Office of Learning and Information Technology

UWS CICouncil, March 15-16, 2006

UWS CIO Council Retreat and Meeting

March 15-16, 2006

By Nancy Thayer-Hart and David Stack

Green Lake, WI



CIOs and their Representatives


Mark Anderson
Dick Cleek
Nancy Crabb
Ann Marie Duress
David Dumke
Jack Duwe
Chip Eckardt
Ron Kraemer
John Krogman
Bruce Maas
Ed Meachen
Kathy Pletcher
Elena Pokot
Gary Smith
Ken Splittgerber
David Stack
Annie Stunden
John Tillman
Doug Wahl

Judy Caruso
Lorie Docken
David Hart
David Lois
Leslie Perelman
Nancy Thayer-Hart




Ann Marie Dureso is now officially the CIO of UW-Parkside.

Introductions and overview

Ed Meachen welcomed the group and recognized the work of Lorie Docken, Judy Caruso, facilitator Nancy Thayer-Hart and several of the CIOs in preparation for this retreat. Nancy Thayer-Hart works in the Office of Quality Improvement that reports to the UW-Madison provost.

Last Thursday, at the Board of Regents Education Committee, Ed Meachen gave a well received presentation on learning systems that drew upon surveys and benchmarks. The presentation included a video by Jim Jorstad and a discussion of the technology underlying UWM's Early Warning System for potentially troubled students led by Provost Rita Cheng. The regents were impressed by the broad use of both administrative and academic support tools. The focus for the next budget cycle will be increasing access without lowering quality. The CIO Council will be part of the planning process for that agenda. Both UWS and national data will be used to make the case for the role that technology can play.

Review CIO challenges, questions and business case needs

The results of a pre-meeting survey covering challenges, questions and business cases were distributed. During the course of the meeting, several challenges were added:

  • course management systems
  • departmental use of ERP systems
  • stress and staff burnout resulting from increased demands and decreasing resources
  • the balance between centralized and decentralized resources
  • the state network and regional networking
  • mandatory State procurement contracts
  • placement of CIOs within an institution's organizational structure and culture
  • sustainable funding models for infrastructure
  • ineffective staffing constraints ("birth to death" employment)
  • consistency in planning and implementing major systems
  • IBIS
  • need for new executive leadership at campus and UW System

Additional helpful solutions and approaches included:

  • building a culture of accountability, managing realistic expectations and having a common vision (campus level)
  • strength and partnership within the CIO Council
  • the leadership role of middle management within the UW System, including a first-rate infrastructure
  • the development of the Common Systems Review Group (CSRG)
  • nurturing the link between student information systems and D2L
  • involving the provosts at key points
  • shared resources and facilities, e.g., the Library hub, IAA, FASTAR and MILER

The complete list is as follows:


Helpful Tools and Approaches


1.       IT reorganization; organizational structure

IT review/consolidation process

Superior, Stevens Point

2.       Campus strategic planning process

Align technology to support campus strategic needs

Superior, Stevens Point

3.       IT funding/budget;

Present Core Data peer comparisons;

Superior, Eau Claire, Madison, Stevens Point, Milwaukee

4.       Software migration/conversion; rapid conversion to PeopleSoft Student System; SFS Upgrade

Training, successful project management

Superior, Parkside, Stevens Point, Milwaukee

5.       Security: Network security; spyware issues; keeping computers secure; security and intrusion escalation and trying keep up with detection strategies; data, PDAs, email;

Cisco Clean Access & ASA firewall; use of firewalls, packet shaper, antivirus, etc.; security policies and plans; additional staff resources; antispam; network monitoring;

Superior, Eau Claire, Oshkosh, System, Stevens Point

6.       Estrangement, Server virtualization, VoIP

Product evaluation


7.       New building plans

Respond to space surveys and look for learning space consulting


8.       Ever-increasing requests for new technologies and new programs; technical infrastructure obsolescence and atrophy; Technology as the solution for everything; prioritizing requests

Address incrementally as budget and technical resources allow; area heads review proposals for new technology, followed by Chancellor's cabinet review of a prioritized technology list; update campus IT strategic plan

Eau Claire, Parkside, Platteville

9.       Staff turnover/retirements and loss of institutional knowledge; significant turnover in key offices of staff knowledgeable in PS; training; providing backup staffing; interim CIO status

Replace older technologies; increased hiring of retired staff; focus on customer service and commitment to collaboration, involving the end-user community meaningfully in decision making and planning.

