Target 2000 Technology Team
Meeting Minutes of 09/16/96
Technology Committee
Notes of: September 16, 1996 Meeting
Present: Fred Ryan, Bill Post, Tom Welsh, Debbie McElroberts, Jack Strick, Carolyn
Dusenbury, Royd Weintraub, Kay Schenk, Jeff Bell, Frederica Shockley, Beverly Taylor,
Melody Callan, Jim Mensching, and Dan Toy.
Staff: Susan Greco
1. Vice Provost for Information Resources:
Fred Ryan greeted the committee and extended his appreciation for the hard work and
support they provided last year. He indicated there was a heavy load of tasks for this year
and that the committee's involvement and support are very important to the Target 2000
mission. Fred discussed the updated Target 2000 document and indicated he had received
very good reactions from outside consultants who had reviewed our plan. This
committee's structure is different from most advisory groups. We are in the process of
getting membership solidified. May want to stagger terms so that we always have some
folks on the committee who are familiar with the previous year's work.
2. T2000 Plan
Bill Post discussed the T2000 updated plan. The T2000 plan is a living document and
change within each category is continual.
3. Integrated Technology Strategies Initiative (ITSI):
During the summer, Information Resources was invited to submit a proposal to the
Chancellor's Office for technology funding. The CO Information Resource Management
supported campuses with programs and plans in place by recommending them for
funding. Our proposal focused on access for student modems, lab access, and training.
However, after proposals were presented, the Chancellor's Office decided they could not
award funds without a competition.
If we receive ITSI funds, they will be used to support student access to computing
including the open labs, modems, help desk, and lab assistants. In addition, some dollars
were earmarked for information literacy and classroom technology. A future agenda item
will be for The Tech Committee to determine a plan for helping departmental computer
labs. We will also look at about software for lab machines.
A Tech Fee is still under discussion. Campuses were told they could expect funds from
the C.O. (instead of a Tech Fee) in January. Hopefully we will know in 60 days if this
funding will materialize.
Members of this Committee were asked to discuss the FCP with their college faculty .
Purpose is to find out how people feel about the project -- this should cover items such as
the number of machines we purchase, etc. Members are to provide feedback to Fred
Ryan. Fred Ryan asked for feedback from the college representatives. One of the
misnomers in the FCP is the "three-year replacement cycle." The three-year replacement
cycle is actually a goal -- what we currently have in actuality is an eight-year replacement
cycle.
5. Library System:
Bill Post provided an updated on the status of the Library's RFP for a system update. The
original RFP was rewritten and is now going out for a rebid with an October 2, 1996
deadline. This is a joint RFP with CSU, San Francisco.
6. Unified Information Access System:
The CSU system wide Unified Information Access System project will provide a web
gateway box with authentication. Currently, if a student has an AOL address they cannot
get campus access. This is being looked at now but, AOL does not support telnet so even
if we can overcome the address problem, students still could not access the library.
7. One Card Project:
Beverly Taylor reported on the One Card Project (smart card). The Chancellor's Office is
watching this project to see how campuses work together as a system-wide group. Since
this will be used for all technologies, as well as other functions, it was agreed that the
Technology Committee should review the project proposal once it is ready. Beverly
Taylor and Debbie McElroberts are both on this group and will keep the Technology
Committee informed on the Project.
8. Mainframe:
Debbie McElroberts gave a presentation on the status of the mainframe. Several core
problems with Chico's mainframe environment must be addressed soon. Information
Resources is working on positioning the University so that we have the flexibility to
choose among reasonable alternatives as they develop in the next few years.
Immediate Issues:

The current operating system on the MVS v.3 platform will no longer be
supported by IBM after March 31, 1997. Therefore, we MUST upgrade. The
upgrade timeline is estimated at 24 weeks.

Information Resources conferred with two outside consultants last spring and
each provided an assessment of our campus mainframe configurations and needs.
Consistently, these consultants recommended we do a CPU upgrade and
suggested we look at three alternatives:
a. Share CPU with CSU, Sacramento;
b. Purchase a used, less expensive CPU
c. Purchase a new, current technology, replacement CPU
The CPU selected affects the pricing of the OS/390 Operating System. The best apparent
upgrade alternative is to purchase a used CPU. The consultants (Miller & Lera) as well as
the Anderson Consulting Firm agreed that this was the best solution.
Year 2000:



OS/390 supports year 2000
Third party vendors are expected to bring their products into compliance
Review of locally developed applications in progress and needs to be completed
by year 2000.
96/97 Next Steps:




Begin procurement process to upgrade the mainframe CPU and license OS/390.
Complete conversion to the OS/390 platform by March 31, 1997.
Modification of locally developed applications to support the year 2000.
Conduct a feasibility study including cost analyses of the SIS+ Data Warehousing
and WWW Access Projects.
Timeline:


Proof of concept phase for both projects to be completed by January 1,1997
Data Warehouse and WWW convergence is possible.
Planning Initiatives:

Vice Provost for Information Resources to recommend to Cabinet that a task force
be established to study and define function and software definition.
McElroberts recommended that this group support the Vice Provost in his
recommendation to Cabinet. This will discussed at our next meeting. Please come
prepared with any comments or reactions to the plan.
9. Agenda Items
Committee members were asked to suggest agenda items for future meetings. A few
suggested were:
Classroom Technology
E-mail
Support for technology in classroom labs.
Prioritize expense items outline in T2000 to be ready for funding
software environment
lab classrooms
Committee members are to bring additional agenda items to the next meeting.
9. Recap of Feedback Requested by Fred Ryan:
a. Members are to talk with their college colleagues to ascertain information about
the Faculty Computer Project (see item 4 above).
b. Members are to provide feedback on the Central Mainframe project.
10. Meeting Schedule for Fall 96:
We will meet on the following Mondays from 1:00 to 3:00 in MLIB 455:
Monday, October 14
Monday, November 11
Monday, December 9