ACS/NISS REVIEW DRAFT 4/21/1999 MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, POLICIES, PLANNING * Networking and Information Systems Study =96 March 1= 993 * POLICIES, PLANNING, AND ORGANIZATION <= A HREF=3D"#_Toc446274157">* Academic Computing Study =96 May 1994 = * INSTRUCTION AND RESEARCH * Academic Computing Study =96 May 1994 = * INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION AND ACCESS <= A HREF=3D"#_Toc446274161">* Networking and Information Systems Study =96 March 1= 993 * TRAINING AND SUPPORT * Networking and Information Systems Study =96 March 1= 993 * SUPPORT STAFF AND TRAINING * Academic Computing Study =96 May 1994 = * COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING: * Network and Information Systems Study =96 March 1993= * Academic Computing Study =96 May 1994 = * RESOURCES AND EQUIPMENT: * Network and Information Systems Study - March 1993?= 9;* Academic Computing Study =96 May 1994 = * OTHER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES: <= A HREF=3D"#_Toc446274173">* Network and Information Systems Study - March 1993?= 9;* = MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, POLICIES, PLANNING<= /A> Networking and Information Systems Study =96 March 1993 1. Mission. The University should develop a formal statement that refl= ects the strategic importance of information technology. This statement s= hould articulate the role that information technology plays in support of= the achievement of the University mission and strategic plans for the fu= ture. Following is a recommended formal statement: Information technology and network communications are expected to play= a vital and strategic role as Kent State University fulfills its mission= =2E Kent encourages the creative and innovative use of technology to impr= ove the quality of instruction; research; information processing, access,= and reporting; system integration; and administrative support. Kent State University should utilize technology to successfully compet= e with peer institutions for quality students, faculty, and staff. At a m= inimum, Kent should be current with peer institutions in its use of techn= ology. Kent State University should seek alternate methods of funding such as= vendor partnerships and grants to overcome budget constraints and minimi= ze the up-front monies necessary to move into new technologies. Status: The University revised its mission= statement but it does not emphasize technology consistent with this reco= mmendation. 2. Peer Institutions. The University should identify a peer group of i= nstitutions which would serve as benchmarks against which comparisons cou= ld be made on information technology and network communications developme= nt. The team understands that the University currently is involved in a b= enchmarking project with approximately ninety-seven other institutions. T= his project is sponsored by the National Association of College and Unive= rsity Business Officers ((NACUBO)) and coopers Lybrand and Company. Data = from this project should help facilitate the benchmark comparison process= for institutions participating in the NACUBO study that are identified a= s peers of Kent. Also, this project should help provide the University wi= th the definition of criteria or categories for measurement. A beginning list of possible peer institutions should be identified by= the Technology Policy Advisory Committee. Status: The University participates in the= NACUBO benchmark project as well as the annual OHECC salary survey. A f= ormal method for comparing the results of these surveys to KSU is lacking= =2E 3. Technology Policy Advisory Committee. We recommend that a broad-bas= ed committee be established to advise the vice president of Business and = Finance on policy matters related to information technology and network c= ommunications planning, standards, and priorities. The committee, appoint= ed by the vice president for Business and Finance (in consultation with t= he other executive officers), should include representatives from faculty= , and staff with a maximum of nine members. We recommend that the director for Information Services serve as an ax= -officio member of the committee. We also recommend that the associate vi= ce president for Business and Finance serve as chairperson. The committee should be empowered to establish subordinate committees = for administrative systems, research and instructional technology, networ= king, and other committees as appropriate. We also recommend that the com= mittee be given the responsibility for articulating the role of technolog= y in support of the University mission. Status: The University Council on Technolo= gy has been established. 4. Universitywide Planning Process. We recommend that the associate vi= ce president for Business and Finance be given the responsibility for coo= rdinating the development and maintenance of University-wide strategic pl= ans and standards for information technology and network communications. = In consultation with the Technology Policy Advisory Committee, the associ= ate vice president for Business and Finance should update this plan biann= ually. Information technology planning should be an integral part of the on-g= oing planning process for all units (including Regional Campuses) of the = University. Biannual unit plans should be shared with the as associate vi= ce president for Business and Finance for integration with Universitywide= plans. Furthermore, the associate vice president for Business and Financ= e should be given the responsibility for monitoring and coordinating the = implementation of initiatives recommended in this planning report. Status: A University-wide planning process= has not been done on a biannual basis. It has been six years since NISS= and five years since ACS. 5. Supported Software/Hardware. The Information Services director shou= ld coordinate the development of a list of software and hardware that wil= l be supported and maintained by the Computer Services staff. This list s= hould be reviewed, approved, and disseminated by The Technology Policy Ad= visory Committee. This list should include supported local area networks,= personal computers, operating systems, and software packages. Status: UIS/ACT has prepared a list of rec= ommended hardware and a list of supported software. Other de facto standa= rds have been established by the supply of Dell computers in the faculty = refresh program and by the provision of site licenses for SPSS and SAS by= ACT. Microsoft Office use is widespread to the point where it is a de fa= cto standard. See also # 34 & 39 in ACS 6. Disaster Recovery Plan. The Information Services director should co= ordinate the development of a disaster recovery plan that includes the ce= ntral facility, departmental facilities, local area networks, and the Uni= versity network. In the current and future environment, increasing amount= s of crucial data will be held in departmental local area networks, perso= nal computers, and other distributed systems. Thus, this plan also should= include procedures for departmental as well as central site database bac= kups and off-site storage. These procedures should be tested and monitore= d on a periodic basis to ensure that off-site backup and regular save pro= cedures are working as planned. Status: The disaster recovery plan for the= University's network was recently updated. Much of the plan deals with e= ngineering efforts that will be implemented as part of the University's t= elecommunications upgrade. These efforts are directed at providing redund= ancy and robustness to the network in order to provide various backups in= case of point failures in the network infrastructure. With the upgrade of the fiber backbone, a ring topology was introduced= in the Kent Campus backbone infrastructure. 96 strands of fiber (72 mult= i-mode and 24 single mode) serve most of the academic and administrative = buildings on the Kent Campus. In most cases, there are differing paths fo= r the entering and exiting fiber bundles in order to provide redundancy i= n the physical infrastructure of the University's backbone. When the back= bone electronics upgrade is completed this summer, access switches in eac= h building will be dual-connected to two ATM Switches on the backbone rin= g. This will allow for disruptions to occur in the fiber infrastructure o= r the backbone electronics that will not cause a network outage. All crit= ical network components are backed up with UPS power. For network servers such as DNS, DHCP, Proxy, voice, and video, a dist= ributed computing arrangement is in place. In most cases, three servers a= re configured in different buildings and connected to differing network n= odes to offer each of these services. Any one server can handle the load = for the entire campus. Even the proposed phone switch will be broken into= three nodes that will handle different areas of the campus and will be h= oused in different locations. All equipment is backed up on UPS power and= is monitored 24 hours a day. Problems will generate an email notificatio= n and a page to an appropriate network engineer so that any problems can = be immediately corrected. UIS has established ADSM backup service to provide backup of departmen= tal LANs and individual systems. Information on the system is available a= t http://www.uis.kent.edu/adsm.htm. It currently has about 200 clients. H= owever the existence of the system and the fact that it is now provided f= ree to clients needs to be more widely publicized. Directors have no knowledge of any Disaster Recovery Plan. If one exis= ts it should be shared with data custodians of legacy systems. As we begi= n to use local area networks in a variety of ways to support mainframe sy= stems, it is becoming more critical that Disaster Recovery recommendation= s be formulated and shared with departmental network personnel. 7. Coordinated Database Update Schedule. Information Services should c= oordinate the development of a schedule for entering and updating Univers= ity databases. This schedule should ensure that the data is accurate and = available when required by users or interfacing systems. Status: UIS has revised this schedule as p= art of the policy and procedures manuals that were developed for various = legacy systems that run on the University=92s mainframe. The core systems= are now updated interactively rather than using periodic batch updates. = However, this information has not been disseminated and is largely unknow= n outside UIS. Some benefits would be derived by formally communicating m= ore widely dates at which data meets certain expectations. The Update Sch= edule does not cover the many administrative departmental systems. 8. Data Access/Authorization. The associate vice president for Busines= s and Finance with the assistance of the Technology Policy Advisory Commi= ttee should be charged with establishing data access and authorization st= andards. The University needs to develop and implement a more flexible an= d uniform approach to authorizing data access. In the context of migratio= n toward an integrated administrative data base, common standards for dat= a access are needed. The University should develop procedures and policie= s which facilitate appropriate levels of authorized access to needed info= rmation. Authorized access to data should be permitted without regard to = the medium by which it is either provided or requested. In particular, da= ta available through print should be available in electronic form. Status: Each unit has a security administr= ator, who can assign rights within the unit. Each college can ftp data fo= r its students from the university database. Data access and authorizatio= n standards are departmentalized rather than integrated. These are still = perceived as rigid rather than flexible. Although SIS, for example, was i= mplemented to provide campus community members (with the right to know) a= ccess to student information in an electronic form, many faculty are requ= ired to request information from their department or college offices. Lev= eled security measures should be strengthened to provide faculty with ade= quate access to SIS and other systems in support of teaching and advising= functions. Regional campuses also have not been given full update capabi= lities to SIS modules which hinders timely processing and heightens ineff= iciencies. Proper training on systems for all users and formal accountab= ility for its maintenance and use would lessen concerns for data manageme= nt and integrity. There is not a University wide policy. Unified login and authorizatio= n facility not yet completed. Data now available in print form, such as c= lass rosters, is still not readily available for upload to departmental s= ystems, due to a mixture of functionality and ease of use issues with the= legacy systems and security concerns. Policy makes information on majors= and minors in colleges available to colleges. However generation of rost= ers requires access to non-majors. Rosters may be obtained in print form = or viewed on screens but no easy mechanism exists to create online versio= ns suitable for use by faculty for grade or mailing lists. Certain depart= ments and colleges have implemented this functionality in an ad-hoc manne= r using scripting languages available in the terminal emulator used to ac= cess the mainframe. In many cases information required by colleges for de= cision support and other functions must also be acquired by screen captur= e. FOCUS cannot take data directly from SIS. As a result some tasks must = be performed manually or via scripting languages, for example the genera= tion of graduations lists. Considerable effort has been undertaken at the= college level to develop scripts to answer such needs. A change of syste= m would require redevelopment of many of these. FOCUS is not sufficiently user friendly to be of use to most academic = departments. The lack of a user friendly Windows or WWW based access to d= ata organized to meet college and departmental needs leads to inefficienc= y and inaccuracy (for example, in many cases this causes unnecessary reen= try of data). Access by faculty to student information for advising purpo= ses is available at the discretion of the college security administrator,= but this fact is not widely known and consequently few faculty use this = facility. Ease of use may also be an issue here. = POLICIES, PLANNING, AND ORGANIZATION Academic Computing Study =96 May 1994 25. Importance of Academic Computing. The University should recognize = that, as a student centered organization, priority should be given to acq= uiring computing equipment for the departments, colleges, and centralized= facilities that serve students and for the faculty who educate them. Fut= ure reallocation of funding should reflect the positive role that academi= c computing must play in the instruction and education of students. Unive= rsity policies regarding acquisition of computer resources should appropr= iately recognize academic computing within the context of other pedagogic= al resource needs. Status: University priorities do appear to= reflect progress on this recommendation: recent HB equipment dollars wer= e pooled to create central labs in several locations; the 1% technology p= ool funds the Faculty refresh program. Areas not addressed include fundi= ng lines at departmental level for technical support, staff equipment, an= d instructional equipment. Academic units' Mission Statements, Annual Rep= orts, and budgets have not been structurally changed to reflect these pri= orities. BENEFITS: SEE #27 (BELOW). 