1. OKI Workshop 15 October 2003

2. Welcome & overview:  Morning Session IU Strategy OKI Overview & Tutorial  Afternoon Session OKI Application and discussion groups

3. Economics of IT and Applications Fit with Require ments Acquisition Cost Maintenance Cost Support Options Control of Destiny Build  Tailored  Full cost  Expensive permanent staff or contract  Discretionary  Full costs for changes  No on-going fees  Self  Very high  Own the code Buy (vendor)  Standardized  Tailored add- ons  Shared cost + vendor profit as license fee  Mandatory  Shared costs + vendor profit via annual license fees  Vendor(s)  Warrant­ies and service level agree­ ments  Very low  Limited/no access modify the code  Extensive add- ons may complicate upgrades Borrow (open Source)  Assembled  Nil, minimal, or shared  Discretionary  Nil, minimal, shared, or full  Self  For fee vendors  Partners  Community  Very high  Full access to the source code

4. Where are we today LibrarySIS OncourseUITS, etc. www  Users must know the path to each silo…one size fits all  Silo’d data/services not integrated…user must consolidate and find related information and services  Redundancies abound, interface inconsistencies, expensive maintenance… it will get worse. Services: Data:

5. Guiding Principles for Enterprise Application Development

6. Application Development Guiding Principles 1.Standards: IU will enhance our opportunities for code mobility among universities by architecting on a common layer of OKI services (OSIDs) as our baseline infrastructure for new IU applications. The complementary data standards will be based on IMS specifications (or other applicable data standards groups) whenever applicable. J2EE, AIX/Linux, and Oracle are the standards for enterprise-scale application development. 2. Sourcing: For in-house developed systems, whenever possible, IU will participate in open source approaches – both importing existing solutions and exporting IU solutions. IU will partner with like-minded institutions whenever goals and resources align to share costs.

7. Application Development Guiding Principles (cont.) 3.Delivery: IU will focus on personalized delivery of information services and activities via the OneStart Portal through an unbundled, Web services approach to application development. 4.Leverage: IU will aggressively seek efficiencies in consolidation of redundant application services whenever feasible.

8. But We’ve Tried This Before… “But my campus is different” Timing differences for software investments between institutions Differing technology architectures Staff and leadership attitudes regarding open source quality Licensing and intellectual property Support distraction fears at software developing institutions Support availability fears at software adopting institutions Sourcing decisions absent a coherent IT strategy

9. The Open Knowledge Initiative  a collaboration among leading universities and specification and standards organizations to support innovative learning technology in higher education.  an open and extensible architecture that specifies how the components of an educational software environment communicate with each other and with other enterprise systems. 

10. Partnering Models ModelFeaturesExamples Lead Institution  Institution takes lead in writing an application for its own needs  Develops for code mobility using a framework/standards  May lead a community that becomes more of a consortium model over time  Chef Project - U of Michigan Chef Project Partnering  Formal or informal agreements among a small group of institutions to write tools  Tools integrate as part of a planned application framework  Navigo Assessment Project - Indiana, Michigan, Stanford Navigo Assessment Project  Fedora – U. of Virginia, Cornell Fedora Consortium  Extra-university entity that coordinates application requirements, standards, and releases  Coordinates a community  uPortal – JA-SIG uPortalJA-SIG  ePortfolio Project - Open Source Portfolio Initiative ePortfolio Project - Open Source Portfolio Initiative  Chandler Project - Open Source Application FoundationOpen Source Application Foundation Consumer  Institutions or vendors that implement open source systems with minimal/no participation in development  Any institution that downloads and implements open source application software

11. Objectives for the day  Learn, ask questions, think!  Discuss UITS strategy for OSIDS and application development for an open source partnering strategy