CRC Recommendation:
2002-2003
Final Report
CTC Consensus – Nov. 27, 2001
James Abraham,
Larry Bohlender (chair), Mark Ferris, KC Hundere,
David Jenkins, Sue
Murry, Ellen Neel, Karen Schwalm, Bill Stewart
A. Introduction
D. Desktop
Project
E. Critical
considerations (not involving capital funding)
1. Quad
Plan specifics
2. Presentation
Systems
3. Special
Projects and Initiatives (requests prioritized)
4. Requests
met through existing resources, innovation and creative planning
5. Requests
not recommended for funding
6. Request
not prioritized
For the first time in seven years, technology capital development at Glendale Community College is not enhanced by funds from the 1994 bond issue. Further, it is unclear when a new bond issue will be presented for voter approval, and it is also unclear how such a bond issue would deal with computer capital funding.
Those uncertainties affected the CRC as it considered the requests – for implementation in FY 2002-3 -- to begin, maintain, expand, and imagine educational technology use on the GCC campus. All requests, of course, have as their goal providing the best learning possibilities for students. Clearly, our ideas for using technology outstrip the funds available to us.
While the CRC always tries to treat requests individually, we were especially mindful this year of recognizing the intersecting nature of all the requests and how each decision affects the existing technology at GCC. These intersections are extremely difficult to see in the abstract, and often bring negative outcomes. The CRC employs discussion, experience, and a good dose of luck in an attempt to avoid potentially costly and wasteful consequences.
Even then it’s not always possible to anticipate. While it’s not likely that any individual decision can be disastrous, the educational, functional, and financial implications of poorly coordinated planning are, nonetheless, significant.
So, in attempting to prioritize requests, or even whether to recommend funding in some cases, the committee is always considering the long-range effects of its decisions. CRC members inevitably find themselves philosophically and sympathetically aligned with proposals that can’t be integrated easily or at all. That is why the committee meets many times during a two-month period: a simple prioritization based on apparent merit, or students served, or innovation, or thoughtfulness is not possible. The use of wireless laptops is a good example of apparent innovation and thoughtfulness, but the CRC doesn’t believe there is enough experience in the pilot program to determine long-range implications.
In the end, this year, the recommendations attempt to balance requests with the financial uncertainties and the need to protect both the existing technology resources and the requirements of future years. Last year the CRC emphasized protecting the existing technology. The collective thinking this year is that the technology is in place and as protected as is possible. Even so, some requests this year, namely for laptop computers, are considered too risky under our current uncertain financial conditions. We need more experience, better understanding of the cost, and resolution of some standardization issues.
The recommendation, then, starts with the Quad Plan. This four-year replacement plan for computer classrooms, labs, and pods is the critical piece in providing technology continuity at GCC. Second, continued support for faculty and staff computing, through the Desktop Project, is vital to the college. Third, the CRC believes a set-aside for future years reflects responsible fiscal planning. Fourth, the committee continues to support permanent presentation systems in classrooms as an effective instructional strategy. Finally, we have prioritized other special requests, identified requests not recommended for funding, and singled out one problematic area of concern that has arisen.
The philosophical and practical rationale that provides the deliberative compass for the committee, and we hope an operational compass for the college users, is explained in detail below. However, as in past years, we believe there are things we can do that do not require capital that will have significant impact on our ability to enhance technology use. We should promote:
In fact, because of the college-wide implications of these continuing concerns and the importance of the implications, the CRC recommends (in E. Critical considerations) that the Computer Technology Committee establish a task force to not only validate the assumptions which drive CRC recommendations, but also to suggest action for implementing them.
Requesters, department heads, and interested individuals should be able to find the recommendations regarding individual requests within this report, in follow-up recommendations from the College Technology Committee (CTC), and in the final report of the Budget Development Committee (BDC). Remember, the results are to be implemented in FY 2002-3 although the goal is to complete moves and installations prior to the start of that academic year.
B. Summary of Recommendations
(Check Appendices for specific information)
Top
Priority – Quad Plan $625,000
(includes 8 standard presentation systems)
2nd Priority – Desktop Project $225,000
(includes one-time infusion of $25,000 to compensate for increased
faculty/staff numbers and lower funding in 1999-2000, and to rebuild
the supply of refurbished machines)
3rd Priority – Savings for LW/OBM (Life WithOut Bond Money) $100,000
4th Priority – 3
standard, 5 non-standard presentation systems $65,000
5th Priority – Special Projects and Initiatives Prioritized $28,650
C. The Quad Plan
The CRC strongly recommends
the Budget Development Committee place the highest priority on funding student
computers in accordance with the Quad Plan.
Student computing remains first and foremost in GCC’s efforts to support
teaching and learning with technology.
