Instructional Management System of the Future
Process/Consultation History
Updated - 21 August 2003
1999-2000
Original IMS RFP process results in the announcement of three negotiated contracts (Anlon, Blackboard, WebCT) with a funding allocation going to campuses for IMS purchases: "Significant system-wide discussion has taken place around the many issues involved, including, of course, vendor selection. In the end, there was strong consensus that it would be best to choose three vendors, allocate funding to institutions, and allow each campus to choose the product that is most appropriate locally." While acknowledging the ideal advantages of a single system-wide IMS system, the campus group reaching this decision agreed that the IMS products are still evolving so rapidly that choosing one system was not yet possible.
February 2001
At the Board of Trustees discussion of IMS, several Board Members underscore their belief that a single system must be the long-term goal for instructional management systems.
June 2002
Functional Assessment of the Office of the Chancellor report is released stating that instructional technology should remain primarily a campus responsibility, but system-wide coordination, development of system-wide standards, and aggregated purchases are a valued centralized role. Movement toward a single instructional management system should be encouraged.
August 2002
ASSSC created the IMS of the Future Task Force, a campus group with faculty union representation, to make recommendations for moving ahead with the next phase of IMS implementation, given the expiration of the original contracts. The group is comprised of over 30 campus representatives (there were a handful of non-voting Office of the Chancellor participants as well). This task force meets on August 8, September 19, and October 24, 2002, and makes several recommendations, including (a) moving to one centrally-hosted IMS system; (b) proceeding with an RFP process, and (c) recommending a timeline for action.
6 December 2002
ASSSC considers recommendations of the IMS of the Future Task Force and agrees with recommendations. There should be one centrally-hosted IMS solution to ensure better stewardship of limited resources for this mission critical software. The ASSSC also agreed that OIT should negotiate extensions on contracts through September 2004, that there should be a year transition period with as much support provided for conversion as possible, and that though every effort will be made to attempt to secure funding centrally, campuses should be prepared to fund IMS locally.
January 2003
The Leadership Council Technology Committee (January 7), the IT Round Table (January 17), and MnOnline Council (January 30) endorse the recommendation to proceed with an IMS RFP to choose a single-hosted IMS platform for use across the system.
February 2003
After due consultation, Vice Chancellor/CIO Ken Niemi agrees with the recommendation to move forward with an RFP process to select a single-hosted IMS platform and the IMS RFP process is launched. The IMS RFP was posted on February 3, with proposals due on March 14. (http://www.oit.mnscu.edu/RFP/rfp_ims2003.html).
February-May 2003
Office of Instructional Technology works with EduTools (http://www.edutools.org/course/index.jsp) to develop an extensive evaluation tool and seek process insights for evaluating RFP responses. Meanwhile, EduTools conducts a separate evaluation of MnMaster open source product. As part of an initial due diligence of the concept of using an open source IMS product, OIT staff met with a Gartner analyst, who recommended against pursuing open source options for IMS. Gartner recommends not using open source for an enterprise-wide implementation at this time, citing currently limited features, hidden actual costs, and scalability concerns. EduTools consultants offered a similar view on the subject of open source IMS.
March-May 2003
RFP evaluation is conducted by several campus teams set up by the ASSSC (including ASSSC members): IMS Evaluation Team, Product User Team, Technical Requirements Team and Cost Team.
March-April 2003
The IMS Evaluation Team conducts a 2-day retreat to review RFP proposals, EduTools side-by-side product comparisons and other data; using quantitative measures and detailed discussion of proposals, chooses four semifinalists from among the nine original proposals received: Angel (CyberLearningLabs), Desire2Learn, Educator (UCompass.com), and WebCT.
March 2003
ASSSC formally requests expansion of student participation in ASSSC from student associations. Students are requested to participate on evaluation teams and all steps in the IMS of the Future process.
Faculty membership changes in ASSSC: Two IFO representatives to the ASSSC leave the committee due to other obligations; ASSSC requests replacements. ASSSC agrees to Office of Instructional Technology recommendation to double faculty union representation to maximize faculty input during the IMS deliberative process. After subsequent discussion, Ken Niemi agrees to more than tripling of faculty representation on ASSSC for the next six months (from 2 to 7), at which time membership will be subject to review. MSUAASF appoints two members to the ASSSC.
May 2003
Each semi-finalist participates in day-long product demonstrations, including separate break-out discussions of technical issues and user features. Four demonstrations are held on four consecutive days (8:30AM-5:00PM), and all faculties are invited and encouraged to participate either by coming to the presentations; by reviewing products through demo accounts set-up and made available to everyone; by viewing the demonstration presentations through MnSAT broadcasts or by streaming video over data networks made available to all campuses. To further encourage faculty participation in the evaluation process, the ASSSC coordinates the naming of IMS Campus Contacts on each contact to pass on information about product demo accounts and demonstrations and to gather input from faculty and other campus staff.
June 2003
An extensive report collecting campus input is compiled and reviewed by the Evaluation Team and the ASSSC and carefully considered as part of the deliberative process. The Office of Instructional Technology contracts with Legal System Decisions, Inc. (LDSi) to conduct an objective, rigorous Vendor Due Diligence Report, which was completed on June 4, 2003. This report included interviews of vendor references, financial analysis of semi-finalist companies by an objective third party focusing on vendor responsiveness, financial viability, customer satisfaction and other areas. Additional reference checking of recommended vendor is requested and obtained from LDSi. The Office of Instructional Technology invites Minnesota West to send a team to demonstrate MnMaster to the ASSSC on July 9 as part of the ongoing open source due diligence requested by the ASSSC. The Office of Instructional Technology staff continues to gather information from recommended finalist (s) to prepare for future contract negotiations.
18 June 2003
The ASSSC, considering input provided by campus faculty and staff and the evaluation teams charged with gathering information and making recommendations, passes on IMS RFP recommendations to Vice Chancellors Ken Niemi and Linda Baer for consideration and action. Among the many recommendations, the ASSSC recommends Desire2Learn as the top choice of the semi-finalist products. Angel and Educator were recommended as alternates.J
July 2003
The MnOnline Council discusses the ASSSC recommendations. The MnOnline Council finds the recommendations consistent with their previous position endorsing hosting only one system. The Leadership Council Technology and Academic and Student Affairs Committees discuss the recommendations initially and ask for further discussion at the September meeting.
August 2003
The recommendations of the ASSSC are discussed at the IFO Meet and Confer at the association's request. The IT Roundtable discusses the IMS RFP recommendations. At the August statewide CIO meeting, campus CIOs pass a motion formally endorsing the recommendations made by the ASSSC regarding IMS. Furthermore, the motion expresses great admiration for the process used in making the recommendations.
FUTURE BENCHMARKS
September 2003
Ken Niemi and Linda Baer will bring the ASSSC recommendations to the Leadership Council (Technology Committee and Academic and Student Affairs Committee) on September 9.
