Docstoc

Portal

Document Sample
Portal Powered By Docstoc
					                                   ***WORKING DRAFT***




CSUH Portal Project Proposal



Revision: 0.7
Date: xxxxxxxxx
Project Manager: TBA
Author: Dan LeGate

Revision History:

Revision    Date               Revision Author   Description
0.5         6/2/2000           Dan LeGate        Initial Draft
0.6         7/6/2000           Dan LeGate        Options and Recommendations
0.7         7/26/2000          Dan LeGate        Minor corrections & updates
0.8         xxxxxxx            Dan LeGate




CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                   Page 1 of 12
                                    ***WORKING DRAFT***



    Overview

Cal State Hayward‟s current Internet presence exists today as a standard web page on a
generally static web platform. Users are not given the opportunity to personalize their online
experience or participate in an online community, moving beyond the classroom. With the
advent of an integrated portal, CSUH students, prospective students, faculty, staff, alumni and
families can be brought together like never before.

What is a portal? Portal is a term, generally synonymous with gateway, for a World Wide Web
site that is either a major starting site for users when they get connected to the Web or one which
is visited as an anchor site. There are general portals and specialized or niche portals. Some
major general portals include Yahoo, Excite, Netscape, Lycos, CNET, Microsoft Network, and
America Online's AOL.com. Examples of niche portals include Garden.com (for gardeners),
Fool.com (for investors), and SearchNT.com (for Windows NT administrators).

Most portals have adopted the Yahoo style of content categories with a text-intensive, faster
loading page that visitors will find easy to use and to return to. Typical services offered by portal
sites include a directory of Web sites, a facility to search for other sites, news, weather
information, e-mail, stock quotes, phone and map information, and often community forums.

Cal State Hayward can fulfill the need for an online community through this same approach by
tailoring a portal to its own environment. The goal is to create a true end-to-end system that is
personalized to deliver a full range of academic and administrative services, campus intranet
offerings, student/faculty communication, distance learning resources, community tools and
Internet content from a single login.

    Requirements

In order to establish a dynamic campus portal system, the following steps should take place:

     Create a “Circle of Excellence” which will initially include student, faculty and staff
      representatives to provide feedback and direction to the portal project. Typically, groups of
      this format fall into one of two categories: Steering Committees and Focus Groups. Steering
      committees decide important development directions for the project at hand. Focus groups
      are more user focused in nature and provide an important feedback loop during development.
      The Circle of Excellence will have a core group that functions in a typical steering committee
      role, but they will also be responsible, along with the project coordinator/s, for forming and
      running focus group meetings as part of the Circle of Excellence. The goals for creating this
      group are:

      1. Decide overall priorities and goals for Portal development.
      2. Assemble and instigate focus group meetings.
      3. Create an extremely important feedback loop to formulate policies and standards for the
         appropriate development and use of the portal.
      4. Allow users to actually utilize the system in a monitored environment so development
         staff can respond directly to problems/issues with using the system.

     Circle of Excellence Task One: Define Cal State Hayward‟s overall goals in developing a
      campus portal.

      1. Who will it serve? Academic vs. Administrative needs.
      2. Improving the overall user experience by moving students beyond a classroom-only
         experience?
      3. What core services will portal technologies offer to accomplish this? (Collaboration, etc.)


CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                              Page 2 of 12
                                     ***WORKING DRAFT***


     Security, Privacy and Access. Since personal user information will be gathered and
      displayed, a robust security and privacy policy must be defined and implemented, and access
      for disabled students must be provided as part of the base design.

      1. Define levels of data security.
      2. Data element breakdown - decide which data elements are assigned to which levels of
         security within the structures of University Data Principles.
      3. Use/Design a secure login system.
      4. Comply with ADA guidelines for access.

     Adhere to a solid portal framework where all elements of the university (academic,
      administrative and community) and all business applications can be integrated. The
      framework outlines key elements of portal functionality:

      1.   Login and authentication.
      2.   Tab management.
      3.   Channel layout and content management.
      4.   Application management (news, chat, calendar, etc.).
      5.   Customization and Personalization.
      6.   Administration and its divisions.
      7.   Independent from any specific enterprise software or student data systems.

