Aileen Buckley and Michael Phoenix
This paper reviews the process used to organize a statewide Esri site license for the Oregon University System (OUS), a consortium of seven state universities and one affiliated university. Coordination at the level of the individual universities and the state is examined. Efforts to couple the Esri site license with other software site licensing programs, specifically ERDAS and S-PLUS, are also reviewed. The experience of the OUS emphasizes the importance of support at the upper administrative level and within and between departments on campus. The experience of Oregon to organize a site license is then compared to the efforts of other states.
Geographic Information Science (GIScience) is the field of knowledge that embraces all aspects of geospatial data in a computational environment. GIScience involves geographic information systems (GIS), cartography, remote sensing, global positioning systems (GPS), spatial statistics, and more (Goodchild 1992). GIS, and these related mapping sciences, represents one of the fastest growing areas of computer applications in the U.S. today, with technical employment opportunities far outstripping the supply of properly prepared potential employees (Marble, et al., unpublished). The rapid growth of GIS technology world-wide is directly related to its proven utility in a variety of public and private sector activities, including public health, criminal justice, natural resource management, urban and regional planning, archaeology, geographic research, and power systems engineering, etc.
To meet employment demands and to adequately prepare students for professional opportunities, GIScience educational programs have been implemented in many colleges and universities in number of disciplines. GIScience represents a field of scientific inquiry that is characterized by collaboration between scientists and others from many different backgrounds working together on particular sets of interrelated problems. While GIS was traditionally found in a few academic departments, such as geography, forestry, planning, survey engineering, and architecture, GIS technology is now being used in a variety of diverse disciplines, such as entomology, criminal justice, environmental engineering, journalism, and agricultural economics, to name a few. As the technology spreads to these new areas, the software is becoming a campus-wide resource.
To provide a quality curriculum in GIScience requires a supporting infrastructure. Although a capable faculty is the first required resource, computing, laboratory, classroom, and library resources are also essential elements for a successful program (Gorgone and McGregor 1989). In a rapidly changing technical environment, such as GIScience, students should be exposed to a variety of up-to-date hardware and software systems that adequately represent the professional setting in which they will be employed. Faculty must have available technology at least equivalent to and compatible with that available to students so that they may prepare educational materials for use by students. More ideally, faculty and students should have access to facilities that reflect the environments that graduates will encounter professionally. Because students at different levels in a program have different needs, these resources should include a variety of computing facilities of varying capabilities and complexity. As hardware and software rapidly change and improve, it is critical that these computing resources are kept current. In order to accomplish this, a plan should exist to upgrade and/or replace software (and equipment) in a timely manner.
To meet these educational needs, Esri started the campus site license program in 1992 to allow universities virtually unlimited access to all Esri software for use across campus. The first campus site license agreements were arranged with the universities of California-Santa Barbara, Buffalo, and Maine. As more and more campuses used the technology, Esri began extending the site license program to statewide agreements. Beginning with the Cal State University System in 1994, Esri now has statewide site license agreements in eighteen states, and another twelve states are currently negotiating statewide licenses. Nationwide, the Esri site license program now covers almost 300 universities.
A software site license allows participants unlimited access to the included software products for a single flat fee, without additional costs per license. Site licenses can be organized for a single institution, such as university, or for a group of participants, such as a consortium of state universities. Generally, a site license agreement is arranged between the vendor and the participants to include the primary vendor software, but not third party software. For example, an Esri site license would include ArcInfo, ArcView, and MapObjects, as well as the Esri-generated extensions or add-ons for these, such as COGO for ArcInfo or Network Analyst for ArcView. However, it would not include software created and marketed by Esri-affiliated vendors, such as Spatial Data Engine for ArcInfo and Image Analyst for ArcView. Nonetheless, with a program in place to provide the primary software, supporting software can be more easily identified, obtained, and distributed.
Exactly what is included in a site license is negotiated between the participants and the vendor. However, most site licenses include the software, select data sets, and technical support; additional services or products, such as training or conference registrations, may vary. An Esri site license covers unlimited use of the ArcInfo, ArcView, and MapObjects lines of software, in addition to other Esri products such as Atlas GIS, ArcCAD, PC ARC/INFO, and the Esri ArcView extensions. The site license also provides technical support and a specified number of complimentary registrations to the Annual Esri User Conference in San Diego.
There are a number of reasons for considering a site license program. Usually, vendors offer software through a site license agreement at a discounted rate. If the cost of a site license is shared between institutions, then the cost per institution is decreased further. Additionally, site licenses usually provide an opportunity to purchase a wider variety of software than if individual copies were purchased. For example, under a site license agreement, traditionally non-GIS users may decide to install software they would not have used without the agreement. Site license programs also allow more users access to the software through either decreasing the price or increasing (or not limiting) the number of copies of the software available to participants. Under an unlimited site license agreement, GIS software can be distributed to all faculty and staff at the participating institutions, not just the experienced users. As a result, a site license program usually means that at each institution there is more software of a wider variety available to more users at a lower cost. For example, in the North Carolina State University program, a single campus site license allows all 25,000 students and all faculty members have access to the Esri products. As a result, over 400 active researchers from all the colleges on campus and most of the departments are making use of GIS technology on that campus.
