Presentation at Sakai 2011 in Los Angeles: How is it possible to switch the learning management system to SAKAI when no one wants to change and management strategy is lacking on how Internet-based learning should be developed? We want to share our experiences on a, after all, successful example from Umea university with 37.000 students (many of them studying partly or fully on-line) in northern Sweden.

1. Turning the tide: How to switch LMS without a stated strategy or defined Demand Jan Bidner, ICT Services and System Thomas Fritz, Centre for Teaching and Learning Ulf Sperens, Centre for Teaching and Learning

2. The mostnorthernSakai-installation in the world

3. Our ”mission” in 2008:

4. Our ”mission” in 2008: - Houston, we have a problem…

5. Our ”mission” in 2008: - Houston? Come in Houston..?

6. Our ”mission” in 2008: *working*

8. - We read you, goodjob! Our ”mission” in 2008:

9. Umeå University 5th largest univ. 37,000 students (2011) 2,000 teachers/faculty. Concentrated Campus – many distance students. 9

10. Umeå University No 1. in distance education 8,260 students (2009) 406 distance courses (2009) Teachers responsibility from start to finish. No tech-rangers. Centre for Teaching and Learning. Network of ICT-coaches. Different conditions. 10

11. LMS/VLE-history Distance Learning since the 1980’s From 30/70 2000 to 70/30 2010. Technical platforms for e-learning 2000-2009 PING-PONG First Class Moodle (SharePoint etc.) 11

12. THE SWITCH Point of departure…

14. Open source – ownership.

15. Integration of different administrative systems.

16. uPortal was already in the application catalogue at UmUThe Faculty for Teacher Education and also their LMS (First Class) was going to close down. “Not to save money”.

17. Why SAKAI? A one-mancommitteewasmore or less responsible for the choice of a system; no benchmarking wasreallydone and what the one-mancommitteecame up with was SAKAI! Decision in June 2008

18. The initial implementationphase Low user involvement in the implementation process A technical implementation project. A weak organizational implementation A wider scope – collaboration/projects. Collaboration with Stockholm University

19. Whatwedid in 2008-2009, - trying to handle the situation Timely information to teaching personnel on changes to come and how to migrate course material. Test installation of SAKAI fall 2008. “Real” installation of SAKAI/Cambro (v. 2.5) Dec 15th 2008. Head start with Stockholms’ adjustments Massive amount of workshops on ”Teaching and learning with an LMS” during 2009. “Hot line” phone support for teachers, one person full time, fall 2008 – spring 2010. Ping Pong and First Class shut down Oct 1st 2009. What was the outcome?

20. DISCONTENT A Tidal Wave of… emerging

22. Integrations

23. Our own systemLost in space – no clear strategy for web and VLE There were a lot of bugs! Yes okay… But is it better?

24. 2010: Crisis handling PIKTUM-project (Pedagogical Use of ICT at Umeå university) PIKTUM: More pedagogical support through local ICT coaches Mapping the support needs of students and teachers through a reference group AND engaging a test group (from bugs to possibilities). The technical aspects (all technical platforms) “Defect Race project” started February and ended in early June 2010 The re-release was in late June 2010 19

26. To upgrade

27. To fix a lot of bugs

28. To involve teachers/users

29. To implement missing and new features

31. Contributedtestresults from boundary-testing SAKAI (to the Sakai QA-group)

33. How we did it Using professional tester and a test manager to manage seven hired user representative functionality testers Informing the organization what we were doing and why on a frequent basis Regular meetings with a reference group consisting of IT-coaches and Centre for Teaching and Learning A scrum team of developers focusing on the target and working closely together and towards deadline Keeping in mind: it’s just as much (or even more) a mindset issue or an organizational issue as it is a technical one

34. Right now – next steps Upgrade to ver. 2.8 late (fall 2011). Keeping up the speed in maintenance by community involvement Wish to cut maintenance costs Still a project (!) = unsafe situation Have an established test organization Actively avoiding local code-adjustments in SAKAI 24

35. Whatmorenow? Involving pilot users In parallell testinstallation of Sakai 2.8 Upgrading tools with newer ones (Clog, profile2, assignments2 etc) Engaging teachers to discuss functionality Capacity testing the system Handling Scalability and capacity issues Finding out what the students really want “Better connections” to local depending systems (better support in 2.8) 25

36. Happy landing on the moon! Things are quite well in ourSakai-universetoday Not many complaints Most complaints related to integrated services, rare exceptions or capacity issues Very little regular maintenance or bugs Sucessfull landing after spacedrifting! 2.8 i still to come…

37. Questions? 27 jan.bidner@adm.umu.sethomas.fritz@upc.umu.seulf.sperens@upc.umu.se

38. Thankyou! 28 jan.bidner@adm.umu.sethomas.fritz@upc.umu.seulf.sperens@upc.umu.se