Information Technology Committee Meeting Notes
Date: November 14, 2000
Time: 12:00-2:00
Location: McHenry Library – Room 481
1. Welcome and Introductions
Members Present: Scott Brookie, Mark Cianca, Bill Hyder, Pat LeCuyer, Charles McDowell, Larry Merkley, Robert White
Staff Present: Stephen Hull
Guests: Liz Irwin – Public Information & Publications Office (PIO), Jim Burns (PIO), Dan Snodgrass – Humanities Computing.
2. Corporate Time Presentation – Dan Snodgrass
The source document for this presentation is a document distributed to the committee prior to the meeting titled: “Campus Calendaring Project: Presentation to the Information Technology Committee (ITC), November 14, 2000.” More detailed information about the Campus Calendar Project can be found online at http://people.ucsc.edu/~jar/calendar.
In addition, the following comments were provided as email discussion by Kathleen Dettman in anticipation of her absence from this presentation: Nov14MtgDocs\Dettmen_re_Corporate Time.doc
Discussion: A discussion of campus calendaring expressed the following:
· Any standard should be fully functional in both computing environments, be web-based, and support “palm-pilot” product technology.
· A true standard would need to address the scalability of the product for campus administrators, staff, faculty, and students.
· It is valuable but not essential that the UCSC standard be consistent with the standards of other UC campuses and UCOP.
· What does it mean for the ITC or any administrative group or person to select a standard for the campus?
o There was general agreement that such standards have historically been recommendations that are voluntarily complied with by the campus.
o Are there incentives that can or should be offered for adoption of a campus standard?
· Considerable discussion focused on the costs for adoption of Corporate Time as presented.
o The server and other infrastructure costs for establishing a campus standard were reviewed.
o It was noted that EVC John Simpson, VC Tom Vani, and VC Francisco Hernandez have jointly agreed in principle to pay for the initial infrastructure costs.
o Discussion of the user costs associated with a calendaring standard focused on the need for them to be scalable.
o Questions were raised regarding who would pay for cost overruns should user adoption fail to cover ongoing licensing and support costs.
o It was unclear from the presentation at what point the “critical mass” of users is accomplished to meet ongoing system costs.
· Concern was expressed regarding how inclusive this review was and whether there might be other units or users on campus who were not included in the review process.
o It was acknowledged that there may have been some smaller units that were not included.
o Other larger units have recently conducted their own reviews, referred to in the comments provided by Kathleen Dettman, and have adopted other calendaring products.
o It was pointed out that conversion would be technically feasible for those who have recently adopted other calendaring products.
General Recommendations:
· A standard for a calendaring system would not require mandatory adoption by the entire campus.
· Various office requirements may demand a different product.
· The costs of implementing and supporting a product that deviates from an adopted campus standard should be assumed by the specific unit and not by the campus.
· Administrative use of an adopted standard makes a clear statement to the campus regarding its importance.
· The committee will revisit this item once the cost recovery analysis is complete.
Action: Pat LeCuyer agreed to investigate the cost recovery plan to determine at what level the adoption plan becomes feasible for CATS and provide the ITC with estimates.
3. Spam Policy Recommendation – Janine Roeth was scheduled to briefly introduce this item to the ITC, but was unable to attend due to illness. This item was postponed until a future meeting. The source document for this item can be found at http://www2.ucsc.edu/cats/sc/help/news/2000/00.11.10.port25.shtml.
4. Campus Web Presence -- Liz Irwin and Jim Burns
The source document for this item is available for committee review at http://www.ucsc.edu/administration/pio/itc_discussion/
Discussion:
· The presentation was well received.
· Several phases were identified in the current plan for implementing a web presence. We are currently engaged in the third phase.
· Efforts toward standardizing the campus web presence are underway but are severely under funded.
· It was emphasized that in addition to the specific goals addressed in the presentation, the overall implied goal is to reflect how the campus wants other to think of us.
· A baseline for a web standard is compliance with ADA standards.
· A discussion of who are the customers identified many including: Students, Alumni, prospective students and their parents, staff, and faculty.
· Numerous new issues associated with web technology were also discussed including:
o Applicant Tracking
o A Campus Directory
o The UCOP Portal Project
General Recommendations:
· Compliance with a campus web standard should be based on established institutional expectations.
· Efforts should be made to expand funding.
· A new committee should be formed which combines the original three groups (Content, Policy, and Technology) adopted in the original web presence plan. This committee should report to the ITC with recommendations.
Action: Discussion among the ITC membership regarding the composition and goals of this committee will continue until the next meeting of the ITC, at which time a committee should be formed.
5. AIS Review – Mark Cianca
The following documents were referenced in preparation for this presentation:
· http://oasas.ucsc.edu/ais/
· University of California, Santa Cruz Academic Information System: Final Report and Recommendation of the AIS Project Team
The following presentation was delivered at the meeting.
Discussion:
· Mark was complimented for the method and manner in which the AIS review was conducted.
· Issues surrounding the funding of the system implementation were acknowledged.
· Focus of the ITC should be on facilitating the successful implementation of this system.
o All interests need to be brought together in one place. A tentative Implementation Review Team was proposed.
§ Mark Cianca – AIS, Student Affairs
§ Kathleen Dettman – Planning and Budget
§ Laura Martin – CATS
§ Chair TBA
o Issues should include:
§ What are the impacts on the nature and the mandate of CATS and other computing groups on campus?
§ What are the effects on larger campus computing infrastructure?
§ How realistic is the estimated costs associated with the AIS Implementation Plan?
§ How will the AIS management be structured? Who will “own” which system management responsibilities? (e.g. CATS, BAS, Student Affairs…)
§ What are the priorities and timelines for deliverables associated with the plan? Who is involved?
§ How much and what is the nature of external consultation necessary?
General Recommendations:
· Due to the scope of this system, it should be a continuing item for review.
· The initial review team should be established immediately in order to insure appropriate timelines are met.
Action: Larry Merkley will continue recruitment and review team activities and report back at the next ITC meeting.
6. Committee Business
Notes: Due to lack of time these items were not covered. It was agreed that several of the “housekeeping” items would be addressed first at the next ITC meeting.
7. Next Meeting: Tuesday, 11/28, 12:00-2:00, McHenry Library, Room 481
Maintained by Stephen Hull, Office of Planning and Budget
Last modified on 11/29/00.