Thursday,
February 5, 2009, 1:00-4:00PM CT
Host site:
ESU 10,
Remote site: NDE V-Tel Room, 6th
MINUTES
VOTING MEMBERS/ALTERNATES PRESENT:
Mr. Arnold Bateman, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Dr.
Dr. Michael Chipps,
Mr. Ron Cone, ESU 10
Dr. Terry Haack,
Mr. Stephen Hamersky,
Mr. Ed Hoffman, Alt. for Stan Carpenter,
Ms. Yvette Holly, UN Medical Center (via conference call)
Mr. Chuck Lenosky,
Mr. Dennis Linster,
Mr. Art Tanderup,
LIAISONS/ALTERNATE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dr. Kathleen Fimple, Alt. for Marshall Hill,
Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education; Ms. SuAnn Witt, Alt. for
Mike
MEMBERS/LIAISONS ABSENT: Mr. Clark Chandler, Nebraska Wesleyan University; Mr. Craig Pease, Ashland-Greenwood Public Schools; Dr. Eileen Ely, Western Nebraska Community College; Mr. Jeff Johnson, Centennial Public Schools; Ms. Linda Richards, Ralston Public Schools; Ms. Brenda Decker, DAS-CIO; and Mr. Michael Winkle, NET
CALL TO ORDER, ELECTRONIC POSTING,
LOCATION OF OPEN MEETING LAW DOCUMENTS, ROLL CALL, INTRODUCTIONS
Dr. Chipps
called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.
There were ten voting members present at the time of roll call and Ms.
Yvette Holly was on the telephone for information sharing purposes. A quorum was present to conduct official
business. The meeting notice was posted
to the NITC website and the Nebraska
Public Meeting Calendar 12-11-2008.
The meeting agenda was posted to the NITC website 02-03-2009.
CONSIDER
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR THE FEBRUARY 5, 2009 MEETING
Mr. Tanderup moved to
approve the February 5, 2009 agenda as presented. Mr. Linster seconded. Roll call vote: Bateman-Yes, Hoffman-Yes, Chipps-Yes,
Cone-Yes, Haack-Yes, Hamersky-Yes, Lenosky-Yes, Linster-Yes, Tanderup-Yes, and
Bell-Yes. Results: Yes-10, No-0, Abstain-0. Motion carried.
CONSIDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 4, 2008 MEETING
Mr. Linster moved to
approve the December 4, 2008 minutes
as presented. Mr. Bateman seconded. Roll call vote:
Bell-Yes, Tanderup-Yes, Linster-Yes, Lenosky-Yes, Hamersky-Yes, Haack-Yes,
Cone-Yes, Chipps-Yes, Hoffman-Yes, and Bateman-Yes. Results:
Yes-10, No-0, Abstain-0. Motion
carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was
no public comment.
EDUCATION PORTAL UPDATE
There have
been active online discussions among task group members. The major links and pages are in place. The Task Group will soon have the website
available for viewing. The Task Group is
exploring resources to include on the web site, as well as determining how to
organize the resources.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:
LBS 393, 465, 546 and FEDERAL H.R. 1, AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE
Tom Rolfes, Education I.T. Manager
Mr. Rolfes informed the council about the following
legislative bills currently introduced in the unicameral:
Federal
H.R. 1 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) “Stimulus package” funding
may make available money to provide infrastructure for broadband and wireless
to unserved and underserved areas, and also renovations for computer labs in
public libraries and community colleges. The exact amount of funding to states
is still uncertain. In the event that
UPDATE: STATE COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY OF
Ed Hoffman,
Mr. Weaver informed the council that John Fiene, UNO, is the other Project Director but he was not
able to attend the Education Council meeting today. The following Project Executive Summary was
presented to the council.
The 5625 O Street Facility in Lincoln has been acquired and equipped with:
CedarCrestone has provided 11 on-site consultants with additional
off-site support
On-line
NeSIS Project Manager has been hired and is working directly with the NSCS
and NU Project Co-directors and the CedarCrestone
Project Manager. These four individuals, with supporting staff, constitute the
‘Project Management Office’
Each
of the seven campuses have been visited by the CedarCrestone Project Manager to determine Campus Critical
Dates for the project – project master plan being created.
Nine
weeks of Interactive Design Prototyping (IDP) have been completed at the ‘O’
Street facility. IDP is the process whereby approximately 50 university and
state college functional and technical leaders from all campuses learn the
functionality of the PeopleSoft Campus Solution product then configure a
prototype system for testing and deployment. IDPs require working through
several hundred pages of workbooks and individual campus homework assignments.
Academic
Structure IDP’s have been completed, resulting in common definitions for
Institutions, Student Records, Term Codes, etc.
Campus
Community IDP’s have been completed. Among other things, these IDP’s define
biographic and demographic elements of the new system; student self-service,
residency, honors, athletics, etc.
Eleven
Oracle/PeopleSoft Technical training sessions have been attended by NSCS and NU
technical support teams (165 people). An additional three classes are
scheduled.
