University of South Carolina

University Information Technology Council (UITC)
October 11, 2004

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, October 11, 2004, in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building at 2:30 p.m.

Members present were: Ms. Barbara Rogers Blaney; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Mr. Ken Corbett; Ms. Jane Jameson; Dr. Douglas B. Meade, Dr. Philip D. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; and Dr. Mark E. Tompkins.

The members absent were: Ms. Chris Billinsky; Ms. Leslie Brunelli; Dr. D. Lindsie Cone; Dr. Stanley D. Fowler; Ms. Ashley Gallentine; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Dr. William J. Kettinger, Dr. Philip S. Moore, Mr. William Morris, Mr. Ernest M. Pringle; Mr. Zachery Scott;
Mr. Jason Trenary; and Dr. José M. Vidal.

Ex-Officio members present were: Ms. Alma Creighton, Ms. Lorie Edwards, and Ms. Nancy Hart. Also present were: Dr. William F. Hogue, Mr. Whit Ashley, Mr. Donnell Freeman, Mr. Greg Meyers, and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt.

1. Classroom Enhancement Project Proposal: Dr. Hogue informed Council that he had met with Provost Becker regarding the classroom enhancement projects that were proposed for FY 2004-05. Each year, $1 million had been earmarked for these classroom projects, and Dr. Becker’s response was very supportive of continuing these important renovations to update and equip classrooms with enhanced technologies. (See http://it.sc.edu/doc/CEPinfo.doc.)
    
2. Networking Issues: Dr. Hogue introduced Greg Meyers, Director of Network Services. Mr. Meyers then provided an overview of Networking Services which was the unit responsible for design, planning, implementation, operation, maintenance, and evolution of voice, video, and data infrastructure throughout the University. (To view the powerpoint document, go to http://www.it.sc.edu/doc/Network_Services_Presentation.ppt.)
   
   There were ten members of the networking group. Three were responsible for day-to-day engineering, planning, and design work. Four handled day-to-day operational issues, and the remaining three were responsible for implementation.
   
   Current projects included: Residence Hall Network Infrastructure Upgrade; Perfigo Installation; Outdoor Wireless Network Infrastructure; Metro Ethernet; USC Beaufort’s Historic Campus Network Upgrade and South Campus Network Installation; Carolina Card; Internet Connectivity; Redundant Network Point of Presences (POPs); New Server Farm Network Infrastructure Build-out; Local Server and Global Server Load-Balancing Strategy; New Fiber Infrastructure Throughout USC Columbia; and Palmetto College Network Upgrades which would include campuses in Union, Lancaster, Sumter, Walterboro, and Allendale.
   
   Mr. Meyers explained that the University’s Wide Area Network (WAN) connectivity would be replaced with a Metropolitan-Area Network (MAN or Metro.) The advantages to this Metro Ethernet included low-cost, high-bandwidth services with security and quality of service. It would eliminate single points of failure and provide a wider range of connectivity speeds.
   Approximately 24 sites could take advantage of Metro Ethernet, and they were listed on the above referenced powerpoint document. The sites at both the Veteran’s Hospital and Richland Medical Park had completed their conversions, and would enjoy a monthly savings of $1,100 as well as benefit from an additional 94mg.
   
   It was noted that students were very interested in the Outdoor Wireless Network Infrastructure Project which would design and deploy outdoor wireless capabilities for the Columbia campus. It would be completed in two phases. The first phase would include areas 1 and 2, and the second phase would include areas 3 and 4. (See the map within the powerpoint document referenced above.) Antennas would be placed on call boxes with emphasis placed on quality of connectivity.
   
   When Dr. Tompkins questioned the ability to jam access for students in classrooms, Mr. Meyers agreed to investigate the issue and report back to the Council members.
   
   The project deliverables were discussed such as true L3 roaming so that users would not need to re-authenticate as they walked across campus; wireless client remediation; encryption of data to limit exposure of institutional data to unauthorized users; hardware redundancy; and service set identifiers that could be used across multiple campuses.
   
   The National LambdaRail (NLR) was a major initiative of U.S. research universities and private sector technology companies to provide national scale infrastructure for research and experimentation in networking technologies and applications. NLR’s fundamental mission was to provide an enabling infrastructure for new forms and methods of research. Half of this new wave allocation would be allocated to network research and half would be free range.
   
   Participation by the University of South Carolina could cost approximately $750,000/year, but it would include Internet II connectivity. Dr. Hogue noted that the University needed to continue to position itself as an early follower of emerging technologies.
    
3. Discussion of Email and Enterprise Calendaring: Dr. Hogue offered to discuss this issue with any interested UITC members after the conclusion of this day’s meeting.

University of South Carolina

University Information Technology Council (UITC)
September 20, 2004

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, September 20, 2004, in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building at 2:30 p.m.

Members present were: Ms. Chris Billinsky; Ms. Barbara Rogers Blaney; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Ms. Leslie Brunelli; Dr. D. Lindsie Cone; Mr. Ken Corbett; Ms. Ashley Gallentine; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Mr. Ernest M. Pringle; Dr. Mark E. Tompkins; and Dr. José M. Vidal.

The members absent were: Dr. Stanley D. Fowler, Ms. Jane Jameson, Dr. William J. Kettinger, Dr. Philip D. Moore, Mr. William Morris, Dr. Dwayne E. Porter, Mr. Zachery Scott, and Mr. Jason Trenary.
Ex-Officio members present were: Ms. Alma Creighton, Ms. Lorie Edwards, and Ms. Nancy Hart. Dr. William F. Hogue; Ms. Susan Bridwell, Mr. Whit Ashley, and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt also attended.

