University of California, Berkeley
MINUTES OF THE E -BERKELEY STEERING COMMITTEE
Meeting of May 26, 2005
Chancellor's Conference Room, California Hall
Members present: EVC and Provost Paul Gray, Chair, Director Jon Conhaim, Director Patricia Donnelly, Director Laurie Goldman for VC Beth Burnside, Michael Heinrich, Student Representative, Director Phyllis Hoffman, Charis Kaskiris for Joseph Hall, Graduate Student Representative, Director Bernard Hurley for University Librarian Tom Leonard, VC Christina Maslach, AVC Jack McCredie, Asst.VC David Moers, Director Helen Norris, Chief Administrative Officer Patrick O'Leary, Professor Jeffrey Reimer for Dean Mary Ann Mason, Director JR Schulden, Professor Philip Stark , AVC George Strait, VP-Designate Catherine Koshland, Acting VC William Webster.
Also attending : Director Mara Hancock, ETS, Campus Security Officer Craig Lant, SNS-IST, Consultant Katherine Mitchell, COrE, Research Specialist Jay Stowsky, BRIE, AVC Paul Jenny, Business & Finance.
Welcome and review of minutes
Paul Gray opened the meeting with a brief review of the agenda, and added that the AVC-IT Search Committee is active and has selected a search firm to assist them. He asked for any comments on the minutes, which were approved as submitted.
e-Berkeley Initiatives
Jon Conhaim provided three handouts: (1) a list of the ten e-Berkeley Innovation Project Proposals submitted this year, (2) a spreadsheet of comments on each proposal from the five committees reviewing them, and (3) Innovation Project Proposals Recommended for Funding by the e-Berkeley Committee of Chairs. The process was different from past years, in that the Committee of Chairs (Chairs of campus-wide IT related committees: COMP, ITAC, ASSCS, ETC, DSC) voted on and prioritized the projects. Four projects were recommended for funding: Online Course Evaluation received 20 votes, User Interface Design Patterns and Guidelines - 9 votes, Retiree Return to Work Initiative - 8 votes, and On-Line Job Description - 7 votes.
Dave said that this paper is now in the developmental stage, and would be made available campus-wide in its final version.
Jon summarized the projects for the steering committee, and noted that funding budgeted for a fifth proposal had been added to that for the Online Course Evaluation to bring the total e-Berkeley contribution to $40,000 for that project. This project is strongly supported; Christina Maslach said that faculty, staff and students were interviewed regarding this project during the pilot and that enthusiasm is building across campus. Project Managers are needed to help move the project forward, due to the demand for the tool and the need to ensure implementation is in compliance with campus policies.
Dave invited comments, and Bill Webster asked for a cost estimate of providing security software for all platforms. Dave said that this was another subject, but commented that the number of platforms on campus should be reduced to lower the cost of providing security software. He mentioned the "vanilla environment" concept, which would provide complete software packages and replace hardware more frequently for a standard setup.
Jon said that all project owners were asked to write more detailed project descriptions in order to receive the funding they requested. Bill Webster asked whether the four recommended projects were equally important, or could any be removed from the list? Philip Stark responded that the ETC voted to give all the money to the Online Course Evaluation tool, which could be integrated into administrative systems as well. However, Helen Norris noted that ASSCS and DSC were not in favor of this action. There was further discussion regarding re-distribution of the available funding, but Paul Gray said he understood that all four projects received strong support, and recommended that the priorities be adopted as presented with further funding for Online Course Evaluation to be considered at a later date. There were no objections to his recommendation, and the list of projects was adopted. Bill Webster asked whether there is less of a backlog of projects to be funded, since it appears that the number has tapered off. Jon explained that people who have brought innovation projects forward have had trouble getting funding to move successful projects forward into production. The innovation projects in themselves have not been a problem. The original concept of e-Berkeley innovation projects was to give an opportunity to test out concepts and develop pilots and successful pilots would then have funding to bring it into production for campus use. People have become reluctant to bring forward projects unless there is some chance of follow up support for successful projects or available budget support in their own units.
