CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 1998-2003 Minutes > DATE_HERE AC4 Minutes

Agenda

1. Approval of Minutes
2. Report on Upcoming Budget Process - Bob Loessberg-Zahl
3. Progress towards implementing Student Computer Expectation Statement for Fall 2001 - Pat Kava
4. Discussion of options for implementing campuswide Wireless Network, centralized vs. decentralized approaches - Dave Klem / Kevin Rhodes
5. Sub-Committee Reports

Minutes

Excused: Matthew Bishop, Jack Farrell, Bill Lacy, Dave Shelby, Mani Tripathi, Pat Turner and John Vohs.

Absent: Mary Jo Anderson, Angela Cheer, Cristina González, Richard Grotjahn, Lamar Heystek, Dorothea Howe, Jennifer Ramesh, Peter Jay Salzman and Paul Singh.

Guests: Doug Hartline, Pat Kava, Dave Klem, and Kevin Rhodes.

Staff to the Council: Randy Moory and Babette Schmitt.

I. Approval of Minutes

The Council approved the minutes as submitted.

Bob Loessberg-Zahl, Resource Management and Planning, provided an overview of the allocation of Instructional Technology Funds (ITF) in the last four years and shared preliminary allocation plans for the 2001-2002 academic year. Loessberg-Zahl is seeking input from Council members on upcoming ITF allocations.

He reported that the Governor's budget contains additional ITF funds for the University of California for the upcoming year. The UC Davis campus' share of these funds is expected to approximate $1,400,000. A handout summarizes the encumbrances of ITF funds, expenditures, and total funds remaining from the previous years' allocations to the campus. Loessberg-Zahl reported that remaining funds to allocate permanently will drop to $28,200 in fiscal year 2001-2002 and the carryover of one-time funds is expected to be around $200,000.

Loessberg-Zahl reported that the Provost will consider new budgetary allocations around May. Loessberg-Zahl estimates that preliminary allocations will be announced to campus units around that time. The Council is asked for its advice on the allocation of ITF.

Loessberg-Zahl indicated that new information technology infrastructure projects would need to be funded from the additional $1.4 million in ITF funds potentially available from the state, or from other funds available to the campus. This includes any need for permanent funds for MyUCDavis. Council asked about the $400,000 contingency allocation for remote access. Loessberg-Zahl noted that this allocation is needed to support remote access to the campus data network in 2000-01, and will be needed on an ongoing annual basis as long as the campus continues to support remote access from core funds.

The discussion then turned to computer labs. Council members asked whether there were any plans to provide new labs (since the existing ones are overcrowded), to purchase new equipment, or to upgrade existing machines. Loessberg-Zahl advised that the Provost/EVC permanently allocated ITF funds in 2000-01 to equip 3 new general use computer labs (pursuant to an AC4 recommendation). He noted that the existing permanent funding for computer labs covers upgrades of laboratory computing equipment. Loessberg-Zahl also noted that the permanent allocation of ITF to the deans had been used to support computer labs. The campuswide implementation of wireless technology along with the new Student Computer Ownership Statement of Expectation and the installation of network ports in public areas throughout campus are expected to help alleviate the pressure on campus computer labs.

Loessberg-Zahl shared with Council members Provost Grey's concerns about the projected enrollment growth (900 new students are expected next fall). Provost Grey is looking for advice from the AC4 on how best to prepare for and accommodate this new growth.

Pat Kava, Information and Educational Technology, reported on the Student Computer Ownership Workgroup's progress toward implementing the Statement of Expectation developed by AC4 over a year ago. Starting this fall, all undergraduate incoming students will be expected to have a computer that meets minimum campuswide software and hardware requirements (e.g., word processing, Internet connectivity, and spreadsheet). Kava reported that the workgroup sent a Request for Information (RFI) to 12 vendors in September and received responses from 5 vendors. After evaluating the responses, the workgroup decided to pursue negotiations with Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and Apple to provide computers that meet UC Davis specific requirements and configurations. The workgroup is also investigating financial aid options and the possibility of providing on-campus support through Computer and Printer Repair.

To date, Apple has not been responsive to the requirements or request for customization. Kava indicated that the workgroup is considering how to address these issues. Asked whether financial aid would be available only to students who purchase their computers through the Ôofficial' vendor(s), Kava noted that all students who qualify for need-based financial aid would be eligible for assistance to purchase a computer (up to $1900 over the course of their UC Davis career).

Council members commented that, if we expect students to own and use a computer, we need to ensure computer literacy classes are available to them. Kava indicated that the workgroup intends to talk with ResNet coordinators who have some experience with this type of instruction. A Council member asked how many students are expected to follow the workgroup's advice and purchase the recommended computers. Kava replied that, based on Dell's experience with other campuses, the level of student participation is expected to be about 20 percent. The program, however, will not be limited to students, which will inevitably pose licensing issues.

