Common Systems Group (CSG)
Meeting Summary
Tuesday - July 24, 2007

 

Attendees:      Julie Austin, Ross Bollens, Mark Bower (for Mike Schilling), Paul Craft, Jim Davis, Scott Dicks (for Tom Phelan), Steve Duim, Bill Jepson, Carol King, Max Kopelevich, Nick Reddingius, Terry Ryan, David Snow, John Talbert (for Kathleen O’Kane), Mike Van Norman, Kent Wada

Guests:   Karen Ribback, Tom Trappler

The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. by Jim Davis.

1.  Security Update

• Ross Bollens reported that weekly scanning has begun with no vulnerabilities or major compliance problems revealed.  Ninety percent of the campus and ninety-eight percent of the School of Medicine are being scanned.
• Seven Watchfire licenses are being purchased along with computer-based training.
• Audit and vulnerability assessments are imminent.  Compliance exceptions will be reported directly to the units involved.

2.  Microsoft Vista

Tom Trappler advised the CSG that effective January 31, 2008, Microsoft will stop licensing Windows XP to PC manufacturers.   All new PCs will only be available with Vista pre-installed; no new computers will be available with Windows XP pre-installed.  Jim asked the CSG for their feedback. 

Discussion Points:

• Some software applications used on campus are not yet compatible with Vista.
• Older hardware, like machines owned by grants, are not Vista-compatible.
• It was generally agreed that the transition to Vista will be difficult.
• The federal government has put holds on using Vista as there are many problems.
• Units will consider Vista for the next generation as well other viable alternatives to using Microsoft. 
• The environment at Anderson School of Management is one in which people have the expectation that the most current Windows environment is used and available.
• Microsoft extended support for Windows 2000 is expected to end in mid-2010.
• Microsoft support for Windows XP is expected to continue at least through 2013.

There was consensus that only having the ability to purchase new PCs with Vista pre-installed as of January 31, 2008, does not align with UCLA’s needs, and that efforts should be made to inform Microsoft of this.

Action:

• Elevate the issue with Microsoft to the UC level at the Educational Forum for Microsoft.  Jim Davis and Tom Trappler will work to raise the issue to a UC system-wide level.
• Develop best practice procedures for downgrading new machines to Windows XP.  Julie Austin will select target platforms and work through procedures to do a fresh install of Windows XP on new computers. 

3.  CITI Projects and Process
Jim Davis provided background information leading to the current CITI projects prioritization process.  Beginning at the start of the FY 2006-07, Jim and Steve Olsen discussed the need to develop a systematic process to review projects requesting Chancellor funds.  It was determined that the main objective for CITI would be to review project requests for funding, providing input on all projects and to identify and address those projects that required cross-unit considerations for prioritization within the Chancellor’s office. 

In March 2007, Jim and Steve met with Sam Morabito to discuss the need to streamline the review process further; to establish some criteria and then more systematically provide input as well as expedite this year’s process, a CITI Subcommittee was formed in April 2007 to complete the review of campus IT funding requests based on the discussions that took place sequentially over a number of CITI meetings.  The Subcommittee, chaired by Glyn Davies, included Mitch Creem, Rick Greenwood and Gary Strong, and was supported by Craig Gill and Marsha Smith.  The Subcommittee’s primary role was to assess the list of proposed projects and initiatives and provide recommendations for the prioritization and rationalization of IT investment requests for campus funds for FY 2007 - 11.  

Upon reviewing the details of the projects, and discussing how the investment requests should be evaluated and prioritized, the Subcommittee determined that CITI would benefit from a prioritization process in which specific criteria were defined.  It recommended an expedited but more structured prioritization process involving specific criteria based on a successful model currently in use in the Medical Center.  The Subcommittee’s recommendation was endorsed by CITI at the June 2007 meeting.

All outstanding projects have been categorized as follows:

• Regulatory projects
• Self-contained projects within a unit
• Discretionary projects

Funding for regulatory and self-contained projects has been committed from other sources.  The current list of discretionary projects requesting Chancellor’s funds exceeds the total funds ($15 million) available over the next five years.  These funds are exclusive of other resources and TIER funding.  With more competing projects than there are available funds, a method to assist with the prioritization and rationalization of investment decisions on major institutional projects is necessary.  This is the first time administrative/academic, and infrastructure/application projects funding requests are being considered at the same time.

Karen Ribback provided an overview of the IT investment prioritization process.  Documentation for the complete process is available on the CITI website (IT Investment Prioritization Process documents).

