Advances Vol. 4, No. 2 65 A Portal for a School of SocialWork: Going for the Edge Robert Vernon Cynthia Schultz Abstract: This case study documents how one school of social work addressed the growing complexity of distributing information by developing a state of the art por- tal andwebsite system to serve itsmany audiences and campuses. Preliminary find- ings are discussed. Keywords: Website, design, portal, social work Social work educationwebsites often reveal design and functionality problems. Many are nothing more than electronic brochures with little information on programs, faculty lists, and perhaps a smattering of select details (Carlson, 2003). These websites are typically static with very few interactive elements, if any. Some are more dynamic and offer prospective students the ability to apply online or download program information. Many are “placeholders” crafted by non-social work staff who know very little about the profession or the curriculum.Very few are designed tomeet the needs of themany different audiences whowant information about the profession, the school, or its features (Curl, Bowers & Bowers, 2003; Vernon & Lynch, 2003). This case study is for colleagues who want to expand their school’s website toward reaching wider audiences, supporting administrative rou- tines, and enhancing the quality of teaching through building amore sophisticated web presence. PROBLEMS AND NEEDS Our school hosted a first generation website since 1995 and experienced the typi- cal problems and limitations that developed as information needs and consumer expectations grew: • Lack of consistency. Visitors were more satisfied when a website had consistent navigation and an attractive overall appearance, yet, navigation and design inconsistencies had cropped up after several updates and revisions.What result- ed was amain website that actually looked like several separate websites cobbled together. A visitor could easily think that they were at a different website altogeth- er rather than being in another part of the same one. Robert Vernon, Ph.D. is Associate Professor, Indiana University School of Social Work, Indianapolis, IN 46202. Cynthia Schultz,MS is SeniorDirector of Communications, IndianaUniversity Alumni Association, Bloomington, IN 47401. Copyright© 2003 Advances in SocialWorkVol. 4 No. 2 (Fall 2003) 65-79. Indiana University School of SocialWork. 66 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK • Outdated content. It had been easy to amass considerable information on the website. Once posted, though, a conference announcement or other time-sensi- tive item tended to become immortal, available long after the event had taken place or the deadline had passed. • Poor quality content. No one regularly reviewed the website for currency and accuracy. Content sometimes had grammatical and spelling errors that conveyed a lack of scholarship and professionalism. • Linkrot.Hypertext links that lead nowhere are a commonproblemwithwebsites. We certainly had our share. • Overburdened resources. Responsibility for development and maintenance fell on administrative support personnel. Our one in-house technician was already working at capacity. In addition, most administrative support personnel lacked the advanced skills needed to develop andmaintain online content.1The process of transferring informationwas laborious. Text content had to be changed toHTML, introducing errors, and frustrating staff. Long delays became commonplace. •No uniformity between websites.The IndianaUniversity School of SocialWork is completely centralized:We offer four different degrees on five different campuses throughout the state. The Indianapolis campus is the flagship and all policies and programs are centrallymanaged from this campus.Yet, we had five different web- sites in place and none of themwere similar in any respect. All had independent- ly evolved and there had been no attempt to develop any content or design uni- formity. More subtle problems were emerging, too. As the web was maturing, the user’s expectations were maturing as well (Powell & Gill, 2003). Users expected to find information on the school’s website, and they assumed they would get an immedi- ate response—24 hours a day, seven days per week (Spool, 2001). Our static website with its “one style fits all” design was failing to meet visitors’ needs as reflected in numerous informal comments and e-mails.Therewas a general consensus that the school was rapidly outgrowing its static website and that we also needed to have a system that knit all five campuses together. This problem was taken up by the school’s Technology Committee, a faculty, student, and administrative group charged with overseeing technology needs. The Technology Committee conducted several hearings and interviews with key constituencies and determined the following: All of our university’s doctoral appli- cants had recently been required to submit their applications online, yet, our web- site could not support this. Prospective BSW and MSW students wanted detailed information and the ability to apply online, as well. Alumni wanted to keep track of each other and know about upcoming events. Faculty wanted enrollment lists and access to student information. Researchers wanted to work collaboratively and share information. Staff wanted access to official calendars and detailed program information. Enrolled students wanted class schedules, syllabi, and graduation requirements. Administrators needed secure access to the financial management systems and budget information. Everyone wanted a new, more interactive, and robust web environment that would support these needs. Disability access was paramount. TheTechnology Committee worried that a cut- ting-edge solutionwould limit access touserswith special needs.Weneededa solu- tion that would seamlessly deliver content to all users nomatter