I. Executive Summary
The Technology Plan Oversight Committee (TPOC) was charged to coordinate technology planning at Buffalo State College. TPOC members were appointed by and report to the provost and vice president for Academic Affairs and the vice president for Finance and Management. TPOC completed its short-term plan in January 1998, which was presented to and accepted by the Vice Presidents' Council in February 1998. During the spring semester, TPOC worked on the long-term planning document and followed up on many of the goals outlined in the short-term plan.
To guide the strategic planning process, the long-term plan was formulated using three broad technology goals related to the college Mission Statement and strategic directions. Sub-committees were formed in six planning areas (Information Access; Training; Instructional and Research Technology; Distance Learning; Administration and Telecommunication Technology; and Support) and specific sub-goals were created to reach the broader objectives. In addition, an analysis of external factors affecting BSC's competitive position, its internal characteristics, and a review of technology initiatives at other campuses were used to help the committee in its strategic planning process.
The remainder of this summary includes a brief update on the goals outlined in the short-term plan, and an outline of the goals contained in the long-term plan.
Update on Short-Term Plan Goals
Strategic planning and decision-making for technology at BSC will be governed by the Technology Council (TC). The TC will be report to the provost and vice president for Academic Affairs and the vice president for Finance and Management.
A broad estimate of technology resources and expenditures is included in Table 1 (p. 8) of this report.
The Associate Vice President for Budget and Planning requested the Deans to send a prioritized list of department needs in January. The department priorities will be one of the first issues addressed by the Technology Council.
Each faculty has creatd a Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable. Organizational meetings are in progress, and a "kick-off" event will take place in October.
B. Technology Infrastructure
The plan to wire every building on campus is progressing. With the exception of Houston Gym and Cassety Hall, every academic building is wired.
This summer 50 new computers were ordered for faculty. Another 100 have been purchased and will be installed this semester.
A replacement policy has been developed, but not yet implemented.
C. Staffing, Training, and Salaries
A support plan has not yet been completed. There are several support recommendations included in the long-term plan.
An analysis of salaries in Computing Services was completed. A recommendation has been forwarded to the vice president of Finance and Management for consideration. The full report is included as Appendix 3.
Two permanent "distributed support" positions for PC and Mac labs were created this year.
Funding was increased during the 1997/98 academic year.
D. Administrative Systems
A sub-committee of TPOC was created to identify and recommend a vendor for a new Student Records System. The report (Appendix 4) was sent to the Vice President of Finance and Management, and the recommendations are being implemented.
Long-term Plan Goals
The specific goals of the long-term plan were driven by the three broader goals outlined below, which were derived from the College's Mission Statement and strategic directions.
TPOC statement and goals: Our challenging world is being shaped and driven by the information revolution, and we aspire to enable our students to excel in the information age. To that end:
expertise with a variety of technologies.
A. Information Access:
B. Training
1. The Faculty And Staff Technology (FAST) Development Center has been created to coordinate and provide all technology training to the campus community.
The following recommendations were made by the ad hoc Web Group convened by the vice president for Finance and Management:
A complete support model for campus technology will be determined after the selection of a Student Records System and acceptance or rejection of a campus-wide computer requirement. However, several recommendations for reorganization and support are contained within the goals outlined in TPOC's short and long-term plans.
3. Manager of Information Resources
- This position will be responsible for managing library and Internet technologies, and will report jointly to the Librarian and the Director of Computing Services.
In order to generate support and discussion of TPOC's long-term plan, Academic Affairs and Finance and Management will promote various technology initiatives throughout the 1998/99 academic year.
A series of campus roundtable discussions on integrating computer technology into the curriculum will be held during the fall semester. In addition, promotional events for the Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtables and the FAST Center will be held during early October.
This TIP campus grant program is designed to help BSC achieve campus and TPOC goals. Faculty, staff and student groups can develop technology projects funded up to $10,000.
A joint Labor-Management committee recently applied for and received a UUP Campus Technology Grant. The grant will be used to train a significant number of faculty and other professionals on using the Web to enhance instructional and program activities.
II. Background, Process, and Activities
The Technology Plan Oversight Committee (TPOC) was charged to coordinate technology planning at Buffalo State College. TPOC members were appointed by and report to the provost and vice president for Academic Affairs and the vice president for Finance and Management. TPOC completed its short-term plan in January 1998, which was presented to and accepted by the Vice Presidents' Council in February 1998. During the spring semester, TPOC worked on the long-term planning document and followed up on many of the goals outlined in the short-term plan.
The recommendations put forward in the Short-Term Plan were determined using UB's "Peer Review of Computing Services" and an analysis of focus group interview data performed during November 1997. For the long-term plan, TPOC used the College Mission Statement and strategic directions to establish three broad technology goals that would guide the strategic planning process. Sub-committees were formed in six planning areas (Information Access; Training; Instructional and Research Technology; Distance Learning; Administration and Telecommunication Technology; and Support), and specific sub-goals were created to reach the broader objectives. In addition, an analysis of external factors affecting BSC's competitive position, its internal characteristics, and a review of technology initiatives at other campuses were used to help the committee in its strategic planning process.
The purpose of the short-term plan is to meet the immediate technology needs of the campus and create the infrastructure necessary to promote the widespread use of information technology at BSC. The purpose of the long-term plan is to facilitate the College's transition into the information age.
The remainder of this report includes:
- TPOC's vision statement, which guided the long-term planning process (Section
III);
- An update on the recommendations made in the Short-Term Plan (Section IV);
- An overview of the technology environment and factors affecting
Buffalo State College's competitive position (Section V);
- The Long-term Plan Recommendations (Section VI);
- Technology initiative for the 1998/99 academic year (VII);
III. VISION STATEMENT
BSC Mission Statement
Buffalo State College is committed to the intellectual, personal, and professional growth of its students, faculty, and staff. The goal of the college is to inspire a lifelong passion for learning, and to empower a diverse population of students to succeed as citizens of a challenging world. Toward this goal, and in order to enhance the quality of life in Buffalo and the larger community, the college is dedicated to excellence in teaching and scholarship, cultural enrichment, and service.
BSC Strategic Directions
TPOC Statement and Goals
Our challenging world is being shaped and driven by the information revolution, and we aspire to enable our students to excel in the information age. To that end:
Goal 1: BSC will facilitate "Universal Access" to information resources to all students, faculty, and staff from on or off campus.
Goal 2: Every BSC graduate will be able to process and apply information to effectively analyze and resolve problems, and have achieved a high level of expertise with a variety of technologies.
Goal 3: BSC will provide support and incentives to faculty and staff members that use technology to enhance instruction and program services.
Recommendations from the Short-term Plan were presented to and accepted by the Vice Presidents' Council in February 1998. The following is an update on those recommendations.
A new technology decision-making and committee structure plan was recommended to the Vice President for Finance and Management in April. The College Senate also provided input on the plan (the full report is included as Appendix 1).
Strategic planning and decision-making for technology at BSC will be governed by the Technology Council (TC), which will be advised by the Academic Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) and the Administrative Information Technology Advisory Committee (AITAC). The TC will be responsible to the provost and vice president for Academic Affairs and the vice president for Finance and Management. The Technology Council will assume the responsibilities of the Technology Plan Oversight Committee and the Technology Fee Advisory Group and will continue the strategic planning process, establish campus-wide technology priorities, and allocate Technology Fee funds. The TC (with ATAC and AITAC) is also responsible for coordinating the creation of ad hoc sub-committees to address various technology issues that may arise over time.
The functions for ATAC and AITAC include advising the Director of Computing Services, setting technology priorities for their respective constituents and forwarding recommendations to the TC, advising the Council in the long-term planning process, and facilitating communication of technology decisions. To better serve the community's needs, we also recommend that the TC form, in consultation with the President, an external advisory board with membership from private and public sector organizations.
A formal campus-wide technology budget has not been developed. A broad estimate of technology resources and expenditures is included in Table 1. It is estimated that about $3.5 million was used for technology-related expenditures during the 1995/96 academic year (mainly equipment and personnel). This figure increased to just over $4.5 million during the 1996/97 academic year. The increase in sources of funds was attributed to the Technology Fee ($400,000) and temporary IFR sources ($600,000). On the uses side, between 35-40 percent of the funds went to personnel costs, and about 47 percent to equipment expenditures --including computers, wiring, software, and other hardware (the remaining amount includes travel, training, and office supplies for CS).
