Present: Arlene Allen, Larry Carver, Chris Dempsey, Saturnino Doctor, Bill Doering, Doug Drury, George Gregg, Bill Koseluk, Mark McGilvray, Elise Meyer, George Michaels, Alan Moses, Joan Murdoch, Stan Nicholson, Fuzzy Rogers, Glenn Schiferl, Deborah Scott, Jan Smith, Paul Weakliem, Craig Welsh
By unanimous agreement, ITPG meetings will never again be scheduled for 8:00 am Mondays or 4:00 pm Fridays.
Mark Aldenderfer was present for comments at the beginning of the meeting prior to proposal discussions. Since he will be carrying the information provided by the ITPG and ITB to the EVC, he wishes to be as impartial as possible in his presentations, and so has intentionally not been participating in the proposal discussions.
He asked for recommendations on how to bring forward the proposals. There seem to be two main philosophies, one is to bring forward just one or two proposals but to mention the others as context, the other is to bring forward the whole list in prioritized order. We should consider that the budget situation continues to be bleak as units have been asked to consider an additional 10% cut for next year beyond what has already been asked for. However, senior officers do support IT and understand the campus's problems. Although funding is limited, it was felt that without presenting the entire list, senior officers would not get the full picture and the interactions between the proposals, which is important since the organizational model including leadership for IT is still a few years away.
The voting methodology was discussed, with options to rank the proposals 1 – 7, or assign High, Medium, or Low, or to assign 100 points. The latter methodology was selected since it allowed the voters to communicate the most information. They could allocate all of their points to a single proposal, split the points evenly among a subset or all the proposals, or assign weighted values among a subset or all proposals. This process will result in the most pressing projects rising to the top, and the voting results will determine the manner in which the proposals will be forwarded.
Voting privileges will be determined similar to last time; those attending at least three of the meetings where the proposals were discussed would be eligible. Voter profiles should be included, consisting of the names and organization affiliation of voters.
The question arose about whether people should vote for the problem separate from the solution, i.e., the correct problem has been identified, but the best solution to that problem may not have been proposed. The purpose of these discussions is to try and make sure that the proposed solution is the best solution for the identified problem. It was suggested that each voter vote based on the entire proposal.
It is important that the proposals be prioritized and presented to the ITB before the faculty leave for the summer in early June.
ITPG PROJECT PROPOSALS
Discussion continued on proposals.
GUS
The needs of departmental extramural fund accounting cannot be met by the Accounting office, so departmental shadow systems have been created. This proposal must acknowledge that it proposes a change to the scope of the Accounting Office, and servicing the needs of departments in addition to the needs of the Accounting Office is an issue. It was generally agreed that the current accounting system did not adequately meet the needs of all the campus constituents. There was discussion of whether that should be the problem statement instead of funding an interim solution or as an additional proposal to be ranked separately. But the group felt that the best course of action was to address the immediate need of consistent, manageable, and viable accounting shadow systems; an overhaul to the accounting system should be addressed in the New Business Architecture proposal. Some felt that a new accounting system would eliminate the need for shadow systems, while others felt that there would always be some departments that would want/need to track their grants on their own.
All GUS users and developers have been consulted. The original plan called for 2.0 FTE at a lower level than the final proposal, but Business Officers felt that the CNT II and III levels were more appropriate. Staffing is needed to understand the technical aspects of the program and establish procedures. Currently 75% of extramural funds are using the GUS system and user satisfaction is high. The way GUS is currently implemented, each department has its own server with some local configuration, but the software and database structure is the same across all installations. Concern was expressed about the security of each of the servers. It was also pointed out that if supporting shadow systems was mandated to Accounting, they might actually investigate a different way to implement the service rather than provide more support for GUS.
Open Access Resource Funding
There is no consistent way for students to meet their computing needs on campus, and we are increasingly telling them to use web-based computing technology for administrative processes. Currently, the open access labs are heavily utilized and have outdated equipment. Open access facilities with printers, web, net port, and wireless and authenticated access should be available. Managing labs would require staffing, and printing expense is an issue. Uniprint is a possible solution, and has proven to be very good at covering printing expenses. Security of people and equipment late at night are issues that could be addressed by inclusion in FM's Building Access Control System. There is a one-time funding opportunity of $100,000 in matching funds from the Student Fee Advisory Committee for net access, printing, and facility accessibility. Figures included in the proposal are very preliminary, and more information is needed regarding wireless access. Staffing figures are likely to be high due to the proposed 24/7 availability; staffing on a 24-hour basis is the major portion of the cost. Space is available in the Library, SRB, and UCEN, and 24/7 accessibility should be handled by the Library and one other location yet to be determined. Investments in wireless, printing, and authenticating need to be addressed prior to hardware upgrades.
Persistent Archive
Results of research funded by Carnegie-Mellon will be in a white paper are that is currently in draft form and should be available to us in July. This proposal has been removed from the list.
Media Repository
This project has been removed from list.
Commodity Services
There was no further discussion.
New Business Architecture
There is a broad-based concern regarding the gap in handling the many aspects of maintaining the aging business systems currently in use. This proposal is to establish a multidisciplinary working group to develop a proposal and oversee the process of implementing a new business architecture encompassing a suite of integrated tools used by IT, Accounting, Purchasing, Student Affairs, Administrative Services, the Graduate Division, and many others. The working group needs to develop a process and communications mechanism for going forward. No funding is requested for this project other than possible outside consulting services.
Trusted Infrastructure
This project's goal is to consolidate UCSB's multiple, independent access, and data
protection structures into a campus-wide, distributed trust system, offering enhanced administrative and educational capabilities, open access to buildings, equipment, systems and information, augmenting security for the exchange and storage of electronic information, reducing operational and infrastructure costs, and generating revenues for UCSB. There are examples of input/access systems in use on campus now, but all are unrelated and resist integration. This is a very good opportunity to integrate these types of systems from this point forward. Although the project is quite technical, the technology is available now, with chips already integrated in commonly available hardware. A feasibility study is necessary to assess costs and benefits. Costs of the study could be handled in one of three ways: through an internal group with donated staff time, through external consultants with an estimated cost of $135,000/year, or a combination of the two. It was suggested that an ITPG working group be established to handle this project.
The group discussed that the last three projects implied aspects of a campus-wide strategic planning process. Some felt that all three were important and should proceed without requiring a vote, others felt that it was important to learn how the ITB ranked these three areas as strategic priorities, and that it would come down to managers determining their staff resources for actually going forward with all three research efforts.
Project Presentations
The last time we went through this process, your ITPG co-chairs split the proposals and presented them to the ITB. That process was proposed for this round too. Some suggested that the website proposals and problem/solution statements could be augmented by powerpoint summaries of the proposals.
Next Steps
- Elise will create a list of eligible voters.
- Paulo will be provided the voting procedures and will determine the earliest voting date.
- At the next meeting, scheduled for June 3, discussion of the votes will take place.
Announcements
Richard Katz will be on campus May 24 and 25 to deliver motivational presentations to the Chancellor, the EVC, the ITB, service providers, interested faculty members, and others regarding educational technology.
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule
