University of Wisconsin–Madison

November 19, 2010 Agenda

    1. Preliminaries
      2009-10 annual report – Katrina received minor edits.
      Jon McKenzie moved to approve, Paul Oliphant seconded, passed unanimously.
      October 2010 Minutes – Katrina moved to approve, Jeffrey Linderoth seconded, passed unanimously.
    1. Strategic Plan Update (Joanne Berg)
      Joanne expressed appreciation to all for their input on the Strategic Plan. What has been done at this point has been taken to the chancellor’s cabinet. What she asks is for a risk assessment if items are not done, and a cost-benefit of items for the cabinet to know where to invest time, money, and resources. Joanne identified 5 recommendations that need to move forward. IT Strategic Plan Advisory Council will be formed to do a risk assessment. John Krogman and Joanne, two faculty members (Katrina agreed to serve as did Matt Jones), MTAG will have two representatives, Brian Rust will represent Communications. Carol Gossenheimer will facilitate. Risk assessment, prioritization and a timeline for implementing will be the tasks.
      Collaborators need to be identified for each of the theme areas (e.g., teaching and Learning, appropriate technologies, outreach … see

      The five (5) key initiatives are:
      1 – Improve and align IT resources for researchers,
      2 – Overhaul funding model for campus IT
      3 – Implement identity and access management and software
      4 – Review and integration of data center and data storage centers
      5 – Develop stewardship policies and invest in security services.
      Other items will move forward in concert with the above.
      Joanne will send her draft report to the committee in upcoming weeks.
      Q. – Lisa: Where is Teaching and Learning support?
      Joanne: It is not in top recommendations. Teaching and Learning area already has work done, and will continue to support and prioritize. Collaborators will be the new AT Director, ComETS, and Provost for Teaching and Learning.
      Some teaching and learning is better served if improved identify management software, storage, etc. is in place. We cannot do everything.
      Katrina: What is the overview of how priorities sorted out at last month’s high impact exercise?
      Joanne: The one that came out highest was research and what I am hearing around campus is there is not a coordinated effort.
      Jon: Can you update us on the CIO search?
      Joanne – Annie Stunden was Director of DoIT and took on the CIO title in an unofficial way. When she left, an external review with the search committee identified that the CIO needs to be separate from central IT and lead strategic planning on campus. Ron tried to take that role on. The question of how the CIO relates to DoIT is not yet answered. What is the role of CIO on campus and what does the campus want that person to do, and the role of federated model of CIOs on campus (Vet Med, School of Ed, etc.) and their reporting roles are questions yet to be answered.
      Katrina: The CIO search committee has been finalized – Jake Blanchard is the chairperson, and I am on the committee.
      Joanne: By the end of January, we would like to have a plan finalized and to the chancellor and cabinet so the new CIO can hit the ground running.


    1. HRS (Human Resource System) Project (Lorie Docken, Elise Barho) – See PPT
      Lorie gave background and explained that HRS is the largest IT project ever undertaken at UW. It will revolutionize the way the University of Wisconsin handles employee services by streamlining human resources, payroll, benefits, absence management, and time and labor into one system. Employee self-service will enhance the way you manage your employee information. You will be able to access your payroll information, enroll in benefits, and enter absence information, update contact and employee information, and record time online. For more information: .
      Elise explained that HRS is a transparent project in terms of governance and reporting. Project has transparency and is reporting to several entities including the Board of Regents. IT projects have not had this in the past.
      Communication is via intranet and Internet

      HRS is now in testing phase. Rollout timing has two windows of opportunity – one in mid-April, and the back-up is mid-May. After June is the fiscal change, Students and classes are in Sept, open enrollment is in Oct.
      After the rollout there will be monthly releases of reporting and time entry. In 2012, talent acquisition manager will be released.