The Quad Plan was started this fiscal year (2001-2) to replace the 5-Year Plan. The plan, which encompasses labs and lab-like areas that were previously part of the 5-Year Plan, uses a pair of two-tier structures. Labs and other areas identified in Tier One in each pair receive new computers in alternate years. After two years of Tier One service, the computers are moved to Tier Two service for another two years when the process is completed. Early indications are that the plan thus far has simplified the technology upgrade process, while the 2 plus 2, or four-year life expectation is more reasonable than five years for providing stable classroom performance.
Tier One |
|
Tier Two |
|
|
Computers purchased for Group A |
Existing machines continue to be used |
Group A computers transitioned to Tier Two locations |
Existing machines continue to be used |
|
Existing machines continue to be used |
Computers purchased for Group B |
Existing machines continue to be used |
Group B computers transitioned to Tier Two locations |
|
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
Several changes will be made to the Quad Plan for FY 2002-3, the year for which this report plans. Some changes are housekeeping; others are far more substantial. All need to be identified. Here are the changes:
D. Desktop Project
The CRC strongly recommends the BDC place a high priority on maintaining adequate funding for the desktop project.
Since July 1996, GCC has deployed new hardware, managed upgrades to software applications, and provided technology training for board-approved college employees through the Desktop Project. This ongoing initiative has provided a planning framework and a management strategy for the college’s administrative computing resources, including a means for making effective use of refurbished computers, still serviceable hardware that can be used for various purposes by college employees not eligible for the Desktop Project itself.
During the past four years, GCC has come to appreciate the many and varied benefits of strategic planning for technology. The college has endeavored to set a recognizable course with general goals, clear policies, and continuously improved procedures. The result of this commitment is that board-approved employees have been able to participate in the Desktop Project on their own schedule to address the computing demands of their jobs and to meet their own learning needs. The college has made valiant attempts to accommodate the influx of new faculty each August as well as those employees hired at various times throughout the year; we continue to be sensitive to the pacing of the academic calendar and the needs of department managers. That the Desktop Project has been successful in the past does not mean that we feel that there is adequate money available for the project to continue these activities without occasional funding adjustments. This year’s request includes a one-time infusion of $25,000 to compensate for increased faculty/staff hiring over the last several years and the reduced funding in 1999-2000 year. This infusion will allow us to offer a modest expansion to the DTP by offering at least one additional session throughout the year, which also will result in an increased availability of refurbished machines. It is now apparent that reduced funding in the past also has had a negative impact on the number of refurbished machines available.
The continued success of the DTP and its aligned activities depend upon funding that allows the integration of 145 new desktop computers into the college supply next year, enough to get back on schedule with the goal of replacing about 25 percent of our administrative workstations annually. This level of funding allows some employees to get new workstations every 24-36 months, other employees to get new workstations every 3-4 years, others to stretch the usefulness of their workstations by adding storage or memory over time, and still others to benefit from useable workstations made available through the refurbished process. Meeting the various needs of our employees in creative ways depends upon the regular and full funding of this project each year.
E. Critical considerations
(not involving capital funding)
While the charge to the CRC
is to recommend capital technology purchases, the CRC continues to believe that
budgeting recommendations can have much greater impact if they are aligned with
and supported by other activities.
1. Strategies
The CRC believes
the college’s technology facilities (servers, accounts, classrooms, and labs)
can be used by a wider variety of disciplines, departments, faculty and
students. Last year, we made some
recommendations that resulted in the following activities:
§
We created a brochure
specifically for faculty outlining the features of the Instructional Palette;
§
TED provided training
sessions for using the online course rosters, for publishing a syllabus on the
web, and with the LMC, for using the projection systems;
§
Instructional
Computing, in conjunction with the Chemistry department, provided training for
Instructional Assistants in a software package used by Chemistry students;
§
We revised the support
pages on Gecko – The Student Server.
§
We advertised the
Student Help Desk in the HTCs;
§
Some departments
provided orientations for full and part-time faculty.
These efforts produced
only modest changes. Through Universal Access, more than12,000 students have
used their palette accounts this semester; 300 faculty use the online course
rosters, we have seen a modest increase in requests for course folders,
especially for those that span specific sections, and there have been a few
requests for class-specific email distribution lists. In addition there is light use of the Student Help Desk, mostly
at the beginning of the semester. But
obviously there is more we can do to use the capabilities we currently
have. The CRC recommends that the CTC
create an ad hoc task force to
a. Validate the assumptions of the CRC
§
That technology should
be part of all instruction at GCC;
§
That faculty use
technology differently in different classes;
§
That “sharing” is a
more cost-effective strategy than increasing the number of classrooms and
presentation systems;
§
That “sharing” is
possible;
§
That “standardization”
is a good educational and management strategy.
b.
Take a leadership role in promoting the use of technology across the campus;
and
c.
Set goals and measure accomplishments related to increasing technology use.
2.
Sharing
The
CRC continues to believe that sharing is an important way to meet the demand
for limited or restricted computer resources.
Several departments have made strides in this regard, but sharing
resources across departments is more difficult. In addition, we still do not have an easy way to provide
information about available facilities after the semester has begun. To follow through on the CRC recommendation
last year, we expect to be able to pilot a web-based classroom scheduling tool
during spring semester. We need to be
able to identify barriers to “sharing,” develop strategies for breaking down
those barriers, and reward sharing when it occurs.
3. Standardization
Over
the past several years, the college has attempted to maximize both its capital
and operational spending through standardization of hardware, software, and
processes. This has garnered
significant support across the college and has resulted in measurable increases
in technology use and in computing reliability. As we anticipate a possible Windows operating system upgrade for
the Instructional Palette, we may find “standardization” both more difficult to
achieve and more important for our success.
The CRC has grappled with many requests for non-standard presentation
systems, and the LMC has struggled to address long-term requests for
Robo-carts. We need to identify barriers to standardization and devise ways to
extend the flexibility and usability of standard installations.
4.
Support
The CRC continues to strongly recommend that the Budget
Development Committee place a high priority on expanding the technology support
staff to meet the growing needs of the college. To this end, we recommend placing a high priority on the
requested technical support positions.
In addition, we recognize that there are additional strategies for
improving technology support, including but not limited to shared
responsibility among all employees for the timely and accurate reporting of
problems to the Help Desk; peer support activities within units and
departments, including designation of single points of contact; voluntary
participation in “change points” like the Desktop Sessions which align learning
activities with hardware upgrades; and self-help through increased
participation in formal training sessions, informal training activities, and consultation of online documentation.
F. Appendices
F. 1 Quad Plan Specifics
(the shaded area is covered in this report)
|
Tier I - New |
|
|
|
|
Tier II |
|
|
|
|
Extended Use |
|
|
|
FY 2003-4 |
|
|
|
|
FY 2003-4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HT2-152 |
01 |
English |
25 |
|
HT2-150 |
97 |
English |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
HT2-156 |
01 |
Business |
25 |
|
B-109 |
99 |
Business |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
HT1-144 |
01 |
Graphics |
10 |
|
Math Sol. |
|
Mathematics |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
L-138 |
01 |
Library |
25 |
|
CL |
99 |
CL |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
LS-147 |
01 |
Life Sciences |
36 |
|
Various |
97 |
Electra/HPER/Other (9) |
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
T2-105A |
01 |
Technology |
25 |
|
HT2-153 |
98 |
English |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
T1-132 |
01 |
Technology |
25 |
|
HT2-155 |
98 |
English |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
HT2-158 |
01 |
Mathematics |
29 |
|
HT2-159 |
99 |
Mathematics |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
HT1-143 |
01 |
Testing |
25 |
|
HT2-151 |
98 |
English |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Pods (7) |
|
|
90 |
|
Pods (7) |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
Student Services |
|
12 |
|
Student Services |
|
12 |
|
Student Services |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
327 |
|
|
|
|
327 |
|
|
|
|
|
Tier I - New |
|
|
|
|
Tier II |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FY 2002-3 |
|
|
|
|
FY 2002-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HT1-139 |
00 |
Business |
25 |
|
HT1-141 |
98 |
Business |
25 |
|
Available |
|
Tech |
|
HT1-142 |
00 |
Business |
25 |
|
B-106 |
98 |
Business |
25 |
|
Available |
|
Tech |
|
103 |
00 |
GCC North |
25 |
|
104 |
|
GCC North |
25 |
|
None |
|
|
|
MA-100 |
00 |
Mathematics |
37 |
|
CL-41 |
|
For. Lang./Comm. |
28 |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pod |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
MU-105 |
00 |
Music (Mac) |
25 |
|
L-100 |
|
Electra (Mac) |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
HT1-140 |
00 |
Technology |
25 |
|
CL |
99 |
CL |
25 |
|
Available |
|
Tech. |
|
HT2-157 |
00 |
Business |
25 |
|
T1-127 |
99 |
Technology |
25 |
|
Available |
|
Tech |
|
Pods (9) |
00 |
|
115 |
|
Pods (7) |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business |
|
Business |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Various |
00 |
Science-4 year |
25 |
|
Various |
97 |
Sciences-4 year |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
HT1-144 |
|
Graphics |
10 |
|
NU-110 |
|
Nursing |
10 |
|
Available |
|
Tech |
|
Student Services |
|
12 |
|
Student Services |
|
12 |
|
Student Services |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
349 |
|
|
|
|
349 |
|
|
|
|
|
Boldface = Mac or some Mac machines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
The Quad Plan allocation contains funding for presentation systems. Some of that allocation will be necessary as a kind of self insurance to replace projectors, remote control devices and other system resources as they become technologically antiquated, non-repairable, broken, lost, or otherwise make a unit unusable. One such unit will be replaced in a Business lab as part of the Quad Plan. Additionally, beyond that replacement, seven standard presentation systems will be installed, which should leave a reserve of up to $15,000 as a set aside for self-insurance.
