Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Presentation name or presenter name

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 36

									       LMS RFP Results
          March 30, 2008




            Kathy Fernandes
Director of System-wide LMS Initiatives
                  Agenda

 Master Enabling Agreements
 Accessibility
 Product Overviews
 Scoring Summary
 Campus Surveys
 RFP Results
 Pricing
 What’s Next?
        Master Enabling Agreements
 MEAs are a set of options; not the only options!!
 RFP Process provides documented information of
  systems
   – Campuses can use this info in their process to make
     informed decisions
   – Campuses perform their own evaluation and demos for
     selection
 Campuses can procure from the CSU MEA
   – Request quote from vendors based on CSU MEA
   – Procure with a purchase order referencing CSU MEA
                Accessibility

 VPAT
 RFP Accessibility Answers
 LMS Vendor Demos
 Rubric – Sandbox testing
                  Accessibility
 Moodle the most accessible
 Blackboard (both products) least accessible
 Accessibility is not about ―adding features‖
 Take accessibility seriously now –
   – In 2 years accountability has to take hold
 What impact does this have on work in the future?
 CSU is being looked at as a leader in Accessibility
   – Apple Computers
   – State of California
   – Other Universities and State Systems are
     watching
                        Angel
 Windows Architecture
 Simple Interface
 Learning Object Repository (LOR) w/ the system
 Web 2.0 (Wiki, Blogs, RSS Feeds)
 Same Instance – Multiple Branding
 Can customize help system content
 Offers ASP service
 Can import and export IMS packaged content
 Published database schema and fully supports Dublin
  Core metadata standard
 User can set Accessibility Profile
                 Angel (con’t)

 SUNY System – large system (70k to 100k users?)
 Scalability – looking into issues – SQL*Server?
 Median response time for urgent needs
   – 2.1 Hrs for the Initial Response
   – 2.26 Hrs for Follow up/Resolution
   – 13 Support reps supporting 26 clients each
                   Desire2Learn
 Windows Architecture
 Many Large Consortium Customers
 Easy to Use – Good Interface
 Data warehouse comes with system
 Claims fewest help desk calls (75% users dive in – no
  training)
 Real-time Peoplesoft Integration with Tennessee Regents
 Tight integration with Google and Outlook
 ASP - host 80% of their clients
 Scalability at 150,000 users – issues w/ SQL*Server?
 Building APIs now (no BldgBlocks/Powerlinks)
 No way to archive courses
              Desire2Learn (con’t)

 UofW faculty happy w/ product across campuses
  – 150,000 users, one instance
  – 80% of faculty using the system
  – Migrated quickly from both Bb systems
  – 12.5 FTE technical staff to run whole system
 Average response time for urgent needs
  – 21.62 seconds for the Initial Response
  – 192 average Hrs for all levels of tickets
  – 12 Support reps
         Moodle and MoodleRooms
 Supports Linux, Solaris, and Windows
 Flexible
 Handles browser-based commands (forward, back,
  refresh, font increase/decrease)
 MoodleRooms provides related services, but you can
  host your own instance of the open source Moodle
  software with them
 MoodleRooms created a tool to migrate content from
  Blackboard
         MoodleRooms (con’t)

– U of Louisiana getting up
– Average response time for urgent needs
    1.19 Hrs for the Initial Response
    5.73 Hrs for Follow up/Resolution
    10 Support reps never supporting more than
     10 clients each
                Blackboard
 Multiple Operating Systems/hardware platforms
 Full featured – multiple products
 Discuss Migration to NG
 Challenging Support
  – Average response time for urgent needs
       12.64 Hrs for the Initial Response
       29.35 Hrs for Follow up/Resolution
       57 TSMS supporting 69 clients each
  – Evidence of Improved Commitment to Resources
    in this area
                    Strengths

