Common Systems Group (CSG)

March 28, 2006

Meeting Summary

CSG Attendees: Julie Austin (for Jason Frand), Paul Craft, Bill Jepson, Carol King, Max Kopelevich, Michelle Lew, Kathleen O’Kane, Tom Phelan, Sean Pine, Nick Reddingius, Ruth Sabean, Mike Schilling, Marsha Smith, David Snow, Esther Woo-Benjamin, Don Worth

Agenda

Discussion about themes/issues/questions surfacing around Technology Infrastructure Fee (TIF) and Repositioning IT - The meeting was primarily a discussion based on a set of questions (appended to end of discussion notes)

CSG Meetings and Advice on Questions

1. There was general agreement that the CSG should have these types of discussion often. When there is no formal agenda CSG meetings should not be canceled - rather we should come together around the more difficult/complex topics and discuss.

2. The CSG needs to be used more to help solve actual problems. It should NOT be used solely as a mechanism for formal presentations.

3. There needs to be a more complete articulation of the problems we are trying to solve, the "end game" we are trying to move towards, the opportunities we are trying to position ourselves for

i. There is not general agreement that UCLA is NOT positioned well with its current deployment of infrastructure services.

ii. It is important that we add data center consolidation to the questions list.

iii. CSG should continue its discussion of these questions, but it was specifically stated that CSG is a good place to start discussion around the definition of "common good".

iv. There was not general agreement that the network is a "commodity" especially in the academic areas.

Discussion of Questions

2. Regionalization can and should be accomplished in many ways; geographical, business lines, functional lines, etc. Regions cannot be predetermined. UCLA should look to see where improvements and partnerships can be formed based on mutual needs and advantages. For example, it might make sense to have a partnership between law and SSC for exchange services or for law and Anderson to partner on an alumni database since they have similar environments and needs in this area.

3. Some expressed the view that regionalization and consolidation is best achieved through a fee for service environment. Accountability must exist and there has to be benefits for all to work successfully. Others felt that you could do regionalization based upon strong service level agreements independent of whether or not you did a "fee for service model". In other words you might create a regionalized model - based upon shared resources and accountability with specific service levels based upon the nature of the partnership. This would not necessarily mean moving to "fee or service".

4. The issue of regional or different staff support models was touched on briefly. Some expressed the view that there needs to be a close connection and accountability between the end user and the support provider and that there is value in the support provider knowing the users and their environment.

(CSG might be used to identify natural affinities and partnerships and then help to make that work).

5. There was discussion about the governance of TIF. How projects are included and discontinued. Concern was raised about the recent declaration that the connected project has ended (even though there are buildings that have yet to receive funds for equipment or now need upgrades) and that these funds are now under Repositioning IT. Individuals differ regarding the transparency related to the current changes to what TIF funds such as the inclusion of Exchange as a BOL service

6. To improve the communication, governance and the representation process, it would help if Deans appointed decanal and faculty representatives to ITPB.

7. To facilitate the process of changes to the TIF, with respect to services or projects being discontinued or started, it was suggested that the CSG be a starting point for that discussion given the broad campus representation of that committee. This would provide a better assessment of campus and unit impact and benefits of projects/services

8. Services to students funded by TIF must be looked at carefully and possibly done on a fee for service basis given the wide disparity of students in the various schools and departments.

Questions

1) Regionalization of infrastructure services was a stated potential model in the early conceptualization of Repositioning IT. It is has been discussed as a next step evolutionary model for the next generation network. It has also been discussed for Exchange email systems. The question remains, under what circumstances would regionalization of technical services be the preferred approach over local or institutional services and how would regionalized services work?

2) Number 1 above is intended to address the question of regionalizing technical infrastructure services. Regionalization can also be applied to staff support services. What are the implications of a regionalized infrastructure service delivery model on staffing models and/or what are the implications of different staffing models on infrastructure service delivery models?

3) Services defined as "common good" create equally mixed opinions. The "common good" definition has a great deal of relevance as we think about the Technology Infrastructure Fee (TIF) and changes and additions to the services that make up the TIF. “Common good” implies investment to equilibrate campus service capability. At what point does a service become common good and what are the limits? At what point is common good better defined as a "fee-for-service"?

4) We have agreed to use the IT governance structure and to create a process to make “common good” determinations. The governance committees are in place to have the discussion, but what is the process for determining a common good? How do we construct a process that is not overly burdensome that new services cannot be implemented but at the same time appropriately rigorous with respect to common good benefits?

5) The UCLA eMail, Messaging, and Calendaring System has morphed from a student-oriented system into a set of services that can be used for faculty, staff and students. The TIF is implemented under the premise it will support services for students. The intention in the future is to build out the Student BOL service to provide more "exchange-like" services including integrated calendaring and PDA support. Should all services be equally available to all constituencies? This question is particularly relevant to those units that want to offer the Exchange option to students now.

6) By what process and by what principles do we move a next generation network design forward? This question is especially relevant for units now involved with new and upgrading buildings and those units facing network refreshes.

Meeting Schedule for Remainder of 2006:

Tuesday	April 25	2:00 – 4:00	2121 Murphy
Tuesday	May 23	2:00 – 4:00	2121 Murphy
Tuesday	June 27	2:00 – 4:00	2121 Murphy
Tuesday	July 25	2:00 – 4:00	2121 Murphy
Tuesday	August 22	2:00 – 4:00	2121 Murphy
Tuesday	September 26	2:00 – 4:00	2121 Murphy
Tuesday	October 24	2:00 – 4:00	2121 Murphy
Tuesday	November 28	2:00 – 4:00	2121 Murphy
Tuesday	December 19	2:00 – 4:00	2325 Murphy