ITB Meeting Minutes March 4, 1999

Absent: John Wiemann, John Bruno, France Cordova, Jules Zimmer

Bob Sugar, ITB Chair, opened the meeting by having Glenn Davis report on the February 5^th ITPG meeting with Stuart Lynn, Associate Vice President of Information Resources and Computing, UCOP. Stuart's presentation centered on the strategic planning process for instructional technologies at UC and was based on data gathered from 1996/97 surveys at all UC campuses (except UCSB). Minutes on the meeting are available at http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~itpg/990205-minutes.html. In summary:

• UC-wide survey was similar to the UCSB survey used to produce Access: Computing Resources at UC Santa Barbara.
• Ratio of students to workstations is 14:1 (UCSB is slightly behind).
• Student ownership is increasing.
• 83% of students in Residential Halls have some way to connect to their ethernet port.
• No great move toward laptops – not a good trend, poor price/performance, security, too heavy (consistent with Mark Aldenderfer's survey reporting 10% laptop ownership).
• UC shouldn't compete with commercial ISPs – cost voice/data $35-$45/mo.
• Students spend $600-$700 of their own money for computers.
• It costs $135K/yr to support a 50-seat lab, including space.
• Ratio of staff to workstations is 100:1.

Glenn distributed and reviewed a handout on workstation utilization UC wide, which summarized the average age of workstations and the ratio of workstations to total employees by campus. UCSB is slightly behind other UC campuses.

Next, Elise Meyer presented the ITPG Suggestions for Possible Campus Policy Recommendations, which Bob Sugar had requested at the previous ITB meeting. A discussion followed.

Jeff: If we assume significant compliance for recommendations, how do you estimate the figures for recommendation #3?

Bob Sugar: We were looking at what it takes to maintain the status quo. We have to continue to survey to collect data for planning.

Mark: Some aspects of the status quo are not acceptable; for example, printing.

Elise: Yes, printing was put off to deal with later.

Jeff: If we adopt recommendation #1, we need a policy that we are going to tailor what we offer on campus to the fact that students have computers.

Elise: How would you change this?

Jeff: Make it less specific – policy rather than specifics.

Bob Sugar: Good point. So in #2 policy statement – campus resources should take into account significant student ownership and focus resources accordingly.

Mark: The number is going to change, but is a 4-year replacement cycle something we can do?

Elise: We were trying to say phased replacement, see #4. ITPG survey questions are not formulated at this point. We are in the process of establishing a subcommittee to address it.

Bob Sugar: We should have a set of policy recommendations that are brief and general. Then fill out what that means today in detail.

Alan: Regarding #2, I disagree about generalizing. The document would become vacuous. Spell out the minimum safety net for student access. It would be useful to project this sometime into the future. The University should be able to establish some standards. At least, say, a group would be set up to draft the architecture of what that would be.

Gene: Implication: put the best IT into students' hands. Constraint: money. What is our objective?

Bob Sugar: Significant money is being spent now, and some huge amount of money isn't going to materialize.

JoAnn: ITPG's concern about student access is really important, but other important needs should be addressed too.

Michael: "Provide guidance" in #1 suggests support. Gaps need to be filled, like ISPs. Will there be options, maintenance, support when students have questions?

Elise: Residence halls and the Bookstore provide support at this time, but yes, it does imply support.

Michael: People who are not computer savvy will need help.

Ron: Regarding #3, some sort of regular funding for planning purposes as well as replacement should be added. This is the first time there is talk of replacement funds.

Alan: Regarding #1, recommendation versus requirement will make a difference to instruction. Would we like to see movement toward requirement? Is there a phase-in to higher requirement, and what built-in support will that mean?

Michael: If it is requirement, it will be covered under Financial Aid.

Bob Sugar: Stuart Lynn said Financial Aid moneys won't be increased, so there will be competition for the same resources. But is this a good thing, should we provide this as a safety net? Maybe we should have ITPG go back with these suggestions and revise this draft of the recommendations. We'll put the Revised DRAFT Recommendations on the ITB web page. An email list, itb@ucsb.edu, has been established for the ITB that can be used for posting comments on the recommendations.

Peter: Any chance to implement this for next year?

Bob Sugar: Yes, it would be a goal to include this.

Peter: Then, there is pressure on ITPG to get it done now.

Mark: We don't have the support structure to implement it for this year.

Bob Sugar: I would like to move promptly so we can inform students of the recommendations, but we shouldn't rush. We need to rework the recommendations.

JoAnn: Look at student access but also look at funding issues.

Bob Sugar: We are not making recommendations on what the budget is. If we can't develop policy before we attempt to make a budget, we won't make any progress.

IT Organization

Bob Sugar moved on to IT organization, one of the ITB charges. Multiple IT organizations are involved that serve the campus as a whole. Historically, we are highly decentralized, which is good in the sense that departments know best how to do what they need to do. However, integrating IT into instruction, managing the campus backbone, security, and authentication campus-wide are all issues hard to address in a decentralized environment because of the following.

