Sunken Garden

Technology Task Force

Meeting Notes - February 16, 2011


1) Approve Notes from January 19, 2011  

The notes were approved.


2) Proposed Process for Requesting/Prioritizing New Technology Projects

Lilly explained that the College and ETS would like to determine a permanent, ongoing process for requesting and prioritizing new technology requests.

Lilly presented and explained a document outlining the current process and the proposed new prioritization process. The team discussed the merits of various scenarios. Sherman, when asked for his recommendation, stated that he would like to see a short process at the college level that would promote timelier decision-making and increased efficiency.

 During the discussion the following comments were made:

  • Cs need to be prioritized on a finer level as it will currently take 5-years to complete all the Cs. Consider rank ordering
  • Should there be more than one process?
  • Replacement equipment and new equipment will be prioritized through two different process
  • Luciw stated that ETS has a campuswide process that refreshes computers and equipment (replacement equipment) according to age. ETS has Measure C staff to work on these projects
  • Sherman explained the rational for changing the computer refresh time from 4-years to 5-years (financial limits)
  • The Campus Technology Prioritization Committee reviews and prioritizes replacement equipment (computers and smart classrooms). Currently, they do not review or prioritize new equipment requests.

The team agreed the Campus Technology Prioritization Committee should continue to prioritize replacement equipment (computers/smart classrooms).

Prioritizing new technology projects

The request form would include details such as:

  • Goal of project
  • What software / hardware to purchase
  • Identify the project sponsor
  • How many people will it affect or benefit?
  • Has budget been allocated?

The consensus of the team was to continue working on a process that would roughly follow the following procedure:

Interested parties would fill out a request form. Their manager/dean must sign the request. Perhaps make a place on the form for manager feedback? ETS would meet with the individual to discuss the project and to place it on the draft ETS master prioritization list. This list would then be presented to the De Anza campus prioritization authority (TTF?) for prioritization at a campus level.

This item (Proposed Process for Requesting/Prioritizing New Technology Projects) will be brought back for further review and discussion at the next Technology Task Force meeting.

Lilly asked the team to consider the merits of requesting College Council make a resolution authorizing Technology Task Force to act as the prioritization committee for new technology requests. This item will also be brought back for further review and discussion at the next Technology Task Force meeting.

The team approved of forwarding a recommendation to College Council to accept and approve ETS’s proposal that “projects and project phases that have been started cannot be stopped midstream.”


3) Smart Classroom Current Upgrade Schedule

Luciw distributed the Smart classroom update.


4) Next Phase of Wireless Deployment

Luciw handed out the latest wireless update. Giang (DASB) provided the research results from his DASB survey. Luciw would take this feedback into consideration. The team thanked Giang for his  work on this item.


5) Apple Presentation Regarding Mobile Content in Education

The item was tabled as Kazempour was serving on jury duty.


6) Quick news

None was reported.


Present: Dolen, Englen, Kahn, Kaur, Grobman, Lilly, Luciw, McFarland, Mowrey, Owensiy, Qian, Sherman, Wilkins-Greene, Edison Giang – DASB. Notes: Gibson. 

Apologies: Jeanpierre (district meeting), Metcalf (unwell) Kazempour (jury duty).

Technology Task Force
Building: ADM 153
Contact: Pippa Gibson
Phone: 408.864.8936

Last Updated: 3/11/11