Executive
Steering committee is reviewing the final draft of the Project Charter.
ImageNow project implementation team and project plan under
development (image processing, document scanning and electronic signature
workflow capabilities).
Project
leaders from all seven campuses attend Interactive Design Prototyping sessions
One risk to the project that has been identified is Network
Mr. Weaver and Mr. Hoffman entertained questions from the
council.
TASK GROUP REPORTS -
FUNDING/ERATE
Stephen Hamersky and SuAnn Witt
At the last Education Council meeting, the work group
reported that after visiting with the Department of Education legal council and
the Policy Research Office, it was determined not to pursue Erate
eligibility for the Nebraska Pre-K population.
It would cost the state more to implement the changes than the Erate reimbursement would bring into the state. The Funding
task group wanted to wait until the Network Nebraska marketing survey results
were made public (as well as to find out what other task groups are doing) before
determining next steps, but would like council members’ suggestions. It has been almost a year since the task
groups were formulated.
TASK GROUP REPORTS -
SERVICES TASK GROUP REPORT
Ron Cone and Gordon Roethemeyer
The task group has been waiting on the Network Nebraska survey
results to determine next tasks or steps of the task group. Mr. Roethemeyer reported that the Distance
Education Council has been addressing the video standard. The council met last
week and they are pleased with revisions made to the standard. It has been revised and is up for the 30-day
public comment review. The discussions
regarding a statewide Learning Management System are still occurring. The Distance Education Council has formed a
committee to explore this issue and will be providing a white paper on the use
of learning management systems.
GOVERNANCE TASK GROUP
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Yvette Holly
The task group has held telephone conference meetings and
has also been waiting on the Network Nebraska marketing survey. Since Network
Discussions followed regarding the issues and questions below:
§ Should
the group be an Ad Hoc or a permanent group?
It was recommended that the CIO make that determination.
§ Should
the group be higher ed, K-12
or a combination? It was recommended that the group be inclusive of K-20
education.
§ Timeliness
for convening the group especially with the current I.T. projects and the potential
for stimulus monies. It was suggested to
meet a minimum of six times per year.
§ Mr.
Linster had presented approximately 75 questions and issues to the CIO. It was suggested that these be addressed with
the new higher education advisory group.
§ Mr.
Cone stated that the LB 1208 project is developing a project charter for
technical support and operations and there seems to be some duplication of
efforts.
Mr. Linster moved to
recommend to the Chief Information Officer to convene an ad hoc education
advisory group for Network Nebraska-Education, with a minimum of six meetings
per year, to represent all participating education entities statewide. Mr.
Hoffman seconded. Roll call voted:
Cone-Yes, Haack-Yes, Hamersky-Yes, Lenosky-Yes, Linster-Yes,
Tanderup-Yes, Bell-Yes, Bateman-Yes, Hoffman-Yes, and Chipps-Yes. Results:
Yes-10, No-0, Abstain-0. Motion
carried.
MARKETING TASK GROUP
REPORT, SURVEY
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Members: Arnold Bateman, Chair University of Nebraska;
Chuck Lenosky, Creighton University; Ed Hoffman, Nebraska State Colleges; Mike
Kozak, Nebraska Department of Education; Rick Golden, University of Nebraska;
Steven Stortz, Lutheran Schools of Nebraska; SuAnn
Witt, Nebraska Department of Education)
Below are excerpts taken from the
Executive Summary of the survey report:
The survey results
indicate that users of Network
Following
are additional key findings from Existing
Network Nebraska Partners:
§
Among current partners of Network
§
Statewide connectivity provided by Network
§
Survey responders identified governance/leadership as the
most limiting organizational factor in growing Network
§
Consistent communication of accurate and current information
on available services and support issues (provided by Network
§
Reliability is perceived as strength by some Network Nebraska
partners.
§
The single most compelling competitive advantage that makes
Network Nebraska’s services distinctive and motivates Educational Service
Units, public and private K -12 schools and public and private colleges to
partner in Network Nebraska is lower cost, followed by shared resources, and
statewide access.
§
Current partners responding to the survey identified shared
resources, advanced technology/bandwidth, equity and opportunities as guiding
principles or slogans that they believe Network
§
Current partners responding to the survey identified help
desk/support, faster internet and leadership/governance as priority areas where
modifications to existing services or added services are most needed.
§
Some current partners that responded to the survey are
recommending that redundancy be built into the network to insure minimal down
time of the system.
§
Current users of the network want to have a better
understanding of the network, infrastructure and more information related to
Renovo scheduling.
Following
are additional key findings from Potential
Network Nebraska Partners:
§
Potential users responding to the survey indentified learning
opportunities through increased collaboration and sharing of distance education
resources as the greatest strengths.
§
The perception of potential Network
§
Potential users responding to the survey said that cost and
shared resources should be the most compelling competitive advantage making
Network
§
Access was defined as the most important service that would
benefit potential partners of Network
Conclusions:
The
survey highlights several areas of challenge and opportunity for Network
1.
