DCS Expert Group
January 27, 1998
12:00 - 1:15
Carruthers Hall, Conference Room 6
In attendance: Randy Smith, Mary Creed, Aron Teel, Mitch Rosen, Terry Lockard, David Phillips, Kathy Reed, Nancy Hopkins, Debbie Mincarelli, Tom Gausvik, Dave Ripley
In attendance: Gary Banks, Mary Creed, Tim Gillet, Mitch Rosen, Kathy Reed, Aron Teel, Randy Smith, Terry Lockard, Nancy Rogers, Nancy Hopkins
It was suggested that we open the conference up to non-LSPs as a way for them to gain some professional development. The incremental cost would be fairly minimal. Non-LSPs could pay a small registration fee to off-set the additional cost. Additional "Futures Forums" could be scheduled for non-LSPs. There was agreement that a good future topic for an LSP conference would be "Best Practices." Folks from other institutions could be invited to make presentations on their distributed support practices. LSPs could also benefit from hearing from their peers here at UVa. These ideas will be discussed with LSPs.
Terry talked about Local Support Associates (LSAs). These are folks in departments that do some computer support but who do not qualify for the LSP program. Professional development is provided to LSPs via the Computer Survival Skills workshops.
There was concern from some members of the group that some departments lack the funds to implement the recommendations that ITC makes via the assessments. Departments and schools must set their priorities and they may not feel that technology is a top priority. The Engineering school makes technology a top priority because of the accreditation process they must go through on a regular basis. If the technology isn't there, they may not get re-accredited. The College is by far the largest school at the University. That means there are more channels for people to request funds from the Dean, so it may be a harder for the College to put funds into technology.
There was discussion about how and where ITC gets its expertise for assessments. ITC uses the knowledge and experience of a wide range of ITC staff in conducting the assessments. Which staff are involved depends on the needs and the environment of the department being assessed. ITC's recommendations are based on experience gathered not only from UVa but also from other institutions and knowledge gained at conferences. In addition to looking at technology needs, ITC addresses business process management and staffing solutions when appropriate. When necessary, personnel issues are discussed confidentially with department management rather than as part of the assessment report.
With respect to end-user training conducted by departments, Terry noted that ITC does conduct "Train the Technical Trainer" workshops and mentioned the Local Training Partner (LTP) program which provides training and support to those in departments who do end-user technical training. ITC still provides end user training and has no plans to discontinue that. Terry also noted that we are working on a seminar for non-technical supervisors of technical support personnel.
There was quite a bit of discussion regarding future of classroom support and how that might affect the LSP program. There is concern that the current model of computer classroom support may not be adequate in some areas. At the present time, ITC uses a ratio of 1 support person for every 5 computer classrooms it maintains. Departments would like to install discipline-specific software in the classrooms. This increases classroom support. It was suggested that perhaps LSPs could provide support to the classrooms where specialized software is installed and ITC could be used as a backup. Similarly, perhaps LSPs could be backups for ITC classroom support folks. Because of the wide range of disciplines that are using the classrooms in Cabell and Wilson, it is much more difficult to support and maintain those classrooms. Darden and Law have an easier time because other departments rarely use their electronic classrooms. It was noted that the 10 or 15 minute window between classes may not be adequate for electronic classrooms because of the time needed to setup and breakdown equipment for some classes. In addition, current classroom utilization requirements do not differentiate between lecture-style classrooms and electronic classrooms and this makes it difficult to schedule maintenance while at the same time maximizing the utilization. Faculty prefer may to bring in their own laptops and plug them in rather than use the machines provided in the room because of their (sometimes unfounded) fears about the stability of publicly accessible machines. It was noted that there is pressure from some faculty and students to have "state-of-the-art" machines in classrooms. However, the Provost's office realizes that state-of-the-art technology does not mean stable technology so they tend not to install the latest and greatest technology. This can pose problems because many students come to school with the latest hardware and software - more advanced than what is available to faculty to use in their teaching.
Many schools are now requiring students to own their own computers. It is likely that UVa will require ownership in the future. The schools that have had the most success with this are small, private institutions that demand that students adhere to specific standards. The big question is who will pay for the computers. Students at UVa clearly do not want to pick up the tab.
Randy noted that support costs for Darden have increased with the requirement that students bring computers. If UVa requires that students have computers then there is some inherent obligation to provide support for the computers. This could affect LSPs. Currently, students with computers are relying on instructors and TAs for some level of support. Darden employs 5 FTE to support 500 students.
An Engineering school survey indicated that 80% of their 1st year students have computers. Gary noted that 18 months ago approximately 88% of Law students had a PC and an additional 5% had access to a PC in their residence. He is fairly certain that thenumber have not declines since that survey. A more recent survey has been done, but the results have not yet been tabulated. Gary is currently working on a plan to determine how the Law school will address the funding and support of computers for law students. Clear expectations must be set with students.
Terry explained that ITC's deployment of NT labs has been difficult. It was recently decided that most labs will be converted to Windows 95 or Windows 98 this summer. Stacks and Slaughter labs will keep NT workstation. Older labs (those in the dorms) will remain Window 3.1 for now.
In the meantime, group members should be thinking about the roles and responsibilities diagram. Discussion of the diagram will continue.