STSC 20/6 Portal Options Review Proposal Purpose Due to a number of ongoing technical challenges, coupled with growing concerns over licence and maintenance costs, it has been recommended that a review of the Portal software provision is required to ensure its suitability over the coming years. The purpose of this paper is to outline some very high-level challenges and requirements and to introduce some possible approaches to an options appraisal exercise. Background and context The Student Portal has been running for five years since the projects inception and provides student and staff access to a wide range of information and services. The portal service is provided by IBM WebSphere Portal and IBM Web Content Manager (as an integrated part of Portal Server). As part of a regular review process, coupled with a desire to reduce annual operational costs, consideration has recently been given to streamlining the existing portal architecture and reducing complexity and cost where possible. This papers outlines: Current challenges Suggested high-level requirements and options comparison Next steps and recommendations Potential options Recommended actions The following next steps are recommended for STSC consideration and approval: Form a working group to establish short and long term high-level Portal requirements. STSC to advise on membership. Establish process (methodology, scoring, weighting etc...) to inform options analysis Conduct market research to short-list potential software options Contact vendors for technical demonstrations and reference sites (preferably HE) Establish team to assist in options analysis Monitor and manage options analysis process via Project Board Complete analysis and report recommendations to STSC and wider audience as required UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 1 of 14
UoLIA Information and Learning Systems (ILS) Portal Options Review - Proposal Project Manager: Reporting To: Jonathon Thomas Systems and Technology Sub-committee Craig O Callaghan, UOLIA, Project Executive Issue Date: 13/12/2013 Status: Draft Version: v1.0 Author(s): Jonathon Thomas Content 1 Introduction... 3 2 Challenges... 3 2.1 Challenges 1 4 2.2 Challenges 2 5 2.3 Challenges 3 6 3 Suggested high-level requirements... 7 3.1 Potential Software Comparison Matrix 7 4 Next steps and recommendations... 9 5 Potential Options... 10 5.1 Potential Option 1 Like for like technology solution 11 5.2 Potential Options 2 Alternative technology solution 12 5.3 Potential Options 3 Mixed technology solution 13 UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 2 of 14
PORTAL OPTIONS REVIEW - PROPOSAL 1 INTRODUCTION The Portal has been operational since 2008 and provides the gateway to the majority of UoLIA online services for its students. The Portal is developed using IBM Websphere and is currently hosted by ULCC. Due to a number of ongoing technical challenges, coupled with growing concerns over licence and maintenance costs, it has been recommended that a review of the Portal software provision is required to ensure its suitability over the coming years. The purpose of this paper is to outline some very high-level challenges and requirements and to introduce some possible approaches to an options appraisal exercise. This paper is divided into four main sections: Current challenges Suggested high-level requirements and options comparison Next steps and recommendations Potential options The Committee is invited to provide comment, feedback and suggestions for consideration and to, where appropriate, assist in the analysis and selection process. 2 CHALLENGES The following tables outline a high-level summary of the current challenges facing the Portal solution and team. UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 3 of 14
2.1 CHALLENGES 1 Single point of access The Portal is designed to be a single point of access for students to a wide range of online services provided by UoLIA. Most notably Moodle, SITS and general and programme related resources. The portal is typically accessed via desktop browser with limited mobile support. Most content is readonly requiring users to leave the Portal to visit external sites to update or interact with content or process (e.g. SITS). This may not be desirable in a mobile environment. Then (2008) The Portal is designed to be accessed Desktop from a desktop PC The Portal is designed to be accessed from a desktop PC Read-only The Portal provides mainly readonly data and content from external systems Now (2014+) The Portal is designed to be accessed Mobile first from a desktop PC The Portal should be designed as a mobile first responsive application supporting a wide range of devices (including desktop PCs) Read and write The Portal provides read-andwrite access to external data allowing users to stay within the Portal environment as much as possible Single Sign-On (SSO) The Portal provides SSO to a number of existing applications. This is tied closely to the existing UoLIA Identity Management process. Problems arise because students do not remember passwords and often don t receive credentials when they are emailed to them (or password reset reminders). Authentication would be enhanced by allowing users to interact with UoLIA systems using existing accounts that they use frequently (e.g. Social media accounts) Identity Management SSO (and access) to portal and external sites via UoLIA Identity Management solution (UoL username and password) Identity Management and thirdpart authentication SSO (and access) to Portal and other external sites via UoLIA Identity Management solution or alternative authentication solutions (e.g. social media accounts, OpenID, Shibboleth etc...) UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 4 of 14
