|
UWC-UTAC Committee Audio Minutes & Agenda
May , 2007
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of Minutes
IV. Old Business
A. Reaction to the consultant’s comments on the Conditions for Use
document (check your physical mailbox for this, and please bring
comments – preferably written down – to the meeting)
V. New Business
A. Begin drafting proposal for card management system as problems of
student use of printers, copiers, etc. are becoming more widespread.
B. Design an equitable system for managing computer labs so that all
departments have access to labs. This needs to extend beyond the
current proprietary scheduling system.
C. Replacements Schedule for Next Year
VI. Adjournment
UWC-UTAC Committee Audio Minutes
April , 2007
UTAC Meeting Minutes
February 24th 2006
Attendance:
Members;
C. Kacir, P. Duncan, C. Warner, D. Knutson, R. Bradley, D. White, N.
Montgomery
R. Burke, B. Penn, B. Saul, C. Strickland, T. Allen, S. Fennell
Guest:
Michael Fiske
I Call To Order
Co-Chairs Kacir and Duncan
II Approval of the Agenda
Approved
III Minutes & Approval of Minutes
Approved
IV New Business
A. Dr. Fiske’s petition for a Mathematic Department Computing
Laboratory
Michael Fiske asked to appear before the committee to petition for an
assigned computing lab space sufficient to the needs and requirements of
the Math Department.
He cites the recent loss of access to ATC Room 204 (30 seats 21
computers) and a failure to provide the Math Department with an equivalent
space to offset that loss as reasons for his appeal to UTAC.
The support plan for the Digital Simulation and Gaming Engineering
program includes a requirement for dedicated classroom and computer
laboratory space.
ATC 204 is designated within the support plan as one of the classroom /lab
spaces that would be re-allocated to support the growth of the program.
A clarification of HEI classifications on open versus designated lab
space was re-iterated.
The preferred replacement of space and technology by the Math
department would include seating for 30 students at a ratio of 2 students
per computer.
Our discussion included the following;
Room Size
Number of Computers per lab (de facto SSU standard is 25 computers)
Efficient Use of space (40% of HEI is the target for this year)
Classification of lab space
Access to required software (seat versus site license)
The administration of technology on campus has been the recent focus of
UTAC.
The committee has developed a standardized process to inventory the
technological resources we currently own and operate. The Departmental
Technology Initiative Form will produce a very detailed profile of
technology and its application for any room on campus.
Each room profile would include,
An accurate inventory of existing computer labs and locations used
for student computing
Identification of potential labs and locations created by new
proposals and/or requests
Lab classification by defined use and function
Description and content detail for each listing in the Lab and
location inventory.
Chuck Warner asks if a vote has been taken by UTAC to accept the
departmental technology plan initiatives form. If it has not, can we vote
to accept the form today ?
UTAC attendance at the meeting today constitutes a quorum.
Motion departmental technology plan initiatives form.
Chris Kacir makes a motion to call the vote for UTAC to accept the
departmental technology plan initiatives form.
This form is to be completed by all departments and affected offices on
campus.
This form will also be completed as part of any new campus initiative to
be proposed in the future.
The Departmental Technology Initiative Form will be accepted as written
with the following revisions:
The word contact is changed to read initiator.
In the same sentence eliminate the words: if needed
Add a sentence that reads; * How will this space be classified by
HEI ?
Asterisk* For HEI information contact UIS department
Motion is seconded
Call for Discussion: None
Call to vote: Vote is Unanimous Approve; Motion Passes
It is important to remember that subsidy funds are calculated per
square foot on the use of a particular space and how that space is
classified.
Motion draft communication to Dr. Field and the president
Departmental technology initiative form
Chuck Warner makes a motion that a communication be drafted and sent to
Dr. Field with a copy going to the President. This document will announce
the approval of the Departmental Technology Initiative form by UTAC and
provide a description of the form and its intended use by the committee.
An account of Dr. Fiske’s appearance before the committee and his appeal
for redress concerning the loss of computer lab space will serve as
evidence in the recommendation to include UTAC in all discussions on the
movement or modification of computing labs or any other future decisions
that involve technology.
