Skip to Content

ITPG Minutes Minutes - 2010-10-21

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

Attendees:

John Ajao, Arlene Allen, Jeffrey Barteet, Kip Bates, Lubo Bojilov, Ted Cabeen, Doug Drury, Ann Dundon, Randall Ehren, Karl Heins, Tom Howard, Kinneavy James, Richard Kip, Tom Lawton, Dan Lloyd, Elise Meyer, Steve Miley, Bruce Miller, Alan Moses, Ben Price, Tom Putnam, Fuzzy Rogers, Andy Satomi, Glenn Schiferl, Jamie Sonsini, Jarrod Sprague, Chas Thompson, Paul Weakliem, Jim Woods.
 

Administrative Items

  1. The group approved the Minutes of 09/16/10 meeting that were posted on 9/16/10.  The DRAFT designation will now be removed.

Informational Items

CIO Report - Tom Putnam

Update on the UCOP Operational Effectiveness Initiative:  This is a topdown effort to adopt common systems, structures, and business practices, e.g., pps/payroll.  This was presented to the Council of Vice Chancellors of Adminstrative Services (COVCA) and they were excited about the prospects.  One item being considered: can we have common computing clusters?

CISO Report - Karl Heins


UCOP & legislators have been busy and there are new policies:

- BUS80 Insurance Programs for Information Technologies: The Conditions of Coverage were distributed.  The purpose for this insurance is that if we have a breach, there is insurance coverage, but we have to pass a series of minimum requirements to get insurance coverage.  The sequence of events would be: 1) Have breach, 2) notify ucop, 3) they assess whether we meet requirements, 4) then we get coverage.  The Conditions of Coverage include use of tools that UCSB doesn't have software licenses for.  They also include the requirement to employ appropriate technical support - how can this be communicated to PIs that hire graduate students to maintain their systems?  Karl is working with Grace Cricket to rewrite the minimum requirements to make them more applicable for our environment.  Phrases that are targeted are "any computer, any net", "campus or impacted systems".  Karl is going to try and restrict to limited areas that have the sensitive data.  They haven't defined critical systems.  However, configuration of firewalls, and certain deskwork ?????, impacts all campus.  Normally one goes through an audit first to determine compliance, and then a polcy is issued.  This is the reverse, a third party will do the assessment. In the case of a breach, UCOP will negotiate on our behalf.  This is in the pre-unfunded mandate phase. 

- The UC President has issued a new HIPAA policy 9/17/2010 to incorporate state & federal law  UCSB does provide services to people offsite, so we would fall under this.  It expands the personal penalties if there is a breach.  Most of our health information falls under FERPA, and that has been updated policy 130 updated June 2010.  The only changes are with respect to
complaint procedures and remedies.  The question was asked whether those who are responsible for HIPAA are aware of the changes.  The answer is that Karl has met with the heads of the units that have HIPAA data, and he's looking at updating the HIPAA assessment.  There aren't any technical changes, the changes focus on how data can be used and penalties.  The big change impacting HIPAA, is that HIPAA transactions need to be monitored to make sure there isn't inappropriate access, and that big change is being accomplished through the reworking of the ECP.

- The ongoing project to rework the ECP is moving forward by redefining "privacy" at the university and what rights individuals and clients have.  Privacy is a difficult topic to get consensus on, and it impacts health records, and police data. The EVC is heading up this effort, and Karl and Meta Clow are on the working group.

- UC PPS Project: There is a subgroup looking at timekeeping systems.  A recommendation is due in the next few weeks.  They are looking for a lowcost, short term solution, and also a  timekeeping system that will both interface with PPS and meet needs.  They are looking at the systems currently in use at UCSD and UCI.  The model would be to have the system hosted by one campus and made available to other campuses.  This would not be required.  PWC has been engaged to do a time study.  Survey recepients will be requested to fill out a web form, and indicate how much time spent in the various areas of PPS system.  The survey request will go to all PPS accounts.  It is anticipated that it will provide data for decisions.  UC has also engaged a firm to develop an architecture for HRIS, Payroll, Effort reporting, and ? that will look toward the future.  It is planned that recommendations for both PPS and related systems will be coming out in January 2011.

Subcommittee Reports

Backbone Engineering Group (BEG) - Glenn Schiferl

They have not met since our last meeting.

Security Working Group (SEC-WG) – Kevin Schmidt/Karl Heins

They have not met since our last meeting.