26. Structure. Given the current organizational structure of the Unive= rsity and the increasing role of decentralized academic computing, signif= icant research and instructional computing responsibilities lie within ac= ademic departments, schools, and colleges as well as Libraries and Media = Services and Computer Services. As a result, there is a need for advocacy= and overall coordination of academic technology activities. Therefore, a= director for academic technology advocacy should be appointed, reporting= to the Office of the Provost with coordinating ties to the vice presiden= t for Business and Finance. This advocate should promote collaboration am= ong those responsible for academic technology within all areas of the Uni= versity. The recommended duties and responsibilities of the advocate should inc= lude: 1.Provide advocacy for advances in computing and instructional technol= ogy; 2. Develop and recommend policies, procedures, and standards for acade= mic computing and instructional technology; 3. Develop plans for meeting the needs of academic users in coordinati= on with academic and administrative units, including Computer Services; 4. Promote the migration to a distributed academic computing environme= nt with local and centralized consulting support; 5. Coordinate management and operation of the Moulton Hall distance le= arning and instructional technology facility; 6. Monitor and update the University's computing plans on a biennial b= asis; 7. Identify and recommend core academic software that is to be support= ed by Computer Services. This should be done on an annual basis in coordi= nation with the director of Information Systems and Technology; 8. Identify, recommend, and negotiate contracts for academic software = in cases where the University would benefit from university-wide site lic= enses; 9. Establish standing or ad hoc subcommittees as needed; 10. Advise the provost, the vice president for Business and Finance, a= nd the Educational Policies Council on academic and instructional technol= ogy; 11. Serve as co-chair of the Advisory Committee for Technology (see # = 27). Status: Position was created and filled bu= t is now filled by interim director. This position along with the CIO pos= ition must have high priority. BENEFITS: SEE #27 (BELOW). 27. Advisory Committee for Technology (ACT). In recognition of the cen= tral role of technology in the achievement of both the University's acade= mic and administrative missions and because both the provost and vice pre= sident exercise budgetary control over computer purchases, it is recommen= ded that the charge of the NISS-recommended Technology Policy Advisory Co= mmittee (TPAC) be expanded to include advising the provost and the vice p= resident for Business and Finance. The committee should be called the Adv= isory Committee for Technology (ACT). The committee's primary charge shou= ld include advising on policies, standards, and resource allocation prior= ities relating to information technology, instructional technology, netwo= rk communications, and related technological areas. ACT should also call = for, rank order, and recommend instructional technology incentive proposa= ls from faculty for training, equipment, or software (see Recommendation = #3). It is recommended that other ACT charges include the following: 1. Serve as advocate for constituency information systems, academic co= mputing and instructional technology needs, incorporating them as appropr= iate in recommendations; 2. Serve as a resource and review group for implementing information s= ystems, instructional technology, and network communications facilities. 3. Advocate and promote advances in technology and network communicati= ons. The membership of ACT should have seven ex officio members, who serve = by virtue of their position. These are the: Director for Academic Technology Advocacy (Co-chair of ACT) Associate Vice President for Business and Finance (Co-chair of ACT) Vice Provost and Dean for Research and Graduate Studies Dean of Libraries and Media Services Director of Information Systems and Technology Director of Network Services for Regional Campuses Undergraduate Student Senate Representative Graduate Student Senate Representative The vice president for Business and Finance, with the approval of the = provost and the advice of the Faculty Senate, should appoint individuals = representing the following constituencies for two-year overlapping terms:= one college dean one chair or director from an academic department or school five faculty, to represent the four colleges and one independent scho= ol four administrative directors, to represent Business and Finance, Hum= an Resources, Student Affairs, and University Relations one computer support staff member from a local academic unit In appointing members, the vice president for Business and Finance sho= uld be mindful of the diversity of technological requirements and platfor= ms used by the academic and administrative constituencies of the Universi= ty, as well as discipline specific needs and the unique environments of t= he eight campuses. The ACT can establish subcommittees to address specific needs it defin= es. Because the lines between academic and administrative computing are bl= urring, it is not advisable to have permanent standing committees related= to either academic or administrative computing; rather, all committees m= ust realize the mission-critical importance of academic computing and pla= n, organize, and implement computing and technology to further the instru= ction and professional development of undergraduate and graduate students= =2E It is quite possible that subcommittees might be formed around techni= cal/applied issues as well as academic/administrative ones. ACT members should be proactive and seek input from their University c= ommunity constituents. ACT should establish an electronic LISTSERV for co= mmittee communication and a Kent State University Newsgroup that allows u= sers to communicate quickly and easily with the ACT and each other. The N= ewsgroup should be used to report back to individuals and constituencies = about recommendations made and actions taken. The ACT membership should b= e publicized so that students, faculty, and staff know whom to inform abo= ut issues that need attention. Policies, standards, priorities, and guide= lines endorsed or established by the ACT should be made available online = and published in CONNECT. The proposed reporting structure for ACT works through the director fo= r Academic Technology Advocacy to the provost and through the associate v= ice president for Business and Finance to the vice president for Business= and Finance. The solid lines indicate reporting relationships while the = dotted lines indicate advisory relationships. Status: UCT is operational. However, UCT h= as focused most of its time on computer technologies and has spent little= time discussing classroom instructional technologies. A classroom techn= ology sub-committee was formed in the early stages of UCT's formation, bu= t there was subsequent concern about the formation of numerous sub-commit= tees. As a result the classroom technology sub-committee never met. BENEFITS The use of computing and instructional technology in the classroom wil= l be enhanced with the support of an academic advocate Morale of faculty members will increase as they perceive their concern= s are being recognized. Interdisciplinary cooperation will be facilitated. Information about computing problems will be available to all. A Newsgroup will provide a way for currently unrecognized experts (stu= dents, faculty, or staff) to share their knowledge to the benefit of the = University. Information about computing purchases will be readily available. Expanding the role of ACT will help ensure broad-based University part= icipation in plans, priorities, and standards for information technology,= instructional technology, network communications, and administrative com= puting. 28. Campus Wide Information System. An online system that can be used = to communicate campus information to the entire University should be impl= emented by Computer Services and Libraries and Media Services. Examples o= f information available would be: catalog course descriptions, Schedule o= f Classes, syllabi for each course/instructor, key contact faculty or sta= ff in various offices, current campus news, the campus bus schedule, a di= rectory of students, faculty, and staff, including e-mail addresses, etc.= Such a system would also provide access to external information sources,= such as OhioLINK and other library systems, other campuses, gophers, and= freenets. Status: Significant progress appears to ha= ve been made in response to this recommendation. Itemized assessment sho= uld be done. For example, the catalog is currently online in pdf format a= nd, at some point, it will be searchable. BENEFITS: Important information about the University will be much more widely an= d conveniently available to current and prospective students and faculty.= 29. Planning. The annual planning process should include consideration= of the role and use of technology in support of the mission of the acade= mic units. As part of the formal planning process, faculty should be prov= ided opportunities to identify specialized hardware and software requirem= ents for their academic units. Chairs and directors should consider those needs and include them in t= he annual planning reports. Operating budgets that include funding lines = for academic computing should be earmarked and safeguarded. Capital budge= t planning should make provision for the installation of network connecti= ons in every office and residence hall room, regardless of the age of the= building. Status: The network infrastructure plannin= g has been done and the work is in progress; changes in the planning proc= ess at faculty and academic unit level does not appear to be implemented.= BENEFITS: University computing equipment, software, and facilities will be more = current. 30. Acquisition of Discipline-Specific Technology. A plan and strategy= should be developed and implemented to provide every faculty member with= a computer that is appropriate to his or her instructional and research = activities. Also, plans and implementation strategies need to provide for the acqu= isition and support of UNIX and Macintosh platforms and evaluation of alt= ernative PC platforms (e.g., Windows, Windows NT, OS/2). The needs of fac= ulty for high-performance computer resources should be identified and the= most cost effective means of meeting these needs should be articulated.<= /P> Status: The Faculty Refresh Program is add= ressing this on-going need. Assessment of how this program has affected = high-end technology users is necessary. Network Services provides UNIX de= sktop support on a paid basis, but otherwise no central support is availa= ble for UNIX or Macintosh platforms. BENEFITS: Faculty will have the computing resources they need on campus. Fewer faculty will be forced to rely on home computing equipment. More faculty will be present on campus a greater number of hours each = week. High-end users will have better access to high-performance scientific = computing. More faculty and staff will use new high-end technology. More faculty will be positioned to achieve complex research goals. = Faculty competitiveness in acquiring research grants will be improved.= There will be more support for the inclusion of equipment acquisitions= in grant proposals. Students and faculty who prefer non-DOS systems will have other option= s available to them. UNIX systems will receive more central support. There will be more self-sufficient users of high-end workstations. = 31. Budget Considerations. University policy should encourage budget c= arry-forward plans to ensure better acquisition decisions in support of p= urchases and upgrades to new technology. In order to maximize efficiency,= bureaucracy inherent to the selection and purchasing process should be r= eviewed and streamlined as much as possible. Coordination of computing ha= rdware and software specifications, quality standards, and service needs = should be instituted to ensure that the purchasing process adequately con= siders the issue of value which is comprised of numerous elements, includ= ing cost, functionality, and service quality. Because of the rapid rate o= f technological obsolescence, the University should amortize equipment ov= er an appropriate time frame. A funding plan needs to be developed to ens= ure continuous improvement in the rapidly changing computer related techn= ology field. Also, this plan should take into account the total cost of u= sing computers, including the cost to purchase and install hardware and s= oftware, train users, maintain, and replace or upgrade equipment, etc. Status: Budget carry-forward is to be impl= emented soon; Faculty Refresh, if continued, will address some part of th= e obsolescence issue. Outstanding issues: technical support for academic = units; obsolescence of instruction facilities. BENEFITS: Academic units will be positioned to make better purchasing decisions = with an added emphasis on overall suitability of the equipment to meet it= s intended use. Academic units will be able to make better use of bulk discount opport= unities and to take advantage of offers requiring a speedy response. = There will be less reliance on obsolete or otherwise inadequate equipm= ent. Access to computing resources will be improved. Overall equipment costs will be lower. Maintenance costs will be lower. Purchases of equipment will be more timely. 32. Alternative Instruction. Research in the use of alternative instru= ctional delivery systems should be reviewed and augmented as a means of a= chieving the mission of the University. Although few focus group and surv= ey participants raised the issue, distance education has enormous potenti= al to transform higher education. Both methods of delivery and areas of f= ocus (within and beyond the Kent system) need to be considered. Many questions and issues pertaining to faculty and distance education= need to be addressed. These issues include socialization, sense of commu= nity, social mentoring, credentialing, liberal arts education, consumeris= m, and academic mentoring. There are many planning issues, including the = role of administration, faculty, students, and technical support staff; t= he potential impact of both importing and exporting alternative education= ; and the need to ensure that funding does not detract from existing prog= rams of strength. Environmental assessment and a needs study should be un= dertaken to identify Kent's niche and to determine the level and extent o= f the resources the University should commit to the development and suppo= rt of alternative instructional delivery systems. Quality issues include curricular oversight, personal interaction, eva= luation, availability of resource materials, teaching methods, and facult= y credentials. There are technical quality issues, including adequate tec= hnical support staff and equipment, adequate staff at distant locations, = and interactiveness. Faculty incentives must also be considered, possibly= in terms of double workload credit, compensation, and development releas= e time/workload credit. Student needs include advising (course, career-re= lated), technical support, and administrative support. Curriculum issues = need to be considered, including types of courses to be offered (lab, lec= ture, seminar), type of technology that can be used, size of class/partic= ipation, office hours, distancing of faculty from students, and grading.<= /P> Responsibility for examining these and other issues should be assigned= to a person who would coordinate and foster the activity of those facult= y and staff interested in distance education and act as an advocate for i= t. In addition, a joint subcommittee of the Teaching Council and ACT shou= ld be established to advise and participate in planning and implementatio= n. The majority of subcommittee members should be faculty. Status: Alternative Instruction is being d= eveloped through Moulton programs; the review and instructional oversight= appears to be left to academic units (if review is occurring at all); a = DL/ML "director" is in place; the UCT Standing Committee on DL/ML has met= only once. BENEFITS: The University will build the expertise base needed to design, support= , and implement alternative instruction. The University will be positioned to be a player in the distance educa= tion environment. 