REPORT ON

College Infrastructure

College Infrastructure

Chairman

Dr. Marwan Abu-Amara(COE)

Members

Dr. H. E. Shabaik(SE)

Dr. M. F. Khan(COE)

Mr. Muhammad Wasiq(ICS)

Mr. Shaik Arifusalam(SE)

Mr. S. M. Shamsul Islam(COE)

1.Introduction

The college infrastructure committee was established to implement strategies and action plans to improve college infrastructure including network, common resources etc. The purpose of the committee is to assist the college in achieving the objective set in the Strategic Plan (SP) regarding college infrastructure. The objective statement is as follows: “Continuously build and modernize college infrastructure including computing facilities, laboratories.”

2.Charges of the Committee

The committee had the following general charges:

1.Review the progress towards achieving the strategic objective relating to college infrastructure using the performance measures in the SP.

2.Establish a yearly goal towards achieving the objective.

3.Develop an action plan to achieve the goal set. The action plan must identify the resources needed, the tasks required and who is responsible to perform the task.

4.Asses the progress towards revitalizing the goal set in step 2.

Consequently, the committee had the following specific tasks for the academic year 2004-2005:

  1. Benchmark with known schools facilities.
  2. Assess availability of network access to faculty and students.
  3. Review lab status on yearly basis.
  4. Modernize and update class rooms.

3.Proposed Plan

The following is the plan taken to achieve the specific tasks identified in section 2 and the responsible members:

  1. Benchmark with known schools facilities.

Plan:

  1. Benchmark CCSE number of PCs to students ratio.
  2. Benchmark CCSE technical staff to faculty ratio as well as to PCs.
  3. Identify at least 5 reputable schools for benchmark comparison purposes, and research their web sites for facilities related information.

Responsibility:

Dr. M.F. Kahn and Mr. Shaikh Arifusalam.

  1. Assess availability of network access to faculty and students.

Plan:

  1. Collect CCSE network performance and CCSE general PC labs usage statistics in upcoming semesters especially during the last 1-2 months (i.e. during projects conclusion period at the end of the semester).
  2. Assess number of software licenses (e.g. OpNet) and supporting hardware.
  3. Collect a list of available open source and open standard software that can be used by faculty and students.

Responsibility:

Mr. Muhammad Wasiq and Mr. S.M. Shamsul Islam.

  1. Review lab status on yearly basis.

Plan:

  1. Assess CCSE general PC labs.
  2. Benchmark the total number of lab upgrades.
  3. Benchmark the total number of new labs developed.

Responsibility:

Dr. Marwan Abu-Amara and Mr. Muhammad Wasiq.

  1. Modernize and update class rooms.

Plan:

  1. Solicit feedback from CCSE faculty regarding classroom adequacy for teaching.
  2. Build a website to hold URLs to animations that aid faculty in their courses.

Responsibility:

Dr. H. E. Shabaik and Dr. Marwan Abu-Amara.

4.Accomplished Tasks (Achievements)

The committee has worked hard to achieve the plans outlined in section 3. The following is the list of achievements per each specific plan:

  1. Benchmark with known schools facilities.

Achievements:

In terms of benchmarking CCSE number of workstations to student ratio, we found that there are around 500 workstations in various CCSE labs thatare being used as course instruction labs as well as general purpose labs. According to the official information, there are around 1600 registered students in CCSE, including both undergraduate and graduate level students. Thus, the number of workstations to students ratiois0.3125 (500/1600). However, if we also consider the 20 Unix servers, which are available for remote access, and 4 wireless LAN access points, the ratio goes up a little. Each Unix server can handle (on average) 5 simultaneous sessions. In this way, 20 Unix servers can be considered equivalent to 100 (20  5) personal computers or workstations. Similarly, a wireless access point can support around 10 simultaneous sessions. Therefore, 4 wireless access points can be considered equivalent to 40 workstations. After adding the contribution of Unix servers and wireless access points, the initial figure of 500 workstations goes up to 640. With this new figure, the number of workstations to student ratio becomes 0.4 (640/1600).

