UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA

Information Technology Planning Task Force

Information Technology Strategic Plan

-- September, 2000 --
 


"The digital technologies that are revolutionizing communications and information
processing present significant opportunities to institutions of higher education.
These tools affect nearly every area of institutional activity by enhancing teaching and
learning, expanding access, and improving administrative efficiency. Yet the challenges
of exploiting technology to support the educational missions of teaching, research, and
service can be as baffling as the technology itself…..No institution that seeks to serve the
learning needs of our society can afford to leave these technologies behind … Strategic
approaches are required to seize the opportunities presented by the continuing
advancement of information technologies."

Table of Contents

Task Force Members
Executive Summary
Introduction
Planning Process
Planning Time Line
IT Mission
IT Vision
Strengths / Weaknesses / Opportunities / Threats
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Strategic Initiatives

Appendices

A - Goals of the IT Planning Process
B - Process Objectives for the Planning Effort
C - Fundamental Principles That Guided the Planning Process
D - Expected Outcomes
E - Process
F - Summary of Most Influential IT Trends
G - Academic Affairs Faculty IT Survey & Needs Assessment
H - Academic Accounting Advisory Committee, Report on IT Issues Affecting Salary - Promotion and Tenure
I - UND Schedule 2 - Technology Applications and Access, 2001-03 - Biennial Budget CD
J - UND Schedule 3 - Institutional Innovation Funds, 2001-03 - Biennial Budget CD
K - Vision…Strategy…Roadmap: Charting UND's Technology - Path for the New Millennium, Innovative Interactions, Inc. CD

Information Technology Planning Task Force Members

James Shaeffer - Co-chair, Associate Vice President for Outreach Services and Dean of Outreach Programs
Robert Rubeck - Co-chair, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Information Services, School of Medicine and Health Sciences
Sven Anderson - Assistant Professor, Computer Science
Patricia Berntsen - Assist Director of the Chester Fritz Library
Rodger Copp - Director of Scientific Computer Center, Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences
John Erjavec - Associate Professor, Chemical Engineering
Carl Fox - Director, Office of Research and Program Development
Keith Gendreau - Vice President of the Student Body
Gary Gott - Director, Thormodsgard Law Library
Mark Grabe - Professor and Chair of Psychology
Dorette Kerian - Interim Director, UND Computing Center
Rich Lehn - Director, Telecommunications
Don Lemon - Professor and Chair of Educational Leadership
Margaret Myers - Assistant Vice President for Finance and Operations
Elizabeth Nichols - Dean College of Nursing
Timothy O’Keefe - Associate Professor, Business and Vocational Education
Kathy Smart - Director, Center for Instructional Learning Technologies
Carmen Williams - Interim University Registrar
Chuck Wood - Professor, Space Studies


Executive Summary

The Chronicle of Higher Education Online (March 17, 2000) reported that " U.S. colleges have budgeted $1.2 billion to upgrade academic hardware this year, a 28 percent increase over last year" and that "altogether this academic year, schools will spend $2.7 billion on computer and network hardware and software for academic and administrative support" according to a report from Dun & Bradstreet.

The ability of institutions of higher education to make thoughtful investments in information technology hardware and software as well as providing support for faculty, staff and students has become one of the major issues facing higher institutions.

Understanding the need to carefully plan for the continued and expanded use of information technology on the UND campus, President Kupchella established the Information Technology Planning Task Force in September, 1999 with the charge of reviewing the 1994 University Technology Plan, determining the broad general directions for information technology services at UND during the next decade; determining the most desirable set of information technology services, support and capacity to be provided to faculty, students and staff.

This report is the result of nearly twelve months of work by the Task Force along with a collaborative effort with the consulting firm Innovative Interaction Inc. (I3). The consultants provided an external perspective, corroboration on technical issues and comparisons with other institutions. Using various sources of information including our discussions, information technology literature, feedback from UND students, faculty and staff and information from the I3 consultants, the Task Force submits the following five recommendations in response to President Kupchella’s charge and to assure UND’s role as the region’s information university.

The Task Force recommends that UND seek a substantial increase in funds for providing support for current and proposed innovative IT projects, examine the feasibility of acquiring a portal and course management system and investigate the need for a new IT organization. We believe that the first three recommendations must be addressed if the University is to be a leader in the area of technology and become the region’s information university. These recommendations can be implemented through the allocation and reallocation of existing IT funds and exploring new funding possibilities such as grants and UND Foundation funds.

The last two recommendations, while very important, should be implemented in a phased process as new funds become available.


Introduction

The University of North Dakota has a long history of exhibiting leadership in the use of information technology to enhance the learning, research and service on our campus and in North Dakota. Robert Sevier of Stamats Communications, Inc, reminds us that we "must seek to differentiate our institution from our competition in meaningful ways to target audiences, and aggressively communicate this differentiation." Clearly, one of the areas where UND can meaningfully differentiate ourselves is in our use of information technology to provide quality educational experiences.

The University of North Dakota has many reasons to have great pride in our leadership and innovative use of information technology. As an institution, we’ve provided leadership in the use of audio teleconferencing, satellite, and compressed video technologies as well as use of the Internet.

Within this report, the Information Technology Planning Task Force makes several recommendations that utilizes the solid information technology base that we have and moves UND forward as the region’s information university.

Planning Process

President Kupchella established the Information Technology Planning Task Force in September, 1999. He gave the task force the following charge:

PLANNING TIME LINE

The Task Force began meeting in October, 1999.

In December, 1999, that Task Force requested and received funding to hire a consulting group to assist with the planning process.

After receiving bids from three consulting firms, the Task Force recommended and hired Innovative Interactions Inc. to assist with the planning process.

The next several months were spent determining the important items that needed to be included in the Task Force report along with assisting with the consultants. The Task Force utilized Innovative Interactions Inc., not only as independent consultants preparing a report, but also sought their input on a number of occasions and "bounced off" many of the ideas represented in this report. The consultants joined several Task Force meetings through audio teleconference and assisted a UND team in the preparation of the "needs based" budget request. A copy of the I3 report and the needs based budget are appended to the ITPTF Report as a CD.

The first draft of the Task Force report was completed on September 5, 2000 and discussed and revised over the next three weeks. The completed report was submitted to the President and the Budget and Planning Committee on September 26, 2000.

A complete description of the process, goals and objectives of the Task Force are included in the appendix of this report. Other support documents for the process can be found at http://www.cilt.und.nodak.edu/ITPTF.

University of North Dakota’s IT Mission and Vision Statements

The Task force developed a mission and a vision for how IT will be used in the future to assist with our discussions and planning.

University of North Dakota’s IT Mission

UND recognizes information technology as a rapidly changing force of our time with potential to revolutionize communication, to spur creativity, to reshape society and to transform the workforce. To develop leaders for the 21st century, the University strives to use information technology to full advantage in achieving and supporting its mission of teaching, research, and service.

University of North Dakota’s IT Vision

"The University of North Dakota will be a recognized leader in the use of information technology to promote academic excellence. UND will demonstrate its leadership in the use of information technology by creating a learning environment that is self-directed, student-centered, and interactive. UND will use seamless access to information and connectivity anywhere and anytime to faculty, students, and colleagues, both locally and globally. UND will use IT to enhance productivity, thus providing greater time to provide value added services to all of our constituents. At UND utilizing information technology will become a way of life. UND’s leadership in this area will provide a competitive edge in the recruitment and retention of faculty, students, and staff."

Vision Implementation: That the vision be reduced to a motto or easily portable phrase that would help those who would need to understand it and use it. One suggestion is: "Connecting People With Information". Connecting in this refers to communication, collaboration, and other forms of interaction between people. People refers to the entire university community, the teachers, administrators, students, staff, and associated community members. With refers to seamless, boundless, timeless, transportable, and standardized information space. Information refers to administrative data, scholarly databases, and educational materials.

STRENGTHS / WEAKNESSES / OPPORTUNITIES / THREATS

Like other institutions of higher education, the University of North Dakota has excelled in some areas related to information technology and have many challenges to face as well. The following SWOT analysis provides an array of UND’s strengths, weaknesses, and threats in the information technology area as well as the many opportunities information technology provides. The Task Force recommendations hope to take advantage and build upon UND’s strengths, mitigate our weaknesses, avoid our threats and assist UND in exploiting our opportunities.

Strengths

There is a strong level of commitment from administration to improving technology offerings, coupled with varying degrees of enthusiasm for productive use of technology in teaching and learning.

The Student Technology Fees have afforded many opportunities for colleges to improve computer laboratories through purchase of up-to-date computer hardware and software and to pursue other projects.

UND’s Chester Fritz Library was first to introduce electronic indexes and full text resources to the University.

UND’s Chester Fritz Library was instrumental in the creation of the On-Line Dakota Information Network (ODIN), which has grown into a library system serving public and K-12 schools through the state.

Faculty are incorporating technology in varying degrees, either during classroom instruction, as assignments, communication with students or for research projects.

The Center for Instructional & Learning Technologies has documented annually an increase in the number of faculty attending workshops since being established in 1995. This trend is continuing in the fall 2000 semester with unprecedented attendance and requests for support.

Approximately 43 classrooms have been enhanced with presentation capabilities since 1995.

CILT gained New Media Center designation, one of only 102 worldwide, is the only Authorized Training Center for Macromedia in the state of ND, and has been active with AAHE’s Teaching, Learning & Technology Roundtable.

A web based course management system (CMS) was licensed and rolled-out in summer 2000 for AA faculty through the Center for Instructional & Learning Technologies. There were over 150 courses actively using the CMS by Sept 1. 2000.

The College of Education and Human Development received the Teachers of the 21st grant and are actively engaged in exploring and using technology in teaching.

Internet2 membership presents opportunities for using high bandwidth applications in learning, research and collaboration.

Administrative systems have provided adequate support to the University and the University System.

Through the telephone switch project and additional student technology fee funding a fiber and category 5 network cable infrastructure is in place between and within all academic and administrative campus buildings. There is at least one point of network connectivity available in nearly all offices and classrooms.

Administrative systems staff are skilled and have a good understanding of users' needs.

The School of Medicine and Health Sciences has provided leadership in the use of various technologies including satellite delivered continuing education, audio teleconferenced based instruction, computer based instruction.

The UND School of Law’s technology was described as the "envy of everyone on the team" according to members of the recent American Bar Association reaccredidation inspection team. Literally every desk in the building is equipped with a networked late-generation computer supported by a full range of server services including automatic nightly backup of data on all desktop machines. Faculty are provided high end laptops for use at home and while traveling. The law building is networked with both cable and wireless systems allowing students owning laptops to seamlessly connect to the network anywhere they need to work. All classrooms are equipped with current teaching technology. The Baker Moot Court Room is further equipped with current sophisticated video system to support student training in the skills of modern trial advocacy, tied through an in-house video network to all offices, classrooms and hallways that carries signals from the courtroom, from satellite broadcasts or from a computer-based announcement system. The video system also supports interactive TV with the state IVN system or out-of-state via ISDN or Internet connections, and has been used to bring live witness testimony to actual court trials held in the building and in teaching.

Since 1996 Space Studies (http://www.space.edu) has offered its entire MS program via the Internet. The department hired computer science undergraduate students and wrote all of the HTML, CGI and other code necessary to provide Internet students nearly all of the interaction with UND that campus students enjoy. Space Studies has also offered one credit short courses taught entirely by NASA scientists and engineers, with live video, audio and chat interactions. Because of the great success of our mode of presentation Space Studies has become the largest graduate MS program at UND.

The University of North Dakota’s Division of Continuing Education in cooperation with several academic departments offers several extended degree programs to a regional, national and international audience.

VolcanoWorld (http://volcano.und.edu), with more than 25,000 html pages of information, is the largest single source of information about volcanoes in the world. The site was funded by NASA for five years and currently attracts more than four million visitors each year. VolcanoWorld won a national award for its "Ask a Volcanologist" service, commissioned original stories about Rocky the Volcano Creature from a published author, solicited student art to illustrate volcano stories, attracted the world's largest collection of volcano poetry, and became a major source of reliable volcano information.

The University’s phone system is state of the art. It is maintained at the latest version of software with many user-friendly features and functions and is one of the best telephone operations in the state and the level of commitment from the telecom staff is at the highest level.

Weaknesses

The overall weakness is an inadequate infrastructure and physical, human, and capital resource base. Information technology infrastructure is the organization and synergy of hardware, software, communications capability, personnel, policy, and procedures.

Lack of faculty and staff sufficient incentives to develop and deliver programming utilizing information technology.

