The University of Toronto has been redesigning its web space to better serve its diverse community. It established new governance structures like a Web Space Steering Committee and Web Space Reference Group to provide guidance. A Web Services Project Office was also formed to coordinate projects. The university developed principles for the web space and identified priorities like improving search and the home page. While progress has been made, more work remains to be done to fully integrate systems and ensure a coherent user experience across the decentralized web space. Establishing common standards and processes can help reduce costs while allowing uniqueness between divisions.

1. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research
Research Bulletin Volume 2006, Issue 15
July 18, 2006
Web Space 9:
A Journey Through Time
Marden Dov Paul, University of Toronto
Vicki Vokas, University of Toronto
4772 Walnut Street, Suite 206 Boulder, Colorado 80301-2538 www.educause.edu/ecar/

2. Overview
The University of Toronto (U of T) has been exploring its own version of the intelligent
design versus evolution question: Should the institution’s Web space have a set of
guiding principles applicable to all units that reside in the university’s domain, or is the
unique nature of each faculty, department, class, or campus group best presented by a
local perspective independent of an institutional framework?
These were not the first questions raised in the review of the institutional Web space, but
their prevalence grew as the Web exploration project progressed. In addition to the
predictable debate between decentralized (departmental) control and centralized
(institution-wide) principles, analysis relating to the coming student portal and learning
management system highlighted another focal shift—a redefinition of the Web presence
from an organization- and unit-centric approach to a person-centric, life-cycle design.
The staff leading these projects adopted the motto, “Think like a student—what does it
take to find stuff, get stuff, and do stuff at the university—without having to understand
its administrative structure?”
This bulletin discusses the processes being applied to refine the focus of the Web space
so as to better serve the diverse community in a more coordinated manner. It addresses
issues relating to assessment, changing governance, process management,
implementation, and feedback.
Similar to Star Trek journeys across time to make peace among alien (and sometimes
antagonistic) cultures with conflicting, if not elusive, governance structures, redefining an
institution’s Web space is an eternal work in progress. We are experimenting and
learning about things that work and those that do not. Initially, proposed changes
primarily relate to top-level Web activity; it remains to be seen how deeply into the
organization the approaches will be adopted. This research bulletin will address
methods for and results from assessing an institution’s Web space,
establishing the organizational structure for Web space management,
approaches to enacting changes to the Web space, and
outcomes of the process to date.
Highlights of Web Space Redesign
The phrase university Web space implies a coherent, overarching construct. In reality,
the Web space comprises hundreds of sites, thousands of contributors, and millions of
pages that have been created and modified over the past decade. Ownership is
distributed, content management is diffuse, and tone, layout, navigation, and visual
identity, as defined through divisional and institutional perspectives, are not necessarily
consistent.
2

3. At U of T, our objective is to build a model for incorporating the viewpoints of
departments and faculties within an institutional Web space framework that is mindful of
the communities that make the institution special. To increase the likelihood of success,
we have adopted a multidirectional approach that provides for local (departmental) input
into institutional guidelines and policies, and institutional input to local infrastructure
decisions. These processes have led to decisions to implement an institutionally
supported search engine and the inclusion of certain common elements on each Web
site within the domain: the official university crest and word mark, links to a common
event calendar, and certain disclaimers or references to appropriate use guidelines.
Much care is required to obtain a balance between the benefits of applying standards
(server consolidation, centralized content management, colors and graphics, usability,
and accessibility) and the benefits of supporting the unique attributes of divisions and
programs of study. If everything is the same, what are the differentiators that make us
special? The phrase standardized uniqueness from the title of an article in IEEE
Computer (Duval & Hodgins, 2006) encapsulates the seeming paradox. We believe
there can be a homeostatic balance.
In the Beginning
The Web space redesign process commenced in response to a confluence of events:
The Academic Computing Advisory Committee formed the Committee to Review
the University’s Web Space to recommend future directions for the growth and
management of the Web to the vice president and provost.
The focus on improving the quality of the student experience required
streamlining transactions between students and the university. This was partially
objectified in the student portal project, but the goal was to transcend any
specific technical solution for a “way” of interaction—linking people, processes,
and services within the community.
An increasing number of units implemented content management systems that
enabled “just-in-time, just-in-place” site maintenance. As the volume of Web
content grew, local units found it increasingly difficult to keep information
current.
Different legislation was enacted mandating accessible content, reinforced
protection of privacy, and preservation of records.
The new academic plan called Stepping Up, an incoming president, and the end
of the “Great Minds” fund-raising campaign presented opportunities to develop a
new visual identity and framework for the Web space.
Review and Outcomes
An initial review of the institution’s Web space began with an inventory of Web artifacts,
a survey of community members, and some basic usage analysis based on traffic
patterns. Early observations included:
3

