Technology Planning & Priorities Committee

May 22, 2014

Present:  Bev Nagel, Fernan Jaramillo, Janet Scannell, Linda Thornton, Paul Thiboutot, Laura Chihara, Fred Rogers, Steve Spehn

Absent:  Joe Hargis, Tommy Bonner, Hudlin Wagner

Agenda:

  1. Review minutes from May 7th meeting
  2. ITS updates
  3. Discuss visiting committee report
  4. ITS Governance framework

Minutes from May 7th meeting:

Paul motioned and Bev seconded approval of the May 7th meeting minutes.

ITS updates:  

·         ITS recently hired Janet Russell as the new Director of Academic Technology.  She comes to us from Georgetown University as their Director of Science Programs & Technology Enhanced Learning.  She will be teaching a course in June/July, make a couple visits to campus and then start fulltime in late August.

·         Summer projects are moving along.  We discussed them in more detail at the May 7th meeting.

·         Janet and Steve Spehn will be meeting with Roberta Lembke (St. Olaf) later this week to discuss the reorg of telecommunications and provided services.  St. Olaf recently announced it has entered into an agreement with Arvig as its telecommunications provider.  Just what that means for Carleton, needs to be worked out yet.  We’re not looking to make any immediate changes, but this is an opportunity for us to look at all aspects of the service.

Discuss visiting committee report:

Janet and Bev met recently to discuss the ITS visiting committee report and they touched briefly on its substance.

·         Content of the ITS Strategic Plan. The visiting committee had few specific reactions to the plan other than an observation that St. Olaf’s telecom changes  are an opportunity for ITS and Facilities to work more closely together on phone and data technologies.

·         Governance and decision making.  The visiting committee pointed out the many layers to our governance committees and the lack of clarity in decision making.  What do all these groups do, how do they all work together and where are decisions made? They raised some valid points for streamlining and clarity.

This discussion led us into the next agenda topic of proposed changes to the current governance framework.

ITS Governance Framework:

Janet let us through a handout on the current governance committees and proposed changes to their structure.

Current structure –

·         TP&PC – Technology Planning & Priorities

·         ATAC – Academic Technology Advisory Committee

·         ACAC – Administrative Computing Advisory Committee

·         CSG – Colleague Steering Group

·         CUG – Colleague User Group

·         DMG – Data Management Group

·         Other related groups – CARS (Curriculum & Research Support), Service Point Steering Committee (Lib and IT), FLTG (Future Learning Technologies Group).

All of these groups have various levels of engagement.

1.    Be informed.

2.    Advise (share perspectives & evaluate).

3.    Recommend (endorse solutions)

4.    Approve (endorse strategies & funding).

5.    Execute

Concerns with the current structure are too many layers, unclear roles and responsibilities, fuzzy boundaries around CTO purview, random mix of operational and strategic issues within the top three groups (TPPC, ATAC, ACAC), weak participation on issues of project prioritization and scheduling, and an absence of governance (broader input) around Web projects.

Draft Proposal:

·         Clarify the CTO decision making purview

o   ITS operational and policy decision (with consultation)

o   Authorize expenditures with existing funds

o   Collecting technology-related implications of campus initiatives

o   Assigning appropriate level of governance to initiatives

·         Committee goals:

o   Use of standing committees and time-bound task forces

o    Non-overlapping (whenever possible) membership between levels of the committees.

In this proposal, the ACAC, ATAC, and TP&PC would no longer exist.  A new combined advisory group LIBIT (with faculty, administrators, and students) would be created and things needing executive level approval would go to The Tuesday Group.  We would still have our various user and steering groups.

After discussion, most members were in favor of consolidating our committee structure in some way; though Fred favored keeping TP&PC.   More time is needed to think about the possibilities, so we agreed to continue discussion of this topic at our June 23rd meeting and to extend the meeting to provide time for a conversation of sufficient depth.

Meeting adjourned at 3:40p.m.

Submitted by:

Candyce Lelm