Based upon the technology-related expenditures from Table l, an estimate of the average annual support cost for maintaining each computer was calculated at approximately $2,160. With roughly 580 student computers available, that implies total support costs of $1.25 million. In l 996/97, the FTE student enrollment was 8,257. If Buffalo State College were to use student Technology Fee monies (only) to purchase and maintain student-accessed computers, it would imply a projected annual Technology Fee of $150.
Table l: Technology Sources and Uses of Funds
|
Estimated Sources and Uses of Technology Funds |
||||
|
YEAR |
1995/96 |
1996/97 |
1997/98* |
|
|
Sources of Funds |
||||
|
Annual |
||||
|
SCAP |
$ 189,134.00 |
$ 192,540.00 |
$ 190,000.00 |
|
|
Acad. Eq. Rep. |
$ 207,932.00 |
$ 202,309.00 |
$ 200,000.00 |
|
|
Tech FEE |
$ 378,230.00 |
$ 756,202.00 |
$ 732,734.00 |
|
|
Comp. Svcs. Budget |
$2,267,514.00 |
$2,584,461.00 |
$2,529,739.00 |
|
|
Acad. Aff. Budget |
||||
|
Library |
$ 285,676.00 |
$ 310,453.00 |
$ 347,313.00 |
|
|
Inst. Res.--Supplies |
$ 15,000.00 |
$ 15,000.00 |
$ 15,000.00 |
|
|
Sub-total Annual |
$3,343,486.00 |
$4,060,965.00 |
$4,014,786.00 |
|
|
Temporary |
||||
|
Contingency Funds |
$ 42,800.00 |
$ 319,698.00 |
$ 11,900.00 |
|
|
IFRs (F&M) |
$ 37,218.00 |
$ 215,204.00 |
$ 297,332.00 |
|
|
Venture Plan |
$ 125,000.00 |
$ - |
- |
|
|
IFRs (AA) |
$ 145,000.00 |
$ 145,000.00 |
$ 145,000.00 |
|
|
Sub-total Temp |
$ 350,018.00 |
$ 679,902.00 |
$ 454,232.00 |
|
|
Total Sources |
$3,693,504.00 |
$4,740,867.00 |
$4,469,018.00 |
|
|
Uses of Funds |
||||
|
Personnel |
$1,427,672.00 |
$1,653,217.00 |
N/A |
|
|
Non-Personnel |
$1,915,814.00 |
$2,407,748.00 |
N/A |
|
|
Total Uses |
$3,693,504.00 |
$4,740,867.00 |
$3,772,516.00 |
|
|
* The figures for 1997/98 are preliminary. |
||||
It appears that the current $80 annual Technology Fee is inadequate to maintain the current level of student-accessed computers.
Proposal:
The Technology Council should review and recommend a more realistic Technology Fee structure.
3. Department and Program Needs
The Associate Vice President for Budget and Planning requested the Deans to send a prioritized list of department needs in January. The Technology Council will establish prioritized needs and forward recommendations to the vice presidents.
4. Teaching. Learning and Technology Roundtables
Each faculty's Dean was asked to create a Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable, and a plan to coordinate their efforts is in process. The TLTR is a "national program which encourages, guides, and assists individual campuses in developing their own campus-wide planning and support systems and in working on related projects with other institutions. More specifically, the TLTR program seeks to help participating colleges and universities support better selection and use of a rapidly widening range of instructional choices to serve the learning needs and preferences of a widening range of students as well as the teaching capabilities and preferences of a wide range of faculty." Organizational meetings occurred during the summer of 1998, and a "kick-off'' event will take place in October (see Section VII).
B. Technology Infrastructure
1. Campus Network
The plan to wire every building on campus is progressing. With the exception of Houston Gym and Cassety Hall every academic building is wired. An estimate for re-wiring the library has been received, and a plan to complete wiring is in progress. A committee is working on a proposal to have the campus dorms wired by fall 1999. All of the buildings currently wired have the necessary network hardware. Moore Dormitory Complex is wired.
2. Network-compatible Computers
During the summer 50 new computers were ordered and installed for faculty. Another 100 have been purchased and will be installed during the fall 1998 semester. Issues of availability of network compatible computers for staff will be resolved in the next phase of purchases.
As a possible replacement policy, TPOC examined the feasibility of leasing computers. After examining SUNY Brockport's "Bid Request for PC Lease Program," speaking with Dona Hazen Brockport's Director of Purchasing, and obtaining computer lease quotes from Dell and Gateway, it appears that purchasing computer hardware is still the best option for Buffalo State College. Based on the assumption of continued purchasing of PCs, we suggest the establishment of:
· A minimum network standard, and the immediate replacement of sub-standard computers.
· A dynamic upgrade standard—users wishing to exceed the "standard system" will have to justify their need for an "advanced system" or laptop.
· An on-going campus-wide replacement policy to replace college computers over four years old—users wishing to upgrade more frequently will have to justify their need for early replacements.
· A comprehensive database of all college computers (be able to identify computers by make, model, purchase date, hard drive memory, etc.).
· A list of organizations to which Buffalo State College can donate surplus computers.
C. Staffing, Training, and Salaries
A support plan has not yet been completed. There are several support recommendations included in Section VI. F. of the Long-Term Plan.
An analysis of salaries in Computing Services was completed. In order for all positions to retain and recruit quality technology personnel, we recommend that Buffalo State College's Computing Services' salaries be raised over the next two years equivalent to our regional competitors. The recommendation has been forwarded to the vice president of Finance and Management for consideration (the full report is included as Appendix 3).
One permanent distributed position was created this year to maintain the Natural and Social Sciences' lab and the Computer Information Systems' lab. A second temporary position is in place to maintain all Mac labs. This position will become permanent in the fall.
Compared to the 1996/97 academic year, funding for training Computing Services personnel was increased by 22 percent during the 1997/98 academic year.
A sub-committee of TPOC was created to identify and recommend a vendor for a new Student Records System. However, the committee found that no system, which met the requisite needs of the campus, was fully operational. Their recommendations are:
· Send campus teams for two or three site visits to campuses that are working through an implementation with Exeter and PeopleSoft. Move ahead with plans to complete the network
· wiring in all campus buildings, so that access to student records systems is available to all administrative and academic departments. Purchase up-to-date, compatible equipment for all
· faculty and staff that do not currently have work-stations that can be connected to the campus NT network, and connect this new equipment to the network. After checking future
· compatibility with Exeter and PeopleSoft, purchase any software required to facilitate end-user reporting and analysis, and provide resources/funding for training and support of this function.
The report was sent to the Vice President of Finance and Management, and the recommendations are being implemented. The full sub-committee report is included in Appendix 4.
V. The Technology Environment
Higher education is in the midst of an information revolution, which is being driven by changes in technology. In order for institutions to survive, it is imperative that they embrace these changes:
Institutions that neglect technology will run the risk in the future of being marginalized in favor of educational systems that more effectively serve a generation of learners accustomed to the benefits of ubiquitous computing and communications…Outsiders will use information technology as a lever to pry open a market that heretofore has been the exclusive domain of colleges and universities...Ironically, the same faculty members who are fighting against any substitution of information technology for their labors may find themselves blindsided down the road by a much greater force that simply eliminates their institution altogether (National CrossTalk, Vol. 5, No. 3, Fall 1997, p. 8).
The advent of powerful PCs and the World Wide Web has revolutionized how information is gathered, processed, and disseminated. Buffalo State College, like many other institutions, is struggling to define itself in the midst of this revolution. While the business sector has accepted the change and begun to adapt, higher education, in general, has not. However, technological change is putting increasing pressure on higher education to adapt: students are demanding quality technology and services; employers are demanding more skills from graduates; and "Virtual Universities," using Web-based distance education, are increasing their share of the market.
The availability and quality of technology is becoming a significant determinant in the choice of educational services. The current generation of new applicants, raised in the information age, expect institutions to provide quality, up-to-date technology. As public support diminishes and tuition increases, private colleges and for-profit, business-run entities are making the competition for these students even fiercer. Students are demanding better and more efficient services from colleges. Buffalo State College is in a very competitive higher education market. Within an hour's drive of Buffalo, there are 17 institutions which students can choose to attend. In order to remain competitive (even in an era of austerity), colleges will have to increase their technology expenditures, be more flexible in providing educational services, and be more efficient in administering their services.
