Proposed OCW Business Model for Steady State 1 Proposed OCW Business Model for Steady State: 2008 and Beyond January 2006 Contents Need for new business

Proposed OCW Business Model for Steady State 1

Proposed OCW Business Modelfor Steady State: 2008 and Beyond

January 2006

• Contents •

• Need for new business model• Assumptions• Three models considered• Risk levels• Technology requirements• Process overview• Level of effort• Conclusions

DRAFT WORKING DOCUMENTFOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES

Draft of 1/26/2006


Need for a New OCW Business Model

• OCW will transition to “Steady State” operation in 2008– Steady State represents MIT’s commitment to openly publish teaching materials as an ongoing service

into the future

• For OCW to be sustainable as a regular part of the MIT teaching culture, it must be– Efficient—little additional cost to MIT– Integrated—a near-seamless part of the normal teaching process, with little burden to faculty– Valuable—a measurable benefit to MIT faculty and students, and to external users

• Current centralized model is not sustainable from a cost perspective


Assumptions

• Annual Steady State publication target: 300 courses (50 – 75 new, remainder updates)

• Published courses must be high quality (broad, deep, usable) commensurate with MIT image

• Published version is a snapshot of course at a point in time

• Published materials not mirror image of what is used in classroom– No IP materials under fair use– Faculty preference as to what is published


Three Models Considered

Centralized Self -Service Hybrid

Respon

-

sibility

• Most w o rk to p ub lish co urse s p e rfo rm e d by ce n tral OCW staff

• Min im al e ffo rt fo r faculty

• Mo s t w o rk to p u b lis h c o u rs e s p e rfo rm e d b y fa c u lty a n d TAs

• N o c e n tra l s e rvic e s fo r fa c u lty

• W o rk is s h a re d b e tw e e n c e n tra l OCW s ta ff a n d fa c u lty/ TAs

• Ce n tra l s u p p o rt p ro vid e d o n ly a s n e e d e d

• Co n te n t re fo rm a tte d a n d e n te re d in to CMS

• Co n te n t e n te re d d ire c tly in to LMS • Co n te n t e n te re d d ire c t ly in to LMS

• OCW h e lp s c re a te d ig ita l c o n te n t w h e re g a p s e x is t in fa c u lty te a c h in g m a te ria l

• Fa c u lty m e m b e r d e te rm in e s w h e n c o u rs e is re a d y fo r p u b lis h in g , e x p o rts to OCW e x te rn a l s e rve r

• As fa c u lty m e m b e r c re a te s te a c h in g ve rs io n o f c o u rs e , p e rfo rm s m o s t s te p s n e c e s s a ry to c re a te s im u lta n e o u s o p e n ve rs io n

Process

• OCW p e rfo rm s d o c u m e n t c o n ve r s io n a n d s c ru b b in g to im p ro ve u s a b ility

• N o d o c u m e n t c o n ve rs io n o r s c ru b b in g • N o d o c u m e n t c o n ve rs io n o r s c ru b b in g

Con

-

trol

• OCW is g a te k e e p e r fo r q u a lity a n d I P c o m p lia n c e

• N o g a te k e e p e r fo r q u a lity, I P c o m p lia n c e • OCW s p o t -c h e c k s fo r q u a lity a n d I P c o m p lia n c e

• D o e s n o t re ly o n a n y p a rt ic u la r MI T s tra te g y fo r LMS — s e p a ra te te c h n o lo g y e n viro n m e n ts fo r te a c h in g vs p u b lis h in g

• Re q u ire s c o m m o n te c h n o lo g y e n viro n -m e n t fo r te a c h in g a n d p u b lis h in g , w ith ro b u s t a u th o rin g to o ls a n d p u b lis h in g fe a tu re s

• Re q u ire s c o m m o n te c h n o lo g y e n viro n -m e n t fo r te a c h in g a n d p u b lis h in g , w ith ro b u s t a u th o rin g to o ls a n d p u b lis h in g fe a tu re s Technology

• N o tra in in g re q u ire d • Re q u ire s tra in in g fo r fa c u lty a n d TAs • Re q u ire s tra in in g fo r fa c u lty a n d TA s

