CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 1998-2003 Minutes > March 29, 2001 AC4 Minutes

Agenda

1. Introductions
2. Recommendations
3. Middleware Issues
4. Alternatives to MyUCDavis
5. Financial and Funding Issues
6. Action Items

Minutes

Excused/Absent: Angela Cheer, Bob Franks, Cristina González, Bill Lacy, Peter Rock, Celeste Rose, Peter Jay Salzman, Dave Shelby, Kevin Smith, Remington Stone, John Vohs, and Kathi Sylva.

Guests: Brian Alexander, Ellen Chrismer, Linda Durst, Dave Johnston, Joyce Johnstone, Debbie Lauriano, and Ray Reveles.

Staff to the Council: Randy Moory, and Babette Schmitt.

I. Introductions

Professor Plant, Chair of the Academic Computing Coordinating Committee (AC4), opened the meeting and introduced the Joint Meeting Co-chair, Dean Richard Smiley, Chair of the Administrative Computing Coordinating Council (AdC3). Plant announced the objectives for the joint meeting:

• Define a structure for the UC Davis portal, and

• Identify funding strategies for the portal.

Chair Plant introduced Lana Moffitt, Director of Information Resources, Information and Educational Technology (IET). Moffitt gave an overview of the features and status of the MyUCDavis pilot, a portal for students and faculty. Moffitt acknowledged the support of the project sponsors, Vice Chancellor Wall, Associate Vice Chancellor Franks, Registrar Farrell, and Vice Provost Turner. Moffitt explained that we have reached a major decision point as the MyUCDavis pilot is nearing completion. During the 6-month pilot, the portal received acceptance by both faculty and students; its continued availability is broadly regarded as desirable. In the last month alone, 5200 unique users logged on to the system, and 1200 course documents were created.

Moffitt recommended the Councils continue to support MyUCDavis. Moffitt's most critical recommendation is to give MyUCDavis Tier 1 status, thus elevating the portal to mission-critical status and ensuring it receives the appropriate, around-the-clock level of support. Moffitt also presented the Councils with an annual budget ($187,000) to continue to support MyUCDavis in its present configuration. Aside from the addition of the MySpace module, the portal would under this budget retain the same functionality and features but would be extended to all students and faculty.

Moffitt indicated that requests have already been formulated for additional functionality. Two of those requests come from the AC4 Course Management System Subcommittee who recommended the addition of an electronic grade book and a self-test module. Other examples of potential new features include electronic funds transfer and a contracts and grants module for faculty.

Building on Lana Moffitt's presentation, Vice Provost Bruno presented an overview of the middleware needed to support a campus enterprise portal. Bruno discussed the four major functions of an enterprise portal: authentication, authorization, personalization, and customization. To support these functions, and regardless of the future of the MyUCDavis pilot, the campus needs a strong middleware infrastructure. Major components of that infrastructure are: person registries (unique attributes which identify persons associated with the campus), enterprise directory services (an extension of the person registry), authentication services, and authorization services. Vice Provost Bruno advised the Council that the campus does not yet have any of these services in place, nor does IET have a middleware development team. He estimated the costs to develop, implement and maintain these middleware components at approximately one million dollars.

Bruno explained that in our current, uncoordinated model, each business system defines and provides its own middleware. This lack of coordination and the absence of campuswide middleware standards are creating serious issues, including compatibility, security, and support issues. One of the campus' major challenges will be for the business units to work together to develop a common middleware infrastructure.

A discussion ensued on the following topics:

• Working with UCOP on enterprise directory and authentication services: Vice Provost Bruno noted that his proposal was intended to meet our campus' specific needs; however, some of the standards we are investigating (e.g., EduPerson) are also being considered by other campuses, which gives us a chance to collaborate with them.
• Making use of the portal a requirement: Vice Provost Bruno indicated that he does not intend to make it a requirement. Rather he proposes a cooperative approach inviting all academic and business units to join the effort. He acknowledged the role the New Business Architecture (NBA) Steering Committee will play in building the cooperative effort on campus.
• Building support for the enterprise portal: A Council member commented that more people would adopt the idea of an enterprise portal if it were built successfully, as MyUCDavis was.
• Building authorization services: A Council member asked about the development required to build authorization services. Bruno replied that authorization services are a difficult and long-term migration. It is possible that some authorization process will remain in the legacy systems.

