Information Technology Planning Board
Meeting Summary
Thursday, June 11, 2009
ITPB Attendees: Kathryn Atchison, Christine Borgman, Jim Davis, Robin Garrell, Bill Jepson, William Kaiser, David Kaplan, Patricia Keating, Kathleen Komar, John Mazziotta (for Art Toga), Warren Mori, Marilyn Raphael, Janice Reiff, Judith Rothman (for Alan Robinson),Gary Strong, Tim Stowell, Christopher Waterman, Stephanie Hokama, recorder
Absent: Sam Morabito, Alan Robinson, Art Toga, Debbie Weissmann
Guests: Ross Bollens, Carmela Cunningham, Bill Labate, Margo Reveil, Nick Reddingius, Rose Rocchio, Mike Schilling, Kent Wada, Andrew Wissmiller,
Agenda Item 1: Introductions/Approval of Summary
Christine Borgman opened the meeting at 1:04 PM.
The summary from the April 29, 2009 meeting was approved.
Agenda Item 2: IT Planning Task Force Principles Discussion
Four principles from the IT Planning Task Force have already been reviewed and discussed by the ITPB. This session, all eight principles are available for the Board. Friday, June 12, will be the last meeting of the task force and the critiques and discussions from ITPB will be presented.
Jim Davis gave some background of the Task Force’s goals. Since beginning, the Task Force has developed a Vision, Principles, Operating Models and Action Plan, which are in varying stages of completion. This final document will be submitted to Chancellor Block and EVC Waugh. Throughout the process, the Task Force has tried to maintain a careful balance between autonomy and creativity, while working through issues on an institutional level.
Professor Marilyn Raphael presented her reactions to the principles. Only principles that were not considered by ITPB in the past were addressed. She felt that adding the vocabulary decreased ambiguity. Under the assumptions, the question was, “What is a return?” How is this measured and does it always mean monetary returns? The revised principles are quite comprehensive and have covered a variety of important topics. Principle #6 was accessible and maximized to influence behavior. On Principle #3, what do the last four words mean? Principle #5 the IT architecture – how will this affect what already exists? And on Principle #7, her immediate reaction was, “What level of project is addressed?” It was somewhat answered in the implications, but it was a principle open to interpretation. Finally, the governance principle is absolutely necessary.
Professor Kathryn Atchison’s reactions to the revised principles began with appreciation for the added assumptions section; she felt it gave the necessary perspective. On Principle #1, she felt that different faculty and departments would require much patience and a balanced approach. Students sometimes do not have an adequate voice. Principle #2 is important for the federated/blended model, as it is good for UCLA as a whole. A baseline should be stated for services that are provided. Who bears the cost is extremely important as researchers alone cannot be expected to contribute. A very clear process of cost allocations is needed. Principle #3 is an important element; this will assist the academic community in collaborating with other institutions. Principle #4 is extremely significant in valuing and prioritizing data as an institutional asset. Questions arise such as, who is going to perform the prioritizing? This will require costly, up-front planning. Whose burden will this be? Many faculty do not know how to make plans about their data, so how will this be accommodated? Principle #5 – what will it take to achieve this? There will be significant challenges in obtaining faculty input and buy-in. Principle #6 has unanticipated budget issues in the implications. Principle #7 is an extremely interesting concept, especially regarding decentralizing. This is a departure from current campus culture; who will be the project leaders? It might be possible to gain leadership by utilizing faculty interested in IT leadership. Principle #8 will require a major culture adjustment. This will be a very difficult challenge for the campus. However, the downstream gains and sharing of costs will be significant and can possibly persuade reluctant faculty.
It will be ITPB’s responsibility to implement these principles. The administration is anxious to move on these, but faculty may be a bit more reluctant. It does not sound controversial, but any change in direction will raise issues. The federated model is key to implementation and will require the mixing of two cultures. This will depend heavily on the chair and how this is presented. It is also important to have student representatives; longer tenure on the board makes a difference in understanding concepts and their implications. It is the intent of the IT Planning Task Force to vet the principles more broadly.
Agenda Item 3: Aligning Infrastructure, Support and Policy for Effective Research and Education CI: IDRE
A handout was distributed showing the components of IDRE, as well as its mission statement. IDRE gives researchers options in achieving their project goals. ATS and IDRE staff are overseen by Jim Davis and Robert Peccei.
Data Center Space: CNSI/Data center shared clusters are a major resource. Data storage and access are major components of current grant applications. IDRE gives researchers the facilities and support for these grants. The handout named “domain science research” as well as other research areas such as math, computer and information science research. IDRE harnesses expertise on campus and gives immediate access to researchers, thereby avoiding “reinventing the wheel” for every new project.
The supercomputers allow free flow with UCLA researchers. There are pipelines available that provide templates to apply for time. System-wide, there is a shared cluster pilot with north and south regional data centers. The business model is being formulated. Power costs are a big issue; UC San Diego’s supercomputer charges six cents per node hour. With 10 campuses and five medical centers, this pilot could expand computing ability for faster access and more power at a lower cost.
IDRE is in a position to oversee computing resources. This would also assist newer researchers and conform to NSF and NIH requirements for data access and storage. The medical side will also be expanding with medical informatics. IDRE does need a grant developer to meet future needs.
Agenda Item 4: Review of Technology Infrastructure Fee (TIF)
Christine Borgman, Kathy Komar and Jim Davis met with EVC Scott Waugh to discuss the direction of TIF. He is in the process of drafting a new charge letter. (See former TIF report from June 5, 2007.) Scott would like a report by the beginning of Spring, 2010.
EVC Waugh is seeking criteria for evaluation, evidence, i.e., what kind of information should be gathered about campus activities and accounting to set the criteria? This is NOT a review on whether or not to have TIF, but a discussion on how to gather information to inform the review TIF.
The allocation model must also be discussed. We are looking for “proxy for use” not an individual fee for use. We will need to examine several questions, including: Should students be included in the count—and if so, how? How do the fees that students already pay for IT figure into our discussion? How do we balance the use by the College and the use by the School of Medicine as the two largest groups affected? We need to find a workable model that is as fair as possible to all those using the services.
The notion of a common good should underlie all discussions on TIF. What constitutes the common good? How do we find ways to get the maximum service for the most reasonable fees—and how do we distribute those fees?
What is done with the pool of TIF funds? How is this made up? A complete list of what is covered by TIF is necessary before we can begin suggesting solutions. With many of our services shifting (e.g., the Law School is migrating email to Google; student email may also migrate to an outside system), how do we rethink about reasonable charges?
Essential items in discussing TIF:
In short, we need to reexamine what TIF covers, what resources those services require, and how to allocate the costs. We will try to gather as much data as we can to inform this discussion and to remain as open-minded as possible…