Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC)

ITAC
Meeting MinutesFriday, October 19 2007
1:30 - 3:00 pm
I. G. Greer - Room 224Persons Present
Ex Officio members: Tom Van Gilder (TSS), Jeff Williams (ITS - Chair)

Voting Members: Amy Cheney (Reich COE) James Hayes (University Advancement), Emory Maiden (Coll.of A&S), Toni Becvinovski (Registrar, Proxy for Don Rankins), Rene Salinas (Coll.of A&S), Scott Schneberger (Walker COB), James Wilkes (Coll.of A&S), Sandi Jones (HRS/Chancellor’s Office)

Visitors: Steve Breiner (LTS, Recorder), Jeff Church (LTS), Tom Culver (ITES), David Earp (ITES), David Hayler (ITES), Tom McDonnell (Hayes SOM), Tung Ong (Walker COB), Greg Simmons (LTS), Kevin Snook (TSS), John Spagnolo (Reich COE)

1) Welcome, Opening Comments

Jeff Williams welcomed the group and called the meeting to order at 1:35PM.

2) Update on the NC State Virtual Computing Lab (VCL) project

David Earp (TSS) reported on progress with the Virtual Computing Lab concept, developed at NC State for shared application license usage. VCL allows users to run software carrying an expensive license remotely, on a prescheduled basis, in effect sharing the expensive license among multiple users. The licensed software runs on a server that is “allocated” to the user by scheduling software with its output being displayed on the users computer via a Windows Terminal Services mechanism (on either Windows or McIntosh computers). The purchase of software licenses can thus be shared in order to maximize the usage of the software while reducing the number of licenses required to serve the needs of the users.

David Hayler noted that a 1000-blade server was being acquired by NC State for deployment at MCNC (Microelectronic Center of North Carolina) with the SPSS and ACR-GIS scheduled first for software deployment. Earp mentioned that various possible distribution plans were being considered for VCL, with the current, interim mechanism being resources pooled at MCNC with campuses proposing to kick in resources in exchange for VCL access. Other models being considered include campus-based deployments or multi-campus pooled deployments at MCNC or at regional campuses, with and without failover capabilities. Jeff Williams noted that the UNC system seems to view VCL as something of a “killer application” with a possibility of dramatically changing the way campuses license software, particularly the more expensive packages.

3) Update on Learning Management Systems

Steve Breiner (LTS) reported on the Fall Semester implementation of the Moodle (Modular Object-Oriented Distributed Learning Environment) learning management system (LMS) that will replace WebCT at Appalachian by the 29th of November, 2008, when the WebCT license will expire. He reported briefly on the eLearning Institute that was sponsored by Academic Affairs during spring and summer of 2007. In the eLearning Institute, some 20 faculty participated in intensive workshops, consulting sessions, and course development activities to build new (and redesign existing) courses using the new LMS.

He noted initial LTS’ expectations of 30 to 40 course sites in the new system, following its release in August. Favorable faculty impressions of the new system and word of mouth “advertising” by faculty who found the new system friendly and usable eventually pushed LTS to build an unexpected 154 “live” course sites for use during fall semester. The new system was successfully integrated with the Banner Student system so that courses specified in Banner as “Moodle Courses” are automatically built, their rolls populated, and their faculty assignments updated in “real time” as the designations are applied.

Breiner mentioned that LTS was working intensely on work flows and mechanisms to assist faculty in making the transition from WebCT to the new LMS and that he expected formal announcements of those during spring semester of 2008. Scott Schneberger (WCOB) asked whether LTS required faculty to have training in order to obtain “live” classes in the new LMS. Breiner replied that the system seemed to be sufficiently user-friendly and easy-to-use for technically savvy users to learn to use on their own, but that most faculty would likely benefit from at least a minimal formal introduction in workshops being developed and offered by LTS.

4) Discussion of a need for planned maintenance windows for IT infrastructure

Jeff Williams briefly discussed the recent unplanned service outages in email, AppalNET and Banner. He noted that, in most cases, the longest outages resulted from the need to move and/or copy data among the various systems involved. He mentioned that he had been asked by numerous users why the updates and data migrations that occurred over Fall Break had occurred at that time. He answered that because of registration requirements earlier and academic requirements during other parts of the semester, the least disruptive time in which to perform needed operations (replacement of aging servers, increases in storage space, applying patches, upgrading software) was during the fall break. ITS had considered holidays, breaks, inter-semester gaps and other times, but the variety of constituents had essentially vetoed every time except for that break during which the operations commenced - critical operations had been postponed from and earlier proposed summer timeframe. He noted that despite having issued some 17000 emails notifying users about the maintenance that would occur over the break, only 4 replies had expressed concern with the fall break operations. Williams suggested that that most of the outstanding mail issues, logging issues, and Banner self-service issues had been corrected, and that one outstanding security issue was expected to be resolved in an impending patch from Sungard Higher Education.

