Computing & Information Services


Computing Policy Committee Meeting
September 18, 2009
2:00 – 3:00 pm, ETC 309

Present: Michael Breen, Lily Copenagle, Maureen Harkin, Vickie Hanawalt, Jim Fix, Trina Marmarelli, Ed McFarlane, Aki Miyoshi, Christine Morita-McVey, Marty Ringle

Absent:   Mark Bedau, Jon Rivenburg, and Peter Steinberger
Jim Fix called the meeting to order at 4:10 pm.

Jim Fix called the meeting to order at 2:05 pm.  Committee members introduced themselves.

  1. CPC members approved the minutes from the March 27, 2009 meeting.  Any changes can be sent to Christine Morita-McVey.
  2. Strategic Planning

Jim Fix described the strategic planning process.   CIS has a 5-year cycle of strategic planning for technology improvements and for technology support on campus. As part of this process, the CPC is asked to review a draft of technology goals for 2010 -2014.  Jim explained that the final report from the 2004-2009 strategic planning process is available and asked for comments or question on the  2010-2014 report.

In response to Jim's question, Marty Ringle explained that CIS completed or made substantial progress on all but two of the 2004-09 goals.  One of those goals was to increase programming support for science faculty using laboratory equipment interfaces.  Marty explained that student programmers did not provide the project continuity needed, that hiring a full-time programmer was too expensive, and that outsourcing programming for specific projects had not been sufficiently investigated.  This goal will be carried into the next 5 year period.

The other unmet goal was to decrease the length of Reed's computer equipment replacement cycle to five years for desktop equipment and three years for servers and other central equipment.  During the 2004 strategic planning process, the CPC identified shortening Reed's replacement cycle as its top priority.  Reed's faculty and Board of Trustees were supportive of this goal.  Funds to meet this objective are included as part of the centennial campaign but have not yet been raised.

Jim explained that the 2010-14 technology planning cycle is underway. Marty noted that the draft being reviewed is the result of about individual, face-to-face interviews with 120 tenured or tenure track faculty, 35 administrative staff members, as well as several groups of visiting faculty, students, and administrative staff. In addition, 378 students responded to an online survey. Over a 7-month period, roughly 600 members of the Reed community provided input to the planning process.  Thirteen CIS staff members comprised a planning task force that distilled the data into a list of potential goals.  During the summer, CIS winnowed the list down to about 30 items which were then aggregated into five major themes.

Marty reviewed the set of themes and the underlying goals with the committee, asking that Christine update the web page to reflect the latest changes.  Marty noted that "Enterprise Data" refers to all major electronic data resources not directly connected to instruction and research.  Marty noted that the "Sustainability" theme arose not from interview feedback but from conversations within CIS.  Marty pointed out that the themes and goals were not in a prioritized order, noting that in past prioritization had no apparent effect on the likelihood of goal completion.

Marty explained that after the CPC completes its' review, the draft will be reviewed by the Web Policy Committee.   The plan will then be released to the Reed Community for comments. Marty noted that the President's staff has already reviewed the draft.  In February, Reed's Board of Trustees will review the set of goals.  Marty then asked for CPC members' comments or concerns.

Lily Copenagle suggested changing "academic advising" to "academic support" in the second bullet under "Enterprise Data."  The committee agreed.

In response to a question from Jim, Marty explained that under the category of  "Instruction & Research," the bullet "Improve faculty awareness of, and ability to use, instructional technologies via CIS training and peer workshops" was largely in response to the interviews conducted with faculty.  Marty noted that CIS has hosted peer workshops in the past and has had more success with them than with other types of group events.

Marty asked how CIS could better communicate technology options to faculty. Maureen Harkin commented that lunchtime events are useful and suggested that including a more detailed description of what the workshop will do for attending faculty members would encourage them to attend. Aki Miyoshi added that having a central calendar or having the email notices of workshops linked to a calendar would be useful. Marty asked if using Google calendars, in which student, department and divisional calendars could be overlaid on a personal calendar, might also be useful.  Discussion of this question ensued but no consensus was reached.

Michael Breen suggested that CIS should have meetings with divisions on a topic of interest to that group of faculty. Lily noted that at divisional meetings, having announcements on new topics and soliciting feedback on events has been popular. 

Michael agreed with Maureen that more detailed descriptions of workshops might attract more faculty members.  He suggested sending email reminders of events, perhaps customized and directed to faculty who have a specific area of interest, that would be addressed by that workshop.

Marty observed that new faculty receive a list of technology topics that might be of interest to them and wondered if CIS should send such a list to all faculty yearly. There was general assent.

In response to Aki's question about "Mobility," Marty confirmed that the wireless network is the most vulnerable part of Reed's network infrastructure.  Marty pointed out that as larger institutions have increased their network defenses, hackers have begun to target smaller institutions.  He stated his expectation that such attacks will increase over the next few years.

Vickie Hanawalt asked if CIS has assessed the financial resources needed to pursue the next set of five year goals.  Marty responded that this has not yet been done;  he expects to examine resource requirements after the CPC and the Web Policy Committee have reviewed the draft list of goals.  Marty expressed his hope that resource requirements for most of the goals would be modest and that cost-savings in some areas might help make the bulk of the plan budget neutral.  He noted, however, that replacement of the Human Resources system and the telephone switch are apt to cost several hundred thousand dollars.  Investigations of those cost items are already underway. 

The CPC voted unanimously to endorse the draft set of technology goals for 2010 - 2014.

The next CPC meeting will be Friday, October 30th from 2 to 3 pm in ETC 309.