I&IT Prioritization & Recovery Committee Notes

CaliforniaStatePolytechnicUniversityPomona

January 8, 2007

I&IT Prioritization & Recovery CommitteeNotes
CaliforniaStatePolytechnicUniversityPomona

Meeting Logistics

Title / I&IT Prioritization & Recovery Committee Meeting
Purpose / Review our programs and services to determine whether they should receive increased support, decreased support, level support, be restructured, discontinued, or initiated and assign budget accordingly for new projects and positions.
Date / Monday, January 8, 2007
Time / 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM
Location / 98-C5-5
Participants / Debra Brum, Mauricio Calderon, Marvin Campbell, James Caplette, Curtis Clark, Stephanie Doda, JoAnn Karns, H Keita, Gabe Kuri, David Levin, Dave Lyon, April McKettrick, Denny Mosier, Marci Payne, Susan Reese, Janet Rice, Karin Schott, and Abel Zamora

Agenda

Topic / Meeting Outcomes / Time / Facilitator
Topic 1: University P&R Committee / Update from our representatives to the university-wide committee / 15 min. / Curtis & April
Topic 2: “Category B” Program or Service Outcomes & Assessment Techniques / Define one or more of the outcomes for each assigned program or service and how it can be measured. / 45 min. / Committee Members
Topic 3: Next Meeting - Monday, January 29, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Project Teams

Project Name / Project Teams / Due Date
Finance Web Tools / Team Leader – Mauricio Calderon
Team Members – Marvin Campbell,David Chiang,Stephanie Doda, Denny Mosier, and Glendy Yeh
Resources –Saraswathi Kumathi / January 2007
Help Desk Staffing / Team Leader – Denny Mosier
Team Members –Jorge Bonilla, Candie McDougall, Janet Rice,James Schneider, and Abel Zamora
Resources – Claudio Escobedo, Lori Okamoto,Bill Sing, and Marcy Wright / April 2007
HelpLine Trouble Ticket System / Team Leader – Denny Mosier
Team Members –Chris Crudo, Stan Jozefowicz, Candie McDougall,and Marci Payne
Resources –Dave Lyon,SusanReese,Janet Rice, James Schneider, Bill Sing, and Marcy Wright / March 2007
SAI Call Accounting System / Team Leader – H Keita
Team Members – Linda Bruner, Rita Haerr, Cassandra Reyes, and Dennis Tilford
Resources – / February 2007
Studio Six / Team Leader – David Levin
Team Members –Curtis Clark, Ruth Guthrie, Jerry Lerma, April McKettrick, Peggy Perry, Teshia Roby, Hari Singh, and Daniel Smith
Resources – Karen Brzoska / March 2007
Wireless Infrastructure / Team Leader – Susan Reese
Team Members – Gabe Kuri, Yen Nguyen,Andrew Perelgut and Janet Rice
Resources – / January 2007

Topic 1: University P&R Committee (Curtis and April)

Handout: Support Programs Prioritization and Recovery Committee – 2 January 07

Per Curtis, the Support Programs prioritization and Recovery Committee held a retreat in late December in the Boardroom at the CollinsSchool. After the retreat on 1/2/07 the subgroup had a lunch meeting. Don Straney met with the President the following morning. The President was asked if the University committee was a trustee committee or a representative committee. The President said that the committee is there for the divisions, but they should work for the good of the university. Per Curtis, the committee has two representatives from each division and some resource people (Lisa Rotunni, Kip Dickson and Phil Rosenkrantz). The President wants the committee to present him with recommendations as well as accumulated data in the spring quarter. Then he will put another committee together to review all the information.

Don Straney contributed to the issue of comparing apples to oranges. His idea is that there are multiple functions that happen in the university and each function has its own indicators. There are four criteria. Centrality to Missionwhich corresponds to what we call profile; efficiency which corresponds to what we call cost; impact which to us is quality; and opportunity. We didn’t look into opportunity. This would be if you had extra money what would you do with it. Don suggested that by dividing everything into functions you could compare programs with similar indicators. Following are the six categories that the University P&R Committee identified as programs on campus: Academic Support; Student Support; Institutional Support; Infrastructure Support; Constituent Support (Relations) and Unique Functions. A unique function would be something like the police department in the sense of the sworn officers; they are the only people on campus who need guns. There isn’t anything to compare them against. They can’t be lumped in with anything else. Per Debra, police should fit into Institutional Support. Per David, Unique Functions almost sounds like these are mandates and we can’t compare them to anything and they can’t be touched. Per Curtis, this is the part that he thought was the least important to what they are doing. Per April, it was originally called Auxiliary Services, but they are not paid with state funds and the P&R process is only looking at state funds.

Per Curtis, we talked about the issue of space (should we be considering space). There is no way to convert between money and space. And if there were this group would not have the time to do it. Per Debra, now that we have this set of functions,how do programs and services fit into these functions? Per Curtis, we have to take our projectsand services and decide which of these are programs. The University P&R Committee defined a program as a discrete unit with a definable budget (the expenditures are not mixed into the expenditures with other things). We all need to look at our programs and see if we can consolidate them. Per Curtis, our task is to see if this breakout of functions is practical. For Studio 6 you could make a good case that it is academic support and you also track students. Do you want to break it out into two functions? Curtis thinks that Data and Voice would go into Infrastructure Support. It is like the electric wires in the wall. It serves the entire university in an integrated fashion. Per Stephanie, what happens in years where we have a big project? Should we depreciate the cost of the project over multiple years? Per Stephanie, we hired consultants to do this costing analysis for us a few years ago and it took them months to do this for two departments. Per Debra, as an experiment we could take our full list of programs and services and plop them into each of these categories. If there is a natural consolidation we would get to it faster. Per Curtis, everyone on the University P&R Committee still likes the way I&IT does the rubric. Susan suggested that each manager put their stuff into these categories and then send it to Curtis to consolidate. Per Debra, some things don’t fit neatly into just one category. Curtis will be asking the University P&R Committee how they would pay for a program or service it they outsourced it. Curtis mentioned that we left out instruction because it is FTE generating. Per Debra, each director will take a stab at each category and put it all together. Then send their results to Curtis by next Tuesday, 1/16/07. He will turn it around by Thursday. Then we will work on this as a group. The results will be reviewed at a special P&R meeting on 1/22/07.

Action Item:(Managers) Put programs and/or services in the categories (Academic Support; Student Support; Institutional Support; Infrastructure Support Constituent Support or Unique Functions). Then send the results to Curtis. (Due date Tuesday, 1/16/07)

Topic 2: “Category B” Program or Service Outcomes & Assessment Techniques (Committee Members)

Handout:“Category B” Program or Service Outcomes and Assessment Techniques

Topic 3: Next Meeting - Monday, January 29, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Per Stephanie, we have a specific agenda for 1/29/07. We are going to have the managers bring back all the positions and projects that we put on hold from last year. We have not been spending our money at the rate we thought we would so we have funds to consider. We will consider anything new that your department may want to bring forward. Get your thoughts to your managers as they will be discussing this in the Wednesday Leadership meeting.