Report of the Committee on
Campus Administrative Computing
Table of Contents
Executive Summary _____________________________________________________ 2
Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 3
I. Impact and Readiness __________________________________________________ 3
II. Tools and Standards ___________________________________________________ 5
III. Desktop Support _____________________________________________________ 7
IV. Information Technology (IT) Staffing ____________________________________ 8
V. Security ___________________________________________________________ 10
VI. Budget ____________________________________________________________ 11
Appendix A: Consolidated list of report recommendations ______________________ 14
Appendix B: Committee charge ___________________________________________ 18
Appendix C: Examples of best practices for tools and standards that could be included in
a comprehensive campus website __________________________________________ 20
Appendix D: Examples of hardware and software systems available from The Scholar’s
Workstation 07/00 _____________________________________________________ 22
Appendix E: Definition of desktop support __________________________________ 24
Appendix F: Identified Best Practices for Security ____________________________ 25
Executive Summary
As a follow-up to the 1998 report of the Commission on Campus Computing, a Campus
Committee on Administrative Computing was formed in December 1999 to identify key
issues of administrative computing on campus.
The committee identified broad areas for grouping administrative computing issues.
These included technical areas such as security, but also encompassed more general
issues of staffing and departmental readiness. To get the broadest possible view, the
group studied some of the relevant major reports produced in the past five years and
reviewed past recommendations to determine whether they are still applicable in the
current environment. In addition, the committee met with representatives of other current
committees that are working on related topics and with key staff in relevant units.
The most critical needs identified by the committee include:

There is a need to define and implement a model for basic desktop support and
workstation replacement that will be provided to all administrative staff. Campus
managers must recognize the computer as a basic essential tool and plan and budget
for this support. The full cost of implementing a basic program for centrally funded
administrative staff is estimated at about $4 million/year.

The campus needs to increase its ability to attract and retain the information
technology (IT) professionals needed to support and develop the systems necessary
for the continued modernization of the campus’s administrative and business support
systems.

The campus needs to improve the reliability of its administrative services by
providing a more secure environment for its data, communications and computers.

