Date post: | 13-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | muhammad-aqdas |
View: | 189 times |
Download: | 4 times |
Redevelopment of the Blackboard LMSat Durham University Business School
GCG
February 26, 2016Team 10
Gringott’s Consulting Group
Austin Romantic: Project ManagerMBA, BSc in Finance
Illias Metsis: Assistant to the Project ManagerBA in Economics
Lauren Goerz: ConsultantBA in Commerce
Marc Montanari: ConsultantM.Eng Engineering in industrial processes
Gavin Wilson: ConsultantBA in Business management
Pitchaya Poosuwon: ConsultantBSc in Economics
Aqdas Muzzafar: Software EngineerBSc in Computer science
Xiaoming Zhu: Finance SpecialistBA in Economics
Consulting Team
Case Overview Approach Evaluation Implementation
GCG
Agenda
• DUBS is one of the longest established business schools in the United Kingdom
• Triple Accredited (AMBA, EQUIS, AACSB)• Large student and staff body (3,199 in DUBS, 14,951 in total)• Learning Technologies Team supports IT systems (LTT)• Eventual roll out to the entire university (Nearly 15,000 users)• Following presentation represents a business school specific
introduction of our chosen LMS
GCG
Durham University Business School Background
ImplementationCaseOverview Approach Evaluation
GCG
Defining the Problem
SituationDUBS currently uses Blackboard Technology as it’s Learning Management System
ComplicationBlackboard technology is unsatisfactory for an academically competitive business school
QuestionHow can DUBS redevelop the LMS to best suit student and staff needs?
ImplementationCaseOverview Approach Evaluation
GCG
ApproachGoal: Provide cutting edge LMS alternative that enhances student and staff university experience and involvementSolution: Actively pursue alternative LMS platform
1. Provide an depth review of the current LME as it relates to student and staff needs2. Review efficiency of 4 other LMS’s in order to compare their advantages and disadvantages for DUBS3. Select a new alternative LMS with the best functional scope for DUBS4. Estimate time needed to implement across all functions of the Durham University Business School and transfer current files
ImplementationCaseOverview Approach Evaluation
• Objective– newLMSthatincreasesvalueforallstakeholders
• DUstaff• Students• Librarians• CISservices• Administrationstaff• Distancelearners• Visitors• Externalexaminers• Considerwhattheaccreditationagenciessuggest• Alumni
GCG
Terms of Reference
ImplementationCaseOverview Approach Evaluation
• Scope• Increasedefficiency• Easierusability• Lessinternetbandwidthusage• Morestudentinteraction• Lowercost• CantransportexistingfilesfromDUO• Computersecurity
• Successfactorsandrisk• Havetoassumethattheschoolwillfindfunding• Havetoassumewillwestaywithinbudget
GCG
Terms of Reference
ImplementationCaseOverview Approach Evaluation
Comprehensive- Performs, at the minimum, the same functions as Duo- Capacity to transfer, manage and store old and new material
Reliable- Consistent service in high bandwidth situations- Service support in instance of breakdown
Innovative Pedagogy- Social Software- Increase staff-student interaction
Accessible- Easy to Use- Customizable for personal learning environment
Key Core Competencies
GCG
DUBS LMS Requirements
ImplementationCaseOverview Approach Evaluation
SWOT Analysis
Strengths - Competitors entered the market later- Established customers - High switching costs for customers- Advanced SIS (Safety Instrumented System) integration
Weaknesses - High cost against other systems (per user) - Lack of integration with web 2 or cloud tools- Blackboard often suffers from issues such as crashes and slow
responding time- Users dissatisfaction with design and usability- Dependence on central IT
Opportunities - Growing E-Learning market- Integration with cloud storage- Engage customers in the development plan- Creating partnerships with SIS (Safety Instrumented System)
companies- Changing to a transparent model
Threats - Highly competitive market- Competition from open-source products- Consumer dissatisfaction with design- Free of charge collaboration tools (Ning)- Increased number of similar tools
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
- Easy to use, cost effective, malleable platform
- E-learning application favored by educators
- Online learning is versatile- Interactive learning
- Free- Easy to use format, Easy to
manage course and calendar- Social media style formatting- Supports media forms- Adjustable privacy settings
Weaknesses
- Limited options- User has to work with plugins- No live tech support- Difficult setup- Difficult to learn