     Decide upon and purchase software and hardware.

     Use/hire appropriate talent (in-house and/or out-sourced) for three primary areas:

      1. Database: Database administrators/programmers. (1-2)
      2. Applications: Web application programmers. (2)
      3. Look and feel: Web design assistants. (1)

      Ideally, only in-house staff will be necessary.

     Train staff on administrative usage. Use of the portal by students should be completely self-
      explanatory with extensive online help.

    Project Scope & Timeline – Homegrown Solution

The primary objective in defining the project scope is to create a plan to deliver on CSUH‟s
overall business drivers and priorities for its portal presence. A phased approach is
recommended to deliver immediate value, minimize risk and ensure project success. A set of
core portal applications will be defined and developed initially.

A recommended phased approach (open for discussion/redefinition):

          Discover and Define Phase.
          Design Phase.
          Prototype/Test Phase.
          Rollout/Implementation Phase.
          Support/Maintenance Phase.

The phased approach will take into consideration audience segments. Focus on students will
happen first, faculty second, and the next areas of focus should be determined in Circle of
Excellence meetings.




CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                             Page 3 of 12
                                     ***WORKING DRAFT***

Figure 1 - Proposed Timeline (TBD):


  Discover/Define
     6-8 weeks
                          Design
                        9-12 weeks
                                            Prototype/Test
                                              4-8 weeks
                                                                Rollout/Implement
                                                                  14-16 weeks
                                                                                     Support/Maintain
                                                                                          TBD

  1½ - 2nd month       4½ - 5th month       6½ - 7th month       10th - 11th month       ongoing

The timeline for the Discover and Define phases is fixed at 6-8 weeks. The information gathered
within this phase will provide a more accurate estimate for the subsequent phases.

Since a portal is a gateway to sub-applications within each channel, an application life cycle will
be adhered to for each new application designed and/or requested. Each application will go
through similar steps as outlined above, with relevant time estimates for each.

                               Figure 2 - Portal Application Life Cycle




One strong advantage to a homegrown system is that a Circle of Excellence can participate in
design issues, rather than accept what is provided by a vendor.




CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                             Page 4 of 12
                                   ***WORKING DRAFT***


 Options and Recommendations

The most important step in choosing a portal framework, is to decide upon a list of priorities
weighted in order of importance. The list and its order of importance should be decided by the
Circle of Excellence established for campus portal solutions. A example listing of priorities might
look something like the following:

       Time-to-market - how quickly can the chosen route be implemented?
       Customizability - how easily can custom features and applications be added? What
        customization options are available to the users?
       Maintainability - how easy is maintenance and upgrades? Number of staff that needs to
        be dedicated to the project? IT Staff? Departmental Staff? What training is required?
        How steep is the learning curve?
       Integration - how easily can back-end systems be integrated into the portal solution? In
        particular, current web and communication systems that Cal State Hayward already has
        an investment in: Netscape Mail, Blackboard Courseware (Level 1), SCTWeb (MyInfo),
        CalPoly WebReg and DegreeWorks.
       Open Standards - how open and extensible is it? Proprietary technologies can hinder
        future growth and integration. This will also affect Maintainability.
       Resources - in terms of hardware and software. What requirements exist?
       Pricing and Licensing - Does the solution require advertising? What are the contract
        renewal terms? Upgrades? Maintenance/Support? Software? Hardware?
       Organizational Viability - Will vendors/personnel be around in 1 year? 3 years? 5? How
        long have they been around? What is their track record? Number of school installations
        by vendor so far? What about products purchased for homegrown solutions?
       Ease-of-use/Intuitiveness - How easy-to-use and intuitive is it for users? For
        Administrators? Will a lot of documentation and/or Help Desk support be required for
        users to use it? This also covers Look and Feel - How aesthetically pleasing is the
        solution? This is a very subjective rating. A “standard” portal look and feel has emerged
        from the major portals like Yahoo. This can be good for familiarity, but this does not
        necessarily mean it is the best or most intuitive design style.
       ADA Compliance - how does the solution comply with ADA guidelines?

