TEC UofA Moodle Report

2011
Moodle Implementation Strategy
Prepared for University of Alberta
Prepared by: Rohit Mittal

10/22/2011

DISCLAIMER
Although care has been taken in the preparation of this material, the contents of this document are provided for
informational purposes only, and TEC Edmonton does not offer any warranty, written or implied, as to the
accuracy of said content.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the following for providing support towards the development this report:

Jonathan Schaffer, Vice Provost and Associate Vice President (Information Technology), University of Alberta
Scott L Delinger, IT Strategic Initiatives Officer, University of Alberta
Peter Mah, Team Lead - Production Support, University of Alberta
Brian Stewart, Vice President- Information Technology and Chief Information Officer, Athabasca University
Daryl Allenby, Manager- Base Technology- Department of Information Services, NAIT
John Shillington, VP Technology, CYBERA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Project Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Motivation ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Load Requirements ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Industry Trends ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
Option 1: Manage the shared service platform in-house ........................................................................................... 14
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Structure and Roles ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Financial Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Costing ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Pricing ................................................................................................................................................................. 18
TEC Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
Challenges .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Option 2: Outsource the platform to an existing commercial entity ......................................................................... 20
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Lambda Solutions ............................................................................................................................................... 20
Remote Learner .................................................................................................................................................. 20
Open2know ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
TEC Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 22
Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................... 22
Challenges .......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Option 3: Establish a new not-for-profit entity that will provide shared infrastructure and services ....................... 24
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 24
3

Structure and Roles ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Costing ................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Pricing ................................................................................................................................................................. 29
TEC Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 29
Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................... 29
Challenges .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Option 4: Use an existing not-for-profit entity ........................................................................................................... 31
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Cybera ................................................................................................................................................................. 31
GRICS .................................................................................................................................................................. 31
uDigit Systems .................................................................................................................................................... 31
Capability Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 32
Cyberas Business Case ........................................................................................................................................... 34
Costing ................................................................................................................................................................ 35
Pricing ................................................................................................................................................................. 36
TEC Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 36
Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................... 36
Challenges .......................................................................................................................................................... 37
TEC Recommendation ................................................................................................................................................ 39
e-Alberta ................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Vision .................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Mission ............................................................................................................................................................... 40
Ownership .......................................................................................................................................................... 40
Organizational Structure .................................................................................................................................... 40
Product / Service offering ................................................................................................................................... 41
4

Business Development/Marketing ..................................................................................................................... 42
Pricing ................................................................................................................................................................. 42
Optional-Disaster Recovery Plan ............................................................................................................................ 43
Costing with DRP ................................................................................................................................................ 43
Pricing by eAlberta (with DRP) ........................................................................................................................... 44
Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 45
Roll-Out Strategy .................................................................................................................................................... 46
Action Plan .............................................................................................................................................................. 47
AppendiCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 48
Appendix A: Hardware Architecture for Moodle installation ................................................................................. 48
Appendix B: Hardware breakdown for Option 1 - In-house ................................................................................... 49
Appendix c: Hardware breakdown for Option 3 - eAlberta .................................................................................... 50
Appendix D: Hardware Architecture for option 3 (eAlberta) with DRP option ...................................................... 51
Appendix E: Hardware breakdown for Option 3(eAlberta) with DRP option ......................................................... 52
Appendix F: Business models studied .................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix G: University of Akron and Lorain County Community College .............................................................. 54
Appendix H: BC Campus ......................................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix I: Memorial University, Newfoundland .................................................................................................. 57
Appendix J: Main reasons for system failure .......................................................................................................... 58
Appendix K: Symantec study on causes of down time ........................................................................................... 59
Appendix L: Cybera Business Case .......................................................................................................................... 60
5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The University of Alberta has decided to migrate from their current learning management system (LMS) provided
by Blackboard Inc. to an open source application, Moodle. The University of Alberta has been exploring strategies
for this migration and is in discussion with other academic institutions in the region to explore a shared Moodle
environment of some sort. Since such an initiative requires close coordination and executive oversight, priority was
given to institutions that are close in proximity to the University of Alberta. In this regard, NAIT and Athabasca
University have shown interest to work alongside with the University of Alberta on this initiative. We refer to these
three institutions as the lead institutions herein.
The key objectives of the lead institutions are to develop a shared solution that will allow them to focus more on
their core functional areas - learning and research, with improved availability and functional flexibility, while
removing the day to day burden of IT. Cost savings are not as important or critical as the end user experience for
any of them which allow initial alignment of objectives amongst the parties. The University of Alberta has also
articulated a long term desire to assist other PSIs in the region by offering access to a shared and advanced
information technology infrastructure, referred to in industry jargon as Infrastructure-as-a-Service.
The University of Alberta has identified the following four options to migrate to a shared Moodle LMS environment
for evaluation:
1) Manage Moodle in-house at one of the lead institutions premises (NAIT, Athabasca University or
University of Alberta);
2) Outsource the entire Moodle platform to an existing commercial entity with the necessary skills and
resources (if one exists);
3) Establish a new, not-for-profit entity that will provide shared services to these and other PSIs on a self-
sustaining basis;
4) Use an existing not-for-profit entity to provide the business and administrative structure for Moodle
hosting and management.
TEC Edmonton has evaluated each of the four options using the following criteria:
1) Technical Capabilities
2) System Flexibility
3) Support Services
4) Solution Scalability
5) Cost Savings
TEC has identified two viable options for migrating to shared Moodle environment: Cybera (option 4) and creating
a new spin off entity (option 3).
While there is a strong interest from Cybera to host Moodle for the institutions, this would present a significant
departure from their existing mandate and would have to be ratified by their Board. Cybera would bring extensive
experience in infrastructure management, especially with respect to cloud based infrastructure. They provide an
existing organization through which needed support aspects can be provided (finance, admin, space, some
network connectivity) which could provide advantages with respect to time/risk to migration. Based on the
6

proposal provided by Cybera, they believe they are able to provide the necessary infrastructure for approximately
$460,000 and can supply a set of services for an annual cost of $820,000. Based on this, the lead institutions would
effectively pay an estimated $80-$100/course/year which is both affordable and attractive. However, by their own
admission they lack expertise with the Moodle application. As such, course migration, further tool development,
application management and instructor support remain the institutions responsibility which is less than ideal and
a significant gap against needs. If this is the option chosen, we suggest that this gap should be mitigated by either
transferring appropriate resources from the lead institutions to Cybera or partnering with agencies that already
have this expertise (e.g. Oohoo is in the express business of Moodle migration and Moodle tool development).
Also, this pricing includes end user support services from 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday, only. The lead
institutions have indicated that end user support be provided on a 16x7 basis (minimum) whereas the one
proposed by Cybera is only 10x5. It is worth noting that Cybera seems willing to discuss these needs further and
possibly adjust its proposed service offering. Additionally, Cyberas existing organizational structure does not
support business development activities that would be essential to enroll other academic institutions after
migration of the lead institutions is complete. Given the importance of this long term objective, this gap would
need to be addressed effectively by Cybera by committing to add such resources at the appropriate time. It is
observed that if Cybera is able to overcome these limitations, hosting of Moodle will enhance its existing mandate
to provide a new commercial services platform from which they can grow further (K-12, hosting other applications
for PSIs). Additionally, the political goodwill generated from leveraging an existing, not for profit entity should not
be undervalued. Furthermore, Cybera may be able to attract additional funding for infrastructure required which
could reduce initial burden on the lead institutions. As such, if Cybera is willing to address the stated gaps, due
consideration should be given.
If the above is not achievable, then the best strategy to migrate to a shared Moodle environment is to establish a
new, not-for-profit entity (Option 3). For purposes of this document, we call this entity eAlberta. eAlberta will
provide Moodle course hosting at a standard fee of between $125 to $150 per course per year. eAlberta will also
be responsible for providing end user support service and Tier 2 instructor support. Tier 1 instructor support will
continue to be provided by the institutions. By our definition, Tier 1 instructor support will include helping
instructors with online course development, course upload and course content maintenance and will address any
challenges an instructor might experience in using Moodle. Support calls that cannot be addressed at the Tier 1
level will be escalated to Tier 2 level support provided by the host, eAlberta.
eAlbertas mission will be to enhance the educational experience of academic learners. It will be governed by a
board that will have representation from the participating institutions.
It is envisioned that in future, eAlberta will increase its geographic reach (beyond Alberta) and expand its product
portfolio to include hosting, delivery and support of other solutions that are of interest to educational institutions
and can be shared efficiently.
The initial setup cost for establishing eAlberta is approximately $1.2 million which will come from either the lead
institutions as their initial investment or from some sort of provincial funding that they may be able to access (or
some combination). There will be a yearly recurring cost of approximately $1.2 million. These costs will initially be
shared between the lead institutions and will need to be advanced to eAlberta for the first year to ensure
uninterrupted operation. However, once other institutions register for the services of eAlberta, some of these
operational costs will be amortized over a larger number of courses/clients thereby reducing the cost to the lead
institutions. Initially, we also expect that administrative functions (legal, financing, admin) would be provided by
the University of Alberta on a cost recovery basis until the entity can justify full-time internal resources for these
areas.
7

The success of eAlberta will depend on the commitment of the lead institutions and the governance structure to
oversee its functioning. Also, the lead institutions will have to take proactive steps to avoid resistance from their
current staff who may perceive eAlberta as a threat to job security. Some of these staff may be absorbed in
eAlberta while others will need to be reallocated to other roles within their respective organizations. Should the
lead institutions decide to move in this direction, we have provided a high level business plan for consideration. It
highlights the key steps and approximate timelines to get the entity operational and courses migrated. This high
level plan could also be repurposed with slight adjustment should the option to partner with Cybera be chosen.
8

PROJECT BACKGROUND
Like many Post-Secondary Institutions (PSIs), the University of Alberta has been using Blackboard Vista as its
primary learning management solution (LMS) for a number of years. However the vendor, Blackboard Inc., is
discontinuing product support and encouraging clients to move to another LMS product provided by them. This
requires substantial costs relating to new licenses, migration and training and change management.
The University of Alberta formally evaluated various solutions available in the market and has decided to migrate
to a very popular and open source solution, known as Moodle. The University is also exploring options to develop a
shared environment to host its deployment of Moodle and its online course content with the intent of generating
shared benefits with other PSIs in Alberta. The University is in discussions with NAIT and Athabasca University to
develop a shared Moodle environment. Using a phased approach, the University initially plans to partner with
these local PSIs before scaling it provincially or regionally. The University of Alberta is exploring four specific
options for its large scale migration to Moodle, namely:
1) Manage Moodle in-house at one of the lead institutions premises (NAIT, Athabasca University or
University of Alberta);
2) Outsource the entire Moodle platform to an existing commercial entity with the necessary skills and
resources (if one exists);
3) Establish a new, not-for-profit entity that will provide shared services to these and other PSIs on a self-
sustaining basis;
4) Use an existing not-for-profit entity to provide the business and administrative structure for Moodle
hosting and management.
MOTIVATION
TEC Edmonton interviewed each of the participating institutions to better understand the key motivations for their
consideration of a shared service Moodle environment of some type. Table 1 summarizes these discussions. From
this we can see that there is significant overlap or alignment between the institutions in their desire to improve
their online learning services, provide better end user support and enhance reliability and uptime. The University
of Alberta also has a broader and longer term view of where/how additional value could be derived from shared
services.
Table 1: Key Motivation

