Administrative Computing Advisory Committee

Administrative Computing Advisory Committee

August 22, 2013

Present:  Linda Thornton, Jim Fergerson, Julie Anderson, Julie Thornton, Janet Scannell, Rod Oto, Julie Creamer,

Les LaCroix

Absent:  Roger Lasley, Dan Bergeson

Agenda

1.  Review Minutes from July 18, 2013.

2.  ITS Updates (Janet Scannell)

        Scheduling & Prioritizing Tools/Techniques

        Help Desk Update

3.  ACAC 2014 Chart of Work - DRAFT

        Working with our Working Groups

        Security Training

        Developing Key Indicators

Review minutes from July 18, 2013

Minutes were approved from the July 18, 2013 meeting with no changes.

ITS Updates:

Janet has made some changes in the Helpdesk area which will be implemented this fall.

·         Tammy Wellentin and Kevin Chapman have exchanged offices and their roles.  Tammy is getting up-to-speed with classroom setups and her experience good for orienting our new PEPS member, Matt Lundberg.  Kevin has great energy and the Helpdesk is a good fit for him. 

·         Some different approaches and process changes will also take place.  We’re rethinking our communications about open issues and expectations for resolution, having professional staff (and a few more advanced students) triage the incoming calls from faculty and staff, and using some new technology tools to monitor calls.

Janet asked, “What are your observations of the Helpdesk”? 

                Linda – the e-mail triage process is better for her than calling.  She can give it a high priority.

                Concern of the Helpdesk, with some students, the resolution has to go to a staff member to fix anyway.

Rod has seen improvements with the use of technology to take over his machine. The Helpdesk person can see what he sees on the screen and if needed, they come over to the office.

Jim – students take a call, their shift is over and they leave.  Tickets are not passed off right away.

Seeing more notices campus wide related to network outages.  With new technology we can get the message out faster.  When calling the Helpdesk you will be able to listen to a message first, and then get transferred to a person.

Julie A prefers to e-mail problems first, if it’s not a crisis situation.

Should we offer opportunities to share thoughts about the Helpdesk?  Suggestion was to do tabling in Sayles-Hill during the lunch hour to get feedback.  Janet is curious about how other departments keep track of current projects and prioritizing.  We tabled that for a later discussion.

 Draft ACAC chart of work:

This document outlines various administrative committees and their charge.  It also includes ACAC goals for this coming year and our chart of work (possible agenda items for each month’s meeting).  We made a few changes to the following agendas:

·         September – Survey and key indicators

·         October – possible joint or overlapping meeting with Academic Technology Advisory Committee

·         November – Cyber follow-up, Data Management Group, Colleague update

a.       Working with our working groups

Where does the Web Services Group fit in?  This committee or somewhere else?  The priority of projects across campus has an influence on them.  One example is the Pathways Project which didn’t exist a year ago, but has become a top priority coming out the Strategic Planning Process. There are other technology silos; Language Lab, GIS, Teaching & Learning, and SERC that make decisions about resources that use technology.  What’s the governance for those decisions?  It was suggested that we have Jaye Lawrence and Louis Newman come to an ACAC meeting.  Julie A. also commented that she keeps Jaye informed.

Data Management Group.  This group is not very active right now.  They struggle with ongoing questions about “do we have the authority to make something a policy, then what committees have to vet and approve it”.  They are more comfortable doing procedural rather than policy stuff.   Janet thinks of our structure as a pyramid, with fewer issues and mostly policy and budget things going to TP&PC.  She plans to have a conversation with TP&PC about what kinds of things they want to vet.  It was suggested that we add representation (Vicky) from the Dean of Students division and Melanie from Human Resources to the Data Management Group. 

Add Cathy Carlson from the Dean of Students to the Emergency Manage/Vital Records team.    

We should also add the New Technology Request Committee to the list of working groups.

b.      Security Training

If the Mellon Foundation Grant goes through, Rich Graves may have more of an overlap or involvement with both Colleges.  Security awareness training links – in principal we think this is a good idea and plan to do something in early October in connection with National Cyber Security Month.  What’s the best way to publicize this?  The following suggestions were made:

·         Decide in e-mail what it looks like.

·         Send broadcast message to all faculty, staff, and students.  Include campus security stats (malware and phishing) from last year.  Also put announcement in Carleton Weekly.

·         Have it endorsed and sent by TP&PC

·         Target the PCI video to specific offices. 

·         Review the initiative, by getting a report of how many people viewed the videos.

c.       Developing key indicators:

In support of the strategic plan, next month we plan to talk about key indicators in ITS and key areas the president is focusing on.  We’ll be using the MISO and Educause data surveys to gather information on national trends in technology with other colleges.  A group working on the MISO survey has been formed and they’re deciding which questions to ask.  Janet will review them with this committee.  The MISO survey is due in October with data from that survey available by late spring.   

Meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Submitted by,

 Candyce Lelm