Monday, December 4, 2006

ITPB MEETING SUMMARY

ITPB Members in Attendance: Kathryn Atchison, Jackson Beatty, Elizabeth Bjork, Christine Borgman, Russel Caflisch, Alfonso Cardenas, Mitchell Creem, James Davis, Daniel Fabbri (undergraduate student representative), Bill Jepson, Sam Morabito, Susan Parker for Gary Strong, Michael Schill, David Snow for Alan Robinson, Scott Waugh

Guests: Ross Bollens, Rob Gould, Larry Loeher, Nick Reddingius, Rose Rocchio, Ruth Sabean, Mike Schilling, Judi Smith, Marsha Smith, Kent Wada, , PC Za (Undergraduate Student Assocation Council (USAC)  Facilities Commission representative)

Agenda:

1. November Meeting Summary

The November meeting summary was approved by the board.

Alfonso Cardenas requested that the membership review the meeting summaries and submit corrections and/or changes within ten days of receipt of the summary so that the corrected version may be submitted for approval at the subsequent meeting.

2. Common Collaborative & Learning Environment (CCLE) Selection

Jim Davis gave a brief background on the organizational structure and process that led to the selection of s single common collaborative learning environment (CCLE). Judi Smith discussed the Faculty Committee on Educational Technology (FCET) and its vision of how UCLA will use technology in education to advance its position and reaffirm UCLA’s educational goals. She also reported that discussions have been underway with the Deans and the interim Chancellor to establish solid footing to move forward.  Ruth Sabean reviewed the CCLE Roadmap, detailing the history of the project, the current status and the plans for the future. 

Rob Gould, FCET Vice Chair, presented Moodle as the recommended open source common learning environment platform for UCLA and discussed the analysis leading to its selection. The Assessment Task Force provided the analysis and recommendations to the FCET. The analysis can be found in the document Building Infrastructure and Community. The FCET also recommended that UCLA maintain its position in the Sakai community with a focus on interoperability between the two systems. 

There is a planned three to five year adoption cycle, with an opt in strategy as appropriate for the participating unit.  Presently, the plan is to implement by winter 2007 an early adopter CCLE pilot service and select units that want to participate. OIT-ATS is now hosting the early adopter system and with the developer community will roll out test services for early adopter units. With appropriate funding, the production service will begin in Fall 2007.

ITPB Input:

• There was concern expressed that Moodle is not in production at any large research university in the United States comparable to the size of UCLA.  While this is true, the basis for the selection was more on its current functionality and its connection to a large, vibrant, grass roots community that shares the educational vision and goals of UCLA. In the United States Moodle installations are almost exclusively at smaller teaching institutions (notably the CA State System) with different research needs and institutional priorities. There are larger installations of Moodle in the UK and New Zealand. It was noted that functionality needed for UCLA's research and education purposes was evaluated carefully and that specific objectives in the selection did include research collaboration and how research interacts with education both in and out of class settings.
• Jim Davis advised that a business model evaluating the long-term costs would be developed during the first quarter of 2007.  The preliminary estimates are $1.5 million for start up costs and $2.5 million for ongoing operating expenses, which would be allocated predominantly for staffing.
• The question was raised on whether or not the University should proceed with the recommendation of the FCET or wait for Sakai to mature and reassess at some future date. This was a question examined in depth by the evaluation team and by the FCET in making its recommendation. It was the general consensus of the ITPB like that of the FCET that the time is right to converge on one platform.  Delay in converting to a single platform makes it more difficult for areas that have already developed their own systems to adopt a future campus system. Many units have been waiting for the selection so they can move forward.
• The decision to allow units to opt in to the system raises the question of how the long-term costs will be covered. Cost estimates are being discussed but funding sources have not been addressed yet. As the business model is developed, funding sources will be discussed with governance groups.
• There was a question about the selection of Moodle going to a full vote of the Academic Senate. Because the ITPB is a committee of the Administration and the Senate, the selection did not seem to require a full senate vote. However, the selection should be reported back to the Senate for a discussion of how they should be involved in the implementation of long term funding and intellectual property policy.
• It was suggested that the larger cost in implementing a single system at UCLA will be in local optimization and support; there was concern that the total implementation costs would not reflect the "down-stream" costs borne by the local units. The total cost, including local costs, should be part of the business plan.
• There was concern about intellectual property for content and/or code developed at UCLA for Moodle. Course content remains the property of the creator. However, course content and software may be linked inextricably.  Licensing issues and intellectual property issues of code developed to customize the Moodle system will be addressed in the business plan.

ITPB Recommendations:

The ITPB enthusiastically supported the work of the FCET. The ITPB stressed its involvement in the development of the business plan and longer term funding model.

Reports:

3. UC Information Technology and Telecommunications Policy (ITTP) Update

Jack Beatty, ITPB member and the UCLA representative on the Information Technology and Telecommunications Policy (ITTP) Committee, presented two documents for feedback from the members of the ITPB and their faculty colleagues.  All comments and feedback should be emailed to Kenneth Feer at Kenneth.Feer@ucop.edu with a cc to Jack Beatty at beatty@psych.ucla.edu before Christmas.  The ITTP will compile the responses and present their recommendations to the Information Technology Guidance Committee in February 2007.

• The first document, IT strategic planning in the University: questions for individual campuses – is part of a UC-wide strategic planning effort. 
• The second document – Minimum computing and communication equipment and software needs of instructors in the University of California, regards a list of computing and communications capabilities that are needed by all UC course instructors.  The ITTP is requesting that members of the ITPB review the draft of the minimum requirements and forward any comments/changes for consideration by the committee for inclusion in the final presentation.

4. Stewardship of Electronic Information

Ross Bollens presented UCLA’s response to the DRAFT Guidelines for Stewardship of Electronic Information Resource. The main areas of response include:

• Openness: UCLA wants to ensure that the guidelines make clear the value of openness at a research and educational institution.  Data protection is critically important, but it should be balanced with data accessibility and the sharing of information. 
• Identity and Access Management:  The guidelines proposed a policy to present a photo ID for any online access. Implementing this at UCLA would be impractical. The guideline should be changed to adopt a tiered identity structure depending upon the security level of the access required.

5. ITPB Sub-Group Status on Wireless

Mike Schilling, presented an update from the ITPB Wireless Sub-Committee.  The committee has been charged with the task of developing a wireless plan for the University by researching future trends and uses, new emerging technologies, and what other peer institutions  (USC, Ohio State to name two) are doing in this field.

Schilling presented a map of current wireless installations. The strategy has been more of implementing wireless in key hot spots as opposed to a pervasive across campus implementation. Future WiMaxi technologies (a technology that overlays wireless across vast areas) are emerging. Implementing a full pervasive strategy at UCLA at this time may not be as cost effective as continuing with the current "hot spot" strategy and waiting for overlay technologies to mature.

Schilling will be developing functional requirements for an RFP to cover greater open areas at UCLA. He is also negotiating with Verizon, for wireless anywhere connectivity services, at an individual cost of $50.00 per month. Verizon is not ready to deploy WiMax; however, dual 802.11/cellular access (covering both data and voice) is expected in 2007.

PC Za attended as a student representative for USAC Facilities Commission. She was specifically interested in greater coverage of South Campus. Jim Davis will meet with her separately to discuss need.