      HRS Project structure
      2 years ago there were 20 people involved, now there are over 500 from all campuses. Each campus creates their own team for all aspects, with advisory groups. This will stay in place after implementation to improve performance; this is why the project is going well. It is a network of relationships. There are 170 on the project team including Huron consultants.
      Challenges unique to UW System and State of WI are issues such as work-study, furloughs, and FERPA.
      HRS will be on the portal under self-service. Eventually we will see a section on HRS for employee benefit statement etc. Payroll professionals have a different set of transactions based on their role: if one is a manager and has to approve time, there is still another portal view.
      The bottom line is – the project is going well.
      Paul: Will HRS replace Kronos?
      Elise: Yes – there will be new time clocks and time and labor modules.
      Don – eventually civil service employees will also follow. Pay schedules with classified and students will be aligned.
      Clare – Is anything related to governor transition and changes to UW employment benefits, and furlough known?
      Elise: if furloughs are changed, HRS will be affected.
      Katrina: Now there are 500 people working on this, 170 project team members – when successfully implemented, how many continue?
      Lorie: We don’t have the answer today. We are getting closer to an estimate. An executive committee governs HRS. A working group is addressing how many are needed to support it after cutover. External consultants (Huron) are analyzing the 181 business processes and the impact on workload. This is an $81M project being implemented, and ongoing resources to support it will need to be proportionate. It is the expected that it will involve more staff to operate the PeopleSoft HRS environment than the legacy system currently in use.
      Katrina: Will the HRS system be platform-independent?
      Elise: Yes, and testing is ongoing with most browsers

      Alan Ng: How many Madison DoIT staff will be needed?
      A. This is a question for John Krogman (who was not present).


    1. Research Computing: Social Science Computing Cooperative (Nancy McDermott and Andy Arnold) – See PPT
      This is a shared computing model that has been around for 25 years. Clients are available for a variety of devices including thin clients, iPad, iPod. It is cross- platform and able to access local printers, email, applications and more. Faculty, staff and students have access to statistical computing software as well as standard tools.
      Q. How many users can be on any particular application (refers to licenses)?
      Nancy: Users (3,000) log in, so we can track usage. We have enough licenses for maximum usage –when we reach maximum, we order more licenses.
      In 2006, we took on students. It is very popular, as students can use from their homes.
      The system is scalable. We can add new members (departments and research institutes), or can join per-seat for smaller groups.
      Dan Jacobsohn: As a new CIO at School of Ed, I looked closely at this system and there has been only positive feedback about it at this time.
      Chris Hopp: We have been trying to partner with these efforts, as well as engineering (Rob) to share software licensing which would be advantageous. We will continue. There are stages or tiers to buy in – participate as departmental or ? la cart. We can look at terminal services licensing campus wide in the future. UW-Madison purchasing and UW System are also involved in Microsoft licensing. As we enter the virtual world, vendors are getting savvier on how to bill us. The more we can do to share licenses, the more advantageous for all.
      Work with Chris Hopp, DoIT, for future negotiations if you have an interest.
      Q. How are other campuses in the CIC negotiating licenses, and is the CIC buying consortium involved?
      A. Shared license management team (SLIM) group would be the place to work on this. SLIM was started a year ago out of the ITC committee, and Chris’s position was also created as part of the outreach.
      Library licensing (U. Pittsburgh) is another model for licensing.
      Alan Ng: AIM is considering this for their strategic plan, and should be contacted.
      Paul: What about credentials? Do you use NetID?
      A: No, we have our own active directory. There are technical limitations that don’t allow campus NetID integration at this time.


