University Technology Council Meeting Summary October 3, 2018

Transcription

1 University Technology Council Meeting Summary October 3, 2018 Dr. Seung Kim, Professor, Secondary Education, M.Ed C&I, Instructional Technology Ankit Solanki, HRIS & Compensation Analyst Dr. Mathia Plass, Assistant Professor, MIS Colleen Ahearn, Executive Director, Alumni Relations David Deitemyer, Assistant Dean, CAS Dr. Anne Figus, Assistant Provost, Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning Napoleon Garcia, Director Technology Support Center Shawn Adams, Director Network Services Attendees Joseph Falese, Senior Vice President for Student Services and Special Assistant to the President for Alumni Dr. Donna Martin, Associate Professor College of Nursing and Health Professions Dr. Christopher Sindt, Provost Dr. Anne Rapp, Interim Dean, Associate Professor, SGPCE Ryan Butt, Dean, COB Raymond Kennelly, Senior Vice President for Enrollment Management, Marketing and Planning Robert Barton, Director Information Security Donna Flowers, Technology Coordinator Dr. Butler began the meeting at 2:05 p.m. with a welcome to everyone for attending the first official meeting of the University Technology Council (UTC). He noted that this will be the governance model that will used going forward and acknowledged that the upcoming year will be a period of transition with the objective of finalizing the process by the end of the academic year. Subsequent, to attendee introductions Dr. Butler extended a personal thank you to everyone for being a participant of the council. He reviewed the meeting agenda, briefly providing an overview for each topic. It was also noted that dates and times for meetings have been established (with room assignments scheduled through December), but can be modified if necessary. Ankit Solanki of the Infrastructure Advisory Committee (IAC) and Dr. Mathia Plass of the University Technology Advisory Committee (UTAC) were introduced to the group as the newly elected chairmen for their respective committees. Dr. Butler discussed the new Technology Governance Structure in detail, explaining the differences between the old Teaching & Learning with Technology Roundtable (TLTR) and Administrative Technology Roundtable (ATR) model. The major differences identified between the two groups is that there was no student involvement in the TLTR/ATR model, as well as a minimal amount of strategic discussion amongst those steering committees. It was stated that they were basically responsible for prioritizing and determining the amount to be disbursed for various technology related costs.

2 Whereas, the responsibility of the UTC is to provide advice to University leadership by investigating logistics and researching initiatives to assist in determining the direction of the University from a technological perspective. Members were directed to the website for more detailed information at: He reiterated to the group that technology is a very costly expenditure and the need exists to ensure that the budgeted amount is disbursed for tools that will best serve our student population. Dr. Butler reaffirmed that the campus community as a whole should be making these decisions and they should not be driven by the Office of Technology. He provided an Office of Technology update, reviewing the following projects: o Banner 9 Upgrade: This eliminates browser compatibility issues and ends the dependency on Internet Explorer (IE). Users will be able to use most browsers including Chrome, Firefox, Safari and MS Edge. However, members were discouraged from using MS Edge because of its instability. Several members that are MAC users were elated for the Safari support. There will also be a major enhancement affecting financials, which automates the budgeting process and is scheduled to be completed after the Christmas break. The Office of Technology is prepared to provide training if necessary, but does not foresee a comprehensive requirement. o Banner Chart of Accounts Changes: This modification is to design new chart code, develop a new hierarchy, while aligning data enterable codes and bank codes. Ellucian has been engaged to assist with the upgrade, which is scheduled to be completed by end of the academic year. A question was posed related to the availability of an online budget system and it was affirmed that this feature will be offered, granting users virtual access to all required budget line items. It was also noted that the business office is working on an aspect that will allow department chairs to review and change budget line items. In the future users will be able to obtain real time budget information related to expenditures. Members were informed that updates will be provided as the project progresses. o Digital Signage: The University has partnered with Four Winds Interactive to implement digital signage in selected high traffic areas that will alert students, faculty, and staff of notable events, deadlines, emergency notification, and other items of interest. The system is flexible enough to have a centralized or specific distribution of information. For emergency notification we have the capability to take over all screens to provide information. It is yet to be determined how departments will disseminate specific information. The group was informed that Dr. Kurt Schackmuth and Ray Kennelly have volunteered to create policies and procedures on how this will be completed. The system also has the capability of the Wayfinding feature which is forthcoming. Members were instructed to view a demo of the system created by Four Winds Interactive, which will be available next week. A link will be provided to members when the demo becomes

