Minutes of March 23, 1999
Information Technology Roundtable
Meeting Minutes
Prepared by Cathy Hanson
Members Present:
Stan Ernst, Cathy Hanson, Greg McCarthy, Phil McClean, Mark McCourt, Don Schwert, Ron Stammen, Val Tareski, David Wahlberg
Members Absent:
Stephen Balz, Joan Chapek, Mark England, John Grosen, Kate Haugen, William Martin, Prakash Matthew, Mary McDonald, Sudhir Mehta, Don Morton, Bonnie Neas, Deb Ott, Virginia Packwood, Bill Perrizo, Richard Rayl, Jim Ross, Craig Schnell, Richard Schrader, Sandy Sprafka, George Wallman, Lowell Wolff
Special Guest: Richard Rathge
Val Tareski, served as chair for Bill Perrizo who was out of the country and lead the ITR meeting.
Richard Rathge was asked to provide the ITR members with an update report from the 2008 working group.
Richard distributed an outline of summation of the 2008 committee which is still considered “draft” form at this time. The outline reviewed the purpose of the group, the conclusions reached, potential solutions.
In regard to the purpose, three charges emerged:
1) Review NDSU strengths and weaknesses with respect to sustaining
and accelerating our leadership in the use of information technology for
education, research, technology transfer and outreach through 2008.
This could be termed the “INTERNAL AUDIT.”
2) Review external opportunities and threats - termed “ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN.”
3) Provide recommendations for strategies and tactics which would launch NDSU into regional and nation prominence in the advanced information technology development and use for education, research, technology transfer and outreach through 2008.
From the work the 2008 committee has done thus far, there are number of conclusions. Specifically there is a lack of an effective mechanism to identify, assess, and monitor the IT needs across the campus community. Data collected at this point is fragmented and it needs to somehow be funneled, consolidated and integrated into one reporting instrument. Incentives for the early adaptors/innovators of IT also was point made.
A number of solutions were listed. Prevalent was the need to institute an “internal audit” assessing the needs of the campus. There needs to be a uniform collection process endorsed as the predominate mechanism which the institutional administration could rely upon for accurate broad-based data to help guide decisions with respect to IT direction. Discussion also occurred with regard to DE programs. Committee members felt emphasis should be on developing entire programs rather than “single” courses. Opportunities for “single-component” courses would best be directed toward continuing education, or through the Ag Communication environments. How do departments/faculty put together such type of programs and have it be successful. This requires planning, marketing, and securing all necessary resources. In essence ITR members related this process to developing business/marketing plan. Who will buy this “program?” Here’s where an “environmental scan” should also be conducted to help determine external needs. Strategy and tactical issues were discussed in regard to who will do these audits and scans. Where do we start, what questions should be asked, and timing. Several ideas were discussed for consideration. Another critical component of IT is finding the necessary financial resources that will enable us to move forward into the future.
Lastly, there was discussion in regard to IT organizational structure
as it relates to DE learning and instructional support. It was suggested
that we might revisit the COMMIT proposal submitted 2 years ago as a potential
model.
No further business, meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Hanson