Institution Factors

University of Alberta Focus: Outsource IT infrastructure management so as to

focus on core area of the University-Research and Learning
Quality of Student Experience: Greater content and feature
flexibility with respect to online course delivery to improve
and streamline user experience
Support: Provide higher level of end user (instructor and
student) support
Cost: Cost savings are important but not as critical as is the
user experience, especially since migration to Moodle will
eliminate currently paid LMS and Oracle license fees from
budget
HQP: Maintain and develop local talent and knowledge skills
9

in regards to course content development and online course
delivery technologies
Strategic Expansion: Provide an institutional and
infrastructure platform which can grow beyond Moodle in
the future and manage/deliver other applications common to
PSIs

NAIT System Stability/Reliability: Outages in current setup,
resulting in students not being able to access online courses.
There is an opportunity cost associated with the system
failures
Quality / Student Experience: NAIT does not feel it has
adequate resources to provide high quality (or continually
improving quality) services to the users
Cost: Cost reduction is not a driving factor for them for the
migration

Athabasca University Disaster Recovery: Do not have redundant system to
mitigate system failures. Significant concern given the nature
of their business (online learning)
Quality / Student Experience: Wish to enhance user
experience and improve upon service offerings to end users
Support: Provide higher level of end user (instructor and
student) support
Best Practices: Wish to leverage synergies of shared
environment and learn from best practices at other
institutions
Costs: Cost reduction is not the driving factor

10

LOAD REQUIREMENTS
TEC Edmonton interviewed each of the lead institutions to understand their course and student usage load
requirements. Based on the past experience of these institutions we were able to derive the expected load
requirements of each of the institutions that will need to be supported in the new shared Moodle environment.
Table 2 summarizes these requirements:
Table 2: Load Requirements

Institution Number of Number of Number of Number of Storage
concurrent students instructors Courses in space
users enrolled in using Moodle Moodle required
Moodle

1
University of 2000 41,000 1600 5300 3TB
Alberta

2 3 4 5
NAIT 289 11,124 769 3100 1TB

6 7 8 9 10
Athabasca 375 40,000 600 3000 600GB
University

Total 2664 92,124 2969 11,400 5TB
(approximate)

Note: These are approximations based on information provided. A thorough technical evaluation is recommended
for final hardware sizing.

1
Email from Peter Mah,UoA, dated: 4 August 2011
2
At present there are 5713 students in Moodle. An additional 5411 students will be migrated from webCT to
Moodle.
3
At present there are 378 instructors in Moodle. An additional 391 faculty will be migrated from webCT to Moodle
4
2165 +200 course catalogues
5
Email from Daryl Allenby, NAIT, Jul 12, 2011
6
9000 unique users/day. 375 per 30 minutes (assuming each user remain for 30 mins). Source: Dmitry Allenby,
Athabasca University
7
Source: Brian Stewart, Athabasca University
8
Source: Dmitry Allenby, Athabasca University
9
3000 instances in Moodle. Some of these are repetitions/or versions with minor differences
10
Source: Dmitry Allenby, Athabasca University
11

INDUSTRY TRENDS
In addition to our interviews of the three lead institutions, we also conducted primary and secondary research
regarding industry trends with shared services among educational institutions and general trends within the
eLearning industry. During this phase of research we found that a significant number of Universities in the US and
Canada are migrating away from Blackboard and are opting for competing solutions as well. This is to the benefit
of Moodle and Desire2Learn who are gaining market share among PSIs, where as Blackboard is quickly losing its
11 12
dominance. The graph below from 2010 Distance Education Survey Results provides an overview of shifting
market share of leading LMS solutions.
More importantly, our research also indicated that North American educational institutions have started to
embrace models wherein an expert vendor manages the infrastructure and provides/hosts applications of interest
to educational institutions as a service offering. Another emerging trend is the creation of shared service
environments wherein the resources and IT infrastructure is shared among the participating PSIs, either at one of
their sites or external to all of them. Within these shared service approaches, LMS and ERP solutions were noted to
be most common. Table 3 highlights some of these institutions:
Table3: Trends in other academic environments

Institution Description

13
University of Akron and Lorain Shared infrastructure for ERP (PeopleSoft). University of Akron hosts
14
County Community College the infrastructure. Refer to Appendix G for details of interview

15 16
Wilfrid Laurier University LMS application hosted externally by Desire2Learn

11
http://mfeldstein.com/bad-news-for-blackboard-good-news-for-moodle/
http://www.moodlenews.com/2011/blackboard-usage-drops-6-moodle-grows-to-10-market-share-according-to-
itc-survey/
12
http://www.itcnetwork.org/images/stories/itcannualsurveymay2011final.pdf
13
http://www.uakron.edu/
14
http://www.lorainccc.edu/
15
http://www.wlu.ca/
16
http://www.desire2learn.com/news/newsdetails_158.asp
12

17
uDigit Systems Provides Oracle (PeopleSoft) license to PSIs in Alberta

18
BC Campus Shared services to educational institutions in British Columbia. Refer
Appendix H for details of interview

University of North Carolina Provide shared services to the 16 institutions of University of North
19
Shared Services Alliance Carolina

University of Cincinnati Blackboard hosting for schools, colleges and universities throughout
20
Ohio

Drexel University Drexel provide IT services remotely to a host of institutions,
including Medaille College in Buffalo, NY, in addition to Cabrini.
About six other schools access and use the university's LMS services
21
(based on Blackboard) .

Memorial University, Single LMS solution for all of its schools, colleges, and universities-
22
Newfoundland the in-house Desire2Learn Learning Environment . Refer to
Appendix I for details of interview

Our research also assessed the trends in the UK. It was found that UK institutions are embracing a shared
infrastructure to counter academic budget cuts. Warwick University has announced that it is in advanced
23
discussions with five other unnamed universities to share administrative and IT services.
Research also looked into government initiatives and found that governments have also initiated the drive to share
IT infrastructure. In a recent announcement the Government of Canada announced the creation of a new agency -
Shared Service Canada - whose mandate is to consolidate IT infrastructure of various government departments. It
24
will involve consolidation of email systems, data centers and streamlining of department networks.
Not surprisingly, and consistent with the findings of our interviews with the University of Alberta, Athabasca
University and NAIT, the key factors driving adoption of the shared services model include:
Economies of Scale (cost savings)

Efficiencies of Scale (improved capabilities and best practices)
Government desire to move to shared services
Developing a leadership position with respect to technology use and management

17
http://www.udigitsystems.ca/
18
http://www.bccampus.ca/collaborative-programs-and-shared-services/
19
http://www.its.state.nc.us/ITProcurement/ConvenienceContracts/CBids/Bids/Bid2/Attach10/UNC-
GA%20Human%20Resource%20and%20Finance%20Admin%20Systems.pdf
20
http://www.oln.org/emerging_technologies/emtech.php
21
http://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/12/02/it-beyond-the-campus.aspx
22
http://thejournal.com/articles/2008/01/25/newfoundland-adopts-sweeping-lms-change-in-all-public-
education.aspx
23
http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/jul/04/unversities-shared-services-tension
24
http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/federal-government-to-ax-data-centres-e-mail-
systems/143684?sub=1528778&utm_source=1528778&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=TD
13

OPTION 1: MANAGE THE SHARED SERVICE PLATFORM IN-HOUSE
OVERVIEW
The University of Alberta intends to take a phased approach to developing a shared infrastructure for the Moodle
learning management solution. Under Phase I, the lead institutions (mentioned below) based in the Edmonton
region will be involved. In subsequent phases, others will be invited to join.
1) University of Alberta
2) NAIT
3) Athabasca University
From our discussions we easily conclude that NAIT does not have the resources or infrastructure to manage a
deployment of this size and scale. This would leave either Athabasca University or the University of Alberta to
serve as the host institution and manage the shared service in-house and provide necessary support described
previously.
STRUCTURE AND ROLES
In Figure 1, we delineate the roles of the host institution and the participating institutions

Moodle Learning Management Solution

Host Institution

Data Migration

Hardware Infrastructure
Software Management
Support Services
o End User (Student)
Support Participating Institution
o Tier 2 Instructor
Support Tier 1 Instructor Support

Figure 1: Responsibility chart
14

In this scenario, the entire infrastructure will be managed by the host. However support services will be split
between the host and participant institutions. The host will provide end user support and Tier 2 instructor support.
25
Tier 1 instructor support will be provided at the departmental level by the participant institutions and will include
helping instructors with online course development, course upload and course content maintenance and will
address any challenges an instructor might experience with the LMS. Instructor support calls that cannot be
addressed at the Tier 1 level will be escalated to Tier 2 provided by the host. Table 4 highlights the scope and the
resources required to support the application.
Table 4: Scope and resources required to manage Moodle LMS

Description Host University Participant
Institutions

Hardware Software Support Services Tier 1
Infrastructure Management Instructor
End User Tier 2 Support
Support Instructor
Support

Equipment Application Servers Moodle application Phone lines Phone Lines

Database Servers Desktops Desktops

Storage PBX system

Firewall

Load Balancers

Network Equipment

Clustering Equipment

Virtualization Tools

Cabling

Switches

Supporting Software
Operating
system
Antivirus
Monitoring
Activity Infrastructure Planning Data Migration Help Desk Train the Course
Support Trainer Development
Hardware Procurement Customization
Tier 2 Content
rd
Hardware Installation 3 party Instructor Management
Integration (if Support

25
During the research it was found that the instructors prefer to have the Tier 1 support at the departmental level.
15

Hardware Support and required) Course
Maintenance Uploading
Installation
Vendor SLA Tier 1
Management Testing Instructor
Support
Database management UAT

Data Center Debugging
Management
Upgrade
Redundancy Site Management
Management
Software Support

R&D for feature
enhancement

Course Plug-in
Development
Installation
Integration

Time and Material
service

Documentation

Number of 1 2 4
new FTEs
Note: These headcount estimates are approximations based on discussions with institutions already using Moodle
and with the Moodle Service Vendors; actual numbers may vary during detailed analysis. One dedicated FTE will be
hired for Moodle infrastructure management to coordinate with the existing team handling other University
26
hardware infrastructure.

