Minutes

April 14, 2015

Members present: Mark Pershouse, Matt Riley, Scott Holgate, Art Held, Judy Fredenberg, Antony Jo, Jess Neidigh, Roger Maclean, Aaron Heiner, Dawn Ressel, Manu Samuela

Members excused: John Greer, Mark Grimes, Karen Moore, Eric Reimer, Allen Szalda-Petree

Members absent: Cale Patenaude, Denise Nelson

Ex-officio members and staff present: Bob Hlynosky, Adrian Irish, Gordy Pace

Call to order

Mark Pershouse called the meeting to order at 3:34 

Minutes

Art Held moved to approve the March minutes. Scott Holgate seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Communications

UM Minute – IT Focus

Mark Pershouse reported that his building now has dense wireless.

CIO communication

Matt Riley reported that he was among a group of CIOs from the northwest who met with Ellucian executives two weeks ago. Ellucian is delivering new technology for the same price we are currently paying. New technologies include an integration hub tool, an identity management/single sign-on tool, an advising portal and a registration portal.

Matt also shared insights into IT budget adjustments for FY16. He said that central IT has to deal with predicting changes in revenue stream from telephone and network port charges and IT utilities shortfalls, which are covered by central IT.

Jess Neidigh asked if it would be possible to get a list of what’s included in IT utilities. Matt said he would provide that.

Mark Pershouse reported that he has invited Mary Engstrom to the next meeting to talk about MOOCs and the technology necessary to implement those. Matt is also working on getting information on the University of Minnesota model classrooms.

Workflow discussion

Steven Van Grinsven was not available to share progress from the workflow efforts that came out of the unconference, but several committee members shared insights. Jess Neidigh said the committee has been meeting every other week to look at processes on campus that use software to do workflow-like processes. He pointed out that workflow means different things to different people. Group trying to define whether it means document retention, document routing, approval processes, or other things that workflow could contain. The group is looking at tools that campus already has to see if those could be leveraged campus-wide. 

Matt said he hears from the cabinet that we are pushing too much paper, and it would be great if we could settle on ways to address that. He said he worked with other CIOs across the country last year looking at cloud services offered through Internet2. One solution they offer that Matt is interested in exploring is DocuSign.

Judy Fredenberg reported that what the A&F Tech Team is doing for the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs is going to revolutionize their operations. The office plans to go paperless on July 1.

Adrian Irish shared that there is another group looking at digital signatures. There is a lot of paper that simply requires a single sign-off and there are plenty of solutions for that. A lot don’t need actual digital signatures, but rather someone to log in with their NetID and check a checkbox. Adrian said there is communication and cross-pollination between the workflow group and the digital signature group.

Reports of standing committees, Tech Partners and Mod Squad

Data Governance committee

Dawn Ressel reported that the newly-formed data governance committee is meeting every other week. She said the group is struggling to define the scope. She shared a draft charge for the committee and invited feedback from IT Senate members.

Dawn asked for guidance on two issues:

  • Is this a committee of all of the UM campuses or just UM-Missoula? She pointed out that if we change processes on this campus, that will impact all of the affiliates. If we do accomplish something that is affiliate-wide, how are they represented?
  • Should the committee report to the President’s cabinet or to IT Senate?

Matt responded by pointing out that we are one of the Universities where the IT Senate with a direct relationship with the President’s cabinet has a structure that could support it through the IT Senate. Dawn pointed out that there will be potential conflict resolution that will have to be addressed. Is it appropriate for this committee to make those decisions? If it is, does the hiatus (in July and August) hurt moving this forward?

Matt pointed out that when decision requests go to the cabinet, the first question asked is if the appropriate people have looked at the issue. What is shared in IT Senate? If the data governance committee is a separate group, that’s another step the group will have to go through.

Art Held said that during the formation of IT Senate, it was seen as a place where all technology issues would be dealt with as a whole rather than having separate pipes feeding into the cabinet. IT Senate was formed to have a unified, thoughtful voice, to provide a place where technology was considered as a whole.

Matt reiterated that he had a problem with restricting the committee to Missoula. Jess pointed out that including the affiliates really complicates things and makes it more difficult to develop a standardized framework. Matt said that in the long term we don’t want affiliate campuses looking at it and saying that’s a model for UM-Missoula, we don’t need to worry about that. We do want them to think about it. Jess asked if we needed affiliate representation on the committee then. Matt said that sooner or later they would get representation, but in the short-term it was not a problem getting started without affiliate representation. Dawn said there were good people on the committee who would be keeping the affiliates in mind during design and development.

Dawn asked the group to send thoughts to her by April 23rd. She said that after the charge is finalized, the committee will come up with hard deliverables and timelines. 

Enterprise Applications committee

Bob Hlynosky reported that the group met April 7th and talked about routing enterprise apps requests to the right place for review and integrating the form with the one the accessibility review (EITA) requires.

Matt said that he gets asked if this process is streamlining or slowing down the purchasing process. Bob said it doesn’t have to slow things down, and it’s also an opportunity to look at purchases across campus and perhaps get better group pricing.

Art said that he has taken two purchases through the new process. The first went rapidly and the second added several weeks to the process, but that was primarily because of EITA review delays.

Communications and Collaboration committee

Roger Maclean reported that he is reviewing meeting minutes from the year for significant actions and themes and will have an assessment report ready for review at the May meeting.

Mod Squad

No report.

Tech Partners

Antony Jo reported that the April Tech Partners meeting included the following:

  • Brian French from the Office for Student Success talked about what his department does
  • Adrian Irish gave an update on security awareness training
  • There was a discussion about communication during campus-wide outages

Discussion – membership/leadership in preparation for votes at next meeting

Matt said that changes that we have made throughout the year necessitate language change in our bylaws. One of the changes made during the year was adopting a co-chair leadership model where the CIO would be a standing co-chair along with an elected co-chair. Matt said that this has worked out in all the ways the group had envisioned from his perspective. Mark said it’s also worked from his perspective as a faculty representative, particularly in having an influence on planning the agenda.

Nominations can be sent to the officers between meetings or made at the May meeting. A note will be sent to all of the membership so they know what will happen.

Follow-up on Web Proxy Access for parents/Banner

Matt said he asked the vice presidents if it was a priority for us to develop a service for students to allow parents/proxies access to some areas of Banner for web (i.e. fee payment). The answer was yes and how soon can we get it? The question now is whether we use what Ellucian has, or do we look at something else?

The meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m. 

Minutes submitted by Gordy Pace