what type of com- puting device they used to access the website. Different connection speeds, browsers, and other universal design requirements would have to be taken into consideration as well. Finally, we were aware that the university’s many different computing networks were changing, too, and that any solutionwe createdwould have to adjust to them. The Student InformationTransaction Environment or “Site”—already quite sophis- ticated—was being replaced by a new system that promised to integrate everything fromenrollments and course scheduling to tuition andparking tickets. “Oncourse,” Indiana University’s course management program that is similar to Web CT and BlackBoard, was becoming universally available and students were starting to demand it. Any solution we selected would need to be compatible with these other initiatives. GEARING UP The chair of the Technology Committee convened a project task force to invento- ry needs and recommend a solution. The task force consisted of representatives from major constituencies: faculty, students, staff, alumni, and community lead- ers. This group began to investigate how to transform our static website into a far more adaptable one that would meet current needs and likely adjust to new demands from the university.We decided we needed a central repository for all of the common documents shared by all of the programs on the five campuses with- in our system. For example, we needed a way to have the identical MSW Student Manual universally accessible. We wanted a way to distribute centrally managed syllabi. We envisioned a portal—a large, integrated system with a main website for the school and satellitewebsites for each of the five campuses2. Each satellitewould be stylistically similar yet recognizably distinct so that visitors would visually know that they were still within the same school but on a different campus. An underly- ing portal structure would provide this visual continuity, assure uniformity when needed, and support the individual needs and characteristics of the different cam- puses and their programswhilemakingmanagement of the entire school’s system far easier. We also envisioned a “distributed system” where authorized staff could immediately post or update information without the bottleneck of converting documents to HTML and waiting for technical support to get them on the server3. One of the first jobs the task force accomplished was to identify and specifically describe the audiences we needed to include. Unlike the current “one size fits all” version, we wanted the new portal to accommodate as many different audiences as possible (Nielsen, 1999;Vernon & Lynch, 2000). The task force identified six dis- tinct audiences: potential students, current students, alumni, faculty and researchers, administrative and support staff, and external constituencies such as practitioners, agencies, and social service organizations. Each audience had dif- ferent information needs. 67Vernon, Schultz/A PORTAL FOR A SCHOOL OF SOCIALWORK: GOING FOR THE EDGE We then isolated 45 discrete sub-categories within the original six target audi- ences. The faculty audience, for example, was divided into junior/non-tenured faculty, senior/tenured faculty, visiting faculty, adjunct faculty, teaching practi- tioners, associate faculty, field instructors, and potential faculty.We used this fine- grained listing based on the assumption that different groups within each target audience would have different information needs. Seasoned and tenured faculty, for example, need access to advanced course resources, while associate or adjunct faculty require farmore basic help. A potential student looking for a Ph.D. program would not be interested in BSW offerings. The task force then crafted a mission statement along with specific goals and objectives to guide us, based on this initial audience and needs inventory. “The mission of the Indiana University School of SocialWorkWeb task force is to create an electronic, web based support system that promotes the school in the preparation of knowledgeable professional social workers, through teaching, scholarship, and service, and to support the pursuit of social, politi- cal, and economic justice by IUSSW web community members. Through the development of a user friendly, dynamic, and ever-changing school web site, the task force seeks to streamline internal day-to-day school operations, and to build bridges among faculty, staff, students, and the broader practice com- munity in Indiana. Such connections are also intended to support the involve- ment of IUSSW alumni in continuing social work education and the develop- ment of best practices. The IUSSWweb site design creates a portal for contin- ued engagement with the broader community, and a gateway into the IUSSW community. In building a web community, the task force seeks to generate electronic resources for users that support the integration of technology into teaching, scholarship, and service. To these ends, the IUSSW web task force seeks to create a web based system that is responsive to the needs of the IUSSWweb community.” IUSSWWebsite Mission Statement Available at: http://socialwork.iu.edu/site/indexer/121/content.htm Next, the task force chairmade a prototypeHTMLwebpage and shared it and the mission statement with people from the six different audiences. Revisions were made from the resulting feedback, and the task force introduced the refined mis- sion statement andprototype at a full facultymeeting in the spring of 2001.The fac- ulty were thoroughly dissatisfied with the current website and clearly understood the benefits of this new approach. The faculty unanimously endorsed the portal project and this proved invaluable. It validated the recommendations of the task force and garneredbroad-based support. Everyonewas coming“onboard.”We also began to realize that a static website, perhaps a little more complex than our cur- rent one, would never support our evolving needs. It was becoming clear that we might be overwhelmedby the scope and complexity of this project.We realized that we lacked the professional expertise and resources to advance the project success- fully. Fortunately, our dean had a progressive vision for the school that embraced tech- nology. Hewas very aware of what a goodweb presence could accomplish and how 68 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK it could advance our many activities. This, combined with complete support from the faculty and staff, set the stage for seeking out the resources we needed. We needed to expand internal capabilities. We sought out professionals experi- enced in large-scale web projects. The university had a web services unit in the Office of Communication and Marketing.We scheduled a meeting with theirWeb Development Services (WDS) consultants and took hard copies of the prototype, our mission statement, and our list of target audiences with us. The meeting withWDS was both productive and frustrating. Their primary work was with high-level strategic initiatives for the entire university system. They could provide basic consultative services to schools, but this was not their principle func- tion. It became apparent that engaging them to help develop our portal would result in significant delays. We mulled over the idea of cobbling together various parts of the portal from several other university sources. This, too, seemed equally fraught with problems and potential delays. That left us with the all too common dilemma—build or buy?We needed to decide whether we would design and build the portal ourselves or seek an external partner to complete the project.We asked theWDS staff to help craft a concise Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would focus our choices4. This became the key working document. The MOU included a vision statement, ranked target audiences, recommended solutions, identified quantitative and qualitative metrics, and provided an estimated timetable and costs. The MOU outlined four possible solutions in increasing order of complexity and cost.We could: 1. Redesign the current static HTML site with similar functional limitations to the ones we had. 2. Build a website with some dynamic sections (news, calendar, etc.) and include databases and several administrative tool features. 3. Undertake a completely dynamic website using templates and a database repository. Robust administrative tools for content management of docu- ments, images, audio, and video files with distributed publishing and work- flow management capabilities could also be included. This would make it possible to havemany different people working on the website continuous- ly without bottlenecks and yet have the ability to oversee and control what was being posted. 4. Choose a robust solutionwith additional e-commerce, e-learning, and“push and pull” features. In this context, push and pull referred to complete inte- gration with the Oncourse course management system and other informa- tion systems planned by the University. Given the available resources and personnel capabilities, the first two solutions could have been built in-house. The third and fourth would require external help. The fourth solution was the most complex and would involve coordination with major university-wide initiatives.We elected to pursue the third option and retain a consultant. 69Vernon, Schultz/A PORTAL FOR A SCHOOL OF SOCIALWORK: GOING FOR THE EDGE 70 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK WPD recommended three firms that they had worked with in the past.We start- ed by reviewing the firms’ websites and tested them for disability access with the “Bobby” program (Watchfire, no date). “Bobby” allows you to analyze how well a website conforms to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C, 2002) standards for disability access and the Federal Section 508 requirements.These are industry stan- dards for website disability access (Wright, 2002). Only one of the three firms, Excel Communications, Inc., passed these crucial tests. Next, we asked for references fromExcel’s customers and followed up on them.The recommendations were pos- itive: Excel Communications had successful experience working with higher edu- cation institutions andwas quickly responsive to their customers.They understood some of our more Byzantine organizational characteristics. In addition, they had experience with portals and content management systems (CMS). Their past proj- ects involved design, development, and implementation of “off the shelf” CMS products. Most importantly, they had developed their own CMS solution in response to client needs. The product was called Plexcor and was built using open source Microsoft protocols—a common industry standard—that we felt would have staying power.We began a relationshipwith Excel Communications.This pro- duced a contractual agreement including planning and consulting services, cre- ative services (design, development, and implementation), and the Plexcor appli- cation. This was themost critical juncture—we hadmade a formal commitment to the portal project and found the help we needed to pursue it. PLANNING PHASE We began the session by brainstorming with the Excel team to develop a common vision of what success would look like if we looked back five years from now. We used our mission statement as the basis for this discussion. Next, we went back over the list of target audiences and reviewed the groupings. The Excel team encouraged us to rank the audiences in order of importance. We then listed strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and possible threats that could result from the newwebpresence. Once everyonewas on the samepage, we developed strate- gies that would support our