Institutional Technology Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2010
I. Call to order
The CIO called to order the meeting of the Institutional Technology Advisory
Committee at 1:00 PM on September 15, 2010 in the IT Conference Room.
II. Roll call
The following were in attendance: Steve Vieira, Carl Toft, John Panzica, Peter
Woodberry, Deb Aiken, Ruth Sullivan, Kay Johnson, Cody Houghton and Donna
Mesolella. Mike Kelly was unable to attend.
III. Approval of minutes from last meeting
Minutes were approved through email response.
IV. Discussion Items
a) Introduction to the plan for this year
The CIO discussed the project prioritization methodology as it occurred last
year. He expressed hope that projects would be surfacing from various
requests throughout the four campuses. Some internal IT projects might be
mixed in as well. Business cases would be built, working with requestors,
which will be distributed to the various IT governance advisory boards
starting November 1st.
At the November scheduled meeting, the CIO will address any questions
about any of the projects based upon his discussions and meetings with the
requestors. This will give everyone an opportunity to fully understand what
the various projects are designed to accomplish and how they will impact the
college.
Peter Woodberry asked about projects as they relate to the Strategic Plan. He
wanted to know where ad hoc projects might have entered into the list as the
year evolved. The CIO stated his definition of a project, that being longer
term initiatives involving a series of resources, both functional and technical,
that would typically cross the divisions.
The master schedule was discussed and the CIO pointed out that IT played a
supporting role in getting the necessary reports and information necessary for
Academic Affairs and others to make the decisions that shape the master
schedule. He went on to explain that he did not have a primary role in the
design of the master schedule but certainly was there to provide the support
those decision makers needed.
The CIO also mentioned the fact that projects were generated through requests
from various groups across the four campuses and that IT was not in the
business of driving technology but instead offering the tools that people
needed to do their jobs. As a result of that, the prioritized list of projects
became a matter of assigning resources and ensuring that those resources
whether internal, capital or consulting were available on demand.
b) Turn It In and Safe Assignment
Peter Woodberry asked whether Turn It In, plagiarism testing software, was
available on campus. Ruth Sullivan said that type of software was typically
offered through the libraries. She volunteered to gather more information on
this product and to report back to the group.
Action Item 1: Ruth Sullivan to report on Turn It In and other software
potentially offered through the libraries.
c) Flexible Registration
The CIO announced that a proposed schedule for Flexible Registration
implementation had been delivered by SunGard HE. He explained how the
product functioned and what changes that would mean in current processing.
Flexible Registration would enable potential students to gather a schedule or
review courses before they would have to provide the necessary information
to register and pay for those courses.
However, evidence of financial aid or some form of tuition payment would be
incorporated in real-time to ensure that this is taken into account in the
payment process. Additionally, this would eliminate the so called “safety
school” students who register, while applying to the college of first choice,
and who dump their courses once they are accepted there. Also, any courses
not paid for would be re-entered back into the greater pool for those who
intend to come to CCRI.
Ruth Sullivan asked if both Financial Aid and other payment information
would be taken into account. The CIO assured her that it would if available.
Deb Aiken indicated that this would also bring to the forefront again the topic
of deadlines and how last minute registration is fraught with no advisement,
students rushing to register and choosing the wrong course that they
eventually drop for a myriad of causes.
John Panzica suggested that CWCE might take this project on as a pilot and so
pave the way for testing its use. He further suggested that several implications
of Flexible registration would see multiple changes in the way CCRI does
business.
Peter Woodberry asked if historical payment information might be available
in order to allow a student to register without payment based upon their
payment records in previous years. The CIO indicated that the system could
be setup to allow registration without payment if the college determined that
that was the best method.
The CIO also suggested that the proposed schedule is just that and that further
discussion would be taking place. The SunGard HE support is scheduled to
start with introductions and first appraisal of the readiness of CCRI for this
product.
d) ODS/EDW and Argos
The CIO offered the dates for a potential meeting of all involved in the
Reporting Methodology as September 23 or 24 to determine the model for
moving forward. VP Shea will be leading a group to determine how CCRI
can reach a sustainable process of developing both datablocks and reports for
the college and its various constituents.
The CIO also stated that the model would involve those things that were
already at hand. eVisions, producers of Argos, has a COOP site with many
sample reports offered by all the other Argos schools using the Operational
Data Store and Enterprise Data Warehouse. CCRI could use some of these
reports and datablocks as samples of how to proceed and with some tweaking
as customized datablocks for the college.
He also suggested that existing Discoverer reports could be used as
illustrations of the type of reports that people want and that could be mirrored
when producing Argos reports. Combining the expertise of the MIS group
who can identify the proper tables from which datablock elements are
gathered and the knowledge base of the users who know from which tables in
Banner they need to get data, new reports and datablocks could be developed.
Finally, standardizing the processing and development of these reports could
lead to a sustainable structure.
e) Phase II of account handling for students
The CIO described how efforts in January 2011 to activate all student
accounts would eliminate the need for students to do this for themselves. He
suggested that a default password which would be a combination of the CCRI
ID number and some letters from their username could be setup in order to
alleviate the issues with having students using activation.
f) Print Management (January and beyond)
The CIO reiterated that print management would begin in January for all
student accounts. He described the new system and the demonstration and
how easy it was. He further emphasized that eventually IT would open
capabilities for students to use the MFDs as copy machines and finally
scanners (naturally without page costs).
Ruth Sullivan asked if there might be a long term plan that IT had. The CIO
answered that at some point all users of printers on campus would be ID
driven, which would naturally include faculty and staff.
g) CIO Update
The CIO closed his portion of the meeting talking about various issues that
arose this summer concerning projects delayed by State Purchasing and
waiting on long overdue capital expenditures.
h) Peter Woodberry asked about adjunct faculty and how they used to be able to
go to the Help Desk and get their accounts established. The CIO indicated
that that policy has changed as the new automated procedures for account
creation were taking data directly from Banner. In the past, Help Desk staff
would establish accounts for people who came to the desk and said they were
adjunct faculty.
The CIO established that this was a bad policy because no evidence was ever
validated and it is not in the business of IT to be hiring adjunct faculty, which
was actually done when accounts were issued. With the automated procedure,
as long as faculty members are in Banner, they get an account five minutes
later.
i) Ruth Sullivan asked for a clarification of how virtual desktops would work.
The CIO explained that depending upon which classes and programs you were
attending, you would get software designed specifically for that program and
section. So, English majors would get English-major software and then those
specific software packages chosen for the classes for which they were
registered.
Ruth then asked about whether the current computers would support CAD
packages. The CIO further described the fact that virtual desktops only install
the elements of the package that were immediately needed upon login by the
student. As the student used more of the package, little by little the
functionality would increase until the full package was loaded. By using this
methodology, the computer is not immediately taxed. Additionally he
explained that in some cases there would be the need for two sets of
computers. Those that could handle the larger and more resource-intensive
software and those for reading email or using Word.
j) Peter Woodberry asked about records management and how that was going.
The CIO discussed the current project of categorization and sorting of records
in the Knight basement. He said he is still gathering documents from the
various sources to provide a working pool for the company that is going to do
the sorting.
Once the sorting is done and everything is labeled, the state archivists will be
brought in to help classify and provide retention schedules for all paper
records. Those that can be shredded will be and those to be kept will be
assigned to be digitized and then shredded. Long term plans call for
eliminating the paper in the basement altogether. However in the meantime,
regular digitizing will be ordered to keep the stockpile at a minimal level.
k) Adjournment
The CIO adjourned the meeting at 2:25 PM.
Minutes submitted by: Stephen A. Vieira