INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES
February 28, 2002
I. Welcome and Introductions
§ Members Present: Bob White, Pat LeCuyer, Larry Merkley, Terry Schalk, Bill Hyder, Charlie McDowell, John Rodrigues, Scotty Brookie, Mark Cianca
§ Members Absent: Kathleen Dettman, Bruce Cooperstein,
§ Guests Present: Peter McMillan, Barbara Brogan, Christina Valentino, Eric Goodman, Ron Bedford, Lori Castro, Julie Putnam
§ Staff Present: Max Ritchie, Fana O’Halloran
II. Chair
Announcements- Larry Merkley
§
The focus groups that the Instructional Technology
Group are conducting with faculty and students have been going well. One
observation from a faculty focus group was that they learned a great deal from
each other about the variety of ways that instructional technology is used in
different classrooms. A full report about these focus groups and other
instructional technology issues will be presented to ITC in the spring.
III. Recruitment Management System – Peter McMillan
Peter presented the ITC with an overview of the Recruitment Management System (RMS). He asked the ITC for feedback, and to expose any fundamental problems with the project plan. This feedback will allow for changes to happen in timeline scenario A or scenario B.
Members of the ITC asked Peter to provide a concise problem statement with analysis, detailing the recruitment process and how resources could be saved with a new system. In addition to this, adding another timeline that includes people and processes would allow the ITC to better understand the issues of importance.
Other comments noted that the time to implementation seemed short, and that a project of this scope should probably have a full time project manager, similar to Mark Cianca’s role with AIS. It was suggested that external stakeholders would be an integral component of this project, and that it would be beneficial to get a focus group of people who have applied to UCSC in last 6 months together to better understand their experiences.
ITC will provide more advice and consultation as project development moves forward.
Eric presented draft versions of the project
plan for the ITC Policies and Guidelines and the current
working set of criteria that his group has developed for
use in classifying systems and identifying what requirements apply to a system
based on the criteria it meets.
He highlighted the salient points of the
project plan:
The project plan at its most basic level is
to:
§
Develop
criteria for classifying systems
§
Develop
requirements systems should meet
§
Map criteria a system meets to requirements that
therefore apply
§
Educate the
campus community about the system and how it affects them
The project plan does not address:
§
Funding issues
(e.g., "if you meet this criteria there is a funding implication")
§
Consequences/enforcement
§
Project or
funding approval/rejection may be justified based on how well a system meets
the requirements laid out for it, but we are not intending to draft anything
directly outlining how those decisions are made.
§
We have a
developed a set of criteria for classifying systems that is significantly more
thought out than "straw man" though still definitely in a draft
format and needing review by a group such as ITC.
§
We are also
developing a method for ranking/scaling systems to indicate how strongly they
meet each of the above criteria (though the ranking system itself is still in
the early stages of development).
§
We are working
to finalize the requirements for Operations or Maintenance of systems, and
intend to have a draft available before the next ITC meeting.
§
There is no
formal time line in the project plan at this point. The actual time line will
depend on how consultative we make the criteria and requirements development
process. We would like input from the ITC on this point (how consultative the
process should be).
Eric then elaborated on the criteria requirements. If a project planner doesn’t meet requirements, ITC will alert them of the issue in question. ITC would be proxy for the approval process, though not every system on campus would need approval.
Eric suggested that should a question arise in criteria #2, determining if a system is essential to university core business, the final decision would be made by ITC. ITC would also be a means of enforcement for the other criteria. However, for financial issues, ITC would hand off responsibility to Internal Audit for their review.
ITC will ultimately decide what the list of criteria are, and will be asked to approve the drafts once they have been completed in 2-4 months.
Members of the IT Policies group are developing stringent requirements, and working to determine which criteria go with those requirements. They are also working on a numbers rating system for these criteria as opposed to a subjective review. A number of current projects, such as RMS, DWH, SCIPPI, etc., will go through both the objective and subjective review process to determine which review system is more appropriate.
The ITC determined that
Eric would finalize the proposal, with more criteria and operational
implications and expectations, and bring it back for review at the end of
April. After that it will be circulated
to Assistant Deans, Computer Coordinators, and other stakeholders.
VI. Next Meeting: Thursday, March 14, 2002, 10:00-12:30, McHenry 481.
VII. Adjournment: Noon