Information Technology Planning Board (ITPB)

www.itpb.ucla.edu
November 28, 2001
Meeting Summary

Minutes (available on web and already distributed by listserv):

Attendees: Chair Chris Foote, Vice Chair Alfonso Cardenas, Chris Borgman, Janet Chiang (UG Rep), Brian Copenhaver, Jim Davis, Duncan Lindsey, Mike McCoy, Tom Phelan, David Sears, Chuck Taylor, Victoria Vesna, and Gloria Werner

Guests: Glyn Davies, Louis Hook, Jim Kimmick, Ruth Sabean, Gale Winting, Esther Woo-Benjamin, and Mary Wright

Reports:

·        Louis Hook reported on the campus wireless pilot. The pilot was launched today with 218 participants, distributed as follows: 44% undergraduates, 36% graduates, 17% staff and 3% faculty. Almost all academic units are represented. The pilot will test technical considerations (interference, security), customer support, system management, and the financial model (cost and funding options). More information on the pilot can be found at: http://www.bol.ucla.edu/wireless/ 

·        Chris Foote reported on the distribution of the ITPB Fall 2001 Initial Report. The 11/26 distribution letter to Deans, Directors, Department Chairs and Administrative Officers and the report can be found at: http://www.itpb.ucla.edu/documents/default.htm#November . Further distribution to the Academic Senate, CCC, and ITPG is planned.

·        Jim Davis reported on the Enterprise IT Cost Model Task Force. A more comprehensive discussion is planned but will have to be deferred to the next meeting due to lack of time. The Task Force is looking across campus trying to surface facts about what costs of IT services are and how they’re allocated (what the models are and if they still make sense). For example, AIS is funded based on models from 30 years ago. The Enterprise IT Cost Model Task Force letter can be found at: http://www.itpb.ucla.edu/documents/default.htm#November . The Task Force is chaired by Nick Reddingius and membership includes: Sue Abeles, Neal Axelrod, Glyn Davies, Nick Hernandez, Louis Hook, Jim Lazear, Tom Lifka, Sam Morabito, Sean Pine, Glen Winans, Don Worth, and Jim Davis.

·        Chris Foote reported on the reassignment of reporting of AIS and CTS to Sam Morabito. The need for the robust ability to communicate with the academic side and the answer to whether there is capacity to do this or whether an additional line position is needed are important considerations. The question of whether the players involved (Jim and Sam) have the time to fully address the issues in these large units remains to be seen. The ITPB needs to watch carefully to make sure the new arrangement works.

·        Janet Chang, the new Undergraduate Students representative reported on several areas of student concern regarding IT:

1.      Better email: a) UCLA web mail doesn’t support attachments or folders; b) students want a warning when they are getting close to their disk quota (now email just bounces when quota is reached); c) the BruinWalk system is an alternative but it is a POP server.  Mail doesn’t get deleted from BOL.

2.      Computer Lab spaces: CLICC is the only place that is open for public access but there is always a 20-30 minute wait. Suggested improvements: a) Ackerman Union has 5-6 public computers but one third are broken at any given time – increase the number or get them fixed; b) publicize availability of departmental labs – students taking courses in a department may use its lab but many aren’t aware of this; if more students used departmental labs, it would take some of the load off the central facilities; c) provide more 10 minute stations in departmental labs. Gloria Werner reported that CLICC is expanding its laptop program and wireless access to other college libraries.

Agenda items:

1. Glyn Davies reported on the IT cost information in the 2002 budget request. Annually, 163 million is spent on IT, but this number is believed to be low and some costs may be hidden due to differences in reporting. It is important to locate these hidden numbers because even small savings may be large enough to help advance some IT investments or help with the current budget situation. The proposal is to develop questions around four areas: 1) networking, 2) email and calendaring, 3) Microsoft licensing, and 4)consulting costs with the intent of  accountability and/or case building for IT expenditures. The targeted areas were identified during the IT strategic scan as areas where efficiencies could be gained. The process will be fully open and consultative. The Information Technology Analysis Fiscal Year 2000/01 spreadsheet can be found at: http://www.itpb.ucla.edu/documents/default.htm#November {This URL is broken}

2.      Mary Wright reported on Microsoft licensing issues. Understanding Microsoft licensing is difficult because there are many products, many different programs, many suppliers, prices vary, and rights to use vary. Because UCLA has a distributed environment for purchasing and support, individuals don’t know where to go and could be paying twice for software. Noncompliance is a potentially huge vulnerability. A summary of Microsoft licensing issues and a Q&A document that addresses pertinent questions surrounding Microsoft OS licensing can be found at:

http://www.itpb.ucla.edu/documents/default.htm#November {also broken}

Jim Davis reported that a) a campus wide agreement is being explored and b) the Microsoft Licensing Task Force is in the process of drafting a memo providing information on Microsoft licensing and XP issues. The purpose of this memo is to raise an awareness of implications and is targeted for campus wide distribution at the beginning of the Winter quarter.  Several Board members suggested the campus should consider migrating to Linux.

3. Chris Foote reviewed the previously agreed on seven ITPB Strategic Areas of Emphasis. The next steps in the planning process are to articulate the directions and goals under each area of emphasis and then address the more specific programmatic and infrastructure objectives that would emerge under each goal. The Board provided feedback on a few of the strategic areas:

Integrate Students into an IT Enhanced, Individualized Teaching and Learning Environment

·        Not just delivering curriculum but also describing and communicating the curriculum – what it is this quarter, what I’m registering for (e.g. my.ucla)

·        Using technology to build groups among students; use web to put students in touch with each other (e.g. interest groups, part of class, virtual meetings)

Help the Wider Community to Help Itself Through Information Resources

·        Give a sense of external outreach and engagement

Make UCLA a Leader in Data Management, Digital Media and Computation-Based Research

·        Provide basic skills training so students are at same level of IT expertise to start

·        Define institutional expectation for computer equipment

Provide departmental ‘boot camp’ to bring everyone up to a common skill level

·        Promote faculty competence

Support IT Centers that Promote Scholarly Interaction Both to Engage Students and Enhance the External Access to UCLA Research

·        Increase productivity (look for better word than productivity)

4. Future meetings:

·        Wednesday, December 19, 1-3 p.m. @ 2121 Murphy

·        Scheduling for Winter/Spring meetings is in progress

02 Sep 2003