Introduction 

The Colorado Online @ Technology subcommittee has been tasked with providing recommendations that allow a smooth transition to the single D2L instance. The subcommittee would like to recommend a governance process for the Learning Management System (LMS) that provides collaboration, communication, and standardization of the shared LMS space in a thoughtful and systemic approach. The process provides a voice for the colleges with the decision-making on changes to the LMS environment. 

In 2021, the initial phase of the D2L Brightspace LMS implementation scope was to roll-out a single D2L instance to host the 13 community colleges’ online, hybrid, on-campus, and other modality courses. The project included migrating the colleges’ course shells from their current D2L instance to a single D2L instance. A D2L org structure was built that supports the colleges and system-wide educational processes. Existing course integrations (e.g., Pearson, Yuja, WebEx, etc.) were re-established in the single D2L instance. Faculty and instructors were given the ability to update their D2L course shell to prepare for an upcoming semester. 

The following stakeholders were consulted in preparing this document:  

  • Learning Technology Council 
  • Colorado Online @ Technology Subcommittee 
  • Associate Vice Chancellor for CCCOnline and Academic Affairs 
  • Colorado Online @ Project Director 
  • Colorado Online @ Subcommittee Co-Chairs 

The scope for the governance process is the LMS configuration and system wide LMS related project requests. Groups typically responsible for these areas are the directors and deans of eLearning, LMS admins and learning designers at CCCS and colleges. Some decisions impact other areas such as academic affairs, student affairs, accessibility/disability services, etc. In these situations, the appropriate stakeholder group will be involved in making the decision. The VP Council will serve as the LMS Steering Committee to make strategic decisions.  

In scope: 

  • LMS permissions and configurations 
  • Naming conventions used within the LMS 
  • Standard operating procedures for the LMS for system-wide processes 
  • Project requests for the LMS (e.g., programming solutions to provide scalability and efficiency) 
  • Common Course Framework (recommended by the Colorado Online @ Learning Design subcommittee) 

Out of Scope: 

  • Learning Design SOPs, quality assurance, etc. 
  • Disability/Accessibility SOPs and colleges-specific accessibility technologies. 
  • System-wide RFPs 

DELIVERABLE – Proposed LMS Governance Structure 

Recommendation  

Working in a shared LMS site introduces new opportunities for collaboration across the colleges as well as potential risks in expected user experience if changes are not made thoughtfully in a programmatic approach. The LMS Governance Structure will enable improved collaboration, communication, and standardization of shared spaces within the LMS, and decrease the risk that changes may be made in a silo and unknowingly impact other colleges. 

A proposed LMS Governance Structure has been put together with the goal that this would guide roles and responsibilities for the shared LMS.  An overarching principle for making LMS decisions and assessing the impact on the colleges.    

Rationale 

The purpose of the LMS Governance process is to ensure collaboration across the CCCS colleges to manage the shared LMS site. This plan includes an overview of the system plan for a single LMS, and details about a process for decision-making for the various college leaders and Learning Technology Council members. 

Roles and Responsibilities 

The LMS Steering Committee (LSC) 

The LSC is the highest level of decision-making group for the shared LMS. The VPAA Council will serve as the LSC. The LSC has the ultimate responsibility of making strategic and highly impactful decisions about the LMS.  

Responsibilities for the LSC include: 

  • Review reports and presentations on strategic decisions. 
  • Assess the impact, risks, benefits, and challenges before making a decision. 
  • Collaborating with the different stakeholders to review and address risks and changes that are escalated from the LMS CAB. 
  • Provide additional assistance and guidance to the CAB when needed. 
  • As needed, escalate the decision to the CCCS Vice Chancellor Academic & Student Affairs. 

Meeting Recurrence 

The LSC meeting occurrence depends on when the VP Council meets. Typically, the VP Council meets monthly. 

Decision Model  

The LMS Steering Committee is composed of more than 13 VPAAs from different CCCS institutions at rural and metro locations. After being presented with an assessment provided by the LMS Change Advisory Board on the impact of making a change to the LMS, the VPAAs will decide on whether to move forward with a change or not. 

