EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research An Update. New EDUCAUSE Initiatives for 2002 EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey Virtual Communities Initiative Institute for.

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research

An Update

New EDUCAUSE Initiatives for 2002

• EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey

• Virtual Communities Initiative

• Institute for Computer Policy and Law

• Expansion of Regional Conferences

• Assuming responsibility for .edu

• HEBCA

• EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research

Knowledge Based Organization

• Uses informed intuition

• Applies dialogue before deliberation

• Employs insights about effective practices

• Uses core competencies effectively

IT and Higher Education

• Overall expenditures over $250 billion• IT expenditures $5 - $10 billion• IT increasingly important• Higher ed is ‘on the cusp’

– New IT architecture– New pedagogy– New competitive landscape– New professional skills, impact and stature

Emerging Questions

• Are there ways to organize tools and programs to support a culture of evidence?

• Is there an architecture?• Can we increase, activate, accelerate or

better organize knowledge?• Are there ways to employ a culture of

evidence to enhance decisions and to increase the diffusion of positive innovations in higher education?

Potential ProcessesInquiry

Idea incubators

Frameworks

Grand challenges

Reflectories

AnalysisDedicated research services

Expert systems

Action / decision protocols

Effective practices

CollectionKnowledge bases

Online surveys

Research partnerships

Focus groups

DisseminationUsual and customary channels

Portals

Semantic webs

CRM

Conclusions

• We live in a time of uncertainty

• Higher education has a key role to play

• It’s about dualism not dichotomy

• The pace of change will accelerate

• Higher education’s shift to a culture of evidence is in everyone’s interest

Why ECAR?

“ECAR should become a research organization focused on the intersection of IT and higher education.”

EDUCAUSE Board of Directors

Mission

• To foster better decision-making through research and analysis about the role and implications of information technology in higher education

• To address several challenges facing higher education through a systematic program of research, education and outreach

Audiences

• EDUCAUSE members• CIOs• Presidents• Provosts• CFOs• Librarians• Deans• Faculty leaders

Research Bulletins

Next Generation Infrastructure• Integrate multiple systems• Create a holistic interface to the institution• Improve security, authentication,

authorization• Change how work is accomplished• Enable cross-marketing and mass

customization

Ed Lightfoot & Weldon Ihrig, University of Washington

Next Generation Infrastructure

Organizational Models for Delivering Distance Learning

• Six systems/universities studied:– University of Texas Telecampus

– SUNY Learning Network

– Penn State

– Kentucky Commonwealth Virtual University

– University of Maryland University College

– University System of Georgia

• The following organizational models were reviewed:– Governance– Services– Funding

Organizational ModelsFunding

Setting tuition & fees

Course selection

Conferring degrees

Faculty workload policies

IP policies

Student services

Technical standards

Other Research Bulletins

• Framework for assessing costs of IT staff turnover

• Impact of course management systems

• Online learning communities

• Supporting learners with disabilities

• Implementation of IT strategic plans

• Records management in a digital world

Research Studies

The Outlook for ASP and IT Outsourcing in

Higher Education

The Outlook for ASP and IT Outsourcing in Higher Education

• Analyzes IT outsourcing in higher education• Issues include:

How is the IT outsourcing decision-making process organized?

What is the experience of institutions that outsource?Case Studies

• INPUT conducted research with survey of EDUCAUSE members, phone and on-site interviews

• Outsourcing market forecast - maybe

Who is Outsourcing?Outsourcing versus NonOutsourcing Schools

42%

41%

44%

33%

40%

36%

45%

56%

58%

60%

58%

59%

56%

67%

60%

64%

55%

44%

42%

40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All

Public

Private

AA

BA

DR (Research)

MA

Spec

Canadian

Tribals

Typ

e o

f S

ch

oo

l

Percentage of Survey Respondents

Do Outsource Do Not Outsource

Outsourced IT Functions, All SchoolsIT

infrastructure17%

Application mgmt15%

Application services

17%

Processing services

13%

E-learning/Dist learning

17%

Distributed services

11%

Business Proc Outsourcing

10%

What Are We Outsourcing?

Primary Reasons to Outsource

6%

11%

21%

27%

35%

5%

12%

23%

28%

32%

7%

11%

19%

25%

38%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Other

Access to innovativeservices

Cost-savings

Operatingefficiencies

Lack of in-houseskills

Reaso

ns C

ited

Percentage of Survey Respondents

All Public Private

Why Do We Outsource?