For a university that has a growing GIScience program, the advantages of an Esri site license are numerous. The costs of existing licenses can be shared among a larger number of users. Potential users, who may not know enough about GIS to want to invest in untested software, can be included at no cost for a trial period in order to help them discover how GIS may be used within their discipline. Students have access to the industry standard technology, and researchers have access to cutting edge technology in the area of spatial science.
The number of models for site license agreements is probably equal to the number of site license agreements. Nonetheless, some generalities can be observed. The most obvious distinction between Esri site licenses agreements is the number of participants, i.e., a single site agreement (e.g., a university site license) versus a multiple-participant agreement (e.g., a statewide site license). Within these two types of models, further distinctions are generally a reflection of how the agreements are organized and managed within or among the participating institution(s). Some agreements designate a central administrator or administrative unit. Others agreements distribute the administration across the campus or campuses. In a centralized administration model, the site license is managed by a large GIS lab or center that has the staff to install and maintain the software and the mandate to help other departments and researchers integrate GIS into their teaching and research. The GIS Center at UC Berkeley follows this model. In a distributed administration model, the responsibility for distribution and maintenance of the licenses is shared. The Oregon State University site license distributes the administration of the software, support, and data between people in different departments across campus. Overall, if a distributed administration model is used, it is best that the administrators are staff members knowledgeable about the GIS products and its current and potential users. The best model is usually one that identifies a central knowledgeable administrative unit, allowing for the software to be widely distributed and integrated into teaching and research across multiple, diverse disciplines on campus.
Given the advantages of a site license program, why don't even more states have them for their university systems? Generally, the answer lies in effort and organization. GIS is being used in diverse disciplines, and although these disciplines are part of a university system, there is usually no mechanism on or among campuses for organizing shared resources, such as software. Therefore, substantial effort is often required to contact each department or college, determine its current and future software needs, and elicit some commitment for financial and/or administrative support. However, once this effort is made, the benefits are often more far-reaching than originally imagined. For example, the effort to organize the University of Oregon campus site license, then the Oregon statewide site license, caught the attention of deans and other administrators who then made the financial commitment to support their university's share of the program cost. This had the related effect of garnering the support of GIS in other ways on campus.
The steps for in organizing a campus license are essentially the same as those for the statewide license, although organization at the state level is not required. At the campus level, the process is more efficient in regard to both time and organization; however, identification of administrators who support the effort, determination of funding sources, and a system for equitable distribution of the fees remain important. The steps below outlined organization at the statewide level. All but the first step are necessary to organize an agreement at the campus level.
The first step is to identify the lead people who will organize the effort at the statewide level. The main organizer is likely to be a GIS user and expert with the motivation to get the agreement into place. This person will act as the main communicator among the various campuses as well as with Esri. The campuses in a statewide agreement must somehow be organized under an umbrella organization. For example, all public universities in Oregon are members of the Oregon University System (OUS). For Oregon, the statewide agreement is drawn up between Esri and OUS. It is also necessary to identify the person with contract signature authority for the umbrella organization, as this person will be signing the final contract. In Oregon, that person is the Director of Legal Services for the OUS. Getting in touch at this point with the person who will ultimately sign the contract assures that she or he understands and will support the organizational effort. Finally, it is useful to identify someone who has experience reviewing and perhaps organizing software site licenses. This person may be affiliated with a university's computing resources center and can offer insight into the computing requirements for the institutions in general. For Oregon, the Programmer Consultant for the University of Oregon (UO) Computing Center is a member of the lead organizational team.
The next step is to identify an individual on each campus who will be the contact person for the statewide organizer. This eliminates confusion and repetition in communication on and among campuses. These leads are usually either users of GIS technology or coordinators for other software site licenses. It is important to note that if a non-GIS person is the lead contact, a GIS expert on campus should be in close consultation with the lead to advise on GIS-related aspects of the agreement. These individuals will help to direct not only campus organization of the site license agreement, but may also help to organize any supporting GIS activities, such as lecture series, training sessions, and more.
In order to determine the financial benefit of a site license, it is often a good idea for each institution to calculate current expenditures for the software, as well as projected costs. Even a rough ballpark estimate will be useful in determining the potential financial contribution of the various participants, and it helps underscore the financial benefit of a site license to university administrators. This exercise leads directly to identification of the funding sources on each campus, whether they are central administrative units, such as a dean of research or the student educational technology fund, or individual departments, labs, or institutes.
A draft license agreement from Esri will help the statewide and campus organizers determine if and how the agreement will meet the institutional needs. At this point, the leads can communicate with the statewide organize to ask for clarification or raise issues regarding the draft agreement. The statewide organizer can then compile the questions and begin a dialogue with Esri to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement on the terms of the agreement. This step can take some time as each institution's questions and concerns must be addressed adequately. Additionally, benefits to the university system as a whole must be realized.
