collaborative tools for the research university -or- “many conversations, few decisions”

Collaborative Tools for theResearch University

-or-“Many conversations, few decisions”

David A. Greenbaum and Shel Waggener, University of California, Berkeley

Agenda for Collaborative Tools Workshop

I. Introduction (Shelton Waggener - 5 min)II. ECAR report on Collaborative Tools (Oren Sreebny - 20

min)III. Findings from Collaborative Tools survey (Chad Kainz -

10 min) IV. Whiteboarding questions about Collaborative Tools

(Chad Kainz - 15 min)V. CMU/Colorado (Joel Smith and Dennis Maloney - 20

min)VI. UC Berkeley (Shelton Waggener and David Greenbaum

- 40 min) VII. Discussion roundtable (Chad Kainz - 40 min)

Collaboration is leading to breakthroughs

"… across disciplines [is] where most new breakthroughs are made. It's interdisciplinary combinations—design and technology, mathematics and art—'that produce YouTube and Google,' says Thomas Friedman, the best-selling author of The World Is Flat."

– "How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century," Time Magazine cover story, December 18, 2006

Expectations for collaborative tools are high

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

– Jon Udell, December 2006

What was that again?

"… figur[ing] out how to work together in shared information spaces … is nothing less than a survival issue for our species."

Gee, no pressure …

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

(other presentations go here)

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Time’s Person of the Year

Time’s Person of the Year

(See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbLvPVL8s4o to view video from YouTube)

Developing a Strategy for Collaboration Tools @ UC Berkeley

Our Presentation

I. New CIO/IST organizational model: Where we sit and how we stand

II. A “folksonomy” for thinking about university collaborative tools

III. Some recent initiatives at BerkeleyIV. Debate: “Google/Not Google”V. Steps towards a strategic campus

approach

New CIO/IST Structure

Client Services Application Services Data Services Infrastructure Services

Deputy CIO for IST

CIO Associate CIOs

Data Services Overview

Framing the current collaborative tools realm

There are many, many tools with at least some collaborative aspects.

Perhaps we might get a handle on this space by pinning their wings to a large board in an elegant taxonomy …?

Framing the current collaborative tools realm (cont'd)

Source: Burton Group, May 2006

Framing the current collaborative tools realm (cont'd)

Framing the current collaborative tools realm (cont'd)

Some potential dimensions … Messaging Asynchronous team

collaborationReal-time team collaboration

Communications

Voice mailFaxing Weblogs Email

Discussion forums

Collaborative editing IM/Chat

ConferencingWriteboards Screen/app. sharingWeb conferencing

Managed collaboration

Calendaring Incident trackingTask/workflow mgmt.Project management

Socialknowledge

TaggingShared bookmarks

Sources: Forrester Research, Wikipedia

Forrester

Wik

iped

ia

Framing the current collaborative tools realm (cont'd)

But we've found that categorizing and framing developing tools this way is be like herding conceptual cats….

Where do wikis fit?

Some potential dimensions … Messaging

Asynchronous team collaboration

Real-time team collaboration

CommunicationsWikis(for publishing)

Wikis(for collaborative authoring)

Conferencing

Wikis(for real-time authoring during meetings)

Managed collaboration

Socialknowledge

Wikis(a la Wikipedia)

Sources: Forrester Research, Wikipedia

Cyberinfrastructure

Libraries/Museums/

DataWarehouses

K-to-GrayAdvancement/

Public

Email:“Birthright tools”

Web 2.0/Social Software/Architecture ofParticipation

Course Sites/Learning

Communities”7 worlds” ofcollaborative

tools use

ScholarlyCommunications

Messaging & collaborationat UC Berkeley

• Email: CalMail, Cyrus and SquirrelMail• Calendaring: CalAgenda, Oracle

Calendar• File Storage: Cal WebFiles, Xythos• Collaboration & Learning

Environment (CLE): bSpace, Sakai

Collaboration within IST

• Incident tracking tools: Footprints, RT, Remedy, and many others …

• Workspace tools: Microsoft SharePoint, Basecamp, Sakai …

Our array of historical tools and new organizational model has led to an impetus to rationalize and coordinate.

What we are doing now

• Evaluating workspace tools for IST use.• Planning to track collaboration

platforms.• Initiating conversations with Microsoft,

Google, and Yahoo about campus-wide email, calendaring, Web-based file storage, and future collaborative tools.

Debate Proposition

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

Opening Statement:Arguing in the Affirmative

David Greenbaum

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Why Partner?

1. Providing robust online messaging and collaborative environments is not a core competency of the University.

What is the core competency of your university?

What is your "core competency"? What is the non-negotiable center of the [University] enterprise?

We should not be surprised at this question. Digital technology has asked it of just about every economic activity in America.

– Richard A. Lanham, Professor Emeritus, UCLA, in 1995 commentary to the AAU Provosts on Vision 2010

Is utility IT a core competency?