vision. We remained mindful that a portal was a means to communicate and not a strategy in and of itself. During the discussion we considered a broad range of topics. Not surprisingly, one of ourmain strategies involved developing our portal as our primary communications, marketing, and development tool. At the same time, we compiled a list of possible sub-strategies and activities that we could initiate:Wewanted to showcase research activities, develop collaborative teaching resources, convey what you can do with a social work degree, promote prospective students, cultivate alumni, nurture current students, and develop new relationships with organizations through hosting services. We discussed the features and functions we wanted included in the portal from the outset. It was time to take this knowledge andmake it explicit. In collaboration with the Excel consultants, we came up with the following features and functions: • The people who would maintain the portal and websites would not need tech- nical skills such as writing, converting files to HTML, or placing them on the server. • Distributed publication would happen by as many people as needed rather than merely relying on one person or office. • A workflow management process would be in place to control content by hav- ing a review—approval feature—so that problematic files could be re-edited before being made publicly available. • Security, including the ability to control different degrees of access to editing and the uploading of documents and the ability to archive files and web pages taken out of circulation. • Disability access at minimum compliance withW3C and Section 508 standards. • The hosting of collateral organizations such as social work practice associations that need a web presence. • The ability to add e-learning, especially for continuing and distance education, and e-commerce features if the school decided to pursue these in the future. The final task of the planning phase involved the consultants developing a proj- ect review website. This website became our central hub as the project evolved. It was a convenientmechanism for storing documents, reviewing proposed designs, and archiving project information. DESIGN PHASE Once this job was done, we disbanded the task force and moved oversight of the project to the school’s standing Technology Committee. The committee’s first order of business was to agree on themethodology formoving the project forward with the Excel consultants. The User Centered Design approach (Norman & Drapers, 1986), a dialog process for developing successful interaction between people and computers, was in widespread use at our university. Excel was experi- enced with this methodology, and the consultants had developed a project man- agement matrix that could easily manage the project as it progressed from design to construction. Our consultants recommended an “Integrated Marketing Communication” (IMC) approach (Schultz, Stanley, Tannenbaum & Lauterborn, 1993) noting that the university’s marketing group had been employing it with success for several years. IMC results in a seamless uniformity betweenmedia: websites echo printed materials, televised messages, and all other media used for public communica- tion. Taking this approach required us to consider development of the overall cre- ative concept for the portal—the “look and feel” and primary messages—as a cohesivewhole (Percy, 1997).Thiswould result in consistent designs andmessages in all of the school’s media including website, brochures and other promotional and scholarly materials. The concept would begin with our portal. To develop our keymessage, we listed the school’s attributes, whichwere unique and of value. In marketing terms, this is referred to as the “unique value proposi- tion.”We had strong brand recognition and an excellent reputation. As a result, we developed this key message: Indiana University School of SocialWork…Shaping Leaders Since 1911 71Vernon, Schultz/A PORTAL FOR A SCHOOL OF SOCIALWORK: GOING FOR THE EDGE Visual Design We initially began working with the consultants to develop the visual look for the website. This caused a fundamental change in our public relations documents. Many of the school’s brochures for various programs, reports, and other public documents had evolved at different times over the years. This resulted in a con- fusing patchwork of many styles, colors, and layouts. The need for a uniform coherence was obvious. We needed to embrace the integrated marketing approach. As a result, apart from website development, Excel and the school developed creative concepts that included a common color palette that would be used both on thewebsite and in paper publications. This crystallized the“look” for the portal and satellites. The portal now had a uniformdesign that would bemimicked by all five campus programs.The colorswould be unique for each campus butwould still be from the same palette.Visitors would know that they were still within the school but on dif- ferent campuses.With a little practice, a regular visitor such as a student would be able to immediately recognize where he or she was in the portal. In the samemanner, close attention was given to having some consistency with our host university’s website through the use of visual cues.We portrayed the rela- tionship subtly by re-using the same message, font, stylistic treatments, and logo as our university does in its key marketing strategy. Excel then provided us with three different creative treatments. We tested how well the concepts resonated with users in all six target audiences during the pro- totype testing that took place when the information design was complete. Information Design With the initial planning and most of the design phase now complete, we were ready to begin designing the information architecture and navigational structure details for