The campus needs to expand training opportunities to enable staff to better use
existing technologies and to play a more active role in the selection or development of
new administrative systems.
Report recommendations are included at the end of each section and a complete list is
also provided in Appendix A.
Page 2 of 25
Introduction
In August 1998 the Commission on Campus Computing issued a report which assessed
Berkeley’s academic computing needs and proposed a set of principles to guide
campuswide planning for information technology. The work of the Commission
focussed on educational technology, departmental computing and the campus network
infrastructure. The Commission report provided important guidelines for academic
computing. Campus executives recognized the need for a similar effort to assess the
administrative and student services computing needs of the campus.
The Committee on Campus Administrative Computing (CCAC) was established in
December 1999 to consider two issues: (1) technology improvements needed to support
an effective administrative and student service infrastructure and (2) the distribution of
responsibilities and funding for student services and administrative computing on
campus. The range of units to be considered in this charge included: academic
departments, organized research units, student services units, business services units,
Information Systems and Technology, and the University Library. (Please see Appendix
B for the committee charge.)
The committee recognized that significant material has already been produced on this
topic by a number of groups, and conducted a review of this material as a part of its work.
Some important recommendations made in these previous reports have not yet been
adopted. Because units performing administrative tasks are completely reliant on
technology, the CCAC felt it was important to reiterate some of these earlier
recommendations with the hope that action will be taken.
The Committee identified six primary areas that are critically important to campus in the
area of administrative computing: (1) impact of the increased use of technology for
administration and the campus readiness to take advantage of this technology; (2) tools
and standards; (3) desktop support needs; (4) information technology (IT) staffing; (5)
security; and (6) budget.
I. Impact and Readiness
The 1996 strategic planning document "Steps Toward Becoming a Technologically Wise
University" http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~cccpb-it/StrategicPlan8-25-96.html discussed
the importance of creating a technologically wise campus.
Being technologically wise implies deep understanding of the possibilities of
technology. It implies both the will and ability to accomplish change that can
provide and take advantage of the educational opportunities afforded by
technology. Students, faculty, administration and staff all need to participate in
defining and accomplishing such change.
Page 3 of 25
This concept is as important for administrative computing as it is for instructional
technology. The campus is faced with enrollment growth that will impact all
administrative service areas. The Internet and mobile technologies are changing the way
business is conducted and raising the service expectations of Berkeley customers — the
students, faculty, staff, and community. 1 Creating a workforce of decision-makers and
technical and non-technical staff who are technologically wise is essential to addressing
these challenges in an effective way.
The campus needs to emphasize training as a priority and convey to units that they have
an obligation to provide and engage in training at all levels. An excellent start has been
made with the CalPact program—designed to raise the basic computer skills level of all
users on certain applications. However, CalPact is not designed to address broader
training and readiness issues and additional programs need to be developed to meet these
needs.
Decisions about technology purchases and deployment are made at the unit level and
often represent a significant portion of the unit's budget. Special attention should be given
to providing decision-makers and technical staff with the knowledge to help them make
the decisions that are most appropriate for their own unit, while remaining in sync with
the rest of the campus. Current efforts to address staff technology readiness are not
comprehensive or integrated enough to serve these staff well. Decision-makers need
accessible information detailing the true costs and benefits of technology. Reliance on
internal technical staff, if available at all, is not enough; decision-makers need to develop
their own skills and support systems which will enable them to distinguish new
opportunities and adequately plan to sustain technology investments.
Technical staff in individual units currently benefit from a variety of e-mail lists, usergroups forums, and computer based training resources. Through these and other methods
they can update individual skills. However, given the myriad of possible solutions
available for any problem, the campus must develop additional support mechanisms that
facilitate coordinated and complementary skills and methodologies that exploit common
campus infrastructure whenever possible.
Recommendations
I.a. The campus needs to make technical training a priority. Managers must be made
to understand the value of the training and support it by allowing release time for
this purpose. Human Resources should take the lead on this initiative in
partnership with IST. There should be improved publicity and outreach of
training resources, including a web listing of training opportunities available on
and off campus.
I.b. The campus should develop a consolidated approach to training that incorporates
policy and business process into technical training.
1
UCOP White Paper--"A New Business Architecture for the University of California
"(http://uc2010.ucsd.edu/docs/UC2010final.pdf), page 2.
Page 4 of 25
I.c. Minimum technical competencies should be incorporated into all job
descriptions/performance standards. For example, if an administrative position
requires email, word processing and spreadsheet proficiency, this should be
reflected in the performance standards for the position and assessment of these
competencies should be included in subsequent performance evaluations. For this
recommendation to be feasible, it is essential that an effective training program is
in place and that managers are required to allow their employees adequate release
time to attend classes.
II. Tools and Standards
Computing standards are continually in flux and rapid advances in technology often make
it difficult for administrative departments to know whether planned purchases are going
to have a reasonable usage life. Varying application, software and hardware standards
prevent departments from effectively taking advantage of tools being developed by other
campus units; standardization could improve communications and information exchange
across units.
Currently, applications are being developed all over campus, but people are using
dissimilar tools, so other departments can't build on work that has already been done.
There is a need for a library of departmental applications developed on campus; however,
past efforts to compile these resources have not been successful.
The Information Technology Architecture Task Force (ITATF) has recognized the need
for a central resource that managers and campus IT staff could consult about standards
and best practices. As a result, the ITATF has developed the Managers’ Information
Technology Resource (MITRE)—a web site that consolidates information on computing
policies, management, costs, support, etc.( http://www.ias.berkeley.edu/mitre). This will
be a valuable tool for campus managers if it is maintained and its existence is widely
communicated to the campus.
Computing health and safety is another area that would benefit from campus-wide
standards. OSHA requires that ergonomic stations are made available to staff. However,
many computers used by administrative staff are still inappropriately set-up—either on
top of a standard height desk or in some other ergonomically unsafe configuration. The
industry guideline for ergonomic workstation costs provided by Purchasing Today is
$780/person. Currently, most departments do not adequately plan for these costs and
funding may be needed for this purpose by some units. The Office of Environmental
Health and Safety (EH&S) does offer a loan program for departments, but total funding
available in the loan pool is only $10,000 and is inadequate to meet the potential need of
the campus.
Telecommuting or working at home on some projects is becoming increasingly common.
As in campus offices, ergonomic and liability issues exist, and the ramifications are not
well understood. In addition, as use of computers located in employees’ homes increases,
Page 5 of 25
there will be a growing need for technical support of these machines. This has posed
numerous challenges to unit workstation support groups. In addition to the practical
