IT Governance
Purpose: Information technology is a catalyst for productivity, creativity and community that enhances
learning opportunities in an environment of unlimited demands and limited resources.
Executive Committee Meeting
Action Items Presentation
May 29, 2015
• Adopting a strategic approach to information technology planning, budgeting
and implementation at Cal Poly Pomona. •
Administrative Technology
Working Group
Presenters: Glendy Yeh & Kathleen Street
Administrative Technology Working Group
IT Code Freeze
•
Current IT and functional staff and resources are responsible for
the:
 Development, maintenance, testing & integration of all
PeopleSoft-related programs, functionalities, business
processes, reports/dashboards and modifications
 Integration with third-party and other campus applications
 Development of other new IT initiatives that involve IT and
functional resources needed for semester conversion
Administrative Technology Working Group
IT Code Freeze
•
Semester conversion will require a substantial commitment
of these same staff and resources
•
Work on the initiatives that are in progress will continue
through completion
•
A code freeze is needed to shift IT and functional staff and
resources to the semester conversion implementation and
will impact PeopleSoft modifications, custom
enhancements, new initiatives (PeopleSoft and nonPeopleSoft)
•
An exception request process will be in place
Administrative Technology Working Group
IT Code Freeze
•
August 1, 2015
Initiate code freeze
(or 1 month following the appointment
of the PeopleSoft consultant)
•
June15, 2015
Initiate exception request process
•
June 30, 2015
Finalize priorities and timelines for
PeopleSoft/other milestones through Fall,
2018
•
April 30 ,2017
Determine if extension of freeze is needed
•
July 31, 2017
End code freeze (unless extended)
Administrative Technology Working Group
IT Code Freeze
•
Semester Conversion Implementation cannot be
completed successfully in the mandated timeframe
unless it is given top priority over other IT projects
•
Current IT and functional staffing levels and resources
are limited and business cannot continue as usual
•
New technologies and initiatives (PeopleSoft and Other)
will be delayed or deferred until after the code freeze,
postponing the realization of desired improvements or
enhancements (unless exception is approved by IT
Governance)
Emerging Technology
Working Group
Presenters: Gabriel Kuri & David Drivdahl
Emerging Technology Working Group
Mass Email Guideline
Recommendation – Background
•
Three types of mass email
•
EMM, mail groups, Mailman lists
•
Presently no guideline on what is considered mass email,
and no defined approval process for using it.
•
Excludes academic related communications
•
References Public Affairs guideline for content
•
Delivery is problematic due to variety of cloud services
•
Goal should be to improve delivery rates of mass mailing
Emerging Technology Working Group
Mass Email Guideline
Recommendation – New Guideline
• Standardize on email mass marketing systems
•
One approved system for sending to campus/off campus users
• Approval process for establishing mass mailing lists
•
Requires VP approval for lists of 50 or more people
•
•
College dean approval for lists where users contained within a
single college or for student clubs
Additionally requires CIO approval if users span divisions or
contain off campus users
• Annual renewal process for lists
Emerging Technology Working Group
Email Forwarding
Recommendation - Background
•
Students provided forwarding email address as applicants
•
Not automatically changed to deliver to campus email
system Presently there is a large number of users
forwarding mail
•
Previous email solutions were lacking
•
Email is official communication for students
•
Emails are being sent from third party accounts
Emerging Technology Working Group
Email Forwarding
Recommendation – No email forwarding
• Office 365 improves on our mail system
• Email delivery can be validated and tracked
• Provide a higher degree of certainty for faculty and
advisors of who they are communicating with
• Implementation Timeline
•
•
•
June 2015: Begin communications
July 2015: Change forwarding for employees to Office 365
June 2016: Change forwarding everyone else
Emerging Technology Working Group
Simplified Mail Flow
Recommendation – Background
• Mail systems have been changed and migrated over
time
• The path emails take to be delivered is complex
• Dependency on campus for a large portion of mail
• Office 365 is only used for mail storage
Emerging Technology Working Group
Simplified Mail Flow
Recommendation – Risks
• Feature differences
•
Some features not supported in Office 365
• Campus is currently a single point of failure
• Mail delays have been caused by current mail flow
Emerging Technology Working Group
Simplified Mail Flow
Recommendation – Simplify mail flow
• All mail functions will be processed by Office 365
• Simple mail flow
•
Reduces the number of steps from 16 to 4 or fewer
• Implementation Timeline
•
•
Summer 2015: Migrate low-impact mail services to Office 365,
and begin communicating changes where there is user impact
Winter 2016: Complete migration of mail features to Office
365
Instructional Technology
Working Group
Presenters: Kevin Morningstar
Instructional Technology Working Group
SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline
Recommendation - Background/Findings
•
March 2015 - $459,000 approved to upgrade college labs
•
Two approved labs required a funding supplement of
$95,690
•
IT worked with two colleges in an effort to secure
additional financial resources – funds were not available
•
Additional funding from IT Division enabled two rooms to
be fully upgraded
Instructional Technology Working Group
SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline
Recommendation - Background/Findings
Performance Labs Highlight a Challenge
•
Providing the broadest funding support, balanced
investment of resources, and purchasing a sufficient
number of computers to support timely replacement
Actual Costs for Current Computers:
Dell Standard PC
$ 911.24
Dell Performance PC
$1,117.93
Mac Standard 27”
$1,960.01 + 75%
Mac Performance 27”
$3,285.99 +194%
Instructional Technology Working Group
SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline
Recommendation – Guidelines
•
SSF should fund the computers appropriate to course and
faculty requirements
•
Balanced model for the utilization of fiscal resources
•
Funding per computer should be sufficient to purchase
Windows and Mac standard computers
•
Additional funding should be supplemented by the
department, college or other resources
Instructional Technology Working Group
SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline
Recommendation – Risks
•
SSF Funding may not be sufficient in some cases
•
Additional funding may not be available from colleges
•
Computer platform preferences may result in higher costs
•
Lab computer replacement data does not accurately
estimate the problem
•
Recommendation was based upon only one purchase cycle;
cost differences may be exaggerated
Instructional Technology Working Group
SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline
Recommendation –
The Student Success Fee will fund up to two times (2x) the
current price of a designated Windows Performance Personal
Computer. The ceiling will be set each year based upon the
current cost for the campus’ standard Windows Performance
Personal Computer purchased for deployment in computer labs.
This ceiling amount is intended to fully fund the purchase of a
Windows Standard PC, Windows Performance PC, and Mac
Standard computers. Colleges will be responsible for funding the
incremental cost above the ceiling amount.