 |
|
|
|
|
The University of Vermont has much that it can be proud of in terms of its current level of information technology. We have a well-established campus network in place, enabling access to electronic mail and the World Wide Web from student rooms and many faculty and staff offices. The network is nearly ubiquitous, and we continue to enhance its capabilities. Many entering students are already experienced computer users, and bring their own systems to campus. Increasing numbers of students expect to find an information technology infrastructure in place to support their needs. The expertise among our faculty and staff is constantly expanding. We do, however, have problems with considerable variability in the consistency and capabilities of hardware and software, and the level of training across the institution, but every institution faces similar challenges. UVM is in a better position than many of its sister institutions. Our research activities generally have the level of advanced technology they need, and are able to function well in a global environment. A number of our courses already rely on some level of information technology, from email to computer labs to multimedia presentations to web pages. The use of these technologies is growing. The library system has an advanced information gateway and is able to supply students and faculty with high-quality electronic resources. Some of our classrooms are equipped with network connections and computer equipment, though we have a long way to go on this front. The University has invested in distance education and in developing a state-wide network for educational use.
In summary, the University of Vermont has the basic structures in place to take advantage of advanced information technology. This has been achieved over several years, built by dedicated staff and informed, enthusiastic faculty. This is not to say that we have no challenges before us. In fact, we have many. A number of these are spelled out in this report. Nonetheless, we are not starting from ground level; being an educational leader in information technology is well within our grasp. Now we have to build on the foundation that we have created.
Six assumptions underlie our considerations:
Universities are gateways to our accumulated knowledge, our culture, our art, our science. Technology has always played a distinctive role in the growth of our intellectual culture by molding and extending the reach of our biological capabilities. Writing on stone tablets, the printing press, the recording of sounds and pictures, and the communication of all these over time and distance have each, in their turn, reshaped our society. The technological revolutions of past two decades are bringing all of this to the fingertips of each individual.
What will UVM's role be in shaping these revolutions and the coming generations? We must use these new tools to extend our reach in learning, teaching, and service. Further, we must ensure our graduates can understand and wield the tools for new powers of creativity. At the same time, we cannot just throw away the human core of our institution, that which differentiates us from the technology itself. In embracing these new approaches, we must also maintain our focus on our core missions, so that technology acts as an amplifier, not the originator of our creative spirit. We should not seek to replace our traditional approaches toward teaching and learning, rather, to enhance them with these new approaches.
As we are currently judged for the quality of our intellectual and social environment, so too will we be judged for our response to these technological changes. Recruitment of students and faculty will depend, in part, on both the interface and the substance which we give to the technological revolution as integrated into our core missions. Information technology, therefore, presents both opportunity and challenge. It will alter the learning environment, the where, when, and from whom of learning.
In this section we address four topics critical to our changing learning environment. The first is the enhancement of our current teaching by the creative application of IT capabilities. That is what will allow us to stand out as a leading institution in the years ahead. The second topic is extending the University beyond the classroom, adapting to the changing needs of society and our constituents. The third is the development of a learning/technology center, bringing together existing resources and extending those where needed, to provide the platform from which to grow the expertise and creative ideas required to apply existing and future technology to what we do. Finally, we stress the importance of involving our libraries as active partners in exploring this increasingly technological environment, based on the realization that technology is changing how we access and create knowledge, as much as it is changing our ability to transmit and create knowledge in the classroom. In creating this document we have been careful to heed President Ramaley's advice to "Be bold!" At the same time, we have tried to temper that boldness with steps designed to test new ideas before making major institutional investments.
Classroom learning is not just students listening to spoken words. Instructors have always enhanced their presentations with appropriate text and illustrations. Emerging capabilities enable a teacher to orchestrate a wide range of media, from sounds and simulations, to distant documents, to live events. These capabilities have enhanced the potential for learning as never before. Further, contact between student and teacher can be extended in time and space, beyond the boundaries of the traditional lecture hall. Students and faculty can now communicate electronically at all hours, and students have access to information, such as class notes, extra readings, extended examples, and so on, that until now have mainly been available through the classroom.
To best use available technologies, we need to have knowledgeable instructors, appropriate classrooms, and wide-area network access. We need to work with faculty to create courses that make effective use of these technologies. We cannot simply provide new technology and assume that an instructor is going to work through the implementation without help. Several members of our committee have had experience with applying newer technologies to our classes, and this experience has given us some insights into the problems that lie ahead. We are aware that we cannot simply tell everyone to adopt a new technology without any training. We are also aware that simply creating a web page or presenting a classroom demonstration with streaming audio will not necessarily enhance the learning experience for our students. On careful reflection, we feel that we need to establish and carefully evaluate selected projects that move the current levels of technology to the instructional program in ways that can be expected to add to the students' educational activities. What we learn from these projects will inform the next steps in the process and allow us to expand those activities to an even wider audience.
In addition to helping instructors make use of current and emerging technologies, classrooms must support technology-enabled instruction. There needs to be a computer and other display equipment available when the instructor walks into the class. There needs to be an active network connection available. When things go wrong, assistance must be readily available. Because the technology we seek is expensive and constantly changing, we again recommend a stepwise approach. We should focus efforts on providing high quality technology and support to a selected set of classrooms, then build on this experience to update the rest of the campus. These selected classrooms need to be in places where they can and will be used easily.
Non-classroom learning will require different kinds of solutions, for example, wide access to high speed networking. This will require a substantial commitment to finding ways to provide appropriate, off-campus electronic access. The University has already made some important efforts along these lines. We have established a relationship with TogetherNet, allowing relatively inexpensive access to our facilities from off-campus, though at speeds limited by modem technology. We have issued an RFP for a new telephone system, and that has at least the potential of improving service. New cable technologies that will be developed over the next few years also have the potential to provide the connectivity we need. But as the newer technologies are evolving, we need to be planning for their introduction. We need to establish projects that will allow us to evaluate how best we can use those technologies when they become available.
It is becoming increasingly common for individuals to have their own basic computing devices. Therefore basic computer labs like those in Waterman and the Libraries will likely evolve to provide network connections, specialized equipment, and access to other technologies not available on basic personal computers. Again, we need to think ahead to how we will adapt to a changing environment.
