Collaborative Tools for the Research University -or- “Many conversations, few decisions”

1. Collaborative Tools for theResearch University-or-“Many conversations, few decisions” David A. Greenbaum and Shel Waggener, University of California, Berkeley

2. Agenda for Collaborative Tools Workshop • Introduction (Shelton Waggener - 5 min) • ECAR report on Collaborative Tools (Oren Sreebny - 20 min) • Findings from Collaborative Tools survey (Chad Kainz - 10 min) • Whiteboarding questions about Collaborative Tools (Chad Kainz - 15 min) • CMU/Colorado (Joel Smith and Dennis Maloney - 20 min) • UC Berkeley (Shelton Waggener and David Greenbaum - 40 min) • Discussion roundtable (Chad Kainz - 40 min)

3. Collaboration is leading to breakthroughs "… across disciplines [is] where most new breakthroughs are made. It's interdisciplinary combinations—design and technology, mathematics and art—'that produce YouTube and Google,' says Thomas Friedman, the best-selling author of The World Is Flat." – "How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century," Time Magazine cover story, December 18, 2006

4. Expectations for collaborative tools are high "The augmentation of human capability [through collaborative tools and architecture …] is nothing less than a survival issue for our species. We face some really serious challenges. The only way we're going to be able to tackle them is to figure out how to work together in shared information spaces." – Jon Udell, December 2006

5. What was that again? "… figur[ing] out how to work together in shared information spaces … is nothing less than a survival issue for our species." Gee, no pressure …

6. Of course, there are other uses for collaboration ...

7. (other presentations go here)

9. Time’s Person of the Year

10. Time’s Person of the Year (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbLvPVL8s4o to view video from YouTube)

11. Developing a Strategy for Collaboration Tools @ UC Berkeley

12. Our Presentation • New CIO/IST organizational model: Where we sit and how we stand • A “folksonomy” for thinking about university collaborative tools • Some recent initiatives at Berkeley • Debate: “Google/Not Google” • Steps towards a strategic campus approach

13. New CIO/IST Structure

14. Data Services Overview

15. Framing the current collaborative tools realm There are many, many tools with at least some collaborative aspects. Perhaps we might get a handle on this space by pinning their wings to a large board in an elegant taxonomy …?

16. Framing the current collaborative tools realm (cont'd) Source: Burton Group, May 2006

17. Framing the current collaborative tools realm (cont'd)

18. Framing the current collaborative tools realm (cont'd) Forrester Wikipedia Sources: Forrester Research, Wikipedia

19. Framing the current collaborative tools realm (cont'd) But we've found that categorizing and framing developing tools this way is be like herding conceptual cats….

20. Where do wikis fit? Sources: Forrester Research, Wikipedia

21. ScholarlyCommunications Course Sites/ Learning Communities Cyberinfrastructure Web 2.0/ Social Software/ Architecture of Participation Email: “Birthright tools” Libraries/ Museums/ Data Warehouses K-to-Gray Advancement/ Public ”7 worlds” of collaborative tools use

22. Messaging & collaborationat UC Berkeley • Email: CalMail, Cyrus and SquirrelMail • Calendaring: CalAgenda, Oracle Calendar • File Storage: Cal WebFiles, Xythos • Collaboration & Learning Environment (CLE): bSpace, Sakai

23. Collaboration within IST • Incident tracking tools: Footprints, RT, Remedy, and many others … • Workspace tools: Microsoft SharePoint, Basecamp, Sakai … Our array of historical tools and new organizational model has led to an impetus to rationalize and coordinate.

24. What we are doing now • Evaluating workspace tools for IST use. • Planning to track collaboration platforms. • Initiating conversationswith Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo about campus-wide email, calendaring, Web-based file storage, and future collaborative tools.

25. Debate Proposition • You (and we) should partner with external providers such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft to provide the next generation of messaging and collaborative tools to our campuses.

26. Opening Statement:Arguing in the Affirmative David Greenbaum

27. Why Partner? • Providing robust online messaging and collaborative environments is not a core competency of the University.

28. What is the core competency of your university? What is your "core competency"? What is the non-negotiable center of the [University] enterprise?We should not be surprised at this question. Digital technology has asked it of just about every economic activity in America. – Richard A. Lanham, Professor Emeritus, UCLA, in 1995 commentary to the AAU Provosts on Vision 2010

29. Is utility IT a core competency? Argument: Your core competence does not include the form of IT that has become a utility.You should put your emphasis on the intersection of what students and teachers and researchers do, refocusing central IT on working more closely with and for its customers.

