5.0 Organizational Overview


Planning requires coordination to ensure a meaningful outcome. Our current technology plan that sunsets this year was developed by the Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtable (TLTR), established in the spring of 1997 as a subgroup of the St. Cloud State University (SCSU) Strategic Planning Committee. Prior to this technology plan, technology planning on campus was disjunctive and fragmentary. Early adopters of technology had ideas but may or may not have had support. The Miller Center as a hub of technology was only a pipe dream, and the role of technology in teaching and learning was still in question.

Beginning in spring 2002, TLTR members began to plan for this current five-year technology plan. Initially TLTR examined strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Additionally, campus stakeholders were asked to address a number of specific technology issues. The campus community defined some issues, and others represent concerns from MnSCU.

Members of TLTR have taken materials submitted by a variety of experts on campus and have made an effort to provide a framework to continue technology planning for the next five years. The material provided in this Technology Master Plan represents the best efforts of a wide variety of technology stakeholders to further develop an effective and coordinated mechanism to meet SCSU's technology goals and mission in the areas of teaching, scholarly activities, and service to students, the university, and the community.

TLTR reflects the broadest diversity of technology stakeholders on campus. TLTR is an open committee: in addition to duly elected representation, anyone from the campus community can attend TLTR meetings and participate in the discussion. This group reviews, reflects, reacts to, and disseminates technology information to others on campus. Also, this group has been involved in, and continues to be involved in, technology planning on campus as a resource that encourages users to express successes, needs, and concerns about technology to campus decision makers.

The task of technology planning will require the efforts of a large number of dedicated individuals. The general timeline, outline, and organizational flow chart presented in this section are intended to provide the framework to complete the work plan associated with this five year Technology Master Plan. The bulk of the work associated with this plan falls on the committees illustrated in the organizational chart. These committees must represent faculty, technologists, staff, students, administrators, and a variety of stakeholders with a rich knowledge about the current status of technology on campus as well as concerns, prospects, pitfalls, and vision concerning the future of technology at SCSU. Committees will need to determine the best methods and procedures to accomplish the task at hand. This plan has defined outcomes, not methodologies, to obtain those outcomes; methodologies are best left to the committees. Some committees may determine that subcommittees can more readily manage the tasks. Others may want to work as a committee of the whole (COW). The organizational chart simply provides a framework to assist in the flow of information.

A number of initiatives have been undertaken over the past several years to better understand technology needs and the impact technology and information have on a variety of stakeholders: students, staff, faculty, technologists, administrators, and others. These individuals need to be involved in committee work, and the accumulated data should be integrated into committee recommendations. To ignore or attempt to "reinvent the wheel" would be a disservice to the individuals and the university.

Contributions to committee work should be part of an individual work assignment or, in the case of faculty, recognition as part of service to students and the university (Article 22). TLTR should initiate formation of the committees called for in this Technology Master Plan. TLTR should solicit faculty participation via duly elected representation from the Faculty Association; student participation should be solicited through Student Government.

Finally, the timeframes set out for the sections and subsections of this Technology Master Plan need to be flexible. It may be necessary to extend the time required for the initial phase of this plan (audits, evaluations, data collection, focus groups, etc.) over a two-year period. It is more important to provide comprehensive and considered planning at the onset rather than to produce "a report" by mid-Spring 2004 for the sake of generating a report.

General Timeline

The chart appearing below represents the timeline for carrying out and reporting specific actions for most sections and subsections in Part Five of the Technology Master Plan. Each section and subsection contains a specific action component that will follow this timeline. The outline following this chart clarifies what each time blocks represents. If the section or subsection is not amenable to this general timeline, an alternative will be clearly stated in the "Specific Actions and Timeline" section. Finally, a chart mapping the organizational flow of information appears at the end of 5.0.

Timeline for work-year 2003- 2004 and subsequent years as needed

Outline for above timeline – standard schedule for specific actions

1 October 2003 – Committees will be constituted, establish a work plan and carry out mission.

1 February 2004 – Initial reports of committee findings will be submitted to TLTR, TPR, and other bargaining units where appropriate.

1 April 2004 – TTLTR will forward committee reports with recommendations to the Dean of LR&TS and/or Director of CIS-AdC

15 May 2004 – The Dean of LR&TS will submit an implementation plan to the Provost and/or the Director of CIS-AdC to the Vice President of Administrative Affairs.

16 June 2004 – The Provost in consultation with the Vice President of Administrative Affairs, the Dean of Learning Resources, and the Director of CIS-AdC will indicate resource availability for implementing the next year’s technology plan.

If it is deemed necessary and appropriate, the committee will submit follow-up reports to TLTR in subsequent years according to a similar timeline. These reports will be forwarded to appropriate decision makers.

In the final year of the plan, academic year 2007/2008, committees will review progress during the plan and submit a report based on the points to be evaluated in each section. Each committee will develop a planning document based on the progress and a review for the next planning cycle. The same timeline will be used for the next planning cycle.

Organizational flow of information: the following chart (PDF) was designed to ensure the broadest participation and evaluation of committee findings relevant to technology planning at SCSU.

Revised: May 2003