Presentation system requests are placed in two categories – standard and non-standard. Non-standard requests always bring special support issues and often require different equipment; requests for non-standard systems are generally discouraged by the CRC.
§ are permanently installed in rooms that can and will be easily shared,
§ use standard Palette software, and
§ use the current desktop computer and projection equipment.
New standard units approved by the CRC include the desktop computer and monitor, projector, VCR, locking cabinet and installation.
Non-Standard Presentation Systems lack one or more of the standard requisites.
Stan. Systems Recommended Location No. Funding
Business Business
– location unknown 1 Quad Plan
GCCN GCCN 2 Quad Plan
English LA-108 1 Quad Plan
Psychology TBD 1 Quad Plan
Social Science TBD 1 Quad Plan
Interior Design (Macs) T2-102 1 Quad Plan
Business B-216 1 Quad Plan
Nursing NU-111 1 4th Priority - $8,500
Graphics
Technology FA-127 1
4th Priority -
$8,500
Agriculture AG-104 1 4th
Priority - $8,500
Graphics Technology HT1-144 1 4th Priority - $8,500
Fashion & Sewing T1-149 1 4th Priority - $8,500
Fire Science Robot-cart 1 4th Priority - $7,500
HPER Robo-cart 1 4th Priority - $7,500
LMC Robo-cart 1 4th Priority - $7,500
Admissions & Records Workgroup printers 2
Automotive Computers
– extended use (see Engineering request) 25
Biology Personal
Response System (1 lecture pack, 2 add.
Receivers)
will be purchased by Innovation Center
with
college-wide users in mind and multiple
locations
equipped for use.
Business Hard
drives for HT1-141 and 142 –
Innovation
Center
Business Oracle
Server – Innovation Center 1
Business Services Laserjet 4000N
printer 1
Career Services Desktop
Project computer 1
Center for Learning Laserjet 4100N
printer 1
Child & Family Studies Desktop Project computer 2
Counseling Laserjet
printer 1
Counseling Desktop
Project computer 2
Eng. & Tech. 2nd
tier computers for B-102 – added to Quad Plan 25
Eng. & Tech. Computers
– extended use (see Auto. request) 50
Food & Nutrition PCI (USB) Video
capture board/CD writer
– supplies
item
Graphics Technology Computers for HT1-144
–in Quad Plan 10
Graphics Technology Desktop Project
Computer 1
LMC G4 Mac
w/22-inch Apple Cinema Display 1
– Desktop
Project Computer
Mathematics
Pentium
III 450 or higher computer system and
Networkable
Laser Printer for The Math Solution
Help Desk – refurb computer
Mathematics 7
computers for Math Solutions –Quad Plan 10
Multicultural Affairs Desktop Project
Computer 3
Nursing Berner
Critical Care software – Academic Comp.
Procurement Color
Inkjet printer – supplies item 1
Psychology Canon
Color Bubble Jet Printer – supplies item 1
Training & Emp. Dev. Update computers for
training & shared room- 25
HT2-149
F. 5. Requests not recommended for funding
Art
& Photography G4
Mac (dual processor, 800 MHz for ceramics) 1 $2,500
Automotive Windows
computers 5 $11,788
Chemistry Laptop
computers 13 $30,000
Drafting/CAD Graphics
compatible laptop computer 1 $2,000
Food
& Nutrition Laptop computers 9 $21,000
Video Production Avid work
stations 3 $30,000
Social Science Elmo
EV-400 Data Projector for MA-142 $1,999
This request for a data projector cannot be considered because it is
really part of a larger concern – the overall presentation system in
MA-142. An existing presentation system was dismantled during remodeling
of the lecture hall. We recognize that predicting technology costs
for rooms that undergo remodeling is difficult, and sometimes there are
unanticipated costs. However, we believe to make this room functional
will require spending nearly $25,000, three times the cost of standard presentation systems.
Furthermore, this room is currently scheduled only 9 hours a week, 5 of them
during the day, and only one evening a week. Its potential for sharing is
thus not reflected in its scheduling. Given the higher costs connected
with the presentation system requested for this room and the limited hours
scheduled, the CRC believes a broader discussion should occur before a decision
is made.