Blackboard and WebCT consortia

1
Blackboard and WebCT consortia

• Siebren van der Kooij
• Ineke Lam
• Keith Russell

2
Programme

• Welcome and introduction
• Situation in the Netherlands
• History VLEs UU
• State of the Art Autumn 2002
• Blackboard Consortium
• WebCT Consortium
• Discussion

3
Situation in the Netherlands

• NL except TUE, OU, UT, UU Blackboard
• UU the firstnow the last?

4
History

• Bottum-up approach no central policy
• Roots of VLE WebCT CIM
• National WebCT knowledge centre
• Close collaboration with ArtsLaw
• 1999 FSS chose BB v.5

5
State of the art autumn 2002

• Blackboard
• Costs licence ?
• FSS hosts already a few faculties
• 5 faculties/institutes

• WebCT
• SE will disappear
• Costs licence ? dramatically
• CIM hosts already a few faculties
• 8 faculties/institutes use various versions

6
Autumn 2002

• Central board explores (central policy
  question)
• Are two VLEs viable at UU?

7
(No Transcript)
8
The WebCT consortiumUnity in diversity

• Siebren van der Kooij, msc
• ICT management Faculty of Law

9
Overview of the consortium

• Faculties
• Law, UsE, UsG (cluster)
• Arts
• Medicine, Biology
• Veterinary Medicine
• Pharmaceutical Sciences
• Others
• Ivlos (CIM)

10
One dropout..

• Faculty of Geographical Sciences..
• ?

11
Starting point

• Letter from the board of UU about investigating
  possibilities of VLE consortia.. No action
• CIM took initiative, Ivlos/ICT expertise center
  jumped in ? easily accepted consortium
  coordinator.

12
And action

• Money matters. Important issue.
• First action Licence for Vista
• Second Services SoW
• Third Hosting decision
• Fourth WebCT Vista preparations and
  implementation
• Roles of faculty
• Role of CIM and Ivlos

13
For a consortium to succeed, you need

• A need to unite
• Neutral overall coordination
• Commitment
• Working procedures, delegated responsibilities
• not having to contact all faculty directors for
  each and every financial decision

14
(No Transcript)