Academic IT Committee Minutes
December 3, 2004
Noon-3PM ETC 304
Note: See dates for next meeting below and note the change from September 2, 2005 to September 9 (Conference Room 304, ETC).
Members Present: Betsy D, Qwesi, Leo M, Scott F, Bo D, Mark P, Kang, Barbara K (guest), Lynda M, Mark T, J.C. T, David B, Joel P, John O, Mike C, Patti A, Karen L, Teresa T, Rhonda F, Gary L, Barry D, Susan B, Lesley B, Niels J, Dick J
HOUSEKEEPING. John O explained that there have been some technical problems with the Academic IT listserv. Members introduced themselves.
MATHEMATICA LICENSING/MAPLE. The AITC discussed at length the issues related to the opportunities for building on our existing customer base with Mathematica and Maple. Some members felt strongly that it was necessary to give campuses options of both Mathemetica and Maple (what about others?) to get a full picture before negotiating a contract with either. Others felt strongly it was necessary to move forward without delay with whichever vendor was prepared to do so. Several members suggested that the goal should be to try to have something in place by Spring semester.
Recommended Action Item: There appeared to be a general consensus, but not a unified one, that we should proceed without delay in developing proposals for systemwide or other discounted pricing arrangements with any math-related vendors with whom the system currently has a broad client base (at this point: Mathematica and Maple). It was also agreed that we should make sure campuses who sign on with one product or another are fully aware that other options are also possible or in-the-works.
Recommended Action Item: The committee responded well to Lynda M's idea that John O or Gary L will bring the following idea to the Information Technology Management Council: setting aside a fixed off-the-top allocation to be used specifically for strategic, system-wide contracts such as Mathematica, Maple, and Respondus. [Late-Breaking News : After the meeting, Gary L and Mark T agreed on exploring the possibility of looking into a larger option for possibly funding math software, GIS, and perhaps other science-related software initiatives. More exploratory work will be done to see if such an arrangement is possible.]
Recommended Action Item: Any multi-campus queries to campuses on software initiatives like this should include CIOs, CAOs, and DEANS. John reminded members that pricing and contract information sent to the listserv to members of the committee must be kept confidential and should not be forwarded outside this committee.
D2L: Respondus/Project X . D2L has tabled development of "Project X." Respondus-D2L are negotiating development of a "D2L personality" with Respondus that could be ready within a 7.4 - 8.0 timeframe. Respondus has indicated that they would charge the same amount proposed previously (along with their 7.5% increase) for a systemwide contract. They don't yet have a timeline for integration and would expect an agreement from us to purchase Respondus upon completion of D2L personality before they began work on a "D2L personality."
Recommended Action Item: Try to encourage an agreement with Respondus and D2L for development of a "D2L Personality." If Respondus develops this and other caveats are met, the AITC recommends that MnOnline include the $33,862 system license in the licensing costs covered.
D2L: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. John explained that ITS is in the process of putting together a survey that will invite faculty, students, and others to comment on their satisfaction with Desire2Learn (and all ITS services). The target for this survey is April.
"MOJO" COMMUNICATIONS SUIT. The current communications suit works only for small number of users. D2L's solution was to purchase "Mojo." Initially this suit had problems. Now D2L feels the configuration is acceptable and ready to install as version 3.1. The AITC discussed whether or not it is appropriate to move to this version when it is ready in the spring. How much time will be available to test? What will be the impact on scalability? If anything, it should help, as it is housed on a separate server.
Recommended Action Item: Lesley B will learn from D2L/Gosia if the Mojo upgrade is reversible. What would be the fall-back position/exit strategy if we move forward with 3.1 but find later that it does not work? What are the options? What are the negative consequences of switching back mid-term?
7.4 UPGRADE. John O stressed that the Office of the Chancellor is not pushing for either a migration or no-migration decision about 7.4. Whichever decision is made should be based on the wishes of the users, with a clear understanding of the risks.
Lesley provided a summary of the current situation with the 7.4 upgrade opportunity, according to D2L:
- No big changes in user interface.
- Three key enhancements in 7.4:
i. 300+ bug fixes included in 7.4. 30-40 bug fixes on the quiz tool alone
ii. some feature enhancements (biggest: enhanced quicklinks, so they don't need to be manually rebuilt each time courses are copied)
iii. stability and scalability features. D2L feels we need to take the upgrade in particular because D2L built the features of 7.4 specifically for us and to address the problems we are facing. Potential significant problem is that if we have scalability issues with 7.3.D2L's response will not be to fix 7.3 but to insist that we upgrade to 7.4.
The committee discussed the benefits and risks of the upgrade, with a wide variety of views expressed.
Given the previous experience with the 7.3 upgrade, members discussed the advantages of waiting to install system 7.4 until after other institutions have taken the upgrade. Barbara expressed Metropolitan State University's concerns about potential integration problems that might result from the upgrade. She said there are tremendous risks, and the stakes are very high at the university. Students who take courses completely online have no recourse when the system fails. She said there is a lack of confidence in D2L's ability to deliver an upgrade without problems.
