeck, IOE Echo360 (lecture recording): LSHTM, SOAS Impatica (PowerPoint broadcast): LSHTM Skype: LSHTM, IOE, SOAS MSN: SOAS 6 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 In the open comment box, several additional needs were highlighted: •
•
•
•
Ease of use Accessibility Poor connectivity consideration Similarity to Elluminate Two aspects of Elluminate were singled out as very positive and can be translated into ‘Wants’: •
•
Very good online support & training and documentation available for staff and students. Participants can save different aspects of the presentation (chat, slides, etc), which provides access to materials without having to watch the full recording. 5 Market Review A light web-­‐based market review was conducted to identify suitable systems for the BLE context. 5.1 Market Overview The market for web conferencing products underwent a consolidation phase: Web consultants Thinkofit (2011) list more than 150 different products in the real-­‐time web conferencing category in their vendor overview, which was up-­‐to-­‐date during the MoSAIC project around 2007, though it was only updated sporadically since then and many of the products have since disappeared. Wikipedia (2011) lists 41 products, though this list is equally updated, with some products having disappeared, and new products not yet listed. The company Publicare (2011) runs a comparison site of currently 36 products, though the selection criteria are somewhat unclear. Market researchers InfoTech Research Group regularly release updated reports on the current state of the web conferencing product market, although their reports are targeted primarily at large-­‐scale businesses and not at the education sector, which has some very specific requirements. Nevertheless, the InfoTech report provides a good overview of current highly reliable and established systems, and the 2011 report identifies two champions (Adobe Connect and Cisco WebEx) and four emerging players (Citrix GoToMeeting, IBM with two products, and Microsoft Lync). Another market researcher, Wainhouse Research (2009), added iLinc, Saba (formerly Centra) and Elluminate and Wimba (now merged into Blackboard Collaborate) to the mix, in addition to the aforementioned systems or predecessors. Their report has a high relevance as it focuses on the distance education and e-­‐learning segments. 7 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 However, not all products appear on the radar of market researchers, most notably emerging products that are just beginning to becoming established, and Open Source systems that are often regarded as experimental, yet are used as production systems at some universities. At the time of writing, four such products are worth mentioning: BigBlueButton, Google+ Hangouts, openmeeting, and WebHuddle. 5.2 Product Longlist 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Product Adobe Connect BigBlueButton Blackboard Collaborate Cisco WebEx Citrix GoToMeeting Google+ Hangouts IBM LotusLive IBM LotusSametime iLinc openmeeting Saba Centra WebHuddle Type Commercial Open Source Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Open Source Commercial Open Source Information http://www.adobeconnect.com http://bigbluebutton.org http://www.blackboardcollaborate.com http://www.webex.com http://www.gotomeeting.com http://plus.google.com/hangouts http://www.lotuslive.com http://www.ibm.com/sametime http://www.ilinc.com http://www.openmeetings.de http://cloud.saba.com http://www.webhuddle.com Four of these products do not meet some crucial requirements and can thus be eliminated quickly: High Text Chat / Messaging High Whiteboard / Live annotation High Application/Desktop Sharing High Instant Polling & Emoticons High Web Tour/Co-­‐Browsing Medium Saba Centra Medium Audio / VoIP openmeeting Video / Webcam ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Microsoft Lync iLinc 1. User Tools IBM Lotus Sametime BLE Need Cisco WebEx Blackboard Collaborate •
BigBlueButton •
Citrix GoToMeeting: Significant features are not supported on Mac OS X. Google+ Hangouts: A promising tool, but not mature enough and on an institutional level only relevant for institutions using Google Apps (SOAS). Has a slightly different philosophy. IBM LotusLive: Limited feature set that does not allow much interactivity for participants. WebHuddle: Limited feature set and no viable commercial support. Adobe Connect •
•
8 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 Quiz Medium Recording High Offline Session Preparation Medium Recording Download/Conversion ✓ ✓ (✓) ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ High ? 2a. Technical Features Telephone Conferencing Bridge Want ? ? ✓ ✓ ✗ Mixed ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ H.323/SIP Support Want Encrypted Communication Want Low Bandwidth Support Mixed Mobile Connectivity Mixed Breakout Rooms/Sub Groups Mixed Flexible Permission Assignment Multi-­‐Language Support Mixed ? Preserve PP Animations Mixed ✓ 2b. OS Support Windows Must Mac OS X Must Linux/Unix Mixed ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ (✓) (✓) ✓ ✓ ?
