Minutes - February 17 2006
1:30 - 3:00 pm Belk Information Commons - Room 421
Persons Present:
Ex Officio members: Jeff Williams (Inf. Tech. Serv.), Doug May (Acad. Computing Serv.), Michael Moore ( Faculty Senate)
Voting Members: Scott Schneberger (for Donald Amoroso, WCOB), Kevin Howell (F & A A), Greg Lovins (Business Affairs), Emory Maiden (A & S), Tom McDonnell (Music), Ed Pekarek (A & S), Dick Riedl (RCOE), and Bill Ward (Academic Affairs).
Visitors: Steve Breiner (ICS, ITAC Recorder), Greg Simmons (ICS), Jeff Church (ICS), Terry McClannon (RCOE), Tom Van Gilder (A & S), Doug Brantz (F & AA), Ryan Morton (ITC), Toni Becvinovski (Off. of the Registrar), Danny Moorhead (ITC), Art Rex (IRP), John Spagnolo (RCOE)
1) Welcome, Opening Comments
Jeff Williams greeted the group and opened the meeting at 1:35 PM. In order to accommodate some members’ schedules, Williams asked the group to allow a change in the original order of items on the agenda to first address standardization of classroom technologies followed by the issue of computer standardization.
2) Discussion of Classroom Technology Standardization
Steve Breiner (Instr. Comp. Svcs.) briefly summarized the information distributed earlier to the ITAC and ASUTECH groups involving the results of a faculty survey conducted during Fall Semester 2005 about classroom technologies. Breiner acknowledged that the document he had distributed earlier had focused primarily on problems that were highlighted by the survey, without having sufficiently noted the successes that have ensued from many of the departmental and college efforts that have been undertaken. Tom Van Gilder noted that in many cases, the problems cited by survey respondents resulted from the lack of user knowlege about equipment operation or were caused by users who modified working setups in ways that affected their proper functioning. Terry McClannon (RCOE) noted that his college had implemented significant standardization of classroom technologies internally, and that many of the issues that appeared in the survey results likely were not issues in his college. Van Gilder also stated that his college had, in large part, standardized functionality in its technology-equipped classrooms. Breiner replied that, despite the success if areas within the university that had made progress with classroom technologies, many campus units had neither the personnel resources nor funding to generalize those successes. He suggested also that the provision of such equipment and its maintenance should become an institutional utility, similar to electricity or plumbing, if the university were to become a modern, technology-enabled campus. He suggested further that Appalachian should adopt as its goal to provide appropriate classroom technologies for every class and to every faculty member who believe that such technologies can enhance their teaching and their students’ learning.
Breiner then discussed the original classroom levels proposed in documents distributed earlier and a number of suggestions were offered to improve the nature of the classroom models. Breiner asked for those suggestions to be provided electronically and stated he would rework the proposed levels and distribute them before the next ITAC meeting.
Dick Riedl proposed that ITAC focus more of the discussion on the higher level academic goals of the institution. He proposed developing a pedagogically driven strategic vision of where Appalachian wants to go and using the results of that discussion to inform and guide the consideration of classroom technologies. Williams asked if Riedl would be willing to draft an appropriate statement to include in subsequent discussion of the issue.
Other discussion included Art Rex ( Director of Space Management & Planning ) and involved the issue of sharing classrooms beyond the immediate department and how the dissimilarity of equipment and operation rendered possibilities for shared room usage much more difficult.
Williams noted that there was another agenda item on the floor for discussion and proposed that anyone with suggestions about either the case being made for classroom standardization or about the proposed technology levels themselves please send them by e-mail to Steve Breiner (breiner@appstate.edu).
3) Discussion of Computer Workstation Standardization
Doug May (Acad. Comp. Svcs.) spoke briefly about previously distributed computer workstation standardization poposal. In espousing the case for firm standards, he noted that purchases of systems that have occurred outside of ACS’ recommended systems list frequently consume inordinate amounts of consultant time when they require maintenance or repair - finding hardware drivers, system specific settings, and addressing other technical issues have become quite difficult and, more often than not, these issues increase the total cost of ownership (TCO) beyond that of the recommended systems. Historically, the purchasers have been insulted from the consequences of those choices, since they have not been required to offset the increased support costs; those users are not made aware (via billing or other mechanisms) that the minimal discounts they may have originally received by purchasing the non-recommended systems usually come with increased support costs. May surmised that a standard, enforced purchase mechanism (with a mechanism for justified exceptional purchases) would allow our support personnel to make significantly better use of their time and energies.
May then demonstrated Appalachian’s Dell Premium Web Site (which was undergoing a revision by Dell’s webmasters) and noted that, at present, only the College Computer Specialists and a few other technical personnel had access to the site. May asked whether it would make sense to open the Dell Premium site to other personnel or whether access should remain limited to a few designated purchasers. A short discussion ensued regarding access to the site, with no clear consensus emerging. May stated that he would revisit the issue after revisions to the site were completed. Scott Schneberger (WCOB) suggested that software available to faculty and staff should be included on the ordering site to simplify the process of configuring computers for immediate use upon their receipt.
Ed Pekarek (A & S) asked whether and how grant programs offered by manufacturers not on the standardized list of providers would fit into the proposed standardization model. May answered that maintenance on machines acquired through such grants should either specify manufacturer-provided maintenance else the recipients should understand that only limited support for such machines would be otherwise be available. Breiner suggested that manufacturer’s maintenance equivalent to Dell’s “Complete Care” program should become a formal requirement enforced by the campus office for Research & Sponsored Programs as part of its grant approval process.
Van Gilder and McClannon noted that their colleges had developed internal standardization for workstations and that there were few, if any, exceptions that had occurred since development of those standards. May responded that though there were several areas on campus that had implemented such initiatives, there were still many that had not done so, and suggested that a formal intitutional decision to apply such standards could be quite beneficial as regards TCO.
Michael Moore (Fac. Senate) posed a question to the group after considering the statements of the college specialists and computing consultants about the efforts in their respective areas. He wondered if, given that “90%” of current computer purchases already complied with recommended standards, a simple list of “approved” equipment might effectively serve the purposes that would be addressed by any relatively complex effort to standardize workstations. Williams and others responded that the 90% estimate likely applies only to two of academic areas and that there were numerous of areas on campus (academic and administrative) which had not been involved in an effort to standardize.
May then asked that comments or suggestions for the proposal to standardize workstations be send to him at maydb@appstate.edu.
4) Adjournment
Williams noted that the meeting had extended slightly beyond the time allocate for it, and adjourned the meeting at 3:06 PM.
Permalink Comments off
