CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 1998-2003 Minutes > March 19, 2001 AC4 Minutes

Agenda

1. Approval of Minutes
2. Report on the Findings of the Course Management Subcommittee - Dr. Harry Matthews
3. UC Davis Enterprise Portal Strategy - Vice Provost Bruno
4. Formulating an Allocation Policy for ITF funding

Minutes

Excused: Cristina González, Bill Lacy, Peter Rock, Dave Shelby, Remington Stone, and John Vohs.

Absent: Lamar Heystek, Dorothea Howe, Jennifer Ramesh, Peter Jay Salzman.

Staff to the Council: Randy Moory.

I. Approval of Minutes

The Council approved the minutes as submitted.

Dr. Matthews reported the findings of the AC4 Subcommittee on Course Management Systems. Matthews' overview to the report covered important findings by the subcommittee.

• Commercial vs. home-grown products: The subcommittee recommends that the campus use both commercial products and the course management features in MyUCDavis. The subcommittee does not endorse any specific commercial product but recommends that the campus continue investigating WebCT to determine whether promised features materialize. Matthews reported that the subcommittee recommends AC4 perform another review of WebCT in 12 months.
• Symposium: The subcommittee recommends the AC4 sponsor an on-campus symposium on course management systems, with participation from colleagues from other campuses. This symposium will help us learn more about other campuses' experience with WebCT and home-grown solutions. It will also give us a user perspective on the pros and cons of various course management systems.
• Evaluation of options: The subcommittee evaluated the different possibilities for campus course management systems: adopt an off-the-shelf solution; build one from scratch; and adopt multiple systems for the campus. The subcommittee concluded that the off-the-shelf systems are immature and do not provide all the campus needs or adequate integration with major existing campus systems.
• Appropriateness of current MyUCDavis features: The subcommittee concluded that MyUCDavis meets many of the demands of the campus, but does not meet/include complex features that some users may need. To bridge this gap, two new features should be added to MyUCDavis: an electronic grade book and self-test modules.
• Early adopters: Current pilot programs are reaching early-adopter faculty, but the results of the surveys may be flawed because of the willingness of early adopters to work with the software more than normal users would.

Council congratulated Subcommittee Chair Matthews for the excellence of the report and thorough work of the subcommittee. Questions revolved around the following points:

• The proposed symposium: Matthews explained that the principal objective for the symposium was to identify the best practices used by other campuses. The Council requested that the Course Management System Subcommittee organize the symposium for the campus, make it available to the entire campus, and provide opportunities for thorough examination by more advanced users. Council members suggested that the symposium be comprised of two sessions, one open to all and the other for advanced users interested in a thorough discussion of course management systems.
• The 12-month review of WebCT: Matthews explained that the 12-month review is a reasonable expectation according to the schedule for software improvement from the course management system software vendors.
• Reasons for potential adoption of a single system: Matthews explained that using too many systems would make it difficult for students. They would have to access and learn to use different systems, possibly one for each of their classes. Matthews added that, to be valuable and effective tools, the systems need to integrate with the Banner Student Information System. Such integration would be very costly if the campus adopted many systems. Instead the subcommittee recommends that the campus use two systems: MyUCDavis and a commercial option.

Several Council members expressed concern about the impact this change would have on early adopters of the current course management system already incorporated into MyUCDavis. Matthews replied it is a big problem. Getting course materials out of these systems is a real challenge. Council suggested that we warn early adopters about the possibilities of changing systems and the difficulties of conversion. Matthews agreed this is an important step we should take.

Dr. Bruno, Vice Provost for Information and Educational Technology, provided an overview of his proposal entitled "UC Davis Enterprise Portal: A New Paradigm for the Coordination and Delivery of Administrative Services." The document provides a framework for reviewing administrative computing systems in the context of delivering services through an enterprise portal. Bruno identified the following as the threads that led to his proposal:

• The State of IT Report requested by Provost Grey;
• The need to develop a coordinated approach for reviewing and prioritizing proposals for administrative computing systems;
• The Administrative Computing Coordinating Council (AdC3)'s efforts to develop an evaluation process for Tier 1 and Tier 2 systems;
• The rapid development and adoption of portal technology to deliver services both in higher education and in the private sector; and
• The UC-wide New Business Architecture (NBA) Report and the need for the campus to address the report's recommendations.

Vice Provost Bruno summarized his proposal to develop a service-based (rather than a system-based) approach to delivering administrative services to students, faculty, and staff. He noted that several sections of his proposal address information technology issues for the campus. The document specifically defines and describes (1) portal technology and the role it could play on our campus, and (2) the role each component of the UC Davis Information Technology Coordinating Framework (i.e., Information Technology Policy Board, AC4, AdC3, Technology Infrastructure Forum, and Network Operations Advisory Committee) would play within the proposed new paradigm.

Focusing on four basic characteristics, Bruno explained what a portal is:

• A central gateway providing common access to services;
• A single point of authentication for major campus services;
• Personalization so the user accesses what is relevant to him/her; and
• Customization so the user can adjust some of the features.

The enterprise portal would provide a basis for viewing the services, information, and functions offered to the campus community. The proposed model would also help the campus prioritize and coordinate requests for funding, for new administrative systems, and for enhancements to existing systems.

Council commented that the description of the UC Davis Information Technology Coordinating Framework included in the proposal was particularly informative and clear.

Chair Plant asked for recommendations on the allocation of Instructional Technology Funds (ITF). Plant summarized the report that Bob Loessberg-Zahl, Director of Resource and Management Planning, presented to the Council at the February meeting. Highlights include:

• All permanent ITF funds are already allocated.
• Approximately $250,000 of one-time funds have not yet been allocated.
• The Governor's budget includes ITF funding for the University of California.

Approximately, $1.4 million of permanent ITF funds may be available to the Davis campus. Chair Plant indicated previous methods of allocation include block grants to deans, a block grant for the Instructional Use of Computing (IUC) grant program, and line item allocations for specific projects.

Chair Plant asked Vice Provost Turner to provide an overview of the IUC program. Vice Provost Turner indicated that her office provided IUC funds directly to the deans and for a competitive program for pursing other faculty initiatives. Turner explained the competitive nature of faculty applications and fund allocations. Several handouts provided information on the IUC grant program.

Council members asked for clarification on the following points:

• The length of the projects receiving IUC funds - Turner explained that the project proposals were for one year, but sustainability of the project was a criterion used to evaluate the proposals.
• The effectiveness of the 1998 program - The effectiveness of that program has not been evaluated, but a new grant requirement will be reporting the outcome of the project.
• Whether there were two programs - There are indeed two programs, a competitive one and a block grant to the deans. Council members commented they did not know about the competitive program. Turner indicated this issued had been raised and the current year program announcement is being made to all faculty.

Chair Plant indicated that the Council needs to develop a framework for recommending allocation of ITF funds available to the campus. The process needs to avoid incremental decisions, make sure that it supports innovation, and cover the "bread and butter" projects for the campus. Council members commented that the Administrative Computing Coordinating Council (AdC3) is addressing the same issues and looking to a process that puts project proposals on a cycle in conjunction with the annual or biannual budget cycle. Other Council comments addressed the need for projects to be sustainable and to be evaluated to determine what did and did not work.

Chair Plant suggested that the Steering Committee draft a proposal for the allocation of ITF funds and present it to the Council for their review.

Chair Plant reminded the Council of the March 29 joint meeting of the Academic and Administrative Computing Coordinating Councils to discuss the future of the MyUCDavis project.