While Colleges and Universities will strive to maintain the integrity of what is considered an "education," the reality of the job market dictates that the applied skills required in the information age must also be gained in the college experience. A recent Cornell University survey asked employers recruiting there to define specifically what computer skills they require when hiring college graduates, with the following results:
Computer Skill Percent of Employers Requiring
Word Processing 96 percent
E-mail/Networking 93 percent
Spreadsheet 86 percent
Data base 83 percent
Graphics/Presentations 75 percent
Reported in Buffalo State College Career Development Center's
Occubites, Fall 1997.
The information revolution has made the concept of a single lifetime skill and job obsolete. Information technology is developing at rapid rates, which is causing the creation of new and the destruction of old skills at faster rates. Employees of the information age will have to continuously upgrade their skills, and distance learning is playing a significant role in educating non-traditional students and graduates. In addition, traditional students are beginning to take advantage of the flexibility that Web-based distance learning offers. The SUNY Learning Network offered over 200 Web-based courses in 1997/98, with over 2,000 students enrolled (compared to 450 during 1996/97). Students can take and apply these courses toward their graduation requirements.
Nationally, the number of four-year colleges offering "Cybercourses" has increased from 645 in 1994 to 1,218 in 1996; and schools that actually offer degrees via the Web have increased from 93 in 1993 to 762 in 1997. Currently there are over 1 million students enrolled in distance education courses (compared to 13 million at the traditional "brick and mortar" school), and this number is expected to triple over the next several years. It is no coincidence that the number of colleges closing has increased. Between 1985 and 1990, 75 colleges were closed; and between 1991 and 1995, 122 were closed. The implication is clear: Web-based Distance Learning is creating a more competitive higher education environment.
There are two basic models that institutions are using to create universal information access: the mandatory computer purchase model; and the Universal Access model. The majority of institutions have opted for the mandatory purchase model, with most choosing to require laptops. To date over 20 institutions have adopted this model, with Wake Forest one of the most well-known examples. The Universal Access (UA) model was pioneered by Sonoma State University, a member of the California State University System, and was recently adopted by SUNY Oneonta and the University of Buffalo. The UA model assumes that computers are as necessary for college studies as textbooks are, and all students will have access to computing resources from a variety of sources.
The benefits to these institutions have been significant. Sonoma State reports:
· a 50 percent increase in admission inquiries,
· a record number of freshman applicants,
· a 10 percent increase in the yield of admitted students, and
· improved freshman/sophomore retention.
Wake Forest University reports that applications for the class of 2000 are the highest in the University's history, and students are applying with the highest ever test scores and class rank.
E. Current Technology Needs at BSC
While the College has made significant improvements over the past several years in upgrading its technology, there are still significant problems to overcome. TPOC conducted focus group interviews in November of 1997 to evaluate areas of weakness on campus. The following are the top three areas of concern for selected focus groups:
Students:
· Better access to general purpose and departmental computer labs (both more labs and expanded hours);
· Improved registration process;
· Improved access to information from the library.
Faculty:
· Training (basic software, Web, and discipline-specific technology)
· Up-to-date Technology (networked computers and discipline needs)
· Access to the NT network
Administrative Staff:
· Software Standards
· Access to Network
· Technology Support/Service
Department Chairs:
· Up-to-date Technology
· Integrated On-line Student Records System
· Access to Campus Network
Program Managers:
· Integrated On-line Student Records System
· Networked PC
· Training
Computing Services Staff:
· Planning and Communication
· Standards
· Networked PC for all faculty and staff
The results of TPOC's focus group interviews have also been substantiated by surveys performed by the College Senate's Instruction and Research Committee.
Many of the technological issues highlighted by the focus group data above are being addressed by the recommendations made in TPOC's Short-Term Plan. Given the broader technological trends in higher education, it is clear that the College must position itself now in order to remain competitive in the information age. To facilitate the transition to the information age TPOC recommends that the College pursue the Universal Access model currently being implemented at SUNY Oneonta, Sonoma State, and the University of Buffalo. Making technology universally accessible and integrating it throughout the curriculum will promote success in teaching and learning, prepare our students for the 21St Century, and help recruit and retain a diverse student population.
VI. Long Term Plan
In order for Buffalo State College to compete in the information age, the College must make a commitment to integrate technology throughout the campus community. TPOC has identified six strategic areas of planning for this initiative:
c) Instructional and Research Technology;
e) Administration and Telecommunication Technology;
f) Support.
Proposal:
Buffalo State College should pursue the "Universal Access" model to computing resources.
Information technology is revolutionizing the ways we teach and learn in the academy. Universal Access is a way to provide access to the educational benefits of information technology for all students. A Universal Access plan benefits an institution, its faculty, and its students in many ways; for example:
· Creating an environment that motivates and facilitates learning;
· Invigorating faculty and students with new challenges in teaching and learning;
· Enhancing communication within the college and beyond;
· Enabling the college to attract and retain increasingly capable students;
· Producing graduates better prepared for careers and advanced study.
The UA model has two components: first, the campus community adopts the philosophy that a computer is considered as necessary as a textbook; and second, the campus must provide students with access to the necessary computing resources. Acceptance of the Universal Access model implies that students will be expected to use computers and information technologies throughout the curriculum.
Access to computing resources can come from a variety of methods:
· Ownership by self or family member;
· Access from campus computing labs or department labs;
· Access from the library; and
· Specific programs within the college may choose policies that mandate computer ownership.
[Programs that require computer ownership shall make enrolled and potential majors aware that financial aid is available to cover the cost of computers]
In order to achieve the goal of Universal Access, Buffalo State College will:
The College cannot afford to provide PPP access or serve as an ISP for the campus
community as a whole. Trends indicate that this service is better handled in the private
sector.
The computing needs of the campus will change over time. The number of computers
generally accessible for student access and provided by BSC will increase or decrease
based on the technological demands of the curriculum and the number of student-owned
PCs. For example, one of the goals of the "Short-Term Plan" is to wire the campus dorms. A recent "Student Computing Lab Survey" indicated that resident students make up almost 40 percent of the total use in the Twin Rise general purpose labs, implying that wiring the dorms will decrease the use in these labs. The college will:
· Continue to study use-patterns in currently established labs.
3. Provide department-specific labs to meet the unique needs of the curricula.
Department-specific computing facilities are required for some programs due to unique computing needs or user assistance requirements. The need for these "unique" facilities are well recognized on other campuses and on our own. Some of this need is based on licensing requirements or restrictions. The college will:
· Identify programs that could benefit from the establishment of discipline-specific labs.
· Establish an on-going program to evaluate the status of existing labs and keep them up-to-date.
4. Become a "computer friendly" campus.
More and more students are coming onto campus with laptop or desktop computers. As time progresses students will need to connect to the campus network from classrooms, dorm rooms, the library, the union, labs, and other places not thought of at this time. The college will:
· Create a campus network environment that provides robust access to campus information resources from off campus.
· Standards will be developed for the connection of student owned computers to the campus network.
· Specific areas around campus (to be determined) will be wired to facilitate laptop access to the BSCnetwork.
· Campus Dorm rooms will be wired to provide network access.
5. A basic information literacy requirement for students should be instituted as early in their career as possible.
Access implies that students will have physical connectivity to a computing environment; however, there is the need for information skills and help for students. Students should be able to use e-mail, a word processor, and an Internet browser to acquire information.
Various methods can be used to assure that students have these minimum competencies:
· Assessment of incoming freshmen and transfers;
· A literacy component built into a mandatory class;
· An information access course built into orientation;
· A 1 or 2 credit information literacy course taught by library faculty;
· A technology across the curriculum requirement.
Proposal:
The Technology Council will work with the College Senate to develop the most appropriate method for meeting a student information literacy requirement with implementation beginning fall 1999..
6. Buffalo State College will maintain an Internet connection of sufficient bandwidth to support the academic and administrative needs of the students, faculty and staff.
An increasing number of potential or enrolled students, faculty and staff use information systems belonging to Buffalo State. It is important that the college provide an Internet connection capable of handling the volume of network traffic necessary to support access to course materials, scholarly research, indexes, BSC Web pages, business office functions, etc. The Technology Council will explore options on how best to meet the Internet access demands of the campus.
Currently, BSC's training programs focus on Microsoft Office products, HTML, and basic Internet courses. A state-of-the-art training facility (CyberQuad) opened in the library in the spring of 1996. Courses are open to both faculty and staff. Computing
Services will continue to provide this software training, and will include other software as the need arises (although there is currently no staff person dedicated full-time to training).
One of the goals of the long-term plan is to promote the use of computers throughout the curriculum. While classroom technology will need to be upgraded, an important piece necessary to facilitate this process is the creation of a faculty and staff instructional technology support center.
1. Faculty And Staff Technology (FAST) Development Center
To address Web training and support needs of faculty and staff, BSC will create the Faculty and Staff Technology Development Center, which will be housed in the library as part of the CyberQuad complex. The role of the Center will be to promote, train, and support teaching and instructional technology. Initially, the Center will be created as an interdisciplinary unit using existing campus resources. The Center should consist of two components: a curriculum design team; and an instructional technology team, which would include existing personnel from Instructional Resources and Computing Services.
It is important that the Center be located in the library. The library is the "center of learning" on campus, and, given its high visibility in the library, it would send a signal to faculty and staff that the administration views this as an important direction for the college.
The Center will:
· Promote the integration of technology into the curriculum by providing seminars, workshops, and speakers.
· Provide access to specialized equipment (scanners, video, CD burners, etc.).
· Provide training and support services for developing technology-enhanced courses and program services (for example, creating a distance learning course or "virtual" enrollment management center on the Web).
· Provide financial support and incentives for faculty development at the Center.
· Provide technical support for the Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtables.
· Coordinate technology and teaching activities (for example, UUP training program, pilot laptop program, TIP program, etc.).
Over the past several years one of the functions of the Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (CELT) was to provide workshops, training, and seminars on teaching and technology. Given the re-direction of CELT, the FAST Center will take over the role of coordinating all efforts related to instructional technology.
Since it takes a significant amount of time to develop computer-enhanced courses, incentives will be a key component for integrating technology into the curriculum. Experience at other institutions has shown that it is important that leadership be vocal in support of integrating technology into the curriculum. In addition, campus leaders must show their support financially through providing adequate resources to the Center, acknowledging the creative use of technology in promotion and tenure decisions, and through providing merit pay to those who are making the investment to learn and use new technologies. In order to promote widespread integration of technology, the Center must be able to offer summer stipends, teaching awards ($) for technology, release time, etc.
1. Classroom Technology
Rather than use a "build it and they will come" philosophy, TPOC expects the demand and options for classroom technology to be determined by the TLTRs. Classroom technology priorities identified by TLTRs will be forwarded to the Academic Technology Advisory Committee. Currently, due to retirements in Instructional Resources, the campus does not have anyone or group to keep abreast of changes in classroom technologies.
Actions:
· The Technology Council will create a sub-committee to evaluate and recommend classroom technology options.
· New classroom improvement resources should focus on classroom technologies.
Examples of Classroom Technology: Smart Classrooms (Upton 230); Smart Carts; portable LCD projectors with Internet access in classrooms; computer teaching labs (CyberQuad for example); or computer teaching labs with plug-ins for laptops.
2. Computer Requirement
The Universal Access model does not require a campus to institute a mandatory campus-wide PC purchase policy. However, we do believe that a PC requirement should be instituted on a programmatic basis if the need exists. Currently, many departments have adequate computer labs to meet their technology needs; however, for some departments, requiring the purchase of a computer should be the equivalent of requiring students to purchase a textbook.
Actions:
· The Technology Council will promote a campus-wide debate during the 1998/99 academic year on a mandatory PC requirement;
· Every program on campus should evaluate the possibility of a PC requirement.
For example, a PC requirement might be appropriate for the education programs. In most school districts computers are being used throughout K-12 education. Using a computer to enhance the learning process should be as natural for our students as using books, pencils and paper. In addition, many school districts will not even consider candidates that do not have computer skills. Other possible candidates for a PC requirement include CIS, Business, and Economics & Finance.
Benefits of PC requirement:
- It will help "level the playing field" by allowing financially disadvantaged students to purchase a PC with financial aid.
- A PC requirement should reduce the need for general purpose labs, which require a significant amount of maintenance and support.
- It will insure that students have a PC at their residence to access the Internet and the campus Web site.
Problems:
- The campus would need to create an infrastructure for plugging in PCs.
- Network support issues.
- Ensuring that PCs are utilized in the curriculum.
- Even if financial aid is available for most of our students, it is still an additional cost that will have to be repaid in the future.
3. Pilot Laptop Program:
As a way to promote the integration of computers into the curriculum, the College should purchase a pool of 50-60 laptops for use in 2-3 courses per semester. This program is modeled after a successful program started at SUNY Oneonta. Faculty would submit proposals for use at the beginning of the prior semester (evaluated by a faculty advisory committee). Faculty whose proposals are accepted have use of the laptops for the following semester (available to the faculty and all students enrolled in the course). If initiated, the target date for first semester use would be fall 1999. The FAST Center would coordinate this program.
a) E.H. Butler Library
Just as the private sector is adapting to the information economy, so too must higher education. The library is no longer a place just to find books and journals, it is the center for information access. The library will continue to expand and improve accessibility to digital resources through the following goals.
Actions:
b) Web-Accessed Resources
The World Wide Web is fast becoming the most important access to information resources. In addition, the college is in the process of developing a Web-based "Intranet" for access to campus information. As part of the short-term technology plan, TPOC recommended that all faculty and staff offices should have a network-compatible computer. This is the most important first step in ensuring campus-wide access to information resources.
Currently, Buffalo State's Web resources are managed by the library. Given the increasing importance of Web for marketing, information access, and teaching, the vice president of Finance and Management convened an ad hoc Web Group to make recommendations on management, oversight, and funding of BSC's Web resources.
Actions:
· Institutionalize the Web Group
The Web Group will be a standing sub-committee of the Technology Council.
Responsibilities include:
- Develop policies and procedures for submitting and maintaining Web pages on both the IntERnet and IntRAnet. This will include setting up a mechanism to ensure timely changes are made.
- Provide oversight on editorship of the IntERnet. A responsibility of the committee members will be to periodically peruse Internet Web pages.
- Advisory to the Webmaster (technical side) and Web Publications Editor.
- Develop Web style guidelines consistent with College Relations' stylebook.
· IntERnet Management:
- College Relations should hire a Web Publications Editor to oversee content and style of "main pages" on the BSC Web site (Web Group will assist by periodically perusing campus Web pages).
- Webmaster is responsible for implementation of editorial changes.
i) Resources: managed by Computing Services (includes Web and other types of technologies--Calendar, file sharing, etc.).
ii) Editorship: responsibility will be with the department/program supplying information.
Buffalo State College has two separate mechanisms for providing distance education: the Center for Applied Research on Interactive Technologies (CARIT), and Web-based distance learning. CARIT is a two-way video conferencing network tied to over 30 sites throughout Western New York, both urban and rural.
CARIT is characterized as "synchronous" learning: teacher and students meet at separate physical locations to receive real-time educational services. Currently, CARIT provides courses to high school seniors (Project "Jump Start") and graduate programs (Master's in Adult Education).
Web-based learning is characterized as "asynchronous" distance learning: student and teacher typically interact at different times and different locations via the World Wide Web and e-mail, or some form of "shareware" software. To date, no one at Buffalo State College is offering true Web-based distance learning. However, some are using the Web to support regular in-class instruction. While Buffalo State College does not currently offer any Web-based courses, SUNY has developed the "SUNY Learning Network," a Web-based virtual university with 37 institutions offering over 200 courses per semester and an enrollment of over 2,000 students.
Non-traditional students currently account for just over 30 percent of the undergraduate student population and about 40 percent of the total student population at Buffalo State College. Nationwide, the figure is 44 percent (total student population) and growing. With the need for constant training and education to meet the demands of the information age, it is predicted that the non-traditional student will soon account for the majority of the higher education market. These students are seeking flexibility to meet their educational needs, and distance learning in its many forms will play a significant role in meeting these needs.
For the general undergraduate population, web-enhanced asynchronous instruction will also be important. About 90 percent of the BSC student population commute, and the majority of our students work either part or full-time. Web-enhanced instruction will benefit our students in two ways: first, more and more evidence indicates that information technologies that engage the student in the learning process increases the level of learning; second, and more important, web-enhanced instruction will give students more flexibility. For example:
- Assignments can be retrieved or sent over the Internet, reducing the need to come to campus and pick up or drop off assignments outside of class time.
- Questions can be asked via e-mail, rather than trying to make someone's office hours.
