Begin OSU masthead and toolbar

The Ohio State University
www.osu.edu

Report Summary

The parameters of this evaluation are these: Should OSU build its own CMS in conjunction with other CIC institutions; should it purchase an enterprise level CMS; should it wait to make a purchase of an enterprise level CMS?

Build: The build option, which entails working with the University of Michigan and Indiana University, is costly and high-risk.

The Ohio State University does not currently have the infrastructure to pursue programming at this level. The biggest risk with a build-your-own solution is the continuing cost of supporting the system. After much discussion, both the core team and the advisory team recommended that the university not pursue the build option at this time.

Wait: The wait option, with no time period specified, is only viable as long as the current system is stable, both in terms of technical considerations and in terms of cost.

Our current system, as of June 2003, can carry 20 to 30% more users, but it is running out of disk space. The current system could run 12 to 18 more months without major changes. Over the last several years, the number of student seats in WebCT on OSU’s central system has increased at about 80% per year. While the number of student users is increasing, the number of faculty users is beginning to stabilize. We expect that, if OSU stays with WebCT Campus Edition, there will be only modest increases in the number of faculty users. OSU has a WebCT license for Campus Edition through December 2005 for the current configuration. The cost of the license will increase 7% for 2004. While the wait option may be feasible in the short term, it is not a long-term solution. Both the advisory team and the core team recommended that, if there are sufficient funds, the university purchase a new CMS shortly (during FY ’04) and use the remaining period of the WebCT license during the conversion to the new CMS.

Purchase: The purchase option has been the subject of much investigation.

Overall, it is clear that the core team finds neither Blackboard nor Angel acceptable CMS solutions for Ohio State, as they do not have the basic functionality required by Ohio State. The core team finding is that Desre2Learn is preferable to WebCT Vista 2.0 on most considerations. Desire2Learn has a robust feature set, is relatively easy for faculty, designers, and students to learn and use, it has pleasing visual design, and is compliant with IMS/SCORM standards. Its documentation is extensive; it can run on either an Oracle or a SQL server. Most importantly, faculty feedback about the two systems clearly placed Desire2Learn as the favorite of those who attended these sessions.

There is not a substantial difference in level of risk between Desire2Learn and WebCT. The Gartner group considers a shakeup among the established CMS software producers likely (see “Higher Education Must Reduce Vendor Exposure,” 11 Dec. 2002). Desire2Learn is a relatively young company whose financial viability is unproven over the long haul.

In summary, the findings of the core team and advisory team are that Desire2Learn is the first choice and WebCT Vista is the second choice.

.....

Findings

The findings of this report are that: