1. Web 2.0 Showdown: Ning vs. the Campus Web Portal
EDUCAUSE Mid-Atlantic 2009
Sabrina DeTurk, Ph.D.
Copyright Sabrina DeTurk, This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

2. Background
Idea for presentation came from work as Luminis consultant; also sense of frustration over a current project
Goal: create an area for graduate students and faculty to network, exchange information, post events, etc
Already have a campus portal (Luminis)
External social networking tools offer different (better?) functions
Presentation will look at what’s out there, discuss options, present some survey results, and frame questions for discussion

3. Some definitions
Portal: provides access to diverse, user-specific information and functions via a single sign-on gateway
Web 2.0: the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. – Tim O’Reilly
Social Network: a social network is a structure comprising a set of actors, some of whom are interconnected by one or more relations; social networking tools facilitate interactions between those actors

4. What’s available
Current options for portals include SunGardHE’s Luminis, the Blackboard Community System, Jenzabar’s Internet Campus Solution, Datatel’s ActiveCampus, uPortal and others
Web 2.0 and social networking technologies include Ning, LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, Second Life and others

13. Benefits of each option
Portal
Web 2.0/Social Networking
Connected to ERP
Everyone has account
Should be part of existing routine
Campus branding
Integrated systems
Basic collaborative tools
More interactive and flexible
“real world” applications
May already be used for other, personal networking
More customized options
Users have more control

14. Disadvantages of each option
Portal
Web 2.0/Social Networking
Relatively rigid development framework
Driven by content providers, not users
Informational more than interactive
May not be used extensively by community
External system; need to go somewhere else
May include advertising
Not clear if all tools are relevant to academic environment
May offer too much choice

15. What are the current trends?
2008 Horizon Report* ranks “the growing use of Web 2.0 and social networking” as the top trend affecting the areas of teaching, learning, and creative expression.
This trend is particularly significant when “combined with collective intelligence and mass amateurization”
“The next phase for connecting people through the network has been identified as the emergence of social operating systems – tools that not only recognize our social connections, but will expose information in entirely new ways that will make these networks more fluid.”
Portals = not conducive to above; external networks more so?
* Jointly published by the New Media Consortium and the EDUCAUSE Learning Institute

16. Survey Results
Survey sent to EDUCAUSE Portals list-serv in October 2008
21 responses
Mostly from large, public universities
76% from public institutions
43% had enrollments of over 15,000 students

17. Level of interest in Web 2.0
Current use of Web 2.0 technologies in portals mixed:
48% have integrated Web 2.0 technologies; 52% have not
High level of interest in such integration:
85% indicated that their institution has plans for Web 2.0 integration with portal
Of those currently integrating technologies, RSS is the most prevalent
RSS integration = 100%
Blogs = 80%
Wikis = 50%
Facebook/social networking = 50%

18. Survey results Other technologies asked about: iTunes/podcasting = 30%
Flickr/photo sharing = 20%
YouTube/video sharing = 20%
Twitter = 20%
del.icio.us/bookmarking = 10%
Other = 10% (data mashups)

19. Survey results
When asked about the potential utility of these Web 2.0 tools for the campus, the top responses were:
RSS = 76%
iTunes/podcasting = 75%
Facebook/social networking = 74%
Blogs = 71%
Only 5% of respondents felt that social networking tools (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc) were replacing the portal as primary communications vehicles on campus

20. Survey results
76% of respondents indicated that their campus portal is used primarily for business services (e.g., registration, bill pay, grades)
When asked which portal features were most useful to the campus, the following ranked highest:
Announcements = 95%
Academic services = 95%
Integrated financial services = 85%
Integrated administrative tools = 81%

21. So what’s wrong with our portals?
Portals = enterprise technology; central control
Web 2.0 = open source; distributed management
A dirty secret – portals are supposed to offer more levels of distributed management and open source content, but few are using them that way
“I see the need for a new kind of IT leadership, one that must surrender a modicum of control…IT leaders must accommodate the contributions of the community rather than control them.” – Lev Gonick, “Open Source IT Leadership for Web 2.0”

22. What could we do better?
Leverage the targeting and niche marketing capabilities of our portals to create better information networks
Better integrate web apps into our portals – even better: use the portal to collect specific user data, integrate that with a web app, and dump the whole thing to a mobile device
Look for the best of Web 2.0 applications and provide easy access from within the portal – if not SSO, at least via links and channels – let users see what’s out there and direct them to specific networks and applications

23. Old model Email Portal Registrar Library Course Management
Financial Services

24. New model
Portal
Services
External Apps
Social Networking
Web 2.0

25. Resources
2008 Horizon Report (New Media Consortium and EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative) - port/45926
Joanne Berg, et.al., “Social Networking Technologies: a Poke for Campus Services,” EDUCAUSE Review March/April w/SocialNetworkingTechnolog/40692
John Seely Brown, “How to Connect Technology and Passion in the Service of Learning,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct 17, 2008 –

26. Resources
Lev Gonick, “Open Source IT Leadership for Web 2.0,” EDUCAUSE Review Sept/Oct w/OpenSourceITLeadershipfor/44999
Mike Gotta, “Deciphering Social Networks,” Burton Group, August 5, ocialNetworks/47253
Tracy Mitrano, “Facebook 2.0,” EDUCAUSE Review March/April w/Facebook20/46324

27. Thank you! Questions and Discussion?
Ideas for future research and improvement?