Conference day 1, table 7

Anything that the core group has missed?

Under technical and implementation training and support should be added.

**Why is the training left out? how does the integration change training -
documentation and training materials would have to be change?

**Also need to consider support

Library and IT need to interact on training. Dspace at WI, IT and
libraries collaborating in creating training.

Different types, needs and audiences of training - what do we mean by
training?

Find out what people want from integration - what they found was that it
would be nice to merge the documentation and make it part of the CMS.
Volker working on a course for teaching faculty and students what they
need to know about both library and CMS.

Change in culture - how to redesign the online materials to reflect what
students are actually looking for - largest number of hits are e-reserves.

What about workflow? who will do what?
Does anyone's campus have IT and libraries under the same department? Yes,
several. Iowa, MSU.

Perhaps we should discuss the idea of creating more monolithic systems or
breaking the systems down into modular components where possible so that
faculty can assemble what they want

Question about Organizational issues number 4 - navigating trust -
discussion about lack of trust or perhaps trust is not the right word -
turf problem between two units - problems with understanding each other
and communication.

Are the librarians happy with the level of integration at their
institutions?
no - but it's not IT, it is more issues with faculty

Content rights management (8) important - whether doing it commercially or
whether it comes from professor - need to figure it out first. They are
using Dspace at Ohio. Biggest battle is convincing faculty to let other
people use things. Some faculty don't want to share. Until we convince
faculty to buy into content rights management


Some fundamental problems:
1. Thinking about re-using content - faculty don't necessarily think about
that - not necessarily thinking of making that content available to
others. Although Universities are tending to begin to assume ownership of
content created.

2. Parts of the course might be the container that has subparts that are
not authorized for access, etc.

Are we also talking about very disparate systems? Like Dspace is a
learning repository - how do you train faculty where to put what? what
things go in Vista, for example, and what things go in Dspace? Need to
have the ability to define different levels of authentication.

The best policies are not tied to a specific tool, concerned about letting
the technology drive the policy - that is not good.

Policy within institutions? or policies of various institutions coming in
conflict with each other?

Point (8) has huge implications for all the other points. IT and
librarians need to have a shared vision. Currently they have different
agendas and some lack of understanding.

In the content management area one can make shared modules and bring them
into a course - the course is the temporary view of the objects - the
preservation of content happens on the course mgmt side

IT sometimes acting as a go-between between faculty and library - faculty
want students to have a reading list and a search function, IT asks
library to provide those things? At some places the library is not asked
to be involved at all, or they have to deal with requests coming at them.
The library is not asked to be involved in the planning process, just in
providing functionality piecemeal. Library and IT need to work together to
manage the chaos of change.

Users want something different from the library and it comes to libraries
through the back door. Somehow IT and librarians are missing what faculty
need?

Potential for vision at multiple levels - there are lots of different
visions. Vision plays differently within the context of the institution.
Need vision at many levels of the institutions. Faculty have a lot of
autonomy in a lot of institutions - they are used to being autonomous.
Difficult to build consensus with the different individuals. Some faculty
yell louder than others. Further, research institutions are not
necessarily focused on teaching.

Faculty are a bigger issue than library and IT. We basically have no
control over those issues.

Budget is becoming a driving force. Departments are trying to sell courses
to students. Teaching begins to become a money-making endeavor

There is logic that even people who are being pushy, can sell the good of
the institution. Hard sell for faculty.

People come to CMS to do administrative tasks like managing grades,
posting syllabus, sending email to class. The faculty created-stuff seems
to be the focus of what library want to preserve, but is that really worth
preserving?

The content should not necessarily be within the course - it should live
elsewhere.

What do students want? Do they want continued access to their course
materials. Students are driving faculty to put things online. Students
want to be able to see everything online in one place. A lot of the
materials posted online students print out.

Running pilots on annotating online content. students using tablet PCs
(windows journal?) so students can annotate content - downloaded the
content then could highlight it, make notes in margin, etc - then could do
searches in their annotated version of the
Does anyone understand (11) under organizational issues:

Molly sees it as meaning having a vision at the institutions - is there a
clear sense of where we are going with e-learning? are the decisions and
the commitments made at the highest level? is there any direction at other
colleges? (heads shaking "no" around the table)

E-learning has been a grassroots movement at most institutions - gets to
the point where it requires institutional support and policy making - it
needs to be supported and directed at the highest level.

Not all institutions make the same commitment to e-learning - the
competitive drive do do e-learning is not there at all institutions -
different in institutional vision depending on what their goals are -
research institution vs.

Broad range of things one can do with e-learning, and until the
institution makes the decision about how e-learning fits in the larger
scheme, there is no clear message. Some schools not seeing the
institutional vision.

Sometimes the colleges themselves determine how e-learning fits.
Particularly in the professional and graduate programs. Makes sense that
the determination of where e-learning fits happen at the collegiate level.

Colleges and universities that are more homogenous have an easier time
making institutional decisions. If you dig down into each department, it
is a microcosm of the greater institution.

We talked quite a bit about point (3) - stakeholders.

There is interested in Authentication - single signon. IT was not sharing
the technology to set up single sign-on so the library had to develop
their own authentication.

Shibboleth - how do we authenticate people from off campus when we are
giving them

We have a lot of monolithic systems that have different authentication
processes. Might be easier to get one big monolith so don't have to worry
about syncing all the passwords - some institutions have dictated that
they will have single signon and do not support people buying software
that does not support it. Need a secure password, single sign-on needs to
be hosted on secure servers. Students are often not careful with their
login - they'll get logged in and then walk away.

Who is driving single access? At what level is something too much? We used
to ask students to go to different floors to get different books.

Single sign-on is driven from all sides - IT wants it as much as the
users. IT goal to reduce the number of passwords. Single sign-on not
necessarily the term they use. Iowa calls it simple signon.

Some campuses are further along in the discussion about whether they want
all the systems to talk together and be integrated - reduce the clicks,
seamlessness, transparent to the user. Also reduces calls to support to
reset multiple passwords.

Schools have been audited - per auditors, they are now required to change
the secure password every 90, 60, or 30 days. Some schools have an e-mail
address where you can get confirmation sent, and other.


New question - do institutions populate courses with library links? or let
faculty add their own links? some are populating CMS course sites with
links to the e-reserves and reading lists for those courses.

Some are using Xythos network file management system

A big concern is what if the aggregator drops the article or pulls the
journal? Some schools buy full rights to protect themselves from this
problem - they buy archive rights.