Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Campus Council for Information Technology
                                           Monday, April 17, 2010
o   Project communication plan & materials
    o   Current state assessment
    o   Work activity survey

The implementati...
o Included in the PPM 200-45 toolkit is an IT security check-list for sponsors to better understand the
        security c...
Chair Kiskis announced that a new version of the campus vision document was now available (UC Davis:
         A Vision of ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Campus Council for Information Technology


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Campus Council for Information Technology

  1. 1. Campus Council for Information Technology Monday, April 17, 2010 2203 Social Sciences and Humanities Meeting Minutes Attendees: Joe Kiskis (Chair), Susan Catron, Adam Costanzo, Gary Ford, Helen Henry, Lori Lubin, Thomas Pomroy, Bob Sams, Babette Schmitt, Dave Shelby, Pete Siegel Excused: Mike Allred, Linda Behrens, Lora Jo Bossio, Janet Brown-Simmons, Joe Chatham, Bella Corbin, Bernd Hamann, Niels Jensen, Tom Kaiser, Susan Keen, Michele Platten, Mark Rashid, Kelly Ratliff, Jean Richard Shintaku, VanderGheynst, Previn Witana, Felix Wu Guests: Jeff Barrett, Karen Hull, Bob Loessberg-Zahl, Morna Mellor I. Welcome and approval of minutes – Joe Kiskis, CCFIT Chair Joe Kiskis welcomed CCFIT members to the April meeting and asked members to send feedback on the March minutes by the end of the week to . [Note: No feedback was received. The minutes were approved as submitted.] II. Shared Service Centers – Karen Hull, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources Karen Hull, Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources, provided an update on the Shared Service Centers (SSC) project within the Organizational Excellence initiative. The goal of the SSC is to reduce administrative operating costs while maintaining high-level service delivery to the campus. In order to reach this goal, it will be critical for the campus to change its current operations model. Areas of focus for the SSC will be payroll, human resources, and the purchase to pay cycle (e.g. purchasing, accounts payable, travel). The project will be focused on consolidating the service delivery model for the administrative units, creating narrowly focused position descriptions in order to develop a work-force with a deep knowledge-base and expertise in a smaller group of functions. A SSC pilot will include administrative units such as Administrative and Resource Management (ARM), Information and Educational Technology (IET), Offices of the Chancellor and Provost (OCP), Student Affairs, and University Relations. As the project is informed by the pilot, Office of Research and additional units will be included in the SSC. The long-term goal is to focus on the administrative units and will only include academic units as they express interest. The need to facilitate electronic workflow and develop technology-based solutions is a key driver for the SSC. A Knowledge Management System (KMS) and a Case Management System (CSM) are two examples of technology investments that will be important in streamlining processes and enabling the success of the SSC. In general, a KMS has all the policies, procedures, and guidelines in a single database which creates an “intelligent search engine.” Campus affiliates can search for information in a particular subject area and obtain access to resources in much fewer steps due to the logical-connections the KMS makes based on the information requested. A Case Management System (CSM) is a help desk tool that tracks reported issues and resolutions in a single database, providing seamless access to customers’ issues, status updates, and resolutions. A time and attendance system that feeds directly into PPS, and a workflow system are two additional technology tools that will be explored as the SSC continues to develop. In addition, the SSC will under-go a significant amount of business process re-engineering within select administrative functions to streamline processes and build cost-effectiveness and efficiencies. The current high-level timeline for the SSC project includes a three-month engagement with ScottMadden Consultants beginning on May 3rd. ScottMadden’s focus is on the design and implementation of shared service centers with a key focus in technologies. Deliverables that can be expected through the consultants work include: o Detailed project plan and schedule 1
  2. 2. o Project communication plan & materials o Current state assessment o Work activity survey The implementation of the pilot is planned for fall 2010 (although it may shift to winter 2011), with Office of Research and academic volunteers joining the SSC approximately the summer of 2011. Discussion points: o Can the KMS and CMS systems be the same system? (The SSC is exploring options of the systems and will be informed by the consultant’s recommendations. Some KMS and CMS systems are the same, but not always. Additional tools the SSC is looking into are a workflow system, and a time reporting system. For workflow, the SSC is exploring Kuali Rice as one of the options, through collaboration with IET). o Will these systems be provided by a vendor, through community source, or by local development? (It is unclear at this time, but as the recommendations from the consultants develop, it will help inform the campus on the appropriate approach). o Can a CMS update the KMS? (There needs to be a strategy for how that would work. The goal of the SSC is to provide efficient services. Currently, a significant amount of information is provided on campus web pages, but there are still a high number of phone calls requesting information. One-on-one service delivery is the most expensive type of service delivery. The goal is to provide as much self-help tools as possible to reduce administrative costs, and provide consistent information to clients). o If the campus decides to purchase a system(s), how long will the return on investment take? (That is a difficult question to answer at this time. The SSC will be implemented in only half of the administrative infrastructure on campus, and it is difficult to track departmental inefficiencies. It also depends on how quickly we can implement the SSC, including the technology tools for encouraging streamlining of processes. However, identifying the return on investment is a key component