• Search CSULB
• Help 
• Index•
• Campus Directory•
• Maps•

• Office of the Provost Home
• About the Provost
• Provost's Leadership Team
• Academic Priorities & Initiatives
• News & Events
• Active Leadership Searches
• Institutional Accreditation
• CSU System-wide Initiatives
• Contact Office of the Provost

• Select . . .
  • Office of the Provost
  • Planning and Budget
  • Undergraduate Studies and Academic Advising
  • Graduate Studies
  • Faculty Affairs
  • Colleges and Departments
  • Research & External Support
  • International Education & Global Engagement
  • Academic Technology

• Select . . .
  • Academic Calendars
  • Faculty Resources
  • Majors, Minors, Certificates, Credentials & Options
  • Contact AA Web Team

Changes for June 2007 Revision
Executive Summary
Introduction
Collegiate Findings
Faculty Findings
Non-collegiate Department Findings
Library and Academic Technology Services (LATS) Findings
Summary of Findings
Conclusions and Synthesis of Issues
Recommendations
Appendix A - Strategic Plan Starter Document
Appendix B - Organizational Models
Appendix C - Starter List of Common Services

Changes for June 2007 Revision

Executive Summary

Introduction

Scope

This report provides an overall summary of the assessment effort along with specific recommendations for moving forward. We have assessed the IT practices of the Division of Academic Affairs. The practices of delivering IT products and services includes the following components:

• organization and staffing;
• technical and pedagogical support;
• specific technology products and their usage (e.g. BeachBoard, Lotus Notes);
• technology services (e.g. software license management, security management); and
• coordinated decision-making and communications.

Summary of Research Methods

A unique challenge of providing technology services within an academic institution is ensuring that the right systems and services are deployed: the IT practices that will make users' lives easier, and consequently will help the institution succeed in its academic mission. Traditional technology-focused assessment processes (focusing on the technologies themselves more so than any other component) are not really designed to solve user problems. Thus, institutions should evaluate their unique needs, rather than just look at the specific technologies being offered by vendors. Understanding where systems are being deployed, who uses them, how they need to integrate with existing and future systems, and what specific educational tasks they automate is important to deploying a successful set of IT practices.

Based on the above challenge, we have focused our assessment based on the perspective of real technology users, leaders and providers. In February and March 2007, we have conducted a series of one-on-one interviews and focus groups among the following constituencies:

• Collegiate Deans and Associate Deans;
• Collegiate technical staff;
• Library and Academic Technology Services staff;
• Division leadership;
• Faculty;
• Students;
• Non-collegiate Division groups; and
• Select leadership from other Divisions in the campus.

Organization of Report

First, we lay out the Findings from the interviews, organized by major constituency group. This section is followed by a Summary of Findings which follow from the assessment. This section is following by the Conclusions, which attempt to synthesize the findings into a cohesive whole. The final section are a set of Recommendations. We have also included a started document for the IT strategic planning effort to show how the assessment can feed into that effort.

For those needing to get the core of the argument and recommendations, you can safely skip to the Conclusions section.

Collegiate Findings

Summary of Collegiate Administration

The collegiate Deans and Associate Deans historically have not been consulted in IT decisions across the Division. Technology has been treated by the Division as a non-strategic issue separate from the business of the University. While the collegiate administration is generally supportive of this effort for IT strategic planning, this group is looking for leadership within the Division. This leadership, however, should be consultative in nature.

The biggest over-riding issue for collegiate administration is the ability to get effective technical support. The status quo makes it very difficult to know "who, what, where" in obtaining support, and the support usually comes across as reactive.

1. There is no clear guidance on where faculty should go for technical and pedagogical support. The help desk structure is not helpful to faculty, and the result for most situations is that faculty rely on their local support staff.
2. There has been an uneven investment by the colleges in technology infrastructure and usage. Those colleges with larger investments have the most at stake in any change - the Division needs to make sure that new Division services are equivalent or better than these colleges.
3. There is a growing issue of faculty members not having the knowledge or training to effectively use technology.
4. A significant concern is how to provide baseline technical support and capabilities for all of the colleges. As part of this effort, baseline classroom technology must be transparent to faculty.
5. The lack of a common email and calendaring system is a significant burden for the colleges.
6. The University has become too decentralized, and technology decisions are made in silos - at the collegiate and department level.
7. The Division needs a technology plan. Typically, almost no one is looking at the big picture and people are not involved in decisions at the right time. When decisions are made, there is a lack of needs analysis to understand the true problems to be solved.