Consensus indicates the need for a campus-wide vision and direction by which all academic and administrative departments examine their needs, activities, and prospects.

Lack of sufficient qualified personnel is underscored as a primary weakness in information technology. Uncoordinated expertise results in sub-optimal support.

Varying technologies were identified as a weakness, in the context of sharing information and using technology for communication purposes.

Technology changes more rapidly than the ability for students, faculty, and staff to know what is available. There is relentless pressure on individuals to learn to be productive with new technology, while remaining current in one’s primary area of expertise.

Administrative systems are outdated and less user-oriented than preferred. The lack of a truly integrated database information system for academic and administrative purposes is another weakness in service offerings to students.

Opportunities

An examination of the strengths and weaknesses identified in the study highlights the dynamic nature of opportunities in information technology.

UND has experience in accessing multiple funding sources to underwrite new programs and initiatives in information technology.

New standards for information access and communication are being developed industry-wide, opening the door for unique educational opportunities and programs.

Education will be enhanced by combining the best of electronic resources with viable traditional resources and services. Technology integration will become the norm, rather than a challenge. Programs for credit as well as for life-long learning will become available when convenient to the learner, independent of time and space.

Partnering with business and industry as well as with other educational enterprises locally, statewide, nationally, and internationally will become as easy as picking up a telephone and making a global call. Information technology opens doors to better serve ND students and to assist in the workforce development of North Dakota.

UND can continue to provide opportunities for students, faculty, and staff to remain abreast of changes in their areas of expertise through utilization of information technology. Training seminars and workshops, brown bag lunches, open forums, guest speakers, and other forms of professional development can be offered as needed, both using and informing users about opportunities. Student internships and faculty assignments in technology-related positions in business and industry will raise an awareness of information technology opportunities.

New programs such as the Master’s degree in Instructional Design and Technology are examples of new programs that capitalize on the unique expertise of UND in IT.

Continue to update and retrofit current facilities campus-wide will allow infusion of technology into all aspects of campus life. The Information Technology strategic plan will ensure continuity in services. Coordinating this effort will help us be more productive in technology-related support and services.

Threats

Poor planning and lack of campus-wide inclusion will exacerbate the problem of effective use of limited resources. Although hardware prices continue to decline, the cost of service and support of technology increases exponentially. Interestingly, more and more people who are excited about using technology believe, albeit incorrectly, that they also know how to manage it.

The University of North Dakota’s state funding can be directly impacted by the economic, demographic and the political trends of the State.

There are unrealistic expectations that information technology will be the path to financial savings. It is assumed that increased use of distance technologies will decrease faculty instructional time, increase enrollments, and so per decrease per unit costs. These assumptions are contrary to existing research on the impact of distance delivery of courses on use of faculty time. The apparent acceptance of these assumptions is frustrating to those who are concerned about the quality of education and often results in heel dragging and resistance to try or even support innovative approaches.

If information technology continues to be under funded, UND’s ability to react and keep pace will be severely compromised.

While the quality issue has been at the forefront of many discussions, the trends indicate that if public universities choose not to offer courses and programs more conveniently, private, for-profit institutions will. Even though traditional education has survived hundreds of years, the influx of technology is changing society faster than any other past innovations.

While the emergence of information technology opens new potential markets for UND, it also fosters greater competition for North Dakota students.

STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

ESTABLISH AN IT ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE NEEDS OF THE CAMPUS AND AT THE SAME TIME NURTURE THE ENTREPRENEURIAL EFFORTS OF INDIVIDUAL COLLEGES AND DEPARTMENTS.

Note: The consultants report recommends establishing a centralized IT organization headed by a CITO at the level of the vice president. The ITPTF recognizes the need for centralized leadership and direction of IT and stresses the emphasis of the academic mission of the university by having the leadership position located in the Division of Academic Affairs. Goal: Assure adequate funding for current infrastructure and IT activities to successfully build a base for launching new initiatives.

Action Step: Ascertain appropriate levels for current campus and college IT infrastructure and activities.

Action Step: Adjust IT budgets to desirable levels using reallocated funds.

Goal: Foster a common and shared vision for Information Technology at the University of North Dakota that will continue to nurture local creativity while providing vision and service to the greater University.

Action Step: Establish a central organization that will provide broad leadership for Information Technology at the University of North Dakota. This organization will be charged to provide leadership and vision for the campus in academic and administrative computing and provide a centralized effort for providing a core level of customer focused support for the campus.

Note: The establishment of any central organization should not impede or eliminate the creativity and entrepreneurial efforts of individual units. Action Step: Establish an IT leadership position to provide leadership for IT for UND for academic and enterprise IT as well as provide a central support service by creating new Associate Provost level position. This position would have the general responsibilities of providing broad leadership and vision for IT, acting as central contact for IT for UND for internal and external constituencies, and advocating for a customer driven service. Note: This position will need to provide a balance between central coordination and local autonomy. This should be done in terms of equipment dollar allocation as well as human resource allocation. Action Step: Create organizational roles for the direction of Academic and Enterprise IT. These roles could be full positions or partial assignments.
 
 
President
|
                                                                                               |
VP for Academic Affairs and Provost
                                                                                               |
                                                                                               |
Successor of ITPTF
                                                                                               |
                                                                                               |
Associate Provost for IT
                                                                                              |
                                                                  ______________|________________
                                                                 |                                                             |
Director of Academic IT
Director of Enterprise IT

Action Step: A successor of the ITPTF, which could be called the University Technology Council, will provide advice and counsel academic and enterprise matters to the new Associate Provost and the Provost.

          Note: This group will be an advisory group and will not be called upon to govern and administer the IT unit.

Action Step: Consolidate all enterprise IT functions within one organization making Telecommunications, including all infrastructure responsibilities, part of the comprehensive IT unit.

Note: This will encourage coordination, cooperation and an opportunity for strategic and tactical IT planning. Action Step: Establish a comprehensive technical support and user service organization. This organization will be responsible for providing high quality customer service across the campus.

Action Step: To extend the central support effort, UND would establish technical and user support positions within colleges funded by a combination of central and local funds. The central portion of support is to assist with cross training and the sharing of ideas. The local support portion will provide individual colleges or sub-units with specific IT support personnel.

 Note: This group will be an advisory group and will not be called upon to govern and administer the IT unit. Goal: To establish UND as a knowledge community capable of modeling those aspects of the information culture for which it wishes to be recognized.