On the other hand, in terms of benchmarking CCSE number of technical staff to faculty ratio, we found that there are a total of 17 staff members in the college. Among these 17 people, 7 are qualified network engineers and system administrators, 6 are technician level or otherlevel engineers, and 4 are helping staff. Excluding the helping staff, there are a total of 13 technical staff members. According to the official information, there are 120 faculty members in CCSE. Thus, the number of technical staff to faculty ratio is0.108(13/120). Additionally, the mentioned technical staff is also involved in managing CCSE labs and network services, and as such, they are not fully dedicated to the software and hardware maintenance of the workstations. For the number of technical staff to computers ratio, we found that there are around 500 lab workstations in CCSE, 120 faculty PCs, and around 50 servers for hosting various CCSE services, such as, e-mail, web, DNS, database management systems, active directory, NIS, etc. Additionally, the college also maintains its own network infrastructure, which encompasses 5 subnets and around 30 network devices, including routers, layer 3 and layer 2 switches. Each server can be counted as equivalent to at least 3 PCs or workstations in terms of administrative effort. So the contribution of servers is equivalent to 150 workstations. Each network device (routers and switches) can be counted as equivalent to 2 PCs or workstations in terms of administrative effort. So the contribution of network devices is equivalent to 60 workstations. Therefore, from administration point of view, there are around 830 (500 + 120 + 150 + 60) workstations to be administered by the technical staff. According to the above discussion, the estimated number of technical staff to workstation ratio is 0.016(13/830). In other words, there is 1 technical staffper 64workstations.

In terms of comparing our benchmarks with other schools, we tried to find details about facilities at other institutions. This information is not easily available. Most schools (for example, Brown, CUNY, Columbia, Dartmouth, etc.) have several hundred computers in a department. It seems that (Student/Computer) ratio of between 1 and 4 would be healthy. Many places (for example, RPI, NY) are fully accessible to students with wireless card equipped laptops.

A related issue is the support personnel that are essential for benefit from the computers. Variously, 5-15 full time technical IT staff support 50-200 computers. For example, the following observation, though related to an Elementary School, is still pertinent: “HooverElementary School, in Redwood CityCalifornia serves as a great example of how technological access alone does not solve the problem. … The school spent a quarter of a million dollars to purchase two-hundred computers to put in two state-of-the-art computer labs (Chasnoff, 2000). No money was spent on teacher computer training and the school cut support for other programs. The teachers do not know how to incorporate computers into classrooms in a resourceful way. As a result, there is little effective internet and computer use.”

Thus, the suggested level of support is given as 1 person per 40 computers dedicated to the software and hardware maintenance of the computers. For example, and similar sources recommend assignment of a “school or district maintenance/technical support person (examples from the business world provide a ratio of one full time support person for every 40 computers)”

  1. Assess availability of network access to faculty and students.

Achievements:

To collect the key performance indicator (KPI) related to CCSE general PC labs usage, statistics were collected and the following were observed:

  • Average number of logins per day per computer = 10
  • Average session time per login = 70 minutes
  • Thus, average utilization per day per computer = 700 minutes (i.e. 11.66 hours)
  • Average number of pages per printer per day (using 4 printers data) = 700 pages

It can be easily seen from such statistics that the PC labs usage is extremely high (close to ½ of a day) and highly indicates that PC access, and therefore network access, might not be completely available to every student. Similar statistics were observed in the UNIX servers/workstations.

With respect to assessing the number of software licenses, the following table provides the list of licensed software along with their numbers and validity period:

No. / Software / Platform / No. of Licenses / Validity
1 / MSDNAA (All Microsoft Software) / Windows / 1 Year Agreement / One Year Renewable
2 / Sophos Enterprise Antivirus / Windows / 1 / One Year Renewable
3 / Synchron Eyes / Windows / Unlimited / Perpetual
4 / Matlab PC Version / Windows / 50 / Perpetual
5 / Team EC / Windows / 25 / Perpetual
6 / ILOG / Windows / 12 / Perpetual
7 / Minitab / Windows / 25 / Perpetual
9 / Service Model/Pro Model / Windows / Unlimited / Perpetual
11 / Opnet / Unix / 30 / One Year Renewable
12 / Synopsys / Unix / Unlimited / One Year Renewable
13 / Matlab / Unix / 15 / Perpetual
14 / Trend Micro E-mail Virus Scanner / Unix / 1000 users / One year renewable
15 / Veritas Netbackup / Unix / 4 clients / Perpetual
16 / Veritas Volume Manager / Unix / 1 / Perpetual
17 / Sun Pro Workshop / Unix / Unlimited / Perpetual

