Renew a tool

While approval of centrally supported EdTech tools, net new or requests for renewal, must meet defined criteria, the University's current financial environment may influence the final decision. 

Instructors and students are dependent on a  number of educational technology (EdTech) tools that enable teaching and learning through a variety of delivery modes that are both synchronous and asynchronous. When EdTech contracts are coming close to an end date, a number of factors are considered to ensure the appropriate solution, whether through a renewal or procurement of a new solution.

Goals of this process
  1. Transparency in how decisions are made and why.
  2. Clarity, consistency, and cross functional agreement.
  3. Efficiency in moving forward with decisions.
  4. Alignment with teaching and learning goals and direction.

Renewal rubric

The following rubric is used as a tool to inform discussions towards a decision on centrally funded and supported EdTech renewals. The depth of analysis will depend on how broad the usage is across campus, impact, concerns, and costs. For example, a campus learning management system review will be much more in depth and thorough than a review of polling tools.

Should the University proceed with a site renewal of this EdTech tool?

Considerations No concerns Some concerns Serious concerns
1. Are there other options available? There are currently no other software solutions in our ecosystem or in the market that adequately meet our privacy, security, accessibility, and pedagogical requirements. There are other solutions in our current ecosystem or in the market with similar or overlapping functionality that meet most of our privacy, security, accessibility, and pedagogical requirements. It’s unknown, or there are other solutions in our current ecosystem or in the market with similar or overlapping functionality that adequately meet our security, privacy, accessibility, and pedagogical requirements the same as or better than the current solution.
   

Additional considerations for discussions:

  • Other solution(s) will likely provide additional benefits that the current software does not provide.
  • The other solution(s) are a reasonable or better cost.
2. Is this a vendor the University should continue doing business with?

There are no or minimal concerns that introduce new risks towards continuing to do business with the vendor.

  • The software is well supported by the vendor.
  • The vendor invests in continuous improvement of the software with consistent updates.
  • The university maintains a relatively positive relationship with the vendor.

There are some minor concerns that introduce some risk towards continuing to do business with the vendor.

  • The software is reasonably supported by the vendor.
  • Updates to the product are supplied periodically.
  • The university maintains a somewhat positive relationship with the vendor.

There are significant concerns that introduce risk with continuing to do business with the vendor.

  • Adequate support is not provided by the vendor.
  • The vendor does not invest in regular improvements and consistent updates to the product.
  • The university’s relationship with the vendor is not positive.
3. What are the impacts of a change?

Changing software would have a significant negative impact to the university’s long term ability to meet teaching and learning goals and objectives.

  • The tangible and intangible costs of a change are expected to be and remain well beyond the benefits for a significant period.
  • A change is not wanted by most primary stakeholders.
  • A change would cause significant disruption to upcoming courses and add to current workload for the foreseeable future.

Changing software would have a short-term negative impact to the university’s ability to meet teaching and learning goals and objectives.

  • The tangible and intangible costs of a change are expected to be beyond the benefits in the short term.
  • A change is wanted by some primary stakeholders.
  •  A change would cause some disruption to upcoming courses and add to current workload during the transition but is expected to return to normal shortly after.

Changing software would have no or very minimal short term negative impact to the university’s ability to meet goals and objectives in teaching and learning.

  • The benefits of a change will outweigh tangible and intangible costs.
  • A change is wanted by most primary stakeholders.
  • There would be no or minimal increase in the short term to workload or disruption to upcoming courses. 
 

Additional considerations for discussions:

  • A change would introduce risk that some stakeholders will license their own solution.
  • Changing software would have an impact to other areas outside of teaching and learning
  
4. What are the benefits of the software?

The software provides many efficiencies to teaching and learning.

  • The software provides many opportunities for innovation and current solutions that reduce workload, support different modes of delivery, and automate teaching and learning activities. 
  • The software is straightforward to learn and used by most expected stakeholders.
  • The software seamlessly integrates with other EdTech, particularly the LMS.

The software does or could provide some efficiencies to teaching and learning.

  • The software does or could provide some opportunities for innovation and current solutions that reduce workload, support different modes of delivery, and automate teaching and learning activities. 
  • The software has a short term learning curve and used by many expected stakeholders.
  • Data can be transferred or is accessible with other EdTech, particularly the LMS, through downloads, uploads, or links.

The software does not provide many efficiencies to teaching and learning.

  • The software does not provide many opportunities for innovation and current solutions that reduce workload, support different modes of delivery, and automate teaching and learning activities. 
  • The software is difficult and not used by many expected stakeholders.
  • There is no ability to easily transfer data to other EdTech, particularly the LMS.  
 

Additional considerations for discussions:

  • The software does or could provide additional benefits to the university outside of teaching and learning.
  
5. Are the renewal options offered by the vendor reasonable?

The renewal options and conditions are reasonable and acceptable.

  • There is a reasonable increase in cost for the renewal, for the same functionality and licensing structure.
  • The vendor is willing to meet required renewal condition requests.
  • No new licenses are required for current functionality.

Most of the renewal options and conditions are reasonable, with some minor concerns.

  • The cost for renewal is above the university’s expected increase, but acceptable if this remains the best option based on other renewal criteria.
  • The vendor is willing to meet most renewal condition requests.
  • New licenses are required for some current functionality.

There are some significant concerns with renewal options and conditions.

  • The cost for renewal is above what the university accepts and would exceed any short and long term benefits.
  • The vendor will not meet required renewal condition requests, particularly any that put the university at risk in meeting legal and Policy requirements.
  • New licenses are required for the university to continue using the software for current functionality.
6. Does the software have broad application, or is it more specialized on specific use cases?

The software has broad application across the faculties and/or ASUs and is not specialized to the requirements of a specific faculty or ASU.

  • The software adequately meets broad campus pedagogical, security, privacy, and accessibility requirements without any serious concerns.
  • The number of instructors, students, and/or ASU staff using the software is growing or trending consistently across faculties and/or ASUs.

The software is somewhat specialized within a few faculties and/or ASUs but has potential to be used more widely with its current functionality.

  • The software reasonably meets many campus pedagogical, security, privacy and accessibility requirements with only minor concerns.
  • The number of instructors, students and/or ASU staff using the software has trended consistently or has some explainable declines across faculties and/or ASUs. 

The software is specialized within a faculty or program or ASU, with no foreseeable expansion to other faculties with current functionality.

  • There are concerns with the software’s ability to meet most campus mandatory privacy, security, accessibility and/or pedagogical requirements.
  • The number of instructors, students and/or academic support staff using the software has been consistently declining across faculties and/or ASUs, or is expected to stay within a faculty or program or ASU going forward.