The survey indicates that Network Nebraska would benefit from
improved communications to current partners and that potential partners lack
relevant information about Network
2.
The perception that the governance structure does not
represent the stakeholders and that leadership and support services are
inadequate to support future growth is a critical concern. Addressing these
three issues is essential prior to implementation of strategies directed at
adding new partners and services.
3.
Building a marketing campaign to increase awareness among
potential partners should center on lower costs, shared resources, statewide
access, and increased educational opportunities. Marketing campaigns need to be
customized for individual target audiences.
4.
The prevailing perception is that the network continues to
mature. Partners continue to expect additional advanced services and
reliability. Further research is required to define what services should be
offered and the willingness of partners to pay for these services.
Recommendations:
1. NITC Education
Council Marketing, Governance, Funding, and Services task groups utilize the
data to advance their groups’ objectives.
2. Establish a
steering committee of key stakeholders representing sub-sections with vested
interests to guide development of network
3. Marketing Task
Group to take findings from the Marketing Survey Report and develop a marketing
plan to be presented at the June 2009 meeting of the Education Council.
4. Annually reissue
the survey (with minimal changes) to evaluate the success of the recommended
Action Plan(s) and ensure the future of Network
The SWOT (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) will provide key information for
strategic planning.
SWOT Analysis from Survey Data
|
STRENGTHS Characteristics important to the
execution and ultimate success of the project |
WEAKNESSES Internal factors that could
prevent the achievement of a successful project result |
|
·
Reduced/shared costs
·
Bandwidth / Speed /
Capacity / I-2
·
Statewide Connectivity
·
Technical experience &
support
|
·
Leadership / Governance
·
Membership
·
Communication
·
Help Desk / Support
|
|
OPPORTUNITIES External elements helpful in
achieving the goals of the project |
THREATS External factors that threaten
project success |
|
|
At the last
meeting, Mr. Linster suggested that the Education Council receive reports from
the Technical Panel and CAP (Collaborative Aggregation Partnership). Mr. Bateman stated that the survey indicated
that there are customers in outstate
The Task Group
asked for a motion to present the survey findings to the CAP, CIO and the Technical
Panel. Rick Golden stated that Network
Nebraska has always wanted to get feedback from its customers. He also reminded the Council that Network
Nebraska has only a couple technical staff and has been operating through
current
Mr. Linster moved to forward the Network Nebraska Marketing Survey
Report, Conclusions and Recommendation to the NITC Technical Panel, the Chief
Information Officer, and the CAP (Collaborative Aggregation Partnership) group. Mr. Tanderup seconded,
Roll call vote: Bell-Yes, Tanderup-Yes, Linster-Yes, Lenosky-Yes, Hamersky-Yes,
Haack-Yes, Cone-Yes, Chipps-Yes, Hoffman-Yes, and Bateman-Yes. Results: Yes-10, No-0, Abstain-0. Motion carried.
Ms. Witt
thanked Mr. Bateman for his leadership. Mr.
Bateman also thanked the committee members for their work.
It was suggested that all task groups re-evaluate their
purpose and tasks as it pertains to the NITC’s Statewide
Technology Plan Action Items and be prepared to discuss the following at the
next meeting:
§
Has
each action item been accomplished or not
§
Provide
new ideas for action items, and
§
Provide
input to other task groups
INFORMATIONAL UPDATES
- NETWORK
Tom Rolfes, Education I.T. Manager
The Erate application for the
Network Nebraska Interregional Transport was approved by USAC on January 22,
2009. Reimbursements on the backbone
should start showing up on the monthly Qwest invoices. Phase III will include the following school
districts:
§
Hastings
ESU 9 (17 sites) and Scottsbluff/Sidney ESU 13 (25 sites)
§
§
ESU
3 office only
§
Grand
Island Public Library (tentative)
§
Metro,
Southeast and
§
§
In
addition, two non-fiber high school districts will be getting fiber for the
first time (i.e.
It is
anticipated that there will be a total of two hundred and twenty-two (222)
sites on the network at the start of school, August 2009. Lindsay Holy Family parochial school has no
high bandwidth infrastructure but has requested to connect to, and join,
Network
The Office of the CIO has been working with UNL regarding Network
INFORMATIONAL UPDATES - NETWORK
Tom Rolfes
Phase IV will include the
OTHER/ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were
no other announcements.
AGENDA ITEMS AND LOCATION FOR THE 4/2/2009
MEETING AND ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the NITC Education Council will be held on Thursday, April
16th, 1:00 p.m. The location will be determined at a later time. Mr. Linster offered to host the next meeting
at Wayne State College. For the next meeting, task groups were reminded to
review the survey and be prepared to discuss the
following: has the action item been accomplished or not, provide input for and
to other task groups, and provide new ideas for action items.
Mr. Linster moved to adjourn. Dr. Bell seconded. All were in favor. Motion carried.
The meeting
was adjourned at 3:46 p.m.
Meeting
minutes were taken by Lori Lopez Urdiales and reviewed by Tom Rolfes of the
Office of the CIO/NITC.