Council suggested that computers be sold locally so that sales tax revenue could be generated to support the local communities.

Kava will work with the Council of Associate Deans to identify any special hardware and software requirements schools and colleges might have. This information will be included on the official Web site (http://computerownership.ucdavis.edu/). Kava indicated that the Web site, user documentation and general communications are under development, including the new Recommended Solution describing software and hardware recommendations. Several articles on the Statement of Expectation have already appeared in campus publications, including the IT Times, the Aggie, and UC Davis Magazine. More awareness efforts are planned through Summer Advising and ResNet. AC4 will soon be asked to review the workgroup's budget request for a marketing campaign to reach all entering undergraduate students before Fall 2001.

Dave Klem, Information and Educational Technology, presented an overview of the project to deploy wireless technology, its status, and its implications for the campus. Klem discussed the factors driving the project, the options for either a centralized or decentralized approach and their respective benefits and drawbacks, and the issues under investigation (e.g., security, management, funding). (See PowerPoint Slides)

Council members asked whether wireless technology had already been deployed on campus. Kevin Rhodes, Network Operations Center Manager, and Klem replied that units like the Graduate School of Management and the ASUCD have already deployed local wireless networks. In addition, through the ITF-supported pilot, students can use wireless in several buildings, including the General Library and the Law Library. Other non-sponsored deployments have been completed in the residence halls, the bookstore, and some departments where horizontal wiring is not possible. Klem noted that wireless technology will not eliminate the need for a wired network.

The ad hoc deployment of wireless technology presents challenges, including how to deal with interference between systems. This poses technical problems and creates frustration for users. Security risks must be addressed to protect the integrity and stability of the network and campus resources. Klem noted that the campus urgently needs an acceptable use policy and a coordinated implementation plan for wireless deployment in public areas. Klem warned that we need to be more proactive in this area; the campus is dangerously close to operating in a reactive mode, which could quickly become costly and problematic.

The AC4 will help frame how the campuswide deployment strategy is vetted on the campus. Members will also need to address the funding model issues (i.e., how the campus pays for network resources).

Chair Plant asked that this item be a continuing one on the AC4 agenda.

Course Management Subcommittee - Harry Matthews
Mediaworks Director Harry Matthews provided a brief overview of the progress the AC4 Subcommittee on Course Management Systems that he chairs has made. The subcommittee is looking into how educational technology should be developed at UC Davis and how it can help with rising enrollments. Matthews noted that course management systems (CMS) is still a very young, immature field. The workgroup is investigating whether UC Davis should develop its own CMS within the MyUCDavis portal or purchase a vendor solution.

To further the subcommittee's understanding of the options and issues at hand, Matthews proposed that the campus hold a half-day colloquium with other campuses to discuss their selection of a course management system, their plans for CMS deployment, and/or issues they might have encountered. He suggested inviting representatives from a campus that has already developed a course management system and some from a campus using a vendor solution.

Matthews shared the following subcommittee's recommendations: keep MyUCDavis as a mission-critical (Tier 1) system; continue to develop some additional educational tools in MyUCDavis (e.g., grade book, Web-based email, Web-based file-sharing and storage); and continue with WebCT pilots. AC4 will review course management systems in 12 months.

Council commented that a half-day colloquium is a good idea and suggested that maybe another guest would be someone that could help define how the campus should proceed with the selection and implementation of a course management system.

Education and Research Subcommittees - Randy Moory
Randy Moory, staff to the Councils, reported for Professors Bishop and Tripathi, chairs of the Education and Research Subcommittees.

The Education Subcommittee recently completed assisting Vice Provost Pat Turner with the criteria for submitting proposals for Instructional Use of Computers (IUC) grants. The subcommittee also continued to discuss the printing fee proposal for the computer labs, and a fee structure was sent to the Campus Rate Committee. Chair Bishop is contacting Academic Senate Chair Jeff Gibeling about the fee program. Moory reported that, in anticipation of the fall implementation of the student computer ownership expectation, the Education Subcommittee is beginning to address how to increase faculty knowledge of computer uses.

The Research Subcommittee is focusing on technology infrastructure in the campus units and departments. The subcommittee is developing a questionnaire to be distributed to departments and Organized Research Units (ORUs). The subcommittee will ask for the Council's approval before circulating the questionnaire.

Council asked if printing in the labs could be addressed by selling a prepaid card to students. The technology was examined initially but could not be used in the computer labs' shared printer environment.