[Zope] Zope in academic/educational/scientific environments (important)

[Joe Nicholls]

Forgive me, a long post I=92m afraid, but I don=92t get the opportunity t=
o reply
on this list to something I know a little about.
I could have just sent this to Henny, but hopefully it will be of interes=
t
to others.

The Learning Technology group at the University of Wales College of Medic=
ine
(UWCM) has been developing with Zope since early 1999. I work with Phil
Harris the principal Zope aficionado amongst us. I sit between him and th=
e
rest of the College. So, I know less about Zope and more about the
organisational / educational issues.

We're in exactly the same position as yourself Henny. We've been fighting
the battle for quite some time. However, I don't believe the basic
argument/philosophy is tied up with any specific technology as such. Ther=
e
are two parts to your case - first, why you should design and develop
in-house as opposed to acquiring an off-the-shelf (commercial) solution?;
second, why you should use Zope as opposed to any other technology? =96 m=
y
contribution is more on the former.

Senior management =96 and most educators for that matter =96 still have a=
 poor
understanding of the potential role of technology in education. This is e=
ven
worse when considering the complexities of delivering an all embracing
online learning environment. A much more holistic strategic view is requi=
red
that recognises the emergent functions and facilities of integrating acro=
ss
all institutional information systems =96 library, administration, web si=
te,
and learning/teaching technologies. Somehow this has to be communicated t=
o
senior management, and that it will only be realised by developing in-hou=
se.
An off-the-shelf product is unlikely to provide a good fit and will requi=
re
an organisation to change =96 similar to the arguments over CMSs.

The case for designing and developing in-house is clear if the significan=
ce
of coupling educational theory with technology development is recognised.
Technology is not the problem, as Phil is fond of saying - *anything can =
be
done it's just a matter of time* - that bit is under our control. People =
are
the challenge - politics and change management are the real issues - in t=
his
respect evolution is better than revolution. But the impetus has ultimate=
ly
got to be from the top down =96 senior management must drive it forward.

A key part of the problem is that there is still poor understanding of wh=
at
constitutes a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) or Managed Learning
Environment (MLE), or what it should do. The majority of commercial (and
academic) offerings provide little more than packaged CMS/Groupware
solutions. Although these are necessary pre-requisites to building an onl=
ine
environment for learning, there=92s not much inherently in CMS/Groupware =
that
directly promotes learning =96 they just provide some of the tools.

>From senior management=92s perspective, the commercial option provides
immediate gratification. Many organisations are feeling the pressure to *=
be
seen to be doing*. By buying into a recognised brand, e.g., Blackboard or
WebCT, the VLE/MLE requirement can be ticked off the list =96 the questio=
n is,
what then?

A home grown approach probably won=92t initially deliver as much, or as
quickly =96 but it is more likely to tackle real needs. More attention sh=
ould
be given to longer term strategic planning, perhaps with emphasis on
producing something that is distinctive and which sets the institution ap=
art
from those that are buying the commercial offerings.

Management, for some reason, judge an in-house approach as being more ris=
ky
than a commercial solution. Which is a little strange, given how competit=
ive
and volatile the market is in this area. There are no guarantees that any=
 of
these companies will be around in 3-5 years. We are already witnessing
mergers and odd alliances between companies, e.g., SCT, Campus Pipeline a=
nd
WebCT. There=92s a much greater chance of long-term viability if open sou=
rce
and open standards are adopted =96 the problem is communicating this to s=
enior
management who haven=92t a clue about what this means! In our experience =
only
concrete examples seem to have any impact. They need to see examples that
are relevant and meaningful to their needs.

An in-house approach does mean reliance on technical specialists. But thi=
s
is no different to other areas of the organisation, e.g., network
infrastructure and administrative systems. It is a false belief that ther=
e
is greater dependence on technical experts for in-house development =96 t=
his
ignores the fact that specialist maintenance/support will be required for
any kind of solution (commercial or not). Labour costs probably don=92t w=
ork
out much different either way.

Commercial companies can only afford to engineer a common denominator =96=
 they
have to try and keep all their customers satisfied. Tailored development =
to
meet specific needs will only be done on a consultancy basis. The
turn-around time for innovation will be much quicker if done in-house. Lo=
ng
term consultancy will prove costly (why not invest this internally?).
Dangerously, institutions who go down this route will become increasingly
dependent on the third party for what is their principal business -
*education*. In addition, will there be an easy get out which allows
transfer to alternative solution?

Innovation in learning technologies is more likely to occur when
technologists work day-to-day with learners and teachers in real settings.
You=92re also more likely to build something that meets the needs of your
institution. Whatever solution is chosen =96 establishing OWNERSHIP and
CONTROL is crucial! i.e., complete access to source and the freedom to do
what you want with it. But this won=92t be any good unless development is
driven by educational need =96 and that depends on having teams of
technologist working with educators =96 In my opinion, that should be THE
strong argument for in-house development.

Another advantage of the in-house approach is that the basic CMS/Groupwar=
e
functionality is just as applicable to research and administration. Much =
of
what is engineered for educational purposes is applicable elsewhere in th=
e
organisation =96 there must be cost savings there somewhere! That=92s whe=
re we=92
ve directed much of our initial development effort  - producing generic a=
nd
transferable solutions, e.g., MS Word document upload and on-the-fly
conversion to XML then HTML/PDF =96 We thought management/administration =
would
jump up and down over this, but they=92ve been slow to capitalise on it. =
More
eyes might light up when its combined with a through-the-browser XML edit=
or.

After working with Zope for over 2 years, we are more than convinced it i=
s
the design/development environment of choice =96 we=92re not saying it wi=
ll
necessarily be that way forever. But at least it also gives us the abilit=
y
to move on if it should ever happen =96 but I don=92t think we will need =
to
somehow :-)

There are others on this list who can better rehearse the technical
arguments for using Zope as opposed to any other development environment =
=96
it=92s also well document elsewhere on Zope.org. Personally, I don=92t be=
lieve
any of the current VLE/MLE products will come anywhere near to what will
ultimately be achieved through Zope. We=92ve only just begun to scratch i=
t=92s
potential in terms of modelling the relationships between people, resourc=
es,
tools and events =96 there are amazing possibilities.

As far as online learning environments are concerned -  we feel the focus=
 is
shifting from a centralised institutional model to more individualised
information environments, which are personal, private, and highly
configurable =96 These will be used by people to support their learning,
research, management, teaching, and many other aspects of their lives =96=
 what
=92s more, individuals will have ownership and control of the technology =
as
well as the content.

Open standards, open source - Zope coupled with XML and XML-RPC/SOAP is
going to be very special!

Cheers, Joe Nicholls.