26
Discussion with Peter Mah from UoA, dated August 26, 2011.
16

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
COSTING
Since the goal for the shared service is to provide high quality service on a cost recovery basis, a bottom up
approach is used to price the services. Table 5 summarizes the cost required to build and manage the shared
infrastructure:
Table 5: Cost Summary

Description Cost ($CDN)

One Time Recurring (yearly)

27 28
Hardware and supporting equipment 437,000 $226,320

Hardware Support $100,000

Software License Fee- Moodle $0 $0

Software Management $180,000

User Support Services $280,000

Administration $195,000

Overhead $8,000 $51,600

Total $445,000 $1,032,920

Notes:
1) We have only considered estimated incremental costs that the host would need to incur to host the
Moodle environment and have not factored in costs related to portions of existing staff and equipment
that may be used, since these are already being paid for. As such, this does not represent a true cost but
rather an incremental cost analysis.
2) It is assumed the some of the existing hardware will be used to host Moodle.
3) Appendix A provides an overview of the hardware architecture.
4) Appendix B provides the hardware breakdown along with costs.
5) It is assumed that existing human resources of the host will be able to manage the infrastructure.
However one dedicated FTE need to be hired to manage and coordinate with existing teams. The
budgeted cost is $100,000/year.
6) Moodle management will require 2 FTEs and each FTE is budgeted at $90,000/year, fully loaded.
7) User and instructor support will require 4 FTEs and each FTE is budgeted at $70,000/year.

27
Based on discussion with Peter Mah, UoA, dated Aug 19, 2011. The price is for University of Alberta hosting the
Moodle solution. A +15% variation is built in the price.
28
AMC of 20% on total hardware cost of: $984,000
17

8) One FTE will be hired to manage the overall infrastructure and also handle relationships with participating
institutions. This FTE is budgeted at $125,000/year and in Table 5 placed under Administration.
9) Other administration (accounting, finance, legal, payroll etc) and overhead will be handled by the existing
University resources and will be invoiced by the host.
10) The end user support services will be on 16 x 7 / 365 basis. The services will be offered on multiple
platforms with both live phone and web based support.
11) Hardware Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC) is budgeted at 20% .
12) Total number of additional FTEs: 8
PRICING
The suggested pricing model is based on cost recovery and, as such, is linked to the number of courses that are
expected to be hosted in Moodle using the following variables:

Total number of courses that need be supported in Moodle is 11,500 per year
One time Cost (hardware) = $445,000
Recurring cost = $1,032,920

Cost per course/year = (1,032,920/11,500) + (445,000/(5*11,500))
= $98/course per year (approximate)
Therefore, under this option, the services will be priced in the range of $98 to $125 per course per year.
Notes:
1) These prices are approximations and may change during detailed analysis
2) Cost for hardware is amortized over five years
3) There will be an additional cost of $25/course for use of software to migrate data to Moodle
environment.

18

TEC ASSESSMENT
BENEFITS
By hosting the application on one of the campuses, the host can leverage its existing infrastructure and resources
to manage the Moodle infrastructure. The IT department at the host university can generate additional revenue
that can subsidize other costs. The host can further benefit by adopting the best practices that are followed at
other participating institutions.
As the solution will be built and hosted by one of the institutions, the service offering can be flexible and
configurable in nature to meet the requirements of the participating institutions. The service offering could be
scaled to include other solutions (e.g. finance) on shared basis in the future.
The participating institutions will have greater control on system configuration and performance as compared to
an outsourced environment.
CHALLENGES
Bringing additional infrastructure on campus may burden the current resources of the host institution. Resources
will likely be diverted from current initiatives internal to the host in order to support the new initiative which will
require change in the work behavior and adds significant risk to the shared service models success. This is likely to
be met with resistance from the hosts IT staff. Performance measurement for these shared staff will need to be
adjusted to reflect the duality of their roles.
The scalability of the shared service is likely to be limited by the resource and skill availability of the host
University. We expect that the ability to provide adequate service level quality and expanded service offerings
would be impeded due to policies and processes involved within a typical university environment (e.g.
recruitment, procurement, contracting) and also by the commitment (or lack of) from the senior management of
the host institution as this would not fall under the core responsibility of the University and may be treated as a
side project.
Also, providing LMS services to other institutions for a fee will require buy-in from various stakeholders within the
host to support the implementation and sustenance of this service. This roll out may also require adjustments to
legacy policies that previously restricted such activities. Therefore, implementation of such a service can be
challenged by organizational dynamics of the host University which are counter to the service level needed to be
provided by a typical IT service provider. As an example, given the differences in course schedules of the lead
institutions, careful consideration will need to be given when determining timing and resource needs to upgrade
system hardware.
It is very likely that the shared infrastructure initiative may be branded as Host University initiative. We believe
that this will undermine the adoption of the shared service at a provincial level.
19

OPTION 2: OUTSOURCE THE PLATFORM TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL ENTITY
OVERVIEW
There are a few organizations that offer Moodle hosting services. The following companies have been considered
29
for this report as they are the only companies that are registered with Moodle.org and have significant presence
in Canada.
1) Lambda Solutions
2) Remote Learner
3) Open2know
LAMBDA SOLUTIONS
Lambda is a full service authorized Moodle Partner specializing in:
Moodle Hosting & Support

Moodle Installation & Customization
Moodle Themes & Development
Moodle Training & Consulting
Lambdas Moodle expertise spans all facets of service including customization, hosting and support for Moodle.
The company's goal is to provide cost effective quality e-Learning solutions that are easily deployed in both
academia and industry. The company's clients are global corporations, government organizations and educational
institutions throughout North America and the world. These include PMC-Sierra, Kumon, Rogers, Simon Fraser
30
University, Kwantlen University College and the Governments of British Columbia and Alberta.
They have 15FTEs and do not own a data center facility but have partnered with a company in Vancouver for
31
shared hosting of the infrastructure.
REMOTE LEARNER
Remote-Learner is a North American company with offices in Virginia, Kansas and Ontario. They have been
operational since 1982 and operate three data centers in the US and one in Canada which provide clients with
24/7/365 support for Moodle and other learning technologies. The company has three service divisions:
Hosting Support
Learning Services
Customization Services
Remote-Learner is an official Moodle, Jasper Soft, Alfresco, Kaltura and Mahara partner company and has alliances
32
with a number of key vendors supporting educational technology making it one of the key players in the industry.

29
http://moodle.com/partners/list/
30
http://www.lambdasolutions.net/
31
Jim Yupangco, Client Services, Lambda Solutions.
20

OPEN2KNOW
33
Open2knows core business is in education and training about all things Moodle. They provide a wide range of
mentoring and support services that help the user learn how to manage their Moodle implementation internally
rather than being dependent on a third party organization such as those described above.
They do not provide hosting services, therefore they are not considered further in this report.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Table 6 details pricing models of Lambda and Remote Learner. The pricing mentioned below is to host Moodle for
all the three lead institutions.
Table 6: Pricing for Moodle hosting (for lead institutions)

Vendor Name Hosting Fee Provisioning and Support Services Data Migration
Customization

34
Lambda Solutions $250,000/year Time and Material Tier 3-Tier 4 Pricing not
35 36
(T&M) basis (support technical Available
administrators and
helpdesk staff- via
ticketing system)
37 38
Remote Learner $100,000/year Information not Inclusive $35-$40/course
available on
customization
services. Assume it
would be on T&M
basis

Notes:
1) The customization effort will depend on level of customization and the price is on a time and materials
basis
2) The first level of support has to be provided by the institutions themselves. The support services have
limited deliverables.
3) The exact pricing may differ subjected to actual sizing and scale.
4) Their data centers are not located in Alberta. Data will be hosted on servers located in US or Canada.

32
http://www.remote-learner.ca/
33
http://open2know.com/course/view.php?id=193
34
Quote from Jim Yupangco, Lambda Solutions.
35
http://www.lambdasolutions.net/moodle-installation
36
http://www.lambdasolutions.net/pages/course/migration/services
37
Received price only for University of Alberta from Scott Delinger. It is extrapolated to include institutions
variation of +/- 20%
38
http://www.remote-learner.ca/sites/default/files/file/R-L%20SLA.pdf (refer section: support help desk)
21

TEC ASSESSMENT
BENEFITS
With a dedicated professional organization hosting the Moodle application, the lead institutions can free up their
IT and administrative resources for other, higher value, uses. Leveraging this approach, they would enjoy
significant cost savings and decreased operational activities associated with implementing, maintaining and
managing the LMS. In contrast to managing the LMS in-house at one of the lead institutions (Option 1), this option
limits investment in major infrastructure.
In addition to major cost savings initially, the lead institutions benefits by being freed up to focus on their core
areas of learning and research and avoid resource diversion attributed to Moodle infrastructure management. The
institutions will not have to invest in, maintain or upgrade through technology life cycles. Overall management of
IT systems will be reduced significantly.
CHALLENGES
With a commercial organization hosting the Moodle solution, the University of Alberta (and the consortium) lose a
great deal of flexibility and control over how the LMs is deployed, customized, and maintained to meet the needs
of each participant. Data does not reside in Alberta and is likely to be hosted in data centers in the US or Canada.
This may lead to regulatory complications and/or user/institutional resistance. Data privacy may also be
compromised as this is governed by jurisdictional laws based on physical location of data centers (e.g. Patriot Act
in US).
Moreover, the support services that are offered are standardized (to ensure profitability) and as such are very
basic in nature with very limited support hours and which is inconsistent with one of the key requirements of the
institutions to provide enhanced support services to their Moodle users. We are not confident that they (Lambda
Solutions/ Remote Learner) will be able to provide the necessary level of support to migrate a project of this scale
and scope.
Furthermore, we would anticipate that layoffs of internal IT staff of institutions will be required once the service is
outsourced as these organizations have their own staff to manage their own environment. Considering that most
academic institutions have unionized workforces, layoffs will be met with significant resistance that may delay the
migration of services.
During our research it was found that both of these companies are being used by academic institutions primarily
for provision of second or third tier support services. Clients of these companies are reluctant to outsource their
entire LMS infrastructure to these companies due to the cited lack of experience and skill set in managing large
scale systems. Before proceeding with this option, we would highly recommend that the lead institutions form a
technical committee to determine if these companies have the required resources and capabilities. Our opinion at
time of this report is that they do not have sufficient capabilities to support a project of this scale and thus we
believe this is not a viable option in the near term. Like any other hosting service provider, there is no assurance
of their perpetual existence which is an additional risk worth considering when and if evaluating such service
providers.
The University of Alberta has a vision to move away from IT infrastructure management and focus on core areas of
learning and research. Future expansion to other services (EDRMS, SIS, ERP) will likely be limited or not possible
22

with the selected vendor as none of these vendors manage, host or have expertise with applications other than
LMS. Therefore, each additional application will likely require a separate service provider leaving the University
with complex legal contracts and application integration challenges which will require substantial oversight by
University staff and management.
23

