Teaching, Learning, Technology Roundtable

TLTR Notes for 2/1/10
In attendance:  Kristi Tornquist, Doug Polley, Ilya Yakovlev, Casey Wagner, Sara Grachek, Wade Nelson, Keith Ewing, Sheila Landucci

Doug Polley has been appointed the Faculty Chair for TLTR

The following topics were discussed:

Update on Technology Planning

  • Management Team met concerning Technology Plan
  • Worked on the definition of  what is Technology
  • Document is not complete

Potential Services Cuts Discussion 

  • Categorization to look at the budget
    • Mission critical
    • Important
    • Associated
  • Will look at services  that should  expand, contract or eliminate
  • Faculty questions
    • What do the Deans control?
    • What does LR&TS control?
      • Initial costs  for classrooms are paid for by Colleges or Departments
      • Maintenance is  done by LR&TS
  • How are College Technicians paid for?
    • Some are paid for by the Deans College accounts
    • Some are paid for by LR&TS
  • The Network would be classified as Mission critical
    • To trim the budget on this there could be security issues that are hard to predict
    • Hard to separate issue out and the repercussions
  • Do we try to trim back EClassrooms?  Some things result in additional costs if they are cut
  • How can a survey be done on budget savings?
    • What does Tech Fee use? How do they decide their future needs?
  • Sometimes maintenance gets lost in these discussions
  • What do we have to do to keep what we have verses what do we need for the future?
  • How do we slow expansion and will this save funds?
  • Office of the Chancellor funds  may be trimmed by the OoC, impacting campus services
  • Are there any other pots of funds to look at?
  • Would email outsourcing be a savings?
    • Little to none, this would involve training and staffing
    • Workflow problems would need to be looked at
  • Would it be possible to support a single platform?
    • Would it be a cost savings?
      • Macintosh option
        • Machines are more expensive
        • New hardware would be needed
        • We are not currently built on this system
        • Different departments have different needs
  • What  types of platforms do students find in the work place needs to be considered
  • Student benefit from exposure to multiple platforms
  • Do we support legacy systems forever?
    • A case may have to be made not to
  • A request was made to get the full range of what might be considered for cuts on the table. Much of the costs of technology are hidden. It is difficult for the faculty to understand how potential cuts might affect their work.
  • If we only consider broad, high-level IT services they will all be mission critical. Part of the problem with technology is that many people don’t use what is provided. 
  • A suggestion was made that we benchmarking our services against our Educause cohorts.
  • It was stated that most costs are associated with staffing.
  • We should be sure we define the boundaries of our decisions.
  • It will be easier to extend maintenance /replacement cycles than to eliminate future technology options.

Notes by Sheila Landucci and  Wade Nelson