the portal and one of the campus websites. We elected to tackle the design and implementation of the portal, now called Indiana University School of SocialWork and would develop the main campus website first. Subsequent devel- opment would follow for the other four campus sites.We deliberately decided on this approach because we felt that changing the entire five-campus system all at once would overwhelm us. The first task was to design how the specified contents for the various audiences, programs, and campuses could fit together into a reasonably navigable whole. This proved to be daunting given the number of audiences and varied content specifications. The process evolved into a dialog: our consultants would give us a version of a sitemap.Wewould review it, give them feedback, and ask for an updat- ed version that reflected our changes. When we got to the fifth version, we were ready for user testing. We needed feedback from users in all six target audiences before proceeding further. Prototype Usability Testing Usability is defined by The International Standards Organization (ISO) as the extent towhich a product can be used by specified users to effectively achieve spe- cific goals efficiently in a specified context of use (ISO, 1998).We started to gener- 72 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK ate authentic tasks using the frequently asked questions collected during the plan- ning phase. For example, the directors from the Ph.D., MSW, and BSW programs reviewed the questions and proposed tasks for their program area. A paper mock-up was developed from text documents that represented poten- tial web pages (Snyder, 2001). The pages were assembled into a loose-leaf binder. Each page had a numbered tab and the numbers represented links to other pages. This made it possible to simulate movement from one page to the next without actually developing the website. We selected 10 representative users from the six target audiences. We wanted typical users, not people whowere extremely enthusiastic, knowledgeable, or hos- tile to using technology, and so they were screened for a moderate level of com- puter experience and familiarity with the School of Social Work. The test sample was weighted toward females, which represents the school’s population. Testing was conducted at the school, one test subject at a time. One of us would read an introductory script, then the test subject would try to accomplish 22 tasks andwas asked questions pertaining to the design. The tasks simulated actual activities such as finding specific information about fieldwork in the BSW program. In accordance with UCDmethods, iterative changes in the pages were made as test- ing progressed. Findings Observations and data from the paper tests were consolidated into a report. The findings and recommendationswere grouped according to template styles (portal, campuses, and programs). The report listed 21 “Findings” and suggested 13 “Recommendations” for consideration. This produced a final sitemap when the recommendations from the usability testing were resolved and adopted. Taken together, the sitemap planning process and usability testing produced a workable plan. The Excel technical staff developed an electronic prototype within three weeks. The Technology Committee reviewed it and additional modifications weremade based onminor stylistic and content changes.We now had a clear plan for constructing the portal and its satellites. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASES Hosting and Security We had to decide whether to host the portal on our own server or enter into a fee- for-service agreement with an internal university service. The school had its own server at that time, but we had encountered security problems with it and main- taining a vigilant presence was getting to be a drain on our school’s one technical support person.While no system is completely immune from attacks such as peo- ple attempting to store movie files, alter files as pranks, or worse, our university could provide a far more robust environment. As a result, we decided to go with the university’s hosting services. This decision gave us the advantage of not having to worry about security and also provided the opportunity to host a test-bed web- site for the prototype. We could populate the new portal and its associated web- sites while keeping the oldwebsite in service. This would allow us to fine tune nav- igation and content before rolling out the new portal and help with training. 73Vernon, Schultz/A PORTAL FOR A SCHOOL OF SOCIALWORK: GOING FOR THE EDGE Role Assignments Our consultants installed the prototype and we created a preliminary list of con- tent managers, the people who would have responsibility for specific content areas within the portal. For example, someone from the MSW field office would need to develop and maintain content regarding practicum activities. “User groups” could be createdwith different levels of access to the portal and the IUPUI campus website. We initially created four groups, which included “owners,” the people with complete access and decision control over all aspects of the website. A “security” group consisting of the owners and our technical support person was added to regulate access. A “managers” group was created for people with admin- istrative responsibilities. Finally, an “editors” group was created. These would be the peoplewhowould actually enter web content and themanagers would be able to approve that content. Assignments to specific groupsweremade by the school’s “Administrative Team,” the group charged with oversight of all of the school’s pro- duction routines. Group assignment was based on the staff person’s role and responsibilities. Pass-worded access was given to each individual depending on their assigned group. Training Our consultants then held two field-training sessions. The