33. Classrooms. In consultation with the ACT, academic units should de= fine minimum technological requirements for classroom computer equipment.= These minimum configurations should include consideration of: networked = computers with a control console and separate instructor's monitor, compu= ter projection monitor systems and access to multimedia devices and produ= cts. These standards need to reflect the diversity of platforms used in t= he curriculum and numerous ergonomic considerations. To better support ex= isting and emerging technological applications, the Space Committee shoul= d be apprised of classroom and labs with substandard configured space. Se= lected space should be configured to serve as both open computer labs for= general student use and as classrooms for computer-related instructional= purposes. The first installation of a fully mediated classroom should be= promoted to enhance the reputation of the University and to seek funding= for additional classroom upgrades. In turn, these improved facilities sh= ould be used as part of the University's out-reach and continuing educati= on program. Status: The ACS study attempts to d= efine these. AV Services has periodically defined minimum standards for c= lassroom computer and projection equipment in association with purchases = undertaken using House Bill Moveable Equipment funding. Individual depart= ments do so on an ad hoc basis. The Space Committee has undertaken a stud= y of the physical environment in classrooms. This may lead to recommendat= ions on environmental issues. Open computer labs have been established in= multiple locations since the recommendation was made. Several "fully me= diated classrooms" have been installed in the Library, Moulton Hall, Lowr= y Hall, the College of Business Administration, and Music and Speech.= New computer labs/= classrooms were installed in Bowman Hall, Music and Speech Center, and th= e Math and Computer Sciences building that include computer/video project= ion systems. BENEFITS: Current and emerging instructional techniques involving technology wil= l be better supported and encouraged. There will be improved opportunities for occasional scheduling of clas= s meetings in a computer lab. Use of technology will increase student learning and improve retention= =2E 34. University Hardware and Software Standards. The academic technolog= y advocate should develop University-wide standards to ensure that all la= b equipment is able to run commonly used programs. Minimum standards for = computer lab services should be established and met. The University shoul= d subsidize a portion of the cost to achieve and maintain minimum softwar= e standards and the basic hardware needed to support this software. Status: The University contract with Dell = Computing is a de facto standard. Also, in one year, a letter from the P= resident to entering freshman recommended minimum computer configurations= =2E ACT is preparing a list of supported software and does provide site l= icenses for SPSS and SAS. Microsoft Office is a de facto standard. See: ACS 39 and NISS 5 & 37 BENEFITS: There will be fewer brands of computers and related software to suppor= t. Lab users will be able to rely on having consistent basic equipment, s= oftware, and services in labs. Occasions of disk and file format incompatibility will be reduced, res= ulting in less re-entry of data. Students will have greater incentives to use computers in course-relat= ed activities. Fewer software applications will result in less training time needed t= o accommodate all versions. The number of unnecessary exposures to license infringements will be r= educed. Purchase decisions for new software versions will be better and more t= imely. 35. Student Ownership. Business and Finance, in cooperation with acade= mic units, should support and enable students who want to purchase their = own computers for general computing applications. Students should be prov= ided with information regarding local and remote network connections so t= hat they can ensure that their computer is able to connect to the Univers= ity network. Such computers should be suitable for running general purpos= e software, (e.g., word processors, spreadsheets, and data bases), but ma= y also require capabilities related to particular disciplines. Academic u= nits should seek consensus regarding hardware and software appropriate to= the discipline so that prospective and current students who seek to purc= hase their own equipment can be properly advised. Part of this effort wou= ld include the publication of systems that would be maintained by the Uni= versity in terms of training, support, and purchase programs, and would a= lso include the wiring of residence hall rooms for network access. Busine= ss and Finance, in cooperation with academic units, should coordinate stu= dent purchase programs so as to reduce costs to students who choose to pu= rchase their own equipment and should investigate the feasibility of crea= ting an on-campus computer store. Status: Purchase of Dell computers through= the Dell WWW site and Macintosh computers through the School of Art prov= ides reduced pricing for all members of the University community. However= many students are unaware that these discounts are available. The config= urations available for purchase are also perceived as limited. It is uncl= ear whether the letter from the President to entering freshman recommendi= ng minimum computer configurations is still being distributed. BENEFITS: Students will receive strong encouragement to purchase computers, enha= ncing their own experiences and lessening demand for computer labs. Students who own computers will be better able to take advantage of tr= aining, learning tools, and increasingly available network resources. = 36. Workplace Environment. Plans for computer acquisition should take = into account the need for proper ergonomics in order to avoid the possibi= lity of computer related health problems. The University should retrofit = furniture and work areas where computers are located, including classroom= s and labs, so as to enhance usability. The University should identify th= e technological and access needs of students with disabilities and addres= s the needs as identified. Status: Ergonomics are considered as new c= omputer labs are installed. There does not seem to be any retrofitting. P= rovisions are being made for students with disabilities. BENEFITS: Work spaces will be more conducive to productivity and efficiency. = The possibility of physical injury to students, faculty, and staff wil= l be reduced. Equipment is less likely to be damaged. Federally funded projects will be housed in more appropriate environme= nts. The University will enhance its compliance with the Americans with Dis= abilities Act of 1990. Students with disabilities will have better opportunities to use compu= ting resources. Recruitment and retention of students with disabilities will be improv= ed. 37. Infrastructure. Plans for computer acquisition should take into ac= count the infrastructure necessary for the installation and use of equipm= ent. This includes issues of power, network connections, and security. Un= iversity infrastructure planning efforts should recognize that substantia= l deferred costs occur when inadequate provisions are made for current an= d future instructional technology needs (e.g., power, lighting controls, = window covers, conduit, cooling, and telecommunications). In order to asc= ertain current and future technological needs of the academic community, = the Office of Facilities Planning and Operations should consult with the = Director of Information Systems and Technology and the academic computing= advocate as well as the units affected as academic buildings are being b= uilt or renovated. Status: Communication between the Office o= f the University Architect, UIS, Academic Computing and AVS in planning n= ew classrooms is still not effective enough. In particular, the lack of t= he necessary level of input from AVS has led to the need to renovate rece= ntly renovated facilities in some cases. Retrofitting older labs for wiri= ng and light control is not systematically addressed and usually goes und= one or the cost is born by the host department. Increased consultation wi= th staff in academic units is needed. BENEFITS: Costly and time consuming post-construction modifications can be avoid= ed. 38. Position Descriptions. In view of the strategic importance of comp= uting to the future of the University, departmental handbooks should prov= ide information regarding workload equivalents for faculty who engage in = management or support of computing resources. The University should estab= lish guidelines to ensure that jobs in academic units are properly graded= to reflect the technical roles that staff are performing. Position descr= iptions, grading, and reward structures should reflect and encourage the = role of experts in mentoring other users. Status: There are no University-wide posit= ion descriptions. Individual units have assigned load on an ad-hoc basis= , but this load does not reflect work responsibilities. A recent Universi= ty-wide administrative review of staff positions recommended rationalizat= ion of the number of technological grades. This report is due to be compl= eted July 1. Salaries, in all areas except that of the CIO, are significa= ntly below the level obtaining in the private sector. BENEFITS: Faculty with computing expertise will receive appropriate recognition = for time spent to support and maintain hardware and software within their= academic units. Knowledgeable individuals from one unit who provide installation and u= ser support for other units would be more likely to receive formal recogn= ition or compensation. 39. Computer Services. Given the growing diversity of specialized hard= ware and software, it will be necessary to identify a limited number of s= tandard configurations that will be supported by Computer Services. Gener= al purpose University labs and the software available in those labs shoul= d be supported by Computer Services. Software that has been designated as= meeting University-wide standards should be supported by Computer Servic= es. Computer Services needs to provide UNIX and Macintosh support to the = University community in addition to the present PC and mainframe support.= Given the current environment, there is a need to better manage/oversee = increasingly distributed computing resources and to increase the consulti= ng role of Computer Services. The developing role and function of Compute= r Services within the academic environment should be articulated and comm= unicated to the University. Status: The University contract with Dell = Computing is a de facto standard. ACT is preparing a list of supported so= ftware and does provide site licenses for SPSS and SAS. Microsoft Office= is a de facto standard. There is little support for UNIX and Macintosh.<= /P> BENEFITS: Faculty and staff will develop a common understanding of the mission o= f Computer Services and a more realistic view of the level of support ava= ilable. 40. Copyright Concerns. The University should provide a copyright clea= rance service to ensure that software users and producers are in complian= ce with the appropriate laws. A review of University policies regarding c= opyright laws and ownership of software and multimedia developed by facul= ty, staff, and students needs to occur to ensure that they reflect techno= logical advances. Faculty who use the emerging technologies need to be ke= pt informed of changing laws regarding copyright. Status: The issue of ownership of material= has received considerable attention. Recommendations on the issue have m= ade as part of the Distance Learning Policy Committee report, and a Copyr= ight Policy Committee was formed and studied the matter extensively. The = negotiated agreement with the AAUP faculty bargaining unit will include p= rocedures for determining ownership (Appendix). At this time guidelines h= ave not been widely disseminated. There is duplication of responsibilities for copyright clearance in at= least three offices. Copyright infringement assistance is not perceived = as effective. No coordinated attempt has been made to educate the Univers= ity community. Students are generally unaware of their copyright rights a= nd obligations. There may be changes in the law in this area as a result = of the Digital Copyright Law. BENEFITS: The potential for copyright infringement and related legal actions wil= l be reduced. There will be a clearer understanding by both faculty and the Universi= ty of the rights of software authors. 41. Fees. It is very difficult for the committee to endorse additional= fees for computing. Kent already has the second-highest fee structure in= the state. The current general fee structure includes a number of genera= l fees (student organizations-$12.00, publications-$0.56, student leader = compensation-$0.27, athletics-$97.00, intramurals-$15.00, student center-= $68.75, health center-$40.00, athletic facilities-$80.00, medical service= s-$2.00, bands-$1.50, bus-$41.50, theatre-$0.50, and registration service= s-$7.50). In addition there are numerous course fees and miscellaneous fe= es for which students are responsible. Endorsement among survey responden= ts for a new fee to support computing was limited. The survey item was, "= How much need is there for the University to institute a new instructiona= l fee to support computer and hardware?" Among students, the responses we= re "None" - 37 percent; "Little" - 30 percent; "Moderate" - 23 percent; a= nd "Extensive" - 10 percent. Faculty and staff responses were more evenly= divided--49 percent responded "Moderate" or "Extensive." If a fee is ins= tituted, it should be earmarked for support and improvement of academic c= omputing. Status: The allocation for technology of = one percent per year from the general fee has not provided the necessary = level of support, particularly since it also must fund faculty refresh. See NISS 47 42. Facility Access. Present University building security policies tha= t inhibit access to scarce resources should be reviewed and revised as ap= propriate to provide more cost effective utilization of computing resourc= es. As new labs are planned, consideration should be given to evening and= weekend access and to using the Kent Card recommended by the Network and= Information Systems Study to control building access. Status: The University is currently implem= enting door access systems from the Diebold Corporation as part of the Fl= ashCard project. New buildings and buildings that are being renovated are= engineered with this equipment as part of the project program. The Diebo= ld system is being used because of its ability to manage University acces= s systems using a central database. Access readers that will accept the FlashCard for entry are in the Stu= dent Center, Eastway Center, Administrative Services Building, and McGilv= rey Hall. The FlashCard will be used for access to the new Student Recrea= tion and Wellness Center. Moulton Hall will be retrofitted to use the Fla= shCard for access control during the summer of 1999. Engleman Hall will u= se door access with the Flashcard when it reopens for Fall semester 1999.= Additional doors will be outfitted as buildings are renovated or as the = need arises. For an existing door, it will cost $3,500 to add door access. This cos= t assumes that the building is appropriately networked. See NISS 17 BENEFITS: Students and others who need or want to use labs will have increased a= ccess. 