Action Step: Develop methods and partnerships to support network access for students, faculty and staff, both on campus and off campus.

Action Step: Maintain a limited 15-minute modem pool that would be available to all faculty, staff and students for essential e-mail communication

Action Step: Work with vendors to provide "pay for service" web access at a reduced rate. This would provide a full range of services for faculty, staff and students depending on their needs.

Action Step: Maintain a very small modem pool that would be available to all faculty, staff and students who may have difficulty obtaining other web access services.

Action Step: Maintain a small modem pool that would be available to all faculty, staff and students who need only access to e-mail services.

Action Step: Maintain a limited access modem pool for administrators to contact campus from off-campus sites.

IMPLEMENT AN EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEM TO PROVIDE STATE-OF-THE-ART PORTAL ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY INFORMATION AND COURSE MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES

Note: The consultants concurred with this recommendation during the needs based budget process and in their final report. Goal: Provide a new on-line environment that will offer faculty a uniform and easy to use means of putting course material online and will also offer the university community a uniform web presence for distributing information and communicating with clubs, organizations, units, committees and programs.

Action Step: Deliver a new robust, web-accessible and ubiquitous "portal" that will serve as a single-point-of-entry and "one-stop-shop" access point for a wide range of highly interactive information, content, support and referral services available to a broad spectrum of users, consumers and providers.

Action Step: Implement an online course management/portal model that will provide resources to enable multiple faculty and departments to create web based curriculum materials.

Action Step: Place the implementation of the University wide portal enterprise under the leadership of the new IT organization. A position within the new IT organization, "portal coordinator" is recommended to assist with the implementation of the portal and provide ongoing support for this new system.
 

IMPLEMENT A NEW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CAMPUS-WIDE IT INITIATIVES

Note: The I3 consultants through personal communication have expressed their awareness of scarcity of resources for new IT developments and have indicated their support for additional funding. Goal: Establish the "Information Technology Development Fund" as a centralized source of funding to support incremental establishment, enhancement, and expansion of campus and college IT activities

Action Step: Institutional discretionary IT resources and new funds should be identified and distributed to an IT "investment pool" called the Information Technology Development Fund (ITDF).

Note: The fund that will be responsive to changing, merging, and deciding priorities of the campus community.

Note: ITDF resources will be made available to allow for development projects, technologies, policies, and procedures. The fund is to ready IT developments to be competitive for sustaining funds in the normal budget process. The Fund is not intended to provide sustaining funding for IT efforts throughout the campus.

Note: Changing times and technologies will result in changing IT priorities for development. Priorities for IT fundable projects should be stable enough to allow for repeated request over multiple academic years from submitters. Priorities should be published well in advance of the funding cycle. Some of the initial priority areas are expected to be: the development of on-line course materials, the development of techniques and processes automating administrative activities, and the development of digital library initiatives.

Note: Receipt of funding from the ITDF implies the contract for production of results in a timely fashion. Results will be acknowledged and published. The Fund should be available for academic projects intended to improve the effectiveness, appeal, and efficiency of academic programs as well as for added efficiency, utility and timeliness of administrative functions.

Note: Faculty, staff and students who have worthy projects either academic or administrative should have access to the fund.

Action Step: A portion of ITDF resources or funding track should be distributed to a variety of campus and college activities through a competitive process.

Action Step: A portion of ITDF resources or funding track should be distributed to a variety of campus and college activities through a non-competitive decision making process.

Action Step: The successor to ITPTF would determine in consultation with others the distribution of ITDF resources.
 

DEVELOP A NEW ACADEMIC UNIT FOR KNOWLEDGE SCIENCES THROUGH THE COORDINATION OF EXISTING ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW PROGRAMS THAT WILL RAISE THE VISIBILITY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ON THE UND CAMPUS

Note: The consultants provide a similar recommendation, that UND investigate the creation of an independent academic and research organization with the dual purpose of establishing statewide and regional leadership in academic information/technology-related studies while generating an available source of skilled information technology workers for UND and the transition economy of the State of North Dakota, and its surrounding regions. Goal: To develop a new organizational unit that contributes to the university community by: updating UND’s academic image, by expanding educational program offerings that prepare knowledge workers for the information economy, by enhancing recruitment and retention of faculty and by helping students become capable of performing the knowledge work required of the information age.

Action Step: Raise the profile of existing educational offerings in knowledge related sciences, by identifying, organizing, aggregating, and consolidating programs. This will enhance the university's image in being able to offer contemporary training in knowledge sciences to attract faculty, research funding, and students who wish to prepare for the knowledge work in the information future.

Action Step: Develop mechanisms to ensure that IT is a greater part of every educational program on campus.

Action Step: Develop additional programs of IS training to produce certificate and degree graduates.

Action Step: Evaluate and examine the implementation of a separate for-profit organizational structure for UND’s Edu-business.

Action Step: Examine the establishment of a new college capable of delivering new educational offerings and programs to increase the university's availability of offerings in the knowledge sciences.

Action Step: Use reorganization, collaboration, consolidation, and expansion to aggregate or build state-of-the-art capabilities to prepare students for success in the information age, to generate new knowledge and to employ new techniques for dealing with life in the information culture.

EXAMINE FOR REALIGNMENT UNIVERSITY-WIDE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS TO PROMOTE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, COURSE DEVELOPMENT, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATONAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

Note: The Task Force received strong support for this recommendation in audio conferences with and the report written by the I3 consultants. Goal: Expand existing faculty development and instructional support for the integration of IT in teaching and learning, and add appropriate resources to focus on educational technology research.

Action Step: Examine the realignment of UND’s educational development programs to establish a continuum of support for faculty to integrate IT into teaching, learning and research. This continuum would consist of four levels, faculty development, course development, program development and educational technology research and development.

Action Step: Fund new ways of developing, designing and delivering courses and programs that can be shared with other NDUS institutions through statewide workshops and seminars, and opens up greater possibilities for collaboration with other NDUS institutions.

Action Step: Establish a pool of dollars within that ITDF that will be available on a competitive basis for the development of courses and programming and faculty incentives.

Note: The successor to ITPTF will determine in consultation with others the distribution of ITDF resources. Action Step: Hire or assign appropriate personnel to assist with faculty development in the design and delivery of courses and programming.

Action Step: Expand faculty development efforts to assist more interested faculty as well as expanded program development to meet the needs of new market niches.

