Academic IT Committee Minutes
February 4, 2005
Noon-3PM, ETC 304
Present: Barry D, Rhonda F, Scott F, Mike C, Karen L, John O, Dick J, Joel P, Mark T, Susan B, JC T, Gary L, Kwesi T , Betsy, Glen P, David B
Next Meetings: Friday, May 6, 2005; Friday, September 9, 2005; Friday, December 2, 2005
Note to Members: on February 4, John O'Brien contacted representatives of both student associations to alert them of the lack of student representation at the meeting.
OFF-THE-TOP PROPOSAL. John explained the history of this discussion. J.C. said he supports the proposal suggested by Barry at the last meeting, but noted that there are concerns for campuses not using something for which funding is taken off the top. John noted that this concern goes both ways. It was agreed that we would need to be sensitive to this concern. John said it will be possible to insist on a balance in this regard. Along with cost savings, the proposal would provide more technology tools for faculty and students. Mark mentioned that he presented the concept to the CIO group, and there was only a stated hesitation from one person. Possible software could include Respondus, Mathematica/Maple, SPSS/SASS, WIDS/elumen, Environmental Systems Research Institute Geographical Information Systems (GIS), EndNotes, etc.
Action Item: John is asked to draft this proposal and preview it with the Academic IT listserv before passing it on for further consideration.
CENTRALLY HOSTED KEY SERVER IDEA. J.C. Turner explained how key servers are used to handle sharing licenses for a software product based on numbers of concurrent users. With a centrally-hosted key server, campuses could share concurrent licenses that are not being used, use and demand could be tracked. There would be limitations for students using their personal computers, as it might require additional installations for use by distance students. Some software contracts may prohibit use of key servers. Betsy said that her experience with a key server environment has been positive. Mark thought that it might be cost-prohibitive, but that it is worth exploring.
Action Item: Mark offered to pilot the idea; J.C. agreed to ask staff at SCSU to provide answers to some of the operational questions raised and to gain some understanding of costs and other considerations.
MATHEMATICA/MAPLE. John explained where we are at with this proposal, and the group suggested going forward. Concerns were expressed about payment terms and definitions, but there was nonetheless agreement to move toward negotiations.
SPSS/SASS. David feels that the SPSS product is significant but that dealing with the SPSS organization in respect to licensing tends to involve administrative hassles - so it would be good to obtain a consolidated, possibly discounted and centrally administered license, if possible. John said that we currently don't have the staffing to handle significantly more contract administration work. It was agreed that this idea would be pursued in the context of the off-the-top proposal.
WIDS. Karen explained the value of a WIDS license. WIDS is instructional design software that is used by faculty, departments, institutions, and even disciplines. WIDS can also be used to support institutional accreditation efforts. WIDS provides tools for curriculum development, assessment, active learning, and online learning. The software helps align teaching and learning activities to stated curricular outcomes. A demo can be downloaded at www.wids.org . Seven campuses are currently using the software.
David expressed concerns about the accreditation applications and the cost, but that it is premature to consider at the systemwide level. Adopting this system could result in providing required structure to activities that are still in their infancy. Joel said he shared David's concerns; however, he understands the value of software that will make a more systemic approach to curriculum development easier for users.
Betsy asked if there was an economic benefit to a license of this kind, noting that WIDS could be perceived as threatening to some.
GIS SOFTWARE. John handed out a draft memo and explained the current lack of funding to pay for a systemwide GIS license. David suggested that a systemwide RFP might make sense in this area, since the field has changed and new products may be available, especially in the area of web services. John said that his concern is letting campuses know that Office of the Chancellor funding will not be made available. The committee approved the memo and encouraged John to send it out.
Action Item: John will send memo out, alerting campuses of the options available to them to continue or expand GIS efforts. [Note: This was done, sent to CIOs and CAOs on February 8; Mark Thomas sent the memo on to campus GIS contacts that evening]
AUDIENCE RESPONSE SYSTEMS. J.C. explained how these systems are being used in large classes to give instructors immediate feedback. The instructional uses are very promising, but there are some difficulties involved in their deployment related to conflicting systems, data privacy issues, costs to students, and even conflict of interest (individuals benefiting from adoption, including laptops to faculty). At SCSU, there is a moratorium in place, with movement toward a standard supported system.
Should a systemwide license be considered for systems such as this? As with the other opportunities above, it was agreed to include this opportunity with the others discussed in the off-the-top proposal.
COMPETITIVE PRICING. The committee discussed the possibility of individual campuses getting better prices than are offered in existing contracts (e.g., Symantec).
Action Item: By September 1, Mark Thomas agreed to work to include boilerplate language to give campuses preferred pricing (matching lowest prices given in the system).
D2L UPDATE. Dick invited Lesley Blicker to provide an update for the D2L Advisory Committee. The last meeting was a relatively quiet one, since the upgrade has been postponed and there were no dramatic performance issues. The committee is in the process of putting together a D2L Help Desk customer satisfaction survey for site admins, faculty, and students. 7.4 is being piloted by Ohio in February; the earliest next-adoption is after March 1. We will be discussing the system upgrade schedule at the next meeting. David expressed concern about version releases and release dates. He believes we should only be deploying upgrades in the summer. J.C. noted that there was no time in the summer when all campuses were out of session.
David asked what the testing plan is to ensure, in that case, that a product will be stable when upgraded. John reported some preliminary suggestion that there may be a new approach to testing for scale and he will learn more when he meets with Microsoft staff in a few days.
Action Item: John asked Lesley or Dick to report back to the committee on load testing options with D2L.
Lesley noted that the Advisory Committee meetings are open to anyone.
Barry said he was extremely frustrated with the fact that we are approaching upgrades so conservatively. He said that campuses are hungry for the features that come with upgrades. Could it be possible to upgrade individual schools one at a time? He said he would volunteer for this upgrade to use new features available. Staff explained that this would not be possible - it was an all or nothing situation in this regard.
David expressed sympathy with Barry's frustrations but said that there will always be some tension between upgrading to new releases of D2L with new features and the significance of maintaining a reliable, enterprise-wide software platform for our user constituencies (students and faculty). David also noted that, in retrospect, the emphasis on a criteria of a "feature-rich" IMS application, may have been something of a flaw in the original RFP process back last spring. Scott asked what testing has been done since our December meeting. Do we understand the metrics for testing that are being used? Do we know what the threshold is for an upgrade being "ready." John encouraged members to come to future Advisory Committee meetings to participate in that discussion. [Note: after the meeting, John and Lesley agreed that Advisory Committee members who are also members of the AITC should give future reports to ensure their voice is heard at both venues.]
Barry said he wants full testing, but he wants to stress the importance of upgrading when an upgrade is ready. Mark said he was more optimistic than David about the process and outcomes.