Media and telecommunications technologies are enlarging what we understand to be the campus, the classroom, and the student/teacher relationship. Entire universities are being built without any traditional classrooms. The University of Phoenix is a good example, and by all reports it is doing well, addressing the needs of nontraditional students. Some institutions are combining courses taught by top faculty working at a variety of different institutions, and offering to students, on a nationwide basis, degree sequences based on these aggregations of courses. Education and policy leaders identify three environments in which students and faculty now work:
These changes are rapidly taking hold from the liberal arts to health science, and they will have an inevitable impact on the infrastructure of the University of Vermont.
Developments in the technology of media and communications not only expand what we teach, they change where and when we teach it, to whom we teach it, and how we teach it. The University is now significantly more accessible, in significant and interactive ways, to students and other clients who do not live in immediate proximity to it. Our products are no longer exclusively degree-oriented course sequences. We are starting to recognize that we have both an obligation and an opportunity to address the needs of our students, not only when they are in residence as undergraduates, but throughout the length of their professional lives. Access to our faculty and the results of their scholarship can be immediate.
As technologies converge, the concept of distance learning is slowly giving way to the concept of distributed learning. The traditional, and oversimplified paradigm of a teacher standing in front of 60 students, who are all working independently of each other, can be replaced by a more student-centered model. In this mode, the student sits in the center of an array of learning resources, including the instructor, the classroom experience, other students, library and Internet resources, other faculty, etc. In such an arrangement, the role of the faculty takes on significant new proportions. He or she becomes a guide as well as a content area expert, an orchestrator of resources as well as a subject area professional responsible for the generation of new knowledge. The critical thinking and analytic skills that faculty seek to model and instill in their students take on new dimensions given the scope and complexity of accessing new resources in unprecedented ways.
Even for on-campus students, there seems to be some general level of agreement that universities are moving toward more distributed learning environments. If we are going to move in this direction, we need to experiment with and evaluate ideas for distributed learning, such as courses that meet infrequently in traditional settings, and very frequently in electronic sessions. This requires new kinds of activities to stimulate student learning and new ways of communicating among students and faculty. We already have much of the technology we need to teach in different ways, but we must establish experimental and demonstration programs to develop these courses of the future. Distributed learning is very likely to become more a part of the educational environment over the next ten years, and we need to find ways to make it work.
The constraints of time and geography have been significantly reduced, though it is important to note they are not altogether eliminated. The demands of community, of peer relationships, of collegiality, and of a common, shared set of experiences, all important elements in the creation of a learning environment, dictate otherwise. Our reach, however, is dramatically extended. With this reach comes a new set of pedagogical responsibilities. We cannot duplicate the residential experience electronically, or replicate the in-person classroom experience with a virtual classroom. We must transform the learning experience for distant students if its outcomes are to be equivalent to those for the residential student.
As we work toward developing nontraditional educational experiences for on-campus students, we need to be expanding on those ideas to serve off-campus students. The experiences will be different, but they will have many things in common. We need to see which differences are important, which are inconsequential, and what adaptations we can make.
These are daunting tasks for a faculty already fully occupied with scholarship, teaching, and service within the confines of a traditional campus and semester model. To expand both of these dimensions is to invite chaos, unless we equip ourselves as an institution to support faculty in extending their teaching and scholarship beyond traditional boundaries. Putting the right technology on the ground is only the first step. The real challenges are in creating and sustaining the supports and rewards for faculty developing the skill sets required to use this technology, in identifying new audiences and partnerships whereby our reach is extended, and ensuring students' success, whether they are across the campus or across the continent.
The instructional activities discussed above are only the first step in transforming how we provide services to our students. As new capabilities in information technology begin to transform the way faculty and students interact, and as we gain experience with new approaches, development and utilization of these new approaches will greatly benefit from clearly identifiable, highly capable, common facilities. While it would be advantageous to begin implementation immediately on a limited basis, we cannot continue on a shoestring approach for long. As we expand on our experience, the faculty will need a technology resource center to help them enhance their own strengths with new information technology approaches. Students will continue to require access to high quality facilities for their own directed and independent studies. The resources we currently make available to faculty and students are physically scattered, and often separately administered. The experience we gain with the projects outlined above will help us see how best to bring those services together, but the need to consolidate services will become critical as we expand our efforts. Finally, the face we put on our technological efforts is often inconsistent, and our capacities diluted, so that those students and parents looking for this aspect of a modern education perceive there is far less at UVM than at some of our peer institutions. All of these issues could be addressed with the establishment of a new academic technology center on campus, the Learning Gateway.
The purpose of this center would be to support faculty and students as they work to incorporate new kinds of technology into what they do. We cannot expect large numbers of faculty to have the expertise to do this development work completely on their own, nor can we expect that most students can use the available technology to best advantage to create their own education. We already have considerable expertise on campus, though it is scattered across many different locations and is often unrecognized by many. We have faculty with good, creative ideas, but they tend to work in isolation. We have staff with considerable expertise and a surpassing breadth of knowledge. These two groups need to be brought together in an environment that promotes creative approaches to instruction. Students should be included in those efforts, both for what they have to offer, and for what they have to learn. At the same time, we cannot create the resource we need simply by moving around the players. We will need additional resources if we are to accomplish our task. The level of new resources must be assessed, along with the sources of funds necessary to provide them.
This Learning Gateway facility will bring greater identity to UVM's technological investments. It will be dedicated to exploration and research into new modes of teaching and learning, and to transforming our scholarly communication system. We envision this Gateway will be the focal point for academic technology, and a point of intersection for faculty, students, University Libraries, and CIT. It will build on what we have described above, to take us the important additional step toward providing a dynamic learning environment for our students.
The central roles of the Learning Gateway will include:
As a first step in realizing a comprehensive approach to developing the Learning Gateway, the Digital Media Lab of the Distance Learning Network will be designated as a prototype technology-based teaching and learning center, open to faculty, staff and students in campus-based programs as well as those engaged in distance delivery courses. This prototype center will be a collaborative endeavor, drawing upon the active participation and expertise of faculty and staff in Academic Computing, the Libraries, the Distance Learning Network, and related efforts based in the colleges and schools. Responsibility for financial support and administrative oversight will be shared between the CLIO and the Division of Continuing Education. As technology-based programs both on campus and in the Distance Learning Network grow, the more fully conceived Learning Gateway will become a necessity. Lessons learned from this prototype center will inform planning for the larger Gateway project.