Oshkosh, Parkside, Stevens Point, Milwaukee

10.    Project backlog; outstanding cleanup projects and enhancement requests;

Increased use of common systems; sharing solutions among institutions

Oshkosh, Parkside

11.    Keeping pace with technology upgrades (hardware and software; systems and technological change); push to upgrade even though not fully stable with previous version; Software upgrades (PeopleSoft Student; SFS)

Increased use of paid overtime; outsourcing

Oshkosh, Parkside, Madison

12.    Presenting data to general WI populace



13.    Improving service and extending hours of operation

More self-service applications; increased reliance on student workers; use of imaging technology; electronic signatures


14.    Finding a collaborative tools environment which supersedes email



15.    Information lifecycle management of files, email, databases



16.    Lawson APBS/IBIS

Collaboration among UWS CIOs; collaboration with campus and System financial and HR administration;

Madison, Milwaukee

17.    Justify and start new software projects (PeopleSoft Grants; Travel)



18.    Negotiating with /DOA re UWS administrative systems (purchasing, accounting, payroll, JR, travel)

Collaboration among UWS CIOs; collaboration with campus and System financial and HR administration;

Madison, Milwaukee

19.    Lack of standards, conventions, platform tensure quality and compatibility of technology



20.    IT assessment


Stevens Point

21.    Return on IT investment


Stevens Point

22.    Disaster recovery planning (how much is enough/too much?)


Stevens Point

23.    Course management system for future



24.    Departmental use of ERP systems instead of shadow systems



25.    Stress and staff burnout, demands, resources



26.    mix and blend of centralization, where is the balance



27.    Network and UW System participation in Boreas network



28.    Silver Oaks contract



29.    Positioning of CIO in organizational structure



30.    planning for systemwide ERP implementation (management, best practices, executive leadership at the campuses & UWSA)



31.    Inflexible staffing constraints with state civil service



32.    Sustainable funding




Inform and educate faculty and staff about issues



Identify options and alternatives and research cost/benefits



Consistently deliver on promises and commitments



Use phased investment to manage cost, risk and delivery



Project management

Eau Claire


Service Level Agreements

Eau Claire


Face-t-face meetings with key users

Eau Claire


Using SMS to manage PCs, Casper to manage Macs

Eau Claire


Home-built remote backup/imaging for PCs, MARS box

Eau Claire


Emphasis on soft skill development, hiring people who are committed to customer service and working collaboratively, and establishing that IT is probably the most critical infrastructure that enables us to meet business needs.  We need to get the various constituencies to be more collaborative.



We must learn how to review business practices, commit to simplifying them across the UWS, and understand that the next opportunity to save money comes from simplified, common business processes.  Inherent in this is recognition that the two doctoral institutions legitimately have needs as a result of their unique mission that are not needs of the comprehensives.  We cannot begin to look at our processes until we establish a base of trust, which is lacking.

Building trust is the number one need for UWS and campus leadership.



Building a culture of accountability, managing realistic expectations, having a common vision



Strength and partnership within the CIO Council



Leadership role of middle management; building a first-rate infrastructure



Common Systems Review Group



Shared utilities (FASTAR, Learn@UW, Library, IAA)



Nurturing link between SIS/course management, involvement of CIOs


50.    Chancellors are not a work group, but a group of individuals representing institutions.

Share list challenges/solutions with chancellors, provosts.  Help them understand issues and get them to accept the list.  The list should be developed jointly; it should reflect a common vision.  Also work with the chancellors/provosts to understand their expectations of CIOs and work on a collaborative strategy taddress their needs.


