Teaching, Learning, Technology Roundtable

TLTR Notes for 11/02/07

In attendance: Kristi Tornquist, Doug Polley, Phil Thorson, Rich Josephson, Tom Hergert, J.C. Turner, Marcus Pohl, Kristin Lyman, Brad Grabham, Sara Grachek, George Fiedler, Mark Kotcho, John Weber, Michael Evans, Casey Wagner

The SWOT analysis continued as part of our revision of the SCSU Technology Plan.  Those present first each wrote down up to five strengths, followed by up to five weaknesses.  Below is the compiled list of each.

 

Strengths

Talented students
Well organized Student Tech Fee
Fresh knowledge and skills from student workers and other sources
Willingness of students to fund a lot of IT
Students familiar with technology

Training
Virtualization of applications

New President
Management supports technology focus

Increased use of D2L

Friendly, reliable staff
A lot of “young” energetic talent throughout LR&TS and on campus
Dedicated workers
Motivated HelpDesk staff ready to learn new technologies
Breadth of knowledge
Creative technology support staff
Excellent staff
Many new hires in place and coming on board to help support all our new projects
Staff
Energetic staff
Skilled tech staff
Smart people
Great talent pool

Faculty’s increasing interest and expertise

Humor

Pretty good software licenses
Software & applications

Access to computer classrooms is improving
Many classrooms are “smart” classrooms

Wireless network
Campus wireless net
Wireless capacity on campus

Dedicated funding for many technology resources
Equipment funding
Purchasing power
Excellent money finder

Adobe Connect (& distance learning opportunities)
HuskyNet site
Web offerings (public face)

Flexibility schedules/to try new things
Ability to grow with the needs of students
Adaptability

Early adopter (not first mover, and not too far behind)
Not afraid to experiment
Innovation
Willingness to experiment and pilot new technologies
Cutting edge technology being used/sought after
Current technology
Adequate emerging technologies

Growing understanding of how to best respond to campus technology needs
Systems available to communicate about technology
Attitude of support people very positive
Increasingly integrated service desk system

Access to and amount of computers
Sticking to replacement cycles
Accessibility of technology resources on campus
Providing students access to computers (laptops, desktops, etc.)
Availability of student computer labs

Server infrastructure
High adoption rate for one e-mail system (Exchange) for communication
Large institution--more IT staff/good infrastructure
Flexible infrastructure
Network infrastructure
High speed Internet available off campus for students

Collaboration across groups
Good collaboration/comradery within IT staff
Positive relationships between departments
Informal channels to get things done--to experiment grass-root efforts

 

Weaknesses

Enhance TLTR & TPR operations

Unclear funding management (responsibility)

Employees behind/reluctant to adopt new technologies that students want/need
Adaptability to change with needs

Don’t provide enough support for changing demographics of students, including age, home area, etc.

Resource limitations
Limited funding
Lack of dedicated funding for all aspects of IT

Low tolerance for risk (some could be a resource issue)
Not willing to take risks
Too much reliance on Microsoft for solutions when it isn’t really the best solution

Not enough personnel to do all we are expected to do
Not enough support people for amount of technology
Not enough support staff per 100 computers or per 100 users
Hard to fund maintenance
OVERWHELMED
Not enough staff to support the exponential growth in technology

Reliance on soft money
Sloppiness and apparently arbitrary Tech Fee funding allocation
Lack of a truly cohesive campus-wide approach to IT
Don’t make sufficient time to be as planful as we could be

Some Deans’ lack of focus/commitment
Lack of decisions made at lower levels
Too long to get decisions made at higher levels
Policies and procedures need upgrading (administration)
Process and policy approvals are too slow

High turnover rate of student workers
Making sure people are first

Lack of configuration control & baseline
Lack of standardization
Complete campus computer (desktop) acquisition

Need to offer more training & workshops on the new technologies
Need for training on emerging technologies
Faculty untrained
Acrimony between excluded management and some bargaining units regarding tech responsibilities and vision
Faculty sometimes does not want to do “extra” things when rolling out new technology
Weak nontechnical support for faculty tech usage (few incentives)

Software compliancy & acquisition

MnSCU/ISRS integration
MnSCU push for assimilation
MnSCU introduces some technologies and then campus has to fund in a couple years
MnSCU integration, collaboration across campuses
Integration between areas
Relationship with MnSCU and how to work internally with them

Lack of portal
Lack of complete portal
Need for a portal
Lack of complete Web content management system

Need for virtual teams
Outdated infrastructure of network backup/servers
Lack of cohesiveness across campus (systems, support & procedures)
Lack of policy/procedures
Documentation of standard processes
Lack of clear procedures & prioritization
Lack of understanding of IT
Internal communication

Not utilizing technology for academic goals
Muddled university technology vision as illustrated by resource allocation (let’s do everything with nearly nothing)
Not enough emphasis on distance classes (many others way ahead of us in quality/support)
Unclear about Direction of online/distance education
Confusion about ownership of online courses, Continuing Studies vs. departments