For the purposes of this document, the above list will be used to give example ratings to the
following portal options. Keep in mind that this list should not be used as a decision, but rather as
a starting point to decide on important portal issues throughout its life cycle. These decisions
should ultimately be arrived at by the Circle of Excellence. Even the priority list itself should be
revisited and revised as is necessary.


Blackboard has done their homework in the online educational marketplace. Using frequent and
comprehensive focus groups, the company has been able to offer content-rich, best-of-breed
products in several key areas of the educational sector.

At Level One, online course management delivers course management system tools that enable
instructors to provide their students with course materials, discussion boards, virtual chat, online
assessments, and acts as a dedicated academic resource center on the Web.

Level Two expands beyond the Course Manager, and provides customized institution-wide
portals for faculty, students, staff, and alumni with access to more than 150 personalized news
and information services from across the Web. The platform can be customized with institutional
branding and a tailored look and feel. It enables institutions to develop online communities, Web-
based email, calendar, announcements and tasks.



CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                             Page 5 of 12
                                  ***WORKING DRAFT***

Level Three (“Enterprise Edition”) provides a “complete end-to-end e-Learning solution”. In
addition to the Course and Portal Manager, Level Three provides advanced Java-based API's for
unifying diverse online campus systems into one integrated platform allowing for user-driven
single log-in service delivery, as well as capabilities that allow each school, department or
campus within the institution to maintain its own customized environment. The key advantage of
Level Three is the ability to add your own customizable content and integrate with student
systems.

Figure 1 - Blackboard

Time-to-market       9    Level 2: Two days to bring it up, two weeks to customize.
                     5    Level 3: Three to six months for full data-level integration.
Customizability      3    Level 2: Basic user-level portal customization only.
                     7    Level 3: Using IMS (Instructional Management Standards)
                          customizable modules can be programmed. This requires both Java
                          and ModPerl coding and they recommend their professional services to
                          help implement these types of changes.
Maintainability      8    Level 2: IT Staff: 1-2, Departmental Admins: 1 per department using it.
                     6    Level 3: IT Staff: 2-4, Departmental Admins: 1 per department using it.
Integration          5    Level 2: CSUH course integration can be simulated by manually
                          creating existing classes as Blackboard classes. The fact that Level 1
                          will be used by the campus makes integration part of a natural upgrade
                          path.
                     7    Level 3: Using IMS specifications and Java & ModPerl programming
                          languages, we can integrate with any back end system we choose.
                          Blackboard recommends their professional services to mentor the
                          implementation process. The only school they consider a “highly
                          customized environment” is Georgetown University who are integrating
                          with SIS+ on the back end. They are in the middle of the
                          implementation process now. BlackBoard would not give out a contact
                          name at this time. While not as “plug-and-play” as Campus Pipeline,
                          Blackboard does offer all this connectivity, however much of it needs to
                          be built and/or programmed into the system, which can take time.
Open Standards       7    Application Server: BEA WebLogic - Java. Database: Oracle.
                          Web Server: Apache w/ModPerl, Portal Server: EpiCentric (Yahoo‟s)
                          Java and Apache are very open. Requirement of Oracle and EpiCentric
                          are the non-open pieces to the BlackBoard pie, but both are widely
                          used technologies. Level 3 adheres to IMS (www.imsproject.org)
                          specifications created by EduCause.
Resources            7    Level 2: Single NT or Solaris machine.
                     7    Level 3: multi-server approach recommended: Web Server/DB Server.
                          Can break down further to include a separate chat server.
Pricing/Licensing    8      Level 2: $22,500 annual license. Suggested 2 days of Technical
                             Consulting Services: $2,880. $1,050 Premium Support; $5,500 Elite
                             support. Total for Implementation: $25,380 (already purchased)
                     8      Level 3: $50,000 annual license. BB professional services costs
                             from $125/hour to $200/hour and will be a requirement for student
                             system integration. Elite support is included with Level 3.
                          Advertising: not mandatory - we choose whether we want it or not.
                          These are very good pricing schemes given the bang for the buck.
Organizational       9    Blackboard is well entrenched in the educational market, with online
viability                 course offerings that are second-to-none. There is little doubt they will
                          be around in 5 years.
Ease-of-use /        4    Standard Yahoo-type look and feel. Initial use is very confusing for both
Intuitiveness             users and admins (non-intuitive), however once the options are



CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                           Page 6 of 12
                                   ***WORKING DRAFT***

                          committed to memory, ease-of-use increases.
ADA Compliance        -   Official word from Blackboard: they are having an accessibility audit for
                          Blackboard 5 next month (August) and until then they have no data to
                          give us. Blackboard 4 data is available but, according to Blackboard,
                          has absolutely no relevance to BB5, which is the version we would
                          install.


Campus Pipeline is on the same level as Blackboard. In terms of portal contenders, both have
excellent offerings in the educational arena. A key difference between Campus Pipeline and
Blackboard is that Campus Pipeline approaches the portal framework from the administrative side
integrating with coursework via SCT partnership developed tools, whereas Blackboard‟s
approach is more academic, providing course integration out-of-the-box for Blackboard courses,
and integration with student systems via Level 3 API programming. Both tout this as an
advantage to their solution. Of notable interest in Campus Pipeline‟s offering is their integration
with SCT student systems SIS+ and Banner.

Just how integrated is it and how easy this integration is to implement? According to their sales
representatives, they currently have 30 institutions using SCT integrated solutions and 600 that
are licensed to bring it online in the near future. This is in contrast to only one Blackboard school
(Georgetown University) integrating with SIS+ at Level 3 which is their first integration of this
magnitude so far.

According to Campus Pipeline, anything on campus can be integrated into their product:
    Visual Integration - Campus Pipeline logs you into other campus web systems, using a
       proprietary protocol dubbed CPIP (Campus Pipeline Integration Protocol).
    Data integration - data triggers alert SIS+ when events take place. This goes both ways:
       if you add a class to SIS+, SIS+ sends event to Campus Pipeline as well. Campus
       Pipeline says they queue requests made during the 7pm-7am down time and the
       transactions take place in batch the next morning.

Figure 2 - Campus Pipeline

Time-to-market        8   Best case scenario: 10 days. Worst case: 3 months. Most likely a 3-6
                          week process once hardware is in place.
Customizability       7   Cannot program your own modules with GemStone, however you can
                          “frame” an external web application within a Campus Pipeline window,
                          so you can use whatever application technologies your staff is
                          comfortable with to add functionality.
Maintainability       8   IT Staff: 1-2, Departmental Admins: 1 per department using it.
Integration           9   Backend integration with SIS+ and Banner out-of-the-box. Also
                          integrates with other on-campus web systems via CPIP protocol.
Open Standards        6   Application Server: GemStone - Java. Database: GemStone object
                          store. Web Server: Apache, IIS or Netscape.
                          GemStone is a proprietary piece and runs both as application server
                          and database server. Also, CPIP is a Campus Pipeline proprietary
                          method for communicating with current campus web systems.
Resources             7   Solaris or NT server. Scalability is handled through sizing the initial
                          server. Load-balancing abilities: unknown at this time.
Pricing/Licensing         Three options for licensing:
                      4   1.        Direct Fee (no ads): $205,000 plus $41,000/annually. “Internet
                              Life” tab is disabled.
                      ?   2.        Hybrid: some ads. Varies: TBD.
                      9   3.        Ad-subsidized: Free. All ads are static (non-animated) and
                              campus can select which ads to show. Most ads show up in their



CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                              Page 7 of 12
                                   ***WORKING DRAFT***