Web Standards and Content Working Group (WSG) - Ann Dundon

The met on 10/19 where they discussed two issues:

  1. They have two upcoming workshops.  This Fall they will put on an Introduction to Web Standards Workshop on 11/17 at 10:00am in the EH&S Training Room.  This workshop is best for new people.  Next Spring they will put on a new topic with a Using Social Media Workshop (draft overview).  Joe Sabado worked with Meta on the usage of social media and on guidelines and tips.  More websites are using these tools.  www.ucsb.edu has both a twitter and facebook presence.  If you have any expertise in this area, please contact Ann to be a workshop presenter.  The Research News link on the UCSB Research site area goes to facebook.
  2. The WSG was introduced to BUS80.  The group's questions were: How does coverage trickle down?   Is the coder liable for a breach?

ITPG Communications - Ann Dundon

They met on 9/30 where they reviewed new feature requests.  Some will be implemented and some are still being tested.  We welcome feedback and suggestions.  We are trying to make it more intuitive to add content, and to make the content types context sensitive.
 

Identity Management Subcommittee (IdM) - Arlene Allen

They last met on 9/29 for a presentation by James Kinneavy on Identity Management for Student Systems and a high level view of the direction that Student Affairs is going.  Their next meeting will be 10/27.  Matthew got married and is on vacation for a month, he'll be back next week.  Noah has been working on coding for match merge, i.e., local processing of data input streams.  He's rewriting that code from the ground up.  Yesterday he got the first test working.  UC Trust is on target for 12/31/2010.  The contract is signed, the virtual machine is built.  It will be set up as a completely separate system, so it can test w/UCLA etc.  The install target is 11/30/2010.  Question: Is Sun JES still involved in our IDM solution?  Answer: There are 5 UC campuses that use Sun software, and wonder what the future holds with Oracle.  The UC Trust committee is talking about Idm tools.  There is synergy to look at
similar tools and processes, especially those that can talk with PPS.  A UC-wide effort will be getting kicked off momentarily.  They're looking at a tool workflow engine.  UCSB's current design is externally to prepare for Remove & Replace (R&R).  The IdM market is minimal, so analysis is straightforward.

Campus Calendaring Workgroup - Jamie Sonsini

They've met on 9/21 and 10/4 since our last meeting.  They are now meeting every other Wednesday with their next meeting scheduled for 10/27.  Anyone is welcome to join the group, just ask Jamie.  The ITPG is requested to please review the posted meeting notes, discussions and decisions.  They are interested in our comments.  They are discussing the 1998 RFP .  It contains some requirements that are no longer relavent, but alot of the functionality is still valid.  There is not much current content on requirements on this topic or new discussion.  The group is looking at requirement documentss, and working on mission or goal statement.  They want to agree on a target to help focus their efforts.  At their next meeting they will discuss involving functional people.

What are other UC's doing?

- UCSD is using Exchange

- UCI has Oracle Calendar plus a small Exchange environment.  They are seriously looking at beehive

- UCLA never had Oracle Calendar campus-wide, but one college may have been using it

- UCSC & LBL have joined w/UCB, and UCB was pursuing bedework, but he hasn't heard anything lately, and the UCB outsourcing effort only included email not
bedework (which is part of jasig?).  UCSC is seriously looking at google apps

- UCD uses Exchange for administrative users

- UCSF uses Exchange

- UCOP uses Exchange

The requested Google & Exchange demonstration will have to wait until after Communications Services completes their 2010 upgrade.

Liaison Reports

Information Technology Board (ITB) – Jim Woods

They have not met since our last meeting, and their next meeting is canceled.

Enterprise Information Systems Planning Group (EISPG) – Lubo Bojilov

Lubo and Leesa Beck, the Associate Registrar are the new EISPG co-chairs.  They will start meeting the 2nd week of each month.   The major areas that they will try to coordinate include the SIS and FIS modernization projects, and other major projects.  There is also some involvement with both Collaborate and the Operational Effectiveness for enterprise information systems.

SIS Update (Lubo Bojilov): This is a 6-7 yrs project, consisting of 3 major phases: (1) requirements, (2) conversion, and (3) modernization.  We are currently in the 1st phase.  We are in the final part of our RFP (for vendor provided code conversion) process which is for selected vendors to provide a proof of concept.  They will receive results in a month, and they hope to choose the final candidate in January.  They plan to start the 2nd phase by the end of January.  The timeline for that phase is from 1.5 to 3 years depending on vendor.  Their target completion date is 7/1/2012.  In the middle of the selection process, Student Affairs was tasked to take on the Graduate Division IT function.  They were able to add that to the project, since they also had major systems on mainframe.  ??? As part of the ??? 2nd phase they are also looking at doing (a) infrastructure modernization (which includes their network, servers, and storage), (b) security infrastructure (which James introduced to the IdM group) which includes FERPA, HIPAA, & PCI data.  They have broad customer demographics.  Integrating old systems to new systems is a significant challenge.  It is to-be-determined how this will play with the campus IdM authorization and monitoring etc,.  They are converting 20-30 years of code to new technology.  In 2-3 years they will start on the 3rd phase which includes unifying other systems with a middleware portal enabled architecture.