• No mechanism for strategic planning
• No mechanism for ordering priorities
• Coordinating work of multiple units
• Assigning responsibilities
• No single mechanism for advertising services and who provides them
• No mechanism for presenting issues to Senior Officers
• External review of academic and administrative computing on campus
• No strategic documents were provided to the committee
• Recommended to create the infrastructure for academic and administrative computing
• Recommended to create advisory board
• CNC recommendations
• Recommended establishing this board and who should be involved
• Recommended establishing the ITPG
• Recommended that an Office of Information Technology be created, lead by a Vice Chancellor or Associate Vice Chancellor who reports to the Executive Vice Chancellor and is responsible for coordinating the ITB and ITPG.

No action was taken on the last CNC recommendation. The Chancellor and EVC are looking for advice in this matter. Here is how other UC campuses are currently organized:

Once we answer the questions below, we can make a decision, discuss the details and make recommendations to the Chancellor and the Executive Vice Chancellor. We could invite Stuart Lynn to a meeting if more information would be useful.

1. Do we need more planning and coordination?
2. Is the ITB and ITPG about right?
3. Do we need a person dedicated to leadership in IT?

Person : ITB are too busy to do the real work that an IT officer should do. In the end it is the technical people that do the work. A group such as the ITB sets the priorities.

Bob Sugar: If we take this approach, the IS&C Director would have too much burden. Does this office focus more on academic computing? But there is a cost. If more money is spent on organization, less is available for hardware, etc. But, would you save because things would be more coordinated, more efficient? It's hard to say.

Glenn: We need to establish the aspirations of the campus for more resources. Then there would be a compelling reason for more planning.

Jeff: We need a person but the job description needs to be written carefully. This person doesn't have operational responsibilities elsewhere. They are dedicated to the job. The campus has the talent to put us at the forefront. It's almost obvious that we need someone.

Dorothy: I think we need more coordination, advocacy, planning. There are good people in all areas but there is a lack of an overarching big picture – no one solely responsible. The person's job will be tough – administration, academic instruction, academic research. It must be a consultative position – lots of sources of input. All units will have a say.

Jeff: That's why you have this person. It's not a line position.

JoAnn: Deficits on the college's plate are really campus-wide issues.

Michael: We need such a person: strategic leadership, even if it infringes on my turf. It would be useful to have someone with campus-wide perspective and leadership.

Mark: I am a strong advocate for some sort of centralized leadership.

Alan: I strongly support it as well. How do we get the faculty involved in strategic planning? Maybe departments will deal with IT if there is someone at the top to drive this.

Bob Sugar: Is there anyone against it?

Peter: Not agains, but I have concerns. Technology is moving fast and any plans should be flexible. We should not have a long term. We need an academic plan, but the CIO shouldn't be the person doing it.

Bob Sugar: No, planning to provide infrastructure for all purposes is different from designing courses on the web.

Peter: I'm concerned about over centralizing. The position should have a very clear set of responsibilities and authorities that can't expand into certain areas without the approval of the ITB. Maybe the CIO comes to the ITB with plans they sell to ITB rather than the other way around.

Jeff: How has this worked on other campuses? How long have these types of positions been on other campuses?

Bob Sugar: It's good to inquire. We can get more information from other campuses. Have Stuart Lynn tell us in detail what exists and how well it works on other campuses. Another way is if we have colleagues on these campuses, we can get an impression from them.

Jeff: Santa Barbara is unlike other campuses. Let's look at the issue of X.500. How would this person come up with a yes or no answer to whether we should have X.500?

Bob Sugar: Someone needs to decide this is a high priority – someone with responsibility for directory services. Then they say go ahead. It's trying to handle a huge variety of network problems. He needs to get the databases from all over campus. Not the first thing on my priority list. A CIO would say, I want this to be done and everyone would comply.

JoAnn: UCSB will be hosting the Computing Conference. Perhaps a panel discussion could be what other campuses like and don't like about CIOs. By the way, we're hosting a conference with no budget.

Bob Sugar: For each campus initiative, we have to go with our hand out to the EVC for funds. If we have a CIO, they would set priorities.

Michael: The influence a CIO would have would provide the authority and leadership to make it happen.

Dorothy: For Ron Tobin, who had to leave, he doesn't share the views of most here. He doesn't think there is a need for a CIO. The ITB is doing enough.

Bob Sugar: Ron will have an opportunity to discuss this again later.

Gene: A CIO can integrate and ensure we aren't duplicating efforts. The person shouldn't do top down management, though. I agree with Peter.

Bob Sugar: It looks like we want do something in this direction. We should all think about this. I will try to arrange Stuart Lynn's visit. Talk to colleagues on other campuses regarding the CIO model.

David: Every person talks about structure, but we all have our own view. We think we're not well off in terms of planning, but we may be. Do we need a more centralized structure? What problems are to be solved by the position?

Bob Sugar: Think about the type of person – full-time, non-academic faculty member, release time from teaching. Let's come back together in early April. If we move this along, we could solve it by fall.

Bob Sugar stated that the standing meeting schedule would be revised to avoid causing the same people to be unable to participate.