Thirteen proposed campus and enterprise level projects comprise the current list of investment requests that have been presented for CITI consideration:

• Financial Systems Upgrades
• Human Resources Information System (HRIS)
• Platform & Architecture Upgrade for Web Reports & Access
• Platform & Architecture Upgrade for URSA & Distributed Components
• Student Records Data Base (SRDB) Migration
• Dossier Action Tracking (DAT) Phase II
• EQM Equipment Management System
• BruinCard System Upgrade
• Enterprise Directory Phase II
• Disaster Recovery Expansion & Business Continuity Planning
• Institutional Web for Administrative Information (Institutional Data Management)
• Common Collaboration & Learning Environment (CC&LE)
• IDRE/CNSI Data Center

The stakeholders of these projects have received information and forms for the prioritization process. The scheduled milestones for the IT Investment Prioritization Process are as follows:

Date	Milestone
June 19	Feedback on the proposed process due from CITI members
June 30	Forms and instructions for requests distributed to departments
August 15	Completed request forms must be submitted to the CIO & Associate Vice Chancellor for the Office of Information Technology
August 21	Summary of all requests sent to CITI membership CITI presentations scheduled
September 1-30	Four CITI meetings will be held at which project owners will have the   opportunity to present their request.  Presentations will be 20 minutes followed by 10 minutes for discussion and deliberation.  Attending CITI members will score each presentation using the following criteria: Strategic impact Compliance requirement Systems lifecycle necessity User impact Workload impact Fiscal return Scorecards will be collected and tallied with each project receiving an average score ranging in value from 0 to 24.
September 30	CITI will complete the prioritization process resulting in a prioritized list of projects based on the project scores.
October 9	Final review and endorsement of prioritized projects list.  Each project will result in one of four decisions: Approved in full Approved, partially, with explanation for partial funding Deferred with specific recommendation for resubmission Rejected with explanation for denial
October 15	Final investments decisions; prioritization is separate from the funding decision

The goal is to establish a repeatable, ongoing process which is continuously refined.  Feedback should be sent to Karen Ribback at kribback@ucla.edu.

Discussion Points:

• How do you balance administrative and academic differences in the scoring process?  For instance the return on investment will not be the same for an administrative unit as it would be for an academic unit. 
• Is the CITI membership balanced between administrative and academic members?
• The CSG discussed the importance of accountability once a project is funded to ensure that these limited funds are used efficiently and effectively.  A mechanism for after the fact accountability is important.
• With limited funding available, the question was raised as to whether there would be funds available for future or deferred projects in future years.  There was concern that multi-year projects may overrun their costs and adversely affect funding for other projects and future years.

4.  Update on TIER Funding Principles

Karen Ribback presented an update on TIER.  Jim Davis, Glyn Davies and Steve Olsen are reviewing the TIER program funding recommendations.  There are seven projects under consideration (valued at $6.4 million) requesting $5.6 million of TIER funds which would be spent in the next 2-3 years:

1. Public Health Network Upgrade (equipment only)
2. Factor Network Upgrade (equipment & wireless)
3. NPI Network Upgrade (equipment, construction & wireless)
4. Dentistry Network Upgrade (equipment, construction & wireless)
5. SOMITS Wireless Program (equipment upgrade and AP devices and installation)
6. Physical Sciences/Physics & Astronomy Network Upgrade (equipment)
7. Kinross Network Upgrade (equipment & fixed wireless)

The TIER Funding Principles have been formally finalized for the year.  The seven proposed projects are in alignment with the TIER funding principles, and we’re expecting decisions in August 2007. 

Upon final decisions, a TIER Memorandum of Understanding will be signed by the department head as the formal agreement of the terms and conditions for the distribution and use of TIER funds. A Cooperative Agreement with the network service providers will also be signed to outline the roles, responsibilities and agreement to participate in the TIER program as the shared management / outsourcing network provider.

Mike Van Norman addressed the operational process. 

Discussion Points:

• What does campus wireless mean?  Is it on the Next Generation Network (NGN) agenda?  How and where do you add a location to the wireless list?  Bill Jepson expressed interest in adding Royce to the list of locations on campus that should have wireless access.
• NGN will begin looking at wireless, using the current four regions with wireless to develop a campus model.
• TIER is currently used to incentivize behavior.  How do you sustain this behavior?
• The requirement of maintenance contracts for the equipment purchased with TIER funds was discussed. 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.