Lecture Capture
Project Charter
1. Approvals
Project Approved by Project Sponsors Jill Mantia, Executive Director of User Services – WashU IT and Chris Freeland, Associate University Librarian.
2. Scope Summary
2.1 Purpose
Currently there are at least three separate models of assisted lecture capture across the Danforth and Medical School campuses (Teaching Center & University Libraries, Law/Business/Social Work, and Medical School). In order to effectively implement a single lecture capture system at Washington University that fulfills the needs of both the Danforth and Medical campuses, a single program should be established. Responsibilities would eventually include technical support, program development, service support, training, marketing, and documentation support. This proposal lays out the groundwork for a collaborative partnership between Washington University Information Technologyies (Media Services), the University Libraries (Instructional Support Services) and The Teaching Center, along with existing school/department classroom curricular and technology support groups (i.e. Office of Medical School Eduction, OMSE) to expand the existing implementation of lecture capture (current solution discussed is called Mediasite) on campus.
2.2 Strategic Business Needs
The lack of a supported, enterprise-level lecture capture system in place impacts teaching and learning by providing an inconsistent set of resources and services for individual faculty, departments and schools. This project would put structure in place to provide common equipment, documentation, training and opportunities as opposed to the current department-focused attempts that do not leverage an enterprise-level solution.
2.3 Goals
The goals of the project are:
[John’s comments: Does this mean identify the cost of the toll service? Or should it be community and put in prorations? Isn’t there a step to consolidate the tow or three systems that exist today?]
1. Create 18-24 month on-boarding technical plan to facilitate bringing schools and departments into the enterprise implementation of the lecture capture solution Mediasite, the current lecture capture system used by serveralseveral departments on campus.
a. Provide specific costs in dollars and resources for departments and schools to successfully participate in using Mediasite.
2. Provide access so that The Teaching Center, University Libraries, and others on campus can start to pilot in the fall (20167).
3. Facilitate the creation of a lecture capture service governance group that is representative of participating schools and departments from both the Danforth and Medical campuses.
2.4 Project Scope
In Scope
1. Purchase remaining enterprise license for existing implementation, allowing schools and departments access to Mediasite.
2. Purchased seed equipment that will be used allow ffor pilots to proceed. [John’s comment: We have a gap in our process that a purchase was made on capital funds without an approved charter.]
3. Provide Tier 3 support (SME – subject matter expert) for servers and a resource to technology curricular support groups (OMSE, ISS, Teaching Center )Center) and direct school/department A/V support personnel for 18-24 months during the on-boarding period to allow for centralized product adoption, setup and support. [WashU IT Media Services will provide up to 50% of the new Video Engineer postionposition to Tier 3 support of this project at no charge.]
4. [John’s comments:
5. There is no such thing as no cost. This needs to be included in the cost of the service. There are other costs as well (infrastructure).
6. We need to cost this service and develop a rate for the various components of the service. (I’m guessing there is a base cost, storage costs to ensure they manage the content, and Library/TC support.)]
Out of Scope
1. Fully mature pedogaogicalpedagogical support (i.e. instant access to faculty for lecture capture). Campus-wide development of a faculty usage support structure is still needed.
2. On-going financial support for products, services and support due to the Governance committee ruling lecture capture as a toll service.
3. Milestones
June 2016 – Purchase enterprise license (Media Services)
June 2016 – Purchase initial set of hardwardhardware needed for Fall 2016 pilots (Media Services)
July 2016 – Law School will move from their local installation of Mediasite to the enterprise service (Law, OBS and Brown representatives)
August 2016 – Complete Charter; Develop and scope pilot process to include base costs and storage costs.
January 2017 - Setup initial pilots for Biology and/or Chemistry course with Teaching Center and UnivesityUniversity Libraries/Instructional Support Services. Media Services will provide on-boarding technical assistance.
January June 2017 – Expand current pilots and potentially add new pilots to allow other schools/departments to request pilots.
4. Impact Assessment
4.1 Impacted Systems, Processes, Services
1. LMS systems (Blackboard and Canvas) used to post URL of recorded classes.
· Process to integrate work flows for allowing auto-upload of class URL links.
2. Shared storage – Each school/department will require growing amounts of digital-video-storage. The current storage option (SAN) for Mediasite is costly and non-scalable. The new Shared Services storage option could be be less expensive and more scalable in the long run. BOX was analyzed and determined to not be the storage option of choice.
4.21 Assumptions
1. Lecture capture service governance group will coalesce over the 18-24 month time period
4.2.2 Constraints
1. Integration with existing LMS on campus is not fully understood
2. [Jen’s comments: Is there a plan to integrate with the work of the LMS group?]