The LMS Change Advisory Board (CAB)  

The Change Advisory Board (CAB) is a 15-member decision-making body that assesses and approves proposed changes within their authority. The CAB will include representatives from all colleges and CCCS. It will be co-chaired by 1 person at a college and 1 person at the system. Changes will be escalated to the LSC for further review and approval for changes and decisions not within the authority of the CAB. 

Responsibilities for CAB include: 

  • Review reporting and analyzing changes that impact more than one or more college. 
  • Review LMS release updates brought forth by the LMS admins.  
  • Collaborating with the colleges and system-level LMS admins to schedule a time to implement, adopt, and inform others of the updates 
  • Communicate and meet with college-level colleagues to understand the impact and risks of the requested change. 
  • Review and address risks and changes that are escalated from the communities of practice. 
  • Additional assistance to communities of practice as needed. 
  • Escalate a decision to the LSC when the decision is strategic. 
  • Engage other stakeholder groups per decision: 
  • Learning Technology Council. This is a key stakeholder and will be consulted for every decision. 
  • Vice President Council 
  • IT Directors Council 
  • Communicate to user groups and college stakeholders of CAB and LSC decisions. 
  • Monitor and ensure a change is properly implemented. The change should use the ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement) model and project management best practices. 

Possible Changes for CAB include: 

All changes to the shared environment need to be logged in the change log by the CAB.  A change request form reflecting the key elements of the change, risks, and its potential impact. The CAB may approve the change if it’s within their level of authority (see ‘Level of Authority for Changes’ section).  

Member Selection:  

The CAB is a 14-member group, one member is non-voting. The CAB will have one chair from a college and another chair from CCCS. The following professional affiliations will be represented on the Committee: 

  • College eLearning Director and/or Dean: 1 rural and 1 metro (1 chair). 
  • Learning Designer: 1 college and 1 CCCS. 
  • LMS Administrator: 1 rural, 1 metro and 1 CCCS. 
  • Student Services: 1 college and 1 CCCS. 
  • Student Affairs: 1 rural, 1 metro, and 1 CCCS. 
  • Director of Academic Technology (chair) 
  • Faculty: 1 full-time faculty member from State Faculty Advisory Committee (SFAC), 1 instructor from State Instructor Advisory Committee (SIAC), and 1 instructor and 1 faculty member from the Online Faculty and Instructor Advisory Committee (OFIAC).  Representatives should represent rural and metro perspectives, and both CTE and general education disciplines. 
  • Associate Vice Chancellor of CCCOnline (a non-voting member) 

A member may designate a proxy/delegate to attend a meeting on their behalf if needed. 

Meeting Recurrence  

The CAB will meet every two weeks. Meetings may be cancelled if there are not enough decisions or discussion points. 

Decision Model 

The consensus model approach for the CAB decision-making requires 75% of members to affirmatively agree to a change.  In practice, this means at least 13 of the 17 voting members must agree to any global change. 

Communities of Practice 

The communities of practice are groups that could trigger a decision to be made by the LMS governance process. 

  • College-Level LMS Administrators – A group of individuals comprised of staff at each of the colleges. They are responsible for the college-specific daily operations within the shared LMS. These individuals will be responsible for implementing changes that only impact their college. 
  • CCCS System-Wide LMS Administrators – A centralized group of individuals at the system level who have the highest level of access to the LMS. Due to the risk of extensive authorizations, this role is reserved for 2-3 individuals who closely monitor the global operations of the shared LMS environment and minimize the impacts to user experience and use. 
  • College Learning Design Team – A college resource responsible for assisting locally with course design. 
  • System Learning Design Team – Centralized group responsible for maintaining the Ready-to-Teach course shells and provide system-wide professional development. 
  • Learning Technology Council – Council is comprised of deans, directors, learning designers and LMS Admins from the colleges’ and CCCS eLearning departments.  The group meets once a month.  
  • Accessibility and Disability User Groups – Various user groups represent the needs of the students’ with accommodation requests. Some groups meet a few times per year and other groups meet once a month. 
  • VPAAs – The VPAA group is part of the VP Council.  The VP Council meets once a month.  
  • VPSAs – The VPSA group is part of the VP Council.  The VP Council meets once a month. 
  • IT Directors Council – The council is comprised of associate VPs and directors from the IT departments at the colleges and CCCS. The council meets once a month. 

The above list is not meant to be all inclusive.  Any community of practice or functional group within CCCS can nominate a decision to be made by the LMS Governance Process. 