43. Universal Student Accounts. A computer account should be establish= ed for every student upon request, and this account should persist until = the student is no longer active. This account should enable all students = to use e-mail and Internet information resources through a UNIX-based sys= tem. Status: Student accounts are set up automa= tically. BENEFITS: Students will learn to use resources they likely will use after gradua= tion. The University will gain an image as a place that provides state-of-th= e-art Internet access. 44. Distributed Computing. The University should move toward a distrib= uted academic computing environment in which all classrooms, labs, reside= nce hall rooms, and faculty and administrative offices are connected to t= he campus backbone. Academic Computer Services should migrate application= s to an open computing environment, such as UNIX in order to facilitate t= heir ultimate transfer to distributed platforms. Ultimately, the role of = Academic Computer Services would evolve from that of a hardware and softw= are provider to that of a centralized consulting and support service for = computing systems distributed in academic units. Academic units will be r= esponsible for management and support of local distributed systems. Status: The campus backbone infrastructure= , the classroom and dorm rewiring, and the faculty refresh have provided = the connectivity for a distributed computing environment. There is still = not sufficient coordination between UIS, ACT, Residence Services, and the= academic departments and as a result the infrastructure is not being uti= lized as effectively as it might be to meet real academic needs. BENEFITS: Connectivity will increase and enhance access to remote information. Distributed systems will provide a better access path from academic un= its to centralized systems. Intra-unit communication will be enhanced. = INSTRUCTION AND RESEARCH Academic Computing Study =96 May 1994 1. Classrooms. Consistent with the goals of the Strategic Plan, all ne= w and renovated classroom facilities need to be equipped with appropriate= instructional technologies. The University should create instructional f= acilities that not only meet today's requirements, but are adaptable to f= uture needs. Designing instructional facilities requires a holistic appro= ach to the classroom environment. The needs of students (e.g., seating, computer workstations) and instr= uctors (e.g., user friendly teaching stations), as well as the room eleme= nts of networks, equipment, screens, lighting, air handling, noise, and t= heir related controls, all need to be considered. Identification of the a= ppropriate classroom technology to support instruction should be incorpor= ated into the annual planning process along with necessary technical and = maintenance support. To that end, the Office of Facilities Planning and O= perations should consult with academic units, Media Services, the propose= d Advisory Committee for Technology (ACT; see Recommendation #27), the Sp= ace Committee, Physical Plant Services, the Office of the Registrar, and = other pertinent parties to ensure that future classrooms are properly des= gined to support technological applications. Status: Classroom Enhancements: Non= -moveables in new & renovated classrooms are receiving attention; suf= ficient attention moveable equipment is questionable. AVS participation i= n planning for the incorporation of instructional technologies in new and= renovated classroom facilities is not consistent. AVS has been involved = in the very early stages for some projects and not been involved until af= ter all work is done in others (when modifications to completed construct= ion had to be made). Frequently, capital funds for moveable equipment are= used for construction overruns and change orders and are thus not availa= ble to purchase instructional technology equipment. Annual Planning Process: At departmental level, there appears to be no= significant planning in annual reports or five year plans. Other levels = unclear although the Office of the University Architect plans for larger = projects. Integrated planning for new buildings and renovations is still = occurring only sporadically and does not include sufficient input from te= chnology capable faculty in the departments, and AVS. Classroom Assessment: The recent Classroom Utilization Report does not= include equipment assessment as a major component. These were included o= nly if the survey answers answered included this information. The recent = Classroom Quality Report does include some recommendations to improve lig= ht control problems, and the need for new or replacement equipment. AVS i= s working with the Office of Campus Enhancement to implement recommendati= ons. In addition, AVS is beginning an assessment of classroom instruction= al technologies. Standard Classrooms. These are defined as general purpose basic or tra= ditional rooms that accommodate between twenty and 100 students. Permanently installed instructional technologies are minimal. However,= the condition of all 172 general purpose classrooms on the Kent Campus s= hould be assessed to ensure that each room has the following equipment an= d facilities installed and in good working order: chalkboard; projection screen (usually 70" x 70"); overhead projector in portable cart; window treatment (opaque shades); light control, switches to control lights in sections, from front to = back; electrical outlets, minimum of one duplex outlet, centered on front and back wal= ls; network connection for voice, video, and data (centered on front wall= ). Status: Little has been done to address cu= stomization of the environment for electronic delivery. By the end of Pha= se III of the intra-building wiring project all classrooms should have ne= twork connections. The items list above is still appropriate. The campus= network is bringing voice, video, and data connections to classrooms. In= many rooms window treatment and light control still needs attention. In= numerous rooms new overhead projectors and larger projection screens are= needed. In addition, the Kent Campus maintains seventeen lecture halls with a = capacity of 100 or more seats and thirty-two seminar rooms, each with twe= nty or fewer seats usually arranged or designed in a conference setting w= ith chairs and one or more tables. The condition, furnishings, and techno= logical needs of these rooms should be assessed as well. Status: The number of lecture halls has in= creased. Assessment by AVS is currently taking place and a summary repor= t will be issued. Master Classrooms. These are defined as rooms or lecture halls that ma= y be linked via a campus network to a centrally located electronic media = distribution system. Located in the room are a minimum number of instruct= ional technologies and a control center located in a teaching station. Th= ese rooms, sometimes called multimedia classrooms, may accommodate from t= wenty to 100 students, or more of they are classed as lecture halls. The = University should assess the current condition of each of these classroom= s on the Kent Campus and should implement a plan to upgrade 2 percent of = the total standard classrooms and lecture halls to master classroom statu= s during each of the next five years. Thus, eventually 10 percent of the = classrooms would be upgraded to accommodate the following media and techn= ological applications: projection screen (electric); video/graphics projection system; overhead projector (option: visual presenter, desk-top); control panel (mounted in teaching station); sound reinforcement system with wireless microphone; microcomputer with CD-ROM; teaching station/equipment cabinet; laser pointer; electrical outlets and wiring to accommodate multiple pieces of equip= ment, including ceiling video/graphics projector; network connection for voice, video, and data; light control (incandescent and fluorescent with dimmers, or fluoresc= ent with dimmers) with switches at teaching station; window treatment (opaque shades). Status: While there may have been an asses= sment of current "master classrooms," such assessment does not appear in = Classroom Utilization Report. The target of 10 percent of all classrooms = (17) does not appear to have been met. Classrooms that meet these require= ments may include those in the Library, Moulton Hall (3), Music and Speec= h, and the Goodyear Electronic Classroom in the College of Business Admin= istration. A number of rooms in recently renovated buildings incorporate most of = the components of a master classroom. The best equipped building is Moul= ton Hall (nine rooms). A number of rooms in Lowry (one room), Merrill (o= ne room). In addition a number of buildings have rooms with video/comput= er projection systems: White (four rooms), and Business Administration (s= ix rooms), Cunningham (one room) and Williams (one room). Rockwell (one r= oom) and Bowman (one room) have many of the primary components of a maste= r classroom. Very few have installed computers. The completion of the ca= mpus network will bring voice, video, and data connections to all classro= oms. The recommendations probably need revision to include advances in deli= very such as digital video over the network. In addition, selected lecture halls should be equipped with computeriz= ed student response systems. Status: No rooms have a student response s= ystem. Student response systems are very unique and should be considered= only for special applications. Computer Classrooms. These are defined as rooms that have a wide range= of instructional technologies permanently installed, and a computer work= station for the instructor and for each student or grouping of two studen= ts, with a control center located in a teaching station, linked via a cam= pus network to a centrally located electronic media distribution system. = The Kent Campus should implement a plan to upgrade 1 percent of the total= standard classrooms to computer classrooms during each of the next five = years. Thus, 5 percent of the classrooms eventually would be upgraded to = serve as computer based or electronic classrooms with each containing the= following technological applications: projection screen (electric); video/graphics projection system; overhead projector (option: visual presenter, desk-top); videocassette player; video disc player; control panel (mounted in teaching station); sound reinforcement system with wireless microphone; microcomputer with CD-ROM; teaching station/equipment cabinet; laser pointer; computer tables and chairs; microcomputers (PC/DOS or Macintosh); electrical outlets and wiring to accommodate multiple pieces of equip= ment, including ceiling video/graphics projector; network connection for voice, video, and data; light control (incandescent and fluorescent with dimmers, or fluoresc= ent with dimmers) with switches at teaching station; window treatment (opaque shades). Status: No assessment appears in Classroom= Utilization Report; the target 5% of all classrooms does not appear to h= ave been met. Moulton Hall has several computer classrooms. The media cen= ter and distribution links have not been established. In addition, for classrooms where use does not justify permanent i= nstallations, portable teaching stations with computer, projection system= , videocassette and video disc players, and CD-ROM player should be made = available. Status: If no clear assessment of classroo= m technology status has been done, it is unlikely that this effort is und= erway. Portable teaching stations with a computer projection system are n= ot available from a central service center (AVS). Distance Learning Classrooms. The renovation of Moulton Hall will allo= w for the establishment of a first-class center for instructional technol= ogy and distance learning. It will be designed expressly to showcase the = use of state-of-the-art educational technology. It will be supported by a= n integrated, comprehensive cabling system that will be able to handle al= l communications--voice, video, and data--within the building as well as = between it and distant locations. In addition to supporting the Moulton Hall initiative, the team recomm= ends that Libraries and Media Services proceed with plans and use existin= g resources to convert the Audio Visual Services classroom into a two-way= interactive audio-video distance learning facility. Further appropriate = space, in proximity to Audio Visual Services, should be identified and co= nverted into a hands-on computer based electronic classroom to support di= stance learning initiatives and education and training programs offered b= y both Libraries and Media Services and Computer Services. Status: Moulton Hall has satisfied most el= ements of this recommendation--if all classrooms and facilities are prope= rly equipped; Library classrooms have satisfied this recommendation. = With the completion of the renovation to Moulton Hall, the computer-ba= sed distributed learning classroom in AVS was moved to Moulton Hall. Thr= ough a grant, the School of Library and Information Science has installed= two-way interactive video distributed learning equipment in the AVS clas= sroom. BENEFITS: The quality and efficiency of instruction will increase. Students will receive more hands-on instruction, resulting in an impro= ved learning experience. When students see computers and related technology used effectively, t= hey have better models for their own computer use. Computers will be more= widely used in the classroom. Faculty will be better positioned to use multimedia technologies to en= hance the learning process. Faculty will have added incentives to invest their time in computer-ba= sed innovation. Faculty will face fewer environmental difficulties in attempting to us= e new technologies. Faculty will have consistent and reliable access to appropriately equi= pped classrooms. Less faculty time will be spent in equipment set-up in classrooms. = 2. Continuing Education. Technology-equipped classrooms should be avai= lable for teaching continuing education courses and workshops in the area= s of computer technology and applications. In addition to meeting communi= ty needs, such facilities also could be made available for faculty and st= aff training. Status: Continuing Education has occasiona= lly used classrooms in Moulton and will use them in summer and when avail= able. These are for-credit workshops, which can be taken by faculty and s= taff using their tuition credits. Priority is given to traditional classe= s, but credit workshops have second priority. BENEFITS: The University will have more opportunities to increase revenue and en= hance its image. There will be more opportunities to build relationships with and obtai= n funding from local businesses and other organizations. Kent will be more competitive with nearby institutions. Outreach to the local community will increase. 3. Instructional Development. In recognition of the substantial time r= equired to develop and provide technology-based instruction, academic uni= ts and the Office of the Provost should provide incentives and workload r= eductions for faculty to engage in innovative instruction (e.g., summer i= nstructional grants, merit pay, and credit toward promotion and tenure).<= /P> Status: Moulton programs (tutorials, etc) = provide some support; support for Moulton Hall fellows, originally funded= through the Provost=92s office must now be funded through departments; l= imited incentives and workload reductions will be in place after CBU nego= tiations are concluded (see Appendix). Intellectual Property issues have = probably slowed faculty participation in the past and may be significantl= y reduced by this agreement. BENEFITS: Faculty will be more likely to invest their time in the development of= technology based instruction. More faculty will incorporate computer, information, and instructional= technologies in their teaching. More faculty will implement new teaching methods based on technology.