Duke ITAC - January 14, 1999 Minutes
DUKE ITAC - January 14, 1999 Minutes
January 14, 1999
Attending: Ed Anapol, Pakis Bessias, Chris Cramer (for John Board), Dick Danner, Jim Coble (for David Ferriero), John Kent (for Nevin Fouts), Jimmy Grewal, Patrick Halpin, Bob Newlin (for David Jamieson-Drake), Jason Kreuter, Betty Leydon, Roger Loyd, Melissa Mills, Kyle Johnson (for Caroline Nisbet),Mike Pickett, Rafael Rodriguez, Leslie Saper, George Oberlender (for Bill Scarborough), Pete Boyd (for John Sigmon), Robert Wolpert, Lynne O'Brien. Guests: Bob Currier, John Collins, Rob Carter, Charles Register
Call to Order: Meeting called to order by Rafael Rodriguez
Review of Minutes and Announcements:
Introduction of new Director of Instructional Technology:
- Ensure that faculty members are aware of and prepared to use technologies that improve teaching and learning.
[ Lynne commented that in order to meet this goal she needed to get to know Duke better, not just the faculty and undergrad students, but also graduate students, staff, TAs, etc]
- Encourage faculty to experiment with uses of technology in teaching.
- Promote collaboration among faculty, other campus units, and the public and private sector interested in using technology for teaching
- Help develop facilities where faculty and students can use technology appropriate for their teaching and learning goals.
[Lynne commented that facilities in this case involves more than classrooms and clusters]
- Coordinate planning for instruction technology support; integrate instructional technology planning into other institutional change efforts
[ Lynne - this is important to coordinate in order to avoid reinventing the wheel]
- Assess the effectiveness of instructional technology initiatives.
- Ensure that instructional technology initiatives are sustainable and cost effective.
- Establish an advisory group representing different constituencies interested in instructional technology to help define needs, develop and review plans and assess the impact of instructional technology initiatives.
[Lynne - this group would want input from ITAC and other groups on campus.]
- Create a university-wide web site to serve as a clearinghouse for information, resources and contacts about instructional technology.
- Organize activities that publicize effective uses of technology in the curriculum.
- Provide a set of integrated, well-supported, easy-to-use tools to help faculty develop and use technology in the planning and delivery of their courses.
[Lynne pointed out that there are trade-offs between the size of the tools-set and the amount of support available]
- Develop technology-enhanced classrooms and clusters that meet pedagogical needs.
- Consult with faculty, teaching assistants and instructional support staff on all aspects of integrating technology in teaching.
- Develop an incentive program for faculty members who wish to undertake significant instructional computing projects.
- Working with the advisory board, develop short term and long term assessment goals and plans.
- Who are the faculty I need to meet? What is the best way to find out about student needs and interests?
- Who should be on an instructional technology advisory board?
- What do the faculty see as their key needs for using technology in teaching? What services or resources are missing?
- What is the best way to publicize information to faculty?
- Is there a need for new facilities related to instructional computing, and if so, what kind?
- What are some key projects or change efforts at Duke where instructional technology planning should be included?
- What kind of incentive program would help faculty the most? What is practical?
- If you were to evaluate Duke's progress in instructional technology in two years, what would you hope to see?
[Lynne - what has been Duke's progress over the last two years with regards to instructional technologies, what is foreseen for the next two?Jimmy Grewal - an architecture firm is looking into renovating West campus to put small computing clusters in the dorms.
John Kent - Fuqua will have a multimedia suite and production facility in the new building available to faculty. Also, there is a distance learning project CIGBY, contacts are John McCann and John Gallager]
- Appointment by executive committee of the academic council,
- It could be an ITAC subcommittee,
- Members could be appointed by the deans.
- Betty Leydon - mentioned that the renewal of the 5 year plan, Shaping the Future, will(/should?) include Instructional Technology
Lynne - we should look at classroom planning at other schools. She would also like input on what it is that we most want from instr. tech.
Jimmy Grewal - there exists a base level of technology awareness for students. Faculty should have the same level of awareness in order to enhance communication
Robert Wolpert - regarding the advisory group for instr. tech, there are several options: Lynne - the committee needs representation across schools, across skill and interest levels, it needs people who are doing things, people who want to do things, it also should have students and not just faculty
Betty - ITAC chartered to have membership Lynne needs, but this generates a large group, perhaps an ITAC subcommittee work
Robert - a big group is a lot of trouble perhaps group should start small.
Melissa Mills - suggested Lynne should talk to Bob Thompson and other deans regarding who should be on committee
Leslie Saper - suggested getting in touch w/ faculty to find out what is being done. may have to go in person
Robert - perhaps best to go through department chairs rather than spam faculty.