Factors to Consider 

Level of Authority for New Changes 

The decision matrix is an essential tool for assessing which decisions are within each group’s level of authority.  The following is the level of authority based on the decision level that each group has with making changes to the LMS: 

  • Changes deemed as minor and moderate level are within the communities of practice authority.  
  • Decisions deemed as high should be escalated to the CAB.   
  • Decisions deemed as very high are escalated to the LSC. 

Decision Matrix 

The communities of practice, CAB and LSC will use the following decision matrix to determine the impact of a change to the LMS.  If the change meets one or more of the listed criteria for a decision level, it should marked at that decision level.  For example, if an LMS change impacts more than one college or requires complex programing to implement it, the decision level is High. 

Decision Level Impact  Service Disruption Implementation Final Decision Group 
Very High All faculty and instructors All downstream applications  All students All course offerings across colleges. Drastically changes the teaching and learning process Disruption of services to all schools. Disruption during key processing periods. Installation of major new technology within the LMS. Implementation requires all colleges to use technology. Impossible to back-out. The cost is over $50,000 for the life of the contract. LMS Steering Committee (VPAAs) 
High More than one college Most faculty and instructors Most students  Most downstream applications  A new D2L feature for all colleges that must be taken by a certain date. Disruption of services to more than one school. Requires complex programming to implement the change. Difficult to back-out The implementation involves one or more downstream applications. Change Advisory Board 
Moderate Impact on one college’s course offerings. Creation or modification of new roles that doesn’t impact the teaching and learning for faculty, instructors, or students. Impacts operations for only the LMS admins. Disruption of two or more services. Disruption to services for one college. Update to a process that doesn’t directly impact faculty, instructors, or students. One college is impacted by the implementation. Requires moderate effort to back-out Community of Practice 
Minor Few/no users No downstream applications  For Pre-Approved: Recurring, repeatable, documented procedure For Pre-Approved: Low visibility to affected customer(s) A few course offerings at a college. Could disrupt services to a single department and/or a small number(s) of users at one college. For Pre-Approved: Known and documented impact; minimal risk of disruption to services Requires minor effort to back-out For Pre-Approved: Known and documented technical difficulty Community of Practice 

Scheduling a Time to Implement a Change 

The communities of practice, CAB or the Steering Committee should use the following as guidance for when to implement a change. 

  • Decisions deemed as Minor or Moderate can be made by the college or community of practice based on when it’s the least disruptive to the faculty, instructor, and students.  
  • If faculty, instructor, or students are impacted, it should be made in-between semesters.  
  • If faculty, instructor, or students are not directly impacted, the change can be made during the least risky time. Such as early morning during the week or on a Sunday morning (preferred). 
  • Decisions deemed as High or Very High should be made in between semesters. 
  • Emergency changes: Exceptions can be made for emergency changes where it’s significantly disrupting teaching and learning for faculty, instructors, and students. Emergency changes don’t need to be processed by the LMS Governance Process. In situations of an emergency, the Associate Vice Chancellor of CCCOnline is notified for approval. As needed, the Associate Vice Chancellor of CCCOnline will work with the appropriate stakeholders for an approval. 

Potential Impact/Effect on Other Decisions 

The Learning Design subcommittee recommended decisions about changes to the Common Course Framework be handled through the LMS Governance process. Various groups at the colleges have already provided feedback and the LMS governance process provides a method for assessing the feedback. 

LMS admins and LTC members have already requested configuration changes to the single D2L instance. The LMS governance process will provide a formal approach to assessing and making a decision. 

Required Resources 

No additional job positions are needed. The only requirements are finding volunteers to serve on the Change Advisory Board. 

Next Steps 

  • Obtain approval for the governance process from Colorado Online @. 
  • Communicate to stakeholders who are interested in or impacted by new LMS governance process (see the Communication Plan section for more details). 
  • Form the Change Advisory Board by finding volunteers. 
  • Establish the on-going meeting, practices, and artifacts that will be used (e.g., change log to track all changes). 

Communication Plan  

  • Notify the following stakeholders with details about the new LMS governance process: 
  • VP Council 
  • Learning Technology Council 
  • IT Directors Council 
  • Deans Council 
  • Notify members of the CAB of when the meetings will occur.