 Blackboard - multiple OS' and ORACLE
  database; multiple products: ePortfolio, Content
  Mgmt System
 D2L - lots of large system institutions; Simple
  interface with high faculty satisfaction according
  to client reference
 Angel - Simple interface; some large system
  institutions; APIs; ePortfolio, LOR
 MoodleRooms - No licensing and most flexibility
                   Weaknesses
 Blackboard - client relationships and support; ASP
  problems; unclear direction for their product except to
  migrate to common platform
 D2L and Angel run ONLY on Windows;
 D2L No archiving capability; just now creating APIs for
  their product
 Windows Systems are having SQL*Server issues but
  with over 100,000 users on one instance
 MoodleRooms - still looking for more examples of
  large scalability (how large?); How many
  programmers do you really need?
                                            Scoring
                  1200

                  1000                                                                        Services
                                                                                              Scalability
Points Assigned




                  800                                                                         Roadmap
                                                                                              Monitoring
                  600
                                                                                              Integration
                  400                                                                         Features
                                                                                              Business
                  200                                                                         Architecture

                    0
                                              E




                                                            s
                             l




                                                                                          e
                                                                         n
                                  LS
                           ge




                                                           m




                                                                                        or
                                                                           r
                                               C




                                                                        ea
                         An




                                                        oo
                                             a/




                                                                                      Sc
                                 Bb




                                                                      2L
                                          st



                                                        eR




                                                                                     le
                                        Vi




                                                                   ire




                                                                                   ib
                                                     dl
                                       Bb




                                                                es
                                                   oo




                                                                                 ss
                                                                D



                                                                               Po
                                                   M
 The following slides are results from the survey
   given to LMS RFP Campus Coordinators on
     March 5 after the LMS Vendor Demos in
                   Long Beach.
As Campuses Discuss Options…
  Interest in CSU Collaborations for
    –   LMS Infrastructure/ASP? 4
    –   LMS Migrations? 7
    –   LMS Training?      5
    –   LMS Consulting? 4
    –   LMS Support?       1
    –   LMS Reporting?     1
    –   LMS Best Practices? (added later)
Summary of LMS Interests/Considerations
            Moodle = 11
            Angel = 8
            D2L = 7
            BB LS = 8
            BB Vista = 3
            Sakai = 3
Campus Directions – Those Staying for Now

 WebCT CE            Blackboard
 Bakersfield         Channel Islands
 Maritime            Dominguez Hills
 Sacramento          East Bay
 San Jose            Fresno
 San Marcos          Fullerton
 Sonoma              Pomona
 Chico  Vista       San Diego
                      San Luis Obispo
        Campus Directions –
      Those Actively Shopping

 Long Beach - Bb 6.3 ASP
 Los Angeles - CE 6.2
 Northridge -   CE, Bb 7.1, Moodle
 San Bernardino - Bb 7.1
 Stanislaus -   Bb 7.3, eColleges
Campus Directions – Those Going or Gone

     Humboldt Moodle
     Monterey Bay  Moodle
     SFSU  Moodle


          The Only Group
 Actually Doing LMS Collaboration
                 Responses From
   Angel Learning
   Blackboard (Vista/CE)
   Blackboard (Learning System)
   Campus Management
   CollegeBrain
   Desire2Learn
   Ecollege
   Embanet (Moodle)
   Embanet (Sakai)
   IBM (Sakai)
   Moodlerooms (Moodle)
   SumtotalUnicon (Sakai)
         After Phase I

 Angel Learning
 Blackboard (Vista/CE)
 Blackboard (Learning System)
 Desire2Learn
 Moodlerooms (Moodle)
                   Discoveries
 Desire2Learn—Detailed accessibility evaluation
  found that Desire2Learn’s system fails to meet
  minimum requirements. Gaps are few and may be
  repairable. In addition, the proposed version of
  Desire2Learn, 8.2.2, was found to be infringing on a
  current US patent.
                   Discoveries
 Blackboard did not submit ANY pricing for hosting
 Blackboard Learning System (LS)—Detailed
  accessibility evaluation found that Bb LS fails to
  meet minimum requirements. Barriers to
  accessibility are serious and distributed densely
  across the entire application.
 Blackboard Vista/CE—Detailed accessibility
  evaluation found that Vista/CE fails to meet
  minimum requirements. Equally effective access to
  people with disabilities is not provided in the
  system.
Final Vendor Selections

