Transcript IT plans - Montana University System

Overview of the State of Information
Technology on MUS Campuses
Mark Sheehan, CIO – MSU-Bozeman (for MSU)
Ray Ford, CIO – UM-Missoula (for UM)
November 2004
STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
THE GENERAL QUESTIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
How are MUS campuses doing with their IT infrastructure?
How do MUS IT efforts compare to national benchmarks?
Are students on our campuses getting what they need?
What challenges do campuses face with regard to IT?
OUR APPROACH
•
•
Provide high level overview now
Ask in which areas the Board would like more details
WHAT ARE WE DOING?
STRUCTURE OF IT ON CAMUSES
1.
CENTRAL RESOURCES AND SERVICES
•
•
Networks (voice, data, video)
Enterprise Information System (EIS)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Banner and ancillary systems
Web environment
Course management system (WebCT, Blackboard)
Library system
Help Desk
Hardware sales and maintenance (IT Center or Bookstore)
Student computer labs (part)
Support for student PC ownership
WHAT ARE WE DOING?
STRUCTURE OF IT ON CAMUSES (cont’d)
2.
DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES AND SERVICES
•
•
•
•
•
Student computer labs (part)
Local PC and application support
Local Web servers
Instructional computing resources and personnel
Research computing resources and personnel
PRIMARY EIS
BANNER AND RELATED SYSTEMS
ALL CAMPUSES
• Have central Banner environments – in Missoula and Bozeman
• Are developing secondary backup/disaster recovery sites as budget
permits
• Are on a regular Banner upgrade cycle, remaining current with
manufacturer’s releases
• Have software license maintenance costs and hardware replacement
costs centrally budgeted
• Are utilizing Banner/Web services to offer more efficient services to
employees and students
• Are developing “campus portals” to further improve services
OTHER EIS
WEB ENVIRONMENT
ALL CAMPUSES
• Are utilizing specialized course management systems to provide
instructional materials over the Web (more about this later)
• Are evaluating Web content management systems to make the task of
developing and updating content more efficient
• Are beginning to look hard at how Web-based facilities can be used to
streamline business practices
OTHER EIS
EMAIL AND LIBRARY SYSTEMS
EMAIL SYSTEMS
• All campuses utilize email to streamline business practices
• But are struggling with the ever-increasing volume of incoming
“spam” and viruses
LIBRARY SYSTEMS
• UM and MSU use different but highly interoperable systems
• But struggle to meet the demand for costly on-line content
OTHER EIS
COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
ALL CAMPUSES
• Use course management systems (CMSs) at some level
• Are working to expand use of CMSs
• Hope to integrate their CMSs with Banner, Banner’s Web facilities,
and their emerging campus portals to improve seamlessness of:
• Advising
• Class schedule
• Classroom
• Grade book
• Transcript
ALL EIS
ASSESSMENT
How are we doing? (1)
• Banner and library systems are mature and stable
• PeopleSoft and Oracle alternatives in use elsewhere are less so
• Universities have implemented many Web services for
students and employees
• Portals will multiply the available Web services when rolled out
(summer and fall 2005)
ALL EIS
ASSESSMENT
How are we doing? (2)
• General Web services are based on stable platforms
• Universities have mutual emergency assistance agreements
• Web pages are not now centrally branded and managed
• Both universities have projects to expand use of standard style,
branding, and templates
• Both universities are evaluating content management systems
ALL EIS
ASSESSMENT
How are we doing? (3)
• Email systems at all campuses are migrating toward Webbased systems
• Available anytime, anywhere
• Soon all will be integrated with university portals
• Library systems are mature and effective
• Based on industry standards
• Highly interoperable
• Portal integration is planned
ALL EIS
COMPARISON (1)
Primary EIS and Portal
• 65% of doctoral-level universities either have or
are implementing integrated primary EIS systems
like Banner
• 58% of doctoral-level universities either have or
are implementing a Web portal; another 30% are
planning them
EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey, 2003
ALL EIS
COMPARISON (2)
Course Management System
• 65% of doctoral-level universities support a single
commercial course management system
• 13% of doctoral-level universities support more
than one commercial course management system
• At 12% of doctoral-level universities faculty use
course management systems for all courses
EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey, 2003
ALL EIS
COMPARISON (3)
Use of courseware management systems
• University of Montana–Missoula
– 56% of students have CMS accounts
– 15% of sections use CMS
• Montana State University-Bozeman
– 47% of students have CMS accounts
– 8% of sections use CMS
STUDENT COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
MUS Owned Facilities (1)
• Student ownership of computers is not mandatory
for all students at any MUS campus
• Certain programs do require computer ownership (e.g.,
MSU Architecture & UM Law)
• All campuses offer central student computing labs
• Degree of centralization varies
• Some central labs
• Some departmental or program-specific labs
STUDENT COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
MUS Owned Facilities (2)
• All campuses are moving toward:
• Regular hardware refresh (3-4 year cycle)
• With the help of student computer fee revenues
• Centrally supported software purchases and/or campus
agreements (e.g., Microsoft Windows and Office,
MacOS, Symantec/Norton anti-virus)
• Mandatory administration/security standards for
installation of security patches, anti-virus updates, etc.
STUDENT COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
ASSESSMENT
• FTE students per public computer (est.)
