CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 1998-2003 Minutes > February 11, 2002 AdC3 Minutes

Agenda

1. Approval of January Minutes
2. Announcements
3. Update on Options for the Campus Modem Pool
4. Availability of Instructional Technology Funds for FY 2002-03
5. New Business Architecture Technology Development Team Proposal
6. Update on Tier 1 and Tier 2 Systems Reports

Minutes

Excused: John Meyer, and Abby Zubov.

Absent: Barry Klein, and Celeste Rose.

Guests: Doug Hartline, Sandra Stewart, and Doug Williams.

Staff to the Councils: Randy Moory, Julie Saylor, and Babette Schmitt.

I. Approval of January Minutes - Chair Smiley

Council approved the January minutes as submitted.

Chair Smiley informed the Council of the need to replace Caroline West as the liaison from the AdC3 to the Academic Computing Coordinating Council (AC4). Chair Smiley asked if Associate Vice Chancellor Allred would fulfill this role. Allred agreed, and Council confirmed this choice.

Upcoming Talks on Enterprise Portals: Randy Moory announced that the campus will be hosting Howard Strauss from Princeton University on March 15, 2002. Strauss will be giving 2 talks focused on enterprise portals. The first talk will be a general overview about portals and the future of the Web. The second will focus on how Strauss expects portals to evolve over time. Moory reported that Howard Strauss is a recognized expert on portals and has spoken frequently on the subject, including through presentations at EDUCAUSE and for CREN. The event will be held at the University Club. (For more information, see the Web page for this event at http://ietsymposia.ucdavis.edu/portals/.)

Doug Hartline, Director of IET-Communications Resources, provided an update on the options for supporting the campus modem pool. At the January Council meeting, Council received the report on the status of the modem pool, its usage, and costs required to maintain current service levels. At the direction of the Council, Hartline's follow-up visit provided additional information on options for service reductions.

The following three options were offered to reduce the support costs for the modem pool:

1. Option 1 entails reducing the number of circuits that service each modem pool by 1. This option would introduce a small level of service degradation and would save the campus approximately $14,000 annually.
2. Option 2 entails eliminating 14 circuits that service the modem pools. This option would significantly reduce the service quality and cause 2- to 4-hour waits during busy periods. Cost savings to the campus would be approximately $68,000 annually.
3. Option 3 entails the same degration in service as option 2 but would combine the student, staff, and faculty modem pools into a single pool. Cost savings to the campus would be approximately $91,000 annually. Option 3 would also eliminate the redundancy that having 3 modem pools offers.

Council discussed the merits and drawbacks of each option. Members inquired whether the service level could be reduced to match the published contention ratios (see presentation). Hartline commented that Option 2 essentially accomplishes this goal. Council also asked whether we have any indication that usage would continue to decline. Hartline indicated that none could predict specifically what direction modem pool usage would take, but he noted that if it became necessary to reinstall a circuit, the campus would essentially lose any cost savings achieved by reducing the number of circuits. Members commented that usage (or at least the need to access campus resources) is likely to grow given the anticipated increase in student and faculty enrollment over the next few years and the increase in the number of "Web-enabled" resources.

Council recommended that Information and Educational Technology (IET) continue to monitor modem pool usage and gradually reduce the number of circuits as needed to match more closely the demand.

Julie Saylor reported on the instructional technology funds (ITF) that have already been committed for the next fiscal year and those that are still available for future possible requests. Saylor indicated that no new, additional funds are expected and that her report takes into consideration only monies that the campus has in its budget. Saylor notified the Council that, based on current information, some requests for ITF funds, starting next year and each year thereafter, will likely not be honored. She also noted that given the projected reduction in funds in the years to come, it will be difficult to continue to support at their current levels the programs that have already been allocated ITF funds.

Council asked about the availability of other funding sources to support current programs and future proposals. Saylor replied she was not aware of other sources. Council commented that the budget allocated to MyUCDavis covers only the maintenance of existing functionality, not the expansion of services envisioned by the New Business Architecture (NBA). A request to cover those needs will be presented to AdC3 in the upcoming weeks.

Dave Shelby reported on the progress made by the New Business Architecture Implementation Workgroup since last September the group was formed. Shelby indicated that the workgroup has worked closely with the Technology Development Team to identify the top priority projects to get the NBA underway. The Technology Develop Team submitted their proposals in January. The proposals are as follows:

1. Three technology infrastructure projects: person registry/enterprise directory services, common authentication, and MyUCDavis architecture/interface standards for porting applications to the portal.
2. The creation of a campus-wide pool of Citrix servers.
3. The integration of additional email and calendaring functionality into the MyUCDavis portal.

Both the NBA Implementation Workgroup and Steering Committee have endorsed these proposals. Shelby also reported that the NBA Steering Committee is moving to establish the NBA project management office, which will include a full-time project manager (a new position) and two support positions. Two additional teams, the Business Process and Change Management Teams, will also be formed in the next couple of months, thereby completing the overall NBA Team Structure. (For more information on the New Business Architecture Initiative, see http://nba.ucdavis.edu/.)

Vice Provost Bruno reported on his office's review of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 system reports submitted by campus units and computing system owners. Bruno, referring to the "Development of Campus Strategic Computing Plan Process" handout, explained that the evaluations and anaysis of the reports were in progress. The review process was slowed down by a number of factors, including the rapid evolution of the NBA implementation strategy and accompanying identification of requirements and projects.

Bruno referred to the work done by the Council subgroup charged with developing criteria for IT projects that should be reviewed and prioritized by Council, per the Campus Administrative Computing Plan adopted a few years years. Bruno indicated that his office's next steps include refining the definition of review criteria and completing the reports back to the system owners.

Council members expressed the need to provide system owners with an opportunity to submit additional feedback and update their original proposals before the analysis is brought to AdC3. Bruno agreed and noted that there will be an iterative process that will allow frequent communications, clarifications, and updates between the report submitters and his office staff before the analyses are presented to the Council.

Members also expressed the need to know the specific criteria that will be used to review their system reports. Some commented that the process should be streamlined and expedited to the extent possible so as to ensure minimal delays in getting projects underway. Some members asked for clarification on the role that Information and Educational Technology (IET) and the Office or Resource Management and Budget play with respect to administrative computing on campus. They noted that the system owners are the 'owners' of the business processes, and more of these owners have the internal technical expertise to implement IT solutions now than did a couple of years ago when the Campus Administrative Computing Plan was adopted.

Bruno indicated that the review of the system proposals is not intended to cause any delays in the decision-making process or in the implementation of the projects. To the contrary, Bruno commented that his office's goal is to partner with the system owners to ensure the successful and timely completion of the projects. The Campus Administrative Computing Policy (PPM 200-45) and the creation of the new position of Vice Provost for Information and Educational Technology resulted in large part from Provost Grey's recognition that IT projects needed to be better coordinated and reviewed by the campus community. Bruno commented that the role of the Computing Coordinating Councils and Information Technologies Policy Board, as defined by Provost Grey, is to provide that level of review and assessment of IT projects. The involvement and responsibilities of staff from the Vice Provost for Information and Educational Technology and the Office of Resource Management and Planning are outlined in the Campus Administrative Computing Policy. Bruno commented that two recent developments, the New Business Architecture Initiative and the development of the enterprise portal for UC Davis, further emphasize the need for collaboration and cooperation between the business system owners and IET.

Council asked when they could expect the review to be completed and a plan presented to the Council. Bruno replied that this could be accomplished in a month or two. Council requested that the plan be presented at the April Council meeting.