What are the keys to resolving the above challenges?

  • The chancellors and provosts need to see, understand and accept the challenges on the list. Perhaps a group presentation of a joint, prioritized list to the chancellors (and CBOs and provosts?) is in order as a point for starting discussions.
  • A common list of concerns should be generated in concert with the chancellors.
  • The CIOs members should learn what chancellors need and expect of CIOs (see the recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education).
  • A challenge to this approach is that the chancellors are not a work group, and it is difficult to get them to think about the UW System as a whole.

The overarching themes, their impacts and their ease of implementations from the above lists are:



Ease of implementation

The planning for Common Systems



The funding for Common Systems



The system level project management of Common Systems



The role of the CIO in the strategic planning at the institution (CIOs are perceived as "managers" vs. body of experts who can advise on how best to link IT to "profitability")



The impact of the Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) on how UWS IT does business (What are our strategies? What are we trying to accomplish with DOA? Need to educate chancellors about issues.)



Funding for the institutional IT infrastructure, including networks, servers and databases



Communication with, and education of, key stakeholders including the institutions, chancellors, provosts and Board of Regents to help them see the connection of IT to the institution's mission



Alignment of IT with the academic missions of the UWS and its institutions



Benchmarking the balance of centralization and decentralization at institutions

 2 overall, but important at certain institutions


Much of the above relates to Gartner's model of operationally efficient IT versus operationally effective IT.

Sorting the above themes into priority order based upon the scores:

9 - align IT with academic mission (requires relationships, communication, collaboration and process)
9 - system level project management of Common Systems
8 - relationship with DOA (requires data)
7.6 - infrastructure funding
7 - Common Systems planning
7 - Common Systems funding
7 - stakeholder communication and education
3 - benchmarking the balance of centralized versus decentralized IT.

Ideas for future actions include:

  1. replicating the Cal State study
  2. having a small group work on a summit for the Common Systems Review Group, Provosts and CIOs, including:
  • the prioritized list of the strategic themes that need attention
  • building a business case for systemwide ERPs
  • replication of the Cal State study
  • systemwide analysis of the ECAR data
  • analyzing the ECAR data on behalf of the UW System
  • publishing the results of institutional student IT surveys
  • generating a spreadsheet similar to DoIT's justification for sustained network funding in conjunction with the Cal State data: determine how to use this kind of data to create a story
  • building a business case for systemwide ERPs
  • collecting data and creating simple spreadsheets and whitepapers to present to chancellors, system administrators and the Board of Regents
  • generating data on savings, cost avoidances, improved services and resource reallocations as a result of common systems as compared to legacy costs, ECAR data, or replicating the services at each campus (have to consider total cost of ownership).
  • drafting a narrative on how university business is different from state government on issues of hiring patterns, business cycles, etc.
  • having a small group generate a memo from the CIOs to Kevin Reilly and Don Mash supporting the strategic themes (Invite them to meet with the CIOs to discuss?)
  • presenting the strategic themes at the ITMC meeting in April
  • pushing for a Board of Regents IT subcommittee (What would this mean for the CIOs?)
  • Concerns in going forward, include:

    • costs
    • how would these ideas would strengthen the UWS position vis-à-vis state ERP initiatives
    • too little time to create a local version of the Cal State study
    • not clear what data is needed
    • benchmarking is a long term endeavor
    • who is the target audience (newspapers?)
    • how to implement, given finances


    Ron Kraemer and Gary Smith will re-write the prioritized list of themes and route them for participants' approval.

    Dick Cleek, John Krogman, Lorie Docken, Ed Meachen, John Tillman (plus Rita Cheng?, another provost and a CBO?) plan summit for the Common Systems Review Group, the provosts and the CIOs.

    Presenting an effective business case

    It used to be that the state biennial budget cycle included either a large IT or library Decision Item Narrative (DIN), but that hasn't happened for several years.