Acknowledging that more concerns had been expressed about the upgrade timeframe after the fact, Williams asked that the ITAC membership help develop regular, prescheduled maintenance windows during which maintenance and repair operations could be scheduled. Such windows would be advertised well in advance and published in the normal academic and institutional calendars, so that users would be aware of the times and dates during which systems might be taken offline for necessary maintenance. Williams proposed to develop and distribute a tentative maintenance schedule for consideration by ITAC and for public comment.

Scott Schneberger expressed some concern that the information regarding system downtime was, with the latest outages, not released sufficiently early for users to avoid impacting prescheduled assignment deadlines, test dates, and other time-sensitive activities. Tom Van Gilder (TSS) reported that the “Friday Technical Group” had been having extensive discussions about how to improve communications between ITS and the campus. Schneberger then emphasized that many faculty schedule activities based on tight semester schedules and that planned (non-emergency) service windows must be announced early enough to allow their accommodation without severe disruptions to class schedules. Amy Cheney then mentioned that the College of Education had many courses where 24×7 access to eLearning activities was required. Hayler responded that 100% uptime is the ideal for IT services, but users need to realize that the complexity and interconnectedness of the services we provide absolutely require occasional maintenance, and the downtime that sometimes requires. Williams said he would distribute to the group a proposed schedule of maintenance windows for further consideration.

5) Overview of campus technical support (including asutech, Friday Morning Group, etc.)

Tom Van Gilder reported on the campus efforts toward improving communications and technical support. He asked for suggestions from the group about mechanisms they might propose that would increase awareness of various technical information. He suggested, and was encouraged by several members, to add the ITAC membership to the ASUTech listserv that is used by campus IT consultants for rapid communications. Schneberger suggested a general principle for IT communications — “push problems and pull solutions,” i.e., when there is a problem, actively communicate it (”push”) to the campus, then provide resources that users can seek (”pull”) when they are trying to solve a particular problem.

Van Gilder also noted that TSS was being charged by the Provost’s office with implementing a campus-wide classroom technology development and support structure. There will be a structure and positions created to support a large-scale modernization and maintenance of classroom technologies throughout campus.

6) Update on Banner deployment

Toni Becvinovski (Registrar’s Office) reported that the campus was now fully engaged with Banner and that all of its modules.are now in full production. He stated that everyone involved in the Banner implementation was now feverishly engaged in identifying and developing all of the functionality, tools, and work flows that the campus had come to expect from the aging and highly customized SIS-Plus system. He surmised that as we become familiar with Banner, the fine-grained access controls in the new system would offer self-service capabilities and functionality that would never have been possible with SIS-Plus. With the new system, the “Dashboard” reporting tools will eventually replace most paper-based reports with searchable and sharable electronic reports. He mentioned that Dave Haney (Academic Affairs) was working closely with the registrar’s office to implement degree-audit capabilities and catalog maintenance tools. He noted that, in the registrar’s office, Spring term courses were being built, 500 new students were matriculating to Appalachian, and deployment of a new sports ticketing system was in progress.

Williams noted that the deployment of Banner had been a 5-year, complicated process, with hundreds of people involved. He mentioned that, from a technical standpoint, drop/add had gone reasonably well for a first run, but that some deans had not been as complimentary of the process… they, and any others, are being encouraged to bring those concerns to the registrar and to ITS for discussion and eventual resolution.

7) Other business

Rene Salinas (Arts & Sciences) asked about the status of wireless networking on campus. Tom Culver mentioned that Appalachian was undergoing a significant expansion in wireless access, funded largely from Education and Technology (E&T) fees and that the expansion would continue for the foreseeable future.

Adjournment

Williams adjourned the meeting at around 3:00 PM.

1:30 - 3:00 pm - I.G. Greer Hall - Room 224

Persons Present:

Ex Officio members: Jeff Williams (Inf. Tech. Serv.), Doug May (Acad. Computing Serv.), Michael Moore ( Faculty Senate)

Voting Members: James Hayes (for Teresa Canton (Univ. Advancement), Lynne Lysiak (Belk Library and Info. Commons), Emory Maiden (A & S), Tom McDonnell (Music), Ed Pekarek (A & S), Don Rankins (Off. of the Registrar), and Bill Ward (Academic Affairs).