Motion is seconded by Dan White
Call for Discussion: Brian Saul requests an amendment to include a
timeline that accommodates an order date for replacement computers of June
1st and the application of lab criteria to all existing labs by
a date of April 1st.
Call to vote with amendment: Vote is Unanimous Approve; Motion Passes
The lab space request by Dr Fiske and the Math Department will be the
initial test
of both the Departmental Technology Initiative Form and the UTAC Lab
Criteria.
UTAC will render a decision on the Math Department request once the UTAC
Lab Criteria has been applied to the inventory of labs that are currently
in operation on campus.
To accommodate the June 1st order date for replacement computers, lab
criteria must be applied to all labs by April 1st.
A solicitation will be made electronically for all new technology
proposals planned for the upcoming year must provide a completed
Departmental Technology Initiative Form prior to April 1st. It is
understood that this action precedes official recognition of the
recommended Departmental Technology Initiative Form. The order date for
replacement computers necessitates this preemption of protocol.
On the issue of recommended best practices and network security
procedures it is the opinion of some on the committee that specific
sections in the original text could be improved if certain terms were
defined more clearly, while others feel that the document is acceptable as
written.
In order to expedite a timely response from the committee to HB 104, a
recommendation is made to consider the issues separately. Changes to the
original document can be accomplished at any time through the amendment
process.
The legislation of HB 104 will charge the appropriate state entities
with the security of information defined as confidential by law.
Motion user best practices and network security
procedures
Chris Kacir makes a motion to endorse the listed recommendations for
user best practices and network security procedures as originally written.
Motion seconded by Susan Fennel
Call for Discussion: None
Call to vote: Vote is Unanimous Approve; Motion Passes
Motion amendment #1 to user best practices and network security
procedures
Chris Kacir moves that a vote be called to accept Amendment #1to the
user best practices and network security procedures document.
Amendment #1 reads as follows:
Replace all occurrences of “confidential” with “confidential as defined
by House Bill...” or add a statement that in this context “confidential”
means name together with social security number and/or driver’s license
number and/or credit card number. For the purpose of this document,
student names, student ID number, and student grades are not considered
“confidential.” Faculty members can continue to store class rosters and
grades on the hard drives of their office computers.
Discussion:
C Wells –Strickland urges that Student ID numbers be treated as
“private information”.
C Kacir urged caution with
things that become too well defined.
Original intent can be severely compromised or lost completely by
definition.
Call to vote on Amendment #1: Vote is Unanimous No; Motion Fails
Motion draft communication to university cabinet requesting
guidelines on classifications of confidential information.
Chris Kacir makes a motion that a communication be drafted and sent to
the university cabinet requesting guidelines on the classifications of
confidential information for use on this campus.
Discussion: None
Call to vote: Vote is Unanimous Approve; Motion Passes
Motion amendment #2 to user best practices and network security
procedures
Chris Kacir moves that a vote be called to accept Amendment #2 to the
user best practices and network security procedures document.
Amendment #2 reads as follows:
Add a statement that it is the recommendation of UTAC that the deans’
offices and or human resources develop a checkout procedure for adjunct
faculty that includes notifying UIS.
Discussion: W Allen should be the responsibility of the departments.
D White cautions against HR Department.
Call to vote on Amendment #2: Vote is Unanimous No; Motion Fails
Motion amendment #3 to user best practices and network security
procedures
Chris Kacir moves that a vote be called to accept Amendment #3 to the
user best practices and network security procedures document.
Amendment #3 reads as follows:
Replace “Notify UIS when an electronic process (via dialup transmission or
the internet) is needed to complete a business function.” with “Notify UIS
when an electronic process (via dialup transmission or the internet) that
involves the transmission of confidential information is needed to
complete a business function.”
Discussion: Institutional business vs Personal business
The amendment is seen as unnecessary as to intent and meaning.
Call to vote on Amendment #3: Vote is majority No, Abstentions 2;
Motion Fails
Motion amendment #4 to user best practices and network security
procedures
Chris Kacir moves that a vote be called to accept Amendment #4 to the
user best practices and network security procedures document.
Amendment #4 reads as follows:
Add a statement that it is the recommendation of UIS that workspaces for
university employees who work with confidential information should have
workspaces that can be locked when not under direct employee supervision.