- Need to check frequently for updates
- Additional apps waste time- Easy to get lost among
multitude of posts
Opportunities
- Expand capabilities so it can be used by larger universities
- Easier implementation for operators
- Bloated with features, cut don on lesser used features
- Students can add videos, images and post comments to one another
- Allows students to engage in learning with expansive message board system
Threats- Technology is always changing
and company might have to adapt
- Students could post inappropriate pictures
- Cyber bullying via posts may occur
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
- Easy Communication- High Security- Comes with Extra resources
(i.e. EDPuzzle app)- Quick easy access to
assignments and material
- The product offers an adaptablesuite of applications to encourages social learning
- Built in analytics feature gives capability to analyze the performance of an individual, department, or organization
Weaknesses
- Less features than competition- Apps are not free- No live tech support- Limited options
- Difficult to set up and fine tune- Difficult to learn to operate as
an educator- Needs to be frequently checked
for updates
Opportunities
- Students can post questions to review what they learned
- Expand capabilities to handle larger universities
- Polls for student input
- More options for students to interact with teacher
- Ways for students to stay up to date if they were absent
Threats- Like the other LMS platforms,
cyber bullying - Ever changing technology
- Cyber bullying- Ever changing technology
GCG
Cost Comparison
Learning Management System Cost Per User
Total Costs per Year(2850 students & 349
Staff)
Blackboard £10.99 £35157.01
Moodle £4.57 £14619.43
Schoology >£6.99 >£22201.06
Edmodo £0 - Free £0 - Free
D2L £7.08 £ 22648.92
ImplementationCaseOverview Approach Evaluation
GCG
Next Steps and Implementation
ImplementationCaseOverview Approach Evaluation
Fees
• Fixed Wage Rate• Hourly wage rate per person: £30• Hourly wage rate for our team: £200
• Success Based Bonus• 10% of total savings
GCGImplementationCaseOverview Approach Evaluation
Gringott’s Consulting Group
Appendix
GCG
GANTT Chart : Project Schedule
Syllabusweeks Feb NovP=Payementtosupplierifgoalacheve 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151stPresentationConsultingteamselectionContactnegociationTrialphasebyDUBSstaff/studentsinsupplierfacilitiesContractdiscussionandagreementprocessContractsignature PITstafftrainingandformationDUBSstaffandlibrariantrainingSecondarystakholderswebinartrainingSupplierITandusersupport(contractlauchingagreement)ServerreviewandinfrastructureupdateInternalinstallationSoftwareconfigurationDUOdatapreparationformigrationSecuritytests PMigrationConfigurationbyDUBSstaffSecuritytests PStudent/DL/ext.examiners/AlumniguidecreationAccountscreationIndependentsecurityreview PStudent/DL/ext.examiners/AlumniWebinarperiodDebugperiodbythesupplier(lauchingcontractperiod)LauchFenceofthelauchingperiod,finallymeetingwithsupplier P
March OctoberSeptembreAugustJulyJuneMayApril
RACI : Responsibility Assignments
R:Responsible(leadthepartoftheproject)A:Accountable(canbeassimilatedasresponsibleinhis/herexpertisearea)C:Consulted(tocollectinformation,testproducts,etc.)I:Informed
Aqdas
Austin
Gavin
Ilias
Lauren
Marc
Pitchaya
Xiaoming
Christos
CISH
ardw
areteam
CISS
oftw
areteam
Administratorteam
Staffand
librarian
Stud
entp
oll
Second
arys
takeho
lders
Projectm
anager
ITsu
pporth
ardw
are
ITsu
pportsoftw
are
Train
ingteam
Securitys
upplier
Contactnegociation C R I A I I I A A C C C C A I I ITrialphasebyDUBSstaff/studentsinsupplierfacilities I I I A R C C C C C C A C C CContractdiscussionandagreementprocess C R I A I I I A A C C C A C C CITstafftrainingandformation R I I I I C C I A A IDUBSstaffandlibrariantraining C I R I C C C I ASecondarystakholderswebinartraining C I R I I C I AServerreviewandinfrastructureupdate R I I A I A I AInternalinstallation I I R A I A A I A ASoftwareconfiguration R I I C I A I ADUOdatapreparationformigration I I C I R C I I CSecuritytests R I I C I A A I I IMigration A I I C A I A R I C CConfigurationbyDUBSstaff R I I I I C A C C C I C IStudent/DL/ext.examiners/Alumniguidecreation I C I R I A I I I CAccountscreation I C I I A A I I I C CIndependentsecurityreview R I I C I I A A I I I AStudent/DL/ext.examiners/AlumniWebinarperiod I I R I C C I ADebugperiodbythesupplier(lauchingcontractperiod) C I R I C A C C C C I A ALauch I I I R C I I I A I I A I C C IFenceofthelauchingperiod,finallymeetingwithsupplier I R I I I I I A A C C C A
GrignottsConsulting DUBS Supplier