    The UWS CIOs are continually making small and large business cases for various endeavors. Peaks in activity occur in anticipation of the institutional spring budget cycles. In recent years, business cases have been made to protect IT budgets from cuts, not to argue for increases. Sporadic funding tends to become available throughout the year so it is important to have a number of possibilities always in the works (phased requests). It is important to communicate the value the institution has received for the IT investments that have been made.

    Comparative data from national studies can be used to told conversations about the risks associated with particular levels of funding.

    Depending upon the degree to which an institution is decentralized, there may not be a large central pot of funding to go after. Instead, it is an issue of convincing deans that a central service is, or will be, more cost effective than their own smaller IT services.

    It is important to not have surprises in budget meetings. It is better to prepare decision makers for the news by feeding them snippets of information in advance and including them as partners in making the case for IT needs. Projects should be tied to a strategic plan or address issues that are either unmet needs or pain points for the administration. At the UW System level, the needs of the insitutions carry a lot of weight in business cases. In general, stakeholders can make a stronger case than the IT staff. Persistence is important when planting strategic ideas in the minds of administrators.

    Notes from “Business Case General Principles and Approaches” flipcharts

    • Key scoping questions when asked to provide information
      • For what purpose will the information be used?
      • Who is the intended audience?
      • What is the budget?
      • What is the timeline?
      • QoS
      • Fault tolerance
      • What is the business problem that needs to be solved?
      • Population scope
    • Components of a good business case
      • Data that will support the outcome
      • Audience
      • Single page!
      • Statement of problem that will be solved; a compelling reason and goals for the project
      • Cost/benefits/risks
      • Options/alternatives/trade-offs
      • Context
      • Make it understandable to the ordinary person
    • Key questions to ask about data
      • Who asked for the data and why?
      • Where did the data come from?
      • Is the data reliable – how was it gathered?
      • How is the data relevant?
      • What are possible explanations for deviations from national norms (e.g., higher percentage of respondents in a particular age or gender group)?
    • Helpful data collection methods
      • Observation (qualitative)
      • Survey
      • Industry or peer group experiences/case studies
      • Tracking/monitoring usage
      • Hyperion analytics and dashboards
    • Helpful uses of benchmarking
      • Budget/resource planning
      • Education
      • Risk management and risk communication
      • Justification for additional resources
      • Evaluation of effectiveness of your service

    Overview of benchmark data sources

    Judy Caruso distributed a list of data collections terms and sources. The first step in benchmarking is to narrow the scope of what the data collection or comparison exercise is attempting to address. The next step is to decide upon a data source or methodology, e.g., participating in the EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey. The availability, usefulness and credibility of the data need to be considered, e.g., some institutions choose to benchmark in a narrow area whereas others prefer a balanced scorecard.

    The EUCAUSECenter for Applied Research (ECAR) Student Study allows for comparative analysis of common measures, e.g., computer game playing at UW–Madison versus the other participating institutions. It is important to be careful about what is being compared. Although the data show less game playing at UW–Madison, more Madison females than males responded and females tend to play games less overall.

    With at least three years of data, it is possible to begin looking at trends, although large changes from one year to another can be interesting.

    The SLOAN Consortium report has focused on online learning for the last 8 to 10 years. The SLOAN Consortium promotes online learning as an alternative to face-to-face instruction. They have collected subjective responses from chief academic officers/deans and faculty members at 1,000 institutions. In 2004, over 75% of chief academic officers believed that the quality of their online courses is at least equal to classroom courses. The rate for faculty members was much lower. There are also questions focused on hybrid courses, which rate highly even among faculty members. In combination with the EDUCAUSE surveys, the data show a massive change in the delivery mechanisms for higher education over the last several years.

    Two good articles on IT benchmarking from EDUCAUSE Quarterly are Management by Fact: Benchmarking University IT Services (2004:1) and Seven Benchmarks for Information Technology Investments (2002:3).