<= /P> Teaching will improve. 4. Multimedia Distribution. Computer Services and Media Services shoul= d investigate possibilities for distribution of multimedia. One option is= to use the IBM mainframe as a central server. A possible problem with th= at solution is the potential loss of network performance. Another option = for consideration is a distributed network of powerful workstations. Both= methods should be investigated to determine costs and benefits. In an in= creasingly distributed computing environment, it is important for faculty= to have reliable and convenient access to instructional tools such as mu= ltimedia applications. Status: New telephone communications RFP i= ncludes switches that will make this possible. BENEFITS: The instructional use of multimedia will be promoted and increased. Faculty will be better positioned to utilize multimedia instructional = tools. 5. Faculty and Staff Support Center. The University should establish a= faculty and staff support center that contains multiplatform, state-of-t= he-art, instructional hardware and software, including a software lending= library. The budget for this facility should be adequate to ensure timel= y installation of new technology as it emerges and to provide technical s= upport for the facility. This facility should showcase the use of technol= ogy in teaching and provide hands-on training for faculty and staff. Status: Faculty Development Program and Ne= w Media Services are beginning to provide this support. BENEFITS: More faculty will make use of available instructional software and oth= er technologies to improve the learning process. Faculty will be more likely to utilize new technologies in instruction= al efforts. 6. Student Education and Training. A Technological Education Requireme= nt should be instituted for freshmen that would ensure student computer l= iteracy by developing competency in areas such as word processing, spread= sheets, databases, e-mail, and accessing Internet resources. It is recomm= ended that these skills be applied where relevant into existing courses. = An example is the emerging integration of word processing into English co= mposition. Status: The technology requirement has not= been instituted; one has to question whether sufficient facilities are a= vailable to enact a requirement. All students receive an introduction to = e-mail and WWW searches as part of orientation. Some colleges, such as Bu= siness Administration, require all students to take an introductory compu= ter course. BENEFITS: Students will gain skills in computer use and information access. Students' computer anxiety will be reduced. Students will acquire basic computer skills early in their academic ca= reers. Faculty will know that all students have a minimum level of computer s= kills enabling the incorporation of computer based assignments into cours= ework. Faculty can give assignments that are too time consuming if done manua= lly. There will be less competition between acquiring computer skills and t= he academic content of courses. Students will be better positioned to pursue advanced courses involvin= g computer technology. More students will be able to use technology to increase their chances= of success and to advance their academic and professional careers. 7. Discipline-Specific Needs. Students need access to hardware and sof= tware that are as current as that normally used in the professions for wh= ich they are being educated. For instance, some students need access to s= tate-of-the-art CAD/CAM systems while others need access to experimental = networks that can be used to learn systems and network operations. Academ= ic units should recognize this need and budget for the necessary equipmen= t and software. Status: This requirement of academic units= is difficult to assess; additional funds to support this recommendation = have not been made available to academic units. An assessment of technolo= gy needs in individual units is now underway, headed by Mary Lou Holly, J= udy Hirschmann and Rosemary Du Mont. BENEFITS: Students will have the opportunity to learn the most up-to-date applic= ations in their chosen fields. Students seeking employment where current technology is used will be m= ore marketable. The quality of courses in computer and network technology will be enha= nced through hands-on experience for students. Employers will be assured that students have a basic level of computer= literacy. = INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION AND ACCESS<= /A> Networking and Information Systems= Study =96 March 1993 9. Universitywide Systems Implementation Perspective. In order to oper= ate effectively, and remain competitive, the University must develop syst= ems reflecting a Universitywide perspective that respond to student expec= tations, maximize the use of resources, increase efficiency and accuracy,= and enhance quality. To do so, the University should establish an approa= ch to systems development that considers both Universitywide and departme= ntal needs, while at the same time, supports database and systems integra= tion. Computer Service analysts should be available to consult with Universi= ty organizational units to help ensure that computing and information tec= hnology is used to the maximum benefit of the University. Student informa= tion systems, human resource systems, financial record systems, and other= s must be integrated to respond to local needs as well as support Univers= itywide functions. Status: This has been partially achieved i= n the case of Student Information Systems; however, systems integration a= cross all legacy systems (for example the Financial Aid and Housing modul= es) has not been realized from a universitywide perspective. Student Info= rmation Systems have not been integrated with human resource and other sy= stems. No cost benefit analysis has been undertaken of the integration of= these systems. However, whether or not full integration is necessary or sufficient, t= he current system does not seem to meet the requirement that it "respond to student expectations, maximize the use of resources, inc= rease efficiency and accuracy, and enhance quality." 10. Student Information Systems. Student information must be imple= mented as one integrated system in order to enhance competitiveness and s= upport the achievement of enrollment goals. We recommend that the existin= g systems for the entire student information systems area be replaced wit= h an integrated system. This includes student financial aid, admissions, = registration, housing, and bursar accounts receivable and cashiering. = We recommend that commercially available software packages be consider= ed. In-house development should be attempted only if it can be cost justi= fied or provide superior capability. Also, the future ability to migrate = to a distributed processing environment should be a consideration in the = software selection process. Status: SIS was put into production in February 1996 and included s= oftware modules for admissions, bursar, financial aid, records/registrati= on, and housing. SIS provided database integration across all five module= s and the eight campus system and dramatically enhanced student informati= on management and academic and student service. However, all SIS modules = have functions that are not complete or not available. SIS departments ha= ve submitted SROMs requesting completion of system fixes or enhancements,= but progress has been slow. Due to the backlog of SROMs and the inabilit= y to implement vendor fixes and enhancements called TOSs (Time of Solutio= n), SIS does not have the level of functionality desired and needed. The= inability to apply the TOSs has prevented Kent from taking advantage of = vendor Y2K releases, webbased transaction software, financial aid softwar= e in support of yearly federal regulations, and a variety of current and = future contemporary service enhancements. 11.Systems Infrastructure. The infrastructure for an integrated inform= ation system should consist of a relational database management system wi= th a data dictionary and user-friendly query and reporting capabilities. = Seamless support for distributed computing and imaging technologies also = should be included. Integration should support automatic on-line intercha= nge of data between the individual administrative subsystems as well as t= he ability to extract information (in both data and report formats) in re= sponse to particular ad hoc queries. This feature should support user fri= endly access for faculty for the purpose of advising. We recommend that the director of Information Services (in consultatio= n with the Technology Policy Advisory Committee) assess University databa= se requirements; evaluate database management software products (includin= g the currently installed IDMA product);and select the relational databas= e management system that the University will use as the infrastructure fo= r its integrated information systems. Status: A student information system (SIS)= based on the DB2 relational database has been implemented. Although the = database itself is ODBC compliant, as currently implemented the legacy sy= stems are not. The query and reporting system FOCUS is a traditional SQL = system and as such is not perceived as sufficiently user friendly for gen= eral use. Systems are not integrated to the extent desired and interchang= e of information is not facilitated. Permission to access the systems usi= ng query systems is restricted and so may cause significant duplication o= f effort at a departmental level. 12. Document Handling and Process Flow Evaluation. The University shou= ld understand that technology alone will not provide the break-through so= lutions that are envisioned for administrative operations. The executive = officers should consider coordinating the review of office work flow proc= esses in their respective areas and should determine to what extent docum= ent handling and duplicating can be automated, streamlined, integrated, o= r possibly eliminated. The use of document imaging technologies should be= considered where cost effective and appropriate. For example, the follow= ing document intensive systems are prime candidates for examination: payr= oll, personnel, purchasing, admissions, registration, financial aid, hous= ing, billing, graduation, and alumni/development. Status: Accounts payable and registration = processes have been automated. Imaging is being piloted. E-forms solution= s are not widely available. The purchasing department is partially automa= ted internally. Use of departmental credit cards has improved the purchas= ing process externally, and the purchasing process has been streamlined t= o some extent. 13. Universitywide Information System. The director of Information= Services should coordinate the implementation of user-friendly access po= ints (such as kiosks, touch-tone phones, work stations, and local area ne= tworks) to University information systems. The purpose would be to allow = various users to gain direct access to general information about the Univ= ersity and to allow students to access specific information about themsel= ves. General information could be accessible by anyone, including parents, = applicants, and other visitors. This information would provide an overvie= w of Kent State University as well as on-line information pertaining to t= he following: Academic Calendar Admission, Financial Aid, Registrar's, and Bursar's Offices Course descriptions Faculty and staff office phone and electronic mail directories Specific information would be accessible by students, faculty, and sta= ff with authorized security clearance. For example, students could look u= p information (via a secured path) regarding their own class schedules, a= dmissions, registration, academic records, financial aid, and billing.Thi= s type of access should result in shorter, less frequent inquiries at the= Registrar's, Financial Aid, and Bursar's offices. More importantly, acce= ss to such systems should lead to a much more satisfied student populatio= n. Status: Kiosks have been piloted. These ar= e used more for marketing purposes than for information access. Given tha= t the information for the kiosk systems must be developed separately from= the WWW based systems, it does seem unnecessarily duplicative of effort = to use them for any significant level of access to information. Interactive Voice Response (IVR) is available to some systems such as = registration. Access to relatively static information, such as the campus phone book= , and the schedule of classes is available from the WWW. Web-based access= to some other legacy systems is being developed but Web based transactio= ns are not in place. Students do not have online access to their personal= information. Personalized information for students of the type advocated= in the recommendation, and in requests from student members of UCT, is n= ot available. Online advising and student rosters are not widely availabl= e to faculty. This is partly an issue of ease of use and partially an iss= ue of lack of permission from the college security administrator. 14. Health Services System. Information Services should coordinate= the interface of the local area network system in Health Services to the= existing student information system in order to eliminate the need to us= e printed reports to verify student enrollment. In addition, it is recomm= ended that Health Services acquire a basic computerized system to handle = day-to-day operating needs and more easily comply with federal and state = reporting and monitoring regulations. Status: There is no direct interface. The = current procedure involves downloads from the mainframe and utilizes FOCU= S. 15. Departmental Systems Coordination. The associate vice president of= Business and Finance should be assigned the responsibility for establish= ing formal communication links between those responsible for departmental= computer systems in order to achieve better coordination and synergy. A = technical committee of departmental system administrators or other person= s with comparable responsibilities should meet on a regular basis. The co= mmittee, consisting of representatives from academic and administrative d= epartments, should be appointed by department heads. The responsibility f= or coordinating departmental systems support should be assigned to a staf= f member who also should be given ex-officio status on the committee. = Status: Such a committee not been formally= constituted. KNUG, which is an informal group of network administrators, shares information but has no formal role in c= oordination of support. 16. Demographic Information. The associa= te vice president for Business and Finance, working with the Technology P= olicy Advisory Committee, should review and recommend changes to procedur= es and policies associated with the maintenance of demographic informatio= n for all individuals associated with the University community. These cha= nges should allow individuals to change their demographic information at = a single location with automatic update, when appropriate, to other datab= ases. Status: The review in question has not bee= n undertaken. No unified update procedure is in place. 17. University ID Card. The University should implement a Universitywi= de all-campus identification card (Kent Card) for faculty, staff, and stu= dents. It would serve as an ID card, debit card, security access card, li= brary card, health services card, etc. Video imaging technology should be= used to capture and store identification pictures. Status: A Flash card utilizing digital vid= eo imaging was implemented in Fall Semester 1998. Security access is not = yet widely available. 