OPTION 3: ESTABLISH A NEW NOT-FOR-PROFIT ENTITY THAT WILL PROVIDE SHARED
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
OVERVIEW
In this scenario, an independent not-for-profit organization will be established by the lead institutions that provide
Moodle services to the participating institutions. For the purpose of this document, the independent entity is
referred to as eAlberta.
STRUCTURE AND ROLES
In figure 2 we delineate the roles of eAlberta and the participant institutions:


eAlberta

Data Migration
Software Management

Support Services
o End User (student) Participating
Support Institution
o Tier 2 Instructor
Support Tier 1 Instructor

Support


As depicted, eAlberta will manage and support the Moodle infrastructure, provide end user support services and
Tier 2 instructor support while Tier 1 instructor support will remain the responsibility of the participating
institutions since this is preferred by instructors. Tier 1 instructor support will include helping instructors in course
development, course upload and course content maintenance and will address any challenges an instructor might
experience when using Moodle. Support calls that cannot be addressed at Tier 1 level will be escalated to Tier 2
level support provided by eAlberta.
Table 7 highlights the scope and the resources required by eAlberta to perform its responsibilities:
24

Table 7: Scope and resources required to manage Moodle

Description eAlberta Participant
Institutions

Hardware Software Support Services Tier 1
Infrastructure Management Instructor
End User Tier 2 Support
Support Instructor
Support

Equipment Application Servers Moodle application Phone lines Phone Lines

Data Base Servers Desktops Desktops

Storage PBX System

Firewall

Load Balancers

Network Equipment

Clustering Equipment

Virtualization Tools

Cabling

Switches

Supporting Software
Operating
system
Antivirus
Monitoring
Activity Infrastructure Planning Data Migration Help Desk Train the Course
Support trainer Development
Hardware Procurement Customization
Tier 2 Content
rd
Hardware Installation 3 party Instructor Management
Integration (if support
Hardware support and required) Course
maintenance Uploading
Installation
Vendor SLA Tier 1
Management Testing Instructor
Support
Database Management UAT

Data Center Debugging
25

Management
Upgrade
Redundancy Site Management
Management
Software Support

R&D for feature
enhancement

Course Plugins
Development
Installation
Integration

Time and Material
service

Documentation

Number of 2 2 4
FTEs
Note: These headcount estimates are approximations based on discussions with institutions already using Moodle
and with the Moodle Service Vendors; actual numbers may vary during detailed analysis
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
COSTING
Table 8 below summarizes the cost required to setup and manage eAlberta operations.
Table 8: Summary of costs associated with eAlberta


One Time Recurring (yearly)

Hardware Infrastructure and $1,131,600 $426,320
Management
(Refer to Table 9 for details)

39
Software Management $0 $180,000


Administration $50,000 $195,000

39
Moodle is open source, so no license cost
26

Overhead $9,000 $120,300

Total $1,190,600 $1,201,620

In our calculation we made the following assumptions:
1) Like any startup company, eAlberta will require team members able to perform multiple roles
2) eAlberta will use an automated process (and tools) for migrating current courses into Moodle format and
will have manual process to assure final quality.
3) Software management will require 2 FTEs and each resource is budgeted at $90,000/year, fully loaded.
4) Rates for customized software development will be in line with market rates of $150/hr. The scope of
such will be determined during a future detailed system requirements study by each lead institution.
5) User and Instructor support will require 4FTEs and each is budgeted at $70,000/year.
6) Total number of FTEs: 9
Table 9: Hardware Infrastructure Management


One time Recurring (yearly)

40 41
supporting equipment

Hardware Support $200,000

Total $1,131,600 $426,320

Notes:
1) Appendix A provides an overview of the hardware architecture
2) Appendix C provides hardware breakdown details along with approximate costs.
7) Hardware management will require 2 FTEs to provide 24x7 server support. Each resource is budgeted at
$100,000/year. The same resources will be able to manage a remote redundancy site.
3) The hardware setup is designed for full redundancy so that each data center can operate independently in
42
case one data center suffers a complete outage. This ensures the appropriate level of reliability sought
by the lead organizations.

40
Hardware cost, refer Appendix C
41
Hardware AMC cost of 20%
42
Peter Mah, UoA, email dated: 4/Aug/2011
27

Table 10: Administrative Costs


Managing Director Salary $125,000

HR, Accounting and Finance $60,000

Legal Support $50,000 $10,000

Total $50,000 $195,000

Notes:
1) The Managing Director will be responsible for handling relationships with lead institutions, other PSIs and
hardware and software vendors. They will also initially serve as the project manager to ensure delivery of
committed services to the lead institutions.
2) HR, Accounting and Finance services will be provided by one of the lead institutions at the rate of
$5,000/month.
3) Legal Support will be outsourced at an annual cost of $10,000. One time charge of $50,000 is considered
for incorporation of eAlberta, drafting of share holder agreements and governance documents.
Table 11: Overhead costs



Office Space (per year) $0 $96,000

Furniture/Equipment $9,000

Supplies/employee development $13,500
(per year)
Telephone/Internet $10,800

Total $9,000 $120,300

Notes:
1) Office space is budgeted at $5000/month, including utilities. To maintain a redundancy site, additional
rent of $3000/month is considered. Total space of 3000 sq.ft. is considered and leaseholds are assumed to
be included in rent.
2) Furniture/equipment is budgeted at $1000/employee
3) Supplies/employee development is budgeted at $1500/employee/year
4) Cost of Internet will vary depending on bandwidth requirements
28

PRICING
eAlberta will price for cost recovery and should be linked to the number of courses that will be hosted within the
Moodle environment. As such, we expect the initial pricing per hosted course to be in the range of $125 to $150
per course per year as calculated below. To clarify, this is the initial cost for the three lead institutions. However,
over time the infrastructure in place will be sufficient to handle additional courses (from the same institutions or
from additional participants) which will drive down the average cost per course per year. These future savings can
be leveraged to reduce pricing over time as the consortium is expanded.

Total number of courses that need be supported on Moodle is 11,500/year.
One time Cost = $1,190,600

Cost per course/year = (1,201,620/11,500) + (1,190,600/ (5*11,500))
Under this option, we propose that the services will be priced in the range of $125 to $150 per course per year

In making this calculation we have made the following assumptions:
1) Cost for hardware is amortized over a five year period
2) There will be an additional charge of $25/course for use to migrate current course content to Moodle.

TEC ASSESSMENT
BENEFITS
With a multitude of academic institutions coming together to share the infrastructure, there will be economies and
efficiencies of scale relative to the current (unshared) situation. These synergies will be further amplified as the
infrastructure is scaled up to cater to more institutions and spread over more courses. This will result in lower
costs per course and create a leaner environment where more can be done with less. By virtue of collaborative
environment, the universities will be able to reduce their duplicated resource requirements and energy
consumption, thereby reducing carbon footprint.
As eAlberta will be governed by the participating institutions, this will provide a cooperative environment where
best-in-class capabilities regarding online learning are shared and the overall quality of service provided by each
organization to its end users is substantially higher and continually improving.
The establishment of this new entity serves as a platform to consolidate and deliver other applications relevant to
PSI operations. This will deliver additional synergies (quality) and savings for the institutions over time.
Additionally, the financial benefits from doing so will be more easily justified as the initial one-time set up costs will
have already been incurred. Since this will be an infrastructure built by the universities meeting their
specifications the Service Level Agreements can be better drafted and managed to be in alignment with their
needs.
We expect that eAlberta will be closely managed and controlled by stakeholders who have a vested interest in
ensuring a high quality user experience with minimal compromise of system performance. It was noted that some
29

of the institutions suffer from system failures due to internal resource constraints. This approach mitigates this
giving stakeholders a say and control in an organization that is locally owned and operated. Additionally, none of
the lead institutions currently have a disaster recovery plan and this can be addressed effectively by eAlberta. The
institutions also benefit from maintaining their course data in a local data centre.
By virtue of its size, eAlberta would be able to negotiate better terms with vendors than any of the individual
institutions. eAlberta could extend their buying power to other areas of mutual benefit. An example is purchasing
computers for students and staff members at a lower cost and perhaps more frequently than is currently the
norm. This is an area for future consideration and is especially beneficial for smaller institutions.
Since eAlberta will be a not-for-profit organization with a mission to promote collaborative learning in the province
of Alberta, the PSIs who do not have the access to new technology can benefit from the best in class services of
eAlberta. As discussed before, because the pricing is based on a cost recovery model, clients will benefit from
having access to the highest quality LMS without any initial capital expenditures or long term commitments to a
specific vendor while enjoying access to advanced technology platform. The pricing model can also be more
flexible to allow for participation by smaller PSIs or educational institutions.
CHALLENGES
In order to for eAlberta to come to fruition, there will be a need for significant resource commitment from the
various stakeholders to:
Create and incorporate an new non-profit entity with appropriate government and management in place;
Ensure that the entity has appropriate funding in place to cover the initial setup (business, infrastructure,
space and people);
Develop a process and plan to manage the transition from existing platforms to the shared one; and
Ensure that the appropriate skill sets are available within the new entity or can be provided on a cost
recovery basis, as needed.
This approach requires the greatest level of commitment by the lead institutions relative to any of the others.
Careful consideration on the setup and the functioning of eAlberta is required which may cause delays if parties
are not aligned from the beginning. Additionally, staff currently dedicated to managing the LMS platforms at each
institution may perceive a threat to their employment and subsequent union efforts to derail this process may
delay or jeopardize the existence of eAlberta.
30

