The Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC), which conducted nine meetings during the academic year, offers the following recommendations to the Faculty Senate and University:
Web
Issues
§
The University should provide adequate central resources and
staffing to support the information structure and policy needs of the campus
web, as well as adequate collegiate and local support to carry out the mandated
work.
Digital
Asset Management
ITAC
should investigate the progress of the joint library and ITS digital library
projects early in the fall of 2003, and hold discussions on the value of these
services and possible future uses
Innovations in Instructional Computing Awards
§
ITAC strongly supports continuation of
this program
Relationship between central and
distributed campus IT support
§
ITAC should continue to examine the relationships between central
providers such as ITS and the libraries, and distributed IT providers in
colleges and departments.
Faculty
and student support for instruction
§
Last year, a conceptual framework for improved instructional IT
support was presented under the name “Project X.” This topic was chosen as a
top priority for ITAC. The
committee should work with the CIO and others to further develop these concepts
§
Evaluate campus awareness of IT services for researchers and the
responsiveness of IT providers to the research community
Budget
issues
§ A close watch should be kept on IT budgets to ensure that proper resources are available to maintain systems, train faculty and staff, and support innovation
2002-2003 Report
Information
Technology Services (ITS) continues to provide high quality IT support in a
complex, highly diverse atmosphere, using limited resources.
ITS collaborates with colleges and other IT providers when appropriate.
The depth of services and number of issues involved make it difficult for the
committee to cover all IT issues during the academic year.
However, some themes did emerge as particularly important, while others
are ongoing concerns that should not be allowed to fall below the radar of the
committee, or of the University. The
following list is intended to serve as points of interest and future points of
discussion, not only to the Faculty Senate, but also to the CIO, central
administration, ITS departments, and to next year’s ITAC committee, who will
be responsible for future work on these issues.
1.
Web Issues
§
As mentioned above, many decentralized
units are responsible for IT issues that seem to be mandates from the
University, or academic culture in general, but for which there is no funding or
support available from the University. These units seem to be at a cross-roads due to the
expectations for continued use of the Web for all aspects of academic life –
teaching, research, and support. The
committee was surprised to hear that the current central support for Web
development in University Relations is not even a fulltime, permanent position.
o
The University should begin to show
commitment of real and ongoing central and local resources to support use of the
Web
o
Clear communication should be provided
to decentralized units about expectations for University Web content: branding,
message, rules, policies, etc.
o
The University should provide adequate central resources and
staffing to support the information structure and policy needs of the campus
web, as well as adequate collegiate and local support to carry out the mandated
work. The information structure should include structure, design, and content
management strategies.
o
ITAC should request an update on
progress in 2003-2004, either from Josh Kaine, the CIO, or someone in University
Relations on future Web strategies.
2. Digital Asset Management
§
Over the past several years, development
and storage of digital media has become a need by more and more diverse units on
campus. Larry Wood’s presentation
toward the end of the year highlighted several projects that ITS and the
libraries will be completing over the summer of 2003, in an effort to begin
organizing these valuable assets. ITAC
should investigate the progress of these projects early in the fall of 2003, and
hold discussions on the value of these services and possible future uses.
3.
Innovations in Instructional Computing Awards
§ Awards that were presented from the 2001-2002 year were quite impressive. ITAC should stand firm behind the recommendation that this program continue.
ITAC should participate in a joint presentation with ATAC of the winning proposals from the 2002-2003 competition in the fall of 2003.
4. Relationship between central and distributed campus IT support
Since ITAC was formed, the role of collegiate and local IT providers has grown to be an important part of the support for IT on campus. ITAC should continue to examine the relationships between central providers such as ITS and the libraries, and distributed IT providers in colleges and departments, considering such issues as the following:
What is the current makeup of
IT management across campus and is the current model meeting the needs of
the campus?
Is this relationship shifting,
and if so, what are the implications?
How well does communication
work between these groups?
How should future IT
relationships be managed?
What model is most efficient
for providing support to users on campus?
What is the current IT change
management strategy for priority setting, resource allocation, and
strategic planning?
Are expectations and resources
communicated to the most appropriate functionary unit?
(Example: Are there expectations for departmental Web work without
resources and support to implement at a high quality level?)
How are IT policies and
practices developed and communicated to the campus community?
Recommend ITAC sponsoring a
campus forum on the future of IT on campus.
5.
Faculty and student support for instruction
Last year, a conceptual framework for improved instructional support was presented under the name “Project X.” This topic was chosen as a top priority for ITAC. The committee discussed how to refine and validate the goals of the project, and recommends:
The project goals should be further refined, including involvement of the CIO office, ITAC, ATAC, and the Center for Teaching
Efforts
should be made to assure that the project goals are aligned with faculty
needs and interests
6. Research
§ Evaluate campus awareness of IT services for researchers and the responsiveness of IT providers to the research community. This should include at least these three areas:
o
Support and collaboration to specific
grants or PIs in need of incremental IT services or consulting. This is typical
of the services provided by ITS Academic Technologies-Research Services
o
Impact and effectiveness of the campus
IT infrastructure components in support of research. Examples include data
network, voice services, authentication and authorization of resources, data
storage, and others.
o
The importance of marketing available
services or practice to all researchers, so they can partake of those that are
relevant to their immediate needs.