    Flowcharts for the collection of the curricular, student, facilities and admissions data in the UW System Consolidated Data Report (CDR) were distributed. On the WiscINFO library are data views available to those who are authorized, typically institutional research staff.

    There are also IT questions in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE).

    A number of UW System institutions do periodic surveys of their students. UW–Madison has surveyed students for 13 years in a row. Some campuses also conduct a faculty survey.

    UW System Highlights from the 2005 ECAR Student Study

    Judy Caruso reported that eight of the UWS institutions participated in the 2005 national ECAR Student Study. Desktop computers are primarily owned by seniors and laptops were owned by freshmen. Many students own both. Overall, at least 56.6% of UWS students claim to use electronic devices at least 10 hours per week. This value seems low, so perhaps the students didn't consider instant messaging and are only thinking of certain types of use. Business and engineering students report the highest use, which may explain why the self reported statistics at UW–Madison and UW–Whitewater are highest.

    The percentages of students who report using a computer for classroom activities and studying more than 5 hours per week are highest at UW–Stout, which may be a result of their laptop program. Spreadsheet usage is generally very low except for seniors, especially those in business and engineering. UW–Stout has the highest usage of spreadsheets and PowerPoint within the UW System, which reflects their curriculum.

    UW-Whitewater has the highest percentage use of course management systems within the UW System. The majority of students prefer a moderate amount of IT use in their courses and the responses tail out to a bell shape on both sides of the peak. At least 68% of UWS students report positive or very positive experiences with course management systems.

    Online discussion boards are the students' least favorite feature of course management systems. Gradebooks are the favorite feature even though only about 25% of faculty use the D2L gradebook. The second favorite feature is example tests and quizzes.

    The main reason why students like IT in courses is for their own convenience, followed by communication with their professors. At least 62% of students feel that the use of IT in courses improves their learning.

    Using data to build a business case for IT

    CaliforniaStateUniversity System

    Bruce Maas explained that the California State University System has gone through an academic technology benchmarking study in the wake of spending a lot of money on administrative systems. The study was commissioned by the presidents, who are highly engaged and interested in technology. The goal was to determine baseline levels of support for certain types of technology, e.g., minimum budgeting for workstations.

    Six campuses participated in the study which concluded that $1,200/workstation should be budgeted for each full time faculty member on a three year refresh cycle. The concomitant funding levels were then calculated, but the sources were not identified in this round in order to leave the emotional issues aside.

    The study concluded that a minimum of $73 per network port should be budgeted annually for security. On the UW–Milwaukee campus, this would be close to a half a million dollars. Currently, UWM is not spending quite one third of that amount, which allowed for a reasonable discussion with the provost about risk and the need to reallocate resources from lower to higher priority items.

    The study agreed upon a three year refresh cycle for servers at $10,000 apiece. The study enabled a profitable discussion at the UW–Milwaukee campus about the need for a rational budgeting scheme for infrastructure.

    The study recommended one instructional designer for each 60 FTE faculty, which allows for a discussion regarding what the few existing staff can realistically accomplish.

    CalState representatives are willing share with the UWS how they arrived at these numbers. Redacted paper copies will be sent to the CIO Council. A preliminary 2002 presentation on this effort is available.

    Examples from UW CIOs


    Jack Duwe distributed an analysis that DoIT provided to its governance structure, chancellor's office and deans that shows the total costs, funding and budget impacts of restructuring network services including phone budgets, long distance calls, voice mail, networking, etc. One of the goals was to reduce telecom cross-subsidies that had built up over the years.

    The document, and subsequent campus discussions, led to what will hopefully be stable funding for the campus network, including regular maintenance and replacement on appropriate cycles.

    A levy of $30 per FTE (not including employees who don't usually use the network) was assessed the schools and colleges. The document detail showed how lower charges for telephone services were being offset by higher charges for networking. Several colleges bore significant increases although there were a few reductions because phone costs went down significantly with the elimination of the cross-subsidies.