question of how to logistically provide support, IT groups are grappling with policy
issues to determine under what circumstances home support is appropriate.
In Appendix C, we have compiled a partial list of best practices, and in Appendix D, we
have defined a set of hardware and software standards. For lists of this sort to be useful
on an ongoing basis, they must be continually maintained by a group with campus-wide
reach and representation.
Recommendations
II.a. The campus should adopt mandated standard applications and versions for
common applications. Centrally accessible information on recommended
versions should be maintained and units should be encouraged or required to use
current versions within a defined tolerance range. The campus should further
expand recommended applications to include identification and support of tools
to facilitate web publishing and image manipulation, web application
development, and client/server databases and associated tools. This should be
coordinated by the ITATF in partnership with IST.
II.b. Incentives should be developed to promote use of centrally sanctioned/supported
resources for administrative computing and to make these more cost effective
than other alternatives through site license agreements and/or subsidy. IST and
other administrative computing support recharge units should focus their support
services on these products.
II.c. The campus should encourage development of departmental applications that can
be shared. Funding should be provided for a program to be administered by
ASSCS that would provide matching funds for joint development of applications
that would benefit multiple units. Departments should also be encouraged to
advertise applications that they have developed via Micronet 2or IST newsletters.
II.d. The campus should provide technical assistance and business policy direction to
departments wanting to use the Web to automate business practices. The BFS
Training & Readiness model would work well in this venue. This model
integrates policy training with the technical training and provides teams of
specialists to meet one-on-one with units to address specific problems. Business
units planning training programs should be encouraged to use this model.
II.e. The campus should provide increased funding for the EH&S loan pool and
advertise this program to encourage departments to improve workstation
2
Micronet is a professional organization for campus employees who are responsible for managing
microcomputer systems, writing microcomputer software or providing technical support to microcomputer
users (http://wss.berkeley.edu/micronet/)
Page 6 of 25
ergonomics. EH&S should be encouraged to develop a proposal for an
appropriate loan pool amount and submit a request for funding.
III. Desktop Support
Reliable access to computing services is essential for administrative support staff to
perform their jobs effectively. Most administrative staff spend a significant portion of
their day doing computing work. Without reliable, robust systems and access to good
technical support, we cannot accomplish the business of the University.
The report of the Commission on Campus Computing focused on providing funding for a
minimal "lifeline" level of support for faculty and academic staff computers. The
Commission identified $500 per year as the cost for this lifeline support, and $1.75
million in permanent funding was allocated towards providing this support to academic
instructional units in the schools and colleges starting in fiscal year 1998.
http://www.chance.berkeley.edu/evcp/COCC. Report.html. While this funding provided
significant relief to the academic instructional units, nearly all of the departments have
augmented this allocation with their own funds to support administrative staff computers.
The CCAC relied on the experience of two large recharge support organizations on
Campus, Letters and Science Computer Resources (LSCR) and Information Systems and
Technology's Departmental On-site Computing Support (DOCS) to examine the costs of
providing an adequate level of support for administrative staff users. LSCR and DOCS
provide a basic set of services to campus computer users. LSCR has a model of one
support person for every 40 users and the cost is $1,500 per user/year. DOCS' model
provides one support person for 60 users and the cost is $1,160 per user/year. 3
In addition, a mid-sized, moderately funded department was surveyed to determine the
cost of its support. Their IT group, which supports both faculty and staff computers, costs
approximately $1,000 per computer. Looking only at the cost of the administrative staff
support, it appears to fall within the range above ($1,160-$1,500 per user/year).
Departments usually prefer to have their own computing support staff since it allows
them greater control over policies and priorities. The disadvantage of local support staff
is that it can be difficult for some departments to provide an adequate breadth of support
or a plausible career path for their technical employees, but a local support model works
for departments with sufficiently sizable budgets and computing needs.
Sizable computing support organizations (five or more people) create economies of scale
while providing career paths for technical employees and breadth of technical expertise.
Smaller departmental computing organizations allow departments to set policy, priority
and direction. Either model can be effective.
3
Both the LSCR and DOCS programs are subsidized. Charges to users are $1,200/workstation for LSCR
support and $720/workstation for DOCs support. For a description of these organizations and the services
they provide, see Appendix E.
Page 7 of 25
The Committee concluded that a single IT support person is not able to effectively
provide support to a unit. There are also effectiveness issues with an IT staff of two, but a
minimal support organization might consist of a mid-to-high-level Programmer/Analyst
(PA), and a lower level PA or Computer Resource Specialist (CRS). This arrangement
might provide planning expertise as well as day-to-day support, while allowing some
level of coverage for vacations and absences. However, due to the limited breadth of a
two-person group, a department with only two technical staff doing support will probably
require help from outside or central organizations. Departments may also have issues
with personnel administration; in this situation there is often no one in the department
qualified to critique the work of the high-level technical staff member. (See
recommendation IV.a)
Departments that are unable to afford more than one technical staff member should
contract with a central organization such as DOCS or LSCR for their computing support.
With only one technology staff member, staff absences and turnover become potentially
disastrous problems. It may be possible to arrange a hybrid support model, with one
departmental technology staff member being advised and aided by a central recharge
organization; the efficacy of such arrangements depends heavily on the personalities
involved.
Recommendations
III.a. The ITATF web-site referenced in Section II should also include information on
current best practices for desktop support, current optimal configurations, and
currently supported software packages. Consolidated efforts to resolve common
desktop support problems should also be publicized and made available. IST
should be responsible for this project in consultation with the ITATF and
Micronet.
III.b. The campus should establish baseline standards for the computer services and
resources that will be provided to all members of the campus community,
regardless of fund source. Each administrative staff member should have an
adequately configured desktop system, a standard set of software tools, proper
training, and support from qualified technical staff. The campus should establish
a base amount for administrative desktop support and hardware replacement of
$1,900 per year per staff member using a computer workstation ($600 –
hardware, $1,200—desktop support, $100—back-up services) 4 (See
Recommendation VI.c for funding recommendation.)
IV. Information Technology (IT) Staffing
Recruitment and retention of skilled IT staff have been serious issues for the campus for
some time and all indicators suggest this problem will become yet more serious over the
next few years.
4
Some campus workers (e.g., custodial and grounds staff) do not use computers in their positions.
Page 8 of 25
While the campus has provided special funding for equity increases, expanded the salary
ranges for positions in IT classifications, and simplified above mid-point hiring,
additional measures are necessary if the campus is to continue to modernize the
administration of the university.
Campus Human Resources has recognized the need to take a more active and effective
role in recruiting and retaining staff and is beginning work on employment and
compensation initiatives. In committee discussions, the most critical needs in these areas
with regards to IT staff were identified as:

