November 5, 2009
ISPC Meeting Minutes
November 5, 2009
Library Community Room
Call to Order: 1:08 p.m.
Present: Brodnick, Denney, Fox, Frederick, Gilbertson, Griffen, Hetrick, Johnson, LeGreco
Not Present: Bergstrom, Jacobson, Yelpaala, ASUOP Representative
Guests: Scott Christensen, Rob Henderson, Peggy Kay
Minutes: The minutes from October 15th were approved as amended with two corrections.
Student Email:
Research showed that hundreds of institutions have migrated student email to Google. Rob Henderson noticed that half of them did not have a domain name. Rob explained the use of a domain name and mentioned that ISPC had talked about using u.pacific.edu or univ.pacific.edu at the last meeting. A list of what other institutions are using was distributed to the group. Janice mentioned that Pacific University in Oregon uses pacificu.edu and asked the group if they felt there was an issue in similarity of Pacific using u.pacific.edu; the group felt that this would not be an issue. The group also discussed issues with using mail.pacific.edu. The domain name was discussed with marketing and they preferred u or univ. A motion was carried to use u.pacific.edu for Pacific’s domain name with no objections.
Draft List of FY11 Budget:
Paragraphs will be created regarding the six priorities that ISPC decided on and they will be integrated into the Priority List, which will be posted on the ISPC channel through insidePacific. Banner 9 Upgrade has been added to the list since OIT is preparing for the future. Larry asked the group to comment on a model of constant funding through FY15 for implementing information technology. Janice expressed the need for a discussion on the FTEs. Larry explained that some of the projects listed require staff. OIT reallocates staff on a frequent basis, but more staff is needed. Peggy mentioned that it may be helpful for ISPC to see the job responsibility matrixes that her and Rob have for a better sense of how staff is allocated. Some staff resources will be available after the email migration to Google, but their services will be incorporated into other projects. The group discussed hiring consultants, but most projects are long-term and they need maintenance. Jim suggested having more development by staff to decrease licensing. Peggy explained that there may not be back up and Pacific does not have the in-house resources to do this. Opportunities of development applications through web-forms would be a possible strategy. In-house developing will have to be reviewed in great detail before any decisions are made. At Educuase, one of the main topics is how to save money or contain the number of staff. Larry mentioned using cloud computing in the future to simplify Pacific’s technical environment, and not to develop unless that is specifically what the institution would prefer to do. Phil and Larry expressed that this is not the time to bring in-house developing to the table. Janice articulated her point of discussion about FTE’s since other departments also need staff, and ISPC may need to justify their request. There are staff positions that have been committed, but the projects have taken longer to implement. Deborah asked why OIT does not have systems analysts and how this is related to the reporting need in Business and Finance and other divisions. Peggy explained that as reporting progressed the operational aspect was looked at in detail and it was not yet identified that more staff would be needed for functional analyst positions. The Enterprise Business Partners are trying to look at all aspects while assessing to support better ideas and to move in the right direction. For clarification, Peggy explained that the Advanced Analytic Tool in priority number 2 is not only for Advancement Services, but an advanced tool for the institution. Rob summarized the history of reporting and the positions needed. ISPC needs to review the overall strategy and figure out a way to maintain, fund and implement it. It may be helpful to form a strategy group to assess the issue and report back to ISPC. The group discussed a reporting review between all divisions in great detail. If a review were done ISPC would have to take in account the immediacy of certain needs. The divisions require an assessment of needs within their area, but reporting, as a whole also needs to be addressed. ODS also needs to be examined. Janice suggested to present IPC with the history of the funding bind that ISPC is in, and to address the academic concerns for more resources. Rob mentioned one of the WASC recommendations is information technology and to develop a technology planning system. The process to create a system will need to start soon, but this can be acknowledged when presenting to IPC. Peggy will create a narrative of understanding for the reporting strategy, and the six priorities and paragraphs describing each of them will be integrated into the spreadsheet. ISPC only has one more meeting to coordinate the list since the presentation to IPC is next month.
Adjourned: 2:41 p.m.
The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 19 at 1:00 p.m. in the Taylor Room.