< Back to Main Site

EDUCAUSE review onlineEDUCAUSE review online

The Muscles, Aches, and Pains of Open Source


© 2003 Annie Stunden

EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 38, no. 6 (November/December 2003): 100–101.

Annie Stunden

In July the University of Wisconsin–Madison had another opportunity to participate in a standards-based, open-source software initiative. To opt in, I had to put up a little of the university's money. To opt out, I had to tell twenty-five of my friends and colleagues around the nation that I did not think this was a wise investment. If enough of us opted out, the project might fizzle. Or it might proceed without input and influence from the higher education community, and those of us in the community might miss the chance to get a product that meets our collective requirements. UW-Madison opted in. So did twenty-four other institutions. But I worry: are we committed enough?

At UW-Madison, we buy rather than build major applications software. These days, this is scary. We are watching our providers fail, merge, and be acquired. Just this past year, one of UW-Madison's major providers merged with another company; a second was acquired. In both instances, the application direction is not what we understood when we purchased the application, and it isn't better. I'm not sure that we would choose the same vendors if we were buying now.

All of us know about Oracle and PeopleSoft (and will know more by the time these words see print). Initially, Oracle said it would not support current PeopleSoft applications; then it backed away from that statement. If Oracle returns to its initial position, all PeopleSoft applications will require expensive enterprise-systems migrations. Many in higher education worked hard in building a relationship with PeopleSoft. The relationship yielded applications somewhat tailored to meet higher education requirements. A successful Oracle bid for PeopleSoft could cost many of us a lot—but we have no control over the situation.

Microsoft challenges us in other ways. We struggle with its licensing offerings. We struggle with the security of its applications. Because Microsoft owns the desktop marketplace, because it is very large and individual colleges and universities are not, higher education has little opportunity to affect the direction of Microsoft.

That's just how it is, I can hear you say. Fair enough. But these recent vendor events have me pondering bigger collective investments in collaborative software development with my colleagues around the nation. As I ponder, I realize that the investment in development isn't what holds me back: it is the linked dilemmas of implementation, support, and maintenance.

We have a large and talented technical staff at UW-Madison. We are active in national forums and participate with our colleagues in discussions and presentations. We contribute software to open-source pools. We take part in joint software development. We use software that our colleagues and friends develop. These are good things. It's pretty easy to pick up a small piece of code, or even a module, from a friend and attach it to an enterprise application. We do this, and we manage the code after we have adopted it. We check in with our friends, put fixes in the greater pool, and benefit from this informal sharing.

But this is all occurring at the margin. In more significant cases, we at UW-Madison contribute our thinking, and we have supplied the occasional piece of code, but we haven't been full partners. Why not? Because we have not been prepared to implement the collaborative products. Even where we have shared a staff member, for example with Internet2 for the development of Shibboleth, we are slow to adopt the outcome.

Why the reluctance to implement shared projects? Because, in my view, the collaborative higher education IT community has not figured out how to provide ongoing support to complement this great development work. When one college or university leads a development effort, it is usually prepared to implement and maintain the resulting application—but for itself, not necessarily for another institution.

Support is central to enterprise applications. UW-Madison runs Sun's I-Planet e-mail software, serving more than 60,000 people. We had a major systems failure this year. Yet the Sun product developers hung in with us until we were able to isolate the source of the failure. The Sun engineers then offered a fix. If our e-mail software had come from a collaboration among, say, Michigan, Indiana, Penn State, and Wisconsin (a likely group), where would we have gone for that time-consuming, in-depth, post-implementation support?

As I was thinking about this dilemma last night, I remembered CREN, the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking. For years (and for a fee), CREN provided and supported ListProc, an open-source product. Many institutions became CREN members only to get ListProc. Although CREN had limited resources to support ListProc, it provided an organizational umbrella for a cross-institutional community of technical folks who knew the product and helped keep it running. The Internet2 Middleware Initiative faces the same maintenance and support challenge for Shibboleth. Institutions are beginning to adopt this method of authentication for sharing network resources. The Internet2 middleware people are beginning to think about how to maintain the product and support the user community. If they don't reach at least CREN's standard—and Shibboleth is far more complex and challenging—it will be hard for anyone to adopt the product.

Design and development are fun and exciting. Moreover, at some point in the process, you can declare success and move on. Maintenance and support have neither the glamour nor the defined end points. They're not as much fun, and they last forever.