Action Step: The Educational Program Development Effort should report to the Academic IT Officer

 Note: The Pyramid of Educational Program Development Involving Information Technology

 
Educ. Tech. R&D
Program Development
Course Development
Faculty Development

 

Faculty Development:

Continuing Campus Funding from Appropriated Sources; Available to All Faculty; Needs of Individual Faculty

The base, bottom and broadest level of the Pyramid is the faculty development function. It is a function that is available to the entire campus community, without charge, it is available broadly, it is resource limited (a fixed amount of money goes into the function).

Course Development:

Mini-Grant Funding from Mixed Sources; Competitively Available; Needs of Departments, Programs, and Colleges

The course development layer or instructional development layer - This layer is a tactical layer devoted to course development based on faculty member's choice of courses to be developed.

The courses to be developed are not necessarily based on the ability of the faculty member to do the development themselves. Hopefully, they would have the skills and be able to do it, but if not, there would be instructional design personnel/students who could help them do it, or other resources could be used. This layer is not a campus wide layer as layer #1 faculty development.

Funding for this layer comes from a series of mini-grants given to the individual faculty member or their school to hire the appropriate help needed for course development. The resources are centrally administered but spent in and spent by the colleges. The process for distribution is a competitive grant process, to which everyone has access. The purpose of this layer is to move ahead the development of courses that have information technology components.

Candidates for grants in this layer may or may not have had faculty development in information technology, it's desirable but not required and candidates who have received faculty development in layer one do not necessarily receive a unique priority for funding of course development or instructional development.

Program Development:

Venture Capital Funding from New Sources; Business Case Proposals: Needs of the Edu-business

Campus centrally administered layer, it is called program development and is funded by a venture capital fund. Development in this layer is intended to produce viable programs that have the ability to finance themselves and perhaps make money for other programs. The amount of money to be invested, the venture capital for the program is limited, business cases will be used in part to determine what programs are developed. A central campus office will administer program development activities, marketing analysis and the administration of the on-line programs. This is a very strategic layer that channels resources to the development of programs that have the potential to be economically viable. This involves some level of risks, each program may not make a go of itself, but across several there has to be a positive return on investment.

Educational Technology R&D:

Mini-Grant Funding from New Sources; Competitively Available; Need to keep up with technology - "Skunk Works"

The top layer is available to the colleges and to the campus, and this is the research and development layer. This is operated through a request for proposal process where money for our needs is requested from a central university wide pool, but distributed to the colleges. The colleges put together proposals for what they would do with R&D money. It is high risk money, it does not necessarily have to have a faculty development outcome or a course development outcome or program development outcome, but it does need to explore or develop new technologies that may have potential for each of those other areas. This is the cutting edge of technology and there should be some central campus activities in this R&D and there should be some college level activities in the R&D. The amount of money is yet be determined, the sources is also yet to be determined.

Appendix

A – Goals of the Information Technology Planning Task Force

B – Process Objectives for the Planning Effort

C – Fundamental Principles that Guided the IT Planning Process

D – Expected Outcomes

E – Process

F – Summary of Most Influential IT Trends

G – Academic Affairs Faculty IT Survey and Needs Assessment

H – Academic Computing Advisory Committee Report on Information Technology Issues Affecting Salary, Promotion and Tenure

I – University of North Dakota, Schedule 2 – Technology Applications and Access, 2001-03 - Biennial Budget

J – University of North Dakota, Schedule 3 – Institutional Innovation Funds, 2001-03 Biennial Budget

Note: Discussion and recommendations for these budgets were done in consultation with the I3 consultants and were submitted to the President and his Cabinet and the Council of Deans early in the ITPTF planning process.
K – Vision…Strategy…Roadmap: Charting UND’s Technology Path for the New Millennium, Innovative Interactions, Inc.

Appendix A

Goals of the Information Technology Planning Task Force

Appendix B

Process Objectives for the Planning Effort

Appendix C

Fundamental Principles that guided the IT planning process

Appendix D

Expected Outcomes

The recommendations in this report are expected to result in the following outcomes

1.    All graduates will be proficient in technology and specifically in the technology of their discipline. Therefore are competitive in
       the marketplace.

The university will enhance its environment to:

Appendix E

Process

President Kupchella established the Information Technology Planning Task Force in September, 1999. He gave the task force the following charge (see September 10, 1999 memo):

 The Task Force had its first meeting in October, 1999 and met at least twice a month. After six meetings, it became clear to the Task Force that this issue was so large and complex, that assistance would be needed and resources to retain consultants were sought.

Dorette Kerian supplied an initial list of possible vendors. The list of possible consultants was narrowed down to three prospects, and Dr. Robert Rubeck and Dr. James Shaeffer interviewed three prospective consultants on December 23, 1999. They were:

Innovative Interactions Inc. (I3)

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)

Kaludis Consulting Group (KCG)

At the beginning of each interview, Rubeck and Shaeffer described The scope of work on for the consultation was identified as: the project as follows:

From the description of the scope of work, we asked the following general questions: Each of the consulting groups sent a written proposal which were discussed by the Information Technology Planning Task Force and discussed at the January 18, 2000 meeting parameters: From this discussion, the task force interviewed I3 and KCG using the following base-line questions: The Task Force recommended to the President that Innovative Interactions Inc. be selected as the consulting group. I3 was hired in January, 2000 and began work on the project immediately.

The major responsibilities of I3 were to:

The Task Force utilized Innovative Interactions Inc.’s report as an one information point in drafting the ITPTF report and recommendations a copy of the I3 report is included as an appendix to the ITPTF report.

Appendix F

SUMMARY OF MOST INFLUENTIAL IT TRENDS

Globalization

Network scholarship especially using the Internet, has dramatically changed our ability to communicate worldwide. The global economy opens numerous opportunities for increasing student enrollment, but at the same time opens opportunities for North Dakota students to study elsewhere without the costs of leaving home.

Technological Developments and Applications

More and more applications, including voice, data and video are available on the desktop and are being driven through computer and telephone networks. Much technology is learning to take advantage of access systems that are based on traditional architectures.

Electronic computing devices have become commonplace. Devices will become smaller and smaller while offering more and more power. Computational power will move closer to the end user and applications will become more aligned with personal productivity. Large computers will return to specialized roles of providing centralized services such as file systems, data bases management services, and backup devices.