Discussion: unnecessary as to intent and meaning. UIS does not claim
ownership of this security
Call to vote on Amendment #4: Vote is Unanimous No; Motion Fails
V. Adjourned
Attachment 1 (UTAC Minutes January13th 2006)
SSU Departmental Technology Initiative
|
Individual/Departmental Information |
Date completed: Contact: Ext.:
Email:
Department: Arts & Sciences Engineering &
Professional Studies
|
Project/Program Rationale (Why is
technology relevant/How will technology be applied to the project?) |
|
Project/Program Description (What
technology?) |
Hardware Needed:
Software Needed:
Infrastructure: Network Bandwidth ( Mbps1)
Telecomm (faxes/phones)
What lab/location will this project/program be
implemented?
What type of lab does this project/program include?
(computer, science lab, allied health lab, etc)
Other Information (include # of computers, printers,
phones, video/audio etc):
Is this project: Temporary Permanent
What is the original funding source?
If known please list the account number:
What is the (if needed) recurring funding
source?
If grant funded, list terms of grant and matching funds?
Start Date of the Project/Program (this is the date the
technology is to be used)
End Date of the Project/Program (this is the date the
technology will no longer be utilized)
Hardware Estimates (attach quotes):
Software Estimates (attach quotes):
Network Resources (ie bandwidth, switches):
Training:
Ohio
House Bill 104 (PDF)
UTAC Committee Meeting
Minutes
January 13, 2006
Attendance:
Members;
C. Kacir, P. Duncan, C. Warner, D. Knutson, J. Stewart, P. Yost, D. White
A. Knapper
I Call To Order
Co-Chairs Kacir and Duncan
II Approval of the Agenda
Approved
III Minutes & Approval of Minutes
Approved
IV New Business
A. Publication of minimum computer
requirements for prospective students
Brian Saul (absent) requests a general concern for prospective
students.
The availability of minimum computer standards for proper network
operation
Our discussion included the following;
Kacir recommends a three tiered approach:
Base configuration
Recommended system for university network resources
Recommended system for all university network resources
Given the potential impact of student satisfaction, this issue should be
given serious consideration.
Publication of this information by the university would be seen as a
positive response to a student enrollment concern.
V. Old Business
A. Technology Plan (Departmental)
P Duncan reported on the status of departmental
technology planning form.
A draft form has been distributed to the committee on the back of UTAC
meeting agenda.
(See Attachment)
A successful form should be intuitive in design, easily understood and
able to be completed quickly by a non technical person.
Any form selected must produce information sufficient for making
appropriate decisions on behalf of the university.
Discussion was opened.
Kacir:
Budget/funding source identification and information.
Majority of the form should consist of check off boxes.
Duncan:
Should be an online form
Warner:
Where in the program development process do we see this form appearing?
At what point would the information become necessary to the process?
Yost:
The form has a potential benefit to academic departments. A form of this
type could be a companion piece to the program narrative making the
information more accessible and easier to manage.
Kacir:
This form should allow individual departments to conduct internal reviews
of their existing technology. Departments would conduct such reviews on an
annual basis.
Duncan:
Will a form be created for every space in every department on campus?
An online form would work well for this purpose.
Warner:
Does this form represent only the extent of UTAC funding or should it be
purposed to extend beyond computer technology.
Dan White will rework the original and return to the committee.
V. Adjourned
UTAC Committee Meeting
Minutes
November 18, 2005
Attendance:
Members:
C. Kacir, P. Duncan, C. Warner, D. Knutson, J. Stewart, B Penn, C Wells
Strickland
No Quorum
Information Only
I Call To Order
Co-Chairs Kacir and Duncan
II Approval of the Agenda
Approved
III Minutes & Approval of Minutes
Approved
IV New Business
A. Discussion with Dr. Field
Technology Planning and Academic
Affairs
The status of program specific computer labs in Academic Affairs is
being re-evaluated. Alternatives to the current methods of support and
replacement are under consideration.
Options discussed include, and are not limited to:
Academic Affairs would assume the support for computer labs that are
program specific and have unique technology requirements.
If adopted, those computer labs would then be dropped from the
university computer replacement schedule.