OPTION 4: USE AN EXISTING NOT-FOR-PROFIT ENTITY
OVERVIEW
In this scenario, the lead institutions will partner with an existing not-for-profit services organization that will host
the Moodle application for it. The not-for-profit organizations evaluated are:
1) Cybera
2) GRICS
3) uDigit Systems
CYBERA
Cybera is a not-for-profit organization that works to spur and support innovation, for the economic benefit of
Alberta, through the use of cyber infrastructure. Cybera has offices in Calgary and Edmonton and collaborates with
public and private sector partners to accelerate research and product development. Through its access to
computing infrastructure and cyber infrastructure expertise, Cybera enables academic, industry, and government
groups to innovate in priority areas, including health, energy, the environment, and emerging technologies. Cybera
also operates CyberaNet, a high-speed, high-bandwidth advanced network in Alberta, and provides project
management to WestGrid, a consortium that provides advanced computing resources in support of research
43
across Canada.
GRICS
A non-profit organization, Socit GRICS has been handling all of the computer management needs of Quebecs
educational sector for several decades. In 1965, GRICS predecessor, SIMEQ (Service informatique du ministre de
l'ducation du Qubec), was created to deal with the Ministry of Educations information processing needs. Over
time, the organizations mission was changed to include the computer management requirements, both
administrative and pedagogical, of all the provinces school boards. School boards have assumed a dominant
leadership position within the organization and in 1985 SIMEQ was privatized and the boards took charge of the
organization, which then became GRICS (Gestion du rseau informatique des commissions scolaires). Since that
time, the Companys board of directors has included representatives from the twelve school boards in the
province. In 2002, GRICS created a subsidiary M2e Solutions Inc., a company offering cutting edge information
technology solutions to municipalities.
GRICS 370 employees include the largest concentration of information technology specialists in the field of
education in North America. GRICS has a mission to put its expertise and leadership to use to satisfy the individual
44
and collective computer needs of its members and clients, both in Quebec and abroad.
UDIGIT SYSTEMS
uDigit Systems is a not-for-profit company with the mission of promoting and supporting the use of Oracle's
PeopleSoft Enterprise solution across Albertas post-secondary system. It is exclusive licensee of Oracle's

43
http://www.cybera.ca/about-us
44
http://www.grics.qc.ca/en/societe/societe.aspx
31

45
PeopleSoft Enterprise Solution for Alberta's post-secondary institutions. It serves primarily to manage the Oracle
contract and provides no other operational services.
CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
Below we assess the strengths and the weaknesses of the three organizations to identify the best potential fit for
hosting and managing the shared infrastructure.
Table 12: Capability Analysis

Organization Strengths Weaknesses

Cybera Alberta centered, not-for-profit No prior Moodle experience or domain
expertise in learning management systems
Expert in network
management, project Heavily focused on innovation and research
management, collaborative activities as opposed to operational services
technological advancement
Some but limited production environment
Data Centre in Alberta experience (e.g. federal DAIR project)

Standing relationships with Current organizational structure not tuned to
technology vendors, service sell or develop business services
providers and most, if not all,
PSIs in Alberta

Established organization with
processes/procedures and
administrative support

Expressed interest to partner
on this project

Already engaged in discussions
with K-12 organizations in
Alberta to provide network
services at lower cost

Interested in expansion of
mandate and into provision of
commercial services

GRICS Not-for-profit organization Based in Quebec, board dominated by
managed by its clients Quebec based educational institutions

Offer complete line of products Primarily serving Quebec and French
and specialized services for speaking markets
education sector

45
http://www.udigitsystems.ca/index.html
32

No prior Moodle experience
Strong emphasis in user
support Data will not remain within Alberta

Customized service offering Articles commenting on GRICS suggest that it
has become too large and bureaucratic to
Heavy emphasis on R&D work with and still maintains some of its
legacy government culture rather than a
service oriented one.

uDigit Systems Based in Alberta Limited experience in technology deployment
or management
Contract negotiation,
management and contract Does not provide operational services
execution experience
No prior Moodle experience
Established governance
structure Infrastructure management and services
rd
would likely be subcontracted to 3 party
Standing relationship with vendors which would pose challenges -
educational institutions in service level quality and accountability
Alberta
From the three entities above, Cybera would be considered the front-runner for partnership as it has more of the
experience and resources to handle a project of this scale and scope. It also has the advantage of physical
proximity and many pre-existing relationships with PSIs in the province. Under this scenario, participating
institutions will migrate their courses and Cybera will in turn host the Moodle installation and provide the support
services that will be governed by the Service Level Agreements between participating institutions and Cybera.
Cybera provided a proposal for this and below we provide a summary of that proposal along with our assessment
of how closely it meets the stated objectives of the lead institutions.
33

CYBERAS BUSINESS CASE
At the request of the lead institutions, Cybera has provided a business case demonstrating their interest and
capabilities regarding this project. We have attached their full proposal in Appendix L.
In the figure 3 we describe the roles of Cybera and the lead institutions as per the proposal provided.

Cybera

Support Services
o End User (student)

Support Participant Institution
o Tier
2 Instructor

Support Data migration
Software Management

Tier 1 Instructor Support

Cybera seems open to discussing the possibility of taking on additional activities that are listed under Participant
Institutions scope. We recommend that the costs and service levels of these would need to be further clarified
and negotiated in advance.
34

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
COSTING
We assume that Cyberas expertise in cloud based infrastructure and the cost information presented in their
business case is accurate and achievable by them. The costs as presented were broken into two major
components: deployment and operations. Deployment cost covers everything from contract signing to initial use
of the services, and are one time charges. Operational cost is recurring for the ongoing use of the services and
includes everything necessary to keep the service running. Three different service options are presented: Platinum,
Gold, and Silver. Platinum and Gold support include full off-site hardware redundancy. In addition, ongoing help
desk support for Moodle users is provided as an option. Table 13 summarizes deployment costs as presented by
Cybera.
Table 13: Deployment Cost


100% off site Redundancy No off-site Redundancy
(Platinum or Gold (Silver Support)
Support)
Hardware Startup Costs $371,252 $185,626

Labour Startup Costs $88,000 $56,000

Total $459,252 $241,626

If a lead institution has hardware that is suitable for the cloud infrastructure it is possible that the hardware
startup costs may be offset in part by in-kind contributions of suitable hardware from the institutions. Any
candidate hardware for such contributions would need to be reviewed and approved by Cybera prior to
acceptance to determine component capacity, compatibility with the cloud, and supportability. If the candidate
hardware is accepted, the corresponding reduction in hardware startup cost would be determined on a case by
case basis.
Table 14 summarizes the recurring annual operational costs.
Table 14: Operational Cost


100% offsite Redundancy No off-site Redundancy

Platinum Support $616,094 N/A
(99.9% uptime)
Gold Support $495,094 N/A
(99% uptime)
Silver Support N/A $311,047
(extended business hours 7am-7pm, M-F,
reasonable effort off business hours)
35

Optional:
Helpdesk and Training (8am-6pm, Monday- $200,000 $200,000
Friday.)
The annual operational cost is broken down for the first 3 years of the Moodle service based on differing service
levels. If additional institutions or services are added to the cloud, any additional costs must be negotiated
separately. See Appendix L for suggested operational response guidelines.
PRICING
In order to provide a proper comparison against the other options, we take Cyberas proposed pricing and
amortize it over the number of courses that will be hosted in the shared environment. We have assumed that
Platinum Support would be chosen along with the optional help desk support and training services. We calculate
this as follows:

Total number of courses that need to be supported on Moodle is 11,500
One time Cost = $459,252
Recurring cost = $816,094

Cost per course/year = (816,094/11,500) + (459,252/(4*11,500))
Under this option, we propose that the services will be priced in the range of $81 to $100 per course per year. We
provide a range to allow room for Cybera to provide additional services (e.g. greater end user support, course
migration, application management, tool development) at additional cost.
Notes:
1) Cost for hardware is amortized over a four year period

TEC ASSESSMENT
BENEFITS
As a not-for-profit organization, Cybera is not interested in delivering profits to stakeholders, but rather achieving
its mandate through the development and delivery of innovative products and services to its members. In fact, a
project such as this would allow them to expand their mandate to provide commercially relevant services to
educational institutions. They have strong technical expertise and extensive partnerships with PSIs in Alberta. It is
reasonable to expect that the time required to install infrastructure and go-live is expected to be lower than a
complete green field set up. As a lean and flexible organization, Cybera is able to leverage their strong
partnerships with the institutions, giving them the flexibility to work together to deploy the necessary services for
the institutions. Cybera already has standing relationships with all Universities in Alberta and many other PSIs in
the province. It can leverage these relationships to promote shared services over time benefitting the lead
institutions through economies of scale.
36

Since Cybera is based in Canada, user information and all content will remain in the country and the new jobs
created will also be within the province.
Considering that there would be guaranteed future revenues accruing to Cybera from hosting and managing the
shared service, they may be motivated to access grant funding sources to invest in required hardware and
software upfront. As well, the institutions can benefit from Cyberas expertise in project management and
consultation services in areas of cloud computing, advanced networking, high performance computing, and data
management.
CHALLENGES
Managing a Production Environment
It is observed that Cyberas strength is in infrastructure management to support academic research activities
(primarily) and, as such, they do not currently have the expertise required to support a Moodle installation. Cybera
also have limited experience in managing production environments although they have highlighted a recent pan-
Canadian project, DAIR. Production management experience will be critical for the success of Moodle installation
as reliability of online learning services was specifically mentioned in the original needs analysis. We believe that
this is an area that can be overcome with the right resources and processes being developed within Cybera which
would be similar to that in a new entity, were it to be created. This is likely to require transferring necessary
Moodle production expertise form the lead institutions.
Course Migration
Within the proposal document provided by Cybera they indicate that course migration would be the responsibility
of the lead institutions. We believe that a combination of resources will be required from both parties in order to
ensure that migration goes smoothly. As such, we would recommend that this be further discussed between the
parties to determine the best approach to handling the migration.
Moodle Tool Development
There is a need to continually perform R&D activities to develop new eLearning features and functionalities within
the Moodle environment, continually raising the quality of service to students and educators. Cybera does not
have this capability but could overcome this gap by leveraging/transferring expertise from the lead institutions or
partnering with existing local experts in the field (e.g. Oohoo).
End-user Support Level
Cybera proposes to provide end user help desk support from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday. It has not
offered any level of support to instructors. The lead institutions have cited end user and instructor support to be a
critical requirement and require a minimum support level of 16x7/365. We recommend that this be discussed
between the parties to determine the best approach to handling this requirement as Cybera has indicated an
openness to discuss needs.
37

