1. Announcements

2. Pending Items for Future Consideration

3. Student Affairs Document Management System

4. P&P 200-45-Tier 1 System Reporting

Absent: Earlene Ford, and Kathi Sylva.

Excused: Mary Jo Anderson, Dave Shelby, Carol Wall, and Abby Zubov.

Staff to the Council: Bob Loessberg-Zahl, Randy Moory and Babette Schmitt.

Guests: Bill Bennett, Paul Drobny, David Johnston, and Sandra Stewart.

1. Announcements

   Document management system
   Chair Robert Smiley announced that he sent a letter to Provost Grey reflecting the Council's consideration of the Office of Student Affairs' proposal to pursue a document management system. Chair Smiley distributed a copy of the letter to members.

   PKI Implementation
   Vice Provost Bruno announced he received information from the Office of the President about the UC-wide PKI Implementation Project. The University entered a contract with Verisign to provide digital certificates to the University. The University has budgeted $300,000 for the digital certificates for each of the campuses and for the Office of the President. Each campus is asked to designate three individuals to serve in three separate roles as follows:

   • A management-level position responsible for the issuance and management of digital credentials and associated directories;
   • An administrative contact for Verisign and for operation of the Registration Authority function; and
   • A technical liaison between the campus and UCOP and between the campus and Verisign.

   Vice Provost Bruno recommended that the management role be assigned to the campus Electronic Information Security Coordinator. The campus administration needs to identify the individuals who will be responsible for the other two functions. Individuals need to be identified and their names forwarded to Jim Dolgonas at the Office of the President by January 8th.

   Vice Provost Bruno explained that most of the operational systems on campus will need to be adapted to use digital certificates. This will most likely occur over some period of time. A timeline for these operational impacts will need to be developed.

   Action: Council members requested that a copy of the Verisign contract be obtained.

   Recent AFS issues
   Lana Moffitt, Director of IET's Information Resources, updated the Council on the issue of the AFS file system failure that occurred on the weekend (1/6-7). Lana reported that distributed authentication failed and caused the problem. A team is working on the problem; they have not yet identified the cause. A post-mortem meeting is scheduled for January 10th to determine if local processes can be improved and systems made more robust.

   Council members asked if a problem recently reported on the tsp-share listserv was related to this problem. Lana responded that it was not.

    
   

2. Pending Items for Future Consideration

   Randy Moory identified several projects for future consideration by the Council. These projects are:

   • the New Business Architecture (see http://uc2010.ucsd.edu/),
   • the Advanced Technology Projects (see http://vpiet.ucdavis.edu/advancedprojects/), and
   • HIPAA (Health Information Portability and Accountability Act) regulations. HIPAA was to be on the agenda this month but a late change in the regulations required the presenters to postpone the presentation until February.

    
   

3. Student Affairs Document Management System
   Handouts:
   
   1. Staff report from IET
   2. Staff Report from Resource Management and Planning
   3. Request for Proposal: Electronic Document Management System for UC Davis (Word file)

   Randy Moory presented a report on the technical aspects of Student Affairs' Document Management System Proposal. The report recommends the following:

   • The Office of Student Affairs should complete a feasibility study report for the project and refine the business and technological requirements for the proposed document management system;
   • The project team should add further security measures and ensure compatibility with the campus hardware and software platforms;
   • The Council should consider broader campus issues. The proposal should be reviewed in the context of campus requirements for a document management system.

   While recognizing that the implementation of such a system by a single office would present major workload issues, Council members noted that document management has broad appeal to many campus units. Asked whether a campus group was involved in the preparation of the requirement document included with the staff report, a project team representative indicated that the campus group that created the requirements is no longer in existence.

   Other Council questions revolved around protecting records from public disclosure. Student Affairs replied that the procedures for records management is well developed and protection for student records is well established. Council also asked about getting vendors to demonstrate the use of their software for specific Student Affairs functions. Student Affairs replied that they would build a test database for assessing vendor performance. Vendors, however, will not integrate specific workflow processes into a demonstration. These efforts will need to await the selection of a specific vendor.

   Asked whether they concurred with the technical review of their proposal, the Office of Student Affairs replied that they had met with Randy Moory and discussed issues raised in the technical report. They concur with the recommendations.

