Attendees:  Scott Fullerton (UW-Madison), Paul Hobson (UBC), Leo Fernig (UBC), Vincent Aumont (UBC), Rich Stevenson (UMUC), Sharif Najim (Notre Dame), Bob Winding (Notre Dame), Christian Vinten-Johansen (PSU), Mark Rank (UW-Milwaukee), Jim Phelps (UW-Madison).

Rules:

1. Topics were submitted via a web form.  Each topic needed a leader and a scribe.
2. Topic leaders had 5 minutes to pitch their idea to the attendees.
3. After the topics were pitched, there was a brief round of clarifying questions.
4. Attendees then voted for topics.  Each attendee had three votes.  They could use all the votes on one topic or spread them across multiple topics.
5. The topic with highest vote went first.  We worked as a single large group.

Topics:

• "The possibility of ITANA creating a ""Reference Architecture"" for Higher Ed
• Higher Ed Enterprise data:
• Kuali and Higher Ed: A case study
• Solution Path type diagrams as a framework for ITANA deliverables and as a way to set priorities and charge teams
• How do we grow the active participant pool and get more people in the loop leading working groups and hosting peer-groups in ITANA.
• Cloud architecture models - where to leverage the appropriate "thing-as-a-Service" in your enterprise reference architectures.
• Rolling out EA To Central IT.  Adopting EA is change. It seems this change first starts with central/overhead IT.  What has worked for preparing central IT staff to best represent EA in their roles as application and service providers for the entire instituition?"
• Given that many schools are part of the InCommon program, how are the digital certificates being used? Are they used primarily with SSL web sites or are certs just one component of your PKI infrastructure that includes workflow and digital rights management, MS Office document signing, PDF signing, mail encryption, etc?
• Accessibility from the EA perspective.
• The Architecture of Learning: the overall architecture that integrates: enrollment, learning management frameworks, analytics, predictive engines, curriculum improvement processes, etc.
• How to architect systems so they can be applied to an existing legacy system...
• Could we develop standardized APIs for integration with vendors and systems outside of the University?

The two topics that were selected were:

• The Architecture of Learning: the overall architecture that integrates: enrollment, learning management frameworks, analytics, predictive engines, curriculum improvement processes, etc. (Leo Fernig)
• Solution Path type diagrams as a framework for ITANA deliverables and as a way to set priorities and charge teams (Jim Phelps)

Write-ups

Solution Path Type Diagrams for ITANA

Jim presented a walk through of the concept that Gartner are presenting as a Solution Path Diagram, which seems a natural extension to older methods already presented/used by other analyst groups, e.g. Burton Group Decision Point methods. Discussion of a number of potential examples ensued, including potential examples around perhaps answering question like 'how do I develop an IT Roadmap'.  Some attendees have similar views developed in BPMN already, however we are looking to provide something that is clear, articulate and simple for people to be able to use.

Jim suggested the 'Nexus of Forces' presented by Gartner my be a useful starting point to flesh out some examples of solution paths that would be of value to the wider community. Leo suggested another topic along the lines of 'what are the steps in an architectural review?', thus broadening out the topic from the 'solution' concept.

This was largely because the group felt that a broader range of artifacts are being asked being asked for, particularly where people have no prior art to work from. It was agreed that the deliverables from any work associated with this would need to be Higher Ed flavoured, speaking the language of HE and aimed at campus CIOs as a communication piece. However, we need to think about a broader audience where more widespread use becomes apparent.

Scott raised the interdependency of the processes/solutions which could potentially lead to a taxonomy of documents for ITANA publication.

Architecture of Learning:

ITANA Reference Architecture for the Learning Ecosystem

Capability maps

• Use Rich Stevenson’s UMUC maps as a starting point
• Use to validate lifecycles
• Define personas and actors
• Use to identify:
  • What is volatile
  • What is not volatile

Lifecycles
Lifecycles needed to support learning

• Student lifecycle – repurpose existing ITANA work
• Advisor lifecycle – repurpose existing ITANA work
• Instructor lifecycle - new
• Admin lifecycle - new

Capabilities can be driven from lifecycle exercises

Existing product roadmaps
Survey existing product roadmaps:

• Sakai
• Moodle
• Blackboard
• Desire2Learn
• JoomlaLMS

Other EDUCAUSE constituent groups
Reach out to other EDUCAUSE constituent groups. Here are some possible candidates.

• Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group
  • Exchanges information related to the field of online and blended teaching and learning.
• eTexts Constituent Group
  • Discusses etexts: digital textbooks, multimedia supplements, tutorial websites, e-reader/annotation software, and related material.
• Evidence of Impact Constituent Group
  • Provides a forum for information and idea exchange for all issues related to evidence-based practice in teaching and learning.
• Identity and Access Management Discussion Group
  • Provides a forum for all topics related to identity and access management
• Instructional Technologies Constituent Group
  • Provides a forum for the discussion of key issues relating to instructional technologies.
• Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) Constituent Group
  • Discusses MOOCs as a paradigm of learning communities and open education.
• Social Media Constituent Group
  • Explores the implications of the integration of social media throughout higher education.
    Questions:

1. Which ones?
2. How do we reach out?
3. How do we collaborate?
4. Survey other groups for useful artifacts, tools, techniques?
5. Join listservs for a quick learning technology survey?

Outreach

1. EDUCAUSE 2013
2. f-2-f workshop for the working group May-June. UW?
3. ITANA working group.
4. Space on the ITANA wiki

Accessibility
Subsumed under personas

Current landscape survey
Like the SOA short survey. 15-20 minutes for the respondent. Try to target 30 institutions. Eg:

1. What LMS are you running?
2. Do you have a learning plan?
3. Curriculum development module?
4. Tools?
5. Analytics?
6. Recommendation engine?