    David Stack and Bruce Maas reported on the use of the EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey at UW–Milwaukee. Benchmarking is done versus the other UWS institutions, all doctoral institutions, the "Urban 13" and UWM's three closest Urban 13 peers in terms of Carnegie classification and student FTEs.

    Data from the 2004 survey showed that UW–Milwaukee had the lowest budgeted amounts in the UWS for IT staff professional development. The data resulted in the provost championing greater investments in this area.

    Generally speaking, UW–Milwaukee is under-resourced given its doctoral mission and IT is also under-resourced compared to peer institutions. UWM's ratio of FTE students to central IT staff is 164:1 compared to 124:1 for its closest peers. Although the size of UWM's network staff is typically half that of its peers, networking is the area that scores highest in on campus satisfaction surveys, which is a testimony to the quality of their work.

    On the other hand, the number of FTEs in UWM's 24x7 help desk is roughly one-third of its peers, which is reflected in the struggles the campus has faced in the last few years to raise student, faculty and staff satisfaction levels.

    Looking at cost breakdowns for "typical" ERP installations, UWM had much lower percentage costs for outside consultants and a higher percentage of costs for in-house staff, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the MILER methodology and the hard work of functional staff. Software licensing costs were only 4% compared to 11-25% for peer groups, which shows the value of the UW System site licenses.

    UW–Milwaukee's provost is an accounting professor and showing comparison data has been valuable in building trust between her office and IT.

    Copies of a spreadsheet that that gives campus by campus calculations of the dollar values of systems and services provided at the UW System level for entry into this year's Core Data Service were distributed.


    Doug Wahl reported that approximately 6,200 students currently have leased laptops. The first class of laptop students will graduate this spring and will be able to take a two-year old computer with them for $1. The software that was provided on the computers via Keyserver will no longer work after they graduate. The laptop program is assessed by:

    • focus groups
    • questionnaires
    • proficiency assessments
    • copious surveys

    As a result of the assessments:

    • initial training has been shorted from 3.5 to 2 hours
    • training and orientation is platform specific
    • the number of volunteers needed for rollout has lessened
    • the laptop website was customized for specific audiences
    • efforts to inform students of their responsibilities for backups and network storage have increased
    • a second help desk was created

    Microsoft Proficiency Assessments have been used to define and improve the students' competencies. Students who were identified as "at risk" after completing the self assessments were contacted individually for mentoring. Training was provided via web, CDs, manuals and a hardcopy, student-focused "Computing @ UW–Stout" manuals ( and A "Technology in the Classroom" booklet is being prepared for faculty and staff. Issues have surfaced regarding wireless access due to students reconfiguring their machine, not because of the wireless technology itself.

    Data is being collected for longitudinal studies of student experiences with the laptops as well as student learning outcomes and faculty use of technology. The most important issues for students are:

    • all day, every day access to a computer
    • online registration
    • the ability to be on the Internet from anywhere at anytime


    Mark Anderson used the EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey to look at funding and staffing ratios in the pre-defined peer group for institutions with 1,000 - 3,500 student FTEs. He has also created custom peer groups for liberal arts and public institutions the size of UW–Superior.

    UW–Superior is at about the 89% funding level compared to its 93 institution peer group, which included a large one-time expenditure in 2004. This year, the comparison will probably be less favorable. UW–Superior was at 109% in terms of FTE staff compared to their peer group last year. They have 112 students per IT staff as compared to the mean of ~150. Other ratios confirm that their staff are underpaid compared to their peers, which likely includes a number of private institutions.

    The provost has attended EDUCAUSE and has a priority to hire faculty who are comfortable with technology.


    Elena Pokot reported that at UW-Whitewater every unit goes through a planning process every five years that includes comparison data. For the last exercise, statistics were drawn from various sources. The Core Data Survey shows that training budgets were below national averages, but the students have very high uses of course management systems. The help desk is comparatively underfunded. The ECAR Student Study shows students are comfortable with their skills which is likely a result of specific freshmen orientations. Students feel very engaged in their courses as a result of IT.