At the request of Dr Field, Engineering and Digital Art has been asked
to provide a summary of the technology costs required to complete both
tracks of the Gaming and Simulation program. One third of that summary
total may well represent the annual budget for both Engineering and
Digital Arts versions of the Game/Sim program.
In addition, re-calculated lab fees are being considered as a potential
source of additional funding for program specific technology.
A departmental technology plan (template), currently in development by
a UTAC subcommittee, should play a significant role in the facilitation of
these proposed changes.
IV New Business
B. Allied Health renovation and computer replacement
Chuck reported that the Allied Health renovation will include a
consolidation of computing resources into a single location. Chuck has
advised Dean Rader to come before UTAC with a proposal to replace all
Allied Health computers at one time.
This request would be for a greater number of computers than are
currently allocated to Allied Health. The computer replacement schedule
would be consolidated to a single event.
B. Open computer lab schedules and the level of
student satisfaction
Cory Wells Strickland reported a general dissatisfaction by students
with the availability of open computer labs and access to specific
software program.
Our discussion included the following; schedules, locations, resources,
staffing, and security. Given the potential impact of student
satisfaction, this issue should be given serious consideration. A
legitimate attempt by the university to reconcile expectation and reality
would be seen as a positive response to a student concern.
V. Old Business
None
VI. Adjourned
Attachment 1 (UTAC Minutes
November 18th 2005)
Memorandum
To: President Rita Rice Morris, Ph.D.
From: Christopher D. Kacir, Ph.D., William Peter Duncan
Date: 1/19/2006
Re: UTAC Recommendation for Minimum Computer Lab Criteria
President Rice Morris,
The following is a recommendation approved by the University Technology
Advisory Committee regarding the establishment of criteria to define what
Shawnee State University considers a computer lab that will be supported
by the student technology fee. This recommendation was initiated in
response to the increasing cost of replacing computers in labs, and the
general practice of using “cascaded” machines to create a lab which then
is placed on the computer replacement schedule (thus replacing previously
replaced computers). This will also, it is believed, assist the university
in its efforts to better utilize space (by giving priority to those labs
that are most frequently used, and therefore, more likely to be subsidized
by the state). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
myself, or Pete Duncan.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christopher D. Kacir, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor Psychology
Co-Chair, University Technology Advisory Committee
William Peter Duncan
Director Office of Instructional Technology
Co-Chair, University Technology Advisory Committee
Minimum criteria for placement on UTAC replacement schedule:
1. Primary use of computers is by students.
1.1. Open labs
1.2. Student-use classroom labs
1.3. Student use lab (other)
1.4. Priority will be given to labs that are used by the
general student population
(as reported by
sponsoring department or registrar’s office) as opposed to
students from only one or
two departments/majors.
2. Usage of computers meets the following minimum criteria:
2.1. Computers are in an open lab OR
2.2. Computers are available for student use at
least 8 hours/day, 5 days/week
(as reported
by department chairs or registrar’s office) OR
2.3. Computers are in use (as demonstrated by
sponsoring department or UIS
usage logs)
at least 50% of 14 hours/day, 5 days/week
3. The number of computers in the lab is at least 12 (as reported by UIS
audit).
3.1. The number of replaced computers shall not
increase. Any additional
computers
added to the computer lab will need to be funded by
departmental
or outside budget sources. Any department wishing to
increase the
number of computers in a computer lab currently on the UTAC
replacement
schedule must appeal in person before the UTAC committee.
Decision to
allow additional computers in a lab to be placed on the
computer lab
replacement schedule will be based on criteria 1, 2 & 3, as
well as,
university growth and budgetary considerations.
3.2. Replacement will be provided at the modal cost of
campus computers. The
department
sponsoring the computer lab will provide any additional costs.
UTAC may approve
exceptions to this criteria based on demonstrated needs
for higher-cost
computers. Any department with a need for computers above
the modal
replacement cost must appeal in person before the UTAC
committee.
3.3. The computer lab in question is currently on the
UTAC replacement
schedule as
of Summer Quarter 2004.
3.4. Any department with a new computer lab wishing
that lab to be placed on
the UTAC
replacement schedule must appeal in person before the UTAC
committee. A
new computer lab must be in existence and have evidences
of meeting
the above criteria for at least 3 years before it can be considered
for placement
on the UTAC replacement schedule. Decision to allow a new
lab to be
placed on the computer lab replacement schedule will be based
on these
criteria, as well as, budgetary considerations.