FIS Update (Doug Drury): The Chancellor signed the letter of credit, which means the financial system migration project has been funded via a line of credit with UCOP.  They have made initial draw to fund 6 months to come up with a detailed project plan, schedule and budget.  The campus senior executives want to do it this way, just like a building project.  They met with UCLA 3 times to begin assessing major areas of functionality, and comparing tools and business processes.  Surprisingly there is a large amount of similarity, although the tools are somewhat different.  From a technical perspective, it could be smooth transition, however there will be major work to migrate data.  There are two major decision points that need to happen: (1) Do we go from our UCOP-run PPS system (stovepipe) to a UCLA-run PPS that is highly integrated to other systems.  There are pros & cons to either direction. (2) Do we keep current system or migrate to UCLA tool for BARC.  We need to assess how theirs works, and how it matches our business process.   Their save is our abandon in PPS.  They use different fields for different content.  We need to consider if we lose some functionality.  Sue Abels (UCLA) is a co-chair of the UCOP PPS project.  The timing of the UCOP PPS project is part of the UCSB decision question.  The ??? detailed project plan ??? is due to senior officers on 4/1/11.  The FIS target is 7/1/12 to give us some synchronization with the SIS migration project because there are touchpoints between the two.

Academic Technology Planning Group (ATPG) - Alan Moses

They met on 10/4.  They had updates on both Collaborate and GauchoSpace.  They discussed the ESCI process and moving that online.  The process stakeholders need to weigh in.  Some campuses require students to complete an online course evaluation before they can get their grades.  The group had a positive discussion about using it.ucsb.edu.  The meeting notes will be posted and available to the UCSB community.

Research CyberInfrastructure - Arlene Allen

They have not met since our last meeting.

Discussion Items

1. IT & Communications Operating Effectiveness Working Group (iTOE) - Doug Drury/Tom Putnam

The Operational Effectiveness Initiative was chartered by the Chancellor's Committee on Budget Strategy.  UCSB has hired an outside consultant to facilitate this effort, and the effort is being chaired by the EVC and Henning Bohn.  The OE project leaders are Marc Fisher and David Marshall.  It has evolved to look for duplication of effort, to look for things that can make the campus more effective, and to optimize space utilization e.g., shop space.  There are four working groups with the following focus areas: (1) finance & procurement, (2) conferences & events, (3) shop services & campus personnel, and (4) information technology & communications.  Members of the IT Group are: Doug Drury (Co-chair), Tom Putnam (Co-Chair), Arlene Allen, Lubomir Bojilov, Anna Everett, Karl Heins, Allen Matlick, Elise Meyer, Alan Moses, Ben Price, Paul Weakliem, Mary Wenzel, Pierre Wiltzius, and Jim Woods.  We are looking at things to streamline & optimize.  There have been interesting discussions, but we haven't converged on a way to structure our process.  We've tried different things: Doug and Tom have asked everyone for their ideas on their favorite project to make us more effective.  The idea is not to reduce staff size, but to hold on to staff, since they are our major resource.  We want to make staff more effective.  After developing a project list, the next step would be to have the committee prioritize the list.  However we are still struggling.  Our intent is to stay in touch with other groups for input, and to communicate our decisions. The summary of our first meeting - we went around in circles.  It is not unusual when starting a new organization to go throught the following stages: forming, storming, norming, and performing.  The ultimate idea is to develop 1-3 projects that would make us more effective.  These would then be taken to the OE leadership and would include the proposed benefits and costs.  We would then need to dig deeper to determine whether we would actually save money or are we just rearranging deck chairs e.g., if we all move to a single calendaring platform, there would be a certain cost, because people are dependent on their current tools.  We may go through all  that but not ultimately be more effective.  Once we decide on project, then we need to work with campus, to see if there is an opportunity.

Working Group comments included: It was interesting to have faculty representatives there to get their perspective and data points.  An area that one is personally struggling with is that our current organization, funding distribution and control points are the biggest barrier.  So there's a question about whether this should be pointed out as a barrier.  We want to focus on more than low hanging fruit, because we have organization problems that need to be resolved at a higher level.  We may need to try both.