- Virtual discussion groups can take place on a continuum.
- On-line resources from the Internet and library make information more accessible from home.
BSC needs to start being more creative in providing our educational services to all of our students. We are in a very competitive market, and the competition is no longer restricted geographically (some of our students are currently taking courses through the SUNY Learning Network, and we are losing that tuition to other SUNY schools). Distance and asynchronous learning are radically changing the nature of higher education, and we need to re-think our educational process in light of these changes.
Action:
The Technology Council should form a "Distance Learning" subcommittee to strategically plan for the distance learning market. Responsibilities would include:
· Develop administrative guidelines for faculty on offering distance learning courses, including ownership and copyright issues.
· Work with Lifelong Learning, CARIT and Academic Affairs to identify markets for distance learning.
· Identify distance learning software that the college will support.
· Promote the development of distance learning courses through the FAST Center.
· Identify courses that could be taught on the SUNY Learning Network.
· Identify and initiate community certificate programs that Lifelong Learning could offer through Web-based instruction.
· Review administrative procedures to accommodate the inclusion of distance learning into the curriculum.
As Buffalo State College competes for students with other local and state institutions, our enrollment may be impacted by our ability to provide the kinds of administrative services that students have come to expect in this age of constantly changing technology. Automated information services and web-based business inquiries and transactions are now commonplace. Students (and others) should be able to expect the same level of convenience in all transactions with Buffalo State College.
· Replace the existing registration system with an on-line system that utilizes current technologies to improve service to students.
· Give students access to their own academic and financial records.
- From computers in networked on-campus labs
- From off-campus locations over the web
- Using other technologies (such as touch-tone) where appropriate
· Improve administrative systems to increase efficiency and effectiveness in student services offices.
- Provide quick access to comprehensive student information
- Provide systems that allow staff to complete transactions quickly and easily
· Implement the Financials/Human Resources package to be selected by the unified campuses, and integrate it with the campus student record system.
· Develop and implement a comprehensive campus Intranet to:
- Announce campus and campus-related events,
3. Investigate and implement improvements to campus telephone services, for faculty, staff and resident students.
· Develop a campus-wide plan for the use of technologies such as voice mail and automated attendants to improve call routing and minimize the number of incoming calls that go unanswered,
· Improve switchboard services by providing enhanced information to the operators, extending hours, and increasing staffing to minimize the time at which no operator is available;
· Implement changes to campus administrative and resident student telephone services that will maximize the features available to students while keeping costs reasonable.
A future support model for campus technology will be dependent upon several decisions that have yet to be made--selection of a Student Records System, and acceptance of a campus-wide computer requirement. Until these decisions are made a complete support model cannot be determined. However, there are several recommendations for reorganization and support contained within the goals outlined in TPOC's short and long-term plans.
1. Distributed Support
The distributed support positions for campus computing labs have been institutionalized. The Short-term Plan recommended two full-time positions (one PC and one Mac), and both positions have been filled.
2. FAST Development Center
There is currently no institutionalized training and support for faculty and staff to develop Web-based instructional materials. The FAST Center will meet this need. The Center will initially be staffed by Computing Services and Instructional Resources personnel, and a permanent administrative staff position.
3. Information Resources
Currently the responsibility for managing Web resources rests with the library. Historically, library technology and Computing Services operated relatively independent of each other. The Web Group recommended the creation of a "Manager of Information Resources" position, reporting jointly to the Librarian and the Director of Computing Services. This position will be responsible for managing library and Internet technologies.
VII. Technology Initiatives for the 1998/99 Academic Year
In order to generate support and discussion of TPOC's plan, Academic Affairs and Finance and Management will coordinate a series of events for the 1998/99 academic year.
A series of campus roundtable discussions on integrating computer technology into the curriculum will be held during the fall semester. The roundtable participants will include campus leadership, faculty, staff, and other professionals. In addition, several "kick-off" events will be held in early October--a promotional event for the Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtables, as well as for the opening of the FAST Development Center.
2. TIP Challenge Grant Program
The Transformative Technology Initiatives to Invigorate Instructional Practices (TIP) Challenge Grant Program is designed to help BSC achieve the goals outlined in TPOC's Long-Term Plan and help address three broader campus goals:
- The need to more clearly link technology expenditures to strategic goals of the campus and ongoing campus technology planning that has taken place through TPOC.
- The need to increase credibility of the spending process, via more input in advance of expenditures, and provide rationales for choice of expenditures.
- The need to increase accountability for expenditures, through a public evaluation process, such that the evaluation is used to revise the process for the future.
Through the use of TIP Challenge Grants, faculty, staff and student groups can develop projects to accomplish campus and TPOC goals. The results of the TIP projects will have campus-wide impact, and should be group, not individual projects. Some examples of possible TIP projects include:
- Teacher education faculty interested in learning how to develop electronic portfolios, for use in courses, departmental assessment initiatives, professional growth and development.
- Career Development Center working with faculty and students to develop professional networks for career planning.
- Individuals involved in Writing Across the Curriculum courses to share rubrics, pedagogical methods of providing effective feedback on written products via technology.
- A group of faculty, staff, and students interested in making use of technology to achieve significant changes in a program with an academic focus.
- A cross-disciplinary group of faculty interested in using technology to create electronic components of campus-based courses.
- Fund conference hosting, consultation fees, desktop hardware and software.
TIPs will be clearly connected to both campus priorities and TPOC goals. Activities would be funded for Spring and Summer 1999, to be completed by September 1999
3. UUP Campus Grant Project
A joint Labor-Management committee recently applied for and received a UUP Campus Technology Grant. The purpose of the grant is to train a significant number of faculty and other professionals on using the Web to enhance instructional and program activities. The grant will fund six one-week workshops to be held in 1999: two workshops during the Winterim intercession; two during the spring semester; and two during the summer session.
Appendix 1: Technology Committee and Decision-Making Structure
For the past several years technology decision-making at Buffalo State College has been an ad hoc process: there has been no systematic planning process, and the various technology committees usually operate independent of each other. TPOC proposes a new committee and organizational structure in order to streamline the current structure, increase communication, and institutionalize the long-term strategic planning process.
The current structure consists of (at minimum) four independent committees: the Technology Fee Advisory Group (TFAG); the Academic Computing Advisory Committee (ACAC); the Administrative Information Systems Advisory Committee (AISAC); and the World Wide Web Advisory Group. TFAG allocates technology fee expenditures and reports to the Provost and Vice President for Finance and Management. The ACAC and AISAC are advisory to the Director of Computing Services; however, the ACAC has also taken over responsibility for final allocation of SCAP funds. The Web Group determines policies and procedures for campus use of the Web, and reports to the Provost. There have also been several ad hoc committees formed to look at other technology-related issues (the Classroom Technology Committee for example).
TPOC proposes that technology strategic planning and decision-making at BSC be governed by the Technology Council (TC), which will be advised by the Academic Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) and the Administrative Information Technology Advisory Committee (AITAC). The TC will be responsible to the Provost and vice president for Academic Affairs and the vice president for Finance and Management. The TC will take over the responsibilities of TPOC and TFAG to continue the strategic planning process, establish campus-wide technology priorities, and prioritize and recommend Technology Fee expenditures. The TC is also responsible for coordinating (with ATAC and AITAC) the creation of ad hoc sub-committees to address various technology issues that may arise over time. In order to better serve the community's needs, we recommend that the TC form, in consultation with the President, an external advisory board with membership from private and public sector organizations.
Under the current structure the ACAC and AISAC are advisory to the Director of Computing Services. The new committees will continue to provide this function. Other responsibilities include establishing technology priorities for their respective constituents and forwarding recommendations to the TC, advising the Council in the long-term planning process, and facilitating communication of technology decisions.
Technology Council
Membership (12):
Charge: The purpose of the TC is to establish campus technology priorities and institutionalize the strategic planning process. In addition, the TC will be responsible for prioritizing and recommending expenditure of Technology Fee funds.
1. Develop and implement strategic plans for short-term and long-term technology needs.
2. Receive and consider recommendations from the Academic Technology Advisory Committee and the Administrative Information Technology Advisory Committee.
3. Prioritize expenditure proposals, including Technology Fee requests, and forward recommendations with justifications to the Provost and the Vice President for Finance and Management.
4. In collaboration with the ATAC and AITAC, the TC is responsible for creating ad hoc sub-committees to address various technology issues as they may arise.