2.2 CHALLENGES 2 Infrastructure The portal is built on enterprise level software to provide a secure and robust environment. However, the environment is complex and arcane. Upgrades are very complicated and lengthy (e.g. an upgrade to a new version takes approximately 4 weeks per environment). Additionally, the software is hosted on many servers due to its design. Many of these servers are up for renewal and migration of the Portal to a new environment would be significant exercise. Then (2008) The Portal is designed to be accessed Reliable from and stable a desktop PC The Portal is built on complex architecture. Maintenance and upgrades are complicated, lengthy and often require specialist skills. Centrally hosted The portal is centrally hosted on physical hardware Now (2014+) The Portal is designed to be accessed Reliable, from stable a desktop and flexible PC The Portal should be built on more intuitive architecture to ensure more rapid and simpler upgrade paths without sacrificing stability or capacity. Virtualisation and SaaS The Portal should be built on virtualised hardware to provide greater capacity management or provided as SaaS. Business Integration The Portal currently provides a range of content and services to students and limited content and services to staff. Content is pulled from various websites (e.g. the Online Library) as well as personalised data from SITS. The Portal also provides SSO to SITS, Moodle, Cognos and ESD (helpdesk). Future developments should focus on tools designed to support staff and students in administering the lifecycle reducing demand on UoLIA support staff and improving the quality of the student experience when interacting with UoLIA online services. Content orientated (students) The Portal is primarily used as means of providing web content and information to students. Process orientated (students and staff) The Portal will evolve to be used to support business and lifecycle processes for both student and staff as well as providing web content and other functionality to both these groups UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 5 of 14
2.3 CHALLENGES 3 Investment The current portal is a commercial product with a high annual licence and support fee, coupled with high hardware demands. However, its complexity means that support contracts are required to ensure its smooth running. Then (2008) The Portal is designed to be accessed Expensive from a desktop PC The current Portal is an expensive commercial product with a high annual licence fee coupled with high hardware demands Now (2014+) The Portal is designed to be accessed Cost-efficient from a desktop PC The Portal should be affordable with regard to both licences and hardware requirements Future products should be affordable or open-source with good community support. Development Development in the Portal is slow and often unnecessarily complicated.. The technology used by the Portal is often out-of-date and the complexity of the software means that updates are infrequent. Developers are often tied into inefficient practices to suit the software rather than being able to use the tools most appropriate to the job. Also, the user interface for Web Content development is very poor. Future software choices should be able to embrace modern design methods and be flexible in both approach and toolsets. Additionally, the limited out-of-the-box solutions is very apparent in the Portal compared to competitors. Support Current support arrangements for the Portal are very expensive with minimal community support available. There would be significant risk in running such a complex environment without such an arrangement. Slow and rigid Development in the Portal is slow and techniques are tied to proprietary methods and old technology. Additionally, little useful out-of-the-box products are available without significant investment. Community The portal should have wide community support to reduce dependency on commercial suppliers. However, affordable commercial support should be available if required. Fast and flexible Development should be rapid and flexible and use modern methods, technologies and tools. Additionally, the portal should provide a wide range of useful and configurable out-of-the-box solutions. UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 6 of 14
3 SUGGESTED HIGH-LEVEL REQUIREMENTS The following section lays out some suggested high-level requirements for the future Portal environment. These are not intended to be inclusive or exhaustive. The Committee is invited to consider the following requirements and to edit and suggest additions as required. Suggested requirements The product should support a mobile first approach with suitable fall-back for desktop PCs The product should support third-party authentication The product should be capable of providing both a secure and personalised experience whilst supporting socially enabled and community driven web experiences The product should continue to support integration with existing UoLIA core online services (e.g. SITS, ESD, Cognos and Moodle) The product should support rich communication opportunities The product should support modern development technologies and tools and should allow flexibility in developer approach and development lifecycle The product should provide a wide range of useful, configurable and easily available out-of-the-box solutions The product should be cost efficient with minimal licence and/or hardware requirements The product should have a simple architecture with light maintenance requirements and easy upgrade paths The product should have commercial support and hosting options available supplemented by wide community support The product should have a proven track record for reliability, stability and flexibility The product should support virtualisation or be available as SaaS Requirement gathering exercise should act to stimulate and re-energise interest in the project and provide an opportunity to explore new opportunities 3.1 POTENTIAL SOFTWARE COMPARISON MATRIX The following table shows a brief high-level comparison of potential software options. This list of software choices is based on the current knowledge within the UoLIA team and will need to be revised in light of suitable requirements analysis. The software options detailed below are indicative and are not intended to be inclusive or exhaustive. The Committee is invited to suggest alternative software for comparison. UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 7 of 14
