Minutes of 12/11/97 meeting of ITTF (PLAN-IT?)

In attendance: Patrick, Roger, Martha, David H., Joe, David P. (had to leave early, before delegation of tasks), Geetha, Rebecca, Mark, Deborah (arrived in time for the delegation of tasks), Ron (whose rare appearance was rewarded with the opportunity to practice short hand).

(Scribe: - the following is a sketchy outline of the discussion and topics, with attribution to the guilty parties where note-taking permits).

Dave H. - opened with brief summary of previous meeting, focusing on his message of 12/5/97 - the need to re-organize the document, add more in the way of specific action items and methods of evaluation as part of the plan - suggested breaking into pilot projects with the expectation that those that work would be expanded into something bigger, with wider adoption across campus (as appropriate)

Joe - the philosophy of pilot projects is broader than just teaching & learning - suggested putting a section up front on the general philosophy of a project approach, with recommendation to put processes in place for testing and diffusion; word it to apply to administrative, not just academic, environments

?? - UVM innovation team RFP may provide guidelines for how this could work - probably worthwhile accessing their material and what might be transferable

Martha - pilot sounds too tentative; discussion ensued over semantics of pilot versus prototype - general agreement that prototype might convey stronger support up front

Dave H. - example of UCLS requiring all courses to have Web pages - dumb idea, since not all instructors have expertise to develop useful pages - led to discussion of defining what a Web page is, a goal of having Web pages for all courses could be separated from the process of how they would be developed.

Rebecca, Dave H. - want to make sure we don't sound too tentative in the document;

Roger - don't want to be too specific on actual technology - e.g., goal is to make course info widely available; current technology might be Web-based, but something better might come along

Dave H. - if too general, there won't be much incentive to implement anything

Roger - first steps in implementation - provide specific examples, but acknowledge that the recommendations could change as technologies/expertise changes

Martha - CAUSE - notes on financial/strategic issues of I/T:

1. review institutional objectives
2. establish a framework for achieving institutional objectives
3. prioritize each objective
4. review with group of key players
5. disseminate widely to organizational members
6. translate objectives into operational goals
7. disseminate operational goals to organization
8. state methods for measurement of outcomes

(Scribe's note: Martha, could you please check this and modify as required?)

Dave H. - we haven't completed #1 yet

• this lead to a discussion of if/how institutional goals and objectives could be determined in the current leadership environment. Consensus appeared to be that we could not wait until specific organizational goals and objectives have been articulated. Also some common feeling that trend was toward more balance between on and off-campus initiatives... suggesting more outreach initiatives (e.g., asynchronous learning networks - ALN) than in the past.
• need to be configured to allow to flexibly adjust to institutional needs, rather than attempting to define needs to specifically up front
• without specifics, this becomes a white paper with good ideas, but no meat, which gets ignored
• with too many specifics, run the threat of having the report rejected because of one or more controversial recommendations - the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater

Dave H. - perhaps we are beating a straw man (or a dead horse, or some such metaphor)... the document currently addresses off-campus, etc. adequately

Roger - we really haven't looked explicitly at how our competition is moving...

At this point our leader decided the discussion needed to move forward, and our attention turned to the remaining sections of the 11/11/97 document.

Roger - need to address the minimum I/T floor - desktop environment, support, etc. - again difficult to provide specifics, as we need to continue to evaluate Net PC's, NC's, vendor options for bundling software with large volume desktop purchases, etc. - need to codify need for evaluating new technology; establish mechanism for who will evaluate a specific technology, how it will be propagated to relevant parts of organization - issuing RFP's to vendors, etc.

Joe - also... should expand the web development team concept to broader team development approach - probably many other examples of technologies (Net PC, etc.) where coordinated effort by small development team could be very useful

Mark - the CLIO position could be problematic - we need to identify problems not currently being addressed, then introduce CLIO - we haven't currently provided a compelling argument for the CLIO position - need to identify what conditions on campus need to change, and how the CLIO position will change them

Martha - need to talk fast (Scribe: - I thought we were... my hand was certainly getting tired!) - positions starting to develop in Central Admin. - need to make sure this position is part of the re-structuring process - lead to a discussion on how best to accomplish this

List of conditions that require CLIO attention (Scribe: - all please check - these notes were pretty limited, due to a somewhat faulty recording mechanism)

• absence of test bed...
• duplication of effort
• incompatibility of systems
• lack of integration of tech. into organizational mission/goals
• inconsistency in access for faculty, staff, students
• lack of training and support
• budgeting
• representing IT (??)
• assessment
• staying on top of emerging tech. and implications
• lack of collaboration
• absence of plan to integrate tech. into teaching

Joe - extreme approach - go through document, identify specific recommendations, and follow with "... and who is going to do this?" to highlight current lack of accountability/responsibility

Patrick - questioned whether our new Provost indicate any support for the concepts we were presenting - discussion ensued which seemed to indicate recollections of generally favorable predisposition toward the importance of IT; comment made that ultimately all of this was the responsibility of the Provost - CLIO is meant to help Provost in fulfilling that responsibility

Deborah - also need to emphasize evaluation throughout the document; we need to continually test the assumption that more is better

- discussion of IBM model for upgrading employee's skills/expertise - joint responsibility; employees required to put in personal time & effort, company required to make appropriate skills upgrading opportunities available to employees

A/I - everyone read the revised teaching/learning section which Dave H. provided

Roger - revise section II along the same lines (add specific recommendations, emphasize need for CLIO position); Martha - budgeting section; Deborah - ?? (Scribe: - I missed this assignment...); Mark & Joe - ?? (Scribe: - I missed this assignment...)

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

The next meeting is schedule for Thursday, 12/18 from 1:30 - 3:30.