Information Technology Strategic Planning: Update & Governance & Funding
Paul Gray introduced Jay Stowsky, who has been working with Jud King and Katherine Mitchell on IT Strategic Plan Critical Issue #4: IT Governance, Structure and Funding. Katherine Mitchell opened the discussion by bringing attention to page 1 of her handout, showing the Phases of the Planning Timeline and Outcomes, and listing the Critical IT Issues that are being addressed regarding Current Trends in Teaching and Learning. Christina Maslach said that the recommendations being made by groups, such as those who met for the e-Berkeley Symposium last year, bring out an alignment in IT needs and issues across campus. Jack McCredie noted that Christina had also sponsored a seminar during the Chancellor's Inauguration week, with the keynote topic being how IT can help integrate research activities into the classroom. He said that Henry Brady, Dave Messerschmitt and Clifford Lynch spoke at the meeting about collaborative technology and its application to teaching and learning.
Jay Stowsky then offered observations he has made during campus-wide meetings in his effort to discover how decisions are made regarding IT priorities and spending at UC Berkeley. He said that he is encouraged by the presentation Jon made on the current process of reviewing and prioritizing IT projects. He said that good governance has been described as a process that can be easily described in a sentence or two by all those involved in it. Jay reported that this is not the case at UC, where there are some instances of good management of the decision process, and other instances of a lack of clear procedures.
Jay said that he has been charged with mirroring back to campus how IT decisions are being made and who makes them, and that he, Katherine and Jud have met with many groups to seek out this information. The questions being asked at these meetings were listed in the packet provided by Katherine. He said that one discovery is that the "who" is sometimes one individual, and sometimes a committee. He said he has received a great deal of support from everyone on campus who has been asked to participate in data collection. The information gathered will be brought to a review committee with campus participants appointed by Paul Gray, and representatives from other campuses. Jay will prepare a report on this self-study project during the first part of the summer.
Katherine presented a brief exercise involving a set of questions to be answered individually, then discussed in small groups with a general discussion afterward. The questions were as follows:
• Who makes information technology decisions for the campus?
• How much impact does EBSC have on IT governance at UC Berkeley?
• How effective is EBSC as a key IT governance committee for the campus?
• How could IT governance - how information technology decisions are made and by whom - be improved at UC Berkeley?
Jay said that he would like to hear from Paul Gray on governance. Paul said that he thinks the e-Berkeley Steering Committee forum provides a good example for a future governance model, based on the discussions that have been held regarding campus information technology issues.
Christina Maslach said bringing a variety of people from across campus together to discuss issues is important, and that she feels the most fruitful discussions involve decisions to be made rather than demonstration of new systems. She pointed out the many committees that function under the steering committee, which could benefit from its guidance. A brief discussion period was held by each group of those selecting the same principle, and Katherine said she would summarize the responses as background information for the AVC-IT & CIO search committee.
Philip Stark said that users are not well represented in the steering committee, and he would like to see more technical knowledge brought to the table to back up IT decisions.
Jon Conhaim feels it is important to get a better sense of pressing issues, and to find a means of defining which issues should be brought to the steering committee, and which should be handled at another level. He added that faculty and students should be better represented on the committee.
Patricia Donnelly noted that this is the third steering committee meeting she has attended, and that prior to her attendance she found the decision-making process confusing with regard to the responsible body or person. She has found that the meetings have clarified the process, but she is still uncertain about what proposals are appropriately presented here.
Jack McCredie said that IT decisions are made in a decentralized fashion on campus, and he feels the campus needs to find a way to define which initiatives will be decided campus-wide and which should be made by smaller organizations. He said the major decisions concerning large campus systems made when there was great deal of money involved were certainly addressed by a broad group of people, both technical and administrative. The implementation of policy about governance is the difficult point.
Jay concluded by saying that there would be other opportunities for discussing the governance issues; he will continue to conduct interviews, and present his report at a future meeting.