Finally, with respect to collecting a list of available open source and open standard software, a list of URLs were collected that address the issue and are shown in the following:

  1. Review lab status on yearly basis.

Achievements:

To collect key performance indicators pertaining to the number of labs upgrades and the number of new labs developed, a questionnaire was sent to each departmental lab committee. The following are the questions submitted and the corresponding responses:

  1. How many labs do you have in the departments? How many are classified as “students” labs and how many are classified as “research” labs?

Department / Number of “students” labs / Number of “research” labs / Total
COE / 7 / 2 / 9
ICS / 6 / 2 / 7*
SE / 13 / 0 / 13

* One lab is used as both a student lab and a research lab

  1. How many of the labs had a “software” upgrade last year and in the past 5 years? (a 10% or more software upgrade is considered a “software” upgrade)

Department / Last year / Past 5 years
COE / 1 / 0
ICS / 0 / 7
SE / 2 / 6
  1. How many of the labs had a “hardware” upgrade last year and in the past 5 years? (a 10% or more hardware upgrade is considered a “hardware” upgrade)

Department / Last year / Past 5 years
COE / 0 / 0
ICS / 0 / 7
SE / 2 / 8
  1. How many of the labs had both a “software” upgrade and a “hardware” upgrade last year and in the past 5 years?

Department / Last year / Past 5 years
COE / 0 / 2
ICS / 0 / 6
SE / 2 / 6
  1. How many of the labs are considered adequate (i.e. do not need upgrade)?

Department / Number of adequate labs
COE / 4
ICS / 1
SE / 1
  1. How many of the labs need immediate upgrade?

Department / Number of labs needing immediate upgrade
COE / 5
ICS / 5
SE / 7
  1. How many new labs have been introduced last year and in the past 5 years?

Department / Last year / Past 5 years
COE / 0 / 2
ICS / 1 / 4
SE / 1 / 1
  1. Modernize and update class rooms.

Achievements:

A survey about buildings 22, 23, and 24 classrooms adequacy for teaching was developed and distributed to CCSE faculty. The following are the summary of responses:

  1. Classroom space is not adequate to accommodate the increased number of students (25 or more students), and the same is observed for college laboratories. Also, sometimes too little room is available for the instructor in front of the class.
  2. Lighting is not adequate. It is preferred to have the ability to dim the lights of the front rows.
  3. The temperature in classrooms, computer laboratories and offices are too cold.
  4. Ventilation is not adequate.
  5. No sound proof, lecturing in neighboring classrooms can be clearly heard.
  6. Instructor’s desk and chair either missing or not adequate in several classrooms and labs.
  7. Equipment layout in classrooms and some labs is not suitable, e.g. screens blocking most of the chalkboard, instructor position when using the class computer obstructs the students view.
  8. Not enough/convenient work space while operating the class computer.
  9. It takes long time and lengthy procedures to get new software installed by ITC.
  10. Often the connectivity to KFUPM network and the internet is not available.
  11. Classroom PCs are old.
  12. Immediate help when facing problems with classroom PC and projector is lacking.
  13. Mishandling of the equipment by students, e.g. graphics on the screen, rooms are badly littered sometimes in the morning.
  14. No adequate maintenance and upkeep of classrooms and equipment.

Moreover, to aid faculty in teaching their courses, a suggestion was made to create a website that holds URLs to animations to different topics related to CCSE courses. Through the website, the faculty can add his own URLs or can access URLs that were submittedby other faculty members. Mr. Wasiq helped create the website and it can be accessed at (

5.Items planned but not achieved

The last planned item under the first specific task (i.e. Identify at least 5 reputable schools for benchmark comparison purposes, and research their web sites for facilities related information) was attempted but little results could be achieved due to the unavailability of immediate data from such schools.