18. Regional Campuses. Regional Campus information systems need to= be more homogeneous among campuses and better integrated with University= information systems and Regional Campus strategic plans. Regional Campus= enrollment is expected to continue to grow at a steady rate and its oper= ating environment is expected to become more complex. Therefore, an evalu= ation of Regional Campus computing and information technology requirement= s should be conducted to define goals and objectives, identify strengths = and problems, develop recommendations, and create a five-year implementat= ion plan. Status: The legacy systems have been integ= rated with SIS and voice response is in place. The evaluation in the rec= ommendation has not taken place. No master plan for integration of depart= mental systems exists. 19. Application System Priorities. All new systems and major syste= m enhancement requests should be submitted to the Technology Policy Advis= ory Committee for prioritization. Along with each request, Information Se= rvices should provide an estimate of resources required to complete the p= roject. Further, when necessary, Information Services should assign an an= alyst to assist the committee with clarifying request requirements or dev= eloping cost/benefits analysis. Project priorities should be submitted to= the vice president for Business and Finance in the form of recommendatio= ns. Status: The procedure of consulting UCT on= major enhancement requests has not been implemented. There are currently= considerable backlogs in undertaking programming requests, which suggest= s that prioritization is an important concern. 20. System Development Methodology. The director of Information Servic= es should implement a methodology for institutional systems development t= hat promotes consistency and ensures that user expectations and project d= eliverables are congruent. It also is essential that this methodology fac= ilitate the development of implementation plans that identify all technic= al, human, and financial resources required to implement a project in an = efficient manner. The plan should include project task/activities, resour= ce and time estimates, responsibilities, deliverables, and documentation = requirements. Status: Such a methodology is not implemen= ted or is not meeting user expectations. = TRAINING AND SUPPORT<= /P> Networking and Information Systems= Study =96 March 1993 31. Need for Training. The University should recognize the importance= of participating in appropriate training programs as the University move= s into a more integrated and technology driven information environment. Status: Recognition of the importance of t= raining in technology has not been operationalized. Competencies have not= been established university wide. However, some departments have develop= ed competency requirements for their staff. The method of enforcement is = still being discussed. In the case of civil service employees this is par= tially addressed during hiring and reclassification. Training is sporadic= but improving. There is a need for coordination of and assessment of the= success of these programs 32. Training Strategies. The University should provide overall coordin= ation and systematic strategies to better meet existing and future traini= ng requirements. Within this context, the University should establish a f= ormal system for identifying and sharing individual expertise at all leve= ls. An orientation for new faculty and staff should be instituted. It shou= ld include an introduction to University computing and information techno= logy services and resources. New training and support applications should incorporate the Universit= ywide electronic mail system to address issues related to feedback, hands= -on training and consultation, and training follow-up. Training and suppo= rt programs should be developed to meet the specialized need of personnel= who are responsible for the Universitywide network and the growing numbe= r of LANs. Self-paced instructional programs (e.g., computer-based training softw= are modules) should be utilized to support training where appropriate. Status: Technology orientation for faculty= and staff is not done on a universitywide basis. No formalized Network T= raining has been instituted for departmental LAN administrators. Some se= lf-paced tutorials are in place. Training for staff is not at an appropr= iate level. A number of units have roles in this area at a centralized a= nd distributed level including ACT, UIS, New Media Services, Human Resour= ces and Development (HRD), various academic departments and the Faculty P= rofessional Development Center. HRD recently assumed responsibility for s= taff training. The Faculty Professional Development Center is beginning t= o act as a contact point for training for faculty. There is still a need = for more coordination of training programs and possibly a central directo= ry of training resources. Higher level training for technical support sta= ff across campus is not being provided. 33. Training Assessment. Information Services should reassess training= topics and methods periodically to determine if user needs are being met= adequately. Status: Responsibility for training has be= en diversified. Assessment of the perceptions of individual workshops is = undertaken through exit questionnaires; however no assessment of the need= s in the University community has been undertaken. 34. Training and Support for Administrative Systems. Unit heads sh= ould develop and offer orientation and training programs for authorized u= sers of their systems. Users should also be provided with updates and opp= ortunities for retraining as new features or changes are implemented. = Status: Training is conducted in each admi= nistrative unit but little is available to academic users. Online help is= available for legacy systems. 35. User Systems Documentation. Information Service. should survey use= r documentation needs to determine the scope of the issue. User systems d= ocumentation standards should be developed and presented to the Technolog= y Policy Advisory Committee for review, endorsement, and prioritization. = User departments, with assistance from Information Services, should devel= op needed documentation. Status: User documentation for the legacy = systems is available. Documentation for departmental systems varies great= ly in quality and quantity. Standards have not been developed or presente= d to UCT. 36. Broaden Existing Help Desk. Information Services should broaden su= pport through the existing help desk facility to include all referral ser= vices related to departmental and mainframe systems, work stations, netwo= rk access, connectivity, voice, and video communications. Status: The Help Desk Service has been gre= atly broadened, hours have been extended and more staff is available. In = addition, Residence Services staff a help desk in the residence halls and= have a WWW knowledgebase. 37.Standards for Vendors. Information Services and purchasing should d= evelop hardware and software performance, service and reliability standar= ds for vendors and discontinue dealing with those that cannot consistentl= y meet those standards. Status: Recommended configurations for har= dware have been developed by UIS/ACT. However, no standards for performan= ce, service and reliability standards for vendors have been evolved. 38.Peer Consultant Support. Information Services should establish an e= lectronic bulletin board that individuals can use to post technology ques= tions and receive responses from local experts. Furthermore, Information = Services should coordinate the publication of a manual which would contai= n the names and areas of expertise of individuals who volunteer to be pee= r consultants. In addition, this manual should be available electronicall= y for access by individuals with network connections. [continued] Status: Only informal listservs are curren= tly in place (KNUG and some administrative system listservs). No director= y of expertise is available. = SUPPORT STAFF AND TRAINING<= /A> Academic Computing Study =96 May 1994 16. Central Help Desk. A central help desk with a single phone number = should be available sixteen hours a day to answer a wide variety of quest= ions on any computer related topic. The caller should not be referred to = another person unless they are specifically seeking the contact person in= their department. Ordinarily, the help desk staff should either be able = to answer the question or pass it on to someone who will contact the call= er. A data base of frequently asked questions should be maintained so tha= t a student could staff this desk most of the time. This data base would = also contain the names of contact people in all units. A bulletin-board should be available for both the help desk staff and = the general user, so that answers not available in the data base and not = known to the help desk staff could be sought. Online help should be avail= able to reduce the level of expertise needed locally to use available sys= tems. Status: UIS has instituted a central help = desk. NEED DETAILS ????. BENEFITS: Users will get effective support for computer applications when needed= =2E The use of computing resources will be facilitated. The effect of variations in levels of expertise in labs will be minimi= zed. The University will be perceived as having a well-run, comprehensive, = efficient, customer oriented support service for computing. User frustration will decrease, and productivity will increase. 17. Faculty Development. The administration and the faculty share the = obligation for faculty learning about ways in which technology can be app= lied to their disciplines. The administration should ensure that the facu= lty have the opportunity to attain a basic level of computer and technolo= gical literacy appropriate for their disciplines. Faculty professional de= velopment plans should incorporate provision for time to develop skills i= n basic and advanced computer usage. Basic support services needed to int= egrate technology into the curriculum should be identified and provided a= t the University level. Academic units should identify and provide for th= e specialized instructional support needs of their faculty. Status: This seems in general to be littl= e addressed. Some training is provided through New Media services and the= Faculty Professional Development Center. Academic units have not, in ge= neral, provided for the specialized needs of faculty. BENEFITS: SEE #18 (BELOW). 18. Faculty and Staff Training. Academic units should schedule trainin= g for faculty. Staff should be given formal release time to take advantag= e of available training. Academic units should be encouraged and supporte= d in their efforts to offer technological training related to their disci= pline. Status: This is sporadic. Fashion Design a= nd Political Science have scheduled training through New Media Services. = Some departments have provided ad hoc training opportunities. BENEFITS: Faculty will be more familiar with the technological tools used in the= ir disciplines and will be better able to remain technologically current.= Faculty will be better able to provide relevant technological educatio= n to students. Staff will have better opportunities to acquire the skills they need f= or accomplishing their jobs. Staff talent will be developed to its fullest potential. More training will be available for faculty and staff who want it. = More faculty and staff will take advantage of existing training progra= ms. 19. Instructional Workshops. University classes for basic skills such = as computer fundamentals, word processing, spreadsheets, data bases, and = e-mail should provide in-class, hands-on experience. These classes could = be a part of expanded Continuing Education offerings or given as shorter = workshops. Status: Classes have been made available t= hrough HRD. There are not currently enough offered to satisfy the demand = from staff. BENEFITS: Training will be available when needed. Students, faculty, and staff will receive the support necessary to bec= ome technologically literate. 20. Learning Tools. Computer Services should provide self-paced learni= ng aids such as online tutorials, computer assisted instruction, or video= s. These aids need to be available for the multiple platforms, operating = systems, and applications that exist in the University. Status: Self-paced learning tools for Micr= osoft systems have been provided by ACT, through a site-wide license for = InfoSource. No such materials are available for Mac or UNIX platforms. BENEFITS: Support will be available at the most critical moment--when there is a= n immediate need to know. Users will be able to pace their learning to best fit their own styles= =2E 21. Academic Unit Initiatives. As academic units make necessary moves = toward more sophisticated computing environments, they need to anticipate= the greater level of technical expertise needed to support LANs, multime= dia software, etc. Academic units should ensure that technical expertise = is available to support computer hardware and discipline-specific softwar= e. They may arrange for support by employment of full time systems suppor= t staff, shared support staff with other units, formal arrangements with = their college or Computer Services, or, when appropriate, on-load assignm= ent to designated faculty. The names of staff assigned support roles shou= ld be made available to the entire University community through a central= ized help desk. Academic units should have formal backup arrangements for= mutual support across a cluster of similar units. Status: Resources have not been made avail= able to most academic units. As a result, most academic units still have = not made adequate arrangements for systems support staff. The names of su= pport staff are not made available through the centralized help desk. = No formal arrangements exist for mutual support although informal supp= ort is sometimes available. BENEFITS: Technical support for local computing will be more even and consistent= =2E Faculty will spend less time handling support tasks. Networks and core systems will be better managed and maintained. Fewer= ad hoc demands will be placed on Computer Services. Academic units will = be more likely to acquire and maintain current technology. Potential LAN problems will be anticipated prior to a complete failure= of a LAN application. 22. Local Staffing. The Office of the Provost, colleges, and independe= nt schools need to work in partnership to allocate funding to meet the gr= owing academic unit technical support staff needs. Status: These needs have not been addresse= d except in isolated cases. BENEFITS: The quality of support for faculty and students, especially for discip= line-specific applications, will improve. Response time for problems and training will improve. More one-on-one help will be available when needed. 23. Computer Lab Staffing. Academic units need to revise current staff= ing policies to provide staffing on evenings and weekends. The lack of la= b availability in the evening and on weekends inhibits the use of technol= ogy by students who are time or place bound. Student lab monitors should = receive adequate and formal training appropriate to their assigned respon= sibilities. This training should begin early in each academic year. Centr= alized training should be provided for software that is used across units= of the University while local training should be provided for discipline= -specific software. Status: Residence Services trains their ow= n laboratory staff. Across campus there is no integrated training of labo= ratory staff, and little 24 hour access. Institutional policies may make = opening buildings on a 24 hour basis difficult. BENEFITS: Labs will be available more hours for students. Commuter students will have greatly increased access to computing reso= urces. Students will spend less time queuing for high-demand resources. Computer resources will be used in a more cost effective manner. Lab hours will be more consistent across each campus. Lab monitors will be better able to assist users. Assistance available at all labs will be consistent and reliable. Stud= ents will have more convenient access to computing resources needed to co= mplete assignments. 