Our group analyzed how the Durham University Business School can redevelop its learning management system to best suit student and staff needs.

1. Redevelopment of the Blackboard LMS
at Durham University Business School
GCG
February 26, 2016
Team 10

2. Gringott’s
Consulting
Group

3. Austin Romantic: Project
Manager
MBA, BSc in Finance
Illias Metsis: Assistant to the
Project Manager
BA in Economics
Lauren Goerz: Consultant
BA in Commerce
Marc Montanari: Consultant
M.Eng Engineering in industrial
processes
Gavin Wilson: Consultant
BA in Business management
Pitchaya Poosuwon: Consultant
BSc in Economics
Aqdas Muzzafar: Software
Engineer
BSc in Computer science
Xiaoming Zhu: Finance
Specialist
BA in Economics
Consulting Team

4. Case
Overview Approach Evaluation Implementation
GCG
Agenda

5. • DUBS is one of the longest established business schools in
the United Kingdom
• Triple Accredited (AMBA, EQUIS, AACSB)
• Large student and staff body (3,199 in DUBS, 14,951 in total)
• Learning Technologies Team supports IT systems (LTT)
• Eventual roll out to the entire university (Nearly 15,000 users)
• Following presentation represents a business school specific
introduction of our chosen LMS
GCG
Durham University Business
School Background
ImplementationCase Overview Approach Evaluation

6. GCG
Defining the Problem
Situation
DUBS currently
uses Blackboard
Technology as it’s
Learning
Management
System
Complication
Blackboard
technology is
unsatisfactory for an
academically
competitive business
school
Question
How can DUBS
redevelop the LMS
to best suit student
and staff needs?
ImplementationCase Overview Approach Evaluation

7. GCG
Approach
Goal: Provide cutting edge LMS alternative that
enhances student and staff university experience and
involvement
Solution: Actively pursue alternative LMS platform
1. Provide an depth review of the current LME as it relates to
student and staff needs
2. Review efficiency of 4 other LMS’s in order to compare their
advantages and disadvantages for DUBS
3. Select a new alternative LMS with the best functional scope
for DUBS
4. Estimate time needed to implement across all functions of the
Durham University Business School and transfer current files
ImplementationCase Overview Approach Evaluation

8. • Objective – new LMS that increases value for all
stakeholders
• DU staff
• Students
• Librarians
• CIS services
• Administration staff
• Distance learners
• Visitors
• External examiners
• Consider what the accreditation agencies suggest
• Alumni
GCG
Terms of Reference
ImplementationCase Overview Approach Evaluation

9. • Scope
• Increased efficiency
• Easier usability
• Less internet bandwidth usage
• More student interaction
• Lower cost
• Can transport existing files from DUO
• Computer security
• Success factors and risk
• Have to assume that the school will find funding
• Have to assume will we stay within budget
GCG
Terms of Reference
ImplementationCase Overview Approach Evaluation

10. Comprehensive
- Performs, at the minimum, the
same functions as Duo
- Capacity to transfer, manage
and store old and new material
Reliable
- Consistent service in high
bandwidth situations
- Service support in instance of
breakdown
Innovative Pedagogy
- Social Software
- Increase staff-student
interaction
Accessible
- Easy to Use
- Customizable for personal
learning environment
Key Core
Competencies
GCG
DUBS LMS Requirements
ImplementationCase Overview Approach Evaluation

11. SWOT
Analysis
Strengths - Competitors entered the market later
- Established customers
- High switching costs for customers
- Advanced SIS (Safety Instrumented System) integration
Weaknesses - High cost against other systems (per user)
- Lack of integration with web 2 or cloud tools
- Blackboard often suffers from issues such as crashes and slow
responding time
- Users dissatisfaction with design and usability
- Dependence on central IT
Opportunities - Growing E-Learning market
- Integration with cloud storage
- Engage customers in the development plan
- Creating partnerships with SIS (Safety Instrumented System)
companies
- Changing to a transparent model
Threats - Highly competitive market
- Competition from open-source products
- Consumer dissatisfaction with design
- Free of charge collaboration tools (Ning)

12. SWOT
Analysis
Strengths
- Easy to use, cost effective,
malleable platform
- E-learning application favored
by educators
- Online learning is versatile
- Interactive learning
- Free
- Easy to use format, Easy to
manage course and calendar
- Social media style formatting
- Supports media forms
- Adjustable privacy settings
Weaknesses
- Limited options
- User has to work with plugins
- No live tech support
- Difficult setup
- Difficult to learn
- Need to check frequently for
updates
- Additional apps waste time
- Easy to get lost among
multitude of posts
Opportunities
- Expand capabilities so it can be
used by larger universities
- Easier implementation for
operators
- Bloated with features, cut don
on lesser used features
- Students can add videos,
images and post comments to
one another
- Allows students to engage in
learning with expansive
message board system
Threats
- Technology is always changing
and company might have to
adapt
- Students could post
inappropriate pictures
- Cyber bullying via posts may
occur

