Office of Learning and Information Technology

UW System CIO Council

January 23, 2003



CIOs and their Representatives


Mark Anderson by speakerphone
John Berens
Mike Bestul
Joe Brown
Dick Cleek
Nancy Crabb
Joe Douglas
Dave Dumke
Jack Duwe
Ron Kraemer
John McCarragher
Gary Smith
John Krogman
Jim Lowe
Ed Meachen
Tom Peischl
Kathy Pletcher
Elana Pokot
Carrie Regenstein
Annie Stunden

Dave Alerie
Ruth Anderson
Dana Bunner
David Hart
Pat Brennan
Lorie Docken
Bob Jokisch
Brian Remer
David Stack (reporting)
Lori Taylor

Microsoft Update (Ruth Anderson)

There are four options for the future of Microsoft products within UW System:

  1. A special "Transition Plan".
  2. A Campus Agreement consists of a three year contract for at least 3,000 FTEs (so smaller institutions would have to join together). It is a leasing program, so the UW System would not own any software at the end of the contract. It would include faculty/staff home use rights, but student home use rights would have to be purchased separately. Computer labs would be included, but not software distributed in laptop programs.
  3. A Select program for software purchases (not leasing) that includes Software Assurance (maintenance) could absorb the Microsoft software that is already in use within the UW System. The Select program would include the right to upgrade software for three years. It would require buying and tracking software on a per product basis, not per FTE. Home use rights would be retained for faculty and staff. Students would also be able to buy at Select prices.
  4. If the UW System institutions walk away from all MicroSoft contracts, there would be no right to upgrade the current versions of the software titles that the UW System now owns under the Enterprise Agreement. To upgrade in a couple years would require paying full purchase prices, not upgrade prices. The faculty/staff home use rights would be discontinued. Students would have to surrender the software they have licensed. The UWS institutions would have to track their usage of MicroSoft software.

IT Summit (Lorie Docken)

The IT Summit provided a unique forum for the CIOs, CBOs and vice chancellors to meet and discuss issues. The need for faculty support for new technologies was raised by all three groups.

2003-05 IT Planning Process

It needs to be demonstrated that commonality of business rules will reduce the costs of administrative systems and increase return on investment. Perhaps Internal Audit could undertake a pilot project on a couple campuses. Reasonably comparable costs of running the current Common Systems need to be identified across the campuses, as well as the values and feature sets provided. Otherwise, a convincing arguement for outsourcing, even outsourcing to a UWS Common System, is difficult to make.

Given that an IT budget initiative is unlikely in the current fiscal environment, the primary audience for the 2003-05 IT Plan is the Board of Regents. In addition, there are so many new players in the administration and government, the plan can serve a useful role by informing them of what is underway.

Annie Studen suggested that the CIO Council form working groups to look at the infrastructure issues surrounding:

  • the teaching and learning environment (the utility model, LI, CoLab, etc.)
  • APBS implementation process (leveraging MILER and UW Processing Center)
  • review/assessment of Common Systems
  • Wiscnet, especially video networking

Meanwhile another group will could be looking at the form of the overall plan. There have been various requests for measurable outcomes, and the inclusion of benchmarks and comparisons to other university systems. Jack Duwe suggested that all the UW System institutions complete the EDUCAUSE Core Data Services survey ( as a basis for comparison. The vice chancellors are already looking at potential duplication in the curriculum.

At the March 2003 Board of Regents meeting, Ed Meachen will introduce Wayne Hodgins, (see, who will talk about the future of e-learning systems and developments overseas. In the afternoon there will be presentations by UW System faculty on the topic of technology enhanced learning.

e-Learning RFP (Kathy Pletcher)

An updated timeline and workplan for the e-Learning RFP procuess was distributed. The process will run through March 2003. Demonstrations have been given by the four finalists. The second phase of the evaluation is underway by an invited list of campus participants, primarily LTDC staff and faculty. The focus of the current round of demonstrations is the instructional design functionality, not the underlying technology. General faculty and student demonstrations will be done between Feb 3rd and 13th via Wisline. The provosts have been asked to distribute invitations to their campuses. The task force plans to meet on February 14th to review all of the scores and feedback. The CIO Council meeting will be moved to Feb 20th so they can be briefed with the final results. Meanwhile a subgroup of the task force is doing reference checks.

The RFP process is looking at four factors:

  1. General requirements
  2. Technical requirements
  3. Functional requirements
  4. Cost

PeopleSoft Update (David Hart)

In April 2002, David Hart joined a meeting of the Big-10 campuses to represent the efforts of the eight UWS PeopleSoft campuses besides UW-Madison. Before the meeting, he polled the UWS institutions and found that total cost of ownership, especially for the e-collaboratives functions in the version 8 upgrade, was the major issue on everyone's mind. E-collaboratives replaces the html-Access feature of version 7.

Since April, David Hart has focussed on eliminating the e-collaborative maintenance cost, and has been successful. This has saved UWS over $1.2M across the 9 PeopleSoft campuses. In order to accomplish this, PeopleSoft put together a package deal for the purchase of the portal, the campus directory interface and the gradebook, that includes license costs and maintenance costs for three years for a net saving of $405K. The non-PeopleSoft campuses don't have to pay for any of these functions, unless they choose to implement at least one of them.

The three new modules are now in hand. The portal is being implemented at FASTAR, and the MILER Core Team will be used to leverage all three packages at campuses that choose to use them. UW-Milwaukee, UW-Oshkosh and UW-Superior are starting to implement the PeopleSoft portal, which should make their e-collaboratives functions easier to implement. More definitive information about the pros and cons of including the portal in a version 8 upgrade will be known in the April timeframe.

A week long portal workshop will be held at UW-Milwaukee next week which will include representatives from UW-Oshkosh, FASTAR and MILER. The workshop will focus on the effort and scale needed to bring up a basic portal with e-collaborative functions in time for summer go-live dates for version 8. The results of the workshop will be shared with the other UWS campuses.

David Hart believes that the campus directory interface and gradebook may prove to be useful for the non-PeopleSoft campuses as well.

Mark Anderson reported that it is possible to make minor modifications to the version 8 logon authentication process to display menus for students and advisors, similar to html-Access, to simplify navigation issues. UW-Superior is willing to share this knowledge with the other institutions.

IAA (Dick Cleek)

The data feeds from the first four campuess are complete (UW-Eau Claire, UW-Stout, UW-Madison and UW Colleges). Data feeds are needed from the remaining campuses, and can be sent via either batch or triggered mode. The IAA technical staff will help install the new triggered solution for the institutions that are using PeopleSoft and ORACLE. The web page describing this second phase of the pilot project, and the data feed specifications, is at

February CIO Council Meeting

The next CIO Council meeting will be held on February 20, 2003. Discussion items will include:

  • e-learning RFP
  • budget
  • Microsoft and ORACLE contracts
  • Student Technology Fee