Transi

-

tion

• Cu rre n t m o d e l, s im p le tra n s it io n to S te a d y S ta te

• D is ru p tive tra n s it io n to u n fa m ilia r m o d e l • Allo w s e vo lu t io n a ry tra n s it io n , w ith in it ia l h ig h e r le ve l o f c e n tra l s e rvic e a s c u ltu re ta k e s h o ld


Estimated Risk Levels

Centralized Self Service HybridQuality and usability L H M

MIT image L H L

Faculty participation and buy-in L H M

IP compliance L H M

Sustainability: Long-term cost H L M

Sustainability: Long-term value L H L

Notes

• Risk in this context is a subjective judgment and means the relative likelihood that OCW will fail to live up to expectations of internal or external users, MIT faculty, or the Institute as a whole

• In some cases, this failure could result in– Negative publicity for MIT– Diminished user interest– Financial liability – Discontinuation of OCW


Technology Requirementsfor Self-Service and Hybrid Models

– Publishing tools• Embedded tracking code• Embedded license terms• IP tracking• Metadata tagging• Hi-design display templates• Preview capability• Downloadable ZIP files• Discussion group suppt• Archiving

– Workflow

New model will require a robust Institute-supported LMS with…

• Accountable governance and management processes

• Ongoing MIT financial and staff support

• Integrated teaching and publishing features:– Robust authoring

• Easy capture• Easy update

– Document management• Restricted teaching materials• Open teaching materials

– Import/export• Offline authoring• Self-publishing

– Multiple views– Course administration


Overview of ProcessBased on Hybrid Publishing Model

Integrated with MIT Teaching Process

Plan Build Teach/Manage Publish

Upstream foundational prep

• Recruit faculty• Plan TEACHING version of course

• Plan OCW version of course• Review existing content• Identify & resolve IP (except permissions)

• Track IP by object in system

Content development

• Collect/capture existing content

• Build content into LMS sections/templates

• Enter metadata• Create commissioned works• Process permission requests & make IP edits

Live teaching and course administration

• Update/supplement materials

• Post announcements• Assign, track, grade student work

• Interact (faculty-student and student-student)

Open publication

• Perform course QA• Obtain faculty approval

• Export to OCW site

Support

Renewal, archiving, and preservation

• Update course content• Archive course content

Color legendBLACK Normal teaching processBLUE Required for open

publishingORANGE Former OCW steps

eliminated

HYB

RID

INTE

GR

ATE

D

PRO

CES

SA

RC

HIT

ECTU

RE

OVE

RVI

EW

• Spec course/map content • Reformat/clean up/ restructure/contextualize

• Enter content into CMS• Perform authoring QA

• Perform final edit• Perform production QA

• Respond to user feedback

• Review/refine metadata (MIT Library)

• Edit course for errorsELIM

INA

TED

ST

EPS

ExternalOCW

AudiencesMIT Faculty & Teaching Assistants

Individual Teaching Web Sites

MIT-Supported LMS

OCW External Web

Site

Dspace Archive

MIT-supported optionAssume 80% participation

Publish

- OR

-

Individual/local supported optionAssume 20% participation

• Robust authoring– Easy capture– Easy update

• Document managemt– Restricted teaching matls– Open teaching matls

• Import/export– Offline authoring– Self-publishing

• Multiple views• Course admin

Teach MITStudents

• Publishing tools– Embedded tracking code– Embedded license terms– IP tracking– Metadata tagging– Hi-design display templates– Preview capability– Downloadable ZIP files– Discussion group suppt– Archiving

• Workflow

Archive

Harvest for archi ving or publishing


Comparison of Level of Effort(Average Hours per Course)

Centralized Self Service Hybrid (Medium Service1) Hybrid (Low Service1)OCW Staff

Sape/ India

Faculty Member

OCW Staff

Sape/ India

Faculty Member

OCW Staff

Sape/ India

Faculty Member

OCW Staff

Sape/ India

Faculty Member

PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLAN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Recruit faculty 1 1 1Plan TEACHING version of course 2 2Plan OCW version of course 1 0.5 4 2 2 4Review existing content 2 0.5 2 2 2 2Spec course/map content 10Identify & resolve IP (except permissions) 13 2 10 10 2 8 4Track IP by object in system 2 2 2 2BUILD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BUILD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Collect/capture existing content 10 5 1 1Reformat/clean up/restructure/contextualize 10Enter content into CMS 8Build content into LMS sections/templates 8Enter metadata, including what Lib now does 3 3 3 3Create commissioned works 3 1 1 0.5 1Perform authoring (data entry) QA 13Process permission requests & make IP edits 2 2 2 2PUBLISH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLISH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Perform course QA 8 3 0.5Obtain faculty approval 2 0.5 0.1Perform final edit 3Perform production QA 2Export to OCW web site 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1SUPPORT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUPPORT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Respond to user feedback 0.01Review/refine metadata (MIT Library) 1Edit course for errors 0.09 5 2Archive course content 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