An aggressive marketing program to showcase the pros of working for the University.
(UC San Diego has done a good job of this.)

Hiring processes and wage setting practices that do not discriminate against internal
candidates.
In response to the recommendations of numerous campus groups, the Chancellor has
recently eliminated the 15% limit on promotional and reclassification salary
increases. This will have an immediate and positive impact on staff morale and
retention. However, the systemwide policy limit of a 25% maximum total annual
increase also disadvantages internal candidates for positions and will continue to
contribute to the ongoing trend to lose IT staff to the outside market. Although
exceptions to the 25% limit are granted for programmers in increasing numbers, the
policy conveys the impression that salary advancement opportunities are limited at
the University of California.

Further development and improvement of more flexible and efficient practices that
allow units to classify and compensate competitively.
The current system of classification is too rigid. Inadequate pay scales have resulted
in departments reclassifying staff to retain them and this has led to overall problems
with classification levels.

A streamlined and expedited hiring process that is more competitive with the
recruitment timelines in the private sector.
Recommendations
IV.a. The campus must make the best use of limited IT resources. Small departments
should be encouraged to buy desktop, application and web development support
from IST, LSCR, other recharge units, or even off campus businesses rather
than trying to hire and maintain their own IT staffs. The larger recharge-based
support organizations can provide professional hiring, training and management
of IT staff and can provide career paths that help retain staff. Small departments
should be encouraged to work with IST and other large IT support organizations
Page 9 of 25
to develop internships, job rotation and other career opportunities to continue
the development of their isolated IT staff.
IV.b. IST should take an active role in supporting and training IT support staff in
departments.
IV.c. Streamlining the employment process and reengineering the compensation
system should continue as top priorities for Human Resources. Resumes should
be submitted to departments electronically the same day they are received in
Personnel and departments must be able to fill jobs without waiting for 2 weeks
for jobs to close. Salary setting policy and procedure should be streamlined and
liberalized to provide improved flexibility to units trying to attract and retain
high quality IT staff.
IV.d. Campus departments should be willing to hire/promote and train staff who come
in with incomplete skill sets.
IV.e. We must train non-technical staff to be IT professionals if they demonstrate
interest and aptitude. Long-term non-technical employees who want to learn and
can learn IT will be encouraged by the retirement system to stay with the
campus when their basic training is complete. HR should also develop
programs to retain newly trained staff for whom the retirement system is not yet
an incentive to stay. Internships could be used to screen and train candidates.
Student employees in part-time campus IT jobs should be identified and
recruited for permanent positions before they graduate.
V. Security
The reliability and integrity of campus computers and networks and the data they store
and transmit are critical to the operation of the university. The CCAC supports the
conclusions of the Information Technology Architecture Task Force report, "Improving
Network and Computer Security at the University of California, Berkeley", May 22,
1998. The task force recommended the following steps towards improving campus
computer security:
New campus-wide policies and planning processes to address security issues.
More centralized staffing to implement centralized security measures, to help
departments effectively implement their own preventive measures, and to assist
departments with security problems when they arise.
More centralized security training and education, and a better flow of security-related
information, to improve individual and departmental understanding of good security
practices.
Page 10 of 25
As our business is increasingly conducted on computers and over the network, the
security of our infrastructure becomes increasingly important. The campus receives daily
reports of break-ins to machines, and there are certainly more break-ins that go
unreported. Most of our network traffic is unencrypted; any compromised machine on the
network can see the traffic bound for any other machine on the network. Insecure
channels such as e-mail, which can easily be snooped on by an attacker, are used for
confidential university business. As the Berkeley Administrative Initiatives and other
programs bring more and more of our business onto the net, the ante is raised. Now a
compromised account can do more than just send e-mail; BFS passwords are our only
protection against embezzlement and fraud in our financial systems. HRMS raises
similar problems in our human resource systems.
The authentication issue in e-mail goes beyond password theft; because of the ease of
forging e-mail headers, it is difficult to authenticate the sender of a received mail, even if
his/her password has not been compromised.
The awareness of security issues on campus is inconsistent, and the infrastructure to
handle secure transactions is only now coming into existence.
The ITATF-Security Working Group report forms the basis for our recommendations and
the existing initiatives on campus http://ita.berkeley.edu:4259/security/swg.report.html.
Identified best practices for computing security are included in Appendix F.
Recommendations
V.a. Over the next several years, the central campus should fully fund both the
campus security team and security software for the end-user. The team should be
aware of the critical impact security issues have on administrative computing,
particularly given the e-Berkeley initiatives. Significant effort should be devoted
to administrative security.
V.b. In support of the CalNet authentication program, central services like UCLINK,
Socrates, and BFS should accept CalNet ID's for authentication.
VI. Budget
The advent of computing has allowed the university administration to increase
productivity in many areas and to provide more timely and accurate information for a
variety of uses. Computers are now essential tools throughout the academic enterprise
and the university administration. These advances have not resulted in FTE or dollar
savings for units—rather, the opposite is true. Units are constantly in need of more
support dollars to purchase new equipment, upgrade software, and hire computer
professionals.
Two years ago, the campus partially addressed the budget problem by funding a COCC
report recommendation to provide $1.75M in permanent funding to academic
Page 11 of 25
instructional units towards basic workstation replacement and support costs for faculty
and state-funded departmental staff. The funding model recommended by the COCC for
academic instructional units proposed that the central campus provide $700/FTE. This
represented a one-third share of the annual identified costs of workstation replacement
($200), plus minimal desktop support ($500). Additional funding was expected to come
from decanal, departmental or research funds.