4. The 800 or so sites in the U of T Web site index displayed limited or no
adherence to the existing style guide. This absence of adherence created a
confusing interface for people accessing sites across our domain.
Information was difficult to locate. Searches often failed to yield relevant results.
We heard that people used external search engines to find information on our
sites.
Some Web sites presented outdated or inconsistent information. It was difficult
to determine the authoritative sources when multiple sites presented conflicting
information.
Web sites were maintained by people with various types of associations with the
institution. For example, some departments had dedicated staff assigned to
manage their sites, while others relied on periodic updates by summer students
or external consultants.
At an institutional level, there was a recognized need for more transparent
processes regarding input to the Web’s general direction and more specifically
to the management of the home page, search functions, information
architecture, visual identity, and coordination of Web services.
The Committee to Review the University’s Web Space made six recommendations that
included developing agreed-upon principles and guidelines for the Web space and
assigning resources and mechanisms for carrying out objectives and improvements:
1. Develop and communicate a clear statement of the university’s vision, strategy,
and policy with respect to its Web space.
2. Obtain a commitment from divisional academic leadership to join as partners in
this vision and strategy.
3. Identify core services that will be supported institutionally and promote their use
across the institution.
4. Establish a U of T information infrastructure and a portal.
5. Identify an office with responsibility for the U of T Web space.
6. Establish a U of T Web Space Steering Committee that will guide and prioritize
the initiatives that are taken toward achieving the goals for the U of T Web
space.
The committee recognized the importance of carrying through on the recommendations
so that the exercise would not simply be read, acknowledged, and shelved.
Recommendations #1 and #2 represented the “theory” components—the principles
behind a coherent use of the Web space. Recommendations #3 and #4 presented the
first tasks around which the “theory and practice” elements would revolve.
Recommendation #5 established the mechanism to gather and coordinate resources for
4

5. implementing the goals and objectives. Recommendation #6 assigned the people to
develop, and then to validate, the principles across the university.
Actions
In September 2005, a new governance structure for information technologies was
implemented (see Figure 1). For the first time, the U of T Web space earned a defined
place in the information technology (IT) management structure through formation of two
new committees that report to the vice president and provost through the Computing
Management Board:
The Web Space Steering Committee is a cross-functional group that focuses on
vision, strategy, policy, best practices and standards, and legislative and
intellectual property issues. Members of this committee are appointed by the
U of T vice president and provost.
The Web Space Reference Group is a cross-divisional, expertise-based
committee that represents the intersection of divisional and institutional
objectives—including the “standardized uniqueness” and the “intelligent design
versus evolution” viewpoints. The committee also brings together the resources
to get things done. Members are nominated by divisions.
Figure 1. University of Toronto Institutional IT Committees
Vice President and
Provost
Computing Management
Board
Web Space Steering Academic Computing Technical Operations
Committee Advisory Committee Committee
Web Space
Reference Group
The Web Services Project Office was formed to provide Web space operational support
to the community and to coordinate Web space major projects such as the home page
redevelopment and portal and search engine replacement.
The Web Space Steering Committee developed principles
(http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/English/Web-Space-Steering-Committee-
Principles.html) that redefined and clarified audiences, objectives, and directions for the
continued development of the Web space.
5