Summary of Collegiate Technical Staff

The collegiate technical staff are generally frustrated by the decision-making style of the University and the lack of coordination. This group feels that they are not consulted on technical decisions and frequently face unfunded mandates. The result is a group of disaggregated staff providing ad hoc, duplicate services. This group's complaints, in my opinion, often get misinterpreted that they desire to run all of their own services, when in fact, they would like more common services that can make their lives simpler and more focused.

1. There are too many decisions made without input from the people who have to implement the results of the decisions.
2. There is a lack of coordination among IT providers in the Division of Academic Affairs resulting in duplication of effort.
3. There are too few resources - people and funding in particular - for them to do their jobs effectively.
4. There is a lack of policies and guidance from the Division or University to help the college technical staff do their jobs.
5. This group informally meets as the Collegiate Technology Advisory Group (CTAG), but this group lacks the facilitation and influence that is truly needed.
6. Because of the different management styles, the Division of Administration and Finance has too much influence on how IT decisions are made in comparison to the Division of Academic Affairs, when these decisions need to be based more strongly on academics.

Faculty Findings

Summary of Lecturers' Needs

Lecturers categorized themselves as instructors who are dynamic, involved in the industry about which they teach, and tend to be more on the cutting edge of technology knowledge. They are passionate about using the latest technology in the classroom, to improve and enhance learning. They were most concerned with having easy, consistent access to technology- hardware and software- and receiving quick support and training the moment a problem would arise.

1. They need clear policies for online course development for lecturers, including guidelines for comp time, accessibility compliance, etc.
2. They need every classroom to have uniform technology, and they need the training on how to use it. They also want these smart classrooms to be equipped with the latest technologies.
3. They need more effective support from the audio-visual department, or a "rapid response" team to help as needed with any smart classroom technology problems.
4. They need to have faculty to work with that have a basic technology competency; the University should test incoming instructors' level of technology competency and provide training on technology for all incoming instructors.
5. They need technology to support learning, for instance, by having reliable wireless in every classroom, and having more software to be available to them. Technology should be provided to instructors based on the needs of students, rather than the hierarchy and rank of faculty.
6. They need their offices to be equipped with laptops and available technology.
7. They need to understand students' usage of technology and their expectations of faculty.
8. They want the ability to have control over students' computers in labs during classes (students are often online and on MySpace pages during class).

Summary of New Faculty Members' Needs

The New Faculty members were concerned with students' access to technology at home, pointing out that many CSULB students do not fit the typical college student profile and have busy lives outside class. They stressed the importance that students know "why" they are using technology to learn, and in return, that faculty should not assume all students know how to use technology in the classroom or at home. New faculty members seemed to be actively trying to balance research and instruction requirements, and they need support for both of these roles.

1. They want to see an increase in lab space on campus, enough to accommodate the student population.
2. The University needs balance in the distribution of resources for technology among colleges and departments.
3. They need on-site, on-call help with technology and a quick response from their technology support person/ group.
4. They need more efficiency by using technology, for example, a high speed printer versus a printing staff.
5. They need technology to support research-driven faculty with infrastructure.

Summary of Tenured Faculty Members' Needs

Tenured faculty members seem to have the experience and security to see beyond their physical needs as instructors and identify long term needs that, if met, will ensure that academics drive the function of the University. They are particularly concerned with the proper application of technology to the classroom, which should be an academic decision. This view does not argue against investment in technology; rather, it argues that effective use of technology should be our goal, whereas increased use of technology is not always appropriate.

Furthermore, there is a great need for communication, for collaborative purposes, but they have not seen any fulfillment of the potential for creative resource use. Many of the focus group members use current technology on a regular basis to teach their courses, and they collectively called out the need for restructuring technology funding sources and budget structures.

1. Although there is a greater demand for technology, there's less understanding of it; and students don't want to know why they are using the technology. Technology "dumbs down" students often; they are not required to look up an entire journal or article, but can get just the sentence or paragraph they need. They miss the context.
2. They need basic technology support for everyone.
3. They need to see strategic planning for technology and alignment.
4. They need a diffusing of priorities throughout the campus that come from a shared vision.
5. They need to see department-specific needs met.
6. The problem of divided, competing, under-funded systems needs to be addressed and solved.
7. They need technical support problems to be addressed; believe that some technical staff are behind in their knowledge of technology.
8. They need the support and funding to provide some completely online courses, to meet the varying needs of students on this commuter campus.
9. They need technology integrated into the mission of the University, and an administration to support the use of technology "whenever and wherever".

