CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 2005-06 Minutes > November 14, 2005

Excused: Tor Cross, Michael Hogarth, Bill Lacy, Stan Nosek, Bob Ono, Dennis Pendleton, Kevin Rhoddy, Babs Sandeen, and Michael Toney.

Guests: Dave Klem, Zack O’Donnell, Mak Redican, Debbie Lauriano.

Staff: Babette Schmitt.

I. Welcome & Approval of Minutes – Chair Bledsoe

Chair Bledsoe introduced Kristen Birdsall and Avi Singh, newly nominated by ASUCD, and welcomed both to their role as undergraduate representatives on the Council.

Chair Bledsoe pointed to the CCFIT Overview Handout. This document outlines the Council’s membership (and the ways in which the Council intersects with various campus constituencies), the Council’s reporting relationship to the Provost and Interim Vice Provost-IET, and the Council’s deliberation process (i.e., the process by which Council identifies and researches topics before making recommendations on them). A draft list of discussion topics was also presented. All of this information, along with the meeting schedule, meeting minutes, reports, past recommendations, etc. are featured on the CCFIT Web site (http://ccfit.ucdavis.edu).

II. Discussion of CCFIT Memo re: Priorities for Campus IT Funding – Chair Bledsoe

Chair Bledsoe went over the draft memo to Provost Hinshaw and Interim Vice Provost Yellowlees regarding the funding proposal for key campus IT initiatives. The memo offers comments on the IT initiatives proposed by Interim Vice Provost-IET Peter Yellowlees and identifies four additional topics discussed by CCFIT in 2004-05. (Note: The Funding Proposal for Key Campus IT Initiatives was presented and discussed at the October 2005 meeting.)

In the draft CCFIT memo, Council members reiterated their support for four of the campus IT initiatives proposed for funding: the Faculty Merit and Promotion System (MyInfoVault software system), the Electronic Research Administration System (InfoEd software system), the expansion of wireless on campus, and the implementation of a new set of course/learning management tools (MyUCDavis 2.0 based on ‘Sakai’ open source software). Three of these topics were discussed extensively last year. Wireless expansion, identified as a top priority by undergraduate students and the Graduate Student Association, will be the focus of further discussion this academic year. Council continues to support these four initiatives.

The CCFIT memo identifies four additional IT initiatives for campus funding: (1) online review of graduate applications and graduate student tracking; (2) online system for the review and approval of new courses; (3) online course evaluations; and (4) educational technology support. These topics have received support in concept from several campus constituencies, but unlike the initiatives featured on the current IT funding proposal, no implementation proposals or budget estimates/projections have yet been developed for these four additional topics. These topics will be the continued focus of presentations, updates, Council discussion and recommendations during 2005-06.

The first section of the memo outlines four major concerns about funding for campus information technology needs. These concerns point out the insufficiency of current campus IT funding; the need for more matching resources (personnel, funds) from sponsors; the need for maintenance plans identifying long-term costs; and the need to continue to actively engage students, faculty and staff in the campus IT planning discussion process. Council members expressed concern that some groups may not have matching funds. The suggestion was made to expand the nature of what a sponsor can bring to bear on any given project to include funding as well as other resources, such as FTEs, professional expertise, programming support, etc. Chair Bledsoe agreed and noted that this change will be included in the memo to the Provost and Vice-Provost of IET.

Associate Vice Chancellor Meyer noted that one option for re-thinking campus IT funding might be to centralize more systems and services, thereby freeing departmental staff and decentralized IT funds.
There was some discussion of the purpose of the memo. Bledsoe reiterated the advisory nature of the Council’s charge and noted that this memo represents the opinions of a cross-section of the campus community. The memo offers advice to the Provost and Interim Vice Provost for IET, particularly as decisions are made regarding the central IT funds ($5M over the next three years).

Interim Vice Provost Yellowlees gave Council members copies of an article entitled “Envisioning a Transformed University” (published in Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2005). The article examines the impacts of societal change (initiated by rapidly evolving information technology) on learning institutions. The article points out the need for institutions to confront these dynamics in order to remain ‘rich, relevant, and accessible.’ Yellowlees emphasized the parallels between current transformations in higher education and earlier 19th century changes:
Many in the university community believe that a similar period of dramatic change has already begun in higher education. In fact, some are even willing to put on the table the most disturbing question of all: Will the university, at least as we know it today, even exist a generation from now? Perhaps the focus of our study should not be "the impact of technology on the future of the research university" but "the impact of technology on scholarship and learning, wherever they may be conducted."

Yellowlees encouraged Council members to share with him their thoughts on the radical changes this article outlines for higher education and priorities for the future. (Note: This article is expected to be available online at http://www.issues.org/issues/ in a few weeks.)