A similar model of shared support is required to assist with administrative computing
costs, but the CCAC felt that an alternative shared funding model would be more
appropriate for administrative units. Because most of these departments do not have the
array of funding sources that are available to faculty, the CCAC based their formula for
support on a simple 50/50 share between the central campus and the unit.
Using the $1,900/workstation figure discussed in Section III, the committee estimated the
full annual cost of funding desktop support for administrative staff on central funds. The
committee extracted centrally funded payroll FTE for administrative titles (2,150 FTE),
resulting in a total annual cost of about $4 million. Recognizing that the campus has
already provided some funding to the academic instructional units, the funding formula
further adjusts the central campus share to reflect this prior funding. As noted above,
distribution of the COCC recommended funding was based on faculty and state-funded
staff FTE, with staff accounting for about 40% of the total FTE. This represents a
contribution to computing costs for academic instructional unit staff of approximately
$700,000, reducing the overall central campus contribution to $1.3M in permanent funds.
Possibly the most significant cost of improving the quality of campus administrative
computing is related to staffing and salaries. As computing becomes more integral to
every aspect of instruction, research and administration, there is a need for an increasing
number of IT staff. In addition, it is often extremely difficult in today's market to attract
qualified employees due to salary constraints. This problem is not limited to IT
professionals, but is acutely felt at all levels. The campus has recognized this problem
and is addressing current personnel policy constraints that prevent units from offering
high initial salaries and granting meaningful raises to existing employees. However,
removing these constraints does have a budgetary impact for the campus. Significant
increases in staff compensation will result in decreased available funding for other critical
campus programs. Ultimately, reforms to the compensation system will necessitate an
accompanying, permanent allocation of additional resources to the campus. This will
require that the situation is recognized and addressed in the systemwide and state budget
process.
Recommendations
VI.a. All administrative staff need to have access to basic computing tools and be
provided with desktop support. Departments should budget for desktop support
and have a funding plan in place for keeping up with the continuous advances
in computing technology.
Page 12 of 25
VI.b. In conjunction with any work that is done by Human Resources on staff
compensation, the campus should re-evaluate its budget process and develop
strategies for funding additional costs related to new salary setting policies.
VI.c. Campus expenditures for the recommended training resources should be based
on a percentage of total payroll, shared between individual department training
budgets and centrally supported IST/HR training programs.
VI.d. As noted in Section III, the campus should establish a base amount for
administrative desktop support, back-up services and hardware replacement of
$1,900 per year per staff member. Central funds should be allocated to provide
a 50% share of workstation replacement and desktop support costs for centrally
funded staff in administrative titles—estimated above at $1.3M. The committee
recommends that the $700,000 adjustment for funding previously allocated to
academic instructional units should be subtracted from the overall allocation
for those units.
VI.e. The campus should provide increased funding for the EH&S loan pool and
advertise this program to encourage departments to improve workstation
ergonomics. EH&S should be encouraged to develop a proposal for an
appropriate loan pool amount and submit a request for funding.
VI.f. Any tools that are required to access broadly used applications (such as BFS or
BIS) should be core funded by the campus.
Page 13 of 25
Appendix A: Consolidated list of report recommendations
Funding Recommendations:
II.c. The campus should encourage development of departmental applications that
can be shared. Funding should be provided for a program to be administered by
ASSCS that would provide matching funds for joint development of
applications that would benefit multiple units. Departments should also be
encouraged to advertise applications that they have developed via Micronet or
IST newsletters.
II.e. The campus should provide increased funding for the EH&S loan pool and
advertise this program to encourage departments to improve workstation
ergonomics. EH&S should be encouraged to develop a proposal for an
appropriate loan pool amount and submit a request for funding. (This
recommendation is repeated in the Budget section as VI.e.)
V.a. Over the next several years, the central campus should fully fund both the
campus security team and security software for the end-user. The team should
be aware of the critical impact security issues have on administrative
computing, particularly given the e-Berkeley initiatives. Significant effort
should be devoted to administrative security.
VI.d. As noted in Section III, the campus should establish a base amount for
administrative desktop support, back-up services and hardware replacement of
$1,900 per year per staff member. Central funds should be allocated to provide a
50% share of workstation replacement and desktop support costs for centrally
funded staff in administrative titles—estimated above at $1.3M. The committee
recommends that the $700,000 adjustment for funding previously allocated to
academic instructional units should be subtracted from the overall allocation for
those units.
VI.f. Any tools that are required to access broadly used applications (such as BFS or
BIS) should be core funded by the campus.
General Recommendations:
I.a. The campus needs to make technical training a priority. Managers must be
made to understand the value of the training and support it by allowing release
time for this purpose. Human Resources should take the lead on this initiative
in partnership with IST. There should be improved publicity and outreach of
training resources, including a web listing of training opportunities available on
and off campus.
Page 14 of 25
I.b. The campus should develop a consolidated approach to training that
incorporates policy and business process into technical training.
I.c. Minimum technical competencies should be incorporated into all job
descriptions/performance standards. For example, if an administrative position
requires email, word processing and spreadsheet proficiency, this should be
reflected in the performance standards for the position and assessment of these
competencies should be included in subsequent performance evaluations. For
this recommendation to be feasible, it is essential that an effective training
program is in place and that managers are required to allow their employees
adequate release time to attend classes.
II.a. The campus should adopt mandated standard applications and versions for
common applications. Centrally accessible information on recommended
versions should be maintained and units should be encouraged or required to
use current versions within a defined tolerance range. The campus should
further expand recommended applications to include identification and support
