Skip to Content

ITC Meeting Notes 2013-06-14

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

Date and Time: June 14, 2013   -   1:30pm–3:00pm

Location: Chancellor's conference room, Cheadle 5123

Meeting Notes:

Attendees: Doug Drury, Karen Hansen, Dick Kemmerer, John Longbrake, Tom Putnam, Lisa Sedgwick, Martin Shumaker, Eric Sonquist, Denise Stephens, and Elise Meyer (ex-officio)

Old Business:

1. This is Tom Putnam’s last meeting.

2. We still need to figure out what the subcommittees will do, especially the ITPG, and we still need to draft a refined charge for the ITPG.

New Business:

1. Finalize the intake form, develop the intake process, and then publicize both to campus.

Denise & Lisa took the initial project intake form used by Student Affairs and modified it to be the draft (Initial Project Intake Form), they then took the form suggested by Arlene Allen with extended questions and developed it to be the (Supplemental Form).

Eric confirmed that the EVC indicated that anybody who needs money from campus needs to go first to the ITC, then to the ITB, to ultimately get to the budget process. But the ITC also wants to know about projects that have broad impact, even if they don’t require campus funds, e.g., Virtual Desktops.

There was discussion of whether these forms captured the information that we needed, specifically:

  • Influence and impacts, i.e., how big a deal it is.

  • Can we classify projects by departmental, enterprise or OP-mandated projects? The UC Learning Center and the IT accessibility function being examples of the latter. There can be difficulties determining if something is enterprise or not.

  • The scope of the project needs description, depth and breadth.

  • Is the project scope application development? Or significant or just routine?

  • Who will use the resulting system?

  • Who or what processes will be impacted?

  • We need project sponsor contact information.

One of the outcomes of this process is to maintain a list of what is going on. Even if a project doesn’t require a request for funds, logging it makes it known to other departments who may become interested.

There was discussion of a potential process and timeline:

  • Project sponsors submit initial project intake form (two weeks before next ITC meeting)

  • ITC does a pre-screening of the project submission (before next ITC meeting)

    • The submitted project needs to be fast-tracked due to some mandate, and is forwarded directly to the ITB. These project submissions need to include their critical deadline and justification for “fast-tracking”.

  • ITC shares pre-screening results and questions at ITC Meeting -> resulting in a response to the project sponsor:

    • The submitted project is of departmental scope and doesn’t require campus funding, please proceed, or

    • The ITC needs more information, please submit the supplemental form in two weeks and prepare to make a presentation at the next ITC meeting.

  • Project sponsors submit supplemental form (two weeks before next ITC meeting)

  • Project sponsor presents at ITC Meeting

There was discussion about whether an ITC member could meet with the sponsor as part of their pre-screening, and some thought yes, but one didn’t want each ITC member to individually ask the same questions. It was noted that the Office of Research used a two tier compliance committee structure and triage to make sure that things that needed to go through quickly could.

As part of publishing the forms and our process, we should also publish a sample completed form.

Action Items:

2. Develop an ITC venue for discussing issues like campus life safety systems, e.g., security cameras

Do we just put an issue on our agenda? Can members take potential needs to the ITC? Can the ITB insert issues? Do we do perform environmental scans?

It was proposed that once a quarter we have an agenda item to get in front of future IT issues. Issues could come from a scan or from anywhere. This could be an area where the ITPG could provide important and relevant input, they could help identify the scope of the issue, potential costs, and implications. They could help analyze the issues and brief us on them. We could then forward the issues to the ITB or specific departments for further consideration. Examples of potential issues include the backbone network, VoIP and if IA has a new vision for communicating to the campus. It is important that we don’t presuppose a solution.

3. Develop an inventory of active (enterprise) IT projects, both those currently in process, e.g., UC Path, Kronos, Gateway etc, and those that go through the ITC, so that we are better able to weigh the impact and dependencies of a project going through the intake process.

Examples of why this is important with respect to projects that are already in process included:

  • The migration off mainframe

  • There is increasing dependence on the data warehouse, but it isn’t included in the FSIP.

  • UC path implies that every adopter has a common infrastructure, e.g., bus

Do we create a project to develop an inventory that captures existing projects, or does our inventory just grow with our forms? The inventory needs care and feeding. There are project portfolio systems that do this. EISPG developed a list. Can we solicit our subcommittees to develop a list of projects within their purview?

Existing projects should have a documentation site, perhaps we can get the project manager to distill the information for us. We would like to know the project life cycle, and which projects are on track, and which are not. We’d like to know how the project may have deviated from the initial plan. Should we audit existing projects? Assessment is within our scope.

Let's start with the Administrative Services projects. We need to confirm our model for how to stay on top of enterprise projects.

Action Items:

  • Eric volunteered to put together a list of existing administrative services projects.

  • Elise volunteered to submit a form for the existing Connect project.

4. Future Meeting Dates

  • The Friday 7/5 meeting was reschedule to Friday 7/12.

  • We’ll look for a new date for our August meeting. (NB: The August meeting is now scheduled for Wednesday 8/21 from 3:30 – 5:00.)