Dr. Hogue called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for attending. He informed the Council that Mr. Larry Pearce, Director of University Publications, had established two positions within his area to address visual, information, and multimedia content for externally-oriented portions of the University Website in support of University marketing and communications objectives. Dr. Hogue distributed the position descriptions for these two positions for the Council’s review.

Dr. Hogue directed attention to the agenda.

1. Review and Discussion of IT Briefing for Provost Mark Becker: Upon the arrival of the new Provost, Dr. Hogue asked Ms. Bridwell and Ms. Edwards to prepare information regarding their areas for inclusion in a briefing document that Dr. Hogue would present to Provost Becker. The purpose of this document was to provide an overview of the Division of Information Technology at the University. [Go to www.it.sc.edu/oit/docs/brief_overview.pdf to review the document in its entirety.]
   
   
   1. Ms. Bridwell said that the purpose of DEIS was to support faculty and students. In the document, she had listed available programs and courses along with their enrollments and the types of media services available along with their activity levels.
      
      She had also included specific initiatives that had been and would be pursued. DEIS had worked with Business Affairs to create a visually interesting flavor for the new dining hall in Patterson by turning exterior photographs of campus, without people, into 4”X10” panels with a watercolor affect. DEIS had moved from an editing system to desktop editing, purchased a DVD mass duplication system, upgraded the production studio, and continually made progress with the Classroom Enhancement Project.
      
      The staff of DEIS and Computer Services that had worked in academic support were combined and had been moved to CS. They would report to the newly established position in OIT: the Academic Program Director for Instructional Technology.
      
      Discussion ensued regarding budget allocations and specifics of classroom renovations.
       
   2. Ms. Edwards provided information regarding CS. In the document, she had listed budget and staff information, along with major areas of operational IT responsibility. She included a list of the major projects with which CS was involved such as Integrated Library System, ERP, Authentication, Wireless Network, Pinnacle, Enterprise Backup and Storage, and the Carolina Card. The entire list can be found at the website listed above.
       
   3. On September 15, Dr. Hogue had started his briefing with Provost Becker by making generic observations. He noted that the University should pay attention to what was happening in the public and private sectors and with aspirant peers then select the best initiatives for Carolina.
      
      “One University - One Network” was an important theme that stated USC had one data network for the good of all its members and that standards for the community should be set. Having the “trains run on time” was important, but a real strategic differentiator would be advancing instructional and research computing on campus.
      
      Dr. Hogue had explained the IT resources that were available and had discussed specific projects such as ERP, for which the Provost would be a sponsor, vendor identification and implementation, the Teaching and Learning Center (TLC), replacement of email systems for everyone, and external engagements.
      
      Provost Becker responded that he had spoken with virtually every dean on campus as of September 15, and he had not heard any complaints from the deans with respect to IT. The Provost was savvy and had a visceral understanding of IT. Dr. Hogue felt the meeting went very well and that the Provost would be a strong advocate.
       
2. Presentation of the Computer Services Project Web Site: Ms. Edwards made a PowerPoint presentation regarding the new CS Project Management System. The website was intended as a source for information and to offer assistance in project management activities. [Go to http://www.sc.edu/project/ to view the site.]
   
   She explained the goals and objectives of the System, the definition of a project for the purposes of this system, and the work of the Project Review Team. She provided examples of projects and how they would migrate through the system.
    
3. Prioritization of Discussion Topics and Action Items for Remainder of the Semester: Dr. Hogue reminded the Council of the potential discussion topics and action items that had been listed during the previous meeting and ask for additions.
   
   New items included: 1) Centralized v. decentralized issues such as wireless, email, and sanctions for violations of IT policies; 2) Plagiarism in an era of online information access; 3) Classroom Course Management Systems such as wireless in classroom and the TLC; 4) Privacy issues including SSN issues, collaboration with other institutions, FERPA, and communication with parents of students; and 5) Funding.
   
   There was much discussion regarding student privacy and cheating.

University of South Carolina

University Information Technology Council (UITC)
August 30, 2004

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, August 30, 2004, in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building at 2:30 p.m.

Members present were: Ms. Chris Billinsky; Ms. Barbara Rogers Blaney; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Ms. Leslie Brunelli; Dr. D. Lindsie Cone; Mr. Ken Corbett; Dr. Stanley D. Fowler; Ms. Ashley Gallentine; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Ms. Jane Jameson; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Mr. Ernest M. Pringle; Mr. Zachery Scott; Dr. Mark E. Tompkins; and Dr. José M. Vidal.

The members absent were: Dr. William J. Kettinger, Dr. Douglas B. Meade, Dr. Philip S. Moore, Mr. William Morris, and Mr. Jason Trenary.

Ex-Officio members present were: Ms. Alma Creighton and Ms. Lorie Edwards. The Ex-Officio member who was absent was Mr. Steve Adams. Dr. William F. Hogue; Dr. Karl G. Heider, Ms. Susan Bridwell, and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt also attended.

Dr. Hogue called the meeting to order, thanked everyone for attending, and welcomed the new members. He changed the order of the agenda to accommodate schedules.

1. Welcome and Introductions: Dr. Hogue explained that the purpose of UITC was to provide advice to the CIO and, through the CIO, to the President and the Provost on regular IT issues and priorities. The agenda was loosely structured to encourage changes and/or additions recommended by the Council members. Introductions ensued of the new and returning members.
    