Standards are being set through programs of benchmarking and best practices. Identification of and agreements relating to intellectual property, as well as, technology transfer initiatives become increasingly valuable in the very near future.

Regional and National Demographic Trends

The new traditional student is likely to change. Only one in six college students is full-time, aged 18 - 22, and living on campus. The new student wants convenience, service, and high quality at a low cost, and is likely to embrace technology. Students are older and more diverse, and are balancing personal life and career priorities. The new students want "on-demand learning" opportunities.

The private sector looks at higher education as an opportunity. There is a strong movement towards hiring a degreed workforce or further educating current employees who can think logically and critically and who will confidently embrace change.

Demands for Greater Accountability by Higher Education Institutions

Learning communities will need to be developed. Higher education institutions must facilitate interest groups or learners will find ways and places to develop their own. The impact of self-developed learning communities will encourage corporate learning environments that are market-driven, unlike traditional higher education

Class size will increase as delivery times decrease. Class times and course calendars based on the Carnegie credit system are becoming obsolete. Many learners will select open-entry, open-exit courses.

The faculty role in course development will be different in the future, in that the faculty role in course delivery will be divorced from the role in course development. Duplication of effort across the landscape of higher education will not be tolerated, and competition will increasingly become the basis for allocating support to institutions in a state.

Developments in Cognitive Science

Learning and certification of mastery have traditionally been recognized together, such as in the awarding of a degree, but according to Massey and Zemsky higher education might consider unbundling the two. Learners may decide which parts of mastery need to be certified; and certification may be awarded to individuals or to groups. The new concept of learning requires that the students, or learners, be actively involved in the process.

On-campus students expect the use of technology in the curriculum – in communication, presentations, demonstrations, exercises, and assignments.

On-line students are looking for convenience and expect to use technology to facilitate their learning needs at a time and place conducive to their method of learning. On-line learning will increase; however, learners will look for higher levels of interaction and stimulation. This trend does not necessarily point to a return to people intervention; rather virtual interactions, animations, and stimulations.

Need for Lifelong Learning

Academics will move to a common market with mass customization. The marketplace will decide what is offered; curriculum will not be decided by administrators, faculty senates, governors, or others who have traditionally impacted these issues. Universities traditionally prided themselves on doing education rather than training. In this new age any system that does not do both, is will be a failure. Lifelong learning, will become the norm, and educational institutions which offer opportunities for post baccalaureate learning, certifications, and other credentialing, will likely prosper. Considering the demographic profile of the new students, lifelong learning offerings must utilize technology.

The combination of information overload and the increasing technology absorption rate widens the gap between those who are able to remain abreast of changes and those who are unable to progress. Organizations' abilities to implement new technologies will be dependant upon the ability of the workforce to grow skilled employees.

Lifelong learning options will increasingly include quick courses and learning materials provided on business and industry servers or purchased from vendors.

Appendix G

Academic Affairs Faculty
Information Technology Survey & Needs Assessment Results
Spring 2000

1. Gender?
male
61.00%
female
39.00%

2. Highest degree held?
Bachelor
2.00%
EdD
4.00%
JD
5.00%
Masters
22.00%
Other
4.00%
PhD
62.00%
Specialist
1.00%

3. Academic rank?
Professor
22.00%
Assistant Professor
35.00%
Associate Professor
29.00%
Lecturer
9.00%
Instructor
5.00%

4. How many years have you been teaching at UND?
1-2
8.00%
13-18
12.00%
18+
22.00%
3-6
21.00%
7-12
27.00%
Less than 1
9.00%

5. Is the computer in your office adequate for your needs?
don't have one
3.00%
no
21.00%
yes
72.00%

6. Do you have a computer at home?
yes
85.00%
no
15.00%

7. How would you assess your current skill level using each of the following items?
 
High Skill Level
Moderate Skill Level
Minimal Skill Level
Novice
Never Use
Word processing
48.06%
43.46%
6.01%
1.06%
1.06%
Electronic mail
46.29%
42.76%
7.77%
0.71%
1.77%
WWW page creation/editing
6.71%
16.96%
17.67%
14.13%
43.82%
Searching library databases
19.08%
41.70%
22.26%
11.31%
4.95%
WWW browsing and searching
32.86%
42.05%
18.02%
4.24%
2.47%
Course authoring software
4.24%
11.31%
9.19%
10.25%
62.54%
LISTSERV
11.66%
23.32%
17.67%
22.26%
23.32%
Presentation software
16.61%
28.98%
15.19%
9.54%
29.33%
Spreadsheets
19.43%
29.68%
15.55%
11.66%
23.32%
Databases
9.54%
24.03%
26.86%
14.13%
24.73%
Statistical packages
11.31%
22.26%
17.67%
10.25%
37.81%
Scanners
11.66%
20.85%
18.73%
14.84%
32.51%
Digital cameras
7.42%
11.66%
9.54%
11.66%
59.01%
Loading instructional materials into a template or course delivery software
6.71%
9.89%
13.07%
10.95%
58.66%
Using Email to communicate as part of assignments
28.98%
27.21%
10.60%
9.19%
23.32%
Other
4.59%
3.18%
0.35%
0.35%
5.65%
Other
2.12%
1.41%
1.06%
0.35%
5.65%

8. Please indicate if you have done any of the following in the courses you teach at UND.
 
Yes
No
No, but am interested
Used a word processor to prepare handouts/lecture notes
95.76%
1.77%
1.41%
Used PowerPoint to deliver lectures
46.64%
32.86%
19.43%
Placed a course syllabus on the web
40.99%
30.04%
27.56%
Placed course materials on the web
37.10%
32.51%
28.98%
Communicated with students using Email
91.17%
5.65%
2.12%
Moderated student-to-student online communication
16.25%
63.96%
18.37%
Expected students to use web resources
76.33%
18.02%
3.89%
Required students to do exercises/activities online
29.68%
48.06%
21.20%
Used a LISTSERV
43.82%
37.81%
15.19%
Used web-based resources as part of course content
55.48%
28.27%
14.49%
Used commercially produced instructional materials
48.76%
37.81%
10.25%
Worked with Instructional Technologists in course planning
13.78%
62.90%
21.55%
Developed and delivered an entirely web-based course
9.19%
67.84%
20.85%
Seriously considered development of a web-based course
20.14%
62.19%
15.55%
Used desktop video conferencing 
3.89%
75.27%
19.08%
Required students to use electronic journaling
9.19%
72.44%
16.61%
Used threaded discussions or chats
7.77%
60.07%
16.25%
Other
3.89%
4.24%
1.06%