Visitors: Steve Breiner (ICS, ITAC Recorder), Terry McClannon (RCOE), Daniel Moorhead (ITC), Pamela Graham (A & S)

1) Welcome, Opening Comments

Jeff Williams greeted the group and opened the meeting at 1:34 PM. He asked and had the members introduce themselves, since several former representatives if ITAC had been succeeded by new representatives from their areas.He suggest that newer representatives might wish to review the earlier minutes of ITAC meetings, available online on the ITAC web site at http://www.itac.appstate.edu.

2) Discussion of Classroom Technology Standards Proposal

Williams noted that the major discussion items on the agenda had been discussed extensively in prior ITAC meetings and in the “Friday Morning Meetings” that included many technical support personnel from the various campus areas. Steve Breiner (ITS) distributed the latest draft versions of the documents Classroom Standards Overview and Classroom Technology Standards Process (with changes from previously distributed versions annotated for clarity).

Pamela Graham expressed the concern in her office (computing support in the College of Arts and Sciences) that support for classroom technologies remain distributed rather than centralized. Steve Breiner (ITS) replied that the draft proposal documents had been extensively rewritten to be explicit in proposing that a careful and deliberate study be included as part of an eventual Classroom Technology pilot to identify which support functions could best be provided via our current distributed support personnel and which could be provided more effectively through a central group. He suggested that, while the personal attention and comfort provided by distributed technology support persons was very effective for many functions, some maintenance and support functions (e.g., procurement of replacement parts, monitoring of bulb usage, and perhaps others) could likely be provided in a more efficient or cost-effective fashion using a well designed and appropriately staffed central support structure. He suggested that an eventual pilot program should provide an opportunity to identify which support functions would fit into those mechanisms.

Breiner relayed a suggestion from Scott Schneberger (WCOB) that any catalog of classroom technologies include coding that would clearly identify the specific types of equipment available in any particular “technology classroom.”

With little further discussion being offered, Williams observed that there were a relatively large number of ITAC members who were not present. In order to finalize a proposal to be sent to the provost, Williams stated that he would arrange for the proposed final versions of the documents be sent to the ITAC membership for e-mail approval and would, should that approval be forthcoming, forward the documents to the Provost as an ITAC recommendation regarding a university strategy for standardizing and supporting classroom technologies.

3) Discussion of Workstation Standards Proposal

Doug May (ITS) distributed the latest version of the proposed Workstation Standards documents. He, too, noted that these documents had undergone extensive discussion and that the latest version contained revisions suggested during the discussions in “Friday Morning Meetings.” The resulting specifications, currently available on Appalachian’s current “Dell Store” provided a number of similar configurations with differing physical form-factors and provided a means for addressing “exceptional purchases.” May stated that in the event that large numbers of orders comprised similarly configured “exceptional purchases,” the group that develops “standard” specifications would presumably move that configuration into the mainstream category. He noted further that the Dell configurations currently available would accommodate the upcoming Microsoft Vista operating system and that the published pricing offered outstanding values for the university. He mentioned that negotiations are ongoing with both Lenovo (formerly the IBM Personal Computer Division) and Gateway to obtain similar configurations and ordering capabilities, while offering purchasers a choice of manufacturers.

In considering how to avoid purchases that might bypass a standardized purchasing process, a number of possibilities were suggested. Michael Moore (Faculty Senate) suggested that the group not worry so much about developing a policy to accommodate all possible situations. He noted that the portions of the document listed under “Implementation Considerations” were unnecessary, since the document proposes a university policy to address the idea of standardization.- he suggested dropping the “Implementation Considerations” portion and forward the remaining parts of the document as a formal recommendation to the Provost from ITAC “without further ado.”

Williams stated that a final proposal for workstation standardization would be emailed to the membership for approval, after which, if approved, it would be presented to the provost.

4) Announcements and New Business

Williams informed the group that ITS has purchased and is now having installed a new data storage system capable of providing 4 Terabytes (approximately 4,400,000,000,000 bytes) of network storage proposed for faculty and staff. The storage system provider chosen was Netapp, Inc. and ITS is currently looking at how the new storage system can comply with efforts to provide multisite redundancy using a GA-proposed, remotely hosted facility. He noted that the Netapp we product purchased is capable of supporting up to 50 Terabytes of storage. He asked ITAC to identify any departments with special needs for storage (e.g., Geography and Planning) and have those areas contact him about special arrangements.

5) Adjournment

Williams adjourned the meeting at 2:26 PM.

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.