3. Affordable storage options could depend on new shared services program which roles out Fall 2016
4. [Jen’s comments: Is there a plan to work with the SI team to scope the costs of the new storage platform? Should this be a part of the timeline or separate?]
4.2.3 Dependencies
1. Site license, equipment and Video Engineer need to be in place this summer.
2. Central documentation/training/support needs to be developed.
3. [Jen’s comments: Who is responsible for these items?]
4.3 Risks
1. Technology changes preclude the use of Mediasite as the enterprise lecture capture service
a. Risk Plan: As a part of their charge, the governance group shall annually assess the success and functionality of Mediasite, explore alternative lecture capture technology options, and evaluate the related shared expenses.
b. [Jen’s comments: I agree that these need to be assessed but I think this is the responsibility of the service owner and the governance group reviews the information. I also think the service owner and governance group would want to focus on the delivery dependencies between the groups: Olin Library, Teaching Center, OMSE, and WashU IT Media Services.]
5. Project Structure
5.1 Project Team
Team Member / Title / Role /Jill Mantia / Chris Freeland / Executive Director for User Services, WashU IT / Associate University Librarian / Project Sponsor
Steering Committee
Matt Arthur / Ted Chaffin / Director A/V & Media Services / Head of Instructional Support Services (ISS) / Steering Committee
Project Leaders
Nancy Knight / WashU IT End User Services / Project Manager
Beth Fisher / Director of Academic Services, Teaching Center / Pilot Leader
Jason Crustals / Manager, Education Technology, Office of Medical School Education (OMSE) / Pilot Leader
TBD / Video Engineer / Tier 3 Support
Jeffrey Morgan / Systems Administrator, Olin Business School / Tier 1 Support
Jon Baird / A/V Technical Support Specialist, Brown School / Tier 1 Support
5.3 Marketing and Communications Plan
Communications and project status reports need to go out in a timely fashion to those directly involved with installed or pilot projects, those with potential to be involved (Media Use Needs Committee), project sponsors and campus leadership as applicable.
[Jen’s comments: Who is responsible for these status reports and how often do they get produced?]
In order to avoid setting unrealistic expectations, clear guidance for on-boarding pilots must be established and shared early on. The Media Use Needs Committee will be the primary target audience as the group includes school/department IT leaders as well as direct A/V support to teaching & learning personnell.
For the purposes of this charter, neither Marketing Communications nor Performance Support will be required.
[Jen’s comments: I think this does need both Marketing Communications and PSA, even if they are short-term contractor positions.]
[John’s comments: The charter is missing key elements. Who has what roles. Who is doing the marketing/comm and performance support. This reads like a technical solution rather than a service.]
6. Project Estimated Cost/Effort
[Jen’s comments: I think this needs the following contractor positions:
Project Manager
Business Analyst
PSA
Marketing Communication
These many not need to be full-time roles for this project, but I think the PM, which could be absorbed labor, (still has to be accounted for) plays a key role in keeping the project on time and budget. EUS has to make a determination about whether or not there is available capacity for absorbed labor in the group.
The BA will help analyze existing processes – and possibly improve them. The PSA will provide documentation for the schools that want to adopt, and marketing communication will be available when the project is ready to take on new customers (after pilot).]
FY16: $50,000 – Enterprise License
Pay the remainder of the enterprise site licesnse
Paid: $39,855.00
FY16: $155,000 – Seed hardware
Mediasite RL 120 Dual DVI-I Media Recorder (x1) and 1 year customer assurance maintenance
Mediasite RL DVI-I for HDMI Media Recorder (x3) and 1 year customer assurance maintenance
Mediasite HD-SDI ML Mobile Media Recorder w/ traveling case (x3) and 1 year customer assurance maintenance
Paid: $95,770.94
FY17: $155,000 – Seed hardware
Recurring Costs – None provided for as this will be a toll service.
7. Revision History
· Version 1.0 created 07/11/16, submitted by Matt Arthur (Media Services)
Version 1.1 updated 7/26/16 by Matt Arthur (Media Services)
Version 1.2 comments 8/1/16 by John Goshman (OCIO)
Version 1.3 updated 8/12/16 by Matt Arthur (Media Services)
Version 1.4 updated 8/14/16 by Jennifer Stedelin (OCIO)
Version 1.5 updated 8/30/16 by Matt Arthur (Media Services)
8/30/166/30/16 Draft Version 1.51 6 | Page