13. SWOT
Analysis
Strengths
- Easy Communication
- High Security
- Comes with Extra resources
(i.e. EDPuzzle app)
- Quick easy access to
assignments and material
- The product offers an adaptable
suite of applications to
encourages social learning
- Built in analytics feature gives
capability to analyze the
performance of an individual,
department, or organization
Weaknesses
- Less features than competition
- Apps are not free
- No live tech support
- Limited options
- Difficult to set up and fine tune
- Difficult to learn to operate as
an educator
- Needs to be frequently checked
for updates
Opportunities
- Students can post questions to
review what they learned
- Expand capabilities to handle
larger universities
- Polls for student input
- More options for students to
interact with teacher
- Ways for students to stay up to
date if they were absent
Threats
- Like the other LMS platforms,
cyber bullying
- Ever changing technology
- Cyber bullying
- Ever changing technology

14. GCG
Cost Comparison
Learning
Management System
Cost Per User
Total Costs per Year
(2850 students & 349
Staff)
Blackboard £10.99 £35157.01
Moodle £4.57 £14619.43
Schoology >£6.99 >£22201.06
Edmodo £0 - Free £0 - Free
D2L £7.08 £ 22648.92
ImplementationCase Overview Approach Evaluation

15. GCG
Next Steps and
Implementation
ImplementationCase Overview Approach Evaluation

16. Fees
• Fixed Wage Rate
• Hourly wage rate per person: £30
• Hourly wage rate for our team: £200
• Success Based Bonus
• 10% of total savings
GCG
ImplementationCase Overview Approach Evaluation

17. Gringott’s
Consulting
Group
Appendix

18. GCG
GANTT Chart :
Project Schedule
Syllabus weeks Feb Nov
P = Payement to supplier if goal acheve 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1st Presentation
Consulting team selection
Contact negociation
Trial phase by DUBS staff/students in supplier facilities
Contract discussion and agreement process
Contract signature P
IT staff training and formation
DUBS staff and librarian training
Secondary stakholders webinar training
Supplier IT and user support (contract lauching agreement)
Server review and infrastructure update
Internal installation
Software configuration
DUO data preparation for migration
Security tests P
Migration
Configuration by DUBS staff
Security tests P
Student/DL/ext. examiners/Alumni guide creation
Accounts creation
Independent security review P
Student/DL/ext. examiners/Alumni Webinar period
Debug period by the supplier (lauching contract period)
Lauch
Fence of the lauching period, finally meeting with supplier P
March OctoberSeptembreAugustJulyJuneMayApril

19. RACI : Responsibility
Assignments
R : Responsible (lead the part of the project)
A : Accountable (can be assimilated as responsible in his/her
expertise area)
C : Consulted (to collect information, test products, etc.)
I : Informed
Aqdas
Austin
Gavin
Ilias
Lauren
Marc
Pitchaya
Xiaoming
Christos
CIS Hardware team
CIS Software team
Administrator team
Staff and librarian
Student poll
Secondary stakeholders
Project manager
IT support hardware
IT support software
Training team
Security supplier
Contact negociation C R I A I I I A A C C C C A I I I
Trial phase by DUBS staff/students in supplier facilities I I I A R C C C C C C A C C C
Contract discussion and agreement process C R I A I I I A A C C C A C C C
IT staff training and formation R I I I I C C I A A I
DUBS staff and librarian training C I R I C C C I A
Secondary stakholders webinar training C I R I I C I A
Server review and infrastructure update R I I A I A I A
Internal installation I I R A I A A I A A
Software configuration R I I C I A I A
DUO data preparation for migration I I C I R C I I C
Security tests R I I C I A A I I I
Migration A I I C A I A R I C C
Configuration by DUBS staff R I I I I C A C C C I C I
Student/DL/ext. examiners/Alumni guide creation I C I R I A I I I C
Accounts creation I C I I A A I I I C C
Independent security review R I I C I I A A I I I A
Student/DL/ext. examiners/Alumni Webinar period I I R I C C I A
Debug period by the supplier (lauching contract period) C I R I C A C C C C I A A
Lauch I I I R C I I I A I I A I C C I
Fence of the lauching period, finally meeting with supplier I R I I I I I A A C C C A
Grignotts Consulting DUBS Supplier