    Business Meeting

    Report on IBIS and the UW IBIS Working Group

    Ed Meachen explained that the UWS IBIS working group is largely made up of procurement staff from UW–Madison, UWSA and a few of the UWS institutions. A flowchart demonstrating the touch points between eprocurement and other UWS ERP systems will be developed.

    When the flowchart is complete, DOA representatives will be invited to have a conversation about the detailed impacts of participating in their eprocurement initiative.

    APBS Steering Committee Update

    Ed Meachen explained that the impacts upon the UWS of the Peoplesoft/ORACLE choice by the State of Wisconsin are not clear. At the last Steering Committee meeting, it was suggested that the Steering Committee could be dissolved in favor of the proposed Executive Committee for the UWSServiceCenter (formerly known as the UW Processing Center). Nevertheless, another Steering Committee meeting has been scheduled.

    Ron Kraemer explained that since APBS will not be providing new, promised capabilities in the short term, there is pressure on the IAA function to absorb new projects such as moving the paper-based insurance and benefits processes to web services. More shadow systems will be developed the longer a new HR system is delayed.

    David Hart reported that a collaborative effort developed a new data warehouse for APBS over 18 months at FASTAR. Discussions are now underway, especially with UW–Oshkosh, to leverage some of that work in the near term. UW–Oshkosh will try to eliminate its shadow systems and do all of its work in IADS.

    Ron Kraemer cautioned the group against doing a number of one-off projects that will ultimately get thrown out. David Hart reported that MILER has continued to work on the HR-SIS project to move new faculty data from the legacy HR to campus Student Information Systems. It should be available shortly.

    Open records request regarding BadgerNet2

    Ed Meachen explained that open records requests regarding BadgerNet correspondence have been sent to Ed Meachen, Annie Stunden and Ron Kraemer by the Capital Times and the Wisconsin State Journal. Thousands of pages of records have been generated.

    MILER/FASTAR Services Survey and next steps

    Lorie Docken reported that responses to the MILER/FASTAR Services Survey have been coming in. The survey is being conducted because the MILER team is at a transitional point. Some responses have recommended the formation of service level agreements (SLAs) or lists of services that are available.

    The next step will be a survey of the use of collateral software applications. Draft questions were distributed for feedback. The goals are to first assess the software that the UWS has licensed today, and second to identify new categories that may be needed. The development of a clearinghouse of institutional staff expertise and locally developed bolt-ons for licensed products was recommended. Alan Decker began a similar effort a number of years ago.

    Kathy Pletcher would like to know if there is sufficient value in obtaining an enterprise agreement for ImageNow rather than department by department. Mark Anderson would like to see inexpensive relicensing costs. UW–Eau Claire runs 15 concurrent licenses of the newest version.

    Collaboration subgroups

    Annie Stunden reported that the CIC institutions have different subsets of their staff that get together on a regular basis to share and build communities of peers. A similar model of hosting subgroups has been pursued through the ITMC in the hope that the groups would spin off. Some like the CWCW and the LTDCs have become ongoing groups whereas others have met once and then drifted apart. Perhaps a model of small group meetings that are separate from the general ITMC meetings needs to be pursued. Further discussion on this topic will occur at the April ITMC meeting.

    Including WiscNet in the CIO Council

    Annie Stunden suggested, and the group concurred, that David Lois will be officially added to the CIO Council. He is already on the email list.

    Backup websites

    Annie Stunden suggested creating servers in two cities, probably Madison and Milwaukee, that would run backup websites for the UWS institutions in the event of a natural disaster that would provide emergency contact information for families, friends and stakeholders. UW-Madison and UW–Milwaukee already have arrangements for putting up notices on each others' websites when they are down. The bigger issues are determining how and when a backup website would be invoked.

    UW–Milwaukee and UW–Madison will generate a proposal. Ed Meachen suggested also inviting the CIO for the Louisiana Board of Regents to speak about these issues.