preliminary documen- tation formanaging thewebsite was not adequate from a“read it-do it” viewpoint. Thiswas largely due to the fact that the Plexcor program ismenubased, not graph- ics based, making it sometimes difficult to understand where you are in the pro- gram. This made it important to have hands-on training and experience in addi- tion to the documentation. These sessions focused on the direct skills needed to gain access to the system, how to upload different types of files, set navigation, and edit web page content. In addition, Excel provided a lengthy technical instruction session with one of us, who, as a site owner, would also have occasional instruc- tional responsibilities. Workflow The initial workflow procedures, such as assigning who was responsible for pro- viding and editing content, began to evolve asmore people contributed to the por- tal’s database. We discovered that overall management and navigation decisions needed to be made by the site owners because of features in the Plexcor system. The navigation features were too challenging for some staff. This resulted in a pro- totype website that was both centrally managed and yet access-distributed on a controlled basis: exactly what we wanted! Launch At this point we had to decide when to take the portal out of the test-bed and pres- ent the websites to the public. We still had incomplete data files and occasional gaps where content should have been available but was not. Yet, to delay longer would simply continue dependence on our older, inadequate website. Expectations had been raised and we needed to deliver on them, even if the prod- uct was incomplete.We decided to roll out the portal and the IUPUI website at the beginning of October, 2002, with the expectation that enough of the database 74 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK would be complete by the end of the semester that people would start becoming dependent on it for routine information. EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT Whatworked andwhat did not?While a summative evaluation of the portal’s effec- tiveness is premature, several issues concerning how well it has worked and nuances around the development process merit discussion. These are based on observation, experience, and discussion. One key issue is monitoring organiza- tional change and management issues. Change Management Innovation often takes place outside of the organization’s official hierarchy. This project was no exception. Many people with varying statuses had participated throughout the formative stages of the project. This resulted in a wide degree of buy-in and certainly fostered designs that addressedmany needs.Yet, once up and running, some administrative control over content became necessary. As a result, oversight and policy finality was transferred from the school’s Technology Committee to the school’s Administrative Team. This group consists of our dean, the three directors for the different degree programs, the director of research, and the director of development.With this policy established, the evolution of routines and who would be responsible for them began to evolve. Since “no single quality of management practice is more highly correlated with success than [participa- tion]” (Deetz, Tracy & Simpson, 2000), it was fortunate that these individuals had been keenly involved in the portal development and were very supportive of it from the start. Marketing and Promotion Little energy was devoted to advertising and promotional planning for the portal at rollout because the databases were incomplete. What would be accomplished by attracting visitors to an incomplete website?We began to turn our attention to promoting the portal and its content once people started to add content.While the portal project began independently, the collateral efforts to create a uniform or “branded” look and feel for all external communications collateral for the school were in development as well. As a result, wemissed an initial opportunity to cross- promote between the various marketing and communication channels. Assessment Metrics Assessment metrics are included in the Plexcor module to help determine fre- quencies and patterns of use. Unlike the rather useless logfiles from the older web- site, this feature provides quantitative measures such as the number of hits per web page per unit of time, page hit frequencies, and hierarchic relationships between web pages. The measures show more visitors are regularly hitting the IUPUI website than the portal page. This suggests that visitors look for campus- specific information more than general information about the school. The visita- tion patterns suggest targeted search. For example, information-laden web pages about the MSW program have a high visit frequency followed by web pages with more specific information, then by web pages on application information. This suggests a pattern of inquiry, exploration, and commitment on the part of poten- 75Vernon, Schultz/A PORTAL FOR A SCHOOL OF SOCIALWORK: GOING FOR THE EDGE tial students. The research section of the website enjoys high use as well. These aggregatemeasures have been gratifying because they indicate that, at least for the prospective student and research audiences, the portal is beginning to support them. Lessons Learned The process we followed—initially envisioning what we needed, then consolidat- ing it into amission statement that was endorsed by the faculty—was probably the most critical part of the planning process. The vision whetted appetites for what could be. The mission was the foundation for our goals. The initial efforts at defining the portal’s audiences, then conducting usability testing, were most worthwhile. These efforts helped transition the mission state- ment fromgeneral intentions to specific and concrete operational objectives.They also clearly