Required Actions:
In this increasingly technological information environment, our libraries are in a period of significant transition. In fact, library personnel are among the most technologically sophisticated members of the University community. We need to build on that strength. Changes in higher education, information technology, teaching methods, learning styles, community needs and the international information environment all affect the ways in which library and information services are planned, perceived, and delivered. The Libraries are now providing a full range of services in two settings, one with traditional print-based collections and another taking full advantage of electronic information resources. Library acquisitions are characterized by an increasing emphasis on networked access to information resources, but the development of core print collections to support curricular programs and research needs remains important. There is an expanding role for library faculty and staff in teaching users how to identify, select, evaluate, retrieve, and interpret information resources relevant to their needs. There is, additionally, an enhanced capacity for the library to create, organize, and disseminate select sets of electronic information (e.g., gateways to Internet resources).
The development of the technological capacities of the UVM Libraries in this changing information landscape is a continuing concern. Experimentation with new modes of information delivery have yielded important tools, such as Sage and VTMEDNET, which are now accepted as central features of UVM's information environment. There are many challenges in advancing the integration of information technology across the institution, as the Libraries attempt to make more sophisticated systems work within an environment characterized by multiple platforms and uneven levels of capacity at the desktop.
Another challenge is the ten year old NOTIS system, which provides both the LUIS online catalog and the integrated library system supporting library operations. While we have been able to enhance this system on numerous occasions over the past decade to meet new needs and utilize advanced technology, the marketplace has moved well beyond our present capabilities to new products based upon advanced technologies. An immediate investment in upgrading or replacing this core system is essential to meet the present information needs of the institution, as well as to move forward in the new information environment.
The University of Vermont is at a critical juncture in the development of institutional resources, that of planning a major library expansion. The changing demands on the University require a library that combines the strengths of traditional functions with new roles in teaching, learning, and technology. To reflect this shifting paradigm, we need to explore with the faculty and students a new vision for the library as a center for teaching and learning, as a institution focal point for information technology, and as a place supporting people, their interaction and their inquiry. In light of the growing impact of technology on both information resources and publishing patterns, new approaches to planning for growth in on site book collections also need to be investigated. Planning must include utmost flexibility to provide for ongoing responsiveness to a changing environment, as well as an enhanced role in the learning community. A commitment to the ubiquitous delivery of information regardless of format or medium, to collaboration in the support of students and faculty engaged in academic endeavors, and to the encouragement of intellectual interaction for all members of the university community should guide the development effort. We recommend that any planning for enhanced library facilities be coordinated with the concepts outlined in the Learning Gateway Center discussed above.
UVM has in place a comprehensive infrastructure for electronic communication. The campus network is uniform, widely available and routinely used; microcomputers are found in most offices; electronic mail and Web facilities are robust and widely accessible. Most of us make good use of these, but we must do more to leverage our significant investment. Communication, collaboration and maintenance of skills are often impeded by inconsistent and incompatible implementations of some elements of information technology.
The task of improving the compatibility, consistency and availability of UVM's information technology must be engaged at the highest level, and will be among the first tasks addressed by the CLIO. UVM needs a coherent information technology infrastructure. Although administrative and academic missions are different, the basic IT infrastructure (electronic communications, document creation, etc.) is essentially identical.
Exploration and research into alternate and emerging technologies must be fostered. We must leverage our investment in this important work. Exploratory activities should be coordinated to avoid duplication and to ensure a cohesive system. Recommendations and other results will be shared.
Opportunities for setting standards in institutional communication systems, such as email, document sharing and calendaring, will be actively pursued. Solutions from our existing test beds will be seriously considered for broader adoption. Our choices of common IT solutions should:
Imposing consistency is not intended to limit our flexibility, but we must appreciate the difference between choices that empower us and those that are essentially arbitrary.
Because of the rapid advancement of technology, the solutions we choose will be constrained in number for efficiency, but must not be static. Exploration of emerging technologies and updating of existing standards must be ongoing activities.
There is a basic level of IT infrastructure, tools and training necessary to effectively participate in our electronic community. We must regularly define and redefine this minimum set of services, and strive to keep all community members above this "IT floor".
The standard issue hardware and software will not meet all needs. While exploration is encouraged, units experimenting with alternative technologies should seek to work in collaboration with other units. These units should expect to provide their own support until such time as that technology is adopted as an institutional standard.
Although this approach will certainly not solve all the problems associated with IT coherence and evolving software technology, we think it will ease the burden of transition, leverage support resources, enhance productivity, lower support costs, and improve our ability to collaborate.
No matter how much time and money we dedicate to acquiring the latest information technology, if we do not have sufficient skills to employ it, our investments will be largely wasted. Our success depends on people understanding what tools are available at UVM and how to use them effectively.
We do not have a coherent program for developing IT skills for members of the University community. There are a number of groups involved in IT instruction, but their efforts are designed for specific constituencies and are largely uncoordinated. There are specific gaps, such as in the area of instructional technology. Assessment of the needs of students, faculty and staff for IT instruction and training is required, as well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of current programs in meeting these needs. The coordination of these offerings, together with a more coherent approach to planning for a comprehensive program of training and instruction is needed.
We support and endorse the efforts of the IT Professional Development Task Force which, under the guidance of Pam Brown and Dean Williams, is developing a coordinated, responsive curriculum for IT professional development.
Today, many people at UVM are frustrated by the gap between what they need to know to participate in our IT-based environment, and the knowledge they have been able to acquire. This problem could be alleviated by having more people providing more IT education, more time for employees to attend courses and more money devoted to professional development. While we agree that professional development of all types must be a priority, this is only part of the solution. We also need to make our information technology environment more consistent to help assure that the skills we acquire are widely applicable. Rather than attempting to teach everyone all the answers, we must make it possible for people to be successful in discovering their own answers. To further this goal, all systems, documentation, on-line help facilities, and education we provide must be geared towards consistency and self-guided learning skills.