2. Review of Summer Initiatives, Preview of Fall Initiatives:
   
   1. Ms. Edwards briefed the Council on the Metro Ethernet which was a new technology that would allow lower costs and high capacity bandwidth to the outlying areas. The School of Medicine had moved from 3mb to 100mb for the same price. It would eventually reach the Regional Campuses and most of the 21 remote areas including the Baruch Institute.
       
   2. Dr. Hogue added that the plan to establish a wireless cloud to cover the entire Columbia campus was underway. A site survey for Quads I & II, of the four quadrants into which the campus was divided, was completed. Quads I & II extended from the Horseshoe to the Roost and Williams-Brice Stadium, and they included the Russell House, Horseshoe, and some of the larger dormitories. But, they did not extend as far east as Gambrell Hall nor as far west as the Greek Village. Based on the timetable to receive bids, it was hoped to begin the project in October 2004.
      
      Dr. Hogue discussed with Denise Wellman the possibility of having 20-25 PDAs in the Visitors’ Center for use by guests to campus. He explained the issues with the Columbia Metro Wireless project and how it could allow wireless connectivity to faculty, staff, and students who lived close to campus.
      
      There was discussion of the details of implementation, potential coverage bleeding into the interior of buildings, and possible degradation in academic units already wireless equipped.
      
      Ms. Gallentine questioned the source of funding for the project. Dr. Hogue replied that it would be funded through the Student Technology Fee.
      When Dr. Cone was asked to comment on the wireless implementation at the School of Medicine, he said that the major issues had been with authentication and HIPAA regulations.
       
   3. The Research Computing Project was to address how IT could be more supportive of research endeavors on campus. Dr. Hogue hired a Ph.D. student from Computer Science who had a background in the private sector who developed a business analysis of IT research on campus. That report would be posted when it was completed.
      
      The draft of this report had been presented to Harris Pastides, Tony Boccanfuso, and Ed Walton, all from the Office of Research. The presentation was meant to be a starting point of determining how the University could use its IT resources more effectively and efficiently to support research. The goal was to do a better job of coordinating and collaborating across disciplines and to make better use of the IT resources.
      
      A new position would be created for a Director of Research Computing. It was hoped that a position description could be written for advertising begin toward the end of the semester.
       
   4. The Office of Information Technology had established a new position for an Academic Program Director for Instructional Technology. Applications had been received and their review would begin the following week. This position would work with Ms. Edwards and Ms. Bridwell, as well as with faculty members, to emphasize a high level of support for students and faculty in areas such as eLearning, library activities, course management systems, and distance education online and in other forms.
       
   5. Ms. Edwards explained the Perfigo implementation which occurred in summer 2004. During fall 2003, approximately 3000 students’ computers were infected with worms and viruses during Move-In Weekend, and Perfigo was procured to address that problem.
      
      In fall 2004, there were 7,400 residential students of which approximately 89 percent moved to campus with computers. When students attempted to access the University’s network, the Perfigo system validated (after authenticating the user) that the computers’ patches and virus security software was loaded and up-to-date.
      Discussion ensued regarding issues with the possibility of having faculty and staff login to the University’s network through Perfigo in the future. Currently, the screening of the users varied by individual units. At Mr. Scott’s request, Ms. Edwards agreed to address the Student Government Association.
       
   6. Ms. Bridwell briefed the Council on the Classroom Enhancement Project. In 1993, the Provost established a project to physically renovate every classroom on campus and to add the best media equipment available, from a presentation standpoint. During summer 2004, renovations occurred in rooms in the Coliseum, Gambrell Hall, and several in Callcott. Extensive work was also completed in the Law School Auditorium. Most of the larger classrooms were now completed and work would begin in the smaller classrooms.
       
   7. A Digital Editing Project was underway. Funds had been secured and most purchases were completed for this project to move DEIS from having a single editor, to allowing each producer to have editing software on his/her desktop.
       
   8. The response to the Blackboard Institute was record breaking this year. Approximately 130 individual faculty participated, and some of them attended multiple sessions. More graduate students also participated this year.
       
   9. Replacement all of the Switches in the Dorms was completed on July 29th using funds from the student technology fee. This new model of switch supported newer technology, such as video. There had been no switch failures during Move-In weekend.
       
   10. The Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project needed a new name. Originally called “Project Garnet,” Dr. Hogue asked the Council members to offer suggestions.
       The current student systems, business systems, and human resources systems were approximately 30 years old: ancient history in IT terms. There were 40 major subsystems with five million lines of code that were written by USC employees. This major project would replace these systems.
       
       The Board of Trustees had approved funding in excess of $1 million to be used for serious planning. It would be the largest IT implementation that the University had ever experienced, and it would require outside services to prepare people for the changes.
    
3. Discussion of Planning for a Teaching and Learning Center with Prof. Karl Heider, Interim Associate Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Affairs: At this time, Dr. Heider joined the meeting. In spring, Dr. Gordon Smith, Dr. Heider, and Dr. Hogue had met to discuss the Teaching and Learning Center (TLC.) They proposed chartering a faculty advisory group and locating a spot within the Thomas Cooper Library to serve as the TLC.
   
   Dr. Heider stated that a TLC would benefit faculty which would, indirectly, benefit students. When he accepted the Interim Associate Provost position, his goal was to hasten the creation of a TLC. When Provost Becker had interviewed for his current position, he stated his support for this initiative.
   