If there are discrepancies between departmental statistics and official
university statistics (UIS or registrar’s office), it is the
responsibility of the department sponsoring the lab to ensure that the
official sources match the departmental statistics. For example, if a lab
is in use 8 hours/day, 5 days/week, but the registrar’s office notes it as
used only 5 hours/day, 4 days/week, the department must reconcile this
fact with the registrar and ensure that the registrar’s statistics are
changed to reflect actual availability/usage. Likewise, number of
computers or usage obtained via UIS statistics should be checked and
disputed by departments sponsoring labs. This will ensure the maximum
possible remuneration from the state for the lab space in question.
Labs will be audited the year before their scheduled replacement in
order to ensure that they meet criteria for replacement. A lab that has
consistently failed to meet any one of criteria A, B or C will be removed
from the replacement schedule.
UTAC Committee Meeting
Minutes
October 28, 2005
Attendance:
Members:
C. Warner, A. Napper, C. Kacir, P. Duncan, D. Knutson, J. Stewart, B.
Saul,
N. Montgomery, K. Kratzenberg, R. Burke, D. White (new)
I Call To Order
Co-Chairs Kacir and Duncan
II Approval of the Agenda
Consensus Nod
III Minutes & Approval of Minutes
IV New Business
A. Discuss the new UTAC Charge per Dr. Rita Rice Morris
Charge will give the committee focus.
All responses to the e-mail soliciting comments on the committee charge
from UTAC members seemed positive.
v Policy Recommendations for general
use labs;
1) No increase in labs
2) Target Utilization rate of 40%
Application of criteria and utilization target is addressed in UTAC lab
criteria.
UTAC
Lab Criteria Document vote was taken October 7th 2004.
Passed
by majority (16 of 25 votes)
Recommendation sent to President Morris November 11th 2004.
(See
Attachment 1)
v Prepare
a budget request for general use computer labs 06-07
Submission to VP Finance and Administration March 1st 2006
v
Cooperative development of template for
program technology plans
for use
by departments.
UTAC will work with UIS and the Office of the Provost.
UTAC
will serve as the forum for the review said departmental/program
technology plans to assess impact on existing campus technology and
proactively plan for the future.
Chuck Warner suggests that UTAC view the Campus Master Plan that is
currently
under development by the SSU Facilities Department.
v Work with UIS to refine
the computer replacement/cascading plan to
reflect any
changes resulting from the requirement of technology
plans and
related funding changes.
UTAC will work with UIS to integrate the impact of departmental technology
plans.
v Serve as a review groups
for UIS plans for technology infrastructure
and support
and future applications.
Strategic Planning Committee: Chuck Warner a member of SPC will serve
as UTAC
liaison.
v
Consider and recommend whether students should be required to
have their own
laptop computers. This recommendation should be
presented no later
than April 1, 2006.
Robbie
Burke is an advocate of a student requirement and acknowledges
that the subject
has been a topic of discussion in previous UTAC meetings.
v
Recommend any changes the committee feels will improve
constituency group
participation in UTAC and communication to
constituency members.
1) Committee
Size
The size of UTAC
is considered the biggest obstacle to conducting business.
Creation of a representational
standing committee would streamline
communication and speed up the
committee process. Given our charge, it is
imperative that this issue be
resolved.
Kacir makes a
motion to create a subcommittee to create and develop a
technology plan for the institution.
Second by P Duncan.
Motion carried by unanimous vote of members
in attendance.
Committee Composition
Chuck Warner a member of SPC will serve as UTAC liaison.
A Game/Sim program representative from both
Engineering and the Digital Arts
Pete
Duncan
Health Science
Students
2) Meeting frequency
Motion by C Warner to increase UTAC meetings from once a month to
twice a month.
Second by B Saul
Motion carried by unanimous vote of members in attendance.
Next Meeting/s: November 4th
November 18th
Motion by P Duncan to accept the new UTAC Charge per Dr. Rita Rice
Morris as written.
Second by C Warner
Motion carried by unanimous vote of members in attendance.
