Committee on IT Infrastructure (CITI) Meeting
April 10, 2007
Meeting Summary
CITI Attendees: Sue Abeles, Mitch Creem, Glyn Davies, Jim Davis, Vijay Dhir, Rick Greenwood, Nick Hernandez, Tom Lifka, Janina Montero, Sam Morabito, Patricia O’Brien, Steve Olsen, Roberto Peccei, Terry Ryan, Gary Strong
Guests: Rosemary Rocchio (APO), Carmela Cunningham (OIT), Mike Schilling (CTS), Marsha Smith (OIT), Greg Spotts (OIT), Don Worth (AIS), Mike Van Norman, Nick Reddingius
Meeting Called to order at 2:04 pm.
Agenda Item 1: Organizing a CITI sub-group for reviewing campus IT funding requests
Jim Davis presented an itemized status report on 15 proposed IT projects. Approximately six of these projects are seeking FY 06/07 funds and others are seeking FY 07/08 funds.
Glyn Davies gave a brief report on the necessity for CITI to rapidly make decisions about the proposed projects and to forward recommendations to the Chancellor’s office in May. To expedite the process, Davies has invited three members of CITI to review the UTIPP2 project document, CCLE and other projects, and make recommendations that can be reviewed at the next CITI meeting.
Members of the subcommittee are Mitch Creem, Rick Greenwood and Terry Ryan. Members of the subcommittee were carefully selected so that no member would be voting on a project relating to his/her unit or department.
Action: None requested, none taken.
Agenda Item 2: Dossier Action Tracking (DAT) Phase II
Tom Rice and Rose Rocchio made a detailed presentation on the current DAT system and the proposed DAT II enhancements.
DAT I created a single, central database to track faculty advancement, replacing multiple systems housed in various departments. Each unit now inputs information into the central system. Each unit can view only its own faculty transactions. Professors will soon be able to log in and view only their own individual cases.
DAT I is helping the campus analyze trends in faculty recruitment, retention and compensation. DAT II will significantly enhance the analytic and reporting tools.
Rocchio demonstrated the DAT I system, showing test data. The actual data for DAT I was populated by migration from unit-based Excel and Access databases. It is important to note that the DAT system tracks the process of faculty dossier review, but does not contain an electronic version of faculty dossiers.
Rice then presented the proposed functionality enhancements of the DAT II project, which is focused on recruitment and retention. DAT II will allow online applications for national searches, analysis of the entire applicant pool for diversity and other factors, track recruitment packages, track success/failure of recruitments and retentions, and manage filled, unfilled and loan-out FTE’s. DAT II will also track retention packages, written outside offers received by UCLA faculty, and assist the university in analyzing the success rates of recruitments by competing universities across disciplines and demographic criteria. Summary reports from Berkeley’s system were displayed for reference. DAT II will also generate automatic email reminders to faculty for upcoming deadlines.
Discussion Points:
- CITI members expressed interest in the possibility that DAT could contain updated CV’s on faculty members, and possibly link into the library’s digital collection of faculty publications.
- Accountability for the quality of data is enhanced by the system’s tracking of who input each entry. Generally MSO’s enter data for each unit.
- Deadlines and careful project structure are important to make sure project is completed in an efficient and timely fashion.
Action: None requested, none taken.
Agenda Item 3: UCLA Security Program Update
Jim Davis presented an overview of new security programs and the likely cost of each item. Even though systems are federated, security is becoming an institutional responsibility. Security reports will now be presented to the university audit committee. UCLA, as an institution, will be making periodic security reviews of various systems and will be providing oversight to ensure unit compliance with university security policies. Data retention policies for personally identifiable data will continue to be reviewed and strengthened.
Discussion Points:
- Security expertise of certain computer science faculty might be useful in this process.
- Medical Center is being treated separately because of HIPA and other ways in which medical data is different than academic data. The standard of security for Medical Center may in fact need to be higher than that of the rest of the campus.
- It is important to balance security with the openness of information that is necessary for a well-functioning academic institution.
- Comparison of UCLA security budget with that of other universities might be helpful.
Action: CITI endorsed the security proposals and policies.
Meeting Adjourned at 3:45 pm.