   Dr. Heider had reviewed several TLC websites, and he briefed the Council on various aspects and components of similar programs at other institutions, and noted that good programs were already in place. The TLC would be central to campus and could help anyone be a better teacher. Examples of assistance included: 1) consultation of teaching techniques after reviewing a video tape of a class session, 2) help with creating a syllabus, 3) discussion of examples of good teaching methods, and 4) training in instructional technology and its usages.
   
   One of the central ingredients for a successful TCL was having an actively engaged faculty advisory group. Dr. Hogue asked for help from the members of the UITC. Major leadership from the Provost was paramount, and a working draft was under review.
   Discussion ensued regarding the best methods to encourage faculty participation.

2. Review of Summer Initiatives, Preview of Fall Initiatives (Continued):
   
   
   11. Dr. Hogue asked Ms. Creighton to address the Integrated Library System. Ms. Creighton said that University Libraries from all campuses and the Law School were trying to purchase a new catalog to replace the current 30 year old system. A vendor had been selected, but they were still negotiating terms. It was anticipated that the new system would “Go Live” in July 2005.
       
       The University Libraries were working with PASCAL for a statewide consortium of eight institutions. Ultimately, a large catalog of all of their collected records would be established. This catalog would be web based and integrate with the other systems on campus.

4. Discussion of UITC Areas of Interest and Focus for the Four Meetings of the Autumn Semester: Dr. Hogue asked the Council to suggest areas in which the members would like to focus during the fall meetings of the UITC.
   
   Mr. Scott was interested in Wireless, and added that safeguarding against viruses and worms had improved as he was not hearing many complaints from students.
   
   Dr. Brown asked about the distribution and usage of the Student Technology Fee. He wanted to see a flow cart of how the money was used and to determine if any portion could be given to the colleges. He also wanted insight into strategic planning: what Dr. Hogue viewed as University-wide resources, which initiatives should be funded with centralized resources, and which things should be maintained departmentally.
   
   Mr. Tompkins was interested in the Future of Labs when wireless technology was growing on campus and Storage.
   
   Dr. Cone explained the interest by the faculty of the Medical School in a Computerized Testing Facility.
   
   Ms. Jameson was concerned about the continued use of the SSN as an identifier.
   
   Dr. Fowler questioned Internet II and the National Lamde Rail. He was unsure if faculty were aware that Internet II access was available because its usage was only at 15-20 percent.
    
5. Other Matters: Ms. Edwards added that a brochure would be distributed to all faculty and staff in late September or early October to inform them of all IT resources which were available for instruction, research, and personal use. A Storage Area Network (SAN) had been procured from Hitachi which was highly redundant, very secure, and offered a great deal of availability. Server space would be sold at competitive pricing.
   
   The University had acquired a University-wide license agreement with Oracle at no cost to the University’s users, and information on it could be found at http://www.sc.edu/software/.
   
   The members were asked not to install Windows XP Service Pack 2 because Computer Services had not yet approved its installation. Dr. Hogue asked that Rita Anderson distribute appropriate information regarding XP SP2 to the University community.

University of South Carolina

University Information Technology Council(UITC)
April 19, 2004

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, April 19, 2004, in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building at 2:30 p.m.

Members present were: Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Dr. D. Lindsie Cone; Mr. Ken Corbett; Dr. Stanley Fowler; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Mr. Ernest Pringle; and Dr. Mark E. Tompkins.

The members absent were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Ms. Mary Cordray; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Mr. William Morris; Mr. Adam O’Teri; Ms. Manasi Sinha; Mr. Jason Trenary; and Dr. Juan E. Vargas.

The Ex-Officio member present was Ms. Lorie Edwards; Ex-Officio members absent were: Mr. Steve Adams and Ms. Alma Creighton. Also present were: Dr. William F. Hogue, Mr. Robert Askins, and Ms. Tammy Hyatt.

Dr. Hogue called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone in attendance to this meeting which would be the last one of the academic year.

1. Call for Membership: Dr. Hogue stated that the UITC had been formed in spring 2002, and many of the same individuals had served on the Council since its inception. That was two full years and one semester ago. He acknowledged that many of the members had a variety of other commitments, and he offered the members the opportunity to “opt out” of the UITC. He emphasized that he was not trying to encourage any members to leave and hoped that they all returned the following year. He specifically requested that each member contact him with his/her decision regarding continuing service; he wanted to hear a “yes” or “no.”
    
2. Review of Campus IT Initiatives (including wireless) Scheduled for May thru August: Ms. Edwards distributed to the Council a list of major projects scheduled for summer 2004. [The document can be viewed at http://it.sc.edu/doc/project_list.pdf.] There were several “mandatory” items that were either directed by federal or state law, regulatory requirement, or a situation where there was no choice in the matter such as equipment failure. Mandatory items included: security lock-down, server farm security, PKI/Encryption, construction projects, disaster recovery plan, and SSN as identifier. Upgrades to the network were ongoing and replacement of switches in dorms was planned.
   
   A new work order / call management / telephone billing integration system was scheduled to go live on July 9, 2004. This system, called Pinnacle, was the same system used by the Office of the State CIO; it would replace a variety of existing systems that were not integrated. This would also eliminate redundant data entry by Computer Services personnel.
   
   A patch management / validation project was also underway, and would replace the old Net/Reg. This new system would pro-actively push patches to students and validate the presence of specific anti-virus scanning software. Any system not properly patched and loaded with virus protection software would not be allowed on the network. Eventually, the administration would use this same system.
   