Organizational Structure
Cyberas existing organizational structure does not contain business development resources that will be required
(in the future) to enroll other educational institutions. Without this, the long-term benefits will not be fully
realized. Also, the University of Alberta has a vision to move away from IT infrastructure management and focus on
core areas of learning and research. Future expansion to other services (EDRMS, SIS, ERP) may be limited with
Cybera, as this does not align with Cyberas current mandate of supporting innovation in the region. Nor does
Cybera have the domain expertise required to support a variety of applications. We believe that all of this can be
overcome by Cybera with the establishment of an expanded mandate by its Board, a change in culture towards
becoming a service driven organization, strong contractual service level agreements and recruitment of staff into
key roles such as business development and account management at the appropriate time.
38

TEC RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis above, we see two viable options going forward:
1) Partner with Cybera

2) Establish a new, not-for-profit entity
Cybera has provided a strong business case and has significant technical expertise with respect to cloud services,
probably among the strongest of any organization in Canada. However, there are some limitations, as highlighted
in the previous section. If Cybera is able and willing to address these limitations, it is a strong contender for hosting
and managing the shared Moodle offering, as well as, other future offerings.
If Cybera is unable or unwilling to meet these requirements, we recommend creation of a new, not-for-profit
organization to provide the shared services and management of the infrastructure and application. Below, we
provide a high level business plan for the spin-off entity should that be the path chosen.
Early results from similar spinoffs in other regions demonstrate positive results. Institutions that do not have the
resources and skills to provide new and constantly improving technology to its students will benefit significantly
with this shared approach. The lead institutions are in a position to champion a shared environment that can
become a best-in-class service. Championing this initiative could lead to national recognition and a model that
other organizations will either want to replicate or join. This may lead to new opportunities, funding and
innovation that the not-for-profit and the institutions may benefit from. We also see this as the best option to
create a platform for expansion into future shared services outside of eLearning that can benefit PSIs around the
province.
Table 15 summarizes the expected costs associated with each of the four options:
Table 15: Course Fee Summary by Option

Option Fee/course/year

Manage Moodle in-house at one of the partner $98 - $125
institutions (NAIT, Athabasca University or University
of Alberta)

Outsource the platform to an existing commercial $22*
entity with necessary skills and resources (if one (*Note: We place a low level of confidence in this
number as it seems unrealistic. We are also of the
exists)
opinion that neither of the companies considered can
properly support a project of this scale and as such, this
number is considered artificial.)
Establish a new, Not-for-Profit, entity that will $125 - $150
provide shared services to these and other PSIs

Use an existing Not-for-Profit entity to provide the $81 - $100
business and administrative structure for Moodle
hosting and management

Although the fee/course/year for eAlberta is higher when compared to other options, it is still significantly lower
than the current price paid for Blackboards solution. Establishment of an independent and dedicated entity that is
39

governed by the participating institutions provides the benefit of outsourcing Moodle infrastructure and, at the
same time, retaining the flexibility and control which otherwise is not possible.
It is also recommended that the shared environment should not be limited to the LMS but can serve as the first
step in future collaborations such as Enterprise Resource Planning and Student Information System Management.
E-ALBERTA
eAlberta will be a not-for-profit organization with a mandate to provide shared technology and support services to
academic institutions. To begin with, it will provide and manage Moodle for the lead institutions - University of
Alberta, NAIT and Athabasca University. Over time, it will extend its service offering to other PSIs primarily in
western Canada. eAlberta will be governed by the participating institutions under a governance model that would
be similar to that developed by uDigit a number of years ago.
VISION
Short term: eAlbertas vision is to enhance the online learning experience for academic institutions and learners.
Long term: The vision will be to serve as a platform to manage other shared IT services for academic institutions.
MISSION
eAlbertas mission is to provide a flexible, innovation driven and high responsive shared services environment for
the benefit of PSIs, irrespective of their location. Over time this may also include the K-12 sector.
OWNERSHIP
The ownership structure for the new company has not yet been determined as this will need to be part of a future
negotiation. We would recommend that the three lead institutions would attain a pro-rata ownership stake based
on their level of investment in the initial setup of the company. This will, however, also translate into a pseudo-
liability in the event that the company is unable to generate sufficient revenue in a given year relative to its costs.
This should not be a major concern to the initial shareholders since we have determined in the analysis above that
the cost of running this as a new entity allows for considerable cost savings relative to the current disjointed LMS
management approach.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
A governance board will be constituted to oversee the functioning of eAlberta. We recommend it to have
permanent and equal representation (1 member each) from each of the lead institutions, namely: University of
Alberta, NAIT, and Athabasca University. Additionally, we would expect that it would have revolving (annual)
membership from other participating institutions as these are added over time. The board should not exceed
seven members to ensure proper function and efficient decision making. Membership should comprise strategic
thinkers from these institutions focused on building a best-in-class eLearning service provider. The structure will
need to ensure that the voices of smaller institutions are well represented as well. As the company expands into
other applications, membership will need to be adjusted to reflect this. We would discourage inclusion of
40

government officials on this governance board, if avoidable. Figure 4 below details the proposed company
structure.
Governance Board
University of Alberta NAIT Athabasca University (Up to 4 Others)

Managing Director

Hardware Software Training and

Infrastructure Management Support
Services
(2 resources)
(2 resources)
(4 resources)
Sales/General/Administration
Human Resource Accounting Finance Payroll Legal Business Development

eAlberta

Figure 4: Organization Structure
We would recommend review and adjustment of uDigits governance document as a model to build from. This
should be available from the UofAs internal legal department.
PRODUCT / SERVICE OFFERING
The service offering is a hosted (in Alberta) Moodle environment within which instructors can easily create, upload
and maintain online course content. Each instructor is likely to have different needs in terms of functionality and as
such this shared service offering will aim to provide the most flexible approach to allow for this. This would mean
that some courses would be very simple in nature, while others would leverage complex features such as polling,
forums, testing, etc. The key is to provide flexibility not constrain the instructors.
In addition to hosting services, eAlberta will also provide a higher level of support than is available in the current
market. This will include high quality end user support available on a 16 x 7 basis. This will be complemented by
localized instructor support which is provided by the participating institution.
41

eAlberta will also provide course migration services to ensure that non-Moodle courses currently in existence can
be migrated easily.
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT/MARKETING
Initially and in Alberta, we expect the lead institutions (namely NAIT, Athabasca University and University of
Alberta) will leverage their professional networks to spread the word about eAlberta. During our research, we
46
found that word of mouth is the single strongest marketing tool in this industry. As eAlberta expands into other
service offerings or geographic areas, it will need to hire dedicated business development associates and project
managers who would have domain expertise to understand the institutional requirements and map such to the
respective service offerings.
PRICING
Table 16 below summarizes the pricing model for eAlberta services.
Table 16: eAlberta Pricing Model

Description Fees

One time setup fees Refer table 17 below

Hosting Fees per course per year $125-$150

Data Migration per course (if required) $25

rd
3 Party Integration and customization Time and Material Basis at $150/hr

Support Services Included

We have built the model based on a simple pricing structure whereby lead institutions will be charged the same
fee/course irrespective of course content, course duration or course status (part-time or full-time). If it is deemed
that the complexities are significant and different, then a more refined pricing structure may need to be
developed. The pricing model described allows for recouping of the original investment in creation of eAlberta and
will allow the company to develop a reserve fund for replacement of equipment every 5 years.
We would also recommend that the pricing model above apply only to the lead institutions with a surcharge for
additional participants as they join. We recommend that the fees for new institutions (non-lead) should be about
10% to 15% higher and that they should commit to services for a minimum of two years with contracts stipulating
early termination fees. We would also encourage bi-yearly invoicing in advance where possible to allow for cash
flow management. Charges above would be net of taxes or travel expenses.
In addition to course migration and course hosting fees, we recommend a tiered set-up fee structure for new
institutions based on institutional size as below.

46
http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2010/12/02/IT-Beyond-the-Campus.aspx?Page=2
42

Table 17: One-time System Setup Fee
Tier Number of Students enrolled in Moodle Amount ($CDN)

1. Less than 5,000 $5,000

2. Between 5,001 and 10,000 $8,000

3. Between 10,001 and 15,000 $12,000

4. Between 15,001 and 25,000 $20,000

5. Between 25,001 and 40,000 $25,000

6. Above 40,000 $30,000

OPTIONAL-DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN
Over the past 20 years, businesses of all sizes have steadily grown more dependent on their ever-expanding IT
infrastructures to help them automate, manage, and analyze their business operations and strategy. IT
infrastructures face varying risks of interruption that can encompass everything from regional power outages to
terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, most organizations assign very low risk to such events and their devastating
impact to their IT systems. Virtually every company faces the risk of IT interruptions that can grind business to a
halt. A KPMG study conducted recently showed the shifting nature of these interruptions with natural disasters
comprising a shrinking portion of the total causes of IT interruptions and manmade disasters human and IT-
related failures representing an increasing share. Appendix J summarizes some of the main causes.
In research conducted by Symantec, companies reported that cyber attacks, malicious employee behavior, and
terrorism combined for an average downtime of 72.7 hours in 12 months. Appendix K summarizes Symantec study
47
on causes of downtime.
In order to enhance the availability of the service, it is advised that a Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) should be
considered for eAlberta. Detailed planning should be done after taking into consideration recovery time to
objective (RTO) and recovery point objective (RPO). For this, it is advisable that the lead institutions develop a
committee to determine the needs for this.
COSTING WITH DRP
Table 18 summarizes the cost required to setup and manage eAlberta operations with DRP.
Table 18: Summary of Cost associated with eAlberta with DRP

Description One time Cost Recurring cost

Management

Software Management 0 $180,000

47
http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/about/media/pdfs/Symc_Results_DisasterRecovery_2010.pdf
43


Administration $195,000

Overhead $59,000 $120,300

Total $1,342,400 $1,231,980

Notes:
1) Kindly refer Appendix D for system architecture
2) Kindly refer Appendix E for hardware details
3) Hardware management will require 2 FTEs to provide 24x7 server support. Each resource is budgeted for
$100,000/year.
4) Hardware AMC is budgeted for 20%
5) Software management will require 2 FTEs and each resource is budgeted for $90,000/year.
6) User and tier 2 instructor support will require 4FTEs and each is budgeted for $70,000/year.
7) Administration costs are as mentioned in table 10, page 27
8) Office space is budgeted at $5000/month, including utilities. To maintain a DRP site, additional rent of
$3000/month is considered. Total space of 3000 sq.ft. is considered and leaseholds are assumed to be
included in rent.
9) Furniture/equipment is budgeted for $1000/employee
10) Supplies/employee development is budgeted for $1500/employee
11) Cost of Internet will depend on bandwidth requirement
12) Total number of FTEs: 9

PRICING BY EALBERTA (WITH DRP)
The pricing model is based on cost recovery over the number of courses hosted within the Moodle environment.