informed everyone about just how complex and how long the endeav- orwould take.This led to reasonable expectations.The fact that we put a great deal of energy and effort into this—prior to writing a single line of code—clearly paid off as very few user complaints were voiced after rollout. Earlier attention to administrative structures and policies for the website would have been helpful. We had occasional conflicts over just what content needed to be placed within the portal and where it should be located. These conflicts tended to bemechanical rather than philosophical, though, and did not impede progress. Additional issues such as who would be responsible for them while initially mapped out evolved into different personnel needs and patterns. In a sense, the loose coupling of various constituencies during the design and implementation process may have been helpful, but rationalizing the results earlier in the process might have resulted in a more complete product at rollout. Our decision to use professional designers and developers was invaluable. The efficiencies gainedwere worth the investment. Had the school tried to develop the portal with internal and intramural resources, the results would certainly have been an inadequate portal way past deadline. The visual consistency among cam- pusesmight not have emerged. The system formanaging information on theweb- site would have been far more arcane. Adequate financing was also very pivotal in our success. Our dean was extremely supportive. Having a competitively bid price for the entire system rather than con- tracting with technical personnel on an hourly basis was efficient and resulted in more collaborative involvement with the consulting firm. Contracting with numerous independent consultants instead for bits and pieces of the system would have courted disaster. Coordination and compatibility would probably have been amajor problem had we chosen this alternative, plus the time drain on staff would have been prohibitive. The planning of revenue streams to eventually amortize investment costs and sustain the system in the future, discussed from the outset but still on our horizon, was very helpful in generating support from key administrative personnel. Our security and currency concerns have beenmarginal.Whilewe initially set up a hierarchywhere editors’ workwould be reviewed and approved by themanager’s 76 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK group, this was not necessary. The portal system fosters mutual oversight among contributors. This has resulted in quick error correction and the elimination of obsolete information. Finally, the relationship between our vendor, Excel, and the school was instru- mental in the portal’s current and growing success. Selecting a firm that could guide development and extend support beyond rollout through maintenance agreements was crucial. The spin-offs, such as gaining a uniformmarketing strat- egy and “look” where previously there had been far too much variation, were invaluable. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE Why go to the trouble of developing a complete portal system when individual static websites have worked in the past? Why create an initiative when university personnel are often willing to build “brochure” websites for programs? The portal approach holds several distinct advantages. First, people are gravitating toward the web as their first source for information. This means that a recruitment-directed website will not serve other audiences such as research colleagues, alumni, or current students verywell. Amore complex environment, built from the ground up to meet the needs of multiple audiences, is far more engaging. This advances the school’s mission. In addition, a dynamic portal system can be adapted to computer applications that evolve within the uni- versity. New campus-wide innovations such as additional online services and information resources can be easily incorporated into the portal. This allows the school to seamlessly integrate itself into the university’s computing environment rather than just being an isolated source for information. The school, in return, is perceived as a player instead of just an observer. Next, a distributed system encourages “buy in” becausemany people are partic- ipating in its ongoing maintenance and growth. A sense of collective ownership generates enthusiasm. New ideas can be quickly implemented. A static website maintained by one or two individuals cannot do this. This encourages growth and innovation for the entire school. For example, rural social workers often have problems finding supervision for licensure.We are considering a web-based serv- ice that can mediate supervision online. A static website cannot do this. Online training for licensure continuance or other continuing education activities can also be supported by a dynamic system. A static website cannot do this. Our por- tal’s ability to develop online surveys for research or marketing opens new hori- zons for interacting with many audiences as well. Data solicitation and collection is easy in a dynamic system. A static website cannot do this. Schools also have the obligation to help support the practice community. Specialized groups of practitioners often want websites. Some organizations have volunteer-maintained websites but many of these are not well designed or main- tained. Other organizations simply do not have the means to sustain a website on their own. The portal approach offers the ability to create a sophisticated web presence for these organizations. For example, we now host the Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Directors (BPD) web site: http://bpdonline.org. Select 77Vernon, Schultz/A PORTAL FOR A SCHOOL OF SOCIALWORK: GOING FOR THE EDGE members from BPD have password access to this website and the only skill need- ed is to