Technology Committee
Fall 2007
Meeting Notes for October 16, 2007
Attending: Chris Winslow, Fred Lokken, Steve Zideck, Steve Bale, Scott Alquist, Brandy
Colby (for Peralina Palm), Annette MacDonald (for Barbara Wright-Sanders)
Not Attending: Cal Anderson (on annual leave) and Ty Moore
The Meeting
Chris conducted the meeting. He asked for a motion on the minutes from the September
meeting. Fred made the motion to approve, seconded by Steve Z. and approved by the
quorum present.
Chris reviewed the committee structure and membership. He also reviewed the web site
for the Technology Committee (http://tmcc.edu/committees/technology) – which includes
meeting minutes/notes and information about the committee.
Chris also reviewed the diagram for all of the technology committees at TMCC (see
http://www.tmcc.edu/committees/technology/downloads/documents/general/TechComm
Structure.pdf) – the diagram differentiates the role and responsibilities for each
committee. The Technology Committee reports directly to the Cabinet; the other
committees that exist for technology issues are linked in a chain – all of which report to
the Technology Committee. This is an important clarification of the committee roles and
relationships. Technology Committee members need to effectively represent all of the
interests of the college – and articulate them as needed during meetings. It will allow for
better recommendations.
Chris introduced Steve Zideck (Steve is chair of the Administrative Computing
Committee - ACC) and represents the ACC on the Technology Committee (also
represents Information Technology Services - ITS). Steve had been asked to provide
background about the Administrative Computing Committee. Chris has arranged for
each of the chairs of the three principal committees (Academic Technologies, Web
Advisory and Administrative Computing) to make a presentation so the Technology
Committee members will have a better understanding of the breadth of issues and needs.
Administrative Computing Committee Presentation:
Steve Zideck explained that the committee has an important role of communicating
operational projects and issues to the greater campus community. The ACC also has an
important role of prioritizing the numerous projects that are identified. The ACC does
this each fall – and also reports on the progress in completing various approved projects.
The committee will be meeting later this month to review submissions/requests for
various projects that will be ranked by the AC Committee. This establishes the priorities
for the programmers for the year (review and ranking occurs each October). This is a
complicated process since some projects may be short-term while others may demand
substantial time. Those requesting projects are asked to attend the ACC meeting to
explain their need (the committee will meet Tuesday, October 23rd). The priorities will
be forwarded to the Technology Committee and then to the President’s Cabinet for
further review and endorsement.
Chris indicated the importance of tying the campus strategic plan and related unit plans to
any of the recommendations that come to the Technology Committee from the three
committees. For instance, the priorities list from ACC must have relevance to the
campus plan(s). Often, there are real staff, time and budget implications with these
projects, so there needs to be a connection which further validates any action.
Steve Zideck also wanted to clarify that the new priorities must be balanced with the
recurring responsibilities and project commitments that programmers have been working
on. The new projects are addressed as time permits.
Chris explained that another factor that must be considered is the limited staffing for ITO,
ITS, and WebCollege – this further constrains what can be done with new projects.
Again, the focus needs to be on existing needs first.
Chris stressed that the college’s IT staffing is doing ok, but is running lean. As an
example, he briefly outlined what ITO does – under Telephony, his staff manages 896
telephones (Keystone is outsourced). The support ratio is one tech position for every 500
phones. The Network has only two techs managing and supporting more than 7300 ports.
For the GACLs, the college had more than 75,000 users in the past year. There are now
1100 academic computers and 739 administrative computers – so nearly 1,000 computers
per tech. The college currently has 39 servers for each tech support position. This is
important data to know as we consider the impact of any new projects. We must be
selective by necessity.
The question was raised if we are in line with industry standards or well beyond expected
ratios. Chris discussed how difficult comparisons can be.
The Technology Committee Charter
Chris reviewed the Technology Committee mission, purpose and primary objectives. As
an important reminder, the mission clearly states that the Technology Committee is a
recommending body. The specific set of committee responsibilities is outlined on the
committee web page (http://tmcc.edu/committees/technology). Chris also reviewed
membership and meetings.
Steve Bale asked if an added role for the committee should be in the area of legal
compliance. Chris explained that currently, Steve Z and Chris are responsible for that.
The policies are included in the administrative manual. Closer review of the current
responsibilities also includes the following: “act as an authoritative body for information
technology policy compliance.”
Steve Bale moved to approve the committee charter – seconded by Steve Zideck and
approved by the committee quorum present.
Draft Email Distribution Survey
Plans are underway to conduct a survey of email users (likely early next semester). Chris
presented a draft set of possible questions. Chris also reported that the current posting
options have been updated. Questions were raised about the recent listserv issues on
campus. Many seemingly were not aware of the implemented changes, even though
there had been announcements from PIO. It created an atmosphere of confusion which in
turn exacerbated the issue further. There can be confusion over what is “official” – what
constitutes that. All of this was prompted by a sense of censorship over postings when
the listserv solution was launched.
Chris would really appreciate feedback and suggestions to refine and improve the survey.
New Business
Steve Bale asked “was there any discussion of leaving GroupWise and adopting another
solution?” Currently, this is being discussed between Chris and Steve Zideck’s staffs.
They may bring forward a recommendation to move to another messaging collaboration
system at some point; it would be submitted first to the Administrative Computing
Committee and then would come to this committee. Student email needs are also under
review.
Committee Tasks
• Become familiar with the college strategic plan and especially become more
familiar with goals as they relate to technology (2006-2007) – the revised plan
should be available in December (for 2007-2008)
• Review technology metrics for use in determining progress in achieving strategic
goals
• Ensure that technology is planned using current college processes (within faculty
annual plans, through project requests, etc.)
• Encourage review of existing technology/applications (Linktivity, Grokker, etc.)
• Provide input regarding the draft email survey questions prior to the Nov 20th
meeting.
The meeting ended at its scheduled time.