Argument:Your core competence does not include the form of IT that has become a utility.

You should put your emphasis on the intersection of what students and teachers and researchers do, refocusing central IT on working more closely with and for its customers.

Can your University's IT services match?

Why Partner (cont'd)?

1. Providing robust online messaging and collaborative environments is not a core competency of the University.

2. Internet providers can deliver services at lower cost.

The cost proposition

The cost proposition (cont'd)

Email Storage• AOL: 5 GB free for email or files. • UC Berkeley: 100 MB free. (maximum of 1 GB, for

$48/year.)

File Storage• Amazon S3: $0.15 per GB per month ($1.80/year)• UC Berkeley: 50 MB free. And no more, paid or not

…

Why Partner (cont'd)?

1. Providing robust online messaging and collaborative environments is not a core competency of the University.

2. Internet providers can deliver services at lower cost.

3. Internet providers innovate and deliver at a pace and scale the University can NOT match.

Imagine (for example)…

+ Google Docs and Spreadsheets

+ Blogger+ Sketchup (drawing)+ JotSpot (wikis and many

groupware applications)+ Google Groups (discussion

forums)+ YouTube/Google Video+ Google Notebook (web

clippings)

+ Google Base (casual, searchable postings)

+ Google Scholar (search of scholarly literature and citations)

+ Google Search (web, blogs, images, books, maps)

+ Google Earth/Google Maps (location-based data)

… working together, and delivered across multiple devices, as well. How can university IT compete?

Google Apps for Education (Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Page Creator, Google Talk) plus

Why Partner (cont'd)?

1. Providing robust online messaging and collaborative environments is not a core competency of the University.

2. Internet providers can deliver services at lower cost.

3. Internet providers innovate and deliver rapidly.

4. Internet providers like Google will be shaping the way information is managed and disseminated in the 21st century.

Shaping the Information Landscape

• Internet providers are developing a platform for information sharing and collaboration that will cut across all aspects of the university community … from research, to libraries, to lifelong connections

• We need to be able to build services based on that platform for our own specific needs

• We should collectively engage Internet providers to shape this platform for the future of education (and thus encourage them “to do less evil”).

Opening Statement:Arguing in the Negative

Shelton Waggener

Why not Partner?

1. Privacy. Will your academic freedom and intellectual property be protected?

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

UC Berkeley’s Data and Privacy Concerns

Privacy: will your data be protected by Internet providers?

It's risky to give awayour data to outside providers

"Chief among the future sources of lock in and competitive advantage will be data."

– Tim O'Reilly, December 10, 2006

This includes both traditional intellectual property and, increasingly, the network-effect value of the behaviors and creations of a large number of individual users.

As a CSG participant once said:"Do we want to give away the keys to our kingdom?"

Why not Partner (cont'd)?

1. Privacy. Will your academic freedom and intellectual property be protected?

2. Stability. Will services you depend on continue to be offered, affordably?

Stability: can you depend on providers' services?

1. Fail outright?2. Significantly change the service

offerings your campus is dependent upon, whether resulting from changes in business models or acquisitions?

3. Radically raise its pricing, after you're "locked in"?

How can you mitigate against the risks that an Internet-based provider of messaging and collaboration services will:

Could Yahoo, Google, or even Microsoft be the next DEC?

DEC > Compaq > Hewlett-Packard

• Late 1980s: second-largest computer company in the world, 100,000+ employees

• Early 1990s: Sales faltering, first layoffs• 1992-1997: Continuing layoffs, selling and

spinning off of assets• 1998: Purchased by Compaq• 2002: Merged with HP as part of Compaq

What happens if …

… Google's and Yahoo's revenue models, both based overwhelmingly on Internet advertising, break down due to competition, economic changes, or other events?

Will they still be a reliable partner on which to base critical parts of your IT infrastructure?

Why not Partner (cont'd)?

1. Privacy. Will your academic freedom and intellectual property be protected?

2. Stability. Will services you depend on continue to be offered, affordably?

3. Integration. Will Internet providers' services fit into your campus services?

Integration: Internet providers with your campus services?

To paraphrase Oren Sreebny:

Can you integrate the messaging and collaboration services of Internet-based providers with your institutional systems, including identity management, authentication and authorization, data warehouses, and course management systems?

Why not Partner (cont'd)?

1. Privacy. Will your academic freedom and intellectual property be protected?

2. Stability. Will services you depend on continue to be offered, affordably?

3. Integration. Will Internet providers' services fit into your campus services?

4. Corporatization. Will partnering with Internet providers make the university overly beholden to commercial interests?

V. Conclusion: Steps Towards a Strategy for Collaborative Tools

• Move to many conversations, more decisions• Build “competency center” in IT org. and build

“community center” on campus to focus on this area• Drive assessment from the collaborative practices of

the academic core of the campus• Kick off partnership discussion with big providers

and small• Develop a laboratory to explore new collaborative

services• Eat your own dog food ... • Work as a CSG consortium?