TOTAL LOE 57.3 37 2 0 0 24.2 45.7 0 7 21.3 0 14GRAND TOTAL 96.3 24.2 52.7 35.3

Legend

Step eliminated in this model

Person or org not responsible for stepBlank cells in Faculty column are steps already performed for teaching purposes and do not represent publishing add on effort

1 Hybrid model assumes over time 80% of faculty will require low central service but there will always be at least 20% that require a medium level. During

transition in early years of steady state and until integrated LMS is fully implemented, many faculty will require high service level similar to centralized model.


Annual Level of Effort(in Hours)

Based on Level of Effort model and assumed publication of 300 courses per year in Steady State…

Key findings• OCW LOE in hybrid model is about 60% of LOE in centralized model

– Translates into potential savings in OCW production cost of about $1.2M - $1.4M per year

• Faculty LOE ranges from 2 – 14 hours per course on average

A B C D=C*300 E=A*D F=B*D G=E+FAverage

OCW LOEper Course

Average Faculty LOE per Course 1

% of Courses out of 300 per

Year

Number of Coursesper Year

Total OCW LOE per Year

Total Faculty LOE per year

Grand Total LOE per year

CENTRALIZED 94 2 100% 300 28200 600 28800

SELF SERVICE 0 24 100% 300 0 7200 7200

HYBRIDLow service 21 14 20% 60 1260 840 2100Medium service 46 7 45% 135 6210 945 7155High service 2 94 2 35% 105 9870 210 10080TOTAL HYBRID 17340 1995 19335

1 Counts added faculty time related to publishing, over and above normal course material preparation2 Assumes high level of service similar to centralized model during early years of transition


Cost Estimates

• Centralized - Reflects staff reduction from 2006 levels to align with reduced publication volume in Steady State

- Continues current functions of outreach/communication and evaluation/reporting

• Self-Service

- Assumes no centralized support for publication other than OCW program coordination (1 FTE)- Halves outreach/communication and evaluation/reporting functions

• Hybrid - Assumes reduced centralized support based on LOE model, including component of “high service” level for transitional period. Later years would see further reduction in LOE and costs

- Halves outreach/communication evaluation/reporting functions

• Ongoing LMS support costs, though not likely to be part of OCW budget, are shown here as offset to OCW savings

• Implementation and support costs for integrated LMS are very general estimates

Notes and assumptions

Centralized Self-Service HybridCourse publication production 3,700 150 2,300Worldwide distribution 600 600 600Outreach and communication 400 200 200Evaluation and reporting 300 150 150Ongoing support costs for integrated LMS 1 500 500

Total annual operating cost 5,000 1,600 3,750

Implementation cost for integrated LMS 1 3,000 - 4,000 3,000 - 4,000

1May not administered through of OCW budget


Conclusions

1. MIT should preserve its goal to publish up-to-date teaching materials for virtually all courses

2. To achieve this goal, OCW must be an efficient operation integrated with the faculty’s teaching process:• Eliminate duplication of content entry between LMS (for teaching) and CMS (for OCW publishing)• Eliminate reformatting and restructuring by capturing original materials in publishable formats• Eliminate outsourcing of course site build functions

3. The hybrid model achieves this efficiency and integration when fully implemented over time

4. For the hybrid model to work, MIT must develop an Institute-supported LMS that• Includes robust authoring and other features• Integrates publishing functions• Is supported with ongoing financial and staff resources• Is governed through an accountable management and oversight process

5. Faculty must embrace the hybrid model and the integrated LMS, with 80% participation over time, encouraged by• Ease of use and simplicity of approach• Support for content development and use of system• Continued perceived value of open publishing• Other incentives

Documents

Proposed OCW Business Model for Steady State 1 Proposed OCW Business Model for Steady State: 2008 and Beyond January 2006 Contents Need for new business