3 available, however members can obtain further information about digital signage on their website at: o University Calendar System (25 Live): This system is being reconfigured as a universal calendar system, which will streamline the process for requesting events. It was suggested that committee members view Northwestern University s website because they use 25 Live extensively (web address: It was noted that this solution has been discussed at the University for a number of year and now it is finally coming into fruition. o Enterprise Business Process Review (BPR): This project ensures that key business processes are the most effective in meeting the needs of the University. We are in the initial step of a multi-year plan for business process automation. The model being used encompasses five phases, which were identified as Design, Modeling, Execution, Monitoring, and Optimization. The current process for onboarding employees, which most members agreed is challenging, was used as an example of areas that need to be addressed. It was initially expected that there would be a total of 40 processes submitted, but that number has grown into 140. The procedure is to identify the current business processes, examine how they could be better, review the tools available to automate the processes, and then complete the automation. It was found that by optimizing these processes, 70% or more time can be saved. Some processes have been identified to be automated, however this has been targeted as an ongoing project with no end date. A list of priorities has been compiled and Dr. Butler agreed to bring that list to the next meeting. A question was posed related to the fear of eliminating jobs and the response has been that the intention is not to eliminate any positions, but to complete tasks more efficiently and effectively. It was stated that we need to leverage the amount of resources that we already have, with the goal being to become a more proactive rather than reactive organization. It was noted that if there were more processes out there, we are available to assist in completing the required template to submit for review. It was stated that the Office of Technology is also redirecting our resources to ensure that we are able to facilitate events that will occur in the future. o mylewis Portal Redesign: This undertaking is to develop a new user friendly portal, which includes an upgrade of the portal engine with an anticipated completion date of March A question was posed related to the interface for degree works and the response was that all of these types of interfaces were being reviewed. A concern was raised about the innovative technology plan for teaching and it was stated that this has not yet been determined, but we are currently working towards that goal. As technology we can take care of the infrastructure, but we re not the practitioner and need

4 to have discussions about what is needs to be accomplished. Hopefully, UTAC will address these issues and make recommendations. Conversations with faculty, student services, and students will need to be held so that we know how to proceed. Dr. Butler provided a budget update informing the council that the TLTR/ATR budget request made last year for this year was $620,445 and the budget this year is $262,000. The breakdown of the TLTR/ATR budget request is as follows: $146, for software renewals, which is 24%; $70, for new software, which is 11%; $96, for hardware replacement, which is 16%; and $306, for new hardware, which is 4%. Subtracting software renewals from the actual budget for this year leaves approximately $113,000 to spend on technology and below are some of the specific comments, concerns, and questions from the council members: o Teaching and Learning priorities will address classroom specific needs. o Campus safety has a need to expand surveillance equipment. o The figure of request is not out of line with the past and this is a 50% reduction of what was given in the past. The fact that it s been slashed the way it has, shows no dedication for technological development. Dr. Butler explained that it s somewhat difficult to determine what has actually been spent on technology and will take a little more time. He went on to state that after we have that number we can determine what is actually needed to figure out ways to get where we need to be. o The question was asked, If we utilize our current resources more effectively can things be improved? He explained that we currently have nothing in place to evaluate our current tools nor is there a plan for sustainability and this is what the BRP is addressing. o Time had been spent in the past by TLTR/ATR to eliminate software and hardware that was not in use. Dr. Butler reiterated that this new technology governance structure will assist in planning effective purchases instead of making arbitrary purchases, which do not support what s best for the students. o The question was asked, There were two separate budget processes in the past and will that become one process? He informed the group that all technology requests will be submitted via the annual budget request process conducted by the business office. We will then be able to discuss if we re utilizing all available resources (i.e. we have 3 statistical packages on campus and we need to identify if we need all three or can they be consolidated). o Dr. Butler offered to distribute the list of funding requests for each member to review their specific areas so that they can prioritize their needs. Dr. Anne Figus made the motion to carry out this action with Ryan Butt providing the second. The group then voted to unanimously approve this action. Committee updates included:

5 o UTAC: The first meeting is forthcoming. o Student Senate Dr. Butler has been in communication with the senate president and they are appreciative of the new structure. o IAC The chairperson was not prepared at this time to provide an update because the first meeting had just been held. o ESAC scheduled to meet next week. Dr. Butler requested ideas for new business topic with the following responses: o A comment was made that budget requests fell into four categories and in the past there was a separate process for campus improvement, which causes a concern as to how we will ensure that things get where they need to be. He explained that the goal is to have every request considered and judged based on need. Furthermore, once the request is submitted to the CFO s office it will be logged appropriately. In the future everyone will be able to review the budgeting process. o A concern was made pertaining to new employee hires and if we need to submit technology requests based on these personnel changes. Dr. Butler stated that technology request should be submitted when new employees are hired and this has not been completed in the past, which has caused issues for faculty/staff not receiving the tools required to be successful in their positions. There needs to be a process in place to determine the entire cost of adding personnel. o The question was asked, Can we audit the amount that students pay for technology in correlation to how it s being allocated? Dr. Butler stated that we can determine the amount paid in, but not how it s allocated. He further explained that those funds are usually rolled into the general fund. However, it is known that we do spend more on technology than we take in and there needs to be an awareness of this fact. Comments were made that we need to start thinking about a technology fee for students. o A comment was made that the refresh of staff computers was discussed at the UTAC meeting and there needs to be something in place to address that issue. A committee will be formed to investigate that matter. The meeting was adjourned at 3:23 p.m.