5. Consult with external technology advisory board.*
6. Coordinate all efforts on technology grant funding opportunities.
7. It is the responsibility of the TC to keep the campus community informed on all matters of technology.
* Assumes the creation of an external advisory board that will consist of various private and public sector members.
Academic Technology Advisory Committee
Membership (9):
* The representatives should be a member of that faculty's Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtable (TLTR).
Charge:
1. Advisory to the Technology Council and Director of Computing Services.
2. Receives and considers proposals from each faculty (through TLTRs) and other academic support groups.
3. Prioritizes academic technology proposals and forward recommendations to the TC (SCAP, Tech Fee, and others).
4. Responsible for disseminating information about technology expenditures to its constituencies.
5. Receives academic-related proposals for, and determines allocation of, used general purpose lab PCs (see Replacement Policy Proposal).
Administrative Information Technology Advisory Committee
Membership: (9)
Charge:
1. Advisory to Technology Council and Director of Computing Services.
2. Receives proposals for and establishes campus administrative technology priorities and forwards to TC.
3. Reviews and prioritizes administrative-related Technology Fee requests and forwards to TC.
4. Responsible for disseminating information on administrative technology decisions to its campus constituencies.
Informal Survey of CIO Reporting Structure
In January 1998 a question was submitted to the CIO listserve concerning the governance structure of technology: specifically, to whom does the Chief Information Officer of your college report to? The question was submitted with the following choices:
CIO reports to Provost
CIO reports to President
CIO reports to VP Finance
Separation of academic and administrative computing, each reporting to their respective VPs.
Twenty-two (22) responses were received running the gamut of institutional description-small, medium, and large colleges; urban and rural, community college, state college, and research institution. Responses:
1. CIO reports to Provost 23 percent
2. CIO reports to President 27 percent
3. CIO reports to VP Finance 9 percent
4. Reports to Provost and VP Finance 5 percent
5. Other 36 percent
Most of the responses under case five did not give a response on reporting structure, rather they stated that the reporting structure depends on the personalities involved. That is, it does not matter where the CIO reports; what matters is how effective their boss is in advancing technology issues on campus. In fact, 60 percent of the respondents agreed to this point. In addition, while none of the respondents stated they had separate academic and administrative computing services, 23 percent stated it would be a bad idea to separate the two.
Appendix 2: Replacement Policy
Two-three Year Replacement Period
Computers located in student labs (including the Library's reference area), CyberQuad, or used in "High Tech" classrooms or on cart-based will be replaced on a two to three-year basis. Replaced computers will be redistributed to the greater computing community.
Possible funding considerations:
General Use Student Labs - Technology Fee
Library Reference Area - Technology Fee
Departmental Student Labs - SCAP and Technology Fee
Other (ASC, EOP, etc.) -
CyberQuad - Operating Budget, Equipment Replacement, or IFRs
Classroom/Cart-Based - Technology Fee
Four-year Replacement Period
Computers used in faculty and staff offices will be replaced on a four-year basis. Replacement computers will be new purchases or redistributed from two-year facilities. Replaced computers less that four years old will be redistributed to the greater computing community based on needs of the users.
Funding considerations:
Faculty Offices - Operating Budget, Equipment Replacement, and temporary sources (IFRs, etc.)
Staff Offices - Operating Budget, Equipment Replacement, and temporary sources (IFRs, etc.)
Standards
A. PC Platform Recommended Upgrades
486/50Mz
8 MB RAM 16 MB ($56)
120 MB Hard Drive 1.2-1.6 GC ($150)
Windows 3.1 or higher
Network Card
Centris 610, 650, all Quadras & PowerMacs
8 MB RAM
120 MB Hard Drive
OS 7.5 or higher
Must have built-in network card
2. Current Purchase Mac Standard
A. Standard System
G3 - $1,419 233 MHz
32 MB RAM
4 GB Hard Drive
17" Monitor (+$541)
B. Advanced System
G3 - $1,669 266 MHz
32 MB RAM
4 GB Hard Drive
Zip Drive
17" Monitor ($541)
3. Current Purchase PC (Dell) Standard
$1,620 Pentium MMX (233)
48 MB RAM
3.2 GB Hard Drive
17" UltraScan Monitor
Windows 95
$2,200 Pentium II (300MHz)
64 MB RAM
17" UltraScan Monitor
Windows 95
Appendix 3: Salary Analysis Computing Services
Buffalo State College
The technology sector is one of the fastest growth sectors in the U.S., and the demand for high skilled technology jobs currently outstrips supply. According to a 1998 study by the Information Technology Association of America, there is currently an excess demand of 10 percent for technology-related jobs at all skill levels. This excess demand has caused salaries in the technology sector to rise significantly. According to U.S. News and World Renort (10/27/97) the starting salary for a "computer engineer" is $55,500.
The demand for high skilled technology jobs has made it even more difficult to attract workers in the public sector, especially in higher education, where salaries are typically lower. This paper documents the salary inequities for the Computing Services Department at Buffalo State College using national and local data. In order for the College to remain competitive and attract quality computer personnel, these salary inequities should be addressed as soon as possible. Recommendations follow the analysis.
Comparison with National Data
Using the most recent published estimates of national salary data for computer-related jobs from EDP, a computer recruiting specialist company ("1995 Professional Compensation Data"), a comparison is made with the July 1995 salary data for BSC's Computing Services personnel. Table 1 lists average salaries for specific grades of employees corresponding to the ranking system of UUP.
Average Salary comparison by rank vs. Private sector--1995 Data
Position Grade BSC Up-State Sal. National
Acad. Comp. SL2 $30,250.00 $33,513.00 $37,500.00
SL3 $34,900.00 $35,700.00 $42,000.00
Admin. Sys. SL2 $29,000.00 $34,900.00 $37,000.00
SL3 $34,381.00 $40,950.00 $43,000.00
SL4 $40,355.00 $44,750.00 $52,000.00
Oper. Sys. SL4 $39,140.00 $39,500.00 $49,000.00
Averages $34,671.00 $38,218.83 $43,416.67
Average BSC salaries were compiled based upon grade for those positions that had a minimum of two employees. The national data represents median salaries for the corresponding grade. Years-of-service were not given in the national data. The average salary of BSC's CS personnel is $8,746 less than the national average. Using the same source, the average salary of CS personnel is $3,548 less than the regional average for Up-state New York. The range of the differences in averages with the Up-State data is MIN=$360 and MAX=$6,569.
While the figures give one a basis for comparison, the differences were probably larger in 1998, since Computing Services personnel din not receive raises between July 1995 and December 1997. In December, they received a lump-sum raise of $496; in January 1998, they received a 3.5 percent UUP raise; and 8 out of 24 employees received UUP discretionary awards in January (ranging from $500 to $2,100). Since 1995, salaries for computing personnel have increased significantly due to a tight job market, so the average differences in Table 1 have increased.
Comparison with UB
The University of Buffalo is probably the best local benchmark to use for comparative purposes, not only because we are both SUNY public institutions, but we also run similar systems and provide similar services. Table 2 compares average salary data by grade and average years-of-service using current salary levels. In addition, the positions are more specific in Table 2; hence the average BSC salaries are not comparable between these tables.
Table 2
Average Salary Comparison with UB--by position and years of service
Position Grade Yrs. of Svc. BSC UB Yrs. of Svc.
Prog. Analyst SL2 1 $30,500.00 $35,000.00 1
Lead PA SL3 6 $34,533.00 $36,603.00 3
Inst. Support SL3 19 $35,700.00 $35,145.00 7
Senior PA SL4 12 $40,566.00 $45,782.00 6
Supervising PA SL5 19 $54,250.00 $60,131.00 12
Averages 11.4 $39,109.80 $42,532.20 5.8
The difference for the overall average is $3,422, however the average years-of-service for BSC CS personnel is almost double. The range of differences is MIN= -$555 and the MAX=$5,881. The only position and grade that exceeds UB's average salary is Instructional Support, however the largest difference in years-of-service also occurs here--12 years. Again, comparisons were made for positions and grades with a minimum of two employees.
On-Campus Comparison
One of the unique challenges faced by BSC's Computing Services Department is that they are in direct competition with a SUNY group located on campus, the Information Technology Exchange Center (ITEC). From its initial location to the BSC campus, ITEC has hired five (5) staff members from the CS Department at Buffalo State College. Table 3 compares the salaries of ITEC personnel with the equivalent position at BSC (these are individual salaries, not averages).