✓ ✓ ✗ ? ✓ ? ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓
(✓) ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ? ? ? ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓
✓
✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ? ? ? ? ? ✓ ✓ (✓) ✓ (✓) ? ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ?
(✓) (✓)
✗ (✓)
(✓) ? From the requirements table above, further exclusions can be made: The feature set of both Open Source products, BigBlueButton and openmeetings does not quite match BLE needs. Both systems have shown a dramatic increase in development speed and an increase in take-­‐up by universities thanks to well-­‐developed VLE integrations, so they might become viable solutions within a few months, but not at the current point in time. IBM Lotus Sametime has no Breakout Rooms, which is a must-­‐have feature for LSHTM and SOAS. Also, the system appears to have usability difficulties for users outside of an organisation’s network. While it boasts the best mobile connectivity of all systems, it has been criticised for its general user interface and appears to be powerful only when properly integrated with the Lotus Suite or Microsoft Office. The six remaining competitors, Adobe Connect, Blackboard Collaborate, Cisco Webex, iLinc, Microsoft Lync, and Saba Centra represent well established systems that have been around for at least a decade, with the exception of Adobe Connect (approx. 6 years) and Microsoft Lync (approx. 8 years). All systems are provided by reputable companies with a long track record of serving mission critical businesses, and all systems could theoretically serve as the future web conferencing system for the BLE. 5.3 Product Shortlist This paragraph very briefly summarises the six products that meet BLE requirements: •
Adobe Connect Adobe Connect emerged as a front-­‐runner, partly because of a good relationship 9 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 •
•
•
•
•
with the UK vendor. Compared to Elluminate, the feature set is impressive, although we do not know how it actually compares with the other systems. Connect’s mobile connectivity, for example, is actually the second weakest after Blackboard. Blackboard Collaborate Successor of our current system. The relationship with the vendor is not very positive, and the development roadmap is very slow, which indicates a danger that the system will be left behind. However, it still offers good usability and stability, and our users would not need significant retraining. Cisco Webex Webex is the market leader by a large margin, but the pricing model is quite different. Currently, Webex is not offered as a Product-­‐as-­‐a-­‐Service, but cost depends on actual usage. Also, the bandwidth requirements are slightly above IOE and LSHTM requirements. It should be noted that Webex is not a major player in the Higher Education sector. Cisco Webex is excluded for its high-­‐bandwidth demands and an unfavourable pricing structure for the BLE context. iLinc iLinc is the smallest competitor in this list and has drawbacks in non-­‐Windows compatibility and flexible permission management, a must-­‐have for IOE and LSHTM. iLinc is excluded for its lack of a user community in UK Higher Education and the drawbacks listed above. Microsoft Lync Unsurprisingly Lync has the best Microsoft Office integration. Lync is highly attractive for institutions going for Office 365: As an integrated part of Office 365, it offers far more than web conferencing and would be the most affordable option. But it currently has problems with Mac OS X and Linux/Unix compatibility. Saba Centra Centra is a dinosaur of web conferencing systems, but since its buy-­‐out by Saba, it has become a fast-­‐evolving system with take-­‐up by Stanford University and the Australian Government, and the best accessibility features. In 2009/10, East Carolina University rated the system higher than both Adobe Connect and Elluminate; the only real criticism that still appears to hold was a lack of a Moodle plugin at the time of the review. 6 Shortlist Evaluation We selected the following for products for further investigation: •
•
•
•
