Download
1 / 8
80 likes | 90 Views
Explore Sakai implementation strategies, stakeholder breakdown, and key concerns. Learn about IT, infrastructure, development, and user support emphases. Publisher's notes provide valuable insights and strategies for successful Sakai implementation.
E N D
Publisher’s Note (1 or 2) These slides were prepared by Clay Fenlason, Boston University School of Management for the Sakai Strategy and Advocacy Discussion Group. “This discussion group is focused on providing support to those people interested in promoting Sakai on their campus.” He writes: “The first [four slides] tries to break the stakeholders down into 4 groups - students, faculty, university and school administrators, and the IT outfit itself - and it does so by trying to identify their key concerns and interests, both for the short and long term. The short-term concerns basically become migration issues, and the long-term interests become the major selling points. Of course there's more overlap than the table indicates, and I don't mean it to establish rigid categories so much as to identify emphases.Since my earliest focus is on my fellow IT people, most of the remaining slides go on to further subdivide that camp (using local terminology). "Infrastructure" is the province of system administrators, "App-Dev" that of developers, and "User Services" the purview of helpdesk support, trainers, etc. "App-Dev" is of course the toughest nut to crack, partly because this is where the implications of Sakai are most strongly felt, and partly because in recent years we've become something of a .NET shop. On the Sys Admin side we've also tilted toward the Windows side of the spectrum.”
Publisher’s Note (2 of 2) “The last slide indicates a point I keep trying to make to mollify fears - there are lots of different possible strategies for implementing Sakai. It doesn't necessarily mean throwing all your resources into it at the outset, in fact there are permissible "lazy" ways of Sakai implementation, as much as I'm convinced that might be squandered opportunity. One such path would be to project that the CLE [Collaborative Learning Environment] needs of the local institution are always going to roughly be a subset of the CLE needs of the actively-developing Sakai partners, and the local effort can go entirely into customizations or relatively minor tweaks to existing tools.” As quoted in the September 1, 2004 issue of the SEPP Update.