be able to upload text files. Behind the scenes, the template and manage- ment shell for the BPD website is simply another extension of our school’s portal. Support initiatives for affiliated organizations thus become possible, furthering the mission of the profession. This type of hosting service works well without draining the school’s resources. Finally, the portal system fosters quality teaching. The classic problem of quickly orienting new faculty or supporting adjunct colleagues can be eased throughmak- ing teaching resources readily available in secure parts of the portal. We are cur- rently developing password accessible resources for faculty through our “Indiana University Resource Online Collection” (IUROCs) initiative. The website will con- tain syllabi, lists of media used in each class, testbanks, and voluntarily provided teachingmaterials such as PowerPoint files and lecture outlines.Thiswill help new instructors, plus it has the added benefit of showing faculty what teachingmateri- als other colleagues are using. This should eliminate the problem of students rolling their eyes in class because they have “seen this movie before.” In terms of the Council on Social Work Education’s Educational Policies and Accreditation Standards (EPAS), the initiative will directly support non-repetitive learning plus horizontal and vertical integration (Council on Social Work Education, 2003). Classroommanagement programs cannot do this well. All of these benefits provide the flexibility to adapt to an ever-changing and growing electronic world. Through creating portals, we can define and expand our roles ourselves rather than being guided by others who understand little of the social work education mission. Endnotes 1While generating a basic HTML page is relatively easy—most word processing programs can save a text document forWeb display—generating one that can be accurately rendered by many different browsers that are running on many different platforms is considered more difficult. A good metaphor is photogra- phy: Anyone can take a snapshot, but crafting a professional photograph takes farmore considerable skill. 2The term“Portal” is not well defined. A “shoppingmall” metaphor is often invoked. Common definitions include one-point entry via a main homepage and easy use through extensive navigation aids including sophisticated search engines, “breadcrumbs” that tell the user where they are in the website and how they got there, and other features that facilitate easy access to vast amounts of information. Additional features may include chat abilities, newsletters, online shopping, and many other services. A good overview is available at About.com: http://compnetworking.about.com/library/weekly/aa011900a.htm. 3At present, the main portal: http://socialwork.iu.edu has been developed along with one campus, http://socialwork.iupui.edu. Two other campuses are under construction and the remaining two are scheduled for development in 2004-2005. 4The complete Memorandum of Understanding is available at: http://socialwork.iu.edu/site/indexer/ 121/content.htm References Carlson, L. (2003).Web site evolution; Retrieved online July 23, 2003 from: http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarl- son/cms/evolution.html Council on Social Work Education. (2003). Handbook of accreditation standards and procedures, (5th ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. 78 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK Curl, A., Bowers, R., & Bowers, D. (2003). Future of website design: Accessibility as an issue of social justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council on SocialWork Education, Atlanta, GA. Deetz, S., Tracy, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). Leading organizations through transition. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications, Inc. International Standards Organization, ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs); Part 11-Guidance on usability (International Standards Organization, 1998). Nielsen, J. (1999). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity, Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing. Norman, D., & Drapers, S. (Eds.). (1986). User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Percy, L. (1997). Strategies for implementing integrated marketing communication. Lincolnwood, Il: NTC Publishing Group. Powell,W., &Gill, C. (2003).Web contentmanagement systems in higher education,EDUCAUSEQuarterly, 26(2), 43-50. Schultz, D., Stanley, I., Tannenbaum, R., & Lauterborn, R.F. (1993). Integrated marketing communication. Lincolnwood, Il: NTC Publishing Group. Snyder, C. (2001). Paper prototyping. Retrieved online on June 12, 2001 from: http://www- 106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/us-paper/?dwzone=usability Spool, J. (2001).User engineering institute. Retrieved online on June 12, 2001 from: http://www.uie.com Vernon, R., & Lynch, D. (2000). Social work and the web. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole. Vernon, R., & Lynch, D. (2003). Consumer access to agency websites: Our best foot forward? Journal of Technology in Human Services, 21(14), 37-51. Watchfire. (no date). Bobby online free porta.Retrieved online October 3, 2003 from: http://watchfire.com World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): Web accessibility initiative. Retrieved online December 27, 2002 from: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ Wright, J. (2002)Website development does not have tomean denying accessibility. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19(4), 111-114. Author’s Note: Address correspondence to: RobertVernon, Ph.D., IndianaUniversity School of SocialWork, 902West New York Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. E-mail: rvernon@iupui.edu 79Vernon, Schultz/A PORTAL FOR A SCHOOL OF SOCIALWORK: GOING FOR THE EDGE