   Wireless Mesh Network was new technology designed for external use. Every site would not have to be directly connected to the network in the new plan. It was hoped that by fall 2004, Area 1 (South Campus, Library, and South Quad) as well as Area 2 (Horseshoe) would be connected.
   
   Disaster Recovery for 1600 Hampton Street residents was being planned with Campus Planning and Construction.
   
   A Master Plan of Infrastructure would begin. It was hoped to work in conjunction with Campus Planning and Construction to eliminate infrastructure problems such as backhoes digging and damaging buried fiber.
   
   The Library Integrated System required a host site and a Request For Information (RFI) had been issued. Computer Services submitted an application to be the host site.
   
   Also, an upgrade of the telephone system would be reviewed during summer 2004.
    
3. Update on Research Computing
    
4. Update on Creation of a Teaching and Learning Center
    
5. Review of Strategic Plan:
   Dr. Hogue stated that he would combine these last three items by outlining the presentation that he had given to the Board of Trustees on February 12, 2004.
   
   He began by predicting that there would be more change in the next five years than there had been in the previous 30 years, and he noted that USC had been rated 30th “Most Connected” campus in the country by the “Princeton Review,” as reported in the online edition of Forbes Magazine, October 20, 2003 .
   
   Dr. Hogue listed the major IT Initiatives; most of these had been discussed during previous UITC meetings.
   
    
   1. Acquire Integrated Library System. This project was necessary for a number of reasons including the fact that the current system was no longer vendor supported. This would be a collaborative initiative with Clemson, College of Charleston, SC State, Francis Marion, The Citadel, Florence-Darlington and Aiken Technical Colleges. A study at the library revealed that 66 percent of the collections at these institutions did not overlap. This would greatly increase the volume of materials accessible from each campus.
       
   2. Create Teaching and Learning Center. William Jackson, a representative from UGA, met with representatives from USC Columbia to discuss the Teaching and Learning Center model used by UGA. An outline had been drafted and the Dean of the Graduate School, Gordon Smith, was very supportive although many elements still needed to be incorporated into the overall plan.
       
   3. Revisit Course Management System. In early fall 2004, a group would be constituted to survey the field of available applications and interview aspirant peers for their input. The anticipated outcome was the development of a robust enterprise system approach, integration with other University systems more fully, and extension of the online capabilities.
      It was essential that any new product, if one was selected, must clearly be superior to the existing system
       
   4. Expand Online Learning Opportunities. The University needed to address online learning, develop a position, and then properly plan the infrastructure, resources, incentives, restrictions, etc., to make it happen.
      
      Dr. Brown outlined problems with online learning that were outside the IT purview such as requiring immunization of online students and tuition differentials. He encouraged streamlining the process.
       
   5. Enhance Research Computing Capacity. During his presentation to the Board of Trustees, Dr. Hogue played a video of James Bottum, VP and CIO of Purdue University, who had Chaired the External IT Review in fall 2003. His particular expertise was computing support for research.
      
      On April 30, 2004, Dr. Hogue would meet with Provost Odom, representatives from the Office of Research, and faculty members to determine what faculty actually want and what they would use with respect to research computing needs and capacity.
       
   6. Strengthen Privacy and Security. The use of Social Security numbers as identifiers continued to be a primary concern, and this practice would be eliminated as soon as possible. A security audit and vulnerability probe would be conducted in the summer. Improvements to security monitoring was essential because the University=s network was under constant attack: 343,000 virus laden email messages were identified between January 29, 2004, and February 4, 2004.
       
   7. Renew Communications Infrastructure. Because society had developed a very mobile nature, the University constantly needed to integrate its technologies. Redundancy was essential to eliminate single points of failure, and capacity planning was necessary.
      
      It was noted that University’s voice technology costs were 46.3 percent less than a peer group of thirteen manufacturing, healthcare, insurance, financial services, utilities, transportation, public administration, and education entities according to research conducted by Gartner in December 2003.
       
   8. Replace Legacy Student, Business, and HR Systems. The current systems were 30 years old, and it was difficult to mask the deficiencies any longer. There were 40 major subsystems and approximately 5,000,000 lines of code; and the critical workforce trained and familiar with using these antiquated systems would soon be retiring. Additionally, the University needed to improve privacy, security, and efficiency of these processes.
      
      The replacement of these ERP systems would be known as Project Garnet. It was anticipated that appropriate funding allocation would be approved in order to begin the strategic development phase of this process.
      
      Also according to Gartner, the data center costs were 4.5 percent lower than a peer group of eight manufacturing, healthcare, insurance, financial services, and public administration entities, and Computer Services offered a greater variety of services. The “trains are on time,” which was very good, but it was not enough to set the University apart. Faculty focuses must be addressed: Carolina must meet future IT needs such as massive database storage capacity as well as bandwidth and computing requirements.
      
      The above list of major IT initiatives comprised a great deal of work on the horizon, and excellent methods of communication would continue to be an important aspect of the University environment.
       
6. Other Matters:
    
   1. Legislation Regarding Oversight by the Office of the State CIO: Mr. Pringle questioned the status of potential changes in the oversight by the Office of the State CIO.
      
      Dr. Hogue responded with praise for the University’s governmental liaisons and for representatives from Clemson and MUSC for raising awareness of the implications of this amendment. The legislation was currently on hold, but would probably be resurrected in fall 2004.
      
      The most recent action of the House of Representatives was to determine that Higher Education should be completely outside of the responsibility of the State CIO. That action would most likely not stand without changes.
       
