Common Systems Group (CSG)
November 22, 2005
Meeting Summary
CSG Attendees: Paul Craft, Jim Davis, Mats Granlund (for
Carol King), Steve Duim, Jason Frand, Bill Jepson, Jim Kimmick (for Tom
Phelan), Max Kopelevich, Michelle Lew, Sean Pine, Nick Reddingius, Ruth Sabean,
Mike Schilling, Stephen Schwartz (for Terry Ryan), Marsha Smith, David Snow,
Eric Splaver, John Talbert (for Kathleen O’Kane), Kent Wada, Esther
Woo-Benjamin, Don Worth
Agenda
1)
CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act) Update
Educause, on behalf of the higher education coalition, and University
of California have each submitted responses to the Federal Communications
Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking applying the CALEA to
facilities-based broadband Internet access providers, including higher
education institutions. UC supports an exemption process or limited compliance
category for educational entities. Both responses are available at: http://www.csg.oit.ucla.edu/documents.htm#November2005
2)
Minimum Security Standards
Campuswide review of UCLA Policy 401 - Minimum Security Standards for
Network Devices has been completed and the final policy is expected to be
posted to the web around the first week in December. The CSG discussed how to
prepare for a campus-wide announcement of the policy. Some suggestions include:
give Computing Support Coordinators and Network Coordinators some warning
before sending a Deans and Directors memo; hold a BruinTech sponsored
information session. The Applied Security Task Force is already expected to be
involved in helping the campus understand what is required. There was a
suggestion to use the BruinTech information session to introduce the Applied
Security Task Force.
3)
Review and Adjustment to the UCLA IT
Governance Process
UCLA has a review of the IT governance structure and process underway.
The objective is to complete a self review of what is working and what needs to
be improved. Included in the review is the overall board/committee structure,
the role and input/decision responsibilities for each entity, the process by
which a decision is made and the expected behavior of a board/committee/group
in the context of a particular role. The approach is to conduct reviews with
all the boards/committees/groups, accumulate recommendations from each, and
refine the process based on those recommendations. There has been agreement on
the roles of the current boards/committees/groups:
· Finance and Budget, Executive Sponsors, and
OIT have decision authority on IT investment.
· Executive Sponsors and OIT have decision
authority; and CITI has final endorsement authority on Productivity Application
Needs and Common Infrastructure Implementation Strategies
· Executive Sponsors and OIT have decision
authority; and ITPB has final endorsement authority on Institutional IT
Strategic Direction and Policy.
· CSG provides vital input on campus impact,
operational impact, and operational planning to the above
board/committee/groups. CAOs were identified as an entity that needs to become
a part of the process (as a parallel group to CSG) to provide input on business
impact.
During the CSG’s self review discussion, the Group identified two areas
that need improvement: 1) better document revision control and 2) better
clarity of purpose of meetings. Additional comments on CSG or other groups
should be emailed to Jim Davis.
The IT governance framework review will also include design of an IT
Project Classification Model for stratifying and segmenting IT projects into a
set of Project Classes based on campus impact and risk. The intent is to be
able to screen and focus the IT Governance process on that subset of projects
that is truly significant from a campus-wide perspective and allow more
tactical, distributed control of projects that are more local in nature. This will
allow a more flexible process implementation that does not assume “one size
fits all” in terms of governance of IT projects.
Meeting Schedule for
Remainder of 2005:
|
Tuesday |
December
20 |
2:00
– 4:00 p.m. |
2121
Murphy |