6.Next year Objectives and Charges of the Committee

The committee could have the following objectives and charges for next year:

  1. Review the progress towards achieving the strategic objective relating to college infrastructure by recollecting the key performance indicators that were collected this year, compare them against what was collected this year, and draw conclusions from the comparison.
  2. Establish processes to facilitate easy collection of the key performance indicators.
  3. Asses the feasibility of the goals set for improving the key performance indicators outlined in the following section (i.e. section 7).
  4. Contact reputable schools for benchmark comparison purposes.

7.Suggestions and ideas for improvements of the college at large

As it is clear from the key performance indicators collected (i.e. CCSE number of PCs to student ratio, CCSE general PC labs usage, number of labs upgrades, and number of new labs developed) that a number of improvements can be achieved using the following action plans:

  1. New CCSE general PC labs will help improve both the CCSE number of PCs to student ratio and the CCSE general PC labs usage key performance indicators. Two new PC labs with around 30 PCs each will be needed. Each new lab will need a lab space equivalent to the lab space of the general PC lab at room 22-335. This activity should be the responsibility of the college to allocate the space and the budget. A complete study is needed to assess whether the two additional labs will be sufficient. The study must take into account projected number of new students as well as graduating students.
  2. Provision of more wireless access points. Since many of the students have their personal laptops, if the College building is made completely wireless enabled, they will be able to hook up to the College/University network without having to wait for free PCs in general purpose labs. In turn, this will reduce the load on general purpose PC labs.
  3. Increasing the popularity of Unix among students. If the students are well-versed in using Unix, they will start using Unix workstations in the CCSE Unix lab for their daily tasks, which is mostly under-loaded. This will add diversity to their exposure and knowledge, and will reduce load on PC labs.
  4. Hiring more technical staff to bring down the technical staff to workstations ratio to 1 staff per 40 workstations.
  5. Hiring acouple of programmers. There is a reasonable need for application development group, which can help in fulfilling application development requirements for various college and departmental committees, web development and other programming needs.
  6. Provide 24 hour technical support as the majority of students use the college workstations after hours.
  7. Based on feedback received from each department, there are a total of 17 labs (5 in COE, 5 in ICS, and 7 in SE) that need immediate upgrades (albeit that some of these labs are in the process of being upgraded). Upgrading these labs will help both faculty and students to be up to date. This activity should be the responsibility of each department’s lab committee.
  8. To improve the number of new labs developed, a criteria must be set relating the history of labs development per department to expected future labs development. The criteria must be set through consultations with departments’ chairmen. Based on the criteria, each department presentsthen a complete proposal for new labs to be developed. The proposal must outline the scope of the lab, and the required budget and space.
  9. Introduce new KPIs related to the labs. For example, KPIs that measure the number of courses per lab usage and that measure the number of students per lab usage will help in measuring the utilization of both lab resources and lab space.
  10. To address classroom adequacy for teaching, a joint committee needs to study and address the issues observed in the survey conducted (see above). The joint committee must have representatives from at least the CCSE, the ITC, the deanship of academic affairs, and the registrar.
  11. Since the availability of space is the common factor to improving the majority of the key performance indicators. As such, a serious and an immediate attention to this issue is necessary.

8.Conclusion

Given that the “College Infrastructure” committee is a newly established committee, the members of the committee have tried their best to collect key performance indicators that can help in establishing a baseline for the current state of affairs of the college infrastructure and against which further attempts of improvements can be measured. The committee has also outlined a set of serious issues related to classroom adequacy for teaching that need to be addressed urgently.

APPENDIX

1.Survey on Classrooms

The CCSE in its effort to Modernize and upgrade class rooms is soliciting faculty feedback regarding Concerns, Complaints, and Needs in terms of:

* Class room space, environment and climate control

* Availability and adequacy of equipments, e.g.