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