Table 3
Postion Grade BSC ITEC
Instr. Support SL4 $41,687.00 $45,924.00
Admin. Systems SL2 $29,000.00 $36,345.00
SL3 $36,699.00 $48,046.00
SL4 $36,414.00 $53,134.00
Oper. Systems SL4 $41,843.00 $48,046.00
SL4 $44,203.00 $49,644.00
Asst. Dir. Sys. SL5 $59,902.00 $67,888.00
$41,392.57 $49,861.00
The data from Table 3 highlight the significant problem BSC has with attracting and retaining quality personnel. The average salary difference between BSC's personnel and ITEC's is $8,468. The range of values is MIN= $4,287 and MAX= $16,720. Even if BSC attempts to redress the inequities shown in the comparisons with national and local data, an average increase of $3,500 will not solve the on-campus problem.
Conclusion
Buffalo State College is faced with a serious problem in recruiting and retaining quality computer personnel. At the national level the average difference between the private sector and BSC personnel using 1995 salary data is $8,746; however, this does not take into consideration cost-of-living differences. The average difference between the regional data for Up-state -New York and BSC is $3,548. Comparing BSC's average salaries to UB's, we find a similar difference of $3,422; however, the average years-of-service for BSC personnel is twice that of UB's.
These data suggest that the recommendation in UB's "Peer Review of Computing Services," of an across the board increase of $3,500, is relatively close to bringing us in-line with our regional competition. However, even more difficult for BSC is the on-campus competition with ITEC. The difference in the average salaries between BSC and ITEC personnel is $8,468. Since its inception in 1990, BSC has lost five positions to ITEC. If we are going to recruit and retain quality personnel then we will have to devise a strategy for competing with ITEC as well.
High turnover also creates additional costs through increased training and searches. Over the past four years BSC has experienced five failed searches. Not only are the current salaries too low to retain personnel, but starting salaries are not attracting enough candidates. A recent search for a "systems" position attracted only 12 candidates, and of the four offered interviews, only one accepted the invitation. The search was re-initiated with a salary cap $5,000 higher; while it did not attract more applications, all of the candidates who were invited to campus accepted the invitations. Given the recent history of searches in CS, the salary range for the current network position search was increased from $47,000 to $55,000. The increase attracted the most applicants in several years (over 20 applicants).
Recommendations:
Grade Current Target (2000)
SL2 $32,000 $36,000
SL3 $37,000 $42,000
SL4 $44,000 $50,000
SL5 $57,000 $60,000
3) Based upon the current number of employees, it is estimated that the total increase in salaries over the two-year period will be $122,000. The sources should come from negotiated salary increases, discretionary awards, and budget reallocations.
Appendix 4: Student Records System Report
Report of the TPOC Administrative Systems Subcommittee Student Records System
May 12, 1998
STUDENT RECORDS SYSTEM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The development of this recommendation involved over 120 faculty, staff, and administrators from 50 different campus offices. The three topics presented in the report are:
I. Committee Process. A brief description of the process used to gather the information that helped to determine the final recommendations.
II. Additional Considerations. In addition to system features the following issues were considered:
· Compatibility With Current Desktop Devices
· Degree Audit
· Current System Deficiencies
· Current Status of STARS Development
· Implementation Time
· Programming Staff
III. Product Comparisons. Using the STARS system as a benchmark for the other vendors' systems, functionality in each of the following areas was considered:
· General Overview
· Admissions
· Registration and Student Records
· Degree Audit
· Student Accounts and Financial Aid
· Reporting Capability
· Training
· Software Price Schedules
Of the three vendors that demonstrated their products to the campus, the committee found the SCT/Banner product to be unacceptable. The Exeter and PeopleSoft systems appear to be promising but since neither has a single site with a fully functional integrated student records system in place, the only guarantees that the products are fully functional are the unsupported claims of sales representatives.
Numerous unanswered questions prevent us from being able to endorse either of the products at this time. While we continue our attempt to identify an acceptable system, internal development should not be discontinued. With the above in mind, the committee respectfully submits the following recommendations:
· Send campus teams for two or three site visits to campuses that are working through an implementation with Exeter and PeopleSoft.
· Move ahead with plans to complete the network wiring in all campus buildings, so that access to student records systems is available to all administrative and academic departments.
· Purchase up-to-date, compatible equipment for all faculty and staff that do not currently have work-stations that can be connected to the campus NT network, and connect this new equipment to the network.
· After checking future compatibility with Exeter and PeopleSoft, purchase any software required to facilitate end-user reporting and analysis, and provide resources/funding for training and support of this function.
COMMITTEE PROCESS
In February 1998 the Technology Plan Oversight Committee (TPOC) formed an Administrative Systems Subcommittee to research potential vendors for a Student Records System. Committee members included Richard Augustine, Director, Student Accounts; Judi Basinski, Director, Computing Services; Mark Bausili, Registrar; Robert Clark, Computer Information Systems Department; and Dennis McCarthy, Associate Dean, Arts and Humanities. Numerous computer software vendors who had experience with higher education systems were identified. The primary criteria for inclusion on a short list were: (1) experience with schools of at least 10,000 students; and (2) compatibility with the Oracle database. Only three companies met these criteria: SCT/Banner, Exeter, and People Soft.
Committee members asked 120 current STARS users from 50 campus offices to identify features they would like to see in a new system. From a list of over 500 items, the committee created demonstration guidelines. Exeter, SCT/Banner, and PeopleSoft were then invited to present day-long system demonstrations. Each company followed the same agenda (see appendix: Information for Higher Education System Vendors).
A detailed evaluation form was maintained by members of the committee for each software demonstration and feedback was gathered from the participants who attended the sessions. In addition, vendors were asked to present an independent technical session for Computing Services personnel. PeopleSoft provided this service on-site; SCT/Banner forwarded written information; and Exeter answered by way of a telephone conference call.
Another goal of the committee was to solicit feedback from campuses currently using these products. Several campuses offered information about Banner. While many campuses have implemented PeopleSoft's Financials and Human Resources packages, neither Exeter nor PeopleSoft has a single site with a fully functional integrated student records system in place. Both of these vendors have yet to prove that they can deliver the complete package as advertised--a fact that was stressed by representatives of the Gartner Group, an independent information technologies research and consulting firm contacted by the committee.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to system features, the following issues were considered.
COMPATIBILITY WITH CURRENT DESKTOP DEVICES
BSC currently supports both the Windows and Macintosh platforms for faculty, staff, and student use. While the existing systems (STARS and Degree Audit) support both of these platforms as well as terminals, the packaged software products are designed for Windows 95/NT users only. Only the web-enabled functions can be accessed by Macintosh and older Windows devices. Significant additional funding for compatible hardware must be identified if the Exeter, SCT/Banner, or PeopleSoft package is purchased.
DEGREE AUDIT
The implementation timeline must take into account the possibility that the existing Degree Audit system may not be maintainable (in its current form) through the life of the project. This system is highly dependent upon a single staff member for whom there is no backup support. In addition, this staff member has indicated his intention to retire at the end of the 1998-99 academic year. This is a critical piece of the overall student records picture that must be maintained and integrated with the existing system whether or not a new system is purchased.
CURRENT SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
Existing systems in STARS were analyzed, and the major deficiencies were determined to be incomplete development in the following areas: the registration process, student access to data, automated transcript, end-user reporting/analysis capability, and integration of the degree audit. There is significant concern as to the advisability of giving up efficient, working systems for the sake of gains in a limited number of functional areas.
STARS DEVELOPMENT STATUS
Before the recent cessation of STARS development, progress had been made that provided increased functionality and readiness for web applications. Inquiry screens for student access were developed and could be web-enabled this year. An admissions inquiry tracking system was recently implemented.
2. Student Web Inquiry. Much of the preliminary work has been done on this project.
System security issues will have to be resolved, and the proper safeguards put into place. Screens already developed for student access can easily be made web accessible. It is expected that the first inquiry screens could be ready for student access in 6-9 months.
3. Automated Transcripts. This implementation is waiting on a final transcript layout, and could be implemented within two months of layout approval.