Ideally, IT infrastructure will be so effectively and transparently implemented that we rarely think about it. It should just be there, consistently available and natural to use. It should be apparent where to get support, what support is available, how it will be provided and how much it will cost (if anything). When our basic IT tools do not work (or are counter-intuitive), prompt, reliable support must be available. To that end:
Currently, IT is supported by a combination of dedicated (decentralized) and shared (centralized) support staff. Each support model has advantages and disadvantages. The local support model typically has the advantages of being:
On the other hand this model:
Our current mix of dedicated and shared support structures is viable, but could be improved through better coordination.
World Wide Web technology presents UVM with significant opportunities to advance our teaching, research and service missions. Although UVM was an early adopter of Web technology and has some outstanding examples of Web-based resources, our current approach to this technology, which does not formally coordinate or develop our broad collection of web pages, is causing us to fall behind our peer institutions. Web technology offers effective and consistent ways to do many different things. Making investments in this high leverage arena will serve us well. A properly designed university web site can be utilized to deliver online, course related information to scholars, deliver attractive and accessible public information to a broad audience, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of all current and prospective members of the University community by giving them direct access to institutional information.
Coordination of web policy development and monitoring of official UVM Web links will ensure the quality of this comprehensive information tool. To be effective, the team must include staff with both technical expertise and graphics design experience.
As with many of the approaches we propose, the development of a new UVM web site must be a collaborative effort, attracting the energy and creativity of many contributors. Leadership and coordination of these efforts will be provided by the Web Development Team, but collaboration with many units will be necessary for success. Major stakeholders in the current UVM Web environment will continue to play specialized roles. For example, CIT will retain responsibility for Web training and for managing the central Web server hardware and software, and the Libraries and other units will continue to develop Web-based information resources. The expertise of University Marketing is essential to these efforts.
The Web Development Team will report to the CLIO, as part of the learning and information enterprise. The improvement of UVM's presence on the Web is critical to many current, important university efforts, however, and should not await the appointment of a new senior administrator. In order to make immediate progress reworking the UVM web site, we recommend this team be established as soon as possible, under the direction of the Provost.
Current administrative information systems at UVM are reasonably modern, reliable, and well supported. Core business and record keeping functions are dependable. However, our ability to provide a comprehensive picture of the University through our institutional databases is limited. Supporting stable, reliable and secure information systems should continue to be among our highest priorities, but we need to invest in improving our decision support systems. Many tasks that could be accomplished seamlessly, or automatically with modern information technology, are still performed in a frustratingly inefficient fashion. We must redesign business processes that involve excessive paper generation, routing, handling, filing, storage and, finally, shredding. For example, we cannot afford to have faculty and staff wasting time filing forms and reviewing paper grade reports to try to figure out which students are at risk.
We recommend building a shared repository for University data. All offices responsible for collecting, storing, analyzing, and publishing University data and analyses will have access to this common facility. Institutional Studies, Financial Analysis and Budgeting, and Administrative Information Systems have been developing applications and prototypes based on this model. A common database and easy-to-use tools will improve our ability to develop a comprehensive institutional record that will facilitate planning and decision making.
Offices throughout UVM are finding ways of replacing labor intensive, paper-based processes with easy-to-use, efficient electronic versions. We recommend deploying a common electronic workflow infrastructure to support their efforts. Just as CIT supports an institutional Web server and an email list server that all units can use for their work, a common, centrally supported workflow engine can provide a shared, consistent method for automating workflow. This will accelerate the process of migrating toward more efficient, paperless operations, and improve the consistency and stability of electronic forms applications.
These initiatives provide avenues to improve collaboration between the many units providing and supporting information systems. More opportunities to construct a community from separate units will arise. These include shared training, and cooperative efforts, such as developing quality documentation of institutional processes.
UVM's compensation package for employees engaged in information systems development has proven to be a real barrier to attracting and retaining highly trained and talented information systems employees. The ongoing work of the Changing Workforce Task Force and the upcoming compensation study should address the specific problems of IT staff compensation. Where feasible and appropriate, adjustments to job definitions and compensation should be made.
When core administrative systems have been implemented at UVM, work has focused on providing features that meet the most critical business processes. In finance, we keep track of revenue and expenses. In human resources we pay employees.
There are important but less critical business processes that are not fully supported by the core systems. This has led individual units to develop local systems that augment the features of the core systems. This "distributed" development has the advantage of being tailored to meet the specific needs of each unit, but there are serious disadvantages.
Where possible, resources ought to be invested in applications that can be deployed and supported widely across the enterprise.
We recommend Administrative Information Systems, working collaboratively with UVM's other IS departments, with the stewards of the core systems, and with employees developing and using local systems:
This work should be closely integrated with the work and recommendations of the Core Business Functions Committee.
There is a serious need at The University of Vermont for leadership in the learning and information technology arena. We have many fine examples of achievement in enhancing our academic endeavors through the use of technology. What we lack is institutional focus and direction. The enormous potential of new technologies for helping us create dynamic learning communities demands the commitment of high-level leadership resources. The blurring of technologies previously considered separate, such as computing and conferencing, printed and electronic media, local databases and international networks, creates an environment where coordination and coherence in our approach to technology are essential. In considering new leadership for learning and information technology, we should be looking for ways to promote coordination, enhance collaboration, learn from local successes and then translate them into institution wide programs. We need to find avenues for enriching the academic mission through new approaches to learning and technology. We need to develop and manage information technology as a strategic resource, but not view it as an end unto itself. We need to focus this resource more deliberately, but in ways which will not undermine the creativity and diversity of our academic programs, or impair the effectiveness of our business operations.
We propose the position of a Chief Learning and Information Officer (CLIO), a senior executive who would lead university-wide efforts to enhance the learning community through technology, and who would be accountable for the coordination of information technology at UVM. Recognizing that reorganization of the senior administration may occur in the near future, we suggest a position at the level of either Vice Provost or Vice President.
The CLIO will provide a focal point for development of new approaches to technology-based teaching and learning, and for articulation of the value and potential of information technology at the University. The CLIO will be a resource person, providing IT planning guidance, coordination, facilitation and advocacy. The CLIO will work closely with the deans to support innovations in the use of technology in teaching, facilitate linkages among faculty engaged in these endeavors, and create opportunities for the exploration of the impacts of technology on student learning and the student experience. Accountability for strategic management and budgeting of all University information technology resources will be based upon these collaborative relationships, with final authority resting with the Provost.
Working with an IT Council (described below), the CLIO will have responsibility for coordination and oversight of both academic and administrative information technology efforts across the institution. Initially, this will be implemented with a combination of direct reporting lines and a secondary line of accountability to the CLIO for deans, and directors with IT operations. Tactical administration of the reallocations and reogranizations necessary to enhance the efficient and effective use of campus information technology will be important to the success of these endeavors.
An IT Council will be established, comprising key institutional stakeholders in information technology use and support. The responsibilities of the IT Council will include
The CLIO will have ultimate responsibility and authority for building a successful organizational structure to support the learning and information environment. Important responsibilities will include building appropriate linkages within the university community, advancing discussions of new modes of teaching and learning, and creating an enhanced assessment capacity for the institution. The CLIO will play a role in all major information technology planning and purchasing decisions, approve standards and practices, promote ongoing assessment of IT performance and capacities, and serve as the key long-term information technology planner for the institution. With guidance from the IT Council and other advisory committees, the CLIO will establish a common "technology floor" for both academic and administrative users, and oversee the continuing development of our information and instructional technology infrastructure.
Sound fiscal management will be critical to accomplishing our aims in information technology. This section outlines the budgetary fundamentals that should guide our planning for these investments. We briefly review the range of options we currently use for IT budgeting, define the budgetary role for IT's top level administrators, and discuss possible approaches to making our investments in IT work efficiently for us.
The University allocates continuing and one-time revenues to support both centralized and decentralized information technology expenditures. Base and one-time budget allocations usually support university infrastructure, defined broadly as facilities provided in common for faculty, staff, or students. In addition, departmental funds distributed to, or reallocated by, deans and directors leverage the infrastructure investment and provide substantial targeted information technology support. This system has worked reasonably well, however, it can be improved.
The advantage of the current system is that it puts decision making, prioritization, and flexibility into the hands of those with the clearest stake in the local outcome of those decisions. A wide spectrum of funding mechanisms, from purely central to purely decentralized, can be found functioning well at UVM. The Libraries, and much of CIT, are examples of centrally provided services that do not seek to recover their base budget costs directly from their users. A portion of the support given to such centralized infrastructure is also used in the calculation of the indirect reimbursement rate from sponsored grants.
Telecommunications and Microcomputer Services are examples of income/expense units which provide institutional services where income is generated by charges to customers, most of which are University departments. Much of the funding for telephone-related expenses by individual colleges and departments, however, comes from their centrally supported, base-budgeted accounts. This style of funding helps assure a unified, common phone system with sufficient support for upkeep and upgrades. The colleges, departments, and individuals also determine the amount of product or service to buy. Direct funds received from outside grants and contracts also helps to supplement the revenue of these income/expense units.
Finally, some units have specific needs that cannot be satisfied with the common infrastructure mechanisms provided to the institution as a whole. These units invest their own funds, based on local priority decisions. The reallocation of funds by the School of Business Administration to the Windows-NT platform for faculty and students is a recent example. Numerous computers, printers, etc. are purchased each year from extramural funding. In addition, such units can establish their own income/expense activities, so that their investments are leveraged by providing specialized services to others.
This system has a number of disadvantages as well. Centralized units must assess the needs of the "average" user in supporting legacy applications, but users often cite a lack of flexibility. At the other extreme, the expenditures of the distributed units often lack coordination, either with each other or with central units. Issues of "turf" are often difficult to resolve, resentment between the "have nots" and the "have's" can be substantial, and necessary functions cannot be implemented because the level of desktop technology is very non-uniform across the institution.
We discuss here mechanisms that can be used to improve our present means of funding IT-related activities. Our primary goals are to utilize the strong leadership of a central IT administration to help us attain the advantages of coordination, standards, and a uniformly implemented technology "floor", while maintaining the advantages of direct user, department, and college participation in technology funding.
Two principles are likely to apply to budgeting for IT expenses in the next few years. First, our total allocations for IT-related activities will not increase substantially as a fraction of the university's total budget. Second, our legitimate requirements for information technology will substantially exceed our available funds.
An important focus of the CLIO will be to find acceptable solutions in the face of these conflicting principles. The most critical roles will be to
Emphasis on mission-critical applications: Establishing a working set of priorities is a process that is ongoing, but is not yet centralized for information technology. This effort, the subject of this overall report, should be developed further in conjunction with the President and Provost, as well as deans, directors, and representative faculty, staff, and students. Two important ramifications of this process have implications for budgeting. The CLIO:
Establishing a constructive climate for IT: A quality information technology environment depends on enthusiastic collaboration between those providing technology resources and support, and those utilizing information technology to accomplish their jobs. Both groups need to perceive ownership of the mission of the University, and its relationship to the use of information technology. Each must respect the other's abilities and capacities. It will also be necessary for the CLIO to establish funding mechanisms that empower both groups, and assure they remain matched for maximum productivity.
Making our investments worth more: Ultimately, we will need to accomplish our aims with restricted budgets. This will mean:
Resource allocation must be broadly and flexibly defined to include
To accomplish this aim under the constraint of level funding, it will be necessary to shift resources from some present applications to other, possibly new ones. As technology advances, we must be able to evolve along with it. We must ensure that we don't lock ourselves into legacy applications, or organizational structures too rigid to change. Ultimately, this means the mix of technology initiatives subjected to the analyses outlined above will include our full range of IT operations. We must be prepared to:
Change should not be disorderly or abrupt. Planning for new IT initiatives will provide for gradual migration wherever possible. As we move ahead, certain jobs will become obsolete. The University must provide opportunities for individuals in activities no longer critical to our function, to join other efforts that are moving ahead.
A significant fraction of our IT budgets comes from the voluntary contribution of units with a stake in the technological support of our educational mission. The CLIO should not work under the assumption that these contributions are readily available for reallocation. Such attempts would cause these contributions to diminish or disappear, weakening us. Instead, ongoing reallocation of centrally controlled resources will be pursued, where possible, to leverage these voluntary allocations to increase our overall good.
As discussed above, budgeting for IT must be attuned to our overall mission, with ongoing evaluation of the value of our investments. This evaluation will be based upon annual submissions by recipients of information technology funding. These reports will take two forms. Some individuals or units will submit IT budget requests directly to the CLIO. Deans, when requesting IT-related funding in their normal budgets, will be expected to address similar issues. The CLIO will articulate the priorities to be used in determining funding priorities. These will include:
In order to use our resources wisely, we must continuously and consistently evaluate the role of our investments in our central educational mission. The identification and justification of this role will be the core of any budget requests.
Each of our investments must produce something of demonstrable value to our mission. It will be incumbent on those receiving funding to identify how that value will be measured, and to demonstrate performance in requests for continued funding.
It is easy, in planning for technological investments, to think simply in terms of the immediate costs of acquisition. Many of these technological investments require substantial ongoing support, for issues ranging from physical facilities to upgrades and hardware maintenance, through user support and training. Our financial analyses of the relative merits of various investments need to recognize all of these costs as we weigh the value of any proposed investment.
Once new IT leadership is in place, the University must begin strategic reorganization of its IT budgets to align them with the institutional mission. This process will necessarily be a phased one. Strategic allocation decisions will be made first in an effort to redesign IT processes, then to support investment opportunities. This budgeting process will help lead to long term sustainable budgets for both IT and the University. In order to achieve this goal we must creatively use budgeting techniques such as:
The following recommended actions have been identified as priorities within the Information Technology Plan and their success depends upon the assignment of required resources. In some cases, opportunities to reallocate funds and staff to support these activities may exist; such possibilities require further exploration. The achievement of these goals requires comprehensive, systematic decisions related to technology investments. Where appropriate, policies and guidelines should be developed for the deployment of these funds.
1. Appoint a Chief Learning Information Officer (CLIO) to lead university-wide efforts to enhance the learning community through technology.
2. Create an environment that stimulates the accelerated incorporation of information technology into the classroom
3. Establish and support a standard for the desktop environment for all faculty and staff.
4. Design and build a common data repository to assist administrators throughout the institution in making better informed decisions.
5. Establish a Web management team to recreate the UVM Web site.
6. Establish and sustain a technology-based Learning Gateway.
The present base of instructional technology in UVM classrooms reflects the changing interests and competencies in the teaching methodologies of our faculty. Over the years, the sophistication of classroom technology has increased as faculty have requested equipment with greater capacity to support their classroom activities. The transition from chalkboard to audiovisual equipment to computer-based presentation and teaching technologies is one which has been led by faculty demand. In order to best deploy our resources, decisions regarding the installation of equipment to support instructional technology have been made based on knowledge of documented needs. These needs are assessed on an ongoing basis. Direct faculty requests, which consistently exceed the available resources, have been given priority for funding.
Replacement funding for instructional technology has always been a problem at UVM, and there are no resources budgeted for this purpose. Investments in upgrading classroom equipment and the installation of new technologies have been made as one-time funds became available. These needs have usually been funded from the Classroom Improvement Fund, but these resources serve multiple purposes and have declined over the past several years.
The opening of the Old Mill/Lafayette Complex, with its distance learning classrooms and newly outfitted lecture halls and seminar rooms, has substantially increased our capacity to support emerging teaching methodologies with advanced instructional technology. However, as faculty begin to teach in this facility, the demands across campus for similarly equipped classrooms increases. Many faculty are willing to put in the time to rework their curricula, but they must be assured of adequate classroom technology to support such efforts. The need for faculty development in instructional technology is also real, most often in the form of release time and recognition in the reward process for such effort.
Equipment maintenance and support for classroom technology present
new demands on our resources. Media Services has been responsible for
support of audiovisual equipment in centrally scheduled classrooms
for many years, and staff with appropriate expertise are in place for
this function. Most computer enabled classrooms on campus have been
installed by individual colleges and schools, with attendant support
for both teaching and laboratory applications residing with the unit
involved. Ongoing evaluation is needed to ensure effective
utilization of these distributed resources. We are moving to a model
of centrally scheduled computer classrooms, and new mechanisms for
support by Media Services are being explored. As this trend in
classroom technology continues, staffing and operational resources
must be identified to provide appropriate support, and delineation of
responsibility for this function needs to be formalized.
With the exception of some small departmental spaces used as classrooms, all "general, priority and restricted" classified rooms (125) contain some level of AV/IT equipment.
|
Current base cost (at present pricing levels and assuming basic network infrastructure) |
$1,983. |
|
Annual budget required to build Replacement Fund ( Four year term) |
$ 495,763.* |
|
Associated maintenance costs (not including campus support unit) |
$ 99,153.* |
|
Annual cost for computer classroom staff support, 50% FTE, (includes benefits) |
$ 13,000. |
* Not currently funded
Current Needs as requested by faculty *
* Based on faculty surveys FY'95, FY'96, & ITEC I.
Investment required to reach current requested needs:
|
Base cost, (at present pricing levels and assuming basic network infrastructure) |
$ 1,289,250. |
|
Annual budget required to build Replacement Fund ( Four year term) |
322,313. |
|
Associated annual maintenance costs (not including campus support unit) |
64,116. |
|
Annual cost for computer classroom staff support, 50% FTE (includes benefits) |
13,000. |
The University of Vermont maintains a sophisticated electronic infrastructure using modern, mainstream information technology for voice, video and data communications. This production infrastructure is continuously being extended and advanced while emerging technologies are explored and evaluated.
The campus network, which is based upon a switched FDDI 100 megabit backbone with 10baseT Ethernet using mostly telephone twisted pair to the workstations, reaches every building, office and residence hall room on campus. This includes over 100 subnets and over 6300 Ethernet connections. FDDI is also used to cluster several high-end Unix systems that serve the entire campus. Cisco 7500-class routers, Cabletron intelligent hubs, fiber optic cable, telephone twisted pair and category 5 copper form the hardware basis for production networks.
All residence hall rooms have network connections, of which most have a connection per resident. By the fall of 1998, the project to wire "a port per pillow" will be complete. Although the network is based primarily upon TCP/IP, other protocols such as Appletalk and Novell IPX are also currently supported throughout the network. The primary uses of the data network include Web applications, electronic mail, host and print/file server access, newsgroups, and file transfer. Virtually all students, faculty and staff employ network facilities on a daily basis for instruction, research, communications, business transactions, and special applications such as visualization and geographic information systems.
Through a partnership with a Vermont service provider all UVM affiliates are able to connect to the campus network via PPP dial-up for a modest monthly fee. Although a few off-campus sites have direct connections to the campus network, most must rely upon dial-up connections.
UVM's Network Services unit has installed 155 MB ATM technologies for the new Digital Media Lab, and has been installing switched Ethernet in newly rewired buildings and in other high-demand areas. In such cases, 100 MB Fast Ethernet is used to connect hubs to backbone routers. A migration to switched backbone technologies began in late 1997. Technologies such as SONET and Gigabit Ethernet are being considered as follow-on technologies to meet the University's future network bandwidth requirements. Acceptance in the marketplace, reliability and economic factors will guide the choices of future technologies.
Clearly, the campus network, the connection to the global Internet, and off-campus access to UVM's networking infrastructure in their current implementations are increasingly important to the needs of teaching, learning, research, service and general communications needs.
Research: Increasingly, high speed networking is needed to participate in national research projects. These needs range from the obvious projects in computing science and networking itself, include projects with large images or data sets, remote instrumentation, and increasingly, professional collaboration. Sometime in the not to distant future, every professional meeting will have its own "video channel". In the case of the vBNS, for example, there seems to be a conscious effort to split universities into two groups. The top 100 universities will be IN, the 3500 other institutions will be OUT. A related component is "telemedicine." The relationship between the University, the College of Medicine, and FAHC is a critical one.
Teaching And Learning: Distance learning has the unfortunate connotation of spatial separation, and misses the increased avenues of communication and collaboration that become available. Using the term "Computer Mediated Communication" has the side effect of focusing on the "computer." We seldom think of newspaper mediated communication, telephone mediated communication, etc - rather than on the "mediation" part. "Mediation" allows, for example, space shifting, time shifting, order shifting, content filtering, etc. Whatever the term used, more and more communications are digitally mediated - with computer, telephone, newspaper, etc being a presentation format.
Community: UVM's network becomes UVM, and has to maintain a UVM identity. Otherwise, we're just a part of the University of Southern North Dakota. Building this network identity is a major program challenge.
Part of this is going to include what we would consider "administrative" - the "paperwork" that makes up much of the University work. Paper is as much a glue that holds us together as location. Getting a UVM degree, requires paperwork; courses, grades, credits, programs, degrees, etc.
Culture: None of this will work if people don't know how to use it. It works only if people make it work. This requires cultural shifts across the University.
It became clear in the late 1980s that network facilities with gateways to the global network are essential for UVM to remain competitive in the higher education and research market. Increasingly, students expect telephone, data and video connections in each campus residence. Faculty and students expect network connections and computer presentation facilities to be readily available in classrooms. Most faculty researchers will not even consider universities who do not have a presence on the Internet. While UVM's current infrastructure is meeting most of these needs, all our peer institutions are increasing the capacity and capabilities of their networking infrastructure. Many campuses have already brought category 5 copper or fiberoptic cabling to every desktop in preparation for video, sound, teleconferencing, and other high-bandwidth applications. When Internet II was announced, universities lined up to join the consortium because of the expectation that, like the original Internet, an Internet II presence will be required to participate in the future research funding. For this reason and the need to support growing demands for high-bandwidth applications, UVM has joined the Internet II consortium, and is submitting a 2-year grant proposal for Internet II connection costs. This grant will require UVM matching investments in campus network infrastructure.
We think that UVM's current plans for enhancing the campus network are on target. Although we have a high-level of confidence in the technical staff that deploy, maintain and enhance UVM's networking facilities, we recognize that one or more advisory bodies will be necessary to guide and provide feedback to the Network Services organization. In addition to the other IT advisory groups, the current and evolving membership of the "Net-Control" distribution list should be included.
Areas of potential concern are related to the following needs:
These items are of concern, not because of the technological difficulty or controversy about their need, but because of the significant costs involved. High bandwidth applications will require either category 5 copper or fiberoptic connections. We understand and agree that the current plans not to rewire buildings as part of the new telephone system is a financial necessity. However, as the buildings are renovated they should be rewired for a modern high-capacity cable plant.
In the meantime, high-speed connections to specific researchers can be installed on an as needed basis. It may be more economical to rewire buildings with many such researchers (such as Votey or Given) before they would otherwise be renovated. This is primarily a financial decision that can be made at the time.
Because such connections will require costly infrastructure for a relatively few connections, the actual per connection cost will likely be very high. In order to "jump-start" this technology, it will likely be necessary to subsidize a portion of the basic infrastructure to deliver high-bandwidth connections. The premium rate for such connections should be low enough not to deter their use for research and other appropriate applications, but not so heavily subsidized as to make their selection routine until the costs decline or the University is prepared to bear the costs of extensive subsidies.
Today our choices for remote connections are between high-cost and low speed. There are several technologies on the horizon that are expected to make relatively high-speed, low-cost connections available through common carriers. Time will tell.
In the mean time, we recommend that the incremental cost of extending communications facilities to be delivered to an off-campus UVM building should be considered as part of the cost of choosing such a site and should be funded as part of the facility. Naturally we would prefer that every site should have networking facilities that are comparable to those on the main campus. However, because costs are a significant barrier and the necessary common carrier infrastructure is not always present, we can not propose that every site, regardless of its location, be entitled to an identical level of communications service. We do recommend that every site have functional connectivity to the main campus to participate in our electronic community. Currently this implies a minimum of facilities for electronic mail and access to the Web.
We recommend the continuation of the current model for funding and cost recovery of basic campus network infrastructure, i.e. the basic networking infrastructure (backbone, electronics, connection to the Internet, cable plant and staffing) be covered out of monthly communications port fees with a modest one-time hook up fee to cover a portion of incremental costs. For existing communications jacks, this fee has been $100.
Many, many things regarding Internet II and its cost implications are unclear at this point. We know, however that the new higher bandwidth connections (associated with Internet II and other high bandwidth applications) will require additional investments. The cost of delivering high-bandwidth to campus computers will be significantly higher and can be expected to involve a significantly higher one-time fee to the end user, initially at least. Although we expect most of the cost for the connection to Internet 2 to be covered by federal grants for the first 2 years, the investments in campus network infrastructure that are required for high bandwidth applications will not be; in fact, infrastructure investments will be required as matching funds in order to receive the grants. Existing on-going investments in the campus network are expected to cover most of the requirement for matching funds though clearly some additional expenditures will be necessary. Current short term plans project covering these additional costs through communications port charges.
Although we understand the University is not permitted to share Internet II bandwidth during the 2-year grant term, we feel that will be highly desirable to share the bandwidth and its cost once the term is complete. The cost for a 45 Mbps connection to Internet II is expected to substantially exceed $200,000 per year.
The cost of special dedicated network connections(such as T1 lines) to off-site locations should be considered as part of the cost of selecting and using such sites. In some locations where such facilities may not be needed, or at least, not cost effective, the use of a dial-up Internet service provider may be a suitable alternative.
The telephone system on-campus is often overlooked as both one of the largest computer systems on campus with over 13 million lines of code and as a sophisticated IT instrument. The current 10,000 line PBX telephone switch has served both UVM and Fletcher Allen Health Care (FAHC) since 1985 and is to be replaced with a new system in 1998 with the additional IT capabilities presently not available on the current system or not further available because demand has outstripped current switch processor capacity.
Most private and public organizations have recognized the importance of new phone technology and deployed it to give them a competitive advantage. FAHC, our partner in the new phone system, in particular, has recognized the importance of lost revenue and decreased customer satisfaction due to the IT shortcomings of the current phone system. UVM faces similar problems with the lack of call centers to serve prospective or returning students in areas like Financial Aid, Helpline, Registrar and other offices, as well as the needs of business offices that face high volume of calls during certain periods of the day or year. The call centers employed by the Admissions and Student Accounting offices have only a fraction of the reporting and management tools available in newer call centers developed over the last 14 years.
Advanced Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) technology used by call centers is only one of many IT tools we desire in the new telephone system. Two others include:
The deployment of these technologies would give UVM departments IT tools to improve services delivered to customers. Like all IT tools there are required hardware, software and support costs to deliver IT solutions. These IT tools would require a general funding subsidy until the technologies reach a critical mass to support themselves through charge-back fees. Such funding was successfully used to promote use of PhoneMail and the data network and resulted in tangible productivity benefits campus-wide.
There will be a significant, but not unmanageable amount of work to ensure a smooth transition into the new century. Naturally, the systems of greatest concern are the large host systems that support basic infrastructure such as the SIS, HRS, FRS, NOTIS, Telecom and Advancement systems. The extent of the necessary work, which is not limited to administrative systems supported by CIT, encompasses careful planning, client participation and overall resource allocation in CIT and the client areas for installing and testing newer releases of vendor software. The current or imminent versions of our major systems will store and process 4 digit years. This is one of the benefits UVM enjoys from the decision to move from in-house applications toward vendor developed and supported systems.
There are some areas of concern. Some older PC systems won't support dates beyond the year 1999. Researchers may have research datasets with 2 digit years. Some departmentally developed systems may need revision by the developers of such systems. CIT will be undertaking an education campaign to help people understand and evaluate the impact on their systems.
A committee has been formed to construct an action plan for dealing with year 2000 issues at UVM. The committee membership represents all areas of the University where we suspect the century change may have unexpected adverse effects. This committee will develop a communication plan designed to ensure that all University units are aware of potential impacts, and to help units begin evaluating risks. The committee will also maintain an inventory of systems that may be affected, the level of risk associated with the system, the level of confidence that systems are or will be compliant, and a contact in the department that is responsible for further analysis and action.
Plans for upgrading systems which are identified as non-compliant will be reviewed. Cases that pose significant risk of impacting University operations will be brought to the attention of the Provost for further action.
No additional funds have been requested to meet this need. However, updating and replacing systems will require reassignments of staff and other resources from other projects. In some areas, there may be need for technical support to assist them to make the necessary modifications to their locally developed or purchased systems. Concerns have been raised about equipment with embedded computer chips that may be vulnerable to century roll-over. We do not fully understand the extent of this problem at this time. See Year2000 Issues for more information.
UVM's partnership with Fletcher Allen Health Care (FAHC) has important technological implications for many University departments. Currently Fletcher Allen is directly involved in 26 of our academic programs; many UVM students, faculty and staff have regular needs to communicate with the FAHC personnel and IT systems; many people in the Fletcher Allen campus have a need to access UVM's IT infrastructure. Because of this close relationship and our shared need to collaborate, it is vital that we pay close attention to the need for implementing IT solutions that do not create barriers, but rather foster an environment that facilitates collaboration especially for those who must work in both environments. It is for these reasons and advantages related to economy of scale that UVM and Fletcher Allen share a telephone system.
In general, the growing importance of the Internet is already leading both organizations to adopt "open" solutions that substantially reduce the barriers to communication. Although there are clearly some differing requirements and varying needs for flexibility, especially in areas of research, we think that in cases of core information technology infrastructure (e.g., network protocols, email, word-processing, spreadsheets, and terminal emulators), our implementations are not so far apart and could, in many cases, be identical. Naturally there will be challenges in areas involving special security needs that may frustrate the adoption of common solutions. Currently, for example, Fletcher Allen uses "firewall" technology to restrict access to some of their systems while UVM uses encryption and non-internet protocols to secure systems that are otherwise open to the Internet.
Working with the FAHC IT management, UVM IT management should bring together a joint task force to analyze requirements and develop a standard desktop computing configuration to serve the needs of those who work within both UVM and FAHC environments. The analysis should also address the unique security requirements of each organization in a way that minimizes intrusion and barriers to communication.