1	Westwood in Small, Liberal Arts Colleges Scott E. Siddall Denison University
2	Survey of small colleges 129 colleges surveyed February 23 until April 26 63 completed all parts of the survey 77 responded to parts of the survey 59% response rate
3	Participating Institutions
4	Demographics (means) 1885 students (705 to 3626) 194 faculty (63 to 450) 27 technology staff (5 to 65)
5	Email servers Exchange (37%) Unix/Sendmail (29%) Other (11%) SunOne, FirstClass, Groupwise, Unix/Postfix, Blitzmail, Rockliffe MailSite, Webmail Groupwise (10%) PMDF (10%) All are centralized 88% serve everyone; 12% serve faculty and staff only
6	27% support multiple email servers Unix/Sendmail (26%) Other (26%) SunOne, FirstClass, Groupwise, Unix/Postfix, Blitzmail, Rockliffe MailSite, Webmail Exchange (21%) Groupwise (11%) Cyrus (11%) 10% are distributed 7% support a third email server
7	Primary email clients MS Outlook (41%) Eudora (18%) Netscape Messenger (17%) Other (12%) Webmail, Groupwise, FirstClass, Squirrel Mail, BlitzMail, Outlook Web Access, Pegasus MS Outlook Express (3%) Webmail (3%) Entourage (2%) Mulberry (2%)
8	Primary email client support 78% on both Windows and Macintosh 17% on Windows only 3% on Macintosh only 2% on Unix only
9	Primary email client support Protocols: 54% IMAP 28% POP 19% MAPI For whom: 87% for everyone 13% for faculty and staff only
10	Other supported email clients
11	Is it acceptable for Chandler to support only IMAP and POP? 75% yes 25% no
12	Calendar servers supported (77% have calendaring) MS Exchange (37%) Meeting Maker (24%) Other (22%) SunOne, Groupwise, R25/Schedule 25, OnTime, homegrown Oracle (9%) Webevents (3%)
13	Calendar server support 100% centralized 53% provide calendaring to everyone 47% to faculty and staff only
14	19% provide a second calendaring solution Other (46%) SunOne, Groupwise, R25/Schedule 25, OnTime, homegrown Webevents (23%) MS Exchange (15%) Meeting Maker (8%) 83% centralized 50% to faculty and staff only 42% provided second calendar solution to everyone 8% to students
15	More calendaring solutions 7% provided a third calendaring solution 3% provided a fourth
16	Calendar client support 74% support a calendar client MS Exchange (37%) Meeting Maker (27%) Other (25%) Outlook, Outlook Web Access/Exchange, Groupwise, FirstClass, SunOne Oracle (10%) Webevents (2%) 80% on both platforms 50% for everyone 50% for faculty and staff only
17	19% support a second calendar client Other (69%) Webevents (15%) MS Exchange (8%) Meeting Maker (8%) 67% on both platforms 17% on Windows only 8% on Mac only 8% on Unix only 62% for everyone 38% for faculty and staff only
18	Supported Directory Services 44% LDAP 41% Active Directory 4% synch with email database 4% other Novell NDS, Win NT domain All are centralized 96% provided to everyone 4% to faculty and staff only
19	20% have second directory service 50% LDAP 29% Active Directory 21% other All are centralized 93% for everyone 7% for faculty and staff only
20	How important are these features?
21	Interest in Canoga?
22	Interest in Westwood?
23	Other interests?
24	Unusual requirements? Students limited to web client; no SMTP Must integrate with directory services Real-time appointment confirmation Mac integration is problem for many
25	Must have features PDA support Integrate with office suite Integrate with LDAP Support and user documentation Easy migration path Spell-check for email Anti-spam features Instant messaging compatibility Print daily calendar
26	What do you want to know about Chandler/Westwood? Product timetables Notice of upcoming conference presentations Feature comparison with current products Technical details on mail storage, backup, recovery Why isn’t the private sector developing Chandler? Specifics so we can plan for testing, piloting, use How will Westwood be supported? When can we test it? Why should we be interested? Expected features and when
27	How do you want this information? Web site Email newsletters pointing to web site Conference presentations
28	Suggestions? Use open standards Don’t reinvent wheels Avoid lock-in for this product Get feedback from academic users early in the process Give us easily installed beta versions to test
29	We are very, very interested!
30	Return home