Web Architecture Group
1. Report from subgroup charged to further explore options for a web architecture pilot project (Anne, John, Mel, and Paras):
The subgroup felt it needed more information about the Duke project (reported on at the last WAG meeting) and sent a team to Duke. If Duke would be amenable to sharing their code with us, it might give us a big head start on a web architecture pilot. We would need to assess whether or not their code could be adapted to other projects/processes such as the course proposal process.
A team—John Creuziger, Mel Nichols, Gerri Nickle—went to Duke on April 2 to learn more about their Faculty Database System (FDS). It has some valuable features and they are open to sharing the code with us in exchange for documentation, etc.
As a result of that visit and further discussions, John Creuziger wrote a proposal for next steps was (see attached handout). John went through the points in the document:
A. Summary of charge and process to date
B. Info about Duke’s FDS
C. Goal of a pilot program
D. Objectives of the pilot program
E. Scope of work
F. Costs (approx $24,000 plus programming and system engineering)
2.
Discussion points from the WAG:
A. There were a few suggestions about the terms of an agreement
with Duke such as the time period when we would need to return code
to Duke and what kind of templates we would need
Templates to display certain kinds of information.
Duke has a template maker code.
However, these kinds of details would be better worked out when and if we actually decide to go forward with an agreement.
B. Since Duke already has considerable development done for the faculty data piece, perhaps we should do a pilot with adopting their system to work with our annual faculty review process, and then move later to addressing the course proposal process.
a. Some felt this would be faster and perhaps simpler pilot project.
b. Which one would benefit more people?
c. Which one would solve a bigger problem?
d. Which one would create a greater problem if we started but decided we couldn’t continue?
C.
Alternatively, would it be better to wait until there is a commercial
product available? Consensus of the group was that we don’t want
to do this.
D. There seem to be some benefits to us to doing a pilot project
even if we later scrap it or move to a commercial project.
a. Proof of concept—people could see what we are trying to achieve
b. Further our knowledge of how to integrate other data in Banner
c. Move along our current LDAP project
d. At the end of a pilot, we would be better able to assess what would meet our needs and evaluate next steps.
3. Next steps
A.
Meet again in a month. (Note—a meeting for the entire Tech Council
has been scheduled for
May 4. We should have something to bring to this meeting or change
its date.)
B. Set up some times when members of the group could meet with John
to get a short demo of the Duke system.
C. Draft a proposal to send back to Duke if we are interested in
pursuing an agreement with them.
D. Prepare a more detailed project plan, including timeframes, resources
needed and skill sets, including any differences in choosing either
of the projects to serve as a pilot (course approval process or
faculty evaluation process) for consideration at the next meeting
Attending:
Anne Agee
Dee Ann Holisky
Cathy Hubbs
Ruth Kifer
Paras Kaul
Creston Jamison
John Creuziger
Roy Rosenzweig
Farrokh Alemi
Mel Nichols
Stan Zoltek