Duke ITAC - July 11, 2002 Minutes

DUKE ITAC - July 11, 2002 Minutes

Minutes

July 11, 2002

Attending: Mike Baptiste,John Board, Ken Hirsh (for Dick Danner), Angel Dronsfield, David Ferriero, Nevin Fouts, Tracy Futhey, Billy Herndon, Bob Newlin (for David Jamieson-Drake), Roger Loyd, Caroline Nisbet, George Oberlander, Jim Coble (for Lynne O'Brien), Mike Pickett, Molly Tamarkin, Fred Westbrook

Guests: Vince Budnick, Sharon Byrd, Ginny Cake, Rob Carter, Rob Little, Ben Riseling, Ivan Wilson

Call to Order: Meeting called to order 4:05 pm

Review of Minutes and Announcements:

  • ADSL - Rafael's statement will be revised in previous minutes to reflect the fact that the current service offering is still under evaluation and a final decision has not yet been made.

Content Management System - Technical Approaches

Rob Carter

I. The process to date
A. Charter
B. Group Process

II. Current status
A. Two draft documents (a white paper and product selection checklist) at:

http://www.oit.duke.edu/CMSsub/secure/cmstech_discussion_7_11.pdf
http://www.oit.duke.edu/CMSsub/secure/cmstech_checklist_7_11.pfd

B. Both drafts tightly focus on technical product selection criteria (what
"must" products have, what "should" they have)
C. Widely scoped - (hopefully)consumable in logical "chunks"

III. CMS Requirements Graphic (was handed out)
A. Technical requirements at two levels - both systemic and functional
B. Systemic technical requirements are somewhat generic best practices and requirements related to the University environment
C. Functional technical requirements are underpinnings for the functional requirements set down previously

IV. Major Technology Driver
A. Seven major drivers for specification of technical selection criteria:
-Federated Architecture
-Interoperability
-Integration
-Scalability
-Openness
-Modularity
-Enterprise

V. Next Steps
A. Bring closure to technical requirements for selection in two weeks
B. Appreciate feedback (both general and specific) from ITAC and othertechnical folks on campus before that time via email
C. Feedback should go to Rob Carter(robert.carter@duke.edu) or any of thesubcommittee members:
Mike Baptiste
Vince Budnick
Rob Carter
Kyle Johnson
John Little
Rob Little
Kevin Monroe
George Oberlander
Ben Riseling
Susan Simko
Kevin Witte

VI. Questions:
A. Is the process moving in the right direction?
B. Are there any obvious or glaring "holes" or issues missing or addressing as too important/not important enough?


**DISCUSSION:

Ken Hirsh: looked at second document, the product selection checklist, and felt it was right on, was impressed with it

Molly Tamarkin: The technical drivers are excellent, but will there be a
product that will meet all of these?
Rob Carter: We would like to have must haves that exist in some product, We don't want too loose of requirements so that all products have them, but also don't want to be too stringent in requirements and not be able to find a product.

Fred Westbrook: Will you be looking at several pieces of software, possibly different pieces of software?
Rob Carter: Right now we are looking at a single software suites, for
interoperability, but we have not technically ruled out the possibility of
different pieces of software

Rob Little: Our next step is to assign weight to the requirements, we need to try to identify which are the most important issues, and what are the areas where we could compromise if we needed to?

Mike Baptiste: There is not going to be any software out there that matches perfectly with what we are looking for, we will need to find one that has the majority of what we need and then possibly build on that

Tracy Futhey: If we don't find something that will meet all requirements,
we need to decide which one should we water down or if it doesn't meet all requirements, which ones should we compromise on, but we need to have that conversation to agree on what we will compromise on from the beginning

Mike Pickett: This is a new field too and vendors might work with us to
improve processes if they only meet 80 percent of the requirements, they may try to work with us to create something to meet all our requirements.

Rob Carter: Yes, we could have opportunities to get some leverage with a vendor. We are on a fairly tight timeline, and need to meet internal goals, We will need to have the documents back to parent subcommittee in 2 weeks, so we need your feedback ASAP

The next step will be to - go out to vendors Keep in mind the papers specify technical requirements to select set of products, not to implement. It is selection material vs implementation material

Tracy Futhey: Please make comments now, we want to hear the needs now, the more input the more we can be sure we are making the right choice

Vince Budnick/Rob Carter: View the documents as Duke confidential. We don't want vendors to change their tune to meet what they think we want to hear

Molly Tamarkin: Are you going out to talk to vendors and come back to
document?
Rob Little: As the doc comes closer to completion, we will give it to the
parent committee, and then make a question document and send out to
vendors. Just based on what we know, we have already have been able to match some vendors, etc

Directory Assistance Speech Recognition Demo

Sharon Byrd

Sharon Byrd did a demo, calling into the pilot phone number with the
Directory Assistance Speech Recognition. A voice recording answers the phone, you have the option of pressing a number to get to a live person, or you can speak the name of the person and the system will verify that name and then give you the number and at the same time, transfer you to the number.

There is also a barge-in feature, where you can just say the name at
anytime during the announcement and it will accept it.