6. The Web Space Reference Group identified working groups to tackle specific issues.
These groups included resources from the broader community, thus increasing and
diversifying involvement in institutionally relevant Web space activities.
Since 2005, the committees have identified three major priorities of institutional
significance for the Web Services Project Office. Keeping the list of priorities short has
been extremely important because the short list helps the groups focus on priorities that
will have the most significant impact. The goal is to be agile enough to modify or expand
core services in Web time—not to take years to implement a service or effect institution-
wide changes. As needed, each committee appoints ad hoc advisory groups to work on
specific projects.
Web Space Innovation
A broad spectrum of constituents helped clarify the goals for the institutional Web space
and its organization. These goals include:
Deliver interactions and transactions that work end-to-end without interruption.
To meet this goal, IT must make the connections “behind the scenes” and
continuously strive to build an interoperable infrastructure.
Constantly update information on Web sites and ensure accuracy,
completeness, and consistency. For example, students want to be assured that
their courses will have a Web presence and that each course site will include a
standard set of content and features.
Use the Web as the primary mode of service delivery. Wherever possible, local
and institution-wide services should be available through the Web. Continual
improvement in both the breadth and the quality of these services is an
institutional goal.
Ensure accessibility to Web services for people with disabilities.
The Student Portal Steering Committee surveyed students about their expectations and
desires for the Web space. Interestingly, only one technology issue showed up on the
list of top-five issues, and that was single sign-on. Students, faculty, staff, and alumni
desire convenience and constant availability. Services that provide automated reminders
of time-sensitive information related to courses, academic calendars, registration
services, available student services, financial support, university extracurricular events,
and food services menus (always popular) are important.
The above findings reinforced what we suspected to be our constituents’ priorities:
whenever possible, use the Web to simplify the “administrative” aspects of academic,
cocurricular, and extracurricular life at the university.
Interdependencies
Complications have appeared as we move toward presenting more services and
reducing the number of steps in a business process. These may be categorized into
three areas:
6

7. Data that were once independent are now interconnected. For example, the
e-mail address entered by a student in the student information system (SIS) was
independent of a university-provided e-mail address. The new Policy on Official
Correspondence with Students requires a university-provided address. The
portal requires a valid university e-mail address to communicate with students
and employees. Much work is required to connect policy with practice.
Processes that operated perfectly in stand-alone mode do not support new,
dependent processes. For example, the SIS did not collect instructor-to-course
data in a structured manner within the database. Now, to correctly and
automatically assign an instructor to a course Web site in our learning
management system, the instructor must have an active personnel record, and
the course assignment has to exist in the SIS. Personnel number, course code,
and course assignment are now time-sensitive and interdependent.
Technical resources are not readily available to build or cost-effectively host
services. We are in the process of forming a community of developers to deliver
Web-based, interactive applications that will be connected through the portal.
As we proceed, the interdependencies of seemingly disparate groups, data, and
services will increase. Building the framework to support divisional and institutional
requirements simultaneously will be difficult. Without cooperation and some merging of
independent directions, we will not be able to optimally provide institution-wide, user-
centric services.
Ongoing Work
We have much more work to do. The processes we are undertaking involve collecting,
cajoling, coordinating, and co-opting people-based skills; gathering resources; and
obtaining high-level support for initiatives. We are attempting to build the framework for
future collaboration—an environment that encourages cooperation over competition and,
most importantly, one that meets and ultimately exceeds the expectations of all our
community members.
The Web Services Project Office introduced the new home page about eight weeks after
the project’s inception. The office is actively involved in redeveloping the way in which
the home page collection operates. Content ownership and management has been
decentralized and distributed to appropriate individuals at institutional and divisional
levels. The Google Search Appliance has been deployed with very positive reviews. The
Web Standards and Style is moving through committee. Projects such as the
institutional events calendar and the incorporation of new Web communications media
such as RSS feeds and podcasts are progressing with input from the divisions and
central resources. And, cross-disciplinary teams are implementing the Blackboard
Learning, Community, Content, and Commerce suite.
Having the constructs in place to coordinate activities has been essential to moving
forward. At the U of T, the Web’s intelligent design provides a good platform for
standardized uniqueness.
7