Total number of courses that need be supported on Moodle is 11,500.
One time Cost = $1,342,400

Cost per course/year = (1,231,980/11,500) + (1,342,400/ (5*11,500))
Therefore, with this option, services should be priced in the range of $131 to $150 / course per year or an
additional $6 / course per year.
Notes:
1) These prices are approximate and may change during detailed analysis
2) Cost for hardware is spread over a five year period
3) There will be additional cost of $25/course for use of software to migrate data to Moodle environment.
44

RISK ANALYSIS
In any new venture, there are number of inherent risks that need to be considered and planned for. In Table 19 we
summarize these risks along with the appropriate strategies to mitigate.
Table 19: Risk Analysis

Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Strategy
Slow user High High User workshops and training sessions will
adoption/unmet user help in educating users about Moodle feature
expectations and functionalities and migration approach,
as well as, long term vision of improved
capabilities.
Instructor resistance to High High Have tier 1 support within the PSI and the
shared (outside) Tier 2 support within eAlberta. Ensure proper
services communication strategy from start and
develop instructor advisory groups to ensure
voices are heard and buy-in is achieved.
Loss of control by High Med Presence of institutional representatives on
institutions the board will ensure the needs of different
institutions are reflected and delivered.
System Failure Low High Use of monitoring tools will help in reducing
system failures. A redundant setup and
clearly defined disaster recovery plan will
further reduce the risk. Strong SLAs with
vendors will minimize the risk.
Ensuring constant High Low Emphasis on innovation to ensure users has
improvement of a best accesses to advanced technology. Use Google
in class hosted LMS approach of 15-20% of employee time spent
service offering on discovering better ways and developing
new tools. Consider becoming a registered
Moodle.org partner to take advantage of
best practices and tools.
Over load on support Med Med Provision should be made for automated help
services systems and call back functionality.
Additional part-time resources may need to
be hired consider use of students to keep
costs low.
Redundant workforces High High Relevant staff from lead institutions should
continue at the PSIs be transferred to eAlberta. Balance will need
to be reallocated within the institution.
Support from union will likely need to be
sought early on.
Funding shortfalls Med High Strong reporting systems will need to be
developed to ensure Governance Board has
full transparency of cash flow management.
Recommend initial working capital infusion
to serve as 6 month expense buffer.

45

ROLL-OUT STRATEGY
For the success of eAlberta, it is critical that commitment come from the senior most levels of the participating
organizations. An initial memorandum of understanding will be a crucial document that clearly spells out each of
the signatories expectations and obligations. We propose the following phased approach should be taken.
Table 20: eAlberta Roll-out Strategy

Stage Description Activities

Phase 1 Conception - This is the stage Formulate a committee of representatives from
where participating the participating institutions to define the
institutions will come framework for eAlberta and sign MoU. The
together to define the charter committee should have support of the senior most
for eAlberta executives from the participating institutions. A
detailed business operating plan with full
financials will also need to be developed at this
stage.
Phase 2 Detailed Planning & Execution Formulate a steering committee that will have
- This is the stage where all representation from technical and commercial
the technical and commercial departments of the participating institutions. It
decisions will be made and will evaluate proposals from vendors and oversee
executed. the infrastructure setup. This steering committee
will also be responsible for the hiring the
Managing Director for eAlberta.
Phase 3 Migration & Testing Migrate courses to new Moodle environment one
lead PSI at a time along with quality assurance
testing
Phase 4 Standardization and Processes will be optimized and documented and
stabilization - this is the stage SLAs further refined prior to expansion to other
where processes will be PSIs
standardized to benefit from
best practices of participating
institutions.

Phase 5 Growth - This is the stage With help from founding institutions, will
where more institutions will approach other PSIs in Alberta to bring them into
be brought into the portfolio eAlberta LMS. Additional personnel will likely be
and more services will be required depending on speed.
offered
Subsequently, the service offering may be
expanded to other provinces or other service
areas. Additional personnel will be required.

46

ACTION PLAN
Based on the strategy above, we propose an aggressive action plan depicted in the milestone chart below:
Key Activities Months

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
MoU / Charter D ocuments s igned
Detailed B usiness Plan d eveloped
Project Champion S elected
Incorporation / S hareholder D ocument d eveloped
Startup F unding i n p lace
Technical Team Established
Managing D irector H ired
Detailed Technical Planning a nd Procurement
Office S pace s ecured
HR Migration Plan d eveloped
Key Team Members moved i nto e Alberta
Office S etup
Course Migration
Figure 5: Milestone chart
47

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: HARDWARE ARCHITECTURE FOR MOODLE INSTALLATION
Internet
Active Site Redundancy Site

Load Load
Balancer Balancer
Ethernet Ethernet
Switch Switch
Management VM Server Back up Management VM Server Back up

Server Server

FC Switch FC Switch
Storage Storage
48

APPENDIX B: HARDWARE BREAKDOWN FOR OPTION 1 - IN-HOUSE
Servers Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost (Cad $)

Virtualization Nodes 2CPU/12 cores 8- 12 $14,000 $112,000 - $168,000
(runs all server (2.5GHz), 96GB,
components) 2x300 GB SAS, 2x FC
HBA, 1x Quad Port
Gb NIC

Management Server 2CPU/12 cores 2 $14,000 $28,000
(2.5GHz), 96GB,
2x300 GB SAS, 2x FC
HBA, 1x Quad Port
Gb NIC

SAN Storage New CX4-120 Arrays 1 Available Available
for each data center.
Each with 12TB FC,
30TB SATA RAW,
plus FAST (tieiring)
and SnapView
(snapshot) options.

SAN Replication Open Source 1 $0 $0
Software

Load Balancer 3x BigIP F5 LTM 4 Available Available
3400 (re-use existing
from Vista)

Backup Avamar (6TB cluster) 1 $100,000 $100,000

VMWare 1 per CPU 32 - 40 $1,500 $48,000 - $60,000

Network Switches Cisco 10GbE 32 4 $6,000 $24,000
(Ethernet) ports + cabling - 2
per data center

Fibre Channel Entry level Brocade 4 Available Available
Switches 300s 8Gbps - 2 per
data center

Total Capital Cost $312,000 - $380,000

Note: Additional tolerance of +15% is built on the above costing
49

APPENDIX C: HARDWARE BREAKDOWN FOR OPTION 3 - EALBERTA

Virtualization Nodes 2CPU/12 cores 16- 20 $14,000 $224,000 - $280,000
(runs all server (2.5GHz), 96GB,
components) 2x300 GB SAS, 2x FC
HBA, 1x Quad Port
Gb NIC

Management Server 2CPU/12 cores 2 $14,000 $28,000
(2.5GHz), 96GB,
2x300 GB SAS, 2x FC
HBA, 1x Quad Port
Gb NIC

SAN Storage New CX4-120 Arrays 2 $160,000 (Active $260,000
for each data center. site)
Each with 12TB FC,
40TB SATA RAW, $100,000
plus FAST (tieiring) (Redundancy site)
and SnapView
(snapshot) options.

Software

Load Balancer 3x BigIP F5 LTM 4 $40,000 $160,000
3400 (re-use existing
from Vista)


VMWare 1 per CPU 32 - 40 $1,500 $48,000 - $60,000

Network Switches Cisco 10GbE 32 4 $6,000 $24,000
(Ethernet) ports + cabling - 2
per data center

Fibre Channel Entry level Brocade 4 $10,000 $40,000
Switches 300s 8Gbps - 2 per
data center

Total Capital Cost $984,000 -
$1,052,000

Note: Additional tolerance of +15% is built on the above costing
50

APPENDIX D: HARDWARE ARCHITECTURE FOR OPTION 3 (EALBERTA) WITH DRP OPTION

Site 1 Site 2
Internet
University of Alberta NAIT and Athabasca University

Load Load
Balancer Balancer

Ethernet Ethernet
Switch Switch

Management VM Server Back up Management VM Server Back up
Server Server

FC Switch FC Switch

Storage Storage

Notes:
1) Site 1 can be used to handle the load for University of Alberta and Site 2 can handle NAIT and Athabasca
University requirement
2) Both the site should be able to handle combined load of both the sites, in case one of the site does down
51

APPENDIX E: HARDWARE BREAKDOWN FOR OPTION 3(EALBERTA) WITH DRP OPTION

Virtualization Nodes 2CPU/12 cores (2.5GHz), 32- 40 $14,000 $448,000 - $560,000
(runs all server 96GB, 2x300 GB SAS, 2x
components) FC HBA, 1x Quad Port Gb
NIC

Management Server 2CPU/12 cores (2.5GHz), 2 $14,000 $28,000
96GB, 2x300 GB SAS, 2x
FC HBA, 1x Quad Port Gb
NIC

SAN Storage New CX4-120 Arrays for 2 $160,000 $320,000
each data center. Each
with 12TB FC, 40TB SATA
RAW, plus FAST (tieiring)
and SnapView (snapshot)
options.

Software

Load Balancer 3x BigIP F5 LTM 3400 (re- 4 $40,000 $160,000
use existing from Vista)


VMWare 1 per CPU 64 - 80 $1,500 $96,000 - $120,000

Network Switches Cisco 10GbE 32 ports + 4 $6,000 $24,000
(Ethernet) cabling - 2 per data
center

Fibre Channel Entry level Brocade 300s 4 $10,000 $40,000
Switches 8Gbps - 2 per data center

Total Capital Cost $1,116,000 -
$1,252,000

Note: Additional tolerance of +15% is built into above
52

APPENDIX F: BUSINESS MODELS STUDIED
Institution Model Drivers Remark

BC Campus Hosted Government Institutions migrate to BC
Guidelines campus to reduce cost and
also because they do not
have internal skill set to
manage the infrastructure.
BC campus offers Moodle
and D2L LMS solution.

University of Akron(UA) and Shared Economies of Scale They have shared
Lorain Community College infrastructure for ERP
Enhancing (PeopleSoft).
leadership position
(UA)

Efficiencies of Scale
Memorial University Shared Government The university hosts D2L
Guidelines LMS application. The
province has one university
and one college so IT is
centralized.

uDigit Systems Shared Economies of Scale uDigit provides Oracle
PeopleSoft licenses to
Albertas post secondary
institutions.