Angel Learning
Moodlerooms
           What Does This Mean?
 MEAs are options not your only options
 CSU needs a more competitive selection
 Vendors can cure their ills later (timing TBD)
 Transition time (2-years?)
 Negotiate an extension of current contract with
  Blackboard
 If Bb doesn’t cure their ills, campuses might be at
  legal risk or need more accommodations
 D2L version 8.3 perhaps cures their ills?
          Summary of Pricing

 For full list of licensing and service costs, consult
           each companies’ Pricing Proposal
        Small Campus LMS License Pricing
              with Support (1st Year)

Angel              $17,500-38,000 1,000-10,000 FTE

Bb (LS and CE)     $33,500-51,900      1-8000 FTE

Bb (Vista Only)   $72,200-111,500      1-8000 FTE

D2L               $29,000-$85,500 1,000-10,000 FTE

Moodle/Rooms         $0 - $21,250     Support up to
                                       10,000 FTE
  Medium-size Campus LMS License Pricing
           with Support (1st Year)

Angel              $56,000-72,000 15,000-20,000 FTE

Bb (LS & CE)              $63,400   8001-15,000 FTE
                          $72,500 15,001-25,000 FTE
Bb (Vista Only)          $131,200   8001-15,000 FTE
                         $157,500 15,001-25,000 FTE
D2L               $96,875-126,000 10,000-20,000 FTE

Moodle/Rooms         $0 - $35,000      Support up to
                                        20,000 FTE
        Large Campus LMS License Pricing
              with Support (1st Year)

Angel              $85,000-155,000 25,000-50,000 FTE

Bb (LS & CE)              $82,300 25,000-50,000 FTE

Bb (Vista Only)          $183,700    25,000-50,000FTE

D2L               $137,500-175,000 20,000-35,000 FTE

Moodle/Rooms          $0 - $61,250    Support 20,000 -
                                          30,000 FTE
          2nd Year LMS Licensing

 Angel
  – Up $2k to $5k depending on size
 Bb
  – 5% increase from first year
 D2L
  – No change from first year
 Moodle/Rooms
  – No change from first year
          3rd Year LMS Licensing

 Angel
  – Up $2k to $10k from first year depending on size
 Bb
  – 10% increase from first year
 D2L
  – No change from first year
 Moodle/Rooms
  – No change from first year
          Sample ASP/Hosting Prices

Angel                 70% to 145% of       Silver or Gold?
                          license fee     System Specs?
Bb (LS & CE)           No Submission      No Submission

Bb (Vista Only)        No Submission      No Submission

D2L                         $100,000         20,000 FTE

Moodle/Rooms      $1 per user per year   10,000 to 20,000
                   $21,000 maximum                   FTE
           Need More Information?

 At dat.cdl.edu under CSU LMS Initiatives
  –   Contains LMS RFI and RFP
  –   RFP Results
  –   RFP Responses
  –   Pricing Proposals
 Kathy Fernandes – kfernandes@csuchico.edu
                     What’s Next?
 Negotiate Bb Extension of Current Contract (for 2yrs?)
 Put MEAs in place
 Handoff to Campuses to do Local Evaluation
   –   Go Deeper Into Product Evaluations
   –   Campus Review of CSU RFPs & Summary Results
   –   Campus Determine Local Criteria for LMS
   –   Put the LMS on Meeting Agendas now
   –   Campus Conversations, Committees, Processes
   –   Product Demonstrations
   –   Deeper Reference Checking of other Customers
 Strategic and Project Planning
         Transition? Migration?

								
To top