The Council discussed the three alternatives it should consider for MyUCDavis: terminate MyUCDavis; proceed with the current version; or convert MyUCDavis into an enterprise portal.

• Chair Plant asked if any Council member wished to express arguments in favor of abandoning MyUCDavis. The Council did not wish to pursue this alternative.
• Council members expressed broad support for keeping the current system and expanding it. Council acknowledged that two major UC-wide initiatives (in human resources and e-procurement) already require an enterprise portal. Similarly, many student services will require the enterprise portal. E-recruitment is an example of an effort built on portal technology to allow individual incoming students to access services and information conveniently and easily from one site. This approach is expected to enhance the campus' recruitment strategy and results.
• Council members discussed the need to review and streamline our complex business processes. This will require a high level of coordination and collaboration between campus units and between system owners.
• Council considered whether the technology used in MyUCDavis could be extended to the entire campus and whether a campus enterprise portal should be based on a vendor product or a home-grown solution. Debbie Lauriano, Information and Educational Technology, noted that an informal survey she recently conducted showed that over 90 percent of universities are building (or have built) their own enterprise portal rather than using off-the-shelf commercial products. Council members agreed it was not their role to evaluate or decide the merits of vendor and home-grown solutions.

Bob Loessberg-Zahl, Resource and Management Planning, presented several principles regarding the budgeting process for a possible continuation of the MyUCDavis portal and/or development of a UC Davis enterprise portal. Loessberg-Zahl identified two fundamental questions for Council consideration:

• If the Council recommends moving forward with MyUCDavis, what is the best way to incorporate the costs into the annual budget process?
• Should the Council decide to move forward with the enterprise portal, what should the goals be and what are the options for reaching these goals?

Loessberg-Zahl recommended the best funding mechanism for the Council to proceed with the existing MyUCDavis system is the current annual budget cycle. This cycle will be completed in May, and the Council will be informed of budget decisions by July. Loessberg-Zahl advised the Council that a parallel request for Tier 1 and Tier 2 system reports due in late April will provide information about funding needs for computing systems for the next year.

Council discussed the options for funding the existing MyUCDavis and the proposed enterprise portal and middleware components. The discussion revolved around the following points:

• Whether core funds or cost sharing should be applied. Core funds are used for services that broadly support the campus and its mission.
• The proposed level of funding for maintaining the existing MyUCDavis system.
• The need for additional features in MyUCDavis to make it more useful. As noted above, the AC4 Subcommittee on Course Management Systems recommends that MyUCDavis be expanded to include three new modules (a grade book, a self-test, and MySpace).
• The need to fund the middleware components and IET support for the enterprise portal. Council recommended that these proposals should move through the budget proposal process for Tier 1 and Tier 2 systems.

The Councils moved and adopted five actions. These were to:

1. Recommend to the IT Policy Board that the Board institute MyUCDavis as a Tier 1 system and seek permanent support funding through the current annual budget process;
2. Recommend that the ITPB include the proposals for middleware components and support for the enterprise portal from IET in the biennial budget process and the review of Tier 1 and Tier 2 systems;
3. Allocate sufficient ITF funds to expand the functionality of MyUCDavis by adding the grade book module and self-test module as recommended by the AC4 Subcommittee on Course Management Systems;
4. Assess the advantages of converting MyUCDavis into a UC Davis Enterprise Portal (this task was assigned to the UC Davis New Business Architecture Steering Committee, who will be asked to report its recommendation to the Council at the end of June 2001);
5. Add Bob Loessberg-Zahl, and Harry Matthews to the membership of the New Business Architecture Steering Committee.