So why, given the challenges of maintenance and support, did I opt in to a collaborative open-source project last July? And why am I talking to my colleagues about another project that will require an even larger effort? Because, in short, I find the vendor situation so disturbing. But opting in to development is only the first step. As I opt in, I'm challenging all of us to believe in shared, open-source software—but to do so more completely. We need to develop creative collaborative solutions to the dilemma of maintenance and support in our shared software-development initiatives. I want to confidently recommend participation in the development and implementation of great mutual work. For me to do this at UW-Madison—and for all of us in higher education to do this across the nation and the world—we need to know how we are going to keep things going. And we need to figure this out very soon, or we will remain hostage to an increasingly hostile vendor environment.

Dr. Seuss is my organizational guru and my favorite philosopher. As usual, he's on point: "This is called teamwork. I furnish the brains. You furnish the muscles, the aches and the pains."1 We are really good at furnishing the brains. Let's figure out how to furnish the muscles, the aches, and the pains.


1. Theodor Seuss Geisel, I Had Trouble in Getting to Solla Sollew, by Dr. Seuss (New York: Random House, 1965).

Annie Stunden is Chief Information Officer and Director of the Division of Information Technology at the University of Wisconsin.

Ann E. Stunden

Annie Stunden began her position as Chief Information Officer and Director of the Division of Information Technology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on February 1, 2000. UW-Madison is a 40,000 student research university with a major commitment to transformational change of the teaching and learning environment through the use of technology. Annie is leading an organization of about 550 staff members and 250 student staff in this position. DoIT provides technology services and support to the UW-Madison student community, and also provides selected services to some of the other colleges in the UW-system.

From 1996 to 2000. Annie was Director of Academic Technology at Cornell University. At Cornell Annie led a 70 person organization (and about 200 student staff) in the provision of technology support for faculty and students in their teaching and learning efforts as well as support for the campus community in doing their day-to-day work using technology tools. Annie’s organization developed an effective distributed support provider model. It also transformed the Help Desk to a focus on support for technology heavily used by the campus community, but not generally available from other sources. A focus on a user friendly (and smart) Help Desk was a paramount and successful initiative • and was primarily staffed with part-time student employees. Other initiatives included reemphasizing and rebuilding the faculty support center, supporting the Training group to focus on "Train the Trainer" programs, and expanding the skills and capabilities of the network and telephone service teams.

Annie was Director of Academic Technology and Network Services at Northwestern University from 1991-1996. From 1980•1991 she was worked at the University of Rochester where she held key technology positions first in the hospital and then in the University.

Currently, Annie is on the Board of CREN, the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking. As a CREN Board member, Annie was a vocal supporter of the change in CREN’s focus and is especially proud of the work CREN is currently doing with the "Tech Talks" in terms of technology transfer and professional development for the higher education IT community.

Annie has been on the Board of CAUSE. As a board member, she was active in supporting enhancements to the CAUSE professional development activities, leading the CAUSE Board Professional Development Committee for some of her Board tenure. Annie was also a member of the Board that initiated and continued to support the decision that led to the merger of Educom and CAUSE. Annie has also served on the CAUSE member Professional Development Committee and was the chair of that committee for some of her tenure. That Committee was the committee that led to the expansion of many of CAUSE’s professional development programs as well as peer review of pre-conference programs and tighter relationships with other national organizations that engage in professional development. Annie has served as a member of the Educom Board nominating committee and chaired that committee for one year.

Annie has been deputy program chair and then program chair for the SIGUCCS Management Symposium. She has served as a program track leader and a member of the program planning committee for the Seminars on Academic Computing.

Annie has been a faculty member at the CAUSE Management Institutes, a leader of pre-conference workshops at CAUSE, EDUCOM, and EDUCAUSE, and a speaker and/or workshop leader at many conferences. She is also invited to give talks and lead workshops for sister higher education IT organizations and for Human Resources in her organization, and obliges when possible.

Since 1959, Annie has been in the technology business and considers herself grandmothered in this field. She started out as an operating systems and compiler developer, but now orten needs technical support to keep her desktop machine operating (more power than the machines she knew well in the early 60’s that were running the national air defense system). In addition to being grandmothered in technology she is the grandmother of six beautiful little people, enjoys them, her garden, trash novels and occasional quiltmaking.


Tags from the EDUCAUSE Library

Tags from the Community

Stay Up-to-Date

RSS Email Twitter

Share Your Work and Ideas

Issues coming up will focus on new roles in IT and learning environments. Share your work and ideas with EDUCAUSE Review.

E-mail us >

Connect: San Antonio
April 22–24
Register Now

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.


Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center

Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management



Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.


EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas



Join These Programs If Your Focus Is


Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.



2015 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations

Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.