   2. Email Survey: Mr. Mullaney said that he had been pleased with the Blackboard system lately and brought attention to Dr. Hogue’s request to faculty and staff to complete a questionnaire regarding email. He asked if preliminary results had been determined.
      
      Mail had been sent to 5,300 faculty and staff requesting participation, but it had not been publicized on the web to protect the validity of the data. The survey was set to close on April 30, and Dorothy Tudor would analyze the data using SAS. The results would be posted on the OIT website. [Go to http://it.sc.edu/UITC_doc.asp.]
      It was important to have a group comprised and have them actively reviewing this data in the summer.
       
   3. Energy Contract: Mr. Corbett noted that a new energy contact had been awarded to Johnson Controls. It would produce annual savings of $3.8 million for multiple years: $10-$11 million in energy costs and $20 million in housing costs.

Dr. Hogue thanked everyone for attending and declared the meeting adjourned.

University of South Carolina

University Information Technology Council (UITC)
March 1, 2004

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, March 1, 2004, in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building at 2:30 p.m.

Members present were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Mr. Ken Corbett; Ms. Mary Cordray; Dr. Stanley Fowler; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Mr. Ernest Pringle; Dr. Mark E. Tompkins; and Dr. Juan E. Vargas.

The members absent were: Dr. D. Lindsie Cone; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Mr. William Morris; Mr. Adam O’Teri; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Ms. Manasi Sinha; and Mr. Jason Trenary.

Ex-Officio members present were: Mr. Steve Adams, Ms. Alma Creighton, Ms. Lorie Edwards, and Mr. Troy A. Travis. Also present were: Dr. William F. Hogue, Mr. Kenny Edwards, and Ms. Tammy Hyatt of the Office of Information Technology; Mr. David Ott, Darla Moore School of Business; Mr. Larry Pearce, University Publications; Mr. Robert Askins, Office of the Registrar; Ms. Susan Bridwell, Distance Education and Instructional Support; and Ms. Rita Anderson, Mr. Jeff Farnham, Mr. Greg Myers, and Ms. Veronica Wilkinson from Computer Services.

Dr. Hogue called the meeting to order, welcomed everyone in attendance, and recognized those who would be making presentations during the meeting. Ms. Edwards then introduced Greg Myers, Director of Network Infrastructure, and Rita Anderson, Special Project Manager. Ms. Edwards noted that this was Mr. Myers first day at the University of South Carolina.

1. Web Presence Project: Mr. Larry Pearce, Director of University Publications, and Mr. Kenny Edwards, of the Office of IT, presented the progress to date and plans for the coming year. Future plans included the possible development of virtual tours and improvements in content management.
   
   Mr. Pearce explained that in 2001, Dr. Hogue had constituted an ad hoc committee to design and develop a web presence that would exhibit a common look and feel for the University’s web pages. In addition to Mr. Edwards and Mr. Pearce, the group consisted of Richard Stingle, Chip Harvey, Bob Lowder, and Kim Massey.
   
   A template was drafted and approved by the committee in Spring 2002, and appropriate administrative approvals followed. The redesigned Web portal page debuted in May 2002. The committee had worked with various units on campus, and approximately 120 compliant sites had been reconstructed.
   
   In November 2003, President Sorensen sent a memo to all Vice Presidents, Chancellors, Deans, and Directors that all units needed to be in full compliance by April 15, 2004. Progress had been made, but President Sorensen would mail a reminder that the deadline was approaching. The committee would continue to monitor new sites as they come online.
   
   A new portal would be considered in the next evolution of web presence, and a virtual tour and slideshows were also under consideration.
   
   Dr. Hogue added that this process had been driven by undergraduate enrollment. The university needed to offer more opportunities for distant students to experience the University of South Carolina. The type of online experiences that students had often influenced their enrollment decisions. Virtual tours could be added that would enhance online encounters such as virtual tours of classrooms, dorm rooms, and even virtual tours of the body in anatomy classes.
   
   There was much discussion regarding the mandate by the President for all units to be in compliance with the new web presence. Mr. Pearce explained that all departments, excepting the Business School because of its branding, were required to comply as well as the first link off of each main page.
    
2. A Process for Establishing Priorities for IT Projects: Ms. Edwards stated that the process for prioritizing IT projects seemed unclear to many people. She distributed a Project List that was created out of a CS & DEIS brainstorming session, and explained the differences between projects listed as “mandatory,” “very high,” etc. She asked what kind of projects should be presented to UITC.
   
   Dr. Hogue added that Ms. Edwards and Ms. Bridwell were looking for advice and counsel. He asked the members of UITC if there should be a process to determine priority order, and he said he hoped that projects could ultimately be accessed online so that people could review what was scheduled and what was under-way.
   
   In response to a question from Dr. Fowler, Dr. Hogue explained how some University projects were three/fourths of the way through the process before it was realized that no preparations were made for security issues, authentication, bandwidth demand, etc. The timetable for such projects could often adversely affect other projects. Additionally, one academic unit might find that it was doing the same project as another unit.
   
   Dr. Hogue suggested a progress report be presented at the subsequent meeting.
    
3. I-26 Video Corridor: Dr. Stan Fowler, Associate Dean of the School of Medicine, briefed the Council on the clinical, teaching, research, and administrative linkages between the Greenville Hospital System, USC, and MUSC. Dr. Fowler had initially contacted Dr. Hogue and representatives of Computer Services about this proposed project.
   