Vince Budnick: How many names in the database ?
Sharon: They will record any name, but the database that is in there is the one that the operators use - It includes all students, faculty, staff

*Some Lessons learned: It does have nicknames, but not calling names, those will have to be put into system, for example, it will have a nickname of Bill for William, but will not have the name if the person goes by another name. They do get reports of what/who people were not able to find and they can then add that information in. If the system finds multiple names, it will tell you and then tell you the department, so you can choose the person.

There are 4 ports for trial, they can add more ports, this system will help
a lot with queuing problems they currently have,they would like to get
directory as updated as possible, LDAP will help. At anytime you can say operator and will put you in the queue for a live person

John Board: What level of recognition are we looking for?
Sharon Byrd: We have not set an level yet since it is in the first week or
so of testing

Vince Budnick: Can it transfer to a secretary
Sharon Byrd: It will give whatever the primary number is, it is doing what
the live operators do, going by the first number.

Angel Dronsfield: Do we have access to change the order of the numbers? Yes

Nevin Fouts: What is schedule for this?
Sharon Byrd: Once the trial is over and it is approved, they hope to get it out in less than 30 days,
Angel Dronsfield: It is a fairly quick implementation once the decisions
are made

John Board: Many names are foreign, how does the system handle that?
Sharon: It uses the census database, they enter some names phonetically
Angel: If someone tries to get a name and is not able to get it, they
receive a report to let them know they were unsuccessful

Vince Budnick: Does it record every transaction?
Sharon Byrd: Yes
Vince Budnick: Should there be a warning?
Angel Dronsfield: They can see what the system recognizes in a log file,
tells them what the system thinks they were trying and what it offered to
them in a log text file or a .wav file

John Board: Are we taping every call?
Not Sure

The trial consists of 4 ports, if all 4 ports are busy, they will be put
into the normal queue and wait for an operator. The number is 668-7949 Please let Sharon Byrd know if you plan to do the trial and she will get instructions to you, also please let her know so she can send you an
evaluation form

John Board: Sounds like its a done deal unless it is a disaster
Angel Dronsfield: We hope to implement it, but nothing is a done deal
Sharon Byrd: We do need feedback so we can do whatever we can to make sure it is positive experience for people when they call Duke

Continued Thoughts on Technology at Duke (part 2)

Tracy Futhey

Tracy's meetings around campus have continued to reinforce what she
reported in her first set of observation to ITAC, that there seems to be a
strong interest to collaborate. At the same time, there is not as much
collaboration as one would think with the desire to collaborate

Tracy has a mental model for herself:
Layering of functions that have to do with technology and then there are a series of columns that rise off foundations: classroom, research, clinical uses, etc, administrative, student and community life..
These columns define functional uses at Duke.

She is calling this mental model the Meta Org chart of IT at Duke - not
hierarchical but a picture we could map everything we do against
It is a mental model - The bottom layers are generic, every business or
organization is doing some of the same things, we may do it in different
ways, but everyone is providing those services/functions

Bands of functional uses - these are what define us as an Institution.
These are our distinguishing components Everyone doing great work in units but not always collaborating across units

The first mental model is complemented by a second image that describes services and technology evolution. It is a Pyramid... the base measures the extent of participation, it is the infrastructure, what we all use. As you go up the pyramid, the intensity increases and there are fewer people involved. The middle part of the pyramid has technologies and services that aren't universal, but that are emerging as common.
The tip of the pyramid is innovation, with very few people participating in very intensive projects, and this area appears to be going very well

It is at the middle areas that we need common discussions about how we can generalize the emerging common needs and uses. These are campus projects, not OIT or exclusively-school efforts. CMS is an example Even if it is in the middle of the pyramid, we should be able to establish some commonality around it

Tracy has 2 titles:
VPIT - Make sure the OIT organization is running smoothly
CIO - A little bit fuzzier of a job, need to find out what is happening
with IT at Duke, irrespective of whether it's an OIT function or not
There is tension in them at times - is OIT the best place to deliver a
service or should we provide it in a different way?
How to support and distinguish the roles?

One mandate is defined as how to make the functional uses and the middle piece of the pyramid come together Encouraging and facilitating conversations and collaboration - how can we get them all to know where to go?

Couple new roles associated with the CIO role:

Mike Pickett - his role will be to be the person coordinating and tracking
current and emerging uses of technology, who is interested in what new
things, etc. This is in continuation and extension with the work he has
done on the strategic plan. What are we doing with Technology at Duke, not just OIT, but more a focus on what should we do for the best of institution as a whole? Mike has begun to work in his new position, a formal announcement coming.