In organizing the Oregon statewide license, the lead contact for the statewide agreement and the Programmer Consultant first reviewed the contract and requested clarification from Esri on a number of points before the draft agreement was forwarded to the individual institutions. This review and dialogue resulted in a detailed document containing the questions, their answers, and further clarifications that was sent out WITH the draft license for review at the institutional level. This preliminary review saved time and avoided confusion when the individual institutions went through the review process.
Ultimately, it will be necessary to determine what will be each institution’s contribution toward the cost of the license. The price tag of an Esri statewide license is negotiated according to the circumstances for a state. Because every state has a different mix of schools, finances, organization, and more, there is no one formula for computing the cost of either a campus or statewide site license. In any case, from an institutional standpoint, the initial AND continued funding of the agreement must be assured.
The cost per institution can be calculated a number of ways, and the best model for a particular state depends on the organization of, interaction between, and financial resources of the participating institutions. Criteria to consider in determining each participant’s contribution might be size (i.e., number of people), current and projected use, and/or financial capability. There is a base fee for a set of deliverables, but as institutions are added to the agreement, the fee may be increased to accommodate the increase in requested deliverables. The simplest agreement would identify one organization or entity that would pay the annual cost. For example, in the state of Mississippi license, one organization (the Mississippi Space Commerce Initiative which is part of the state government) covers the fee each year. In a more complex fee structure, a number of institutions contribute to the base fee, but a floating fee is also charged internally depending on the number of participants. Proportional funding amongst all institutions has to be allocated in a fair and beneficial manner for all participants. It is likely that the fewer number of participants, the easier it will be to determine the fee distribution.
For the state of Oregon, there are three larger state universities in the OUS that will likely carry the majority of the financial burden – Portland State University, Oregon State University, and University of Oregon. The community colleges, organized as one contributing member to the license, will be a fourth major contributor. The four smaller state universities will contribute a lesser amount that will be calculated as some combination of available financial resources and demand for software use.
Negotiations are then finalized between the Esri and the university system. This process should take the concerns of each institution into account so that all parties involved are satisfied with the final agreement. The person with contract signature authority will likely have been informed throughout the process, so this step may be fairly straightforward.
The final step in the process is the distribution of the deliverables (software, documentation, and perhaps more) to the various institutions and its users. Esri can arrange to send software to the statewide organizer who will then distribute the software and documentation to the site license members. This may be preferable if the deliverables allocated to each institution are different or fluctuate. Alternatively, Esri can send the deliverables directly to each institution. This can be arranged if the deliverables for each institution are clearly identified and are not likely to change over time.
In Oregon, the university system is also exploring the acquisition and maintenance of statewide licenses for a suite of related software for analyzing, managing, and displaying spatial data that can be integrated with Esri products. The goal is to obtain widely used industry-standard software such as ERDAS Geographic Imaging software, ENVI-IDL, S-PLUS Data Analysis, or others. The software would be used across disciplines on each campus for research and instruction in the geographic information sciences, including geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing, cartography, visualization, global position systems (GPS), and spatial analysis. Because Esri has long collaborated with other major providers of GIS-related software, including ERDAS for the analysis, management and display of remotely sensing data and S-PLUS for the exploration, analysis, and statistical modeling of spatial data, a combination of integrated software would allow for the full range of activities in spatial data handling for applications in research and teaching. MathSoft’s S-Plus with the ArcView interface is being explored for its capabilities of statistical analysis. For raster data analysis and satellite image interpretation, both ERDAS and ENVI-IDL are being studied as possible site license candidates. To aid in geographic visualization, ENVI-IDL is also a possibility, as is IBM Data Explorer (DX) and the Advanced Visualization System (AVS). At this point, information is being collected but no site licensing decisions have been made.
The key to success is having widespread support at various levels of the school administration. It is important that someone in higher office understands and appreciates what GIS can do for the universities in the traditional areas of concern: teaching, research, administration, and community service. It is also important that there be numerous faculty members that can use the software in both teaching and research. Lastly, a GIS-literate staff is important to making the technology available to both faculty and students as it is needed. Communication between these individuals is a big help in making a GIS site license program successful. As with GIS, real success lies in people - the administrators and users of the software. With an active, interested, and competent user community, a site license will likely pay off more than originally planned. For more information about organizing a campus or statewide site license agreement, contact:
|
Michael Phoenix, Ph.D. |
Goodchild, Michael, 1992. "Geographical Information Science."
Gorgone, John T., and John D. McGregor, 1989. "Computing Sciences
Accreditation: A Cooperative Effort in CIS."
Marble, Duane, Elizabeth Wentz, and Aileen Buckley, unpublished. "Development of a Multi-Path Model Curriculum in Geographic Information Science for U.S. Colleges and Universities." Proposal to the NSF for submission June 2000.
Aileen Buckley, Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403-1251, aileen@darkwing.uoregon.edu.
Michael Phoenix, University Program Manager, Esri, 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA, 92373-8100, mphoenix@Esri.com.