On-line Registration. Although no decision has been made on the actual method of registration to be utilized on-line ("terminals," touch-tone or web), much of the move
to on-line registration is underway. Eligibility management, time assignments, and restructuring of registration transaction history have been rewritten, and preliminary testing has begun. Given a campus commitment to this project, and additional resources to support the effort, a two-year timeframe would be needed to move registration from batch processing of opscan to an on-line process. Once there registration function is on-line, web registration could follow quickly.
IMPLEMENTATION TIME
According to the Gartner Group, a minimum implementation time of 18-24 months could be expected with Banner (an established vendor with implementation experience), while it would be reasonable to expect a minimum of three years in implementation with Exeter or PeopleSoft, neither of whom have this experience.
PROGRAMMING STAFF
Concerns about funding additional AIS staff to support internal development do not disappear in consideration of vendor-provided solutions. To implement a package
Buffalo State must contract with the vendor to provide technical and project management staff (at a high rate of compensation) for the duration of the project (estimated at three years average). In addition, the annual maintenance cost for the software is generally 15 percent of the purchase price -- in this case an average of $75,000. And it has been shown that vendor provided solutions do not reduce a campus' need for technical support staff, so there appears to be no potential savings in salaries.
PRODUCT COMPARISONS
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The STARS system provided a benchmark for the other vendors' systems in all areas of consideration except end-user reporting capability and integration of the degree audit. Many of the respondents indicated concern about inefficiencies that would result from the implementation
of any of these packages. Compared to STARS processing, in which most functions are accomplished in a single screen, the other systems required multiple screens (sometimes more than five) to accomplish the same tasks. One observer commented:
I was not especially impressed with any of the packages presented. Each had some very nice features, and each had some negatives. I saw very little in any of the screens that was better than STARS, with the exception of web registration.
Responses from Buffalo State and other campuses rated SCT's Banner 2000 the lowest of all the vendors' offerings. Feedback generally reinforced concerns about the cumbersome nature of the system. When asked how many screens it takes to create a section of a course, one current user answered:
About a billion. No it just seems that way. Our new version is running so slow that it seems to take forever. Once the course master has been created (about 4-5 screens) it takes 3-4 screens per section, more if you are applying restrictions, etc.
The above comment generally summarizes the opinions offered by other institutions. Two SUNY Banner campuses were so disillusioned with SCT that they asked to attend our Exeter and PeopleSoft demonstrations.
Since Banner was developed some years ago, the current product does not take advantage of CASE technology, metadata, etc. for internal documentation of the data elements and internal data relationships. While the product is available today, it is not representative of the latest technology. Exeter and PeopleSoft products were both rated far above Banner by the people on campus who rely on the student records system to do their jobs every day. However, neither system was a clear favorite.
With the PeopleSoft product, functional areas required multiple screens to display a complete summary record (e.g., demographic and address information alone required two screens that were grouped together - but you couldn't see both at once). Eight linked screens were required to display or update course catalog information. Development tools are proprietary to PeopleSoft (PeopleTools). You can't use Oracle's tools or other third party products. This may be good for consistency, but it puts us at the mercy of a single vendor.
The committee members, working with a list of functional and technical criteria developed to assist in vendor evaluation, also found that Exeter and PeopleSoft were closely matched based solely on demonstrated and advertised features. Banner lagged well behind these two vendors on features and system flexibility.
All three presentations were at times inconclusive to those in attendance. In some cases vendors could not clearly state that a feature was available. A common response was, "It should be ready in the next version, due out next year."
All three vendor systems are at least 10 times larger than the student system currently in place. For example, the PeopleSoft package database contains over 6000 tables and 4500 screens as compared to about 250 tables and 536 screens in STARS. This will surely require additional staff for maintenance and new screen development.
ADMISSIONS
Based primarily on the recommendation from the Admissions area, the Exeter package was the favorite due to its ease of use, and familiar tools and terminology. According to the BANNER sales/presentation people, letters that come with the system are difficult to create and maintain because of product limitations. They recommend extracting the data to a mail merge file and using Word or another reporting product to generate the letters. (This is what we do now with STARS, in addition to letters that are maintained and generated by Computing Services.) PeopleSoft and Banner screens were difficult to navigate with too many levels of menus or too busy to be readily understood.
REGISTRATION AND STUDENT RECORDS
Exeter, PeopleSoft, and Banner support touch tone, web, or any other interface we might have but it was clear that web registration is the method of choice. All three systems provide on-line, real time registration that will enhance our presence on the internet. However, these systems are not without problems. Here is a comment from an observer at the-PeopleSoft presentation:
A truly horrible function in this system is that once a student registers and gets an error, in order to see what the error is you have to go through separate screen for each course until you get to the course with the error on it. This takes forever and looks very frustrating to me.
The Exeter system does not support user-defined registration groups (for time assignments, restrictions, etc.). This should be available with the next release. Course creation is labor-intensive as well. It requires a seven-step process to create a catalog entry.
With Banner, time ticketing (time assignments) exists within the web application ONLY.
DEGREE AUDIT
In spite of the fact that the Buffalo State degree audit system is not integrated with STARS, campus users preferred it to the other systems. The Banner Degree Audit won't be available until March 1999. In Exeter the transfer articulation is not yet automated in the system. In addition, the Exeter system is not FERPA compliant.
The PeopleSoft Degree Audit sheet was lengthy--several pages--compared to the one-page summary available at BSC now.
STUDENT ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL AID
All three presentations in the areas of student accounts and financial aid were far from satisfactory. From the perspective of customer service in student financials, STARS exceeds in performance and features any of the vendor packages. STARS includes the NYS General Ledger accounting required for reporting to Central Administration. Of the vendors evaluated, only Banner provides some support for this requirement, but SUNY Banner campuses have reported significant problems in this area. The Exeter Student Accounts won't be released until the summer of 1998.
Since the General Ledger is not included with any of these vendor packages, the campus stands to lose the ability to process both refunds to students (printing checks and/or direct deposit) and returns to aid granting agencies. A minimal portion of the General Ledger comes with the Banner Student products, but NOT enough to process payables (e.g., refunds to students or funding agencies). Refund checks and/or electronic transfers of those funds would have to be handled by a custom integrated campus system.
REPORTING CAPABILITY
All three vendors demonstrated advanced reporting and analysis capability. SCT and Exeter utilized MS Office and Oracle reporting software for this purpose--all readily available and currently supported at Buffalo State. PeopleSoft packages utilized reporting software from other vendors with their product, all of which is also generally available and which could be used with our existing systems as well.
TRAINING
Additional training for end-users will be required no matter which product is chosen.
SOFTWARE PRICE SCHEDULES
The overall cost of implementation for these packages has not been fully determined, but will require, minimally, an investment as follows:
Annual 3rd Party
License Maintenance Training Products
PeopleSoft $552,987* $ 83,000 ? ?
Exeter $770,000** $115,000 ? ?
Banner $250,490*** $ 53,000 ? ?
This is a large investment to make on the strength of marketing promises alone.
* The PeopleSoft list price is $1,073,975. There is a 50 percent reduction being offered as an incentive for Buffalo State to be the first of the SUNY Unified Colleges to select the PeopleSoft Student Administration application.
** This is the "discounted" price for the Exeter Base Suite. The "discounted" total for the Extended Suite (includes the Career Management System and the Alumni Contact System) is $957,000 and the "discounted" total for adding Web Course Bidding module and the Web Interview Bidding module is $1,265,000.
*** This figure is approximately $130,000 less than the usual list since we already own the Banner Student System License.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Of the three vendors that demonstrated their products to the campus, the committee found the SCT/Banner product to be unacceptable. The Exeter and PeopleSoft systems appear to be promising but, since neither has a single site with a fully functional integrated student records system in place, the only guarantees that the products are fully functional are the unsupported claims of sales representatives. Numerous unanswered questions prevent us from being able to endorse either of the products at this time. While we continue our attempt to identify an acceptable system, internal development should not be discontinued.
With the above in mind, the committee respectfully submits the following recommendations:
· Send campus teams for two or three site visits to campuses that are working through an implementation with Exeter and PeopleSoft.
· Move ahead with plans to complete the network wiring in all campus buildings, so that access to student records systems is available to all administrative and academic departments.
· Purchase up-to-date, compatible equipment for all faculty and staff that do not currently have work-stations that can be connected to the campus NT network, and connect this new equipment to the network.
· Integrate the degree audit function into the STARS system by July 1999.
· After checking future compatibility with Exeter and PeopleSoft, purchase any software required to facilitate end-user reporting and analysis, and provide resources/funding for training and support of this function.