8. What It Means to Higher Education
The Web continues to grow in importance as the place where people go to do their work,
communicate, collaborate, and form communities. Effective use of the Web can improve
workflow, reduce task time, diminish uncertainty about policies and practices by making
information visible, and reduce the need for Web site users to visit multiple
organizational sites to complete a task. Our experience suggests that applying
“intelligent design” will add the structure to effectively deploy the Web to the benefit of
our community. Applying intelligent design to the U of T Web space adds the structure to
effectively deploy the Web to benefit our community. While this path is perhaps more
challenging than the evolutionary model, it enables a complement of immediate and
long-term benefits.
Strengthening Identity
Competition for students means having to put the institution’s best foot forward. A
coherent view of the university—presenting information clearly and consistently across
the Web—reinforces our identity.
Interoperability
Launching new Web services can be done in a multitude of ways. Often, the most
expedient way to launch a service is not the most architecturally “smart” in terms of
technical interoperability and cost containment. We are investigating the use of a
common development framework for Web services that will position us to share code,
interface design, and security mechanisms across services. Reduced or single sign-on,
a common user directory, and consistent data descriptions used across the institution
can reduce the complexity of adding services and lower overall maintenance costs to
support a sustainable set of services.
Data Quality and Process Improvement
Services offered by many different units rely on data elements that are maintained and
updated by units outside the service delivery unit. Because these data are often shared
across many different databases, we require a common security framework. Web-based
services rely on well-developed and broadly accepted cross-unit processes related to
data quality and upkeep. Services requiring connections across multiple systems will
compel data integrity improvements, or processes will not function optimally.
Cost Implications
Web developments that operate independently of a framework are expensive to
maintain. Resources for servers and other equipment, software, security, Web
design, consultants, and people to maintain Web sites and hosting environments are
very expensive when duplicated dozens or hundreds of times across a university
(Kiernan, 2005).
8

9. Collaborative Partnerships Instead of Competition
The institution-wide Web space is a giant sandbox that can and does accommodate the
diverse services and “personalities” of the institution. Shifting focus from ownership and
control issues toward how to best present content and services channels our efforts into
delivering what people want across the institution. An “intelligently designed” Web
management process creates a collaborative environment in which efforts and
resources may be shared while preserving the unique characteristics of divisions and
programs.
Key Questions to Ask
What measures are being used to assess if your institution’s Web presence
allows your institution to shine?
How can your institution present a common look and feel across sites in its Web
space while maintaining the unique identity of its divisions? How far should the
similarities be carried—institutional sites (president, vice presidents, admissions,
faculty level, departmental level)?
Where should ultimate responsibility lie for the state of the campus-wide Web?
(Depending on the aspect, there may be multiple locations.)
Who is thinking about the impact of evolving technology services such as
podcasts, personal spaces, and wireless access in terms of security threats and
retention practices, and how new technologies should be evaluated and
adopted?
To what degree is your institution positioned to rapidly deploy services over the
Web? Is this a desirable goal? What organizational and system architectures
can you embed to speed deployment?
Where to Learn More
Garrett, J. J. (2003). The elements of user experience: User-centered design for
the Web. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
Lynch, P. J., & Horton, S. (2001). Web style guide, 2nd edition: Basic design
principles for creating Web sites. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
University of Toronto. (2004, April 18). Report of the committee to review the
university’s Web space. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from
http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/library/6/6716_1190
04_webspacefinalrep2-1.pdf
9

10. University of Toronto. (2006). Principles for the University of Toronto Web space
collection. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from
http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/English/Web-Space-Steering-Committee-
Principles.html
References
Kiernan, V. (2005, July 8). Rounding up “rogue servers.” Chronicle of Higher
Education, 51(44), p. A25.
Duval, E., & Hodgins, W. (2006, March). Standardized uniqueness: Oxymoron
or vision of the future? Computer, 39(3), 96–98.
About the Authors
At the University of Toronto, Marden Dov Paul (marden.paul@utoronto.ca) is Director,
Strategic Computing, and Vicki Vokas (vicki.vokas@utoronto.ca) is Manager, Web
Services Project Office.
Copyright 2006 EDUCAUSE and Marden Dov Paul and Vicki Vokas. All rights reserved. This ECAR research
bulletin is proprietary and intended for use only by subscribers. Reproduction, or distribution of ECAR research
bulletins to those not formally affiliated with the subscribing organization, is strictly prohibited unless prior
permission is granted by EDUCAUSE and the authors.
10