Project Name:
Sub-Project Name:
IT Strategic Area(s) of Emphasis:
Development Costs:
(total in
Maintenance Costs:
(total in
Annual Costs: (permanent, starting FY
Date/Time:
1/3/03
Course Management System
Stage 1, web services architecture and tool prototype (six month time line)
Student Integration, Scholarly Interaction, Increased Productivity
years): $
years): $
/
): $
Assessment Provided By: Ruth Sabean and Joseph Vaughan
PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Tangible Benefits (please list)
In the six month proof of concept period, the following tangible benefits will be produced:
1) single login across participating CMS
2) multiple listed classes web service (solves a problem that we need to solve for any CMS)
3) My.UCLA gradebook interoperability
4) testing of some CMS tools
The success of this ground work will enable future:
• sharing of instructional materials across course boundaries
• sharing of instructional tools across departments and divisions
• functional interoperability with MyUCLA
• interoperability with digital library repositories
• A common, standards-based and OS platform neutral architecture will enable
• UCLA developers to work together within a common architecture and develop to agreed-upon standards
• UCLA developers to work with UC and national projects (for both tools and materials) at other institutions
• Departments that choose to use this common CMS system will be able to participate in the prioritization, design,
and testing of tools without needing to hire developers.
• Departments that choose to use this common CMS system will have multiple possibilities to “outsource” some of
the operational aspects of running the system if they so choose.
• Continued ability to respond rapidly and flexibly to instructor requests for new or adapted tools
• Rapid increase in the number and variety of teaching tool.
• Control over the design of the system, including a focus on flexibility and customization by instructors,
departments, etc.
• The same system can be used for management of research projects, Centers for Scholarly Interaction, and similar
activities which share an overlapping set of functions. Instructors are enthusiastic about using the same system,
interface, and tools to manage all aspects of their teaching and research.
• Integration with UCLA administrative system(s) either is already in place or will be extended and greatly
simplified with this common approach.
Intangible Benefits (please list)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sharing of IT expertise, including backup support, complementary specialization, etc.
Improved use of the IT resources currently deployed in developing, maintaining, and supporting multiple systems.
Incremental migration from current systems in use with minimal disruption to instructors and students
Instructors will become a support community for other instructors if all are using the same tools
Students will become a support community for other students
There will be less relearning from course to course because of the common system in use.
Probability of Success (please provide short explanation for each yes or no answer)
•
Is project highly likely to be developed on time and on budget and fulfill functional specifications?
Please explain.
The core development team has laid out an aggressive but achievable set of milestones for the six-month
proof of concept. Resources have been committed for this phase by key stakeholders: CIS, CDH, SSC
and OIT.
yes/no
Yes
Course Management System Project Assessment Worksheet - Page 1 of 3
1/30/03
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is project highly likely to be well embraced and used by the intended users? Why? Who are users?
Please explain.
Instructors, students and IT staff will be participants in designing and testing the system as it is developed.
Use of the system will be a matter of choice at the level of individual faculty, departments, divisions,
schools, etc. It is, however, highly likely to be well embraced, given the level of interest and support we
have experienced so far, as well as the advantages of using the system.
Is project protected from organizational and personnel problems? How? Please explain.
During this first proof-of-concept phase, success will be very dependent upon the continued allocation of
in-kind resources to the project. Good will, respect, and a shared vision are the insurance documents.
While not invulnerable to organizational and personnel problems, the project is so broadly supported that
it is likely to be more resilient than it would be if it were housed in a single department
Is process re-engineering or personnel reorganization unlikely during development and early
adoption of system? Why? Please explain.
Because the first phase of the project represents a relatively short burst of concentrated work, with the
deadline of operability (for the web services architecture)currently fall 2003, the assumption is that there
is less chance of such changes taking place. The value of a UCLA consortium assuming development
responsibility means that the project can continue even if a particular member of the group is unable to
continue with the project, for whatever length of time or reason.
Is technology infrastructure for project known and stable? Please explain.
Relying as it does on a web services approach, the project is insured against major technology
infrastructure changes. The challenge is to develop the system at the same time that a number of campus
projects are being defined and developed (such as the enhanced ISIS 4, library initiatives and the
Registrar's SRDB), as well as national standards are evolving (OKI).
Is the IS development team experienced with such developments? Please explain.
The team of developers has extensive experience in product development, the proof for which lies in
ClassWeb, WebCT customization for Humanities, MyUCLA, and a range of tools which exist in
departments. The new experience will be developing as part of a consortium (both UCLA and national),
focusing on APIs which provide interoperability standards for UCLA and are compliant with the
emerging OKI standards.
Does the project have the support of key stakeholders? Who are they?
During the proof-of-concept, the key stakeholders are faculty as represented by the Faculty Committee on
Educational Technology, and CIOs of departments who are allocating their resources to support the
common CMS architecture and consortium approach.
Demand (please provide short explanation for each yes or no answer)
•
•
•
•
Does the project have a large number of users needing and wanting the functionality promised?
List the users. What functionality? Please explain.
Faculty in the FCET were the originators and now provide sponsor oversight of the project. The UCLA
CMS will provide an integrated, flexible, standards-based set of services for both the administrative
functions of a teaching a course, as well as the learning activities. The number of users (instructors and
students) is potentially the entire population of the College, as well as those in other UCLA units that may
choose to join the consortium, or use the product.
Does project support an important and large organization process? What does it support? Please
explain.
It supports the entire instructional process at the undergraduate level.
Are there major pressures from non-direct users for project? What are the pressures? Who are the
users? Please explain.
Providers of other student and faculty IT systems are enthused about the possibility of being able to work
with a consortium on common interfaces and processes for data exchange, rather than continuing to
develop dozens of solutions to meet local department or division needs.
Does higher level management want this project? Who wants the project? Please explain.
Yes, division CIOs are primary stakeholders. Faculty want the project (FCET). Provost asked whether we
should have single approach. This is it.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Some
what
Some
what
Yes
yes/no
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Course Management System Project Assessment Worksheet - Page 2 of 3
1/30/03
What are the consequences of NOT doing this project? (please explain)
•
•
•
Each unit will continue to “go it alone”, wasting resources on duplicated efforts which could better be applied to
direct faculty support and the development of specialized teaching tools
Faculty and students will continue to bear the cost of learning and relearning multiple systems
UCLA will continue to operate in isolation from the rest of the national higher education community and the
benefits of sharing innovations among institutions.
Course Management System Project Assessment Worksheet - Page 3 of 3
1/30/03