                              “Internet Life” tab.
                          The Direct Fee option is rather steep, considering Blackboard Level 3 is
                          approximately $55k. The fully Ad-subsidized is a deal if you don‟t mind
                          fairly unobtrusive ads. The hybrid option pricing would be determined
                          via a customized agreement with Campus Pipeline for our campus.
Organizational        8   Campus Pipeline has key partnerships in the industry and plenty of
viability                 licensed installations to keep it going well into the future.
Ease-of-use /         9   Very original and clean-looking interface. Highly intuitive tab design.
Intuitiveness
ADA Compliance        9   Officially: “In order to be in compliance with the Americans with
                          Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act, Campus Pipeline is guided
                          by the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Accessibility Initiative's
                          Content Guidelines http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/).
                          These guidelines are used internally as we build our product. We do not
                          build in accessibility features, but rather make sure that our product
                          works with assertive technology used by those with disabilities. During
                          each release cycle we use outside testers from the disability research
                          community to test our product for compliance.”


Jenzabar is strictly a hosted solution, although there is talk that they will have a campus-side
solution in the future. As such, it is very low maintenance, however, a lot of control is out of our
hands. Advertising is not prevalent, although all users have a task bar link to Jenzabar‟s
homepage. Messaging is available, however not much control is provided for who sees the
messages. By default they are broadcast to all students.

Figure 3 - Jenzabar

Time-to-market        3   Best case: 2 weeks. Worst: unknown - dependent on how quickly the
                          content can be gathered. For a hosted solution, this is not very fast
                          when you consider that local solutions can be up and running just as
                          fast.
Customizability       4   Template-driven content is not very customizable: Color Schemes and
                          Backgrounds at the user level only. They do not support custom
                          applications developed by clients.
Maintainability       8   As a hosted solution, IT Staff requirements will be minimal.
                          Departmental administrators will still be required.
Integration           2   According to their web page: “the Jenzabar application pulls the
                          relevant information from registration systems, professors' Web pages,
                          the Internet, e-mail systems, and other school-specific resources”
                          However, as a hosted solution, all this information has to be transferred
                          to Jenzabar corporation, and the pricing (see below) is rather steep.
Open Standards        -   Not relevant - hosted solution.
Resources             -   Not relevant - hosted solution.
Pricing/Licensing     2   Free for basic portal with no integration.
                          For integration to student systems, the following applies:
                          $10,000 one-time initial start-up cost.
                          $10 per student, per year. ($110,000/year for 11,000 students.)
                          For a site that requires ads, this is a miserable pricing scheme,
                          considering the fact that far better portals like Campus Pipeline can be
                          had for free with Ads.
Organizational        6   Admittedly, I don‟t know much about Jenzabar‟s market penetration
viability                 other than what is quoted on their website. They seem to be one of the
                          stronger hosted solutions, and with features like the ability to let any
                          professor “create a course” whether or not the school itself has



CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                              Page 8 of 12
                                   ***WORKING DRAFT***

                          standardized on Jenzabar, should keep users coming back.
Ease-of-use /         3   This is a very subjective opinion, so take it as such: Jenzabar is UGLY.
Intuitiveness             I don‟t like the look and feel and I don‟t feel it‟s a very intuitive user
                          interface.
ADA Compliance        -   No official answer from Jenzabar at this time


JA-SIG - Although still in developmental stages, the JA-SIG Portal Framework Project
(www.mis2.udel.edu/ja-sig/portal.html) promises to be a true value-add for universities across the
board. According to their own website, the project “is an open-standard effort using Java, XML,
JSP and J2EE. It is a collaborative development project with the effort shared among several of
the JA-SIG member institutions. The JA-SIG Portal will be available as a reference
implementation to any institution of higher-education at no cost. The JA-SIG Portal is currently
being specified and coding has begun.”

Because this initiative is still in development, rating it among other established solutions is
difficult. For this reason, the following is a “best guess” scenario and should be treated as such
until more details can be gathered about this promising project.

One point to take heed of: a Java project implementation is not a trivial task. In a highlighted
article that the JA-SIG homepage links to, the Chronicle of Higher Education warns: “However, to
use the free source code effectively could require hours of interdepartmental planning and a
degree of technical expertise beyond that which most webmasters possess, say campus-
technology experts involved in the collaborative programming project.” Even the experts directly
involved in building this portal framework concede that this is by no means an easy road to
choose.

