CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 2005-06 Minutes > April 10, 2006

Excused: Mike Allred, Kristen Birdsall, Ann Bliss, Rick Catalano, Bella Corbin, Matt Farrens, Michael Hogarth, Tom Kaiser, John Meyer, Kathleen Moore, Stan Nosek, Bob Ono, Dennis Pendleton, Babs Sandeen, Dave Shelby, Avi Singh, Michael Toney, and Leon Washington.

Guests: Liz Gibson, Roger McDonald, George Hague, Meshell Hays, Janet Brown-Simmons

Staff: Babette Schmitt.

I. Welcome & Approval of Minutes -- Chair Bledsoe

Chair Bledsoe welcomed Jon Wagner, new Teaching Resources Center Director and CCFIT member. Bledsoe then asked for comments on the minutes from the March meeting. Minutes were approved as submitted.

II. AdMAN Report -- Brenda Ruth

Brenda Ruth, AdMAN representative on the CCFIT, introduced several members of the campus Administrative Management (AdMAN) Executive Board and provided a report on behalf of the Board. The report focused on a number of key points.

AdMAN has traditionally focused much of its attention on staff workload issues. In recent years, new demands have emerged from changes in the campus’ technological environment that have impacted staff (e.g., demands for higher skill levels, increasing review and approval requirements, increased focus on cyber-safety). In particular, the “audit” components associated with administrative functions has compounded staff workload issues at the departmental level (e.g., requires higher level of expertise in the use of the applications and in policy compliance).

AdMAN is increasingly concerned about the lack of inter-operability between major campus systems and about the consequences this situation is having on staff (e.g., more time consuming, redundancy, etc.). Examples of systems AdMAN reported being concerned about: GradTrack$, NRTF policies, Payroll Personnel Decision Support, DaFIS Decision Support, Electronic Ledger Review, Effort Reporting, Web-based space survey, new Web-based Travel and Entertainment System, Cost-Sharing System, Electronic Research Administration (InfoEd) System, Grants.gov, Job MachineII (PeopleAdmin), etc. This lack of inter-operability has resulted in the development of shadow systems across campus and in the lack of consistency in data obtained from various systems. In addition, AdMAN reported a general sense among staff that their perspective is rarely considered, and when it is, it is often after a system has been purchased or a key decision has been made.

AdMAN representatives offered a few suggestions.

• First, AdMAN asks for strong leadership to consolidate resources and make them more uniformly available across campus.



• Second, they feel that the campus should work towards greater inter-operability among major systems. CCFIT could play a role in this regard.



• Third, the campus should centralize technology development and coordination efforts. Systems and electronic resources that are now developed locally by units with ‘exceptional’ programming/development staff should be made more broadly available, especially when they have been shown to reduce workloads, streamline processes, and/or otherwise benefit staff and campus units.



• Fourth, communications with the campus and medical center community regarding the availability of online systems and resources should be improved. Deans and assistant deans should regularly inform departmental chairs and managers.

The following discussion included comments from several Council members. Ann Orel agreed that compliance issues tend to place a lot of pressure on staff, to the point that sometimes they create friction between staff and faculty. Bill Lacy asked who should have responsibility for ensuring leadership and coordination of campus systems. VP-IET Peter Yellowlees indicated that this responsibility falls logically onto Information and Educational Technology (IET), with support from the deans and vice chancellors, and that progress continues to be made in this area. Yellowlees indicated that getting agreement on what the enterprise systems and authoritative sources of data for UC Davis are would be one step towards ensuring system inter-operability and data accuracy. Council members agreed that such a list would be helpful to focus discussion at an upcoming Council meeting.

In more detailed comments, Peter Yellowlees agreed that many systems lend themselves to being run centrally (e.g., email, e-learning, human resources, DaFIS, cyber-safety, etc.). The campus should continue to think along those lines precisely for the reasons outlined by AdMAN. Yellowlees placed AdMAN’s concerns in the context of two main issues facing the campus:

• The first issue is the way people work today. There is almost ubiquitous use of computers in all aspects of university life. In addition, the expectations placed on UC Davis by students, parents, politicians, etc. have increased, and there is an expanded focus on accountability by federal, state, and local agencies and the UC Office of the President. All these changes and factors, which continue to evolve, have created a new environment to which UC Davis must adapt.



• The second issue is adoption and funding of information technology. UC Davis has long been and continues to be characterized as a ‘low-funding, late-adopter of IT’. Yellowlees indicated that IET recently conducted a comparative study based on the results of a 2004 Educause survey. The study compared UC Davis with a select group of peer institutions and confirmed that UC Davis is a late technology adopter and is, in comparison, under-funded and under-staffed in the technology areas (e.g., UC Davis spends ~$1300/ student for IT, compared to ~$2,000/student at other universities).