9. If you have used technology in your teaching, which of the following describes your in-class use of classroom/instructional technology? (Please answer to ALL elements of your use.)
Content presentations
51.24%
Technology training presentations
38.87%
Productivity tools
21.55%
Media-based learning tools
40.99%
Computer-based learning tools
21.91%
Other
6.01%

10. Indicate your preferred environment for learning new technologies.
 
Strongly preferred
Less preferred
Minimally preferred
Do not like
Don't know
Learn on my own 
32.51%
37.10%
20.49%
6.36%
0.71%
Receive individual instruction
58.30%
23.67%
11.66%
1.41%
1.41%
Learn from professional staff 
57.60%
22.97%
10.60%
1.41%
2.83%
Attend workshops designed for 
44.52%
27.56%
15.90%
6.71%
1.41%
Utilize peer mentoring/tutoring
38.52%
31.45%
15.19%
4.59%
5.30%
Use computer-based instruction
15.55%
34.98%
23.67%
16.61%
3.53%
Attend "jumpstart" sessions
20.85%
22.61%
17.67%
7.42%
24.73%
Work with a team of professional and technical staff
35.34%
23.32%
15.90%
5.65%
12.37%
I am not inclined to use new 
10.60%
7.77%
5.65%
22.26%
8.13%
Other
2.12%
0.35%
2.83%
6.01%
6.36%
Other
1.06%
0.35%
0.35%
0.00%
1.77%

11. If you anticipate using new technology to support your instruction, will you need to acquire new skills?
Yes
78.80%
No
6.01%
Don't know
9.89%
Not inclined
2.83%

12. Please indicate to what extent you intend to use technology in your instruction in the next two years?
Significantly more
26.15%
Moderately more
55.48%
No change
9.19%
Don't know
6.71%

13. Rate the degree to which the LACK of the following factors function as an impediment to the use of technology in your teaching?
 
Very serious
Serious
Moderate
Minimal
Not an impediment
departmental/college funding
32.86%
20.14%
16.61%
15.55%
11.31%
administrative encouragement
8.13%
9.54%
21.55%
25.44%
31.10%
interest from students
2.12%
8.83%
22.61%
28.98%
33.57%
technical support
21.20%
17.67%
27.21%
19.08%
10.60%
training 
19.79%
24.73%
25.80%
17.31%
8.48%
time to learn
46.29%
25.09%
14.13%
7.42%
2.83%
adequate computer hardware in my office 
13.43%
14.84%
19.43%
21.55%
26.50%
access to software 
14.13%
13.43%
25.80%
22.61%
19.79%
classroom infrastructure/equipment
28.62%
19.08%
20.85%
14.84%
11.66%
student computer skills
3.53%
10.95%
28.27%
32.16%
20.14%
personal interest 
3.89%
6.71%
22.61%
26.15%
37.10%
adequate network dial-up capabilities
12.37%
12.01%
22.26%
22.97%
21.91%
teaching load reductions for development of instructional innovations
33.22%
19.08%
20.85%
11.31%
10.95%
one-stop technical support
14.13%
20.14%
22.97%
21.20%
14.13%
meaning usefulness for students
8.83%
14.49%
20.85%
21.55%
25.09%
recognition in tenure and promotion decisions
17.67%
8.83%
14.84%
19.08%
32.86%
Other
2.12%
0.71%
1.06%
0.35%
2.83%
Other
1.06%
0.35%
0.71%
0.35%
2.83%

14. When you considered or implemented the use of technology in the courses you teach how important were the following factors in your decision process?
 
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
Don't know
Appropriateness for subject matter
65.72%
20.85%
4.95%
2.12%
1.06%
Usefulness for students
64.66%
26.50%
2.12%
1.06%
0.71%
Classroom presentation capabilities 
42.05%
29.68%
14.49%
5.30%
2.12%
Discipline-specific lab capabilities/availability
24.03%
20.49%
22.61%
14.84%
9.89%
Recognition in tenure and promotion decisions
4.59%
9.19%
21.55%
52.30%
5.65%
Peer or department/college pressure
2.47%
6.36%
23.67%
58.30%
2.47%
Reduced teaching load 
12.01%
13.43%
23.67%
34.98%
6.71%
Release time for development of teaching 
16.96%
14.84%
24.73%
30.04%
4.95%
Availability of instructional support services 
24.03%
22.97%
26.50%
16.25%
2.83%
Adequacy of campus infrastructure
27.92%
29.33%
20.49%
9.89%
5.65%
Financial compensation
10.95%
10.60%
23.32%
40.64%
6.01%
Other
2.47%
0.71%
0.00%
1.41%
2.47%
Other
0.35%
0.00%
0.00%
1.77%
2.12%

15. If or when you develop a course for web-based delivery, in your view, what is the most appropriate remuneration?
 
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
Don't know
Recognition in tenure and promotion decisions
24.03%
15.55%
20.85%
25.09%
6.36%
Reduction in teaching load
27.92%
21.20%
20.85%
15.90%
6.01%
Release time 
26.15%
24.03%
19.43%
16.96%
5.65%
One-time payment 
10.25%
14.49%
24.73%
30.04%
10.25%
Recognition as a creative activity
23.67%
27.21%
21.55%
13.78%
4.59%
Course becomes a portion of my teaching load
38.87%
26.15%
11.31%
8.48%
6.36%
Recognition equal to published research
17.67%
14.49%
15.19%
22.97%
5.65%
Other
0.71%
1.41%
0.00%
1.06%
3.18%

19. Which of the following types of classroom equipment (capabilities) do you use in your teaching and how often? (Do not include information about courses you teach over IVN.)
 