53

APPENDIX G: UNIVERSITY OF AKRON AND LORAIN COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Interviewees:
Name: David G Wasik

Institution: University of Akron
Title: Asst to VP/CIO: Strategic Initiatives

Name: Andy Dovci
Institution: Lorain County Community College
Title: Director, IS

1) University of Akron and Lorain County Community College share ERP application that is hosted on servers
48
at the University of Akron .
2) Background: Lorain was in process of floating RFP for ERP application and UA was shopping around for
shared structure and so it was a good fit.
49
3) University of Akron had earlier tried to launch a similar initiative . However it did not work out that time
as the commitment was not there from the top level from these other institutions. Subsequently the
presidents of UA and Lorain college came together to launch the collaborative initiative.
4) For the University of Akron the key driving factors for the shared infrastructure were:
a. Facing budget crunch. The cost to operate was higher than allowed.
b. Talent acquisition was getting harder and rare. In the state of Ohio there are 14 universities, 55
private schools and 23 colleges. All these institutions have separate resources to manage their
tasks.
c. From HR perspective, many are similar operations resulting in duplication of effort. So to avoid
redundancies.
5) The application is running on same platform and same hardware for both the institutions.
6) They had a bottom up approach instead of top down. The two institutions came together to create a
shared structure instead of regional board dictating the terms.
7) Key factors for the success of their shared environment:
a. Governance process: They have equal representation, irrespective of their size.
b. Documentation: They have service level agreements in place and are well documented. The
processes and responsibilities are documented as well.
c. Executive buy-in: One of the critical factors that led to their success was that Presidents came
together to sign the MoU.
8) The two institutions decided to have 3 phase approach to migration:
a. Phase I: Implement PeopleSoft ERP at both institutions through shared environment hosted by
the University of Akron
b. Phase II: Identify business units that can be combined and have one business unit to support the
institutions

48
http://www-
cdn.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume46/SharedServicesandPartnershipsT/23
1826
49
http://campustechnology.com/articles/2011/04/28/beyond-asp-shared-services.aspx
54

c. Phase III: Create an independent entity, not on campus of participating institutions. It will be
governed by governance committee. Fee will be charged for the services that will be offered.
9) Given an option, the institutions would setup an independent entity upfront, instead of phased
approach.
10) They did make some mistakes in phase I but were better in phase II.
a. Picked a wrong consulting firm.
b. Did not standardize the processes.
c. Did not do enough readiness assessment.
11) Lesson Learnt:
a. Very critical to truly understand the resources required. For Lorain, the staff was not able to
attend to many aspects of the implementation.
12) Savings realized:
a. Received substantial discounts on hardware, software and middleware
b. Savings in headcounts. Some staffing position has not been filled and along with some staff
reduction.
i. No database administrators acquired. They use in-house resources. Lorain did not need
to get this resource separately.
c. For Akron, the savings is directed to academic purpose. For Lorain, they needed to reduce the
budgets by 10%
13) Similar initiatives are happening at other locations: Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia and others.
55

APPENDIX H: BC CAMPUS
Interviewee:
Name: Lawrence Parisotto

Institution: BC campus
Title: Director, Collaborative Program and Shared Service Initiatives

1) The shared services are called educational shared services. From IT perspective, it is centrally hosted
infrastructure and services
2) They offer both D2L and Moodle.
3) Moodle is hosted by BC campus on the Simon Fraser University infrastructure. There is no license cost.
Lambda Solutions does the customization in consultations with the institutions. BC Campus is considering
having Lambda host the Moodle application. They are still in process of evaluation and will be issuing an
RFP soon.
4) D2L is a vendor hosted model. BC campus has master agreement with the vendor. It is proprietary, no
infrastructure and no technical support from BC campus. Currently 3 institutions are hosted by D2L
(through BC campus)
5) Business Model for shared services is still being developed. For now, it is for free and funded by BC
government. However the Ministry has decided to charge for services. Currently BC Campus is funded by
the Government and the academic institutions that have migrated to BC Campus (for free) are also getting
funding from Government. But since the BC Campus services are free (for now), the cost structures of
institutions have come down but the funding is same.
6) Pricing structure will be based on cost structures
7) The three key ingredients of their success of shared model are: governance structure; best practice; user
community support
8) For Moodle, user community support and best practice adoption is critical.
9) In general, Blackboard road map is confusing for the academic institutions. There are uncertainties with
continuing with BlackBoard. There is concern over license costs as well.
10) Driving factor for the institutions to collaborate with the BC Campus: a lot of institutions have installed
Moodle environment in their own facility some 2-4 years back. Now these institutions need to upgrade,
but they dont have staff. They have pressure for new and latest implementation of infrastructure. Their
future cost is significant. Institutions are not clear on future costs. There is culture of some IT
departments for open source and proprietary software.
11) There is no data available to compare ROI of in-house application Vs hosted by BC Campus. One report
stated for every $1 in shared services, returns in more.
12) When institutions move to BC Campus, the minimum agreement is for 2 years. Agreement is signed
annually.
13) It is the institutions that approach BC Campus for using its services. Once the interest is there from
institutions, a MoU is signed and project plan developed. There is a 2-4 year time-frame for migration to
new environment
14) Advice from BC Campus: Focus on strong governance structure; ensure proper documents of processes
and SLAs.
56

APPENDIX I: MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY, NEWFOUNDLAND
Interviewee:
Name: Robert Wells

Institution: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Title: Associate Director, Distance Education & Learning Technology

1) They host the learning management system in-house. They are using Desire2Learn. They have various
level of support. The IT looks after infrastructure. In his group, they have IT and technical systems group.
They are application specialists and manage the application.
2) Some 6 people in front line support. Tier 2 and tier 3 is another 3 people. Desire2Learn provides pure
technical support, bugs and feature enhancement. The University also has an influence in product
development by Desire2Learn.
3) They have course development and maintenance group. They have formal agreement with departments
for the services.
4) The process to move to a new LMS system (Desire2Learn) started some 6 years ago. At that time they
were using WebCT. They were using campus edition. It was coming up for license renewal. At that stage it
was decided to have RFP.
5) There was user committee, steering committee, technical committee. Steering committee only to look
into finances. Representatives from college, K-12 and the University were part of these committees.
Steering committee looked into financing. All looked into features to go into RFP for LMS for province.
6) There were number of bidders. Committees consulted with various stake holders.
7) There were only 2 bids shortlisted; Blackboard Inc and Desire2Learn. Steering committee filtered others.
Both bidders were asked to present on their products. Steering committee made that final decision. It
took 18 months.
8) But Desire2Learn being Canadian company played a huge role in winning the project.
9) Rob Wells department look after the LMS for the K-12
10) He was not aware of the pricing and could not comment of the per course price

57

APPENDIX J: MAIN REASONS FOR SYSTEM FAILURE
Human Induced Events

Natural Disasters Causing Disasters Potenial Mega-Disasters
Volcano Terrorism/war Nuclear terrorism

Earthquake Civil disturbance Electromagene}c pulse
Tsunami Strikes or work stoppages terrorism
Hurricane Arson/the| Massive coronal ejec}on
Flood Cyber-sabotage Pandemics
Landslide Physical hardware sabotage Astronomical Impacts
Tornado Security incidents Unimaginable events
Wind,ice and electrical Malicious employee (without precedence)
storm behavior
Wildre Health and safety regula}on

58

APPENDIX K: SYMANTEC STUDY ON CAUSES OF DOWN TIME
Cause Downtime Hours in Past 12 Causes of downtime (%age)

Months (Mean Hrs)

Cyber attack 52.7 63%

System Upgrades 50.9 72%

Configuration change 15.1 64%
management issues

Fire 15.0 69%

Power outage / failure / issues 11.3 70%

Malicious employee behavior 10.4 63%

Terrorism 9.6 45%

Earthquake 9.3 48%

Data leakage or loss 9.1 63%

Flood 8.3 48%

Hurricane 7.8 47%

Tornado 7.4 45%

War 7.2 42%

Volcano 6.9 42%

Tsunami 6.9 44%

Other 1.6 1%

Note: The survey was conducted among companies based in North America, Latin America, EMEA, Asia Pacific and
Japan
59

APPENDIX L: CYBERA BUSINESS CASE
Cybera-Moodle
BusinessCase.pdf

60

TEC UofA Moodle Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

TEC UofA Moodle Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEC UofA Moodle Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011

Moodle Implementation Strategy

Prepared for University of Alberta

Prepared by: Rohit Mittal

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Project Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Load Requirements ................................................................................................................................................. 11

Industry Trends ........................................................................................................................................................... 12

Option 1: Manage the shared service platform in-house ........................................................................................... 14

Structure and Roles ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Financial Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 17

TEC Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 19

Option 2: Outsource the platform to an existing commercial entity ......................................................................... 20

Lambda Solutions ............................................................................................................................................... 20

Remote Learner .................................................................................................................................................. 20

Financial Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 21

TEC Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

Financial Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 26

TEC Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 29

Option 4: Use an existing not-for-profit entity ........................................................................................................... 31

uDigit Systems .................................................................................................................................................... 31

Capability Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 32

Cyberas Business Case ........................................................................................................................................... 34

Financial Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 35

TEC Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 36

TEC Recommendation ................................................................................................................................................ 39

Organizational Structure .................................................................................................................................... 40

Product / Service offering ................................................................................................................................... 41

Optional-Disaster Recovery Plan ............................................................................................................................ 43

Costing with DRP ................................................................................................................................................ 43

Pricing by eAlberta (with DRP) ........................................................................................................................... 44

Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 45

Roll-Out Strategy .................................................................................................................................................... 46

Action Plan .............................................................................................................................................................. 47

Appendix A: Hardware Architecture for Moodle installation ................................................................................. 48

Appendix B: Hardware breakdown for Option 1 - In-house ................................................................................... 49

Appendix c: Hardware breakdown for Option 3 - eAlberta .................................................................................... 50

Appendix F: Business models studied .................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix G: University of Akron and Lorain County Community College .............................................................. 54

Appendix H: BC Campus ......................................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix I: Memorial University, Newfoundland .................................................................................................. 57

Appendix J: Main reasons for system failure .......................................................................................................... 58

Appendix K: Symantec study on causes of down time ........................................................................................... 59

Appendix L: Cybera Business Case .......................................................................................................................... 60

Table 1: Key Motivation

University of Alberta Focus: Outsource IT infrastructure management so as to

Table 2: Load Requirements

Table3: Trends in other academic environments

Economies of Scale (cost savings)

STRUCTURE AND ROLES

Figure 1: Responsibility chart

Table 4: Scope and resources required to manage Moodle LMS

Table 5: Cost Summary

Lambda is a full service authorized Moodle Partner specializing in:

Moodle Hosting & Support

Table 6: Pricing for Moodle hosting (for lead institutions)

STRUCTURE AND ROLES

In figure 2 we delineate the roles of eAlberta and the participant institutions:

Table 7: Scope and resources required to manage Moodle