IV New Business
B. Computer Replacement Schedule
2006 (3 year cycle)
(Point
of Information)
UTAC voted (15 out of 25) in March 2005 to accept the UIS Inventory
as
the official benchmark
for computer replacement using student
technology fees on the
SSU Campus.
Chuck Warner
reviews the handout of the computer replacement schedule for
2006.
Budget for 06 is
approximately $ 216,000
Carryover for 05 is
approximately $ 13,800
MS Student fees
approximately $ 11,000
(Lab & Client Licenses)
Microsoft
software costs are negotiated by the Ohio InterUniversity Council.
SSU is an Option II IUC
School.
D White is a sitting
representative on the MS IUC Committee.
MS License fees are paid
annually. SSU is on year 3 of a 3 year negotiated
agreement.
Computer
Replacement is based on the modal cost of a standard machine.
Current Cost is $ 1090.00
per machine.
(Point of Information)
The position of current UTAC leadership is that the modal cost per
machine replacement standard
was established when UTAC voted to
accept the Lab Criteria
Document.
(see Attachment 2)
Discussion of labs/computers
purchased and or created by grants or special
funding appropriations. What happens
and the end of use cycle for these
computers. Is the expectation that UTAC will continue to replace them ?
Laptop subsidies for
students.
Is Financial Aid or are loans to own
programs from the OEMs available to
students for purchase or lease.
More research is needed on this
subject.
Software and wireless: what are the
limitations and the advantages to server
based software and the wireless
environment.
V. Old Business
None
VI. Adjourned
Attachment 1
Memorandum
To: President Rita Rice Morris, Ph.D.
From: Christopher D. Kacir, Ph.D., William Peter
Duncan
Date: 1/19/2006
Re: UTAC Recommendation for Minimum Computer Lab
Criteria
President Rice Morris,
The following is a recommendation approved by the University
Technology Advisory Committee regarding the establishment of criteria to
define what Shawnee State University considers a computer lab that will be
supported by the student technology fee. This recommendation was initiated
in response to the increasing cost of replacing computers in labs, and the
general practice of using “cascaded” machines to create a lab which then
is placed on the computer replacement schedule (thus replacing previously
replaced computers). This will also, it is believed, assist the university
in its efforts to better utilize space (by giving priority to those labs
that are most frequently used, and therefore, more likely to be subsidized
by the state). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
myself, or Pete Duncan.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christopher D. Kacir, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor Psychology
Co-Chair, University Technology Advisory Committee
William Peter Duncan
Director Office of Instructional Technology
Co-Chair, University Technology Advisory Committee
Minimum criteria for placement on UTAC replacement schedule:
1. Primary use of computers is by students.
1.1. Open labs
1.2. Student-use classroom labs
1.3. Student use lab (other)
1.4. Priority will be given to labs that are used by the general
student population
(as reported by sponsoring
department or registrar’s office) as opposed to
students from only one or two
departments/majors.
2. Usage of computers meets the following minimum criteria:
2.1. Computers are in an open lab OR
2.2. Computers are available for student use at least 8
hours/day, 5 days/week
(as reported by
department chairs or registrar’s office) OR
2.3. Computers are in use (as demonstrated by sponsoring
department or UIS
usage logs) at least 50%
of 14 hours/day, 5 days/week
3. The number of computers in the lab is at least 12 (as reported by UIS
audit).
3.1. The number of replaced computers shall not increase.
Any additional
computers added to the computer lab will need to be
funded by departmental
or outside budget
sources. Any department wishing to increase the number
of computers in a
computer lab currently on the UTAC replacement schedule
must appeal in
person before the UTAC committee. Decision to allow
additional
computers in a lab to be placed on the computer lab replacement
schedule will be
based on criteria 1, 2 & 3, as well as, university growth and
budgetary
considerations.
3.2. Replacement will be provided at the modal cost of
campus computers. The
department sponsoring the computer lab will
provide any additional costs.
UTAC may approve exceptions to this
criteria based on demonstrated needs
for higher-cost computers.
Any department with a need for computers above
the modal
replacement cost must appeal in person before the UTAC
committee.
3.3. The computer lab in question is currently on the UTAC
replacement schedule
as of Summer Quarter 2004.
