IT Governance Purpose: Information technology is a catalyst for productivity, creativity and community that enhances learning opportunities in an environment of unlimited demands and limited resources. Executive Committee Meeting Action Items Presentation May 29, 2015 Adopting a strategic approach to information technology planning, budgeting and implementation at Cal Poly Pomona.

Administrative Technology Working Group Presenters: Glendy Yeh & Kathleen Street

Administrative Technology Working Group IT Code Freeze Current IT and functional staff and resources are responsible for the:  Development, maintenance, testing & integration of all PeopleSoft-related programs, functionalities, business processes, reports/dashboards and modifications  Integration with third-party and other campus applications  Development of other new IT initiatives that involve IT and functional resources needed for semester conversion

Semester conversion will require a substantial commitment of these same staff and resources Work on the initiatives that are in progress will continue through completion A code freeze is needed to shift IT and functional staff and resources to the semester conversion implementation and will impact PeopleSoft modifications, custom enhancements, new initiatives (PeopleSoft and non- PeopleSoft) An exception request process will be in place Administrative Technology Working Group IT Code Freeze

August 1, 2015 Initiate code freeze (or 1 month following the appointment of the PeopleSoft consultant) June15, 2015 Initiate exception request process June 30, 2015 Finalize priorities and timelines for PeopleSoft/other milestones through Fall, 2018 April 30,2017 Determine if extension of freeze is needed July 31, 2017 End code freeze (unless extended) Administrative Technology Working Group IT Code Freeze

Semester Conversion Implementation cannot be completed successfully in the mandated timeframe unless it is given top priority over other IT projects Current IT and functional staffing levels and resources are limited and business cannot continue as usual New technologies and initiatives (PeopleSoft and Other) will be delayed or deferred until after the code freeze, postponing the realization of desired improvements or enhancements (unless exception is approved by IT Governance) Administrative Technology Working Group IT Code Freeze

Emerging Technology Working Group Presenters: Gabriel Kuri & David Drivdahl

Recommendation – Background Three types of mass EMM, mail groups, Mailman lists Presently no guideline on what is considered mass , and no defined approval process for using it. Excludes academic related communications References Public Affairs guideline for content Delivery is problematic due to variety of cloud services Goal should be to improve delivery rates of mass mailing Emerging Technology Working Group Mass Guideline

Recommendation – New Guideline Standardize on mass marketing systems One approved system for sending to campus/off campus users Approval process for establishing mass mailing lists Requires VP approval for lists of 50 or more people College dean approval for lists where users contained within a single college or for student clubs Additionally requires CIO approval if users span divisions or contain off campus users Annual renewal process for lists Emerging Technology Working Group Mass Guideline

Recommendation - Background Students provided forwarding address as applicants Not automatically changed to deliver to campus system Presently there is a large number of users forwarding mail Previous solutions were lacking is official communication for students s are being sent from third party accounts Emerging Technology Working Group Forwarding

Recommendation – No forwarding Office 365 improves on our mail system delivery can be validated and tracked Provide a higher degree of certainty for faculty and advisors of who they are communicating with Implementation Timeline June 2015: Begin communications July 2015: Change forwarding for employees to Office 365 June 2016: Change forwarding everyone else Emerging Technology Working Group Forwarding

Recommendation – Background Mail systems have been changed and migrated over time The path s take to be delivered is complex Dependency on campus for a large portion of mail Office 365 is only used for mail storage Emerging Technology Working Group Simplified Mail Flow

Recommendation – Risks Feature differences Some features not supported in Office 365 Campus is currently a single point of failure Mail delays have been caused by current mail flow Emerging Technology Working Group Simplified Mail Flow

Recommendation – Simplify mail flow All mail functions will be processed by Office 365 Simple mail flow Reduces the number of steps from 16 to 4 or fewer Implementation Timeline Summer 2015: Migrate low-impact mail services to Office 365, and begin communicating changes where there is user impact Winter 2016: Complete migration of mail features to Office 365 Emerging Technology Working Group Simplified Mail Flow

Instructional Technology Working Group Presenters: Kevin Morningstar

Instructional Technology Working Group SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline Recommendation - Background/Findings March $459,000 approved to upgrade college labs Two approved labs required a funding supplement of $95,690 IT worked with two colleges in an effort to secure additional financial resources – funds were not available Additional funding from IT Division enabled two rooms to be fully upgraded

Instructional Technology Working Group SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline Recommendation - Background/Findings Performance Labs Highlight a Challenge Providing the broadest funding support, balanced investment of resources, and purchasing a sufficient number of computers to support timely replacement Actual Costs for Current Computers: Dell Standard PC $ Dell Performance PC $1, Mac Standard 27” $1, % Mac Performance 27” $3, %

Instructional Technology Working Group SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline Recommendation – Guidelines SSF should fund the computers appropriate to course and faculty requirements Balanced model for the utilization of fiscal resources Funding per computer should be sufficient to purchase Windows and Mac standard computers Additional funding should be supplemented by the department, college or other resources

Instructional Technology Working Group SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline Recommendation – Risks SSF Funding may not be sufficient in some cases Additional funding may not be available from colleges Computer platform preferences may result in higher costs Lab computer replacement data does not accurately estimate the problem Recommendation was based upon only one purchase cycle; cost differences may be exaggerated

Instructional Technology Working Group SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline Recommendation – The Student Success Fee will fund up to two times (2x) the current price of a designated Windows Performance Personal Computer. The ceiling will be set each year based upon the current cost for the campus’ standard Windows Performance Personal Computer purchased for deployment in computer labs. This ceiling amount is intended to fully fund the purchase of a Windows Standard PC, Windows Performance PC, and Mac Standard computers. Colleges will be responsible for funding the incremental cost above the ceiling amount.