Non-collegiate Department Findings

Summary of Main Issues

When asked, "What are your biggest problems or challenges with technology?" the instant response from these non-collegiate departments was almost always about a lack of funding for basic IT such as desktop computers. Some departments have grown steadily over the past few years, and have not received a budget increase to match their increasing technology needs. This situation has created a challenge for the minimally staffed system support specialists, leading them to "beg, borrow and steal" used and sometimes ancient computers and equipment from other departments around the University. The solution to funding and support problems is dependent on adequate IT leadership within the Division. These departments want someone in a position of authority, such as an AVP for Technology or a similar decision-making role, to advocate on behalf of their needs to the Administration of the University.

1. A huge problem across all these departments is the lack of available funds for technology, technology repair or replacement. The University is reactive and has a "let's keep up" mentality rather than a "cutting edge" mentality.
2. While there is admirable effort and energy put into supporting these departments, these efforts rely on heroic efforts rather than effective practices. Quite often the efforts of support personnel are admirable based on the resources available, but the user needs are not met.
3. Information security and the knowledge of how to implement adequate security practices will be a major challenge in the coming years.
4. Department-owned, independently maintained software programs are not integrated with Common Management System and create duplication of efforts and self-support. Desktop support is piecemeal and support personnel are spread very thin.
5. Change is driven by individuals, not by the system.
6. Needed communication and information-sharing between departments is difficult or nonexistent.

Summary of Greatest Needs

The needs of the non-collegiate departments are funding for the purchase of, replacement and repair of technology; leadership to facilitate the restructuring and distribution of budgets and funding; quick, reliable and personal support for desktops and equipment; training for staff on the use of technology and software programs; and securing of- and access to information through the integration of departmental software with Common Management System and/or Learning Management System.

Academic Advising Issues

The academic advising function represents a classic disconnect of the operational reality from the stated priorities of the University. At a time when the University so highly stresses the need to facilitate graduation, it is remarkable how the University has let technology services at the operational level impair its ability to help students. Given this disconnect, it is worth exploring the needs of Academic Advising separately.

In a nutshell, advisors spend far too much time checking and re-checking information without real technology support, and therefore far too little time actually advising students. Far too often, technology is an impediment to the advising mission.

1. Advisors are frequently facing wrong and incomplete information from the IT systems on transfer articulation and curriculum requirements, forcing the advisors to use informal, ad hoc networks to gather required information. Although the upcoming Common Management System upgrade to version 8.9 is expected to make significant improvement in the reporting capabilities for advising, the overall issue of IT support for advising requires a full needs analysis to determine the proper long-term solution. The issues span technology capabilities, technology usage, approval processes, and internal communications.
2. The information is reactive in nature, as advisors frequently find out that a student is on academic probation after the student comes in for help; furthermore, it takes precious time during the counseling for the advisor to look up information before any actual advising occurs.
3. The lack of communication on campus makes it very difficult for advisors to do their jobs. They spend an inordinate amount of their time chasing down information that should be easy to find, or ideally should be proactively communicated. For example, advisors have to rely on personal networks to find out critical curriculum requirement changes by departments.

Library and Academic Technology Services (LATS) Findings

Summary of Main Issues

1. There is no coordination of the use of colleges' resources (for Common Management System, etc) and no business process manuals.
2. Everyone is reinventing the wheel everywhere; "It's like the wild west".
3. Political turmoil has emerged as a result of the creation of LATS.
4. The colleges want Division leadership; they don't have the time to figure it out.
5. Academic Affairs and ITS are like Coke and Pepsi- they are in the same business but in competition.
6. The separate organization and function of the technology help desk does not serve the needs of the Division. There must be a coordinated approach to providing help desk support, with coordination or reorganization among the technology help desk, instructional technology support services, and the administrative help desk.
7. Leadership has become more restrictive with funding.
8. Responsibilities have widened, and people are doing jobs they were not hired to do. Their skill set has to increase in order to do their jobs effectively, because needs are growing.

Summary of Greatest Needs

1. Academic Affairs needs integration of technology into the business plan.
2. Academic Technology needs to view IT at an enterprise-level.
3. Academic Affairs needs a leader with the authority to make decisions and enforce them, who has a good perspective on Academia and from the outside too.
4. Policies and standards that have teeth in place