24. User Groups. Computer Services should encourage the creation of gr= oups of users to provide mutual education and support. A user group of ac= ademic lab managers should be formally established as a subcommittee of t= he Advisory Committee for Technology. Status: This has not been done although KN= UG is an informal organization of this form. BENEFITS: Quality of lab support will be more consistent. New and experienced lab managers will have formal channels for exchang= ing information and support. Decisions concerning the management of labs will be in concert with th= e overall computing and technology goals of the University. = COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING: = Network and Information Systems Study =96 March 1993= 3. Network as a Utility. The University should recogniz= e that a University wide network is a required utility (like water or hea= t) for the survival of a modern campus. The network should be ubiquitous,= reliable, and provide an adequate capacity to support voice, data, and i= nteractive video communications. Status: The importance of networking to the campus has bee= n recognized. The backbone and intrabuilding wiring plans operationalize = this recognition. 3. Existing Network Plan Implementation. The existi= ng network plan, completed in September 1992, endorsed by the Academic Su= pport Systems Task Force, provides the University with a realistic bluepr= int for a campus wide backbone. In order to support interactive video and= distance learning, the plan should be enhanced to include single-mode fi= ber in the backbone and from the backbone to the Teleproductions Office. = The plan also should be expanded to include detailed standards for intra-= building connections including classroom, laboratory, local area network,= and desk-top access. Funding should be provided for full implementation.= Status: The implementation of the network plan = for the campus backbone, including single-mode fiber, was completed Decem= ber 1998. Phase I of the Intra-building Wiring Plan was turned over on Ma= rch 15, 1999 and included 10 buildings (Art, CDC, Henderson, McGilvrey, N= ixson, Oscar/Ritchie, the Personnel section of Terrace Hall, Smith, Stock= dale and Whitehall). Phase II is in progress and due to be turned over M= ay 25, 1999. These buildings include the Library, Math and Computer Sci= ence, Memorial Athletic and Convocation Center, Memorial Gym Annex, Taylo= r, VanDeusen and Williams. Phase III, including the Administrative Serv= ices Building, Airport, Bowman Hall, Business Administration Building, Cu= nningham Hall, DeWeese Health Center, Golf Club House, Ice Arena, Kent Ha= ll,Maintenance Storage building,Physical Plant Services Building,Fire Saf= ety Building, Satterfield Hall, Kent Student Center and the WKSU Broadcas= t Center, has been rolled into PBX project. Network Services will provide= 10BaseT Ethernet switches for all buildings. This effectively creates a = de facto standard for intra-building wiring. The RFP for the PBX project went out for bid in Janu= ary with bids due by February 25, 1999 with construction anticipated for = May 1999. This includes upgrading the ATM backbone to 622Mbps, and addin= g new backbone switches and wiring to each building. It also includes a = VTEL to ATM converter. The issue of whether ATM service will be extended= to the regional campuses is currently under discussion by the Regional C= ampuses. In order to provide all departments with the level of connectivity that i= s enjoyed by the Science Complex and the College of Business, the backbon= e should be expanded as quickly as possible to other campus buildings in = an incremental manner that is consistent with the overall plan. This expa= nsion should initially involve extending the network backbone to Korb, Mu= sic & Speech, Nursing, and Taylor. Any partial implementation should = be consistent with the overall plan. Status: Completed. In addition, in order to realize as quickly as possible communications ga= ins inherent in the existing segments of the backbone, Computer Services = should, concurrent with the expansion of the backbone, connect all depart= ment LANs and selected work stations in a manner that permits communicati= on among the LANs and access to Internet resources. Status: 10BaseT switches have been acquired by = Network Services to provide connectivity to the backbone, using the new i= ntrabuilding wiring, for all currently active ports in rewired buildings.= The director of Information Services should package the plan for wider di= ssemination to the University community including academic leadership, ex= ecutive officers, and the Board of Trustees. Status: The plan has been disseminated and implemented. 4. Network Service Requirements. Information Servic= es should develop a network infrastructure that provides a conduit for hi= gh-speed and user-friendly files, software, and specialized hardware shar= ing; laboratory and dormitory connectivity; campus mail; personal compute= r and mainframe links; Regional Campus high-speed connectivity; access to= Library catalogs and CD-ROM and on-line databases; integrated voice mail= and voice communications with a consistent user interface; electronic ma= il with access to national and international networks. The network also s= hould have the capacity to support interactive video and distance learnin= g initiatives. The network should serve the needs of students, faculty, r= esearchers, staff, and administrators. The network should include tools that facilitate the management and maint= enance of central and distributed (voice, video, and data) communications= systems through integrated access, monitoring, and administration from a= ll locations. Status: The upgraded backbone and intrabuilding= wiring will provide a conduit for high-speed and user-friendly files, so= ftware, and specialized hardware sharing; laboratory and dormitory conne= ctivity; campus mail; personal computer and mainframe links access= to Library catalogs and CD-ROM and on-line databases. The Regional Campu= s links have been upgraded to T-1 lines. Integrated voice m= ail and voice communications with a consistent user interface and tools t= hat facilitate the management and maintenance of central and distributed = (voice, video, and data) communications systems through integrated access= , monitoring, and administration from all locations have not yet been ach= ieved. 5. Financial Support for Network. In order to achieve t= hese above goals, the University needs to provide the funding to implemen= t existing network plan. for a campus backbone and improved connectivity = for the Regional Campuses. Additional funding should be provided when nec= essary to meet the standards established in the plan to avoid interim thr= owaway efforts. Plans for new capital projects or renovations also should= incorporate the cost of implementing networking requirements. Furthermor= e, there is a need for a continuing financial commitment to manage and su= pport the network as well as respond to future needs and requirements. Status: The network plans have been implemente= d. Network Services has been expanded. However, there is still no continu= ing funding specifically for network support. Most network improvements h= ave been undertaken with capital funds from state grants. 6. Remote Access. The quality and capacity of remote (d= ial-up, etc.) access to the University network should be enhanced. In par= ticular, Information Services should evaluate how the existing modem bank= s -(including departmental local area networks) can be expanded and recon= figured to provide more dial-in ports at higher communication speeds (e.g= =2E 9600 baud). Status: Remote access for faculty and staff has= been improved through the provision of the 672-2NET bank of 192 modems s= upporting PPP access. The issue of the mode of provision of enhanced remo= te access for students is still unresolved. 7. Electronic Mail. Convenient access to an easy-to= -use electronic mail system is of strategic importance to the University.= Information Services should coordinate the establishment of standards fo= r electronic mail that will allow all users to communicate within and bey= ond the campus in a seamless manner. Strong consideration should be given= to moving electronic mail from primarily a mainframe-based system to a u= ser-friendly local area network system. Further, Information Services should develop an electronic mail directory= to enhance the utilization of the electronic mail system. Also, a desira= ble feature for the electronic mail system would be direct work station/f= ax capabilities. Status: Campus-wide mail support responsibility= has been transferred to ACT. A Unix based mail system which supports dir= ect login and POP access has been provided as an alternative to the KentV= M mainframe based system. The KentVM system is due to be phased out by De= cember of 1999. Accounts have been created on the Unix system for all fa= culty, staff and students. Students are given an introduction to this mai= l system as part of orientation. 8. Campus Telephone System/Voice Mail. The Univ= ersity should examine campus telephone system needs to determine if the c= urrent system adequately fulfill current/future needs as well as accommod= ates changing technological requirements. Strong consideration should be = given to implementing a central switch for voice communications. This wou= ld facilitate the implementation of voice mail on a campus wide basis. Vo= ice mail currently is installed in a few departments within the Universit= y. With a central switch, Business Services could establish standards and= provide for the evolutionary integration of electronic mail and voice ma= il. Status: A study of the telephone system was com= pleted in 1998. The request for bids for a campus-wide phone and voice ma= il system has been distributed and bids are due in March 1999 with comple= tion scheduled for December 1999. This will permit bids for both central = campus switch (PBX) and centrex based systems. No plans for integration o= f voice and electronic mail systems exist at present. 9. Student access. The University network should pe= rmit evolution to integrated campus wide access by students to University= facilities (e.g., library and other information resources, computing res= ources, and student information systems). This would include improved acc= ess from student laboratories and dormitories, dial-in, touch-tone teleph= ones, and possibly kiosk systems. The network should provide students wit= h a means of communicating with other students and faculty (on/off campus= ), access to bulletin boards, and to distance learning from other locatio= ns. Status: The upgraded backbone, intrabuilding wi= ring and Unix based mail and news system achieve this. 10. Classroom Access. The University network should = permit the establishment of fully mediated classrooms. For example, class= rooms need to be wired for different kinds of applications and equipment,= such as networked computers with a control console, computer projection = monitor systems, and access to multimedia devices and products. Status: Selected classrooms have been upgraded. These are m= ostly those involved in the Distance and Distributed Learning Initiative,= located in Moulton Hall, the Library, the College of Business and Music= and Speech. Funding for some of these classrooms has come from external = sources. 11. Distance Learning. The University network should have th= e capacity and flexibility to support the use of multiple classrooms in a= distance learning context and permit easy interchange of classes between= mediated classrooms. Status: The backbone has the necessary capacity. Academic = Computing Study =96 May 1994 8. Campus Network. This committee concurs with the Network and In= formation Systems Study recommendation that, = The University should recognize that a University wide network is becomin= g a required utility (like water and heat) for the survival of a modern c= ampus. The network should be ubiquitous, reliable, and provide adequate = capacity to support voice, data, and interactive video communications. Assuming the completion of the campus backbone it is imperative that conn= ection of offices, classrooms, labs, and rooms in residence halls to the = Kent Campus network should be a top priority in order to provide access t= o campus and global educational resources. Such connection is required f= or the network to be used for online course discussions, delivery of clas= s assignments, course based research, student-faculty communication, and = access to library resources. Connection of LANs to the network also will= allow the sharing of resources such as specialized hardware and common s= oftware. = Status: See comments on NISS 22 and NISS 23. BENEFITS: Overall support for the emerging technological needs of the University wi= ll be improved. = It will be possible to achieve the plan for classroom network access. = Students and faculty will have easy access to OhioLINK and other national= , state, and local computer-based resources. = Students and faculty will have remote access to the library CD- ROM data = bases. = Students will have enhanced access to televised education and entertainme= nt programming. 