    1. Gathering Info for the Course Guide using Open Text (Jon McKenzie and Meagan Rothschild, PA)
      As users involved with digital studies, Jon and Meagan researched what media courses are being offered next semester. Courses offered over time, specifically this coming semester were sought, to help students see outside their own study area. However, after not being able to find courses, Jon and Meagan met with Karen and DoIT folks.
      Jon identified a need for campus faculty and departments to provide information. Aaron Brower, Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning said this request should come from the CIO.
      Karen Hansen (addressing Course Guide) found that when searching for a particular word, nothing came back – a fix is underway. In instructor-provided content, key words are also needed. In the Faculty center – faculty enter their textbook info, and here they can add keywords and course description, and their syllabus. This will be ready by March for summer and fall schedule.
      Faculty adoption is not robust. The question is where/how to get faculty and support staff to participate? Is Open Text ( formerly Red Dot) software (which can publish to multiple destinations) the answer?
      Why is adding a new technology a solution? Why not pull this information from departmental web sites? There are common places for this data to reside, and data can be shared with other entities. We need multiple ways to get existing data.
      Faculty already need to provide textbook information, however the info provided is inconsistent. What is needed is help to standardize – so only one entry passes through to other locations. Not all courses have textbooks.
      Karen The Faculty center allows for entry of key word and description. If we can get faculty or support staff to enter this information, the Course Guide search engine can be used to find it.
      Paul O.: If Google can do the searches we should be able to. Finding key words within .doc or .pdf files is possible-as well as making this information available for use by those around campus through an API or other information services.
      Phil: Better to look to student services coordinators within departments to harvest this information and provide it.
      Katrina: Faculty members are not going to go another place to deposit information again. The info exists (Learn@UW, department websites, etc.) How to gather information that already exists is needed. Spend time and $$ to cull information already there.
      ITC can possibly assist in the following ways:
      1 – Form a team of faculty to advise us
      2 – Aaron could make recommendation to the Provost and it moves down
      3 – Gather other ideas to improve Course Guide
      4 – The student perspective will be helpful.
      Jon will work on a formal recommendation for the committee. We will discuss this again next month.


  1. Announcements
    – CTIG (Rob Kohlhepp) – We are looking for a CTIG liaison replacement to ITC. Exchange and SharePoint discussion are coming up.
    – MTAG (Steve Hahn) – No report
    – ComETS (Lisa Jansen) – No report
    – Moodle Council (Eric Alborn) No report
    – NAG (Richard Kunert) – There is discussion on Data Centers. A full report can wait.
    Meeting Adjourned at 12 Noon

    Next Meeting: December 17, 2010
    10:00 – 12:00 Location: TBD

    Craig Benson, Civil & Environmental Engineering
    Katrina Forest (Chair), Bacteriology; Biological Sciences
    Jeffrey Linderoth, Industrial and Systems Engineering; Physical Sciences
    Jon McKenzie, English; Art and Humanities

    Academic Staff
    Eric Alborn, Business
    Paul Oliphant, Wendt Commons
    Mike Pflieger, L&S

    Elliott Rezny, Undergraduate

    Non-Voting Members
    Ex Officio
    Joanne Berg, Interim CIO and Vice Provost for Information Technology

    Provost Appointments
    Dan Edlebeck, Enrollment Mgt./Registrar
    Clare Huhn, Representative of the Provost
    Don Miner, Business Services, Rep VC for Administration

    Campus Liaison, Group
    Lisa Jansen (LSS), ComETS
    Rob Kohlhepp (CAE), CTIG
    Richard Kunert, Biotechnology Center, Network Advisory Group

    Meagan Rothschild, PA, Digital Humanities
    Cathy O’Bryan, DoIT
    Hideko Mills, CIO Office
    Judy Caruso, CIO Office
    Elise Barho, HRS
    Lorie Docken, UWS
    Aaron Apel, Registrar’s Office
    Chris Hopp, DoIT
    Alan Wolf, DoIT / Center for Biology Education
    Lillian Tong, ICBE
    Cheryl Wise, RO
    Al Krug, DoIT
    Tom Wise, FPM, SMO
    Karen Hanson, Ofc of the Registrar
    Jack Duwe, DoIT
    Phil Barak, CALS
    Andrew Arnold, SSCC
    Nancy McDermott, SSCC
    Bruno Browning, LSS
    Dan Jacobsohn, School of Education
    Alice Anderson, DoIT, minutes
    Brian Rust, DoIT