Every class
Weekly
Monthly
Once a semester
Never use
Chalk or white board
62.54%
19.43%
5.65%
5.65%
1.77%
Overhead transparency projector
27.21%
25.09%
15.90%
7.77%
17.67%
Slide or 16mm film projector
2.12%
4.24%
10.25%
14.49%
62.19%
Networked computer 
12.01%
9.89%
10.95%
7.07%
49.47%
Computer projection through LCD projector
19.08%
8.48%
9.19%
9.19%
46.29%
Computer projection through TV
2.83%
2.47%
2.83%
6.01%
75.27%
Videotape projection through TV
3.53%
13.78%
27.56%
13.78%
30.39%
Videotape projection through LCD projector
3.18%
4.95%
9.54%
6.01%
66.43%
Integrated media selection system (DVD, LCD, networked computer, sound system, mic, etc.)
6.71%
3.53%
6.01%
3.53%
71.02%
Lapel or podium microphone 
3.89%
1.06%
2.47%
3.89%
80.57%
Video with inter-connected remote 
1.41%
0.71%
0.71%
3.53%
83.75%
Wireless computer network 
0.71%
1.77%
0.71%
0.71%
86.57%
Network connections at each student seat
1.41%
1.77%
0.71%
0.71%
84.81%
Student response system at each 
2.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
88.69%
Other
1.77%
0.71%
0.71%
0.00%
5.30%
Other
0.35%
0.71%
0.00%
0.00%
4.24%

20. If you DO NOT have regular or predictable access to the following classroom equipment, indicate if you would use it if it were available? (Do not include information about courses you teach over IVN. Check all that apply.)
 
Would use, if available
Networked computer 
36.40%
Computer projection through LCD projector
39.58%
Computer projection through TV
21.55%
Videotape projection through TV
19.79%
Videotape projection through LCD projector
22.26%
Integrated media selection system (DVD, LCD, networked computer, sound system, mic, etc.)
25.09%
Lapel or podium microphone 
9.19%
Video with inter-connected remote 
11.66%
Wireless computer network 
19.43%
Network connections at each student seat
24.03%
Student response system at each 
22.26%
Other
3.18%
Other
1.77%

21. Reflecting on the classroom(s) you taught in during the last two semesters, please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following attributes. (Do not include information about courses you teach over IVN.)
 
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Lighting and/or light controls
21.55%
40.99%
16.25%
17.67%
Classroom layout/floor plan
14.13%
38.16%
20.14%
22.97%
Seating
13.43%
36.04%
21.20%
25.09%
Sound system or acoustics
13.78%
39.22%
27.56%
15.19%
Physical environment (temp, ventilation)
10.95%
28.27%
21.20%
34.98%
Window coverings
11.66%
25.44%
32.16%
23.32%
Overall appearance of the classroom
10.60%
38.87%
25.44%
20.85%
AV equipment
11.31%
33.57%
25.44%
24.38%
Other
0.71%
0.35%
1.06%
3.53%
Other
0.35%
0.35%
1.06%
1.06%

22. It is likely classroom upgrading/renovation will require a phased approach, in your view, how should a phased approach be prioritized. Please check one.
Large general purpose lecture halls
8.83%
Distributed evenly across campus
18.02%
Case by case basis, where upgrading can be most economically accomplished
8.13%
Case by case basis, where there is documented need
56.54%

23. To assist in establishing priorities for classroom enhancements please rate the following equipment/capabilities and their importance to your teaching. (Do not include information about courses you teach over IVN.)
 
Essential
Somewhat important
Not important
Chalk board
58.66%
15.55%
20.14%
White board
43.46%
22.26%
26.86%
Screen
75.97%
14.84%
6.01%
Film or slide projectors
22.97%
22.61%
44.52%
VCR and TV
55.12%
24.03%
14.13%
Computer with LCD projectors
44.52%
29.33%
18.73%
Internet-based video conferencing
10.25%
24.73%
54.42%
Lighting and media selection controls close to podium
27.56%
33.57%
30.39%
Other
4.95%
0.00%
1.77%
Other
0.71%
0.35%
1.41%

Appendix J

Academic Computing Advisory Committee
Report on Information Technology Issues
Affecting Salary, Promotion and Tenure

Introduction

It is the opinion of the Academic Computing Advisory Committee (ACAC) that the issues associated with the use of information technology (IT) as they relate to salary, promotion, and tenure decisions are under addressed. In the regular December,1999, meeting of the ACAC, President Kupchella challenged the committee to undertake the task of offering recommendations about the way that the University should deal with appropriately crediting IT effort and production in the evaluation of teaching, research, and service on which salary, promotion, and tenure are based. The President suggested this effort would assist the work of the Information Technology Planning Task Force. Following is the report of the ACAC in response to the directive of President Kupchella.

Unaddressed Issues

We begin the report by noting some issues that remain unaddressed. They include:

  1. How the institution and its component parts should address the issue of intellectual property rights is a major concern. The focus of this report is suggesting ways the institution should address issues of IT as they apply to scholarship and issues that surround the way in which scholarly activity is evaluated. We recognized that the way the institution deals with intellectual property is tied directly to the rewards afforded faculty, but we believed that addressing that issue went beyond the scope of this committee.
  2. How the individual faculty member is to rearrange an already barely manageable schedule to accommodate new demands on time and energy created by the use of information technology remains an issue.

  3. Note: For most faculty members, there is no "free time." The time required for taking advantage of information technology must be taken from somewhere else.
     

  4. How the rearrangement of faculty time and energy will impact the three areas on which salary, tenure and promotion decisions depend; research, service and teaching; remains an unknown.
Useful analogies:

Information Technology Related Traditional

Time demands:

Teaching:

Research (non-traditional publishing and other research efforts):

Note: Because material published on-line generally makes the author more responsible for a variety of roles traditionally taken by the book publisher and his agents (editor, typesetter, illustrator, layout artist, to name a few) successful on-line publishing requires more time, and acquisition of a broader range of skills, than traditional publishing.

Information Technology Related Traditional

Service:

General principles:

Suggested Guidelines:

University

They should then submit it to the appropriate decision making bodies for review and approval.

This committee believes the proposed policy should include:

    1. A process for identifying qualified reviewers, and
    2. Identification of the kinds of IT efforts and products that might be produced and the way these will
    3. apply to each of the following:
1. Teaching,
2. Research, and
3. Service.
School and College Level Department Level
    1. How the department evaluates research and publication in non-traditional formats,
    2. What importance is attached to the development of new software and what criteria are used to evaluate such software,
    3. What credit is given for the integration of IT into courses,
    4. What recognition is given to professional activities relating to IT, and
    5. What criteria are used to evaluate faculty members who provide IT support to colleagues, staff, and students.
Faculty Members The committee does not suggest that the recommendations presented here represent an inclusive list. The university, colleges and schools, and departments are encouraged to add additional elements to their lists.

Solutions Used by other Institutions

Top of Page