MOREnet Impact Assessment

1. MOREnet Impact Assessment StateNets Meeting Tempe, Arizona February 10, 2005 Dr. Bill Elder Dr. Tracy Dranginis University of Missouri--Columbia Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis

2. What we did to assess impact • Built engagement -- project advisory committee • Developed State Team -- MOREnet & OSEDA • Developed preliminary logic models -- four • Conducted stakeholder analysis -- 110 persons • Conducted & analyzed focus groups -- 8 regional • Defined 9 case studies -- individual interviewing • Continue to refine models…. • Define and measure impacts (quantitative & qualitative) • Gather comparative cost and network information

3. Four Basic Logic Models • Connectivity • Distance Learning and eMeetings • On-line resources • Customer Services… • Technical support • Consulting • Training • Security

4. What key findings do we have • Not done yet… March • MOREnet highly regarded -- connectivity and customer services • Cost avoidance a major factor for members • Measuring alternative costs is difficult • Preliminary estimates suggest MOREnet collaborative creates $ 2 million net annual savings for connectivity alone • MOREnet promotes productive institution building (MERC, MOBIUS, eMINTs) -- relationships matter

5. Core Focus Group Findings • Reliable, robust, and secure connectivity “They would rather have water service off for 24 hours than the Internet service off.” • Economic value “I love the deal I get from MOREnet.” • Partner in Education “They know our business.” • Institutional consortium “Can make things happen.” • Legislative advocacy “Our budgets would be different.” • Customer service and technical support “They have the expertise and experience to solve problems quickly.” [….because they run a network]

6. Assessing Impacts • Will have rich descriptions from models • Case Studies to highlight impact of models • But, most information available is not “impact” so we are working on new impact measures. • For example -- Connectivity Model

7. Measures Measures • Number and percentage increase in enrollment in distance education • Connectivity-based or –oriented collaboration by institutions of Higher Education for teaching, research, and advocacy purposes • Increased use of adaptive technologies by disabled Missourians • Number and percentage increase in enrollment in distance education • Connectivity-based or –oriented collaboration by institutions of Higher Education for teaching, research, and advocacy purposes • Increased use of adaptive technologies by disabled Missourians • Increase in number & percentage of Missouri businesses, jobs, and earnings in high tech industries Logic Model: Connectivity OUTCOMES Short-term Medium-term Long-term INPUTS • Staff resources • Financial resources • Equipment & tangibles • Partnerships • Research into technological innovations • Inter-institutional customer collaborations • Increased utilization of services & products • Added e-commerceapplications • Alumni support • Increased leverage for researchers to grant, foundation, contact funding • Classrooms w/o walls • Technology savvy, better educated graduates • A more competitive MO workforce • Using technology to create life-long self-learners • Accessibility beyond traditional students • Institutional access to technology regardless of institutional resources • Awareness of options and advantages of backbone access • Cost effective access for customers • Reliability • Increased awareness of issues concerning security • Secure access • Use, access, and utilization • Improves internal monitoring and management • Enhanced instructional technologies available • Ability to serve more students clients Measures • Cost avoidance - Savings differential by public or private institution • Statewide broadband build-out • Number and percentage increase in enrollment in distance education • Connectivity-based or –oriented collaboration by institutions of Higher Education for teaching, research, and advocacy purposes OUTPUTS Activities • Deliver connections • Customer service • Quality of service • Aggregation capability • Research • Educational conferences • Partnership building • Negotiate & manage costs Assumptions: - Customer Institutions, their faculty, staff and students, need & want the services MoreNet delivers. - Access to information technology increases social capital which, in turn, increases student’s financial capital. - Customers want fast, reliable, supported connectivity at lowest possible cost with related services available at the lowest possible cost. External Factors: - State of technology - Variations in resources among customer institutions - Increased need for higher-level security.

8. How have findings been useful • Too soon to know—final report in March • State context more interesting than ever… • Key leadership changes • FY06 Missouri State Budget is bleak • State IT consolidation underway • Framed some additional key issues that expanded scope of project especially relating to next generation network

9. New policy questions framed • Policy issues that arose… • Scale and Scope of Net • Current MOREnet, more smaller nets or bigger net • Forms of Technology (dark fiber, wireless) • Governance Structures (multiple domains--interests) • Network Management (public – private) • Public Financing (fees, direct appropriations, other) • Need for comparative national data • Need to estimate alternative costs & savings

10. What will we be doing next • Finalize models • Specify quantitative measures • Complete case studies of qualitative impacts • Complete final report and presentations • Launch similar work for libraries and K12

11. MOREnet Impact Assessment StateNets Meeting Tempe, Arizona February 10, 2005 Dr. Bill Elder Dr. Tracy Dranginis University of Missouri--Columbia Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis