Information Technology Planning Board
Meeting Summary
Wednesday, February 11, 2009

ITPB Attendees:  Kathryn Atchison, Christine Borgman, Jim Davis, Robin Garrell, Bill Jepson, William Kaiser, Patricia Keating, Kathleen Komar, Sam Morabito, Warren Mori, Janice Reiff, Alan Robinson, Gary Strong, Tim Stowell, Christopher Waterman, Debbie Weissmann

Absent:  David Kaplan, Marilyn Raphael, Art Toga

Guests:  Mel Barracliffe, David Ernst, Larry Loeher, Margo Reveil, Nick Reddingius, Mike Schilling, Andrew Wismiller, Don Worth (David Parkinson, Observer/PDP mentee)

Agenda Item 1:  Introductions/Approval of Summary

Christine Borgman opened the meeting at 1:03 PM.  She introduced and welcomed guests David Ernst, Vice President and CIO UCOP, and Mel Barracliffe, facilitator working with the IT Strategic Planning Task Force.

The amended summary from December 3, 2008 meeting was approved.  (Patricia Keating’s attendance was noted.)

Minor corrections to the summary from October 15, 2008 were made after review by Steve Olson of his remarks, as requested. The summary is now posted on the ITPB site.

Agenda Item 2:  Discussion of UC and UCOP System Directions, Planning and Initiatives

David Ernst began by presenting an overview of the UC System and patterns of IT adoption.  He has found that all campuses are hungry for leadership and want a change in attitude from the Office of the President.  There is a new team at OP with a new sense of leadership.  In the current budgetary climate, people across campuses are not in high spirits, but there is a willingness to pull together.

Each campus is in need of an infrastructure upgrade.  David says that President Yudof understands this.  The current CENIC network is a positive as it links campuses, as well as other educational groups.  Administrative efficiencies were addressed in a report by a committee chaired by Sam Morabito last year.  [Note: the link to this report was sent to all ITPB members after the meeting http://ucadministrativeefficiencies.ucla.edu] 

David stated that UC should adopt technologies because it can, not because it “should”.  Saving money can be done by not always pointing resources to “special”; i.e., focus on being the best users of technology, not necessarily the best developers.  UC should not bow to the tyranny of technologists.  Collaborations are significant when they bring value to campuses. 

There currently are no strategic plans for system-wide.  The Regional Data Center project is a very encouraging undertaking.  It will require the campuses to answer how computing is done, as well as putting together a business plan and MOU that will enhance each campus.  Human Resources and Payroll are two large examples of eleven individual systems.  If we find a common way to handle these tasks, it would provide an advantage for the UC System.  IT should be viewed as a strategic resource, as well as an adjunct to the academic agenda.  It should not be a financial black hole.  Shared resources is an important concept for the future, although it is uncertain how a pooling of resources may be accomplished.

Relative to other campuses, UCLA is in the top four, which also includes Berkeley, Davis and San Diego.

Bill Jepson asked David Ernst how he intended to avoid the kind of cost overruns that plagued the California State University on their ERP system procurement that occurred when he (Ernst) was the CSU CIO.

Mr. Ernst said that there had not been any cost overruns on that system.  Mr. Jepson replied that there had been an audit by the California State Auditor that found in excess of $300 million in cost overruns on the procurement.

See:  http://www.calfac.org/allpdf/cmsfiles/cfabrief4..pdf

Agenda Item 3:  ITPB Input on Emerging Vision Statement

Robin Garrell introduced this topic by discussing the emerging vision statement and its academic implications.  The overarching idea is to liberate UCLA from boundaries.  The vision statement, currently under discussion by the IT Strategic Planning Task Force, is designed to define the identity, purpose, values and performance of IT, and therefore to set levels of expectations for the campus.  The statement would serve as a baseline for constructing the IT enterprise.  The underlying themes are undergraduate and graduate education, research support, security, and supporting access to information.  Systems, capacity, adoption of new technologies, security and archiving are all within the scope of what students/faculty need.  It is also important to avoid duplication of effort as a group function.  By taking an institutional approach, we may be able to be more productive and innovative in our education and research efforts, while doing so more economically.  This will require careful and conscious planning, as well as participatory governance, a clear management structure and active project planning and management.

Mel Barracliffe led the discussion addressing the vision statement.  The topic of outsourcing was raised, and the principle of decision making was emphasized.  In addressing digital citizens, at the core, the question is, “how well is UCLA doing ____?”  Intellectual content is IT enabled, but not IT itself.  Gary Strong said that a project like DARnet, the Digital Arts Network, fits with library issues in that half of the library buying is currently shared by all ten campuses.

Agenda Item 4:  ITPB Input on Four Selected Principles

Attendees were divided into small groups to discuss one of four principles.  Each group would discuss the statement, rationale, implications, and center on how the principle would affect the individual.  Principles for discussion were:

Each group chose one spokesperson to convey the group’s thinking on its assigned principle.

Principle 11 – Oversight and Governance, was presented by Kathy Komar.  Initially, the group discussed the meaning of governance structure.  They viewed ITPB as the top level with regard to policy, with CITI/CSG under that.  The added value would be empowering faculty to make recommendations.  Having faculty embedded is crucial for faculty buy-in.  The faculty will need strong oversight, participation and debate on IT issues.  The governance structure needs to be layered, with final decisions being made at the Chancellor/EVC level.  However, it requires transparency of the governance process and visibility of the governance structure.  It is important in the coming years to have an open discussion of the tradeoffs and seeing issues in the larger context of the campus. 

A side discussion developed regarding faculty appointments to boards – are they representing colleagues or merely their own interests?  It is hoped that individuals have tried to determine what was best institutionally, but there are differing cultures in various departments.  Presenters of proposals need to recognize this issue.

Nimble and effective decision making requires calendaring.  For example, there are specific issues the ITPB will be discussing for the remainder of the academic year.  Often, discussions revolve around budgets.  If there is no calendaring, then the “squeaky wheel” is addressed by boards.  It was acknowledged that governance is definitely a core principle.

Principle 3 – Federated and layered services model, presented by Jan Reiff.  There are often dilemmas presented in the way funding models separate instruction from administration, with research on its own.  The reality of what constitutes a university is far different where research and instruction are not separate entities.  Both need to be structured so that one can move nimbly between the two; it is not a preference over the other, but the reality of how it works.

It is important to access the pockets of specialized knowledge across campus, perhaps creating a resource list.  This will also eliminate wasted effort and prevent reinvention of the same projects year after year.

Principle 4 – Shared core communications connectivity, presented by Margo Reveil. Governance must address local and regional needs.  There is broad representation on campus that will require boundaries, as well as addressing special needs.  Rationale – add “functional” to security.

Principle 6 – Data as an institutional asset, presented by Tim Stowell.  The two issues presented are: 1) what is worth saving? and 2) centralized vs. decentralized data storage.  For item 1, the example used was e-mail.  It is expensive (time investment) to go through all e-mail generated.  For item 2, it is a concrete problem to determine how to save records of a project.  How long should they be kept?  This is imposed by federal laws, granting agencies and/or UCLA.  Decentralization would make it impossible to comply with the rules.  Faculty often leave and take their data.  A central repository, where faculty are charged with filtering and uploading information could be a solution.

There are many of these issues being addressed at the national level with NIH, NSF and the Library of Congress.  Libraries are sources for archival information.  There are developing tools to scan for electronic substance such as biographical data, criticism, institutional history, etc.  The most important is that data are stored in places that people can trust.

Agenda Item 5:  Next ITPB Meeting

The next ITPB meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 11, 1:00-3:00 PM.  Dan Adkins will be attending the meeting via videoconference.

Later in the Spring quarter, ITPB will be discussing TIF.