Also, posting a position to describe similar role focused from the
Technology side. It is a similar sort of focus from the Duke perspective of what is emerging, but come at it from a technology perspective

The 2 roles are interrelated. OIT is a key player, keeps many of the
operations going, but shouldn't have to be the one to do it all. We need
to better communicate so we can collectively determine where we are headed, and we need to make more happen from all around campus

Nevin: makes sense, sounds great

Molly Tamarkin: It seems like there does need to be one agency that is
always involved, which would be OIT
Tracy: Everything is not swinging to the center, trying to balance the
pieces, OIT does not have to deliver every central function, CIT is one
good example of that. It is OK for OIT not to do it, but we want to make
sure Mike is aware to keep the communication going

David Ferriero: It seems like we really need to review the definition/have a common sense of what collaboration means

Bob Newlin: It really does sound like a futures forum type of thing, it
would be nice to see a lot of little forums, where everyone doesn't have to be there, smaller topics, opportunity for people to meet that normally
wouldn't

Solutions forum - Sharing best practices

Mike Pickett

Sharing ideas around best practices and solutions Have people from different schools within Duke come together and share experiences

Tracy has asked Mike Pickett to lead a monthly meeting to talk about a
common problem People will be asked to share solutions they have found

Bring topics together at regular forums, Provide more frequent
opportunities to talk about new topics or new solutions to problems
The meetings will bring people together on regular basis

Questions to answer are : how do we decide topics, how do we get these people together? This is still being worked on. One suggestion is to ask the different groups like ITAC, CLAC, Computing-at-Duke, etc.

The idea is to bring together a group like the Futures Forum, but instead of focusing all on the latest technology, focus more on problems and solving them

John Board: Who is coming, for whose benefit are these meetings ?
Caroline Nisbet: A problem with the Futures Forum is that they are so
highly technical, you loose the hook that gets the functional person
involved and not all technical people understand functional

Angel Dronsfield: Maybe the meetings could be split up between technical and function?

Fred Westbrook: There could be different tracks, if it is being done once a month

George Oberlander: I don't want to make more of a dichotomy, technical people need to know more about the functional side of things and vise versa.

Caroline Nisbet: The CIT showcase is a good example of mixing technology and functionality to attract all types of people

Molly Tamarkin: You could send some kind of invitation to groups and then they could make announcements

Ken Hirsh: You can also post it in the front of dialogue

Billy Herndon: Put it on the calendar

Roger Loyd: We should try to keep focus on academic side

Mike Pickett: There may be demands for more than once a month, with
different tracks, hot topics, etc.

John Board: This doesn't replace futures forum? No, it does not

Ideas for topics:

Nevin Fouts: Customer Service - tools, processes, call center, how do you support teaching, prof, etc.
John Board: collaborative tools with teaching
Caroline Nisbet: Survey and assessment tools

Send any other ideas/items to Mike Pickett

OIT Student Multimedia Lab

Ginny Cake

Relocating the North 130 computer lab to Old Chem 01
There is already a small computer lab in Old Chem 016 - we looked to see if we needed them both, and the answer was no This allowed us to work with Melissa Mills and Lynne O'Brien to propose to change Old Chem 016 into a multimedia lab similar to the one used by CIT with faculty

Currently there is no where for students to go to do multimedia projects.
The Sulzberger Learning Lab is relocating to East campus

They worked to make the lab as much like the environment offered by CIT so that there would be a consistency in the labs

The lab was scheduled to be upgraded already, so it will not cost more to create this lab. It will not be open 24X7 however, due to the equipment and training needs involved. It will be staffed with undergrads/grads. We will monitor the usage this year and possibly create more if there is a need.

Multimedia Lab will include:
1 video editing system
4 scanning & multimedia systems
Other multimedia devices and software

Molly Tamarkin: Will this lab be open to faculty as well?
Ginny Cake: Yes and if it does become a hit, we can give faculty access after hours to use it or if they want to bring a group in.

Roger Loyd: When are its hours?
Ginny Cake: When students will be using it the most, so it will be 5 days a week - 8 hours a week but most likely not 8am to 5 pm, more evening hours. This is the first phase, we are acquiring students to staff the lab and will adjust things as necessary

John Board: Why does this lab need special access?

Ken Hirsh: Because of the training involved in using the equipment and the complexity of what they are doing

Tracy Futhey: Nothing will work if don't train the users how to use the
resources

Vince: Will there be trainers? Yes, they will not just be proctoring

Will they lend cameras? Not yet

Bob Newlin: Can the lab be used for anything or just class related
material? Anything... There will be a line around the building to use the
lab if you can use it for anything.

David Ferriero: In Phase 1a of the library upgrade they are planning on a similar facility, but it is a ways out, so they will be interested in how
this lab works, etc.

Jim Coble: They have found that video editing has been most popular in
their experiences at CIT

The North 130 lab replacement (Old Chem 01) will have the following:
30 new P4 PCs with flat screen monitors Ceiling mounted projection device, remote mouse and automatic projection screen DVD and VCR
Instructor computer and laptop docking station Lights on 3 switches for varying degree of light in room

Please send all comments or questions to Ginny Cake or Jen Vizas

After meeting note: Per the suggestion from Jim Coble, the Multimedia
lab configuration was adjusted to have 2 video-editing systems instead ofthe 1 originally planned

Other Business

It is Vince Budnick's last ITAC meeting before he leaves for Shanghai. Good luck Vince and thanks for everything.