Figure 4 - JA-SIG

Time-to-market        3   As John Laker of the project was quick to point out to me, the JA-SIG
                          “offers a framework for developing channels and applications to be run
                          from within it”. It is NOT, in itself, a completed portal application. It is a
                          framework from which YOU build your portal channels on top. Java,
                          JSP, XML and the J2EE architecture will be the talents and skills
                          required to develop this version of the portal. These talents are
                          extremely expensive and rare. For this reason, time-to-market is not
                          assumed to be a strength. My best guess is that this would be a 8 to
                          14 month implementation.
Customizability       9   This is probably the biggest strength of a any homegrown solution, and
                          the JA-SIG fits into the homegrown category. Some restrictions will, of
                          course, apply from framework mandates, but overall it should be a very
                          customizable solution.
Maintainability       6   This is totally unknown and my best guess is that the creators of the
                          framework *must* be developing a good administrative tool framework
                          for departmental admins, but the technologies required are not for the
                          timid. The IT department will likely have their hands full with both
                          installation and maintenance.
Integration           6   Still not plug and play, but the entire focus of the JA-SIG initiative is to
                          be open and extensible. Interactive Business Solutions (IBS) is a
                          service vendor option that can help. Pricing for these services is yet to
                          be determined.
Open Standards       10   Of all the solutions given, the JA-SIG project is the only one dedicated
                          to being 100% open-standards based.
Resources             7   The only information I found on hardware requirements says it will “be
                          vendor independent (not locked into proprietary hardware and/or



CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                                Page 9 of 12
                                   ***WORKING DRAFT***

                          software)”. I would imagine that any good, scalable hardware solution
                          can be acquired and used.
Pricing/Licensing     8   Free for JA-SIG provided code. However, a Java-based application
                          server, database server and web server still need to be purchased to
                          run it. Hardware and talent are also costs involved. Do not minimize
                          the „talent‟ cost here. Java programmers are currently the single
                          highest paid programmers on the planet, with the exception of maybe
                          NASA programmers or secretive governmentally sanctioned hackers.
Organizational        5   JA-SIG is an institutional collaboration, and as such, there is no
viability                 guarantee of longstanding success. History has shown that
                          collaborations of this type can be susceptible to the same uncertain
                          future any company faces.
Ease-of-use /         7   Viewing the online demos, they have followed the basic Yahoo-style
Intuitiveness             portal look and feel.
ADA Compliance       10   No official word from JA-SIG, but this is a build-it-yourself solution, so I
                          can only imagine it‟s up to us.


Homegrown Solution - given that the JA-SIG Portal Framework Project is a homegrown system,
this option will cover using technologies other than JA-SIG technologies. It will consider
technologies that the current IT staff are already familiar with and can mostly likely to get the job
done fastest.

The first half of this document details suggested requirements and timelines for a homegrown
solution. Below are the ratings given those requirements.

Figure 5 - Homegrown

Time-to-market        4    10-11 months. Having to build a portal framework and all its
                           applications from the ground up, while it has its advantages, is a huge
                           factor in time-to-market for a 100% homegrown solution.
Customizability      10    Extremely customizable since CSUH staff control every element of
                           development.
Maintainability       7    On Campus staff are the engineers and therefore available to help.
Integration           8    Perhaps not as good as built-in SCT integration that comes with
                           Campus Pipeline, however, CSUH staff will still have access to all
                           campus resources and vendor-independent solutions can be
                           developed with any system in use at the time. (SIS+, Peoplesoft, etc.)
Open Standards        5    Settling on a familiar tool has the advantage of speed and low learning
                           curves. However, depending on the tools chosen, open-standards may
                           not be part of this toolbox. For example, ColdFusion, although it is
                           extremely fast to develop in and will be 100% Java/J2EE compliant in
                           its next version, it is still a propriety solution that requires buy-in to
                           Allaire‟s platform ideology.
Resources             7    Can be chosen by the IT staff as needs dictate. Single-server, multi-
                           server and load-balanced solutions are all options.
Pricing/Licensing     8    Licensing for chosen application server, database server, web servers
                           and hardware are what apply here. Staff costs should be negligible if
                           using known technologies (i.e. current personnel would program it
                           solely - no need for outside professional services).
Organizational        4    There is never any guarantee that personnel dedicated to organizing
viability                  and/or coding a homegrown solution will be around from start to finish,
                           much less for updates. Poorly documented code and/or awkward
                           personal programming methodologies can make for nightmarish
                           upkeep and enhancements. Furthermore, the technologies preferred



CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                             Page 10 of 12
                                   ***WORKING DRAFT***

                          by the instigating personnel may leave future caretakers “stuck” with
                          environments in which they are unfamiliar.
Ease-of-use /        10   Any look and feel CSUH wants. We have complete control over this
Intuitiveness             aspect of a 100% homegrown solution.
ADA Compliance       10   If we build it, they will come.

Another solution could involve a hybrid of both the JA-SIG and the Homegrown approach. In
theory, this could provide a “best of both worlds” approach. As the JA-SIG matures, more of its
technologies could be incorporated into the homegrown portal solution. On the other hand,
history has shown us that reality may prove it harder to integrate two solutions than to just start
fresh with a new one. With so many unknowns to the JA-SIG approach, it is difficult to give a
“rating” or even a recommendation to a hybrid approach.


In conclusion, CSUH must consider all approaches and weigh them accordingly. Take a look at
the chart on the next page - all the above solutions are represented with their ratings. Take note
of the “weight” column - this is the weight, or importance the Circle of Excellence should give to
each priority line item. Included here are notional ratings only. The weights, priority list and even
the ratings provided should be reviewed and adjusted by this group if necessary. Out of these
meetings, using this document as a guideline, a more well-informed decision can be made for a
portal direction at Cal State Hayward.




CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                            Page 11 of 12
                                                            ***WORKING DRAFT***



                                                    Figure 6 - Summary of Ratings

        Sample                             Blackboard         Blackboard          Campus
       Priorities           Weight           Level 2            Level 3           Pipeline**            Jenzabar        JA-SIG        Homegrown
Time-to-market                 2                9                  5                  8                     3               3                4
Customizability                1                3                  7                  7                     4               9               10
Maintainability                1                8                  6                  8                     8               6                7
Integration                    3                5                  7                  9                     2               6                8
Open Standards                 1                7                  7                  6                    n/a             10                5
Resources                      1                7                  7                  7                    n/a              7                7
Pricing/Licensing              2                8                  8                  4                     2               8                8
Organiz. viability             1                9                  9                  8                     6               5                4
Ease-of-Use/Int.               2                4                  4                  9                     3               7               10
ADA Compliance                 1               n/a                n/a                 9                     1              10               10
                         Sub-Average*          6.67               6.67               7.50                 3.63            7.10             7.30
                     Weighted-Average         10.11              10.11              11.40                 5.13           10.10             11.10
                                                                                                                              Higher ratings are better


* The Sub-Average is provided, and only a notional weighting has been given to the values. These sub-totals are not to be taken as official ratings
for any of the options listed. These numbers should be reviewed and adjusted according to campus needs.

** Campus Pipeline pricing is listed at the “Direct Licensing” value (4) above, which is the “no ads” version. With the free Ad-licensing version (9),
it‟s sub-average would come to 7.89. There is also the hybrid licensing option (some ads) which is an unknown without further discussions with
Campus Pipeline.


Other vendor solutions were considered but dismissed from the this review as non-options for Cal State Hayward. They included: Plumtree,
Animalhouse, CollegeClub, MyBytes, ccOnline, Mascot, StudentOnline, CampusCruiser, ZUniversity, MyPersonal, and IBelong.




CSUH Portal Project Proposal                                                            Page 12 of 12

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:162
posted:8/26/2011
language:English
pages:12