November 12, 2013
Members present: Matt Riley, Mariah Williams, Manu Saumuela, Roger Maclean, Jesse Neidigh, Judy Fredenberg, Tony Jablonkski, Art Held, Loey Knapp, Mark Pershouse, Erika Noble, John Greer, Eric Reimer
Members excused: Allen Szalda-Petree, Sandi Nelson, Mark Grimes
Members absent: Jennifer Sauer, Aaron Heiner
Ex-officio members and staff present: Adrian Irish, Joe Hickman, Gordy Pace
Call to order
Matt Riley called the meeting to order at 3:32
Jesse Neidigh moved that minutes from the October 8th meeting be approved. Art Held seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
UM minute – IT focus
- John Greer reported that the wireless has been working better. Jesse Neidigh said it had been great for a couple weeks but that his help desk has been seeing more problems lately
- Matt Riley reported that an IT leadership professional development series starts next week. He suggested that the program might produce some ideas and that IT senate might be a place where those ideas get driven to action.
- Loey Knapp announced that there will be two project management brown bag sessions coming up. The first one is next week, and the second is in early December.
- Jesse reported that Student Affairs IT is working on applications for Campus Recreation and Residence Life. He said that in both cases, systems have been chosen and are in the process of being purchased. The functionality of the systems are all process that have been done with ad hoc or with paper systems. Both tie in with Banner.
- Art Held reported that Susan Cuffe in Alumni has launched a process to replace the Harris Connect email system used by both Alumni and the Foundation. Harris Connect has three functions: 1) it broadcasts email to alumni and donors/ prospective donors; 2) it has a social network product that is seldom used; and 3) it has forms used for event management and registration for alumni events.
Reports of standing committees and Tech Partners
Enterprise Applications committee
John Greer reporting that Jesse Neidigh approached the committee with the StarRez housing application. This gives the committee something to start with. Matt asked John if the committee needed members. John said yes. Matt recommended drawing a couple members from the IT Senate and a couple from outside senate. Tony Jablonski said the Architecture and Infrastructure committee has members. Judy Fredenburg asked what kind of background committee members should have. John suggested a background in software procurement or campus systems. He said the committee definitely needs someone from Banner system. Jess said he could serve on the committee initially. Tony suggested someone from directory services.
John asked for suggestions for someone from Business Services. Matt suggested that we should ask John McCormick to appoint a representative to both IT Senate and the Enterprise Applications committee. It would be best if one person filled both roles.
Matt suggested that the committee use the StarRez application to figure out how a system works through the governance process. John Greer said StarRez is a good guinea pig for the committee because it doesn’t have campus-wide implications or departmental overlap, but there is integration challenges with other enterprise systems. Matt said that existing systems could also be scrutinized by the committee.
Architecture and Infrastructure committee
Tony Jablonski reported that based on Tech Partners input, the Architecture and Infrastructure committee felt it could focus on high-density wireless. He said he’d like the committee to develop a definition of what high-density means and determine future needs. He said the committee would bring a recommendation to the IT Senate sometime next semester.
Jesse asked if the committee could facilitate getting real-time reporting out of the wireless system. Matt said thecommittee could go back and make a recommendation that everyone who has APs that they control they should have access to reports. He stressed that we are interested in data-driven decision-making. Jess and John Greer both said there was interest in their areas (Student Affairs and Academics) to determine where dense wireless is needed.
Antony Jo reported that the Tech Partners board has made a call for nominations to replace two or three people on the board for next year. So far have only gotten one nomination. They hope to have new leaders on the board by January.
Antony reported that Kathy Garramone from IT would be contacting people about renewals for Microsoft Volume licensing. Renewal date is in February.
The third item from the last Tech Partners meeting was discussion of the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility (EIT) policy and proposed timelines for that. He suggested that the policy needs a lot more attention because when it’s enacted people are going to be surprised by the requirements. Matt suggested that Lucy France is very aware of how other institutions have met requirements and she’s folding that into our response. In some ways, our policies and response could provide a model for others.
Communication and Collaboration committee
Roger Maclean reported that the committee met and revised the IT operational plan based on last month’s discussion and was bringing another draft to IT Senate for vetting.
FY14 IT operational plan approval
Matt suggested that by the end of the meeting, we should be able to agree on priority goals and activities. Jesse Neidigh explained that the communications committee removed things that were not a priority this year. Those items are still part of the strategic plan, just not included in the FY14 operational plan. Loey Knapp added that some of the activities don't have responsibility assigned because they may need a tiger team. Matt added that some may not need a special assignment of responsibility because already being addressed. We simply need to assess the activity at the end of the year.
Art Held asked whether the gap analysis activity under the “IT to enhance the student experience” area was a one-time activity or an ongoing process. Jesse said he thought one-time just to get it started, but that maybe it should be ongoing. Erika Noble suggested it should be ongoing. Matt asked if we should we create a student focus group or a committee for student IT. Jesse said his preference would be to make it a tiger team to do it once and see how it goes. Maybe then it could become a standing committee. There might be better buy-in from volunteers if they knew they only had to do it once. Mariah Williams asked if the role of the student computer fee committee could be expanded to include input on all student technology matters. Judy Fredenburg said she loved the idea because it utilizes an existing structure. Mariah suggested that the committee could at least serve as a feedback mechanism for a group doing a gap analysis. Roger Maclean said we should we survey incoming new students to find out what their technology expectations are, and get into a process of continuous scanning of what students expect.
Tony Jablonski said that from the perspective of the Architecture and Infrastructure committee, the operational plan was extremely aggressive. He suggested that it may be more appropriate for us to adjust our cycle and be developing an FY15 plan instead of FY14. Loey asked about the possibility of making it a two-year plan, or 18 months. Matt responded by saying he thought it was ok if we assess and we don't get there. Also ok to start this process earlier. He said he thinks we'll have plenty to assess at end of the fiscal year, and some stuff that can roll into next fiscal year plan. We have aligned some of our goals to UM goals and we have to assess those.
Art said it’s demoralizing to get to end of something and have achieved 20 percent. He suggested scaling back some of the language. John Greer said that an operational plan says to him that we're going to do that. Maybe it's a terminology massage. Mariah suggested calling it a "continuous operational plan" and still assess at end of each year.
Tony said it all comes down to managing expectations. We need to be sensitive that people have limited time. We should get expectations aligned with reality.
Jess asked what the communications committee needed to do to manage expectations. He suggested changing the title of the plan and adding an introductory paragraph that explains that this is an on-going process and many of these things won’t be completed, but we want to assess and track progress. Judy pointed out that some of the activities are being done and we need to be sure that we look for those activities that are being done and document them. Matt said that when he talks to the cabinet, their questions are, what are the priorities and what is being done, and that’s the extent of the detail they want.
It was pointed out that the activity related to developing a service-oriented architecture should be assigned to the Enterprise Applications committee rather than Architecture and Infrastructure committee.
Ellucian assessment activity
Matt said that UM will engage with Ellucian on an assessment of how we use Banner tools. The assessment will lead to a proposal of some sort. The assessment will take place after the next IT Senate meeting, but he will have more information to share at the December meeting.
Enterprise Applications committee - assess existing application for IT Senate governance decision
Matt asked the committee to look at an existing enterprise application and bring it back to IT Senate.
Also for next meeting, Loey will provide a short presentation of Degree Builder.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.