[section missing on original handout, Lynne went through questions]
General Instructional Technology discussion - sometimes refers back to handout:
- Lynne O'Brien (email: firstname.lastname@example.org) the new Director of Instructional Technology was introduced prompting a round of introductions. Lynne will be joining ITAC.
Lynne passed out and reviewed a handout duplicated here
(comments during review marked w/ [ ] in green ):
Security and Systems Management
Rafael Rodriguez - the Technical Architecture Design Standing Committee has been looking into security issues for an open environment. The Med Center and the University decided to purchase a security system. The two systems examined were from Tivoli and Computer Associates, Duke purchased the Tivoli system. Institutional wide system, so some groups may elect to use some of the software's subsystems.
A handout was passed around giving information on the new system. Basically, acpub uses kerberos, the world is moving to digital certificates, the system handles both. Security system would require a DCE security system and the SnareWorks application server (traps protocol calls providing security and encryption). A user would log into the DCE serve and get credentials. Applications would use the credentials for authentication. This will allow remote users to use Duke-local services. The Tivoli/GSO acts as the behind the scenes key box so that only a single login will be required to access many services.
George Oberlender asked about firewalls.
Rob Carter - the system has support for different firewalls.
Rafael passed around another handout (from Tivoli) showing how the system manages resources and can interface to other vendors' products, including SAP, PeopleSoft and Lotus Notes
John Kent asked about licensing
Rafael - it is campus wide and can be installed on any number of servers and clients
John asked about the roll-out date.
Rafael said that it is not currently known.
Melissa - does it collect security information
Rafael - yes and it works w/ Spectrum
Melissa - can it be used by the departments
Rafael - the licensing allows for it, but the amount of technical effort may not justify it
Melissa - perhaps it would be of use at the school-wide (not dept) level.
Mike Pickett - background: SAP is a big administrative package for corporate Duke which will replace payroll by year 2000. Duke has purchased all of SAP which includes 12 major modules. On March 1, the following will be switched on: asset management, funds management, financial reporting, project systems. Accounts payable and procurement are currently in use. This will allow Duke to spin the hospital off as a wholly owned subsidiary for liability reasons. To date, 500 people have been trained. There are 30 courses at 5 locations w/ 20 trainers. Performance measurements have been started. The payroll function will take longer, around 2 days. Planning and HR system will be available departments and individuals. One "failure" to report, Duke ordered a web training product. Product turned out to be Wintel and Internet Explorer specific and failed on other machines - product returned. For testing, all balances are being loaded from last year. All modules are being tested, specifically for interactions. Next phase of testing will involve users and includes security issues. Mike handed out a sample of a test schedule. There "should" be little impact on the campus, even when component codes go from 7 digits to 9.
Melissa Mills asked for more information about component codes, Mike suggested talking to Jim Luther.
George Oberlender commented that switching fund codes is a massive and distributed effort.
Mike said that there will be translators to help.
Ed Anapol asked about 9 to 7 digit code lookup tables.
Mikesaid that there will be a hotline available and that people w/ a possibility of encountering code problems will have a card w/ both codes.
Jim Coble asked how many people are involved in the project.
Mike 34 full time, around 100 total.
Jim also asked why running the new payroll will take so long.
Mike until now, payroll has not kept history information whereas the new system will. Fortunately, this does not mean that payroll will take longer w/ time. The rate is approximately 1000 checks / hour. Mike also mentioned that part of the problem is the direct deposit of paychecks.
Video/Voice/Data Working Group
Rafael Rodriguez - background: CIO's Betty & Landon commissioned working group which includes Kirby, Collins and Massey. Working group just started meeting.
John Collins - group has had 2 meetings. Trying to determine where/when is the convergence of Voice, Video and Data, put together a road map for future of technology, will help to avoid pitfalls. Working to create a white paper which will be an information tool and so must be constantly updated to include new information (e.g. new vendors, economic changes, etc). Group still trying to define its charge, needs to understand Duke's economics - it is important to understand not just the technology, but also its benefit. Group needs input of ITAC and others. It is trying to evaluate a snapshot of today and create a 5 year vision of where things are going (e.g. wireless). Economics will play a major role here. "Change has to be tempered by client demands and associate costs, both direct and indirect, as well as perceived versus real benefits."
Robert Wolpert - Is the goal to determine what is going on in the field and to be prepared to move on the future? John - yes
Betty Leydon sites the example that Cisco views Lucent as its biggest competitor.
John - ATM didn't take over the world. We would like to avoid going down dead end roads such as that.
Jimmy Grewal - How are Voice, Video and Data (VVD) affected by (relate to) Internet 2, particularly with regard to John's work on both.
John - They overlap, Internet 2 contributes information to VVD regarding where the world is going.
Patrick Halpin noted that security and intrusion detection are becoming increasingly important and requested that they be put on the agenda.
Melissa Mills seconded this request