   The Medical School had two campuses: one at Palmetto Health and one at the Veterans Administration site; driving time between the two campuses was an issue. Collaboration among higher education institutions was mandated in Governor Sanford’s proposed budget.
   
   The Internet II comprised 200 research universities and the private sector; it would support video conferencing. Internet II encouraged joint proposals and made possible virtual teaching as well as real-time access to remote instruments.
   
   The proposed I-26 Corridor would make video communication possible among Clemson, Greenville Hospital System, USC, and MUSC. Activities would include telemedicine, multi-site communication, and interactive desktop video conferencing. The latter could also enable sharing of applications.
   
   The project goals were to offer state-of-the-art videoconferencing technology that was HIPAA compliant, be faculty friendly, and be accessible from a variety of locations on each campus. The funding strategy was to seek foundation funds, not legislative help, and to match those funds with multi-institutional resources.
   
   Dr. Fowler then outlined the trials and tribulations. There were 538 potential users. The scalability was problematic in bandwidth of medical school trunk lines, for so many users, and for multipoint conferencing.
   
   Dr. Hogue thanked Dr. Fowler for his efforts and recognized that he had secured grant funds for the project.
    
4. Enterprise Authentication Project and Security Policy Update: Ms. Rita Anderson, Special Project Manager in Computer Services, explained the Network Security and Authentication Project. The objectives were to determine who and what were connecting to the network; keep the systems clean with anti-virus protection and OS patches installed; and validate that systems were clean upon connection to the network with quarantine and immediate remediation available for at least Windows 2000 and Windows XP desktops.
   
   It was hoped that the University would adopt a network use policy and implement both proactive and reactive measures. Priority would be on the student network, with fall 2004 move-in the target, and improvements to faculty/staff wired and wireless networks.
   
   Risks and issues were outlined which included unique requirements for anonymous public access to the library, legal implications of configuring/installing software on student owned computers, procurement of reactive validation solutions, and students reactions.
    
5. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project: Mr. Jeff Farnham, Director of Administrative Information Services in Computer Services, defined the ERP project. It would eventually include student administration, finance & accounting, and human resources systems. The university was currently in the preparation phase where information was being gathered to leverage best practices and establish priorities.
   
   For each of the systems, the first phase would include determining the mandated and regulatory needs, establishing a dedicated team, planning the project, and preparing the RFP.
   
   The second phase for each system would be product review and vendor selection, after the formal RFP process. There were a number of non-ERP systems that would also need to be replaced in order to share data, i.e., housing, food service, and carolina card.
   
   The third phase for each system would be business process/product configuration. This would include product training, procurement of hardware and software systems, and interface mappings to certify systems and allow access to data as needed.
   
   The next phases would be Integration Testing and finally for each system to “Go Live.” Mr. Farnham summarized that without good communication, the project was doomed to fail. He wanted to determine early with whom he should talk in order to best facilitate the project.
   Dr. Hogue underscored that ERP would touch everyone within the University system and that communication was paramount. He noted that no website had been established and that budget approval was still needed.
    

Dr. Hogue thanked everyone for attending and declared the meeting adjourned.

 

University of South Carolina

University Information Technology Council (UITC)
February 2, 2004

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, February 2, 2004, in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building at 2:30 p.m.

Members present were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Dr. D. Lindsie Cone; Mr. Ken Corbett; Dr. Stanley Fowler; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Mr. Ernest Pringle; and Dr. Mark E. Tompkins.

The members absent were: Dr. Herbert F. Brown, Ms. Mary Cordray; III; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Mr. William Morris; Mr. Adam O’Teri; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Ms. Manasi Sinha; Mr. Jason Trenary; and Dr. Juan E. Vargas.

Ex-Officio members present were: Mr. Steve Adams, Ms. Alma Creighton, and Ms. Lorie Edwards. The Ex-Officio member absent was Mr. Troy A. Travis. Also present were: Dr. William F. Hogue, Dean Paul Willis, Mr. Richard Moul, and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt.

Dr. Hogue called the meeting to order, and especially welcomed Dr. Lindsie Cone and Dr. Stan Fowler to their first meeting as new members of UITC.

1. Statewide Integrated Library System (ILS) Initiative: Dr. Paul Willis, Dean of Libraries, thanked the UITC for the opportunity to present this item, and he expressed his appreciation for the herculean efforts of the staff at Computer Services for keeping the old NOTIS system operational. It was one of only two such systems in the country currently being used. While it had met the needs of the University for a long time, it was no longer adequate.
   
   Libraries at various S.C. colleges and universities had been engaged in planning and implementing the next generation of Integrated Library Systems (ILS). Representation included Clemson, College of Charleston, Francis Marion, SC State, The Citadel, Aiken Technical, Florence Darlington Technical, and USC. The replacement system, when implemented, would apply to all USC campuses except for the School of Medicine which currently shared a system with MUSC - although that situation may be subject to further negotiation.
   
   The ILS would be built around separate bibliographic databases for each participating institution and a shared physical union catalog that supported global borrowing. Over time, participation in the union catalog and global borrowing component would be opened to the entire SC academic library community, and other SC academic libraries might also join the group for the operation of their local systems.
   
   There would be a great many benefits to the new system, including its web-based design. The new system would facilitate digital resource sharing, and supply library staff with state-of-the-art tools for materials processing and technical service applications.
   
   Dean Willis added that the system would also need to interface with other systems such as Blackboard and be integral to online learning. He briefed the Council on DISCUS, South Carolina's Virtual Library which was available via the Internet in S.C. public schools and libraries and provided access to an electronic library of databases.
   