Vendor Selection Criteria by School Type: PhD-Granting Schools

3.88

3.94

4.06

4.35

4.76

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Reputation

Prior Exp in higher ed

Price

Prior OS experience

Capabilities

Sel

ecti

on

Cri

teri

a

1-5 Ranking; 5=Very Important

How Do We Choose?

Benefits of Outsourcing

16%

12%

17%

22%

13%

21%

15%

20%

13%

16%

20%

20%

13%

11%

19% 21%

16%

14%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

IT staff reduction

Streamlinedoperations

Better functionality

Cost-savings

Lower risk

Access to superiortechnical solutions

Percentage of Survey Respondents

Public Private All

What Benefits Do We Find?

Outsourcing Problems & Issues: All Schools

2%

6%

10%

13%

13%

15%

21%

21%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Resistance from collective bargaining units

Our process was flawed

Technical problems made it impossible tomeet expectations

Vendor was unfamiliar with needs of higher-ed

Lack of cooperation among internal units

Project went overbudget

Project implementation took longer thanexpected

Vendors didn't fulfill their promises

Percentage of Survey Respondents

And Where Does It Hurt?

Outsourcing Vendor Satisfaction

3.59

3.68

3.72

3.73

3.74

3.77

3.9

3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65 3.7 3.75 3.8 3.85 3.9 3.95 4

Comm coll

MA-granting

PhD-granting

Public

All

Private

BA-granting

1-5 Ranking; 5=Very Important

Are We Satisfied Overall?

Trends in Wireless Communication

Wireless Communication Trends• Survey of nearly 1,400 institutions to determine the

state and rate of implementation of wireless data communications in higher education.

• Response rate was 28%. (N=367)• Research conducted by IDC• Case studies and qualitative analysis

27

29

47

11

86

96

71

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of Respondents

Doctoral

Masters

Baccalaureate

Professional Specialty

Associate

All Other

Canada

Implementation

• 59% of respondents have some implementation of wireless communications

6%

10%

8%

17%

52%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

% of Respondents

Implemented comprehensive

Implemented limited

Planning -pilot implementation

Planning - no pilot yet

Intend to implement

No plans to implement

N=392

Implementation

• 45% of non-respondents have also deployed

10% 35% 19% 15% 11% 9%

7% 52% 17% 8% 10% 6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-respondents

Survey

Stage of Implementation, Survey Respondents vs.Non-respondents

Comprehensive Limited Planning/ pilot

Planning/ no pilot Intend/ no plan yet No plans/ intentions

Buildings with Coverage

• Libraries have the highest coverage of all building types, with coverage planned by most within 24 months.

16% 24%

16% 26%

27% 16%

32% 31%

46% 33%

57% 31%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of respondents mentioning coverage

Dormitories

Research centers

Other

Administrative

Classrooms/lecture halls

Library

2001 2003

N=299

Use of Wireless Networks

• Undergraduates are the biggest users of wireless networks, followed closely by faculty.

6%

44%

53%

73%

77%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

% of respondents mentioning category

Undergraduates

Faculty

Administration

Graduate students*

Other

N=299

Devices and Wireless Networks• Mobile PCs are the leading device for accessing

wireless networks, followed by desktop PCs.• PDAs and handheld devices will be added by many

institutions.

3%2%

4% 15%

9% 22%

39% 27%

46% 14%

94% 6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%% of respondents mentioning device type

Mobile PCs

Desktop PCs

PDA

Handheld devices

Cell phones

Other

Now AddingN=299

Wireless Technologies Supported• 802.11b/WiFi is the dominant technology today,

continuing for 2 yrs, then declining significantly. • 802.11a deployment will nearly equal 802.11b in two

years on campuses.

13%6%

2%3%

6%1%

18%3%

25%4%

53%13%

67%90%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

% of respondents mentioning technology

802.11b

802.11a

802.11g

Bluetooth

Broadband

Others

Don't know/NA

By 2003 2001

N=299

Key Challenges Faced

• The most universal challenges faced in implementing wireless are security and end-user support.

13%

11%

16%

18%

43%

69%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

% of respondents mentioning

Security issues

End-user support

Cost more than expected

Support for printing

Interoperability/wired

Other

N=299

Wireless is Meeting Expectations

• Wireless communications has met or exceeded the expectations of nearly 90% or the respondents who

have implemented it.

Exceeded expectations

14%

Met expectations74%

Fell short of expectations

7%

Don't know /no answ er

5%

N=299

Research Studies • ASP and Outsourcing (INPUT):

March 2002

• Trends in Wireless Communications in Higher Education (IDC): June 2002

• E-Learning: September 2002

• Enterprise Resource Planning Implementations: December 2002

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research

www.educause.edu/ecar/