= Yes/Supported ~ = Partially supported? = Unknown x = Not supported Liferay uportal CampusM Enterprise SharePoint The product should support a mobile first approach with suitable fall-back for desktop PCs? The product should support third-party authentication ~? x ~ Drupal The product should be capable of providing both a secure and personalised experience whilst supporting socially enabled and community driven web experiences The product should continue to support integration with existing UoLIA core online services (e.g. SITS, ESD, Cognos and Moodle)? ~ ~?? The product should support rich communication opportunities? The product should support modern development technologies and tools and should allow flexibility in developer approach and development lifecycle The product should provide a wide range of useful, configurable and easily available out-of-the-box solutions??? ~?? The product should be cost efficient with minimal licence and/or hardware requirements?? The product should have a simple architecture with light maintenance requirements and easy upgrade paths The product should have commercial support and hosting options available supplemented by wide community support?????? The product should have a proven track record for reliability, stability and flexibility The product should support virtualisation or be available as SaaS ~ ~ UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 8 of 14
4 NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following next steps are recommended for STSC consideration and approval: Form a working group to establish short and long term high-level Portal requirements. STSC to advise on membership. Establish process (methodology, scoring, weighting etc...) to inform options analysis Conduct market research to short-list potential software options Contact vendors for technical demonstrations and reference sites (preferably HE) Establish team to assist in options analysis Monitor and manage options analysis process via Project Board Complete analysis and report recommendations to STSC and wider audience as required UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 9 of 14
5 POTENTIAL OPTIONS The following section lays out some potential options for Portal provision. These options are only indicative and are not intended to be inclusive and exhaustive. The Committee is invited to suggest alternatives or additions. It should be noted here that the first step of the exercise is to gather and review current and potential future requirements. Once this has been completed, the various options can be assessed. The three options outlined below are: Replacement of the Portal with a like-for-like solution Replacement of the Portal with alternative solution Replacement of the Portal with a mixture of software solutions UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 10 of 14
5.1 POTENTIAL OPTION 1 LIKE FOR LIKE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION Like-for-like technology solution The first approach to consider would be to replace the Portal with a similar Java based product. There are many suitable alternatives available and many have a wide community of users as well as commercially available support and hosting options. Many of the solutions provide a host of rich out-ofthe-box solutions and are typically built to the latest development standards and principles. Possible software: Liferay It should be noted that the Liferay product has been reviewed internally and appears to have real potential as an alternative Pros May re-energise the project and stimulate wider interest Much of the existing Java code could be re-used with some modification Existing developer and administrator skills would be broadly re-usable with minimal need for re-training Large and responsive community support Open-source product would reduce overall cost of solution, even with commercial support option Wide range of out-of-the-box solutions Built to modern development standards and optimised for mobile Web content management, document management and collaborative tools as standard Cons No guarantee that all functionality will be able to be replicated Minimal penetration in HE sector. Vendors and community may not understand HE market Cost of migration may mean minimal cost recovery in the short-term UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 11 of 14
5.2 POTENTIAL OPTIONS 2 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION Alternative technology solution Pros Cons The second approach to consider would be to replace the Portal with a radically different software solution. This would depend on the outcomes of the requirements analysis but could provide opportunities to explore different approaches to communications and engagement with our students. Possible software: ombiel CampusM Microsoft SharePoint Drupal May re-energise the project and stimulate wider interest Provide opportunities to explore new options for communications and engagement Software specifically designed for a task will likely be better than a home-built solution Software may already have good HE market penetration and understand our business needs May increase staff training needs No guarantee that all required functionality will be able to be replicated Commercial products so potentially minimal cost savings Increased support requirements for students and staff to learn new software Options may require new hardware and OS requirements. UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 12 of 14
5.3 POTENTIAL OPTIONS 3 MIXED TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION Mixed technology solution Pros Cons The third approach to consider would be to replace the Portal a mixture of technological solutions that best fit the requirements. For example, a feature-rich portal with deep interaction with SITS could be built for Staff using a Java Portal, whilst a lightweight communication tool for students could be built using CampusM. This way, the most appropriate software for the job is used rather than attempting to provide a one-sizefits-all solution. Possible software: e.g. Liferay + CampusM May re-energise the project and stimulate wider interest Provide opportunities to explore new options for communications and engagement Best tools for the job are used approach most likely to reach highest number of requirements Appropriate staff skills are utilised - skills not centralised in single team Wide range of solutions available with devolved responsibility Ownership of products can be devolved to most suitable team Minimise risk of vendor lock-in UoLIA already experienced with mixed product environment May increase cost May increase complexity for end-user May increase complexity for configuration, change management and governance May increase complexity for testing and development May increase complexity of Identity and Access Management Staff skills may be spread thinly across multiple applications UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 13 of 14
UoLIA Information and Learning Systems 14 of 14