Chair Bledsoe thanked Yellowlees for this article and Council members for their feedback on the memo re: funding of campus IT initiatives. She will make the adjustments suggested today, and will submit the memo to Virginia Hinshaw and Peter Yellowlees on behalf of the Council. An update will be provided at the next meeting.

III. Campus Wireless Expansion Plan – Dave Klem

In his presentation (see “Wireless @ UC Davis: Extending the Wireless Network” PowerPoint presentation), Dave Klem, Director of IET-Communications Resources, discussed plans to increase wireless coverage on campus. Klem provided an overview of issues with current wireless deployments. He noted that:

• IET manages 150 of the wireless access points around campus. An unknown number of additional access points are deployed and managed by campus units and departments. There is currently no requirement to register departmental access points. Communications Resources is in the process of identifying those access points so issues of consistency and conformity can be better understood and dealt with.

• In the current model, coverage is selective and the degree of consistency (and compliance) with campus standards, access, and security levels at the departmental level remains unclear.

• Communications Resources has taken a number of steps to improve the current situation (e.g., upgrading the campus wireless gateway to increase user capacity; and implementing a centralized wireless management system). Other steps, such as implementing guest access via wireless access points and improving security and privacy through the 802.1x authentication protocol, are pending.

• Klem outlined a number of business, operational, and policy issues related to the current wireless deployment model

• Klem shared some benchmarking data based on a comparative analysis of wireless coverage at peer institutions. UC Davis lags behind in some areas, but is ahead in library coverage (100% coverage, paid for by the Library).

In light of these issues as well as increasing demand/expectation for ubiquitous wireless connectivity, a plan is being developed to extend the centrally-deployed and managed network to additional locations via additional wireless access points. The goal of this approach is to enable seamless roaming across campus areas, and to allow various types of devices (laptops, desktop computers, PDAs, etc.) to connect securely to the UC Davis network from anywhere on campus.

There was some discussion of whether wireless could/should be outsourced, which Klem indicated might be an option if we were to charge users for wireless access. Peter Yellowlees mentioned that the Health System currently runs two wireless networks, one of which is made accessible to patients for a fee. There was also some discussion about requiring campus departments to comply with wireless standards, particularly if those wireless networks represent a threat to others or to campus resources. Dave Shelby indicated that part of the solution being developed focuses on re-thinking the current campus policy so it covers situations representing vulnerabilities.

Given the widespread campus interest in wireless, Chair Bledsoe plans to form a CCFIT Wireless Work Group and will ask this group to look into many of the issues brought up today and to report back to CCFIT. Council members interested in serving on this workgroup should contact Bledsoe directly.

IV. Online Graduate Application and Tracking System – Jeff Gibeling

Jeff Gibeling, Dean of Graduate Studies, presented an overview of Grad SMAART, the Graduate System for Management of Admissions and Records Tracking (see Grad SMAART PowerPoint presentation).

Gibeling reminded Council members that the campus has been accepting online graduate applications since 1997. However, once submitted, those applications are still reviewed and routed through a semi-automated system that relies heavily on print-outs of thousands of documents [7500 applications/ year, of which 17% are admitted as new graduate students (1250) and the remaining 83% (6250) do not enroll (i.e., are not accepted or decline to enroll)]. Over the years, many campus units have invested in, and developed, their own online systems, with varying degrees of sophistication, in support of their specific departmental review processes. This current distributed model works poorly for many faculty from both the main campus and the Medical Center. As part of the graduate review committees, these faculty members must come in person to the Graduate Studies Office to review dossiers.

Given the limitations and issues with the current model, a new system is under consideration. Gibeling outlined the functionality goals as well as the components and architecture of the proposed system, the proposed implementation approach, and the anticipated benefits of the online system to the faculty and staff in academic departments (see presentation). Total initial costs for this system are estimated at $410,000, of which $110,000 will be absorbed by the Office of Graduate Studies. Gibeling noted that, rather than developing it in-house, software would be purchased for this system. Costs for support of the management of electronic documents might be provided through Repro Graphics; these costs, however, are not included in this estimate. A prototype for the faculty review component is expected in late November 2005.

This project is not featured on the current proposal for campus IT funding (a proposal is under development), but Council expressed support for such a system. In particular, members commented that it would enable decision support and data analysis not currently available, and it presents the potential for saving time that could be used on more critical activities (e.g., recruiting students into the graduate programs).

Chair Bledsoe thanked Dean Gibeling for his presentation. She indicated that she will work with Dean Gibeling to form a CCFIT Work Group to discuss and make recommendations on this project. Membership on the workgroup would include faculty and graduate students, among other members.

V. Homework Assignment – Caroline Bledsoe

Caroline Bledsoe asked Council members to talk to their constituencies and report back at the December meeting regarding representation on two CCFIT workgroups: Campus Wireless Expansion, and Online Graduate Application and Tracking System. Council members interested in finding out more about these two groups, or about serving on either group, are encouraged to contact Chair Bledsoe directly.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.