UM-Missoula
5.5
MSU-Bozeman
13.0
All Public Universities
12.4*
*2003
Campus Computing Survey
NETWORKING
LEVELS OF NETWORKING
Network types:
• Campus
• Between offices; between buildings
• Intercampus
• Between campuses; between campuses and state agencies
• Wide Area
• Between campuses and the Internet and Internet2
NETWORKING
CAMPUS NETWORKING
Components and issues (1):
• Building wiring
• Requires replacement on 10-year cycle
• Current standard is Category 6; most buildings have Category 5/5e
• Major overhaul will be required in 3-5 years
• Campus backbone
• Most campuses have fiber optic backbone
• Good for another 10-20 years
• Most campus backbones operate at one gigabit per second
• Faster than most current PCs can transmit or receive
• May prove inadequate for emerging research needs
NETWORKING
CAMPUS NETWORKING
Components and issues (2):
• Wireless networks
• Offer generally slower speeds than wired networks
• Do not support some popular applications will, e.g., audio file sharing
• Offer greatly enhanced convenience
• PCs
• PDAs
• Very popular among students
• Turns public areas into “labs”
• Enables classroom innovation
• Has student recruitment and retention value
NETWORKING
INTERCAMPUS NETWORKING
Summitnet
• Partnership between UM, MSU, and the State IT Services
Division
• Has been useful for:
• Linking smaller campuses to larger ones
• Linking all campuses to state government agencies and OCHE
• Providing transport for METNET video teleconferencing services
NETWORKING
WIDE AREA NETWORKING (1)
Internet:
• Connects campuses to other universities, government
agencies, organizations, and commercial enterprises
• Primary conduit for email and Web traffic
• Supplements Summitnet for intercampus communication
• Demand from students and employees doubles every year
or two
NETWORKING
WIDE AREA NETWORKING (2)
Internet2:
• A separate, uncongested, high-speed research-focused
network
• MSU-Bozeman, UM-Missoula, and UM-Montana Tech are
participants
• Requires expensive high-speed circuit
• Takes some load off of “commodity” Internet circuits
• Research community demand for I2 is increasing much
more rapidly than campus demand for Internet
NETWORKING
WIDE AREA NETWORKING (3)
Future networks:
• MSU-Bozeman has a grant to increase research network
bandwidth this year to 2.4 gigabits per second (a 50-fold
increase).
• UM-Missoula has taken a leadership position in the
Northern Tier Networking Consortium which seeks to
bring similar research network speeds to the I-90/I-94
corridor from Washington to Minnesota.
• MSU and the state IT Services Division are also a members of
NTNC
NETWORKING
ASSESSMENT
Campus networking:
• The campuses are keeping pace with technology
Intercampus networking:
• Summitnet can continue to serve the universities for 3-5
more years – longer if NTNC becomes reality
Wide Area Networking
• MSU-Bozeman and UM-Missoula are leaders in our part
of the country.
NETWORKING
COMPARISON (1)
• Commodity Internet bandwidth
• MSU-Bozeman and UM-Missoula provide 45-50
megabits per second (mbps)
• Only 17% of doctoral universities provide 44 mbps or
less
• 60% of doctoral universities provide 90 mbps or more
2003 EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey
NETWORKING
COMPARISON (2)
• Internet2 bandwidth
• MSU-Bozeman and UM-Missoula provide 45
megabits per second (mbps)
• Only 19% of doctoral universities provide 44 mbps or
less
• 63% of doctoral universities provide 90 mbps or more
2003 EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey
FUNDING
REVENUE SOURCES
All campuses fund IT from a variety of sources:
• Regular funds (tuition and state money)
• Specific fees (Student Computer Fee, Technology
Fee, Instructional Equipment Fee)
• Charge-backs for some services
• Campuses with large research programs may have
additional large but restricted funding for IT
FUNDING
BUDGETS
All campuses:
• Are constrained in the new initiatives they can take on
• Face challenges in having to continually support new
technologies
• Are managing to stay more or less even, helped by cost
decreases in some areas
• Are seeking stability and efficiencies
FUNDING FOR IT
• IT expenditures as a percent of total institutional
expenditures:
UM-Missoula
2.60%
MSU-Bozeman
2.25%
Public Universities Avg.
4.8%*
*2003
Campus Computing Survey
CAMPUS HIGHLIGHTS
University of Montana
•
Missoula
–
–
•
Implementing CampusEAI Oracle portal; Missoula first, then
other campuses
Working to join Lariat regional optical network
Montana Tech
–
–
•
Development of wireless network
Development of an Access Grid Node
Western
–
–
•
Installation of wireless laboratory
Completion of Gigabit campus network backbone
Helena College of Technology
–
Working with ITSD on sharing network infrastructure
CAMPUS HIGHLIGHTS
Montana State University
•
Billings
–
–
•
Implemented Voice-Over-IP for telephone & unified messaging
Academic Technology Development Resource – 60 computers
Bozeman
–
–
•
Implementing Luminis Portal with and for all four campuses
Bringing up 2.4 Gbps Lariat regional optical network
Great Falls
–
–
•
Developing a campuswide wireless network
Building grant-supported Consolidated Classroom
Northern
–
–
Purchased 4 TB network-attached storage for shared disk space
Enabled secure wireless access in Library and Student Union