In summary, Yellowlees said that IET has a leadership role when it comes to the integration of campus IT systems. However, the problem of underfunding of information technology at UC Davis is a difficult one and requires innovative and creative solutions. It is probably not realistic to expect large increases in funding at this time so other solutions, such as partnerships across the UC Davis campus and across the UC system, will need to be pursued and may be part of the answer.

Caroline thanked AdMAN for their report and indicated that CCFIT will ask IET for help in responding to AdMAN’s report and then report back to CCFIT and to AdMAN in May and June.

III. Reports from Task Groups

• Matt Bishop reported that the CCFIT Wireless Task Group held another meeting since the last update report to this group. The group discussed current wireless usage and functionality, as well as plans for expansion. Rather than identifying specific areas in which wireless should be deployed, the group is preparing recommendations to guide and prioritize wireless coverage and expansion. A summary of those discussions will be posted on the CCFIT Web site (ccfit.ucdavis.du).
  
• Roger McDonald reported that the membership of the Online Teaching Evaluations Workgroup has been updated. The group met about three weeks ago and discussed objectives to be met. One objective will be to collect student input about the use of an online system to submit teaching evaluations. The group plans to conduct a small pilot project with 2-3 classes in each college to test the system being developed by the School of Veterinary Medicine (based on the Sakai learning management system that will be introduced to campus faculty and students this fall). Janet-Brown Simmons, member of the AdMAN Executive Board, mentioned that teaching evaluations are a huge workload issue (staff must re-type all undergraduate evaluations) and applauded the effort of leveraging technology to improve the current situation. Caroline reminded the group that online teaching evaluations were identified as a top priority for AdMAN last year. Jon Wagner noted that teaching evaluations are not standardized across campus and given the importance of the questions asked, the campuswide system will need to offer some flexibility. McDonald agreed and extended an invitation to Wagner to join the workgroup.
  
• Tor Cross reported on behalf of the Educational Technology Workgroup. She noted that the group has worked closely with IET-Classroom Technology Services staff to develop a new Web site featuring information about personal response systems. In addition, the group is keeping abreast of progress made with the new campus course management system (Sakai) and with the podcasting program run by IET. The group is also fleshing out the recommendations outlined in the Faculty Needs Assessment Report (i.e., encouraging departments to create faculty committees on instruction and to hire their own student ET Partners).
  
• Fred Wood reported that a group -- that includes Caroline Bledsoe, Dave Shelby, the Academic Senate Chair, and the University Registrar -- met at the end of March to discuss issues with the online course approval system. This enterprise system was developed in 1999 by a programmer in the Registrar’s Office and last year was the focus of some improvements. Wood’s primary interest is the integration of the online course approval system with Banner, Degree Navigator, and the General Catalog. The Offices of the Registrar and Academic Senate and IET are co-stakeholders on this project (see charge letter). Updates will be provided and posted on the CCFIT site as the group continues to meet.

IV. Macromedia Breeze: Overview and Demo -- Roger McDonald & Liz Gibson

Roger McDonald, Professor in Nutrition, gave an overview of his use of Macromedia Breeze in his classes. McDonald noted that he discovered Breeze last year, has worked with IET-Mediaworks to integrate it into his teaching, and is now using it to interact with students “in new ways” (e.g., through the chat room, to hold virtual office hours, and to engage in two-way, real time conversations with students). McDonald reported that Breeze offers a comfortable setting for students. They can ask all the questions they have, from anywhere they might be. Ten students participated in McDonald’s first class using Breeze; that number increased to 80-90 by the end of last quarter.

Liz Gibson, Director of IET-Mediaworks, noted that IET is working on a site license for the software, which Marilyn Sharrow indicated the Library would be very interested in. Peter Yellowlees noted that Breeze is used to connect the Medical Center to the main campus, and Jan Ilkiw mentioned that faculty in the School of Veterinary Medicine are using Breeze to enable students to study real-life situations in animal shelters.

With a Webcam on her laptop and a connection to the campus network, Gibson launched an interactive session with staff members in two different locations. She provided a live demo of the program’s collaborative tools and features (e.g., video, voice and collaboration tools). Wes Wallender asked what distinguishes Breeze from other programs (like Skype) that provide similar functionality. Gibson explained that Breeze is made by a well-established company (Macromedia), is very reliable, offers a richer set of features, and interfaces with many applications (including Outlook).

Gibson will be presenting Breeze to deans and department chairs in the coming weeks to gauge interest in the product and to discuss options for covering ongoing costs (she noted that IET is prepared to put up the $200K necessary to launch Breeze as a campus service). Caroline Bledsoe mentioned that showing specific examples of how faculty are using Breeze in teaching and research should help generate support among deans and department chairs. Those interested in finding more about Breeze should contact Gibson at emgibson@ucdavis.edu.

The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.