of the SSC. In general, SSC have the potential of saving 50-60% of operating costs when technology investments are made). It was recommended Hull provide an update to CCFIT mid-June to early July in order to inform the work of the consultants. Due to the timing of the consultants’ engagement and the CCFIT end of year meeting on June 7th, it was determined that the CCFIT Steering Committee would meet with Hull and the consultants at the June 14th CCFIT Steering Committee meeting. For additional questions or feedback on the Shared Service Centers and the work of the ScottMadden Consultants, contact Karen Hull, . III. PPM 200-45 Quarterly Summary – Dave Shelby, Assistant Vice Provost, IET Dave Shelby, Assistant Vice Provost, IET provided an in-depth overview of the first PPM 200-45 Quarterly Summary report . The report is an aggregate summary of nine projects from June 2009 to present time. As part of the review process, CCFIT and the IT Administrative Roadmap Conveners will review the quarterly reports and provide feedback to the Vice Provost of IET which will be provided to the Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors. To view previous and current projects under review through the PPM 200-45 process, see: . Discussion points: o Included in the quarterly summary report is a high-level timeline to help better understand the timing and associated impacts the projects may have on campus users. o The review process includes a technical approach to help understand the variety of programming platforms used on campus which will help to inform the development of campus-wide application development standards. The Software Standards Workgroup (SSWG) is making good progress on developing campus programming standards. The development of standards provides a venue for interoperability of systems, and the re-use of systems across campus units. 2
  3. 3. o Included in the PPM 200-45 toolkit is an IT security check-list for sponsors to better understand the security considerations, requirements, and impacts to their projects. o Can automatic updates be provided to those who have expressed interest in the PPM 200-45 submissions? (The administrative computing website ( ) doesn’t currently have this functionality; however, there is work underway to move the site to the campus web Content Management System (CMS). Once the site is in the web CMS there is a possibility to develop this functionality). o A suggestion was made to add a “looking forward” section to the quarterly summary report (i.e. shared service centers technologies) for campus groups to be aware of proposals that will be underway in the near- term. It was recommended that a PPM 200-45 proposal (conceptual or project) be submitted for all technologies under discussion by CCFIT. This will provide an informed discussion at CCFIT meetings on the goals, technologies, and investments under consideration by campus units. Joe Kiskis, Chair, CCFIT, commented that the summary report was nicely constructed and provided an excellent overview of the proposals that have been submitted through the PPM 200-45 process. Kiskis stated that additional discussions will continue on the input CCFIT would like to provide in their annual report on the PPM 200-45 process and quarterly report. For additional questions and feedback on the PPM 200-45 process, or the quarterly summary report, contact Dave Shelby, . IV. Gmail Pilot, Unified Communications, and the UC Email Task Force – Gabe Youtsey, Project Manager, IET Gabe Youtsey, Project Manager, IET, provided an overview of the purpose, objectives, and timeline of all three email-related projects that are currently underway and have a direct impact to the UC Davis community (see PowerPoint presentation). The three email projects that are being explored are: o Gmail Pilot Project - Evaluate Gmail as a possible replacement for the central campus email service (Cyrus) o Unified Email & Calendaring Workgroup -A review of unified email and calendaring options (e.g. campus ‘Xeda’ Exchange service) o UC-Wide Email Task Force –Guidance for all UCs on replacing email services [Update: On April 30, 2010, a joint announcement from Chair Joe Kiskis and Vice Provost Pete Siegel was issued to the campus community announcing Siegel’s decision to no longer consider outsourcing email services for faculty and staff, including to Google. This decision was based on extensive community consultation as well as a campus assessment of the UC Electronic Communications Policy and increased privacy risks that had come to light. Both the Academic Senate Committee on Information Technology and CCFIT concurred with this decision. Although outsourcing is no longer under consideration, the need to provide UC Davis with a more flexible and effective central email system remains. As a next step, in coordination with the Academic Senate, a committee will be established to identify essential campus email features and capabilities. Its discussions would be informed by reports from the Gmail Assessment Committee, the Unified Communications Workgroup, and the UC Email Task Force. All three initiatives, as well as the experience and perspectives of faculty and staff involved in them, will be critical to defining a functional, reliable and secure email system for UC Davis. Consultation with CCFIT will continue as this committee’s work progresses in the coming months.] V. Brief updates – Joe Kiskis, Chair o Second draft of Campus Vision Document – Joe Kiskis, Chair 3
  4. 4. Chair Kiskis announced that a new version of the campus vision document was now available (UC Davis: A Vision of Excellence ), and added that CCFIT’s significant contributions helped inform the revised document. Additional feedback is still possible on the current draft through May 14th. Kiskis encouraged CCFIT members to review the current document, and contact him directly ( ) if anyone would like to offer further comments. o IET Budget Reductions: Context, Strategy, and Impacts – Pete Siegel, Vice Provost, IET VP Siegel stated that he presented IET’s budget presentation to CODVC on April 13th. Siegel thanked CCFIT for the valuable comments and suggestions provided at the March CCFIT meeting. The final version of the presentation can be viewed at: . o Ed Tech Subcommittee faculty survey results – Lori Lubin and Susan Keen, Ed Tech Subcommittee Co- chairs This discussion was deferred to next month’s meeting due to time constraints. The meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m. ### 4