    UW–Madison external review and CIO recruitment

    Because of Annie Stunden's announced departure, an external review of all IT on the UW–Madison campus was conducted. Input was solicited from all major departments. The reviewers also had two days of on-campus interviews, which included some members of the CIO Council.

    The provost has asked for a response to the report from eight to ten groups on campus. A comprehensive internal response to the report will be written. A CIO position description will be written during the summer and the appointment will be advertised during the fall with a likely hire during the following spring. The reviewers affirmed UW–Madison's role in making Common Systems work and noted the complexity that these responsibilities inject into the CIO position.

    ORACLE Alliance meeting

    David Hart reported that the Peoplesoft Higher Education User Group (HEUG) was previously run by the higher education community, not by the Peoplesoft company. It functioned largely as a training venue for higher ed staff. After the merger, ORACLE was not enthusiastic on having a higher ed user group and has folded in government. The name has subsequently been changed to the Alliance and the attendance has increased from hundreds to thousands.

    At the executive forum of some 150 people, David Hart described the UWS experience of recent deterioration in Global Support compared to the pre-merger timeframe. When ORACLE denied the charge audience reaction was loud. NorthwesternUniversity reported deterioration in the number of training opportunities and their quality.

    Mark Armstrong and Susan Bidler made a good presentation on Fusion and stated that the student system will be generally available in 2010. Therefore, version 9.0 will be substantially enriched because of the additional two year delay and will include elements of the Fusion middleware. It will likely be released in the first quarter of 2007. The UWS institutions will need to determine if the 9.0 enhancements are worth implementing.

    ORACLE is also in the process of addressing how a learning management system could be included in Fusion. At a minimum, there will be an LMS plug-in to automate integration. Sakai was mentioned but no commitments were made.

    Discussion of 2007-09 Institutional Initiatives

    On January 30, 2006, the chancellors were asked for lists of institutional initiatives for the 2007-09 budget that focus on increasing access and the number of baccalaureate degrees through increasing enrollment, retention or graduation rates. The initiatives should include measurable outcomes. Any budget requests should include only startup costs in the first year with staffing costs in the second year.

    Most of the CIOs have yet to be consulted by their administrations. Ed Meachen has been involved in discussions regarding the expansion of UW–Platteville's distance engineering programs. He suggests that any other proposals for additional streaming/online education be combined with it. UW-GreenBay has an initiative to grow the number of student FTE over a number of biennium.

    Since the number of high school graduates is decreasing, there will be more competition for those who are available and a greater focus on niche markets such as returning adult students and tribal populations. Dick Cleek noted that the four year institutions may be drawing into the UW Colleges market as they try to expand their enrollments. UW–GreenBay is looking at a new BAS degree for students who have completed technical college and subsequently want a bachelor's degree.

    UW–Milwaukee only needs to improve its retention by 1 percentage point to meet its target. UW–Whitewater has been talking with UW Colleges to provide their online students with third and fourth year education.

    Update on Colleges/Extension integration

    The UW Colleges/Extension committee continues to meet weekly. The IT integration is necessarily ahead of the other efforts. A server consolidation facility is being developed at the PyleCenter to offer improved levels of service. A decision was made in January to move to an Exchange environment for all operations. All staff will be moved by the end of June which should simply management. Currently there are 13,000 students and 800 staff. A central server Exchange server is run with replication at 13 additional servers at the UW College institutions with 0.4 staff. An additional 1,800 staff will be brought onboard from UW Extension.

    There are various IT help desks in the two institutions. A new student help desk will be created for Co-op and Infosys within UW Extension. Core services are sustained by a mixture of operational and chargeback funding, but overall they are underfunded.

    The new chancellor arrives on May 1, but he has been already meeting with senior staff via weekly teleconferences.

    Next Meeting

    The next meeting of the CIO Council will be after the ITMC Conference the afternoon of April 11th at GreenLake.