Adobe Connect Blackboard Collaborate Microsoft Lync Saba Centra 10 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 6.1 Approach We arranged vendor demonstrations for Adobe Connect, Microsoft Lync and Saba Centra, to which we invited interested parties from all Bloomsbury Colleges. As current users of Elluminate, we took our experience with this tool as a benchmark. We did not organise a demonstration for Blackboard Collaborate v11, as users could explore this version individually based on our current system. It should be noted that v11 has not been released to the general user base of the BLE. Comments were collected from interested BLE colleagues, and vendors got an opportunity to pitch their product to these BLE colleagues. BLE representatives had an Adobe Connect room for testing available. The other vendors offered access to the system as well, but BLE colleagues did not take advantage of this. 11 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 6.2 Demo Comments Adobe Connect Positive Aspects • “rather impressed” • clean interface • Three user statuses instead of just moderator & participant • PowerPoint retains animations & transitions • Audio quality very good, low latency (naturally flowing discussions) • APIs available for extensions, developer community exists • Powerful customisation options Negative Aspects • Technical implementation leaves a number of questions open • No right-­‐to-­‐left in text chat • Layout system can be confusing • Session leaders must be aware that the user’s view might be different to theirs Comments • interface is markedly different from Elluminate • identity management unclear if used without VLE integration Negative Aspects • No “hands up” function • Saving chat & whiteboard cumbersome • No breakout rooms possible, though anybody can create new rooms quickly • Relies on good Active Directory information • Requires deeper technical integration to capture its benefits • Attendees can only be in a meeting with a presenter Comments • Different to the other products • Integrates with MS Office rather than with the VLE, although both can be achieved Saba Centra Positive Aspects • Layout similar to Elluminate • Strong recording editing functions • Strong session preparation functions • PowerPoint retains animations and transitions Negative Aspects • “impressed me least” • Interface looked dated • Sound quality poor • Audio seems to drop more often than with other products • Interface of desktop client and web client very different • Connection problems with strict firewalls & computer administration restrictions Comments • A new version has been released in the meantime Microsoft Lync Positive Aspects • Look “more current” • User friendly • Recording editing possible • “my favourite” • simple, reduced interface • Instant Messaging/presence indication integration • Comfortable phone integration • MS Outlook integration • PowerPoint retains animations and transitions • Clients for all platforms, not just a web client • Best “problem solver wizard” of all products • Automatic as-­‐you-­‐type machine translation of text chat • Students can easily start web conferences themselves • “Lobby” area available before a scheduled meeting starts • Content is preserved in between sessions • APIs available for extensions 12 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 6.3 Pricing << Removed >> 6.4 Additional Information Vendors pointed out additional strengths of their products, and our own research into the products provided more information as well. We asked for testimonies from existing users at other institutions, specifically regarding VLE integration, but only had a low response rate. This information is summarised below. 6.4.1
Adobe Connect A Moodle plugin exists, but we did not receive any experience reports. Connect’s user interface is based on ‘layouts’ to manage the different components appropriately. This is a very unique and powerful functionality, but it can lead to significant confusion, as the interface might change considerably during a session. An added benefit of Connect is the developer community, although all other products now also have APIs so that additional functionality can be developed and integrated as well. 6.4.2
Blackboard Collaborate We did not schedule a Blackboard Collaborate demo, as we originally felt we had enough experience with Elluminate. However, our research also showed that since the Elluminate takeover, Blackboard Collaborate evolves fast: Our BLE-­‐integrated version is currently Elluminate v10. Blackboard v11 can be used via the Session Administration System, and it represents a significant improvement with a number of new features, such as improved audio and video quality, profile photos (used when video is switched off), follow-­‐the-­‐speaker video/photo display, and simplified interface elements. Blackboard Collaborate is currently the only system without mobile connectivity. However, Mobile Apps for participants are scheduled for v12, to be released in July 2012. For 2012, Blackboard Collaborate has announced UK-­‐based Collaborate servers, which will minimise the latency and improve audiovisual communication, echo cancellation and native MP4 creation of recordings without using Publish!. Blackboard Collaborate remains the best tool for handling network interruptions. While Microsoft Lync has a catch-­‐up mechanism, it evicts users from a room a bit too quickly. Adobe Connect audio drop outs appear to be more frequent than Blackboard Collaborate. 13 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 The session planning tool Plan! and the offline recording extraction/conversion tool Publish! are features unique to Blackboard Collaborate. The Moodle plugin appears to work well, although the current version of the plugin interferes with Moodle’s core code, resulting in loss of functionality. 6.4.3