7.
Budget issues
A close watch should be kept on
IT budgets to ensure that proper resources are available to maintain
systems, train faculty and staff, and support innovation.
In light of past, and possible future, budget cuts, ITAC should work
with the CIO to review:
Possible concerns regarding
budget cuts for next fiscal year.
Implementation and use of
student computing fees.
Status of licensing contracts
and their impact on cost savings and efficiency – for example, a review
should be made regarding the use and cost of the Microsoft campus
agreement.
ITAC
continues to see progress in information and communications technology at the
University. During the academic
year, ITAC discussed the current status of information technology (IT) on campus
and the role and function of Information Technology Services (ITS). Reports made
to the Committee acknowledged the impact of the current fiscal environment on IT
activities.
Nine meetings were held. (In 2002 -- September 13, September 27, October 25, November 22, December 20 and in 2003 - February 21, March 14, April 11, May 9)
ITAC divided its work into two areas – Discussions and Reports. Discussions centered on topics that ITAC members discussed as a group. Reports are topics of interest to ITAC for which the relevant university unit provides information. ITAC had Reports on 7 topics. Names of providers of reports are underlined in the following section.
September
13:
Meeting began with joint session with ATAC. The two groups reviewed tasks to be addressed during the academic year. In a separate ITAC session:
In a brief discussion of possible future topics, several ideas emerged:
1. Web issues, including web page production support, asset and content management, archiving web pages, web policies.
2. Mainframe hours, other research computing support issues
3. The role of ITAC in central versus decentralized computing issues
4. Security issues, including Patriot Act consequences
5. Classroom topics identified in ITAC final report for 2002
6. Wireless and mobility topics
7. Library portal development, technology refresh.
8. Overlap / gap / provider information on services ('one stop broker')
9. Movement towards unified authentication, single password
10. Network bandwidth issues in Resnet
Group was asked to review the reports and expect to set priorities for topics at next meeting.
September
27
Aletia
Morgan (IT office, College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences) reported on a study conducted in the summer of 2001 on the cost of
web support in CLAS. The study demonstrated that the College was spending over
$150,000 on web support, and that support models were not consistent across
departments. Brett Cloyd (Webmaster, CLAS) described the templates and
central support provided by the College office to departments; it is a advisory
rather than proscriptive approach.
Aletia
Morgan provided a handout [available on paper only.] Brett referred to the
College webmaster site,
http://www.clas.uiowa.edu/it/tools/index.shtml
Mark
Hale discussed web support models in other
colleges, which vary from very informal to highly structured.
The committee discussed the recommendations contained in the 2001-2002 report as well as the ideas developed at the previous meeting, and then ranked their importance and priority on a ballot. (See attached summary.) Top priority was the "X Project", followed by "Movement towards unified authentication, single password", which has a relationship to #4 (mobile computing, the part that doesn't mean wireless and PDAs.) Security and web issues also received strong support.
October 25
Steve Fleagle spoke briefly about cell phone contract negotiations. (No handout available.) Dave Dobbins presented the Project X slides to start discussion. [URL for slides available, if desired.] The discussion of X project and related priorities occupied the rest of the meeting.
November
22 ITAC
The group continued discussion of the X Project -- what should be the next step? After discussing various possibilities for acquiring data about interest (e.g. task force), the group concluded that a faculty survey might be appropriate, and Mark agreed to bring supporting materials to the next meeting. There was a short update on progress in the Enterprise Authentication project. [handed out Intro to Enterprise Authentication Mindsnack notes dated 10/24; URL available]
December 20 ITAC
Mark Hale presented a summary of several documents on IT assessment and samples of assessments conducted at Michigan and OSU, as well as an assessment activity in the UI College of Nursing.
1. Members expressed consensus regarding the need to routinely collect data on campus IT use as well as the needs of IT users. They were not interested in ITAC leading such a data-gathering effort.
2. Members supported the use of focus groups to gather information on teaching and learning issues associated with the X Project. Again, members were not interested in conducting such focus groups.
3. Members recommended the development of a standard set of questions (perhaps in survey form) that would be collected from IT leaders on campus focusing on campus IT use issues. The questions could be embedded in other information-gathering instruments distributed by Central Administration.