Teaching and Learning: e-Berkeley Symposium Update & bSpace Demo
Christina Maslach provided two handouts for this topic, (1) Summary of e-Berkeley Symposium Evaluations, and (2) List of Possible Actions Based Upon Participants Comments Made at the Second e-Berkeley Symposium. These documents were developed from the most recent e-Berkeley Symposium that focused on integrating research into teaching and learning, and the challenges and opportunities to be met. There were 120 attendees at the symposium. The "end of the day" summary of comments focused on smarter classrooms meeting diverse pedagogical needs, customize-able tools for collaborative learning, and better technical support for instructors. Christina said that Sakai is addressing the second need, with the Berkeley version called bSpace being previewed this fall. Forty faculty with 60 courses will be testing bSpace. Karen Miles from Educational Technology Services is working with faculty to set this up.
Karen demonstrated bSpace for the steering committee. This new system will replace WebCT and Blackboard, and will be open to the campus in the spring. Karen demonstrated how professors will be able to post a syllabus, and how student groups can collaborate, chat and share materials. 4,700 students will be able to use bSpace this fall. Karen announced that ETS will host an orientation for bSpace this fall. She can be contacted at Karen@media.berkeley.edu.
Christina said that all the functionality of Courseweb is part of bSpace, however it will remain in place for a while. Christina added that some of the features would be a great improvement for faculty and students such as the online gradebook and online course evaluations, which have been met with enthusiasm by those who are being introduced to the system. Paul Gray said this is an example of a project that has been developed over years, and that funding needs to be available to carry it forward.
Security Update: Minimum Security Standards & PWC Audit
Jack McCredie handed out an outline of a status report on Data Protection and Security at UC Berkeley presented to the Chancellor's Cabinet on May 17, 2005 by Bill Webster and Jack McCredie. Jack gave some background information on the development of the security measures that have been taken on campus such as the Minimum Security Standards Policy, the DMUP (Data Management and Use Policy), and the additional policy on restricted data passed last fall. Jack said that this is a system-wide issue, and a committee has been created at that level to study what should be done.
Jack said that most security breach incidents involve lost or stolen laptops, and very few incidents occur on central systems on campus. He added that the precautions are more stringent on these systems, but that departments using these systems need to comply with these standards. Jack asked Craig Lant to update the steering committee on the progress with the Minimum Security Standards. Craig said that from scanning the network for non-compliant computers 300 systems were identified and departments notified that these machines would be subject to having their connectivity blocked. Most of these problems were fixed, and a week later only 62 connections were blocked. Craig said that a scanner loaned to UC identified these problems, and that IST has prepared a RFP for scanning equipment to be used on an ongoing basis. Craig was asked to explain what the scanner looks for, and he replied that currently those computers using Telnet, or having blank passwords. He said that the next campus network scan will look for databases.
Jack described the process of using PriceWaterhouseCoopers, campus and systemwide outside auditors for financial activities, to look at network security and make recommendations. He said that Chancellor Birgeneau had directed that external auditors perform the security audit, and appointed Jack and Bill Webster to form an audit steering committee. PWC have been working for several weeks and will complete a report with recommendations by June 2005. Jack said they have looked at seven enterprise systems, such as HRMS, and have interviewed more than 30 individuals in departments across campus. They will also meet with departments to investigate the handling of data: Public Health, Athletics, Neuroscience and Industrial Relations, and their findings will be included in the report. The auditors have asked to look at the survey of personal information on computers requested in 2004, and a renewed request for this information has been sent to all campus departments. Jack noted that the handouts in today's meeting packet provide further information on what PWC is looking for, and list of the systems being looked at.
Announcements & Closing Comments
• Budget Considerations: Asst. Vice Chancellor Paul Jenny presented a request that the e-Berkeley Steering Committee recommend membership for a review committee on Information Technology Requests made during the recently completed control unit budget hearings. The Chancellor has asked that each unit prepare scaled levels on their requests due to the constrained funding available. The requests to be scaled are for HRMS, Sakai, Network Security, Student Systems Upgrades and DARwin. A discussion was held regarding the membership, with Katherine Mitchell recommending the heads of campus IT committees. Bill Webster said that expertise is needed to decide what can be scaled. Paul Jenny said he would work with Katherine to put together a list of members. Bill added that sponsors will be asked to say what results they would expect from reduced funding.
The meeting was adjourned at 4 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Next Meetings
June 28, 2005 meeting was cancelled.
