Clearly the previous sections on motivating factors, leadership, and metrics have already set markers for commonality among the participant institutions. From this baseline we now add explore the specifics with respect to student support, faculty support, and the selection of delivery format (the type of Internet-supported learning implemented).

Student Support. Respondents were asked to rate the success of implementation of 12 student support services. The responses enabled us to group the services into four different categories. The first two categories are contained in Table 3 and represent common elements of success in the clear majority of participants. The first category (A) is services implemented by all participants with success. Only two fit that category. The second category (B) are those in addition that were implemented with success by a significant majority of the participants. Five services made this category. These first two categories or seven services represent the common denominator student services of these successful institutions.

Table 4 contains student support services that are not as widely implemented. The first category in Table 4 (C) are those student services that were not implemented by at least 15% of the institutions but were implemented with good success by at least one third of the institutions. These services represent potential opportunities for more institutions to implement successfully. Six services made this category. However, one of those services also qualified for the second category (D) in Table 4, which are services whose successful implementation rate is less than twice their limited or non-successful implementation rate. In other words, services in this last category represent a potential implementation challenge or risk and should be considered carefully.

Faculty Support. A similar analysis was undertaken with respect to faculty support services. A list of 22 faculty support services was presented to the respondents. None of the faculty support services qualified for the first category (A) of ubiquitous implementation. Seven faculty support services made the second category (B) of successful or highly successful implementation by a substantial majority. Again, these first two categories shown in Table 5, containing seven services, represent common denominators of the study participants.

Table 6 contains faculty support services that are not as widely implemented. The first category in Table 6 (C) are those faculty services that were not implemented by at least 15% of the institutions but were implemented with good success by at least one third of the institutions. These services represent potential opportunities for more institutions to implement successfully. Eleven services made this category, indicating that there appears to be much opportunity for improvement in faculty support services, even at these successful institutions.

Nine services qualified for the second category (D) in Table 6, which are services whose successful implementation rate is less than twice their limited-success or non-successful implementation rate. In other words, services in this last category represent a potential implementation challenge or risk and should be considered carefully. The riskiest service appears to be learning object repositories, which fail more often than they succeed.

In summary, student support services appear to be converging on uniformly successful implementation much faster than faculty support services. While both areas still represent targets of opportunity even for successful institutions, the faculty support area has much more diversity and risk associated with it.

Table 3. Predominant Student Support Services

Table 4. Student Support Opportunities and Risks

Table 5. Predominate Faculty Support Services

Table 6. Faculty Support Opportunities and Risks