    
   

4. P&P 200-45-Tier 1 System Reporting

   Vice Provost Bruno introduced the issue of the Tier 1 System reporting requirements. The UC Davis Administrative Systems Policy addresses responsibilities concerning planning for, and maintenance of, Tier 1 administrative computing systems. (To read the policy, see P&P Section 200-45.) Vice Provost Bruno briefly outlined the responsibilities for the various campus units involved (as defined in the policy), including his office (Information and Educational Technology), Resource Management and Planning (formerly Planning and Budget), the business units, AdC3, and the Information Technology Policy Board (ITPB).

   Among other responsibilities, business units are required to submit to the AdC3 an annual update of the system project plan and budget including the following:

   • A description and schedule for major development and enhancement activities for the next two years;
   • Budget projection and financing plan for the next two years;
   • Maintenance budget estimate for the third year; and
   • Anticipated developments for years three through five.

   Vice Provost Bruno explained that the Administrative Computing Policy contains specific requirements for his office, including:

   • Ensuring that administrative computing systems projects develop project plans and strategies;
   • Evaluating these plans and strategies and reporting the results to the Oversight Committee on a periodic basis;
   • Appointing a project specialist to each Tier 1 administrative computing system to ensure conformance to campus standards and assessment of impact on other campus systems and interfaces;
   • Providing budget and scheduling expertise for technical aspects of administrative systems planning; and
   • Reporting to the Oversight Committee, the Project Leaders Workgroup, and AdC3 on issues regarding compliance to standards.

   Resource Management and Planning is responsible for assessing the resource implications of administrative computing plans and advising IET, the AdC3, the ITPB, and others o the fiscal implications.

   For Tier 1 and 2 administrative computing systems, business units have the responsibility to provide annual updates showing:

   • Major developments and enhancement activities for the next 2 years with budget projections and financing requirements;
   • A third year estimate of maintenance requirements; and
   • Anticipated developments for an additional 3 to 5 years.

   The AdC3 and ITPB have responsibility for assessing and recommending a strategy for administrative computing systems for the UC Davis campus. AdC3 is responsible for reviewing plans and proposals for administrative computing systems. AdC3 then must recommend to ITPB which systems merit further consideration. ITPB is responsible for:

   • Balancing recommendations from both the Academic and Administrative Computing Coordinating Councils, and
   • Recommending to the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor the level and sources of funding for computer systems that support both the administrative and academic missions.

   Vice Provost Bruno stated that the current presentation of administrative computing system proposals to the Councils is inadequate since the Councils are not in a position to examine and compare proposals to other existing or proposed systems. He suggested that a new framework be established that measures proposals against objectives.

   One option is to develop a framework based on portal technology and an agreed-upon list of services to be offered to staff, students, and faculty. (This approach is similar to the one put forth in the New Business Architecture report published last July.) In this model, the framework would provide for consideration of proposals in the context of the mission of the University, not the merits of specific systems. This model would also require that the ITPB become the group responsible for making critical decisions regarding computing systems (e.g., level and source of funding).

   Council responded favorably to Vice Provost Bruno's proposal. Council commented that there were many universitywide initiatives driving the move to portals, including e-commerce and systemwide cost-cutting initiatives. Council expressed concern about what is required for the next 2-3 year period and about systems that would not be covered in a function-based framework. Vice Provost Bruno recognized that not every system could be evaluated using this framework. He noted that middleware and infrastructure were systems that support applications and do not tie directly to functions. He agreed that the framework had to consider these situations and added that the list of functions would need to be developed by a combination of business units and in consultation with constituents.

   Council members further commented on project review, including the need to develop and use a cost/benefit assessment and documentation of the assessment process. Council also identified the need to have the new framework for proposal review ready by October. For the proposal to be considered in the biennial budget review, the 3-year projection information needs to be available in the Fall. The information required is:

   • Impact of proposals on the department;
   • Budget requirements for maintaining the current systems;
   • Requirements for any enhancements to the departmental systems. Council members also commented that integration of services into a portal is expensive. Today this type of integration is achieved by bouncing around to each system specialist until the desired result is achieved.

     We also need to account for the rapid pace of technological change. Is portal technology the most appropriate foundation for the framework? Council members commented on the various factors that support such a proposal, including the New Business Architecture and other external drivers (e.g., e-commerce). Such a framework would enable us to simplify business processes and identify standards for the campus. The proposals would be weighed against the campusÕs goals and priorities.

     Actions:
     

     • To move forward with the creation of a process to review administrative projects, Vice Provost Bruno stated he would ask Debbie Lauriano to re-initiate meetings of the Project Leaders Group.
     • Council asked IET to create a list of projects that are currently in pilot phase and could be requesting funds for full implementation.
     • Council also asked for further development of the framework proposal for its further consideration.