Microsoft Lync Microsoft Lync only makes sense when fully integrated with other systems. It heavily relies on Active Directory and therefore represents a solution only for institutions that heavily use Microsoft products for identity management, email and ideally the whole suite of Office and related applications. Microsoft Lync follows a very different strategy in that it represents a unified communication tool. Lync incorporates Instant Messaging, Presence Indicators, Group Text Chat, and full online meetings. Lync can also replace or complement an institution’s telephone PBX and therefore integrate the phone system deeply with all other electronic communication channels. Such a deep integration would lead to significant benefits in terms of user-­‐friendliness, and it can deliver a highly unique functionality that none of the other products are capable of. However, an institution would need to work towards a full integration of all components to capture all benefits, which represents a significant effort. Institutions adopting Office 365 will get Lync for free, albeit without deep-­‐level telephone integration. 7 Decision Making While all shortlisted products would meet the BLE requirements, with perhaps minor issues, almost all participants agreed that Saba Centra was the weakest product and should be ruled out. All other products were deemed suitable and had their supporters, and the preferences of college representatives are listed below: Product: Birkbeck IOE (if Office 365) IOE (w/o Office 365) LSHTM RVC SOAS Adobe Connect x x x x Blackboard Collaborate x x x Microsoft Lync x x Reject Both the IOE and LSHTM raised technical points: •
The IOE might prefer Microsoft Lync if it goes ahead with Office 365. Lync is also on the radar of the IT Services department and would thus cover application scenarios beyond teaching and learning. 14 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 •
LSHTM raised the important point that “technical specifications and implementation information should form a significant part of our decision”. These very technical aspects have been largely excluded in this review. It might therefore make sense to involve the IT departments more deeply in this process. While Lync was highlighted as a slight favourite, integration concerns were raised. RVC slightly favours Adobe Connect on the grounds of the support experience to date. Overall, the differences in preference were very minor, but there is no clear picture. One clear conclusion, however, can be drawn: •
Microsoft Lync should only be considered by the IOE and LSHTM, and only if Lync’s unique benefits can be realised. These are: • Either cost savings by moving to Office 365 or inclusion in the general Microsoft Licence Agreement, • and/or deep integration into the existing electronic communication systems, preferably including telephone. The other two systems, Adobe Connect and Blackboard Collaborate, can be used by all five colleges, which might realise cost savings and sharing of support issues in a better way. 7.1 Final Comparison We organised one final presentation for each Adobe Connect and Blackboard Collaborate. The Adobe Connect presentation focused on the integration with our new Moodle Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), whereas the Blackboard Collaborate presentation was the first guided run-­‐through of this product in the context of this review. 7.1.1
Product Features Both presentations uncovered new strengths and weaknesses, and the comments from colleagues of the Web Conferencing Working Group are listed below. Final Presentation Comments Blackboard Collaborate • Sleek and simplified user interface • Easy to learn, easy transition from Elluminate v10 • Very good VLE integration • Poor administration if used outside of a VLE • Mobile client announced for Q3/Q4, but not guaranteed • Session planning tool is unique • User support prompt and efficient • Use of Java is a support issue Adobe Connect • Friendly user interface • Easy to learn • Very bad VLE integration • Only one bandwidth option for whole room • Excellent mobile access • Does not cater well for the educational market • Use of Flash is a lesser support issue All colleagues were very positively surprised by the Blackboard Collaborate presentation and commended the new user interface. The Adobe Connect