Does ITPG think there is value in bringing this up again?  We have been down this road before, but this time there are faculty engaged at all levels.  Before when we were asked to go down this road, we were asked to do something, but we had the expectation that it'll be thrown in the trash.  Now the campus executives are involved in the process, but this isn't part of the UCOP process.  One example might be try to centralize Exchange servers, but to build multiple instances.  There is potential to do this work, but we can't really do nothing, since it is part of our jobs to provide responses.  We all know we make decisions based on local interests, but one model could be to do a campus wireless rollout via specific projects.  One of the possible projects is to look at campuswide training - to train and build staff, to grow and advance our staff, to take on new challenges.  It doesn't save money, since it will cost money to do training, but it may increase effectiveness and staff retention.  One of the other things that is different now, are the impacts of the last round of cuts.  We are not looking to save money - we've already lost the money.  We need to be as effective as we can be with our existing staff, this could involve delegated responsibility.  We may still have the same brick walls, i.e., our organization and financial environment, and a few low hanging fruit.  But our biggest concern, is that although the right people are involved in the OE initiative leadership, they're also the same people on the ITB, with the same budget limitations.  ITPG has potential to be a great feeder into the process.  We don't want to supplant existing good process.  iTOE will communicate.  What is our deadline? The final report is due April 2011, but the initial milestones plus targets need to be presented on 11/18 to the steering commitee.  In april we need to have identified our target and describe how to implement it. 

A suggested project - thin clients.  There are at least four different groups doing it: Library, IS&C (Jamie), Instructional Development and ???.  And they're doing it four different ways. Can we do it the same way?  We would need someone to mandate that we all do it one way.  If there is no mandate, then the best you could get would be coalitions of the willing.  We  need good ideas that would increase effectiveness or save money.  Thin clients could be big winner. Jamie has been providing this service for 10 years - it is a huge savings for departments, and a huge savings for electrical usage, but it is a hard sell.  He charges $600 for the desktop machine plus $800/year for support, both backend and desktop.  How get the entree to talk with the right people.  Thin clients optimized for administrative use could be $300/year.  Does ITPG have any ideas for low hanging fruit or projects, if so, please contact Doug or Tom.

2. North Hall Data Center - How should ITPG bring topic (concerns) to ITB?

Please read the 9/16 meeting minutes.  We're looking for what should our summary should be for ITB.  Please contact Jim with your ideas.  We should let the ITB know the nature of the discussion that occurred.  The North Hall Tenants Association (NHTA) was formed with Communications Services, OIT, and OSG.  We are occupying North Hall during the construction project, and at the completion of the project we will operate in east end behind the chain link fence.  If you need to or want to be behind fence, then you will need to talk with the yet-to-be-formed governance committee.  The lack of an active governance group is a problem for those who may be future occupants.

3. ITPG Holiday Party (Bruce Miller)

We will be having our ITPG/CSF Holiday Party from 4:00 - 7:00pm on the 3rd thursday of December (12/16) in the Mosher Building Alumni Room.  Thanks to Polly for booking that for us. We are looking for volunteers, contributions and/or donations.   Contact bruce before he contacts you.

Member Announcements


SIS&T (Lubo Bojilov): James Kinneavy was introduced in his new role as Associate Director of Enterprise Architecture & Technology Services.

IS&C (Jamie Sonsini): They did their last backup of the old Extension system.  Next week they will go live with one ??? ce ??? from Destiny One.  On 10/16 they did a full recovery and 11/4 is their go live date.  This is a whole new extension system.  Thanks to Doug and Karl for helping out.

Communications Services (Bruce Miller): As part of our own Operational Effectiveness examinations, we are changing our fiber allocation process.  Instead of the old process that involved Director to Director memos, now one makes a request using the just like asking for a work order.  The old process was meant to curb frivolous fiber requests.  Now send a workorder request to connect from A to B.  Please provide your feedback on this new process Elise.  We will also bee assessing allocations that were made but not connected to tidy up.  We do have places where we are constrained on fiber.  We need to develop a plan for the next 10 years use of fiber. 

The theoretical retirement of Vince Sefcik has occured.  Over the years, he provided a lot of astute business processes.  He funded the coaxial cable plant and the fiber.  Through his efforts UCSB had fiber from campus to the railroad tracks, and the quantity was only surpassed by home shopping network in Florida.

OIT (Elise Meyer): The RUAC rate proposal for the current will go out shortly.

CNSI & MRL (Paul Weakliem & Jeffrey Barteet): They will be purchasing the new research cluster.

posted 11/16/2010