3.4. Any department with a new computer lab wishing that
lab to be placed on
the UTAC replacement schedule must appeal in
person before the UTAC
committee. A new computer lab must be in
existence and have evidences of
meeting the above criteria for at
least 3 years before it can be considered for
placement on the UTAC replacement schedule. Decision to allow a new lab
to be
placed on the computer lab replacement schedule will be based on
these criteria, as well as, budgetary considerations.
If there are discrepancies between departmental statistics and
official university statistics (UIS or registrar’s office), it is the
responsibility of the department sponsoring the lab to ensure that the
official sources match the departmental statistics. For example, if a
lab is in use 8 hours/day, 5 days/week, but the registrar’s office
notes it as used only 5 hours/day, 4 days/week, the department must
reconcile this fact with the registrar and ensure that the registrar’s
statistics are changed to reflect actual availability/usage. Likewise,
number of computers or usage obtained via UIS statistics should be
checked and disputed by departments sponsoring labs. This will ensure
the maximum possible remuneration from the state for the lab space in
question.
Labs will be audited the year before their scheduled
replacement in order to ensure that they meet criteria for
replacement. A lab that has consistently failed to meet any one of
criteria A, B or C will be removed from the replacement schedule.
Attachment 2
Date: 6/7/05
To: Administration, Deans and Department Heads
From: Chris Kacir and Pete Duncan
Co-Chairs UTAC
Subject: Cascading Computers
This memo is to inform you of UTAC’s growing concern regarding
the cascading of computers that are being replaced into additional
labs and student housing. The following is a summary of the pertinent
points to this issue (thanks to Chuck Warner for much of the following
summary):
1. The ATC Department has requested to keep machines
currently up for
replacement in ATC 105 and ATC 160, totaling 48
machines. Both labs are on
the SSU Admin network. They would like
to cascade an unspecified subset to
ATC 301, which is on the ATC
network and disburse the remaining to an
unspecified location.
2. Several (most) of these computers will be utilized in
computer engineering
courses designed to troubleshoot and repair
computers. It is reasonable that
cascades be utilized for this
purpose, as opposed to, new machines.
3. Engineering has kept these two labs off of the UTAC
computer replacement
schedule, which saves considerable amounts of
money for the university. It
seems reasonable to support this
practice for these particular labs.
4. This action will result in a conflict with the current
replacement plan. For the last
5 years UTAC targets all lab
cascades to the Student Housing Units. There are
currently 100 needed to fulfill this effort, and we
anticipate that with additional
housing units this will increase the next several years.
Assuming 142 machines
on the schedule, there will not be enough machines to
complete the requirement,
even in a perfect scenario. In reality, multiple machines we
remove from the labs
will not function, and any remaining we generate parts to fix
during the course of
the year if needed. These machines are no longer on warranty,
but moving them
to Housing extends the life of each unit to 4 years,
consistent with the staff
replacement. They will continue to meet network standards for
the 4th year.
5. Currently, there is a difference in opinion as to the
priority of these machines
within UTAC. ATC believes that
Academics should be first priority, thus take
precedent over any
cascade to Housing Units.
6. UTAC offers the guideline that with each replacement is
the expectation that a
machine is no longer able to meet the QOS
in the lab, thus be replaced.
Cascading these machines to the
Housing Units extends the life of a machine
that no longer is on
warranty, and provides a service to students. Randy Warman
communicates a significant value with this offering. Students
appear to appreciate
this, especially since only a few of our labs
are open after hours. Many now
expect it, and it is believed that
we currently market this with our Admissions
effort.
While it is obvious that there are definite benefits to
cascading computers to both housing and ATC, there are also
disadvantages beyond the current conflict of interests.
1. Several “computer labs” have sprung up on campus
composed of entirely
cascaded or soft-money acquired machines, and
existing labs often supplement
the number of machines with
cascades. While this works for a time, ultimately
when these machines need replaced, the student tech
fee is the source that is
generally looked to. This is a dangerous
practice to continue given our current
budgetary limitations.
2. Servicing cascades is resource-consuming in terms of
UIS time and support, and
hardware needs as these machines are
beyond the scope of the warranty offered
by our supplier
(currently IBM). UIS notes that servicing cascaded machines,
particularly those in student housing is very resource-intensive.
|