AITC members expressed concerns on the other hand with the risks of not upgrading. Since no one, including D2L, can provide assurances about the break-point in scalability with 7.3, it is difficult to conduct an accurate risk analysis.
Members discussed concerns about the lack of industry standard load testing.
Barbara asked about integration testing, and she noted relief in learning more about the projected lack of impact with 7.4 on integration. Mike Condon explained that the 7.4 upgrade should not affect integration-related application code.
Barry said that he hopes the decision is made to go forward with 7.4 if there is no "show stopper" discovered in the process of Quality Assurance (QA) testing.
Desire2Learn Representatives Brian C/Gosia G joined the meeting by phone
- 7.4 focus is scalability. If we stay with 7.3 and experience scalability problems, we will need to take patches from 7.4 (without the same level of testing, since patches would be installed on an adhoc basis).
- "What have you learned about software testing over the last few months?" D2L said they have a better understanding of use patterns, as well as a more mature approach to version release. Hired a project manager for product releases. More sense of accountability in the organization if a release doesn't go well.
- "Do any of your staff have experience with high volume banking type systems in QA." Not sure.
- D2L was asked about confidence levels with the upgrade on a scale of 1 to 10. Brian: performance is a 10, "guaranteed." Other confidence levels are very high. Any minor issues will be revealed in QA. Integration issues are completely separate..."no impact whatsoever. "
- Testing to date has been focused on identifying specific queries, not high load testing. D2L is now moving to load testing.
- Third party load testing? This has not been done to date and there are not plans to do so. David Bahn suggested that the company "doesn't know what they don't know" and should hire experts who can assist them with high volume load testing for a mission critical environment.
- John O asked Gosia and Brian if they were aware of the high stakes involved for Spring. Gosia agreed that if there is a failure level even 1/10th of what was experienced in the Fall. They are aware that if failures are 10% of Fall, "drastic consequences."
- John O asked D2L what was at stake for them in our decision to upgrade to version 7.4 or not. Gosia: D2L's only stake is "our success."
- How is D2L load testing? They will use a database similar in size to WI and ours. Testing will start Monday.
There was broad disappointment among AITC members with the D2L plan for testing/load testing.
- AITC members asked whether D2L will support us sufficiently if we decide to stay with 7.3. They said they would do so and reminded members that "most of the other clients will be using 7.3."
After the D2L phone conference ended, the AITC continued the deliberation, eventually settling on two key proposed recommendations:
- Wait until the beginning of Summer to upgrade to 7.4
- Move ahead with QA testing of version 7.4 and authorize the D2L team (Mike Condon, Mike Janke, Denise, Simone, and Chuck) to provide a timely recommendation as to whether to upgrade. If there are any "show-stoppers," the team will be expected to make this known within an appropriate timeframe.
Members discussed these recommendations further. Representative comments:
- Betsy: Feels willing to take the risk, but recognize that theirs is not the same level of risk as campus with many online employees.
- Barbara: Far less worried about integration having heard what she heard from D2L. Still uncomfortable with load testing but is willing to defer to colleagues. "I am willing to rely on their considered judgment." Though she is concerned, she will agree to go forward with what is decided.
- David: If this were a vote, he would vote against going ahead with the upgrade at this point because of insufficient confidence in D2L. Suggests waiting another 4-5 months.
- Teresa Email: "I want to emphasize that the MNSCU D2L staff in your employment need to assess and decide what to do. You and they know the most about the product and can make the most informed decision. Please choose the most stable environment. We can work with little bugs but nobody is going to withstand a startup filled with page errors that won't let students access or stay connected."
- Bo: Feels we should move ahead with 7.4 upgrade.
Final Recommendation: The consensus of the group (with the exception of David Bahn who was a proponent of the other recommendation) was to proceed with recommendation #2. With the scheduled meeting time running short, John O called for additional comments from members (especially remote members) who disagreed with this view or who otherwise felt they had not yet had the opportunity to speak.
Action Item: AITC will develop strongly worded recommendations to D2L for testing, perhaps eventually asking the multi-state D2L group to endorse the recommendations as well.
Carry Forward Agenda Items for the Next Meeting:
Faculty/Student ITS Satisfaction Survey (John O'Brien/Rick Hokanson)
Development Prioritization (Joanne Chabot)
Faculty Survey/IT Assessment (John O'Brien/Rick Hokanson)
Assignment Calculator (Gary Langer)
Dates for Next Meetings:
Friday, February 4, 2005
Friday, May 6, 2005
Friday, September 9, 2005 ***CHANGE FROM September 2
Friday, December 2, 2005
Location:
Energy Technology Center (ETC) , Conference Room 304
Time: 12:00NN - 3:00PM
