Meeting Notes

January 10, 2005

214 Davis Library


In Attendance:
Daniel Anderson
Megan Bell
Ed Blocher
Linda Carl
Libby Evans
Ladnor Geissinger

Vanessa Graber
Tracy Heeman
Bob Henshaw
Wallace McClendon
Tim McMillan
Steve Melamut
Susan Moffat

Iola Peed-Neal
Tola Oguntoyinbo
Jim Porto (Chair)
Diane Strauss
Kathy Thomas

Call to Order

Welcome and Introductions


Chair's Update

Item 1:Presentation by Susie Moffat, Acting Director, Technology Assessment and Planning (TAP)

As part of its recent reorganization, ITS has created a new group called ITS-Technology Assessment & Planning (ITS-TAP).

*Group Description:*
The Technology Assessment and Planning group provides ITS and the University with a forward-looking vision, an incubator for assessing new and emerging technologies, and the structure for developing a technology roadmap to deliver on the promise of ITS and University strategic directions. Will include a number of different documents.

*Support Role:*
TAP is involved in long-term assessment projects on technologies prior to implementation and does not have primary support for production applications. Will include state-of-the-art technology assessment lab. Will coordinate assessment projects with other ITS and campus units. In the process of forming working groups for hands-on assessment of IT projects. Will begin prioritizing assessment needs. Identity management is example of likely need in the area of solutions assessment. TAP will be very future-oriented. Looking 2-5 years out.

Over time, expect to be able to work with individual faculty members/departments. Will focus first on central IT needs. Can't cover all computing areas (SIS, research, instructional, admin, etc.) comprehensively, but not picking just one or two.

Discussion. Role of FITAC in TAP mission:

  • Money will flow to technology decisions made in part by this group. FITAC would like to stay apprised of directions.
  • CTL, Institutional Research and others can play valuable role in collaborative technology assessment efforts.

Item 2: Discussion. Jim Porto. Report on the discussion at IT Directors meeting for the new email policy and the status of the policy change.
Issue. How can FITAC accurately reflect faculty sentiments on IT issues? Not all faculty agree with the new email policy change. Should we have the capability to poll faculty about policy changes so that when administrators seeks our advice we can more accurately tell them the level of faculty support?

FITAC has expressed support for the policy. IT directors also supportive, although there are a few issues to work through. But is FITAC really representative of the faculty?

  • Could we use Faculty Council mailing list to poll faculty?
  • Institutional Research is gatekeeper for surveys. What about informational email?
  • Needs to be important issue to go to the trouble of polling/involving faculty.
  • FITAC needs to be truly representative of faculty. Will require faculty attendance.
  • Open FITAC meetings for faculty? May need to do more to make faculty aware of FITAC.
  • ITS advisory committee structure will allow faculty to be more pro-active about upcoming policy issues.

Item 3: Update. Megan Bell. Advisory Committee structure for IT.

Megan Bell distributed an overview document on ITS Advisory Committees. Committees include the following:

  • CIO Advisory Committee
  • User Support and Communications
  • Enterprise Applications and Data
  • Telecommunications
  • Research Computing
  • Security and Institutional Compliance
  • Teaching, Learning and Academic Computing
  • Financial Planning and HR

Jim Porto is on the CIO Advisory Committee and is also attending the IT Directors meeting. Will stand in for committees that do not yet have FITAC respresentation.

Item 4: Request. The IT Directors committee is helping develop an IT information page for employee orientation.

We have been asked to help identify faculty IT information needs, not only for orientation but as a reference for all faculty. Listed below are some URLs identified by Sherry Graham showing what other campuses are doing.

We probably need a small working committee to look at this issue and give guidance to HR and IDT.

Item 5: Discussion. Bob Henshaw has pointed out that FITAC will be well served to identify an appropriate role in broader campus initiatives, How should FITAC be included and at what stage?

Other projects that come to mind:

Faculty outreach efforts:
· Survey of faculty to determine the level of IT use currently
· Increase faculty knowledge of IT through programs to introduce faculty to new technologies
Identify technological and pedagogical trends
· Work with TAP on instruction technology trends
· Assess what we know now on how people learn
· Forecast the pedagogy and IT infrastructure needs for the next 20 years
Review Continuity of Operations Plans
· Work with IDT and ITS to make sure that the University has adequate resources to continue educational and research operations in the face of disasters or major events
IT Budget Support
· Propose a Competitive Grant process to disseminate new technology.
· Advocate for a faculty input into determining IT resource needs.
IT's role in broader campus initiatives

· SACS accreditation
· Chancellor's academic excellence efforts

Other ideas? Please send any ideas you have for FITAC projects to Jim Porto (

Item 5: Announcements. Open.

Item 6: Future Agenda Items.

1. Presentation on Accreditation Efforts
2. Results of Convocation on Scholarly Communication
3. 2005 Competitive grants proposal-Presentation by Bob Henshaw on what other campuses are doing.
4. Calendar Function
5. Faculty Technology Tours

Next Meeting: Thursday, January 27 at 11:30am in 214 Davis Library

Agenda: TBA



Back to FITAC Meeting Schedule