TLTR Notes for 09/14/07
In attendance: Kristi Tornquist, Doug Polley, Casey Wagner, John Weber, Randy Evans, Rich Josephson, Tom Hergert, Vicki Williams, Marcus Pohl, Phil Thorson, Ilya Yakovlev, Kristin Lyman, Ryan Meints, Mario Felix, J.C. Turner, Mark Kotcho, Balsy Kasi, Gary Buls, A. Schoenberger, Brad Grabham
The meeting focused on discussion of proposals for the OoC funding. The list now identifies 35 projects, several of which have little or no details. Kristi provided a list of these projects with estimated funding broken into 1-time and ongoing categories. The total 1-time funding was approximately $1.7M and the on-going funding was approximately $1M. These numbers clearly exceed the available money and priorities were discussed.
Clarifications were sought on several items. Some items include infrastructure equipment and support that are not always visible to external observers and users. Key issues for all items included the impact on future capabilities, the ability to fund maintenance, and the number of users affected. Discussion also revolved around which items, if not funded, would put SCSU at risk. Other priorities mentioned included teaching integration, professional development for faculty, and green technologies.
Centralized software purchasing was discussed and concerns raised due to the fact that this may free up money at the college level that would be redirected away from technology and thus nullify many potential gains from central purchasing. Alternatively, central purchasing has not been well received even though it has substantial economic rational. This may be an opportunity to reintroduce the concept.
Some of the more expensive items were also discussed. The money for remote access for software would allow students to access all lab software from their homes. This is supported by the students and the Student Tech fee committee has allocated $100K to match the $100k proposed in the OoC request.
Data center modernization ($100K) was identified as critical infrastructure.
Several serious concerns were raised about the campus card proposal ($325K). This is not educational and is for a complete replacement. It was noted that the original proposal for the campus card system was supposed to make the system self supporting.
A number of proposals simply had no one in attendance who could speak to the details or needs related to the proposals.
Kristi briefly summarized the comments for each of the proposals at the end of the meeting. (If anyone wishes to see copies of any of the proposals, please e-mail Kristin Lyman at email@example.com)
1. Software licensing – some support and some concerns
2. Electronic classroom maintenance and replacement – support
3. Server systems – support
4. Technology support – support
5. Content management system – support
6. Faculty and staff computer replacement – no comment
7. New electronic classrooms – support if dollars are available after other priorities
8. Data center modernization – support
9. D2L -- support
10. Student time clock – no comment
11. Portal – support
12. Web-based communities – no comment
13. Database development – no comment
14. Customer relationship management system – no comment
15. RighNow FAQ – support
16. Electronic workflow with digital signatures – some support and some opposition
17. Remote access to software applications – support
18. Purchase of Student Voice – no comment
19. Improvements to Campus Card system – opposition (self funding?)
20. Improvements to assisted technology – opposition (to be funded another way)
21. Increase bandwidth to improve services – opposition (already funded)
22. Presentation systems and computers for Atwood – no comment
23. Upgrade of Promo TV to new technology – opposition
24. Large screen outside digital display for campus – opposition
25. Conversion to single entry web-based campus ticket system – is this for profit centers?
26. Electronic portfolios – opposition because statewide e-folio system is already in place
27. License TurnItIn software – opposition because of limited interest in the past
28. New Media Convergence – some support and some opposition
29. Video cameras at blue light phones – opposition
30. Radios that work with frequency of local agencies – no comment
31. Replacement of “repeaters” for public safety radio system – no comment
32. Software to improve printing systems for Printing Services – no comment
33. Move Financial Aid submittals to electronic forms – no comment
34. Administrative kiosks – no comment
35. Applicant forms tracking – no comment