9. Future Network Enhancements. First, University support of the = widespread use of multimedia will require more bandwidth for LANs and mor= e power for workstations. Second, the University should plan for the gro= wing use of personal laptop computers by providing points of power and ne= twork access across the campuses, recognizing security requirements for b= oth the laptops and the network. = Status: Not yet addressed. The upgrade of the campus backbone, as p= art of the telephone switch plan implementation, will provide improved ba= ndwidth. However, the current plan calls only for 10 Mbps connection to w= orkstations. No provision has been made for personal laptop computers. BENEFITS: The growth of multimedia use will not be slowed by lack of power and ban= dwidth. Classrooms and student workstations will be able to use multimedia, provi= ding both an in-class experience and an opportunity for further study for= the student. = Students will be more likely to purchase laptop computers, knowing that t= hey can connect to the campus network from a number of locations. Expans= ion of computer use will be supported. = As new applications and hardware become available, students and faculty = will be positioned to access, retrieve, and manage data from local and re= mote sites. = 10. Electronic Mail and Network Access. Since the current IBM ma= inframe is not suitable for thousands of e-mail users and cannot adequate= ly support the VT100 emulation required for more sophisticated Internet a= ccess applications such as remote login (telnet), electronic mail should = be migrated from the mainframe to user friendly LAN based systems connect= ed to the Internet. An interface is needed to provide both menu driven a= ccess to enhance friendliness for beginners and direct command options fo= r experienced users to enhance speed and response time. An electronic ma= il directory service should be developed on a UNIX platform to enhance th= e mail system, allowing users to address mail by name (e.g., susan.b.anth= ony@kent.edu). In the ultimate distributed LAN based environment the ser= ver could be used to forward mail to the appropriate LAN thus enabling tr= ansparent correspondence between incompatible mail systems on different L= ANs. It would also reduce the need for individual LANs to maintain full = e-mail directory information on all University users. The UNIX system wo= uld also be used as a main platform for campus-wide mail and Internet acc= ess and as a central node for a distributed campus wide information syste= m. = Status: Completed. See NISS 26. BENEFITS: It will be possible for all students and faculty to have e-mail accounts,= promoting e-mail as a communication tool. = Students and faculty will be able to incorporate the resources of the inf= ormation superhighway (e.g., electronic journal articles) into their work= =2E Communication between students and faculty both at Kent and other institu= tions will, in some cases, be further facilitated and in other cases, mad= e possible. = Students and faculty will gain a better appreciation of the concept of a = global village. = E-mail will be easier and faster to use. = Response times during peak periods will be improved. = Dial-In Access. University dial-in modem lines on the Kent and Re= gional campuses should be connected to networked terminal servers instead= of individual computers in order to enable transparent access from all l= ocations to all University computers and local area networks. These dial= -in connections should be enhanced to support direct Internet connection = using protocols such as SLIP or PPP. In view of the greater role of comp= uting, increasing demand from students and faculty for remote access will= necessitate constant expansion of the number of dial-in lines. = = Status: See NISS 25. BENEFITS: Students and faculty will have greater success in dialing in to the campu= s network. Students and faculty will have better access to the resources that they n= eed. Remote access to University resources will be greatly facilitated. RE= SOURCES AND EQUIPMENT: Network and I= nformation Systems Study - March 1993= 39. Staffing Level/Expertise. The University needs to en= sure that adequate levels of staffing and expertise are provided to manag= e, maintain and implement the vast array of information technology and ne= twork communications equipment and software. The questionnaires and inter= views associated with this study indicated that many members of the Unive= rsity community believe that many current needs remain unmet despite the = excellent efforts of existing technical staff. The Technology Policy Advisory Committee should work with the vice presid= ents to evaluate and develop recommendations on technical staff requireme= nts after assessing current staffing levels, determining new staff requir= ements (consistent with plans), and identifying any staff adjustments (in= terms of expertise, level and number). Where appropriate, retraining pro= grams should be identified to provide technical staff with the skills nec= essary to support the new environment. Status: Adequate levels of staffing have not been achieved. There i= s recognition of the difficulty in retaining computer staff due to salary= differential with the private sector in North-East Ohio, and a salary re= view has been undertaken. While salary inequities in the CIO=92s area hav= e recently been addressed, no concerted action has been taken to address = the salary deficiencies in other areas. This has increased the salary ine= quities in other areas, with resulting increase in dissatisfaction. * On-Going Hardware/Software Resources. The Univer= sity needs to plan for on-going budget resources to address the need to s= upport, upgrade, maintain, and replace hardware and software. One should = recognize that the appropriate level of technology varies widely from dep= artment to department. In addition, planning should incorporate the migra= tion of equipment from users with high-end work station needs to users wi= th low-end work station needs. Note that there is a base level below whic= h it is not cost effective to retain old equipment because of operating a= nd maintenance costs. Status: In the case of members of the tenure track facu= lty collective bargaining unit, this has been remedied through the facult= y refresh program. No ongoing budget is provided for the upgrade of equip= ment for academic administrators, non-tenure track faculty or support st= aff. The needs of students at a departmental level is addressed mostly t= hrough Moveable Equipment House Bill Monies, which is inadequate for the = purpose. This is used mostly for general purpose laboratories for undergr= aduates and for computer classrooms. The need for special purpose laborat= ories and equipment for graduate students is largely unmet. Utilization of general-purpose laboratories is increasing due to the u= se of computer-based testing and the introduction of asynchronous courses= , in addition to the considerable increase due to the incorporation into = more courses of assignments that require computer usage including Interne= t access. 41. Mainframe Computer Upgrade. The Universit= y should plan to upgrade its mainframe computing capacity to support the = data base, integration, and access requirements of the proposed informati= on systems and network. This upgrade should include replacing the existin= g "water cooled" mainframe computer system with a more energy efficient "= air cooled" system. A detail analysis of capacity requirements should be = performed and used to select an appropriate mainframe processor that will= serve current and future needs (i.e. three to five years). If current trends continue, this may be the last mainframe processor that= the University will have to acquire because systems are being re-enginee= red to run on smaller down-sized and net-worked computers. These systems = are expected to be widely available in the later part of this decade. Status: The mainframe has been updated twice in the six years si= nce the NISS report. A new "air cooled" mainframe was acquired. It is un= clear whether this has led to the expected improvements in the level of s= upport of "data base, integration, and access requirements." 42. Minimum Equipment Standards. Information Services, i= n coordination with the Technology Policy Advisory Committee, should deve= lop and provide departments with minimum standards for hardware and softw= are that must be met in order to interface with the University network an= d receive support from the computer equipment services staff. Faculty and= staff who require a work station to do their work should have one as soo= n as possible. These work stations should be appropriate both in terms of= access capabilities and capacity. Where possible, hardware allocated to = faculty should be suitable for instruction and research as well as admini= strative systems access. Status: The University Council on Technology has requested Universi= ty Information Systems to develop a list of supported software. The conce= pt of University level standards, which would be required of departments,= is now considered inappropriate. In the case of members of the tenure tr= ack faculty collective bargaining unit, provision of standardized worksta= tions has been achieved through the faculty refresh program. In most case= s these are appropriate in terms of capabilities. No ongoing budget is pr= ovided for equipment for academic administrators, non-tenure track facult= y, research staff, or support staff. 43. Migration to UNIX Systems. Informat= ion Services should work with appropriate staff (designated by the deans)= to develop a plan for migrating from the obsolete DEC VAX computing envi= ronment to a more contemporary environment (possibly UNIX). This specific= ally includes all nine existing DEC VAX systems. Consideration should be = given to cost effective and distributed UNIX systems, especially for comp= utational intensive applications. Status: The Academic Computing Technology DEC VAX (Zeus) is = due for decommissioning spring 1999. Users are migrating to PC, Linux and= IBM SP based applications. 44. Hardware Maintenance. Information Services shoul= d evaluate computer hardware maintenance resources to determine how best = to provide cost-effective, adequate, and timely service and support in th= e current and future environment. Status: Academic Computing Technology and Network Services h= ave initiated joint appointments of systems staff with academic and admin= istrative departments. However, this continues to be a major unresolved i= ssue. In recognition of this situation, at its December 4, 1998, meeting,= the University Council on Technology unanimously passed motions that: * The "Integrated Technology Planning Committee" ensure that adequate t= echnical support for both faculty and staff is a major consideration in t= heir deliberations. * The CIO request approximately $300,000 of continuing funding for addi= tional technical support staff with cross divisional responsibility begin= ning in fiscal year 2000. 45. Site Licensing. Information Services in coordina= tion with the Technology Policy Advisory Committee and the Purchasing Dep= artment, should negotiate site licenses or volume purchase discounts when= ever possible when acquiring work station software. When cost effective, = site licenses should be pursued to encourage the use of supported softwar= e. Status: As part of the migration from KentVM, site licenses for PC = versions of SPSS and SAS have been acquired. In addition, a McAfee virus = protection site license has been obtained and various utility software an= d tutorials for the MS Office suite are available for downloading from th= e ACT web site. Academi= c Computing Study =96 May 1994 12. External Funding. The University should engage in developmen= t efforts to secure additional external funding to upgrade teaching and l= aboratory environments. = Status: Additional funds have been secured from Goodyear to = create the Goodyear Electronic Classroom in the College of Business Admin= istration and from Ameritech to create the Ameritech Classroom in Moulton= Hall. Other external funding has been obtained from AT&T, ??? to com= plete further facilities in Moulton Hall. The Centennial Commission consi= dered necessary enhancements in learning technologies and recommended a m= ajor fund drive which could generate funding for this purpose. Rosemary D= u Mont is currently compiling a report on External Funding from all sources, public and private for these purposes.= = BENEFITS: It will be possible to enhance some teaching and learning environments in= ways not otherwise achievable. = 13. Funding for New Equipment and Maintenance. Ongoing funding n= eeds to be provided for the purchase of new equipment, equipment replacem= ent, and maintenance for discipline-specific applications. Equipment acq= uisitions should take into account the rapidly increasing requirements fo= r capacity and functionality occasioned by recent software and multimedia= advances. Academic units must recognize that maintenance should be give= n a higher priority in the budget, so that there is adequate funding of d= epartmental lines to manage equipment maintenance. Academic units, in co= nsultation with the proposed advocate for academic technology (see Recomm= endation #26), should periodically review the need to upgrade or replace = aging equipment. The advocate, with the assistance of Computer Services,= should investigate alternative ways to contract for maintenance and repa= ir, for example the use of off-campus vendors with centralized coordinati= on and quality control. The advocate should review the pricing structure= for service contracts offered by Computer Equipment Services to ensure t= hey remain competitive with outside vendors. Status: In the case of members of the tenure track faculty colle= ctive bargaining unit, provision of standardized workstations has been ac= hieved through the faculty refresh program. In most cases these are appro= priate in terms of capabilities. No ongoing budget is provided for the up= grade of equipment for academic administrators, non-tenure track faculty = or support staff. Funding for this purpose for academic administrators a= t the unit level is currently being considered. The needs of students at a departmental level is addressed mostly thro= ugh Moveable Equipment House Bill Monies, which is inadequate for the pur= pose. This is used mostly for general purpose laboratories for undergradu= ates and for computer classrooms. The need for special purpose laboratori= es and equipment for graduate students is largely unmet. Utilization of general-purpose laboratories is increasing due to the u= se of computer-based testing and the introduction of asynchronous courses= , in addition to the considerable increase due to the incorporation into = more courses of assignments that require computer usage including Interne= t access. In addition, ACT has negotiated volume PC discounts with Dell in con= junction with the faculty refresh program. These discounts are available = to all members of the University community. Ongoing maintenance issues in general have not been addressed. Computer E= quipment Services has been disbanded. = BENEFITS: There will be significant improvements in equipment repair practices. = Equipment repair will be more timely. = Unit expectations for maintenance and support will be more closely met. Equipment will be more cost effectively utilized. = Computing equipment will receive better service. = Equipment will be more reliable and downtime will be reduced. = 14. Central Pool of Equipment. In cases where low departmental u= sage does not justify acquisition, the department should work with Audio = Visual Services (AVS) to borrow equipment from a central pool when needed= =2E Funds should be made available to academic units and/or AVS to acqui= re and support commonly needed hardware and software. = Status: AVS supplies academic units with projection equipment. Depa= rtmental usage is increasing to the point where most departments require = continuous use of projection equipment. In addition, AVS provides mainten= ance for AV equipment and Teleproductions for cameras, which conforms to = their standards. However, the AVS equipment budget is not adequate to acq= uire sufficient pieces of portable equipment to meet the demand. As the = demand exceeds the efficiency of delivering portable equipment, neither A= VS nor most academic departments have sufficient funds to acquire equipme= nt to be installed in high demand locations. BENEFITS: More specialized instructional technology will be used in the classroom. = Support for grant proposal presentations and field research will be incre= ased. = 15. Peripherals. At least one network/LAN connected laser printe= r should be provided in each academic building. = Status: There is still great disparity between departments. Some de= partments still do not have departmental LANs, much less LAN connected la= ser printers. BENEFITS: Access to quality printing will be improved. Travel time to laser quality printing facilities will be reduced. OTHER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS= SUES: Network and I= nformation Systems Study - March 1993= 46. Academic Computing Plan. With exception of the network and information systems in= frastructure, the scope of this study did not include the needs of academ= ic computing. The IBM consultant cautioned against making the study too b= road and recommended that a separate study be undertaken to develop an ac= ademic computing plan. The objectives of this study would be to develop a= n institutional plan for academic computing, and instruction and classroo= m support that integrates research and instructional technology with the = overall network and information systems infrastructure proposed here. This plan should make provision for adequate and consistent general purpo= se computer laboratory facilities and access to computers, projection tec= hnology, CDs, and video disks to support classroom teaching. To realize t= he benefits of the propo