November 19, 2013

Administrative Computing Advisory Committee

Academic Technology Advisory Committee

Present from ACAC: Linda Thornton, Janet Scannell, Jim Fergerson, Roger Lasley, Dan Bergeson, Julie Anderson, Julie Creamer, Les LaCroix, Rod Oto, Julie Thornton

Present from ATAC: Laura Chihara, Austin Robinson-Coolidge, Dave Ricks, Mike Tie, Jeff Ondich, Brad Schaffner

Absent: George Vrtis, Andrea Nixon

Agenda:

1. Review Minutes from October 22, 2013.

2. ITS Updates (Janet Scannell)

Status of Colleague Makeover "Go Live" (Les LaCroix)

3. ACAC/ATAC Common Ground (Janet Scannell)

Review minutes:

Minutes from the October 22, 2013 ACAC meeting were approved.

Status of Colleague makeover:

· The Colleague makeover project is the culmination of several years of work. The database on the back end is being swapped out and department reports restructured. Cutover will take place over Thanksgiving weekend.

· A lot of testing has already been done and the team remains cautiously optimistic.

· Lots of communication has gone out about the HUB being unavailable, timecard processing, and payroll. It’s important that staff and supervisors get things entered and approved on time.

· A number of staff have volunteered to come in Sunday to do some testing. An Ellucian rep and campus liaison will be on-call over the weekend. The remainder of acceptance testing will be done Monday morning, December 2^nd. By 11:00a.m. ITS will make the decision (no or go) to migrate to the new database infrastructure.

· If we’re not able to migrate to the new database, the alternative plan is for the Colleague Steering Committee to determine when our next possible timeframe would be.

· Looking ahead, we should consider the Ellucian student planning module. Janet has scheduled a demo of that in December. Features of this module include: insightful advising, indicators to help students stay on their academic path, financial aid eligibility, and more effective mapping of course offerings.

ATAC/ACAC common ground

Janet put together some slides to guide our discussion. She’s at the 6 month mark now and has been engaged in a lot of conversations about strategic planning and how ITS uses its resources. She’s collating what she’s heard and observed, and working on an IT strategic plan which she’ll be sharing with both committees in the coming months.

Common purposes

· Serving as sounding board to CTO -“dress rehearsal” function, wise counselors

· A lot of issues that overlap -Infrastructure (email, bandwidth, NTRC)

Strategic (strategic plan, St. Olaf collaboration, use of funds), Concern around student issues

· Usefulness of an informed & engaged cohort

The “Horizon” Report:

· 1 year or less – flipped classroom, MOOCs, mobile apps, tablets

· 2-3 years – augmented reality, game based learning, the Internet of things, learning analytics

· 4-5 years – 3D printing (Physics has one), flexible displays, next generation batteries, wearable technology

The Carleton Horizon:

· More support for Academic Technology – instructional design, video/flipping, exploration of online learning

· More support for Advising/Career Center – web support, volunteer portal, student tools

· More efficiency – Business influence (RIO, prioritization); less tailoring (St. Olaf collaboration, cloud/commodity, 1 soln)

Improving Current Services:

· CTO meeting with departments and gathering needs

· MISO Services Survey in January which measures faculty, student and staff usage, importance and satisfaction of key Library and IT services.

ECAR Students & Tech 2013

· It’s complex – students recognize value, but still need guidance

· Blended learning – students prefer blended learning across settings

· Ready to use mobile for academics – are looking for opportunities and encouragement

· Value their privacy – using technology to connect with them has its limits

ITS Student Focus Groups:

· CSA members and a small number of frosh/sophomores were given a survey to help ITS learn about student priorities for technology expansion on campus. Each item cost around $20,000 to implement. Items ranking overall with the highest priority were the HUB, print quota, WiFi, and printers in dorms.

Governance changes?

· Need further review of :

o Groups that are engaging technology decisions. Who?

o What roles:

§ Informed, influence, recommend, decide, or implement. Replicate Layfayette governance group model. Have a Carleton version by the end of year.

§ Student and Faculty involvement?

· Ongoing need for separate ATAC and ACAC?

· Let’s consider and revisit over the coming months

Both Rod and Jeff commented that getting the two groups together was a good idea and hope the momentum continues. It allows us to think more globally, not just academic or administrative.

Meeting adjourned at 2:30pm

Submitted by,

Candyce Lelm