Moodle integration 15 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 presentation on the other hand revealed a significant flaw of the system, as there was no adequate solution. We therefore reached out to the UK Moodle user community to learn about VLE integration experiences at other institutions, but received no feedback. The aspects that really differentiate both products are: Differentiators Aspect • Underlying Technology: • VLE Integration (Moodle): • Mobile access: • Unique features: Adobe Connect Flash: Less support issues Very bad Very good API & Developer Community Blackboard Collaborate Java: Some support issues Very good On roadmap for Q3 or Q4 Session Planning Tool After some discussion, the underlying technology was regarded as an issue fully under control. Adobe Connect’s unique feature was not regarded as a major benefit, whereas Blackboard Collaborate’s unique feature was rated as highly useful. Mobile access is a risk for Blackboard Collaborate, as the availability in the calendar year 2012 is not guaranteed. This is a particular issue for LSHTM. VLE integration was rated as extremely crucial by all colleagues, who felt that the performance of Adobe Connect in this area was very disappointing and potentially resulting in very significant support issues. When asked for preferences, five out of seven colleagues representing all colleges argued strongly for Blackboard Collaborate. The remaining two colleagues preferred some aspects of Adobe Connect, but criticised the lacking VLE integration heavily, thus putting both products on equal footing. Overall, while product features were generally well received, the lacking VLE integration was seen as such a barrier that the votes for Blackboard Collaborate were very strong. 7.1.2
Pricing << removed >> 8 Recommendation The web conferencing working group recommends Blackboard Collaborate as a web conferencing product for the BLE. The main reasons for this recommendation are: 1. Blackboard Collaborate meets all BLE requirements except for mobile connectivity. 16 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 2.
3.
4.
5.
Blackboard Collaborate has the superior VLE integration. Blackboard Collaborate has a very robust technology infrastructure. Support and training costs are relatively low compared to other products. The pricing structure is very clear and has no or only few dynamic components. Reason #2 emerged as the most crucial factor, and outweighs drawbacks such as the risk of not having mobile connectivity in Q3/Q4 2012. Additional factors contributed to this recommendation: •
•
•
•
Established business relationship: Blackboard Collaborate is staffed by our former Elluminate and Wimba contacts. User support experience: Elluminate support has been good in the past and has not degraded following the Blackboard Collaborate merger. Appeal: The latest Blackboard Collaborate presentation was extremely well received, and the new product features including the new user interface design exceeded all expectations. Development pace: Following the merger of Elluminate and Wimba, the development pace of Blackboard Collaborate seems to have gained speed, boosting confidence in the product’s future. We are therefore confident that Blackboard Collaborate is currently the best option for the Bloomsbury Colleges. Despite rapid developments in the web conferencing field, we would also recommend a medium-­‐term commitment to assist a stable provision of support. 9 References InfoTech Research Group (2011), Vendor Landscape: Web Conferencing Vendors [online, version from 20 May 2011]. Available from: http://www.infotech.com/research/ss/it-­‐
select-­‐a-­‐web-­‐conferencing-­‐vendor [Accessed 04 Jan 2012]. Related report republished by Adobe at: http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/adobeconnect/pdfs/select-­‐
webconferencing-­‐vendor-­‐vl-­‐sb.pdf [Accessed 04 Jan 2012]. Publicare (2011), Web conferencing and webinar solutions put to the test [online]. Available from: http://www.webconferencing-­‐test.com/en/webconference_home2.html [Accessed 04 Jan 2012]. Thinkofit (2011), Real-­‐Time Web Conferencing [online]. Available from: http://thinkofit.com/webconf/realtime.htm [Accessed 04 Jan 2012]. 17 BLE Web Conferencing Working Group Report – FINAL v2 Wainhouse Research (2009), The Distance Education and e-­‐Learning Landscape, Volume 3: Interactive Whiteboards, Web Conferencing, and Synchronous Web Tools. Duxbury: Wainhouse Research. Executive Summary available from: http://www.wrplatinum.com/uploads/distEdMarketeReport-­‐V3-­‐ExecSum-­‐OF.pdf [Accessed 04 Jan 2012]. Wikipedia (2011), Comparison of Web Conferencing Software [online, version from 16 Dec 2011]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software [Accessed 04 Jan 2012]. 18