1 / 36

LMS RFP Results March 30, 2008

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.

sol
Download Presentation

LMS RFP Results March 30, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LMS RFP ResultsMarch 30, 2008 Kathy Fernandes Director of System-wide LMS Initiatives

  2. Agenda • Master Enabling Agreements • Accessibility • Product Overviews • Scoring Summary • Campus Surveys • RFP Results • Pricing • What’s Next?

  3. 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

  4. Accessibility • VPAT • RFP Accessibility Answers • LMS Vendor Demos • Rubric – Sandbox testing

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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?

  15. Scoring

  16. 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.

  17. 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)

  18. Summary of LMS Interests/Considerations • Moodle = 11 • Angel = 8 • D2L = 7 • BB LS = 8 • BB Vista = 3 • Sakai = 3

  19. Campus Directions – Those Staying for Now • Blackboard • Channel Islands • Dominguez Hills • East Bay • Fresno • Fullerton • Pomona • San Diego • San Luis Obispo • WebCT CE • Bakersfield • Maritime • Sacramento • San Jose • San Marcos • Sonoma • Chico  Vista

  20. 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

  21. Campus Directions – Those Going or Gone • Humboldt Moodle • Monterey Bay  Moodle • SFSU  Moodle The Only Group Actually Doing LMS Collaboration

  22. 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)

  23. After Phase I • Angel Learning • Blackboard (Vista/CE) • Blackboard (Learning System) • Desire2Learn • Moodlerooms (Moodle)

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. Final Vendor Selections • Angel Learning • Moodlerooms

  27. 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?

  28. Summary of Pricing • For full list of licensing and service costs, consult each companies’ Pricing Proposal

  29. Small Campus LMS License Pricingwith Support (1st Year)

  30. Medium-size Campus LMS License Pricingwith Support (1st Year)

  31. Large Campus LMS License Pricingwith Support (1st Year)

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. Sample ASP/Hosting Prices

  35. 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

  36. 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?

More Related