IT Management Council
October 13, 2006 Meeting Notes
Members Attending: Joanne Chabot, Jan Doebbert, Al Essa, Gary Langer, Mike Lopez,
Ray Lou, Mike Seymour, Linda Skallman
Staff/Presenters: Ken Brumbaugh, Jim Dierich, Jim Dillemuth, Glen Guida
- Meeting notes of the October Systems Development Steering Committee were distributed.
- PMO Discussion
� Jim Dillemuth gave a status report on the establishment of the
Project Management Office. Linda Skallman noted the importance of
using common sense when deciding what projects rise to the level of a
project requiring charters and complicated project management. Jan
Doebbert added that the process needs to accommodate priorities that
come up unexpectedly. ITS needs to be able to respond quickly and
without cumbersome process. Ray Lou would like to see maintenance
resources accounted for as well as projects. Ideally, there would be a
project, with resources attached, called something like �Annual
Maintenance.� Members discussed the criticality of communications.
Jan noted that managers need to be able to exercise timely/nimble
decision making within their assigned staff and budget parameters. He
also stated that there will ultimately be two keys to success of the
PMO: Communications and Management Resources.
- Selected Enterprise Plan Project Discussion
� Joanne noted that many enterprise projects were in various stages of
development. A selected group of related projects would be discussed
here today, with others on the agenda for the next meeting.
Al Essa reported on D2L hardware upgrades and enhancements. Mike Seymour raised concerns about the degree to which all campus D2L contacts were sending timely information within the institution. He also raised questions about whether the features faculty need/want are in the current or future versions. Jan Doebbert and Mike Seymour both raised concerns about the IMS of the Future. They noted timing issues due to the rapid end of the existing contract. They stated that the number one and two priorities for IMS should be 1) archive capability, and 2) grade book performance. The general consensus was that after two good periods (fall being the first), the timing would be right to assess satisfaction with D2L. The discussion about satisfaction should include assessment of the adequacy of support on campus.
Brief reports were made on the ISRS hardware, stress testing, Uniface conversion and Rdb conversion projects. The ISRS Seamless Core project and Identity Management Projects were also discussed. Concerns about access to identity information were discussed. Mike Lopez presented an example about an abused person who leaves behind an email or other directory information at one campus and expects their new directory information will be unavailable to staff/others at the prior institutions. Glen Guida noted that this was the kind of discussion that would occur over the coming months. It was noted that the same directory information may be public at one institution, but private at another. This kind of business variation can be addressed, but it will take effort and analysis.
- IdM � Ken Brumbaugh gave a brief update on the Secure Identity Management Infrastructure project, which included presenting a suggested governance model for IdM in general. The proposed model would use the ITMC as the decision point for consolidating business process recommendations (from the System Development Steering Committee) with technical recommendations (from the Infrastructure Steering Committee) before they move forward to Ken Niemi/Leadership Council. Pending changes in the governance structure that may result in the future, there was consensus that this role was consistent with the existing ITMC charter and purpose. Al Essa and Joanne Chabot will discuss the need, if any, for membership changes with Ken.