30. Can your University's IT services match?

31. Why Partner (cont'd)? • Providing robust online messaging and collaborative environments is not a core competency of the University. • Internet providers can deliver services at lower cost.

32. The cost proposition

33. The cost proposition (cont'd) Email Storage • AOL: 5 GB free for email or files. • UC Berkeley: 100 MB free. (maximum of 1 GB, for $48/year.) File Storage • Amazon S3: $0.15 per GB per month ($1.80/year) • UC Berkeley: 50 MB free. And no more, paid or not …

34. Why Partner (cont'd)? • Providing robust online messaging and collaborative environments is not a core competency of the University. • Internet providers can deliver services at lower cost. • Internet providers innovate and deliver at a pace and scale the University can NOT match.

35. Google Docs and Spreadsheets Blogger Sketchup (drawing) JotSpot (wikis and many groupware applications) Google Groups (discussion forums) YouTube/Google Video Google Notebook (web clippings) Google Base (casual, searchable postings) Google Scholar (search of scholarly literature and citations) Google Search (web, blogs, images, books, maps) Google Earth/Google Maps (location-based data) Imagine (for example)… Google Apps for Education (Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Page Creator, Google Talk) plus … working together, and delivered across multiple devices, as well. How can university IT compete?

36. Why Partner (cont'd)? • Providing robust online messaging and collaborative environments is not a core competency of the University. • Internet providers can deliver services at lower cost. • Internet providers innovate and deliver rapidly. • Internet providers like Google will be shaping the way information is managed and disseminated in the 21st century.

37. Shaping the Information Landscape • Internet providers are developing a platform for information sharing and collaboration that will cut across all aspects of the university community … from research, to libraries, to lifelong connections • We need to be able to build services based on that platform for our own specific needs • We should collectively engage Internet providers to shape this platform for the future of education (and thus encourage them “to do less evil”).

38. Opening Statement:Arguing in the Negative Shelton Waggener

39. Why not Partner? • Privacy. Will your academic freedom and intellectual property be protected?

40. UC Berkeley’s Data and Privacy Concerns

41. Privacy: will your data be protected by Internet providers?

42. It's risky to give awayour data to outside providers "Chief among the future sources of lock in and competitive advantage will be data." – Tim O'Reilly, December 10, 2006 This includes both traditional intellectual property and, increasingly, the network-effect value of the behaviors and creations of a large number of individual users. As a CSG participant once said: "Do we want to give away the keys to our kingdom?"

43. Why not Partner (cont'd)? • Privacy. Will your academic freedom and intellectual property be protected? • Stability. Will services you depend on continue to be offered, affordably?

44. Stability: can you depend on providers' services? How can you mitigate against the risks that an Internet-based provider of messaging and collaboration services will: • Fail outright? • Significantly change the service offerings your campus is dependent upon, whether resulting from changes in business models or acquisitions? • Radically raise its pricing, after you're "locked in"?

45. Could Yahoo, Google, or even Microsoft be the next DEC? DEC > Compaq > Hewlett-Packard • Late 1980s: second-largest computer company in the world, 100,000+ employees • Early 1990s: Sales faltering, first layoffs • 1992-1997: Continuing layoffs, selling and spinning off of assets • 1998: Purchased by Compaq • 2002: Merged with HP as part of Compaq

46. What happens if … … Google's and Yahoo's revenue models, both based overwhelmingly on Internet advertising, break down due to competition, economic changes, or other events? Will they still be a reliable partner on which to base critical parts of your IT infrastructure?

47. Why not Partner (cont'd)? • Privacy. Will your academic freedom and intellectual property be protected? • Stability. Will services you depend on continue to be offered, affordably? • Integration. Will Internet providers' services fit into your campus services?

48. Integration: Internet providers with your campus services? To paraphrase Oren Sreebny: Can you integrate the messaging and collaboration services of Internet-based providers with your institutional systems, including identity management, authentication and authorization, data warehouses, and course management systems?

49. Why not Partner (cont'd)? • Privacy. Will your academic freedom and intellectual property be protected? • Stability. Will services you depend on continue to be offered, affordably? • Integration. Will Internet providers' services fit into your campus services? • Corporatization. Will partnering with Internet providers make the university overly beholden to commercial interests?

50. V. Conclusion: Steps Towards a Strategy for Collaborative Tools • Move to many conversations, more decisions • Build “competency center” in IT org. and build “community center” on campus to focus on this area • Drive assessment from the collaborative practices of the academic core of the campus • Kick off partnership discussion with big providers and small • Develop a laboratory to explore new collaborative services • Eat your own dog food ... • Work as a CSG consortium?