Present: Debbie Anglin, Kevin Barron, Art Battson, Glenn Davis, Bill Doering, George Gregg, JoAnn Kuchera-Morin, Bill Koseluk, Tom Lawton, Tom Marazita, Elise Meyer, Alan Moses, Larry Murdock, Jan Smith, Jamie Sonsini, Sean Souther, Bob Sugar, John Vasi, Tom Lawton
Not Present: Ken Bowers, Phil Handley, Sonia Johnston, Pam Lombardo, Bill McTague, Ed Mehlschau, Joan Murdoch, Kevin Schmidt, Vince Sefcik, Pamela Webb
Elise began by introducing our guest, Stuart Lynn, Associate Vice President, Information Resources & Communications, University of California Office of the President.
Stuart presented a slide-show adapted from a previous presentation to the Legislative Analysts of the State of California. The show was intended to describe the strategic planning process related to instructional technologies at UC, answering questions such as, "What are we spending on IT support?", "What is the gap between what we are spending and the ideal?" and, "Is the gap so large that we would be certain to use any increment in funding well?"
The data on which the presentation was based were gathered about a year ago from all campuses (except UCSB – we didn't have a single point of contact to coordinate the study). UCOP is considering updating the data this summer. There were the inevitable coding issues between campuses (inclusion of seats dedicated to research, various classifications used for IT workers, one-time vs. annualized costs, etc.). The study was not perfectly precise but, nevertheless, provides a framework for future studies and models of IT use at UC.
Stuart noted that the legislature wants to know how UC spends IT support dollars.
To frame the questions Stuart's group categorized facilities and services into four groups (Student Computer Labs, Technology Equipped Classrooms, Faculty/I&R Staff Workstations, and Direct Student Support) and expenditures into six "Types" (Workstation Equipment, Workstation Maintenance, Software, Network Connectivity, Training & Support, and Facility Maintenance/Renovation). Costs were then estimated for each cell for the current time period and for a "Benchmark Scenario". The data indicated that the current (FY 96/97) ratio of students to workstations across UC was about 14:1. Both general and departmental workstations were included in the count, as were those dedicated to graduate students – only very special-purpose workstations were not included. The following items were not included in the costs: Courseware Development, Netstations, Multimedia, Special Facilities, ADL, or Student Services or Administrative systems.
In answer to one of the questions forwarded from ITPG, Stuart described the "Delphic Process" which led to the 8:1 "ideal" ratio of students to accessible workstations. This was the number used in the "Benchmark Scenario." He said the number was an average and resulted from a discussion among people with experience in this area from eight of the UC campuses. Another difference between the "Current Scenario" and the "Benchmark Scenario" was going from the current average equipment replacement cycle of 4.25 years down to a 3-year cycle. An "Interim Scenario", midway between the Current and Benchmark scenarios, was also presented.
The categories (or "tiers") used in the study are described on pages 22-24 of the data handout that was provided. Stuart also handed out a document titled, "The University of California, Teaching and Learning Technologies – A Strategic Assessment." The latter handout was based on the data collected in the assessment. (Note: We also have a paper copy of the slide show that Stuart presented in his original State Legislative Briefing. I will send copies to those who request them.)
Stuart was very helpful and quite candid in expressing his views on the topics that we have been discussing. For example, he believes that campuses should provide a utility network that carries both voice and data to the wall plate. He indicated that the costs for such a service are converging at $35-45 per month at several institutions around the country.
On the topic of support staff, Stuart indicated that the ratio of workstations to staff is about 100:1 within UC, while commercial enterprises report a ratio of 40:1.
The charts provided show that UC spends about $136M/year on instructional technology (Student Computer Labs: $38M; Technology Equipped Classrooms: $13M,; Faculty/I&R Staff Workstations: $70M; and Direct Student Support: $19M) and that students are spending about $80M/year of their own money in addition, with an average 72% student ownership. Studies suggest that students spend $600-700 per year – maybe $1000 including network connections – which does not seem unreasonable in light of other expenditures required to attend a university. The study indicated that there is about a $150M "gap" between current expenditures and the Benchmark Scenario and about a $60M gap between current expenditures and the most conservative estimates of what is required. Thus, we are still quite far from the goal and any funding increments on the horizon are certain to be used well. The legislative analysts appeared to accept this finding.
The University is currently awaiting the budget revision that occurs in May to see how the new state administration responds to the needs that were expressed. UC has focused particular attention to the large gaps in funding required for staff support and for replacement equipment.
During the Q&A period following the presentation Stuart noted that the "hand-me-down" model of workstation allocation is breaking down because of the pace of technology – equipment is obsolete and not useful by the time it is ready to hand down. Campuses do not typically budget replacement funds – they are obtained from many sources. UC fund-accounting mechanisms encourage "expensing" equipment items. A time-honored mechanism for getting equipment is vendor gifts, but he said that source has shrunk due to low margins on equipment.
In response to a question regarding the trend toward student acquisition of laptop computers Stuart felt that provisions for laptops would not meet the demand because: 1) Portability comes at a premium and the price gap between laptops and desktops is increasing, 2) Laptops are heavy and lack security so students are not likely to bring them to campus, 3) Whatever students can afford, demand for more power will outstrip it – laptops will never catch up in price-performance and, 4) We have a long way to go to achieve the 8:1 ratio – currently there are many more courses that do not use technology than there are those that do.
Discussing the cost of facility space to support the 8:1 ratio, Stuart noted that the average cost of providing space for a 50-seat lab is about $135K per year.
Elise introduced the ITPG notion of focusing resources on three types of labs: 1) "Safety net" labs for those who cannot afford their own equipment, 2) central labs with advanced equipment and connectivity that can be shared by many classes and, 3) Departmental labs that provide discipline-specific features and software. Stuart agreed and added a fourth category in which access to certain proprietary content will need to be restricted to preserve intellectual property rights.
Responding to the idea of using financial aid to help students acquire equipment, Stuart suggested that this strategy would only work if there were additional financial aid funding available for this purpose.
In talking about the future of connectivity to the campus, Stuart indicated that small modem pools in conjunction with ISP agreements are likely to be the norm. He is not a proponent of large, recharge modem pools. The cost of ISP service approaches the $10/month that it takes to support a modem pool and ISP service is much more flexible. Besides, providing Internet connections is not a "core service" of UC and we should not be competing in that market. New services such as cable modems and xDSL will be arriving soon. Nevertheless, a small "life-line" modem pool might be appropriate. In addition, campus facilities must take over where remote bandwidth leaves off for some applications.
Committee members noted that the "gap" in funding implied limitations on services that could be provided. In response, Stuart pointed out that the university administrators have been using ad hoc approaches to funding IT because the potential demand is so enormous that they can't afford to set precedents that won't scale up. IT is, nevertheless, "on the radar screen" and can expected to be a priority in future budgets.
While preparing to run for the airport, Stuart explained that the California Digital Library initiative is being kept separate from IT funding for instruction all the way to the state level and, consequently, won't compete for resources already allocated to UC.
We all thanked Stuart for the valuable information and insights that he provided. He covered lots of information in a very short time and gave us much to discuss at our next ITPG meeting.
Note: The next ITPG meeting is planned for Friday, February 19, at 10:00 a.m. in North Hall 1131. See you there!
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule
