Technology planning & Priorities Committee
February 20, 2014
Present: Bev Nagel, Fernan Jaramillo, Fred Rogers, Janet Scannell, Joe Hargis, Laura Chihara, Linda Thornton
Absent: Hudlin Wagner, Paul Thiboutot
Agenda:
1. Review minutes from January 16th meeting.
2. ITS updates
3. 5 questions article – focus on #3 and #5.
4. Review strategic planning framework
Review minutes:
The minutes from the January 16th meeting were approved.
ITS updates:
· After much consideration, Janet and ITS have decided to stick with Windows 7 for another year. There was too much pushback to Windows 8 and not enough benefit. Our new computers arriving this summer will be 64 bit. That means that there may be some software programs that may not run. This will require a good deal of testing. We’re hoping that Microsoft will accelerate Windows 9 and we can skip 8 entirely.
· Janet and Austin have worked out a new framework for the new technology request process which includes separating out replacements vs. new requests. Our goal is to make a determination and let people know by week 8 of spring term. Michael Decker will be more involved with computer repairs and be making the call whether to repair or replace a machine.
· Position searches – ITS has some good candidates for the position of Director of Academic Technology. We’re close to having a search committee formed and hoping for good faculty involvement in the interview process.
· ITS concluded the Director of Enterprise Information Systems search and promoted Julie Creamer from within the department.
5 questions article – #3 Are we being strategic in our use of technology? And #5 How can we best support the teaching and research needs of our faculty?
This article focused on how IT innovation should always be considered within the context of institutional goals. Evaluating the proper level of IT innovation is an exercise in determining specific ways technology can advance curricular or administrative efforts. Technology innovation outside of these contexts is nearly always a bad idea. Some thoughts brought forth during our discussion included:
· In our strategic initiatives are we using technology effectively? Such as advising or the kinds of things advisors and students need. Fred commented that the Tuesday Group has talked about how we make choices regarding major technology moves.
· Janet senses that there are schools where its operations have a distinctive focus that drives their thinking; such open source, Cloud, or outsourcing a lot. We’re ahead of the curve with Slate. It’s newer and has a social media flavor. It gives staff more ability to track interactively and has document imaging capability.
· Technology changes very quickly. From a strategic perspective we need to be particularly thoughtful about these changes. Try to understand the problem rather than the technology it is trying to solve. We’re looking for ways to get student input in this area.
Review strategic planning framework:
Janet, along with a working group, is in the process of developing a framework for a 1-3year IT strategic plan that maps to the College’s strategic plan.
Phase 1: Goal setting is completed. This included gathering information from campus conversations, making changes to the Help Desk, instructor stations, ITS reorganization, creating a mission statement, and more.
Phase 2: Situation Review is almost completed. This phase includes internal conversations and assessment and review of national trends.
· New Media Consortium “Horizon Report”
· ITS did a brief analysis of the findings from campus conversations. Themes were communication, process, and role clarification.
· MISO Survey- Carleton did in January, we’ll get data in March, and then analyze that feedback.
· Educause annual Top 10 issues. The top 4 align with Carleton’s Strategic Plan.
Phase 3: Strategy Formulation
· Define groupings and phases for the needed operational improvements – ITS website redesign, self-service online materials, and Carlpedia improvements.
· Brainstorm opportunities to further the college’s strategic planning goals – figure out how to get more engagement and perspective from the campus community.
· Put forth a framework for community input on specific initiatives for the next 3 years.
· Bring a visiting committee to campus in April to facilitate engagement of the community in prioritizing. We’re working on figuring out what’s the right approach to take for these meetings.
Fred reported that there are new developments with St. Olaf Telecomm that he will have more information about in the next few weeks. He will then bring that information back to the committee for input.
Meeting adjourned at 11:35a.m.
Submitted by, Candyce Lelm