1. Advancement Services Announcement

2. Handouts

3. IT Leadership Facilitation

Excused: Peter Dale, Phyllis Leavitt.

Absent: Tom Kaiser, Maggie Overbaugh, Celeste Rose.

1. Advancement Services Announcement

   Deborah Urban announced the signing of a contract with BSR. BSR will provide their Development System, called "Advanced CS", as well as implementation consulting. UCD will be the fifth UC campus to implement this product. The steering committee for this project (AIS) will be expanded to achieve broad campus representation.

   The question of the colleges being asked to contribute to the on-going maintenance of this system was discussed. Deborah hopes to demonstrate the value in the coming months, focusing on the aspect that this system is much more than UCD's current gift processing system. The new system will be an external advocacy system, and should also be a benefit to those offices that have developed their own shadow system while waiting for a central system to be implemented. Deborah would like to demonstrate the system to AdC3 in one of the future meetings, in order to gather feedback on how to best use its functionality.

2. Handouts

   Paula King discussed the handouts for this meeting. A CAUSE article, "The Crisis in Information Technology Support: Has Our Current Model Reached Its Limit", will be useful for the next meeting, where funding models for information technology will be discussed.

   Coopers & Lybrand material discussing technology in higher education were also distributed.

   Deborah Urban and Kathleen Moore Joiner offered they had independently found articles in the "Harvard Business Review" that might be helpful to the committee's Paula asked that they supply the names of the articles so that subscribers could take note, and that copies could be made for non-subscribers.

3. IT Leadership Facilitation

   Kathleen Moore Joiner facilitated an exercise in order to come to some consensus on the nature of the proposed IT leadership. The group was broken into four small groups, and discussed each of the four proposed leadership models, listing advantages and disadvantages of each. At the end of the exercise, the larger group reconvened to summarize their findings. (See attached transcription.)

   Option 1: Discussion revolved around the value of the Vice Chancellor title, and the standing with policy forming bodies.

   Option 2: The main issue discussed was the limitation of the applicant pool due to the requirement that candidates be tenured faculty. Other discussion revolved around the exact scope of the Executive Director. The advantage of this model is that it would encourage the confidence of faculty towards IT.

   Option 3: Discussion focused on the challenge to coordinate infrastructure in this model.

   Option 4: Discussion focused on campus readiness for this model, and lack of planning and strategic direction. Some felt that this model could be achieved eventually.

   After summarizing each model, there was some reiteration of the importance of the IT leader having strong business management experience by several members of the committee.

   Alan Laub summarized the discussion saying that options 1 and 2 were favored by the group, with the concern that limiting leadership to an academic result in a difficult recruitment.