   Ms. Creighton had coordinated the Request for Proposal (RFP) process that included the other institutions in the state. There would most likely be one server location, and Dean Willis was pushing for the University of South Carolina to be the host site.
   
   Rick Moul from the Partnership Among South Carolina Academic Libraries (PASCAL) was then introduced. He explained that PASCAL had been established in May 2001 by the library directors of SC’s higher education institutions. It consisted of 54 member institutions. Coordination furthered the PASCAL goal of developing state-wide resource sharing, and that was why it was playing a role in facilitating the ILS process.
   
   There were three structural components to resource sharing in higher education: 1) support print based borrowing, 2) resources leverage purchasing power, and 3) a statewide approach to sharing of cultural resources. Most of the institutions in South Carolina share a similar situation of using aging systems. That presented an opportunity to address local institutional needs at a statewide level.
   
   Mr. Moul explained the benefits to sharing resources: being able to bring an expanded amount of material to a broader audience in an easy, dependable way. The overhead cost would be reduced, and borrowing printed resources would be considerably less expensive than via the traditional intra-library loans.
   
   The initial estimate of the cost of the system was between $1.5 and $2 million. Capital and maintenance costs would be based on a formula that, other than the institutional buy-in fee of $70,000 for four year/research institutions and $35,000 for technical colleges, would be distributed by FTE. The RFP would go to state procurement this week. It would take between six and eight months for all campuses to be online and between two and two and one half years for total implementation.
   
   Discussion ensued regarding electronically sharing resources. It was noted that the single greatest factor that influences library use was convenience: if something appeared on one’s desktop, he/she would use it more.
    
2. Draft Security Policy: Dr. Hogue had emailed the draft security policy to the Council and others. He received a response from a department chair regarding the prohibition on mass mailings. The original purpose was to strengthen the restriction on unsolicited bulk email (SPAM), but it would also prevent University business related email from being distributed to any large group of students or faculty/staff. A separate email policy might need to be considered.
    
3. Major Initiatives to be Presented to the Board of Trustees on February 12: Dr. Hogue stated that there would be more change in the next five years than the University had experienced in the past 30.
   
    
   • The first item was the assessment and redevelopment of USC’s entire electronic communications environment and strategy. This would include mobile, wireless, cellular, 4G, and various hybrids to come, as well as applications such as email, calendaring, instant messaging, and multipoint shared workspaces.
     
     The infrastructure was central to virtually everything at the University and should be kept current. But, vital parts of the campus backbone were 15 years old. As demands on it escalated, the underlying infrastructure must be updated to keep pace. The institution also needed to be prepared to integrate a variety of new devices that would be developed in the future and to utilize traditional devices better.
     
     The single most frequent complaint that Dr. Hogue received was about email. He was prepared to establish a team to study email. The group must not be predisposed to any specific vendor, but it would review activity on campus including teaching, research, and administration. An online survey had been developed and was ready to be disseminated to produce real data for consideration.
     
     Ms. Jameson added that her division had established a Listserv for notification of emergencies. The number of subscribers had grown from approximately 600 to 1,300 after the recent ice storm. The Listserv allowed text messages to be sent to cell phones which proved helpful when power and phone outages occurred. This was a good example of integrating various means of communication and emphasized the need to establish underlying architecture that would accommodate new technologies.
     
     Ms. Edwards noted that a new feature of the phone system allowed a desk phone and cellular phone to ring simultaneously; it would be offered with no recurring costs. Integration of voicemail to email would hopefully be available during the current semester.
      
   • Another item was the creation of a teaching and learning center. Dean Willis had reviewed space utilization in the Thomas Cooper Library and determined a possible physical location for the center.
     
     Provost Odom had given his approval to having two faculty work on this initiative. Dr. Hogue was interested in the opinions of the members of the Council with respect to the proposed teaching and learning center.
      
   • Reassessment of the course management system (Blackboard) was essential. Blackboard had a history of poor performance, but it had shown some improvement during the current semester.
     
     The University needed to reassess the current field of course management systems because it had been five years since the last review. The timing was optimal given the efforts toward new ERP, ILS, etc. Dr. Hogue asked the Council to participate and encourage colleagues to participate with a goal of either reaffirming commitment to Blackboard or choosing an alternative.
      
   • The University’s research computing capacity needed to be enhanced. Joint resources could be available from the Office of Research and the Office of Information Technology for faculty with no other means of meeting their research computing needs.
     
     Mr. Jim Bottum, Chair of the External IT Review, would produce a video regarding the University’s research computing needs for Dr. Hogue’s presentation to the Board of Trustees.
      
   • Online learning opportunities should be expanded. It was a primary means of reaching students, and President Sorensen had expressed his interest in this matter.
      
   • Project Garnet would replace and integrate the student, financial, and human resources information systems. A plan to phase the project would have to be determined; it was integral to all other systems on campus. Senior administration had expressed support.

   
    

4. Other Matters:
   
    
   • Dr. Hogue acknowledged that use of social security numbers as identifiers needed to be reduced, but it would take time to expunge.
      
   • Dr. Cone asked if there was any movement toward computer based testing. The faculty at the School of Medicine were very interested, in part, because the state Board examinations were being administered using that method. The certifications
     of professional schools were moving to methods of secure online testing.
      
   • Dr. Hogue concluded that the agenda for the subsequent UITC meeting would include online testing, authentication, video corridor, and online education.

Dr. Hogue thanked everyone for attending and declared the meeting adjourned.