• Enterprise Investment Plan
• IT Roundtable
• Administrative System
• Architecture & Infrastructure
• IMS Advisory Council
• IT Finance and Personnel
• MNOnline Council
• Security Steering

Governance Home

IT Management Council

April 8, 2005 , Noon-3pm (ETC 304)

Ray L, Sharon M, Linda S, Jigang L , Gary L, Tim S, John O, Gerry R, Joanne C, Mike L, Jim D, Mike S, Robin R

NEXT MEETINGS:

• Friday, June 10, 2005 , ETC Building, Conference Room 304, 12:00pm-3:00pm
• Friday, August 12, 2005 , ETC Building, Conference Room 304, 12:00pm-3:00pm
• Friday, October 7, 2005 ,ETC Building, Conference Room 304, 12:00pm-3:00pm
• Friday, December 9, 2005 ,ETC Building, Conference Room 304, 12:00pm-3:00pm

Before updates on the major committees began, John reminded the ITMC of the importance of their role in responding to and providing recommendation relative to activities of the committees. As a result, the minutes below will include a summary of comments and recommendations for consideration by Ken Niemi and the Leadership Council Technology Committee.

 

1. Infrastructure Committee, Jim Dierich, ITS System Director

Jim offered a brief summary of the committee. The Infrastructure Committee was formed in 2001. Jim provided a copy of the charter. Information on the committee is available on the web. Jim reviewed the scope of the infrastructure committee.

As an example of projects the committee has taken on, Jim explained that the group conducted a review of the network infrastructure that Ken Niemi requested. The completed study showed our campuses dealing with lower bandwidth compared to peer institutions. Ken was able to use to gain increased on-going funding to improve bandwidth to campuses. As a result, bandwidth was doubled.

A current project is the directory services project. Infrastructure has taken the lead in the directory services, identity management, and portal initiatives. Materials were provided on the projects.

Jim said that the Infrastructure Committee agreed that the portal project needs to be put on hold until directory services are available. Joanne said that the original plan was for a portal RFP to go forward, but there was agreement that we need to wait until we have a better idea of what we are looking for and needing.

What timeframe? Implementation for Directory Services, 6 months.

Linda S said that communication on the directory services and portal projects needs to be broadened.

Finally, Jim reported on progress of data center consolidation, transitioning to a single data center at the University of Minnesota . ITS is committed to minimal service disruption. Lou suggested expanded communication would help in this area as well. Joanne said she is looking into creating a new communications vehicle for campus cabinet level staff (such as "chief" officers). There was agreement that this is an important effort.

RECOMMENDATIONS : agreement on the need for improved communications around portal and directory services, as well as data center consolidation; agreement on the current approach and timing on directory services and portal

RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS : Jim will send out materials to the ITMC on Infrastructure projects

 

2. Academic IT Committee, John O'Brien, ITS System Director

Desire2Learn. John reviewed the current status of D2L. From a performance perspective, the platform has been stable. He explained the current testing underway for version 7.4.1 for possible implementation in May 2005 if there are no "showstoppers" in QA testing. He also discussed plans for possible upgrade to version 8.X after November of 2005. He summarized D2L's recent plans for load testing. Members reported on-going mixed feelings and confidence in D2L from faculty. John summarized a meeting with John Baker, and he said he was encouraged in many respects by the direction of the company. On the other hand, he is not satisfied with the progress on load testing. He will continue to put pressure on the company in this important area.

RECOMMENDATIONS : Find out if there is a user group for faculty; if not, should there be?

RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS : John will get an answer to the questions raised about creating a faculty user group for D2L if this isn't already done, in effect, by an existing group.

Purchasing. John summarized some extensive discussion in the Academic IT committee about moving forward with expanded leveraged IT purchases. There was agreement that this is a good idea, but many questions raised about how to proceed:

Who should decide what contracts to negotiate? Perhaps the Services Advisory Group? It was suggested that perhaps the finance division should take the lead in this area, even for IT. Ray felt this is the kind of work (deciding what is system benefit) the Office of the Chancellor is expected to do. Gary suggested maybe a Y/N sort of sign off could be used and a certain number of campuses would need to sign off on a contract to reach the tipping point to move ahead with it.

Joanne gave example of R25 as a problematic software purchase resulting from "no skin in the game" premise.

RECOMMENDATIONS : agreement that this is a promising idea; consider developing a strategy for disengagement in 3 years for R25 or similar contracts when there no critical mass; consider software inventory for academic software; should disseminate best practices and guidance for RFPs as was done with document imaging and D2L - including standards based focus on software.

 

3. Information Security/Data Integrity Committee, Bev Schuft, ITS Security Director and Gerry Rushenberg, ITS Management Reporting Director

Security . Bev reported that the committee has been successful in implementing firewalls and is in the process of developing and implementing security guidelines. Initially, the focus is developing server "hardening" standards and network architecture. Policy and procedure development is also moving forward. Finally, raising awareness and understanding of security expectations is considered important and being considered, with a planned web-based training module available this fall to ensure basic best practices and overall security awareness is improved. A bill is currently under consideration for addressing vulnerabilities, including penalties: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2032.0&session=ls84

RECOMMENDATIONS : it is important to involve faculty in the policy development to make buy-in more likely (vs. top-down)

Replicated Database. Gerry explained how the replicated database functions and provides a means for data gathering on campuses. He explained several issues he and his staff are struggling with. Work is underway to transition from the replicated environment to an Oracle environment, but there have been some problems to be overcome before moving forward. Rumors are out there that "replicated is going away," but nothing will happen along those lines until the pathway is very solid, he said..

RECOMMENDATIONS : None

 

4. Systems Development Steering Committee, Gerry Rushenberg

Gerry explained that the new admissions phase II software upgrade for ISRS was initially rolled out to the metro area, but there were some bugs that caused considerable consternation among campuses. The bugs were fixed, but confidence in the new code was damaged. It was necessary to delay rollout. Along with bugs, there were some data issues that needed to be resolved as well. Joanne said that her staff are working very hard to ensure no future problems, but she admitted that she is worried, though all regions have gotten the new code. He added that there were more users than initially thought.more faculty and counselors use ISRS to look up student information, which was a training need that was not known to the Office of the Chancellor folks who rolled out the changes.

Joanne acknowledged that communication was an issue that will be better addressed in the future to make sure information will be better dissemination. The Chancellor suggested using the communications team in the Office of the Chancellor in this area.

Joanne said that additional staffing could have solved the problem and it may be necessary to say no to projects in the future if there is not adequate staff in place.

Gerry explained that students are going to be able to add institutional emails and additional work emails. As we get closer to seamlessness, are we moving toward unfolding issues around emails. Joanne added that there are multiple issues related to email policies and procedures that are coming up in the context of seamless and other areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS : Communication around ISRS changes needs to be improved to make sure all touched by changes are notified and receive appropriate training.

5. Student IT Committee, John O'Brien

John gave a quick update on the activities of the Student IT Committee, which has met twice and discuss a variety of issues, as well as providing input on the Success Scorecard Survey. He noted that the student survey should be moving forward this month.

RECOMMENDATIONS : None

6. System Technology Strategy Council, John O'Brien

John gave a very quick update to say that the Success Scorecard surveys are being developed, with the student survey going out this month and the rest in the fall. He implored members of the committee to carefully review draft survey prompts as they are distributed via listserv to ensure the best possible survey. He added that the IFO will be reviewing the faculty survey.

RECOMMENDATIONS : Suggested that ITS consider sending headsup notices that a survey is coming in the fall.