Information Technology Planning Board
Meeting Summary
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
ITPB Attendees: Kathryn Atchison, Christine Borgman, Jim Davis, Bill Jepson, William Kaiser, Patricia Keating, Kathleen Komar, Sam Morabito, Warren Mori, Marilyn Raphael, Janice Reiff, Alan Robinson, Gary Strong, Tim Stowell, Art Toga, Christopher Waterman, Debbie Weissmann.
Absent: Robin Garrell, David Kaplan
Guests: Ross Bollens, Larry Loeher, Margo Reveil, Nick Reddingius, Mike Schilling, Kent Wada, Andrew Wismiller
Agenda Item 1: Introductions/Approval of Summary
Christine Borgman introduced Daniel Atkins and Laura Patterson from the University of Michigan, who joined ITPB by videoconference.
Agenda Item 2: Daniel E. Atkins, University of Michigan
Dan Atkins, the former director of the NSF office of Cyberinfrastructure and lead author of the NSF Cyberinfrastructure Report: Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery (2007), gave an overview of the history of infrastructure and then talked about the way that tools are created in support of the cyberinfrastructure.
He focused on the data-driven nature of science and the requirement for collaborative relationships to address the complex problems arising from combinations of science and non-science fields. He referred to the IT Task Force illustration of “UCLA Anytime, Anywhere” to demonstrate a four quadrant organization with time and place (same/different) serving as the modes of interaction between people, information and facilities.
A question and answer period followed Dr. Atkins’s presentation, including an exploration of what business models should be used for hosting computational clusters.
Dr. Atkins said that the big challenge is to make data widely available while not compromising laws and regulations such as HIPPA. He also talked about the potential of the cyberinfrastructure for the arts. He closed by comparing UCLA to the University of Michigan and said that the two universities are at approximately the same stage in adopting a broad cyberinfrastructure policy. There was an agreement that UCLA and Michigan should continue to communicate on establishing cyberinfrastructre policy and resources at both universities.
Agenda Item 3: ITPB Strategic Planning Principles #1 and #9
The members were divided into four groups (A-D) for discussion on IT Task Force Principles #1 and #9. Please see breakout document for original questions. Group reports:
Group D on Innovation
Question: What do innovator and leader in applying IT to advance our academic mission mean to you?
Information technology is a means to an end and not about IT itself. Cost efficiency and the way it is achieved must include other centers of excellence. Team efforts and collaboration are essential. There is a need to keep Dr. John Daniels’ challenge in mind – that is that the world is changing, but we also need to remember the mission of UC.
Question: How can UCLA institutionally draw upon its capacity for innovation to develop institutional capability?
UCLA must set aside time and energy for science and non-normal collaborations (art-science). The underlying deeper aim concerns how knowledge evolves.
Question: How will we know that this IT Principle is being implemented and that UCLA is improving its leadership in this area?
There are standard measures of grants, however, peers are more concerned about the work that came out of the grants than what the grant measurements were. This is not to look at the interesting technology that developed, but rather to look at content that emerged. It is important to track and analyze IT’s relationship to specific projects to continue to get a sense of where it needs to go.
Group C on Innovation
Question: What do innovator and leader in applying IT to advance our academic mission mean to you?
Activity of research and development is constantly monitored internally and externally. The university should be open to sandboxes and skunkworks that do a “quick and dirty” try-out of ideas on a small scale. There should be continuous monitoring of what is “out there.” One goal should be to develop something attractive beyond just the local appeal (i.e. teaching, administration, research).
What mechanisms could be used to encourage and support innovation?
The mechanisms are time, space and money. The motivation would be to reward and recognize innovation. In the academic environment, it is essential to publish. These publications should document findings so that all faculty can learn across disciplines. Cultural territories (administrative emphasis vs. research emphasis) should have communication across disciplines.
Question: How should we view innovation vs. risk?
Innovation comes with risk. This is significant if money is spent foolishly. It can hurt careers (professional reputation) if a non-traditional method is attempted and fails. Class work needs to be innovative in a way that enhances the learning experience. Litigation is also a risk – that is there must be an assurance that as people try to be innovative, laws and regulations (i.e. HIPPA, FERPA) are adhered to. There is a danger of locking in solutions that are not the best. We must guard against creating “silos,” and support for multiple approaches should be encouraged.
Group B – Investment Strategy
Question: What does digital citizen in the context of our academic mission mean to you?
Digital citizenship cannot be contained in only academic life, but includes faculty, students, staff, and administration.
Question: What do you consider to be the primary parameters or processes that should be in play to direct IT investments (institutionally and locally) to achieve this vision?
There are many generational issues, particularly in the preparatory work prior to enrollment, which is currently very scattered. Digital referral services for constituents are required – half the questions involve how to use services. Outreach to students is needed, but it must also address their aspirations. A danger can be digital exhaustion of faculty if they are required (and able) to be available 24/7 because of technology. There needs to be a re-emphasis on the institution’s obligation.
Question: What are some example investments that would illustrate this kind of innovation and leadership? In general, how do we identify these?
Current models will not take us where we want to go.
Group A – Investment Strategy
This group did not break down their responses to questions 1-3. The questions were:
What do innovator and leader in applying IT to advance our academic mission mean to you? What do you consider to be the primary parameters or processes that should be in play to direct IT investments (both institutionally and locally) to achieve this vision? What are some example investments that would illustrate this kind of innovation and leadership? In general how do we identify these?
It is important to have a clearinghouse of innovation. Communication to the campus is of utmost importance. Recognition of leading edge research/internal technology needs to be better communicated to the campus community. Reward and recognition is vital (agree with Group C). Funding is a very big problem. Faculty should be enticed with cyberinfrastructure that they want and need, but how do we make this available?
Agenda Item 4: UC and UCLA Policy and Compliance Activities
Sam Morabito explained the Red Flag Rules and the UC-wide Ethics and Compliance Committee.
After the compensation scandals, the Regents established an Ethics and Compliance Committee. SVP Cheryl Vacca was put in charge of the UC Ethics and Compliance Program, which established extremely stringent rules. One rule states that either a chancellor or executive vice chancellor can serve as head of each campus committee. Membership is restricted to vice chancellors with a few exceptions for associate vice chancellors.
EVC Scott Waugh chairs the UCLA committee; Kevin Reed is the compliance officer. Cheryl Vacca or her representative must be at each committee meeting to oversee the proceedings. There are a large variety of topics being discussed by the committee, such as indirect cost waivers, health care vendors, HIPPA regulations, data management, and whistle blower reports. One of the most recent discussions centered on the recent death of a UCLA chemical lab worker.
Mr. Morabito also talked about the Red Flags Rule – which are a set of rules by the Federal Trade Commission and banking regulatory groups. These rules deal with identity theft. UCLA is in a position to deal with “covered” items (credit cards, other identity issues) and must present a plan to SVP Vacca on how the campus will identify and remediate potential problems and how the campus will investigate suspicious actions.
IT security and compliance are not discreet items among the “rising tide of regulation.” Privacy and data management are vital to how we do business. Privacy is also vital to openness.
Agenda Item 5: UCLA Statement on Privacy
Jim Davis gave a brief history of the Privacy Board, which was established at the recommendation of Chris Foote in February 2004. Several issues needed the special attention of the Privacy Board, including P2P illegal file sharing, phishing, monitoring, Facebook, and a wide variety of databases.
The Privacy Board is now seeking approval from ITPB on a Privacy Statement. This issue was tabled to allow for presentation and discussion of the statement at the next meeting.
The approval of the February 11, 2009 summary was also tabled.