of tools to facilitate web publishing and image manipulation, web application
development, and client/server databases and associated tools. This should be
coordinated by the ITATF in partnership with IST.
II.b. Incentives should be developed to promote use of centrally
sanctioned/supported resources for administrative computing and to make these
more cost effective than other alternatives through site license agreements
and/or subsidy. IST and other administrative computing support recharge units
should focus their support services on these products.
II.d. The campus should provide technical assistance and business policy direction to
departments wanting to use the Web to automate business practices. The BFS
Training & Readiness model would work well in this venue. This model
integrates policy training with the technical training and provides teams of
specialists to meet one-on-one with units to address specific problems. Business
units planning training programs should be encouraged to use this model.
III.a. The ITATF web-site referenced in Section II should also include information on
current best practices for desktop support, current optimal configurations, and
currently supported software packages. Consolidated efforts to resolve common
desktop support problems should also be publicized and made available. IST
should be responsible for this project in consultation with the ITATF and
Micronet.
III.b. The campus should establish baseline standards for the computer services and
resources that will be provided to all members of the campus community,
regardless of fund source. Each administrative staff member should have an
adequately configured desktop system, a standard set of software tools, proper
training, and support from qualified technical staff. The campus should establish
Page 15 of 25
a base amount for administrative desktop support and hardware replacement of
$1,900 per year per staff member using a computer workstation ($600 –
hardware, $1,200—desktop support, $100—back-up services) See
Recommendation VI.c for funding recommendation.
IV.a. The campus must make the best use of limited IT resources. Small departments
should be encouraged to buy desktop, application and web development support
from IST, LSCR, other recharge units, or even off campus businesses rather
than trying to hire and maintain their own IT staffs. The larger recharge-based
support organizations can provide professional hiring, training and management
of IT staff and can provide career paths that help retain staff. Small departments
should be encouraged to work with IST and other large IT support organizations
to develop internships, job rotation and other career opportunities to continue
the development of their isolated IT staff.
IV.b. IST should take an active role in supporting and training IT support staff in
departments.
IV.c. Streamlining the employment process and reengineering the compensation
system should continue as top priorities for Human Resources. Resumes should
be submitted to departments electronically the same day they are received in
Personnel and departments must be able to fill jobs without waiting for 2 weeks
for jobs to close. Salary setting policy and procedure should be streamlined and
liberalized to provide improved flexibility to units trying to attract and retain
high quality IT staff.
IV.d. Campus departments should be willing to hire/promote and train staff who come
in with incomplete skill sets.
IV.e. We must train non-technical staff to be IT professionals if they demonstrate
interest and aptitude. Long-term non-technical employees who want to learn and
can learn IT will be encouraged by the retirement system to stay with the
campus when their basic training is complete. HR should also develop
programs to retain newly trained staff for whom the retirement system is not yet
an incentive to stay. Internships could be used to screen and train candidates.
Student employees in part-time campus IT jobs should be identified and
recruited for permanent positions before they graduate.
V.b. In support of the CalNet authentication program, central services like UCLINK,
Socrates, and BFS should accept CalNet ID's for authentication.
VI.a. All administrative staff need to have access to basic computing tools and be
provided with desktop support. Departments should budget for desktop support
and have a funding plan in place for keeping up with the continuous advances in
computing technology.
Page 16 of 25
VI.b. In conjunction with any work that is done by Human Resources on staff
compensation, the campus should re-evaluate its budget process and develop
strategies for funding additional costs related to new salary setting policies.
VI.c. Campus expenditures for the recommended training resources should be based
on a percentage of total payroll, shared between individual department training
budgets and centrally supported IST/HR training programs.
Page 17 of 25
Appendix B: Committee charge
December 10, 1999
GERALD LOWELL - CHAIR
PETER BRANTLEY
KAREN EARLS
LINDA FABBRI
MARTHA FATEMAN
TIM HEIDINGER
JOHN KASO
KURT LIBBY
LOURDES MIRANDA
NORMA PARTRIDGE-WALLACE
Re: Committee on Campus Administrative Computing
Two years ago, I appointed a Commission on Campus Computing to assess Berkeley’s
academic computing needs and propose a set of principles to guide campuswide planning
for information technology. The Commission report, completed in August 1998,
provides an excellent overview of the status and needs of academic computing at
Berkeley and has been invaluable to the information technology planning process.
The work of the Commission on Campus Computing focussed on educational
technology, department computing and the campus network infrastructure. In order to
effectively address the larger picture of campus computing issues, it is also important to
assess the information technology needs of the campus’s student service, academic and
administrative units. As a result, I would like to appoint a committee to review the state
of computing and the critical needs for the administrative and support side of the
institution. Our goal is to determine how the campus can become a “technologically
wise” university in support of unit missions and major programs.
I would like the Committee to concentrate on two issues: technology improvements
needed to support an effective administrative & service infrastructure and the distribution
of responsibilities and funding for student services and administrative computing on
campus. It is anticipated that the Committee will complete its work by June 30, 2000.
With regard to technology, I would like the Committee to evaluate what technological
initiatives or directions will best assist campus administrative and support services in
providing effective service to the campus community. What programs or processes would
most benefit from improved technology to streamline or better coordinate administration
and support services? Which should have funding priority?
With regard to the distribution of responsibilities and funding for computing, I would like
Page 18 of 25
the Committee to clarify the most appropriate role(s) for the various units providing
administration and support to campus programs. These include a broad range of units
including individual academic departments, ORUs, and schools & colleges; student
services; business services; Information Systems and Technology; and the University
Library. Some specific questions that I would like to have addressed are:





What computing support services should be offered and at what levels? What staffing
levels are necessary to achieve this support level?
What are the computer hardware, software, maintenance, and replacement needs for
units and what are the associated costs?
How should computing support functions be aggregated? Should computing support
staff serve units, clusters of units or clusters of clusters? Are there support functions
that should only be provided centrally by the campus computing group, or that would
be best distributed at the local level?
What funding models are most appropriate and most likely to produce the desired
outcomes?
What “best practices” exist on campus for providing effective, economical computing
support to or within units?
I anticipate that the Committee will require staff support. Ann Jeffrey in Vice Chancellor
Hyatt’s office will coordinate that support.
Thank you for agreeing to undertake this critical work.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Carol T. Christ
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Cc:
Chancellor Berdahl
Vice Chancellor Cerny
Vice Chancellor Hyatt
Associate Vice Chancellor McCredie
Vice Chancellor Mitchell
Vice Chancellor Padilla
Coordinator Jeffrey
Page 19 of 25
Appendix C: Examples of best practices for tools and standards that could be
included in a comprehensive campus website5

All user files should be backed up daily by an automated process.
WHY: User error and hardware failure are inevitable; the files administrative staff
members use are of inestimable value to the University and we must protect them.
User-initiated backup processes (such as copying files to Zip disks) are not
sufficiently reliable.

At least one recent backup should be located "off-site" (in a different building, or at
least a different room).
WHY: Backups are of limited usefulness if a single theft or fire could destroy both
the primary copy and the backup. It is notable that the currently popular practice of
buying two large disks and backing up one to the other is not reliable and should be
discouraged. Automated back-up services are provided by IST. Information on this
service is available at http://socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Eucbackup/

Where departmental file servers exist, departments should move all user files to the
server in order to discourage use of peer-to-peer file sharing.
WHY: Centralizing file storage greatly reduces the cost of backup, and makes
desktop machines less expensive to support. In addition, file servers allow users
to not be tied to one particular machine and make it easier to work from home.
Peer-to-peer file sharing is a security risk and can cause network problems.

All new database applications being developed should be web-based and located on a
central server.
WHY: Databases are becoming increasingly important, and they become more useful
as more people have access to them. Web-based front ends allow true cross-platform
access with a consistent interface.

