Meeting Notes - January 19, 2011
The team welcomed Byron Lilly as a tri-chair and introduced themselves.
1) Approval of Notes from November 17, 2010The notes were approved.
2) ETS Prioritization Final List
Sherman passed out the final prioritized list of technology projects. Each college and central services had input on prioritizing the list. The list plans ahead for two years. There are more projects on list than the District can complete in two years so the projects will be done in phases. Input/feedback will be sought when setting the phases.
It is ETS's goal to bring the list back to the Colleges once a quarter to review new projects and to re-prioritize as needed. ETS stated that once a project is commenced it will be completed and will not be halted to insert a different project.
The team discussed various projects in more detail.
Sherman would like Technology Task Force (TTF) to prioritize the Wireless list. The list would be posted on the TTF web site. The project is nearing the end of phase two. This would be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
3) ETS Proposal Regarding How Project Requests are Submitted
ETAC are working on a rationalized submission and review document to clarify how the District establishes criteria and prioritizes requests. Their goal is to have a consistent, well defined processes with improved communication.
ETAC is a subcommittee to the Chancellor’s Advisory Council. ETAC meets once a month and do not prioritize projects.
Some of the questions asked in the new document are: How large is the project, how long will the project last, is there budget, are resources available, are support services available?
Under the Project Impact Section there are 20 different criteria questions. Answers automatically score points in an excel spreadsheet. There are 2 axis 1) how valuable 2) how much effort. From this matrix a ranking is produced. Points can be adjusted for points (weighting). This document is the first step in prioritizing requests not the final prioritization. It should be considered as a guide. Accreditation/compliance issues, for example, would take priority.
The team discussed how projects get on to the list. Where do project requests get captured? There should be an internal De Anza process. There is a possibility of using the call center. It was agreed that Deans/Managers should be notified first. So far, the list comprises of many methods of input such as, email, voice-mail, written notes, etc.
A De Anza process for capturing requests would be placed on the next TTF agenda. Metcalf requested that the members download the document, review it, and send input to him or Pippa for incorporation in the discussion at the next meeting.
4) ETAC Update
As per the two items above.
5) Technology Strategic Plan Approved and Incorporated into Accreditation Document
Metcalf informed the team that the Technology Strategic Plan was adopted into the Accreditation documents.
6) Distance Learning Delivery of Searchable Video
Metcalf reviewed the history of the previous Distance Learning video delivery system. After much review and discussion it was decided that the new system would use QuickTime. Metcalf explained that all video has to be closed captioned as per state mandates. From that Metcalf devised a way and wrote a new program that provides searchable internet video. After research it was apparent that not just deaf students but that ESL students are also very excited to have this service available.
Metcalf described it as a "Holy Grail" project that had been on his mind for a long while and was based on student requests. He described it as a very powerful tool for students to review all lectures at any time. Metcalf will document and release this software program as open source. Metcalf is currently working on making this a fully automated system.
In answer to a question on how long a faculty member would have to wait to use a studio, Kahn reminded the team that there are no production staff in the district now, due to the loss of Greg Barchenfeld and his position. However, De Anza's TRG department are still offering the service as the department's schedules allow. Kahn also explained that there has to be one quarter’s lead-time in order for the department to provide the editing and functionality necessary.
The team recognized the amount of time and effort Metcalf spent on writing this program and gave him a round of applause for his dedication.
7) Quick News
Grobman asked for clarification on process for prioritizing smart classrooms, if there is a list, and if there is a campuswide review. McFarland reported that there is a Technology Prioritization Committee which has members from the Deans, ETS, AVP Instruction, VP Finance, FF&E, who meet once a month and work together to prioritize the list of requests on a campuswide basis.
If call center requests are not resolved report the matter to ETS Directors or F. Sherman. Please email requests to the call center if possible. You will get a ticket number and a confirmation number.
The voice mail system is very old and will be replaced in the next few years. Users will be asked for feedback on functionality.
Members should send agenda items to the co-chairs or Pippa for incorporation into the next agenda.
MK Englen informed the team that she is working on a new license agreement for FileMaker Pro 11. So far there are 21 users.
Present: Englen, Francis, Grobman, Kaur, Kahn, Kazempour, McFarland, Metcalf, Mowrey, Owiesny, Qian, Rosenberg, F. Sherman, Wilkins-Greene, DASB: Choi, Giang. Apologies: Jeanpierre, Dolen. Notes: Gibson