4. Members acknowledged a dichotomy between student and faculty perspectives on IT issues.
January
31, 2003 AT Advisory Council
Stewart Ehly and Mark Hale presented a summary of the ITAC discussions on a faculty survey to the January 31 meeting of ATAC. There was much discussion of issues related to the purpose of the survey, desirability of surveys, and survey methodology. In general, the position of ATAC seemed to favor finding other means of seeking faculty input rather than a survey. [attachment available, or as URL] The X-Project proposal might be recast as a statement of values (about collaboration, planning, reliable infrastructure, etc.) Dave provided an ITS status summary, including data about the Enterprise Authentication progress.
February
21 ITAC
Jane Drews, campus IT security officer, reported on several recent security initiatives, including Enterprise Authentication, stronger password requirements, collegiate security discussions and cyber-attack defense planning, and security policy development, HIPAA, and the Patriot Act.
Stewart, Mark and the other members of ITAC who were present at the January 31 ATAC discussion outlined the ATAC response to the survey plan. Dave commented that the X-Project statement was originally a call to action, and in fact, the project is continuing.
March
14 ITAC
Four handouts were distributed at the March 14 meeting.
Josh Kaine, the campus webmaster from University Relations, spoke about web support from the UR perspective, and the draft standards for official university web sites. His handouts were
ITAC Presentation / discussion
Standards …. – Executive Summary
Web Standards ….
Larry Woods discussed current library digital initiatives, and provided the included handout.
Dave Dobbins commented on the ITS / library collaborations, which are related to some of the digital library initiatives. His points included
(1) He and Nancy Baker have been working on a Memorandum of Understanding defining the collaboration.
(2) The video services alliance is an operational level group including ITS video services and various library units who are working to make the collective service offerings appear seamless to customers.
(3) CIC schools are looking at technology engines underlying digital asset management
(4) Nancy and Dave reaffirmed their partnership, which might move beyond services into facility issues (e.g. addressing Info Arcade).
There was no handout.
Stewart mentioned that the Senate secretary has asked for a preliminary report by April 17, which is 3 days after the next ITAC meeting. Accordingly, he will be preparing a draft that will be sent to the group beforehand. The agenda next time will concentrate on discussing the draft.
According to the Operations Manual, ITAC shall:
(a) Advise on the present and future needs of faculty, staff, and students for computing services and formulate recommendations for meeting these needs and for maintaining a proper balance among all academic computer needs and services in the University;
(b) Provide a forum to which faculty, staff, and students may refer questions and recommendations concerning University computer policies, services, and development;
(c) Advise in the development of general policies concerning the University's acceptance of computer funds from sources external to the University and the University's provision of computer services to users external to the University;
(d) Advise on procedures for proposals by faculty, staff, and students for funds to support computing of an extraordinary and innovative nature;
(e) Review from time to time the activities and
recommendations made by working committees established by the designated
administrative officer. (These working committees may be established for the
purpose of advising the officer on specific administrative questions concerning
the operation, development, and utilization of computer resources for teaching
and research.)
Faculty: Connie Delaney (Nursing), Lance Lichtor (Anesthesia), David Stern (Philosophy), Stephan Arndt (Psychiatry), Stewart Ehly (Psychological and Quantitative Foundations), Lisa Troyer (Sociology), Mark Young (Chemistry)
Students (UISG): Josh Connors, Julia Miller
Staff: Lucille Luxenburg (Hospital Information Systems), Maggie Jesse (College of Business)
Attachments
By the final report, all handouts and URLs from ITAC reports and discussions will be listed on the ITAC Web site (currently under revision):
September 14, 2002
Dobbins. Strategic Information Technology Themes
Langstaff. Update on Course Management Systems at Iowa
________ Role of Academic Technologies Advisory Council
________ Academic Technologies Report to ITAC
September 27, 2002
Morgan. Results of CLAS Web Survey (8/2001)
Cloyd. CLAS web support site http://www.clas.uiowa.edu/it/tools
Hale. Raw votes from ITAC meeting, 9/27/03
October 25, 2002
Dobbins. X-Project PowerPoint slides
http://www.its.uiowa.edu/cio/Plans/TheXProject-11-02.ppt
November 22,2002
ITS. Introduction to Enterprise Authentication, Mindsnack Powerpoint. http://.......
December 20, 2002
Hale.Information Technology: Faculty Survey on Use, Resources, and Support. (Adapted from Berger.)
____ College of Nursing Scorecard for IT Resources to Support Informatics and Knowledge Management.
____ Evaluation Guidelines for College IT Resources.(Adapted from EDUCAUSE)
____ PowerPoint slides on survey options.
January 31, 2003
Hale. ATAC presentation on Survey of Faculty Technology Needs and Directions.
February 21, 2003
Dobbins. ITS Summary Status Report.
Drews. Information Technology Security Update.
_____ HIPAA: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
March 14, 2003
Kaine. Web Standards for Official University Web Sites.
_____ Central Issues.
_____ Standards for Official University Web Sites: Executive Summary.
Woods. University of Iowa Libraries Digital Initiatives.