The use of e-mail attachments should be discouraged. Files should exist on
departmental file servers, or, where possible, be maintained as HTML documents on
a Web page. When sending attachments to other departments or wide groups, an
interchange format such as Rich Text Format should be used.
WHY: The campus network is extremely heterogeneous and will likely remain that
way. Attachments of application-specific files (such as Office 2000) often cannot be
read by the intended recipients. It is best to use a "greatest common denominator"
format such as RTF or HTML. HTML is an excellent format for distributing
5
See Recommendation II.a
Page 20 of 25
information to groups across campus; putting information on a Web page and mailing
out a link is often the best practice. RTF is useful if you need to maintain formatting
(especially tables) but want to be certain that everyone can read your document. And
plain text is sufficient for a large majority of needs on campus.
In addition to translation issues, attachments are much larger than typical mail
messages, so they take up a lot of space on mail servers and can fill up mail spool
disks.

All departments should conduct periodic formal or informal ergonomic audits of
employee's workspaces. All employees should have ergonomic workstations made
available to them.
WHY: Poor computing ergonomics costs the University an enormous amount in
worker's compensation and lost productivity. Soft-tissue nerve injuries become
lifelong problems; all staff have a right to an ergonomically safe workspace (this is
now an OSHA requirement).
Page 21 of 25
Appendix D: Examples of hardware and software systems available from The
Scholar’s Workstation 07/00
Hardware
Basic PC for Administrative Use:
Dell OptiPlex GX110 Mini-Tower
Pentium III, 600MHz CPU
128MB Memory
13.6GB Hard Drive
1.44MB Floppy Drive
17/40 CD-ROM Drive
3Com Etherlink 10/100 Ethernet Card
17" Trinitron Monitor
Windows NT/2000 OS
3 Year, Same Day, 4-Hour, 5x10 On-Site Parts and Labor Maintenance (+$60)
The price is $1,513. With tax, $1,638. With MS Office 2000 pre-installed add
$129. Recommended additional memory for NT2000- 64MB - add $84.
Basic Macintosh for Administrative Use:
Power Macintosh G4
400MHz PowerPC G4 CPU
128 MB Memory
10GB Hard Drive
Zip Drive (if you want removable storage, +$90)
DVD-ROM Drive
10/100 BASE-T Ethernet
16" (viewable) Apple Studio Display
Mac OS 9
3 Year AppleCare Maintenance ($199)
The price is $2,123. With tax, $2,298.
Printing
A networked departmental laser printer such as the HP 2100TN is recommended.
Users in isolated offices or who need to print confidential documents can
purchase a personal printer. For light printing, an inkjet is sufficient. For heavy
printing, a personal laser printer is recommended.
We recommend against using recycled toner cartridges.
Page 22 of 25
Software
Email: Eudora 4.x recommended, Outlook discouraged. Use of plain text, instead of
styled text or HTML recommended.
Web browsing: Netscape 4.x, IE 5.x recommended
Office Suite: Microsoft Office 97/98 or higher recommended
Calendaring: CalAgenda recommended
Page 23 of 25
Appendix E: Definition of desktop support
Letters & Science Computer Resources http://ls.berkeley.edu/lscr/ and Departmental Onsite Computing Support http://docs.berkeley.edu/ are similarly focused organizations, the
former at the college level, the latter serving the campus. Both offer comprehensive
desktop support for administrative computers; while some services differ, most are
similar, and they include:

Planning: Analyze departmental computing resources and needs for planning and
budgetary purposes. Advise on hardware and software acquisitions and upgrades.

Hardware: Install, configure and upgrade supported hardware (new computers,
memory upgrades, printers, etc.) for personal workstations and departmental servers
(NT or Mac)

Networking: Coordinate networking needs including applications for new
connections. Install and configure networking hardware and software.

Software: Install, configure and troubleshoot supported software. Install nonsupported software on request but without troubleshooting.

Servers: Provide system administration of supported server software on departmental
PC or Mac servers.

Preventive Maintenance: Perform regularly scheduled checkout and preventative
maintenance on supported machines.

Service Calls: Respond in-person or by phone or email to trouble calls from
supported customers.
We believe that the above services must be included in any definition of administrative
computing support.
Page 24 of 25
Appendix F: Identified Best Practices for Security

Departmental "Kerberos deputies" should be administrative staff members rather than
computing staff.
WHY: As Kerberos becomes a ubiquitous system, it will be necessary for all new
employees, faculty and students to have Kerberos ID's. This kind of function is
similar to building key management, and it ideally would be handled by the same
person, who could issue a Kerberos ID at the same time the building key is issued.
This is really a non-technical function.

Campus departments should eliminate all clear-text passwords in their login
procedures.
WHY: Until about 1997, nearly all password transactions (telnet, FTP, Eudora, etc.)
were sent over the network in clear-text. This meant that anyone on the same network
could easily find out everyone else's password. A rash of attacks starting around that
time, combined with availability of software which allowed secure connections
(SSH), allowed security-conscious departments to begin to secure these connections.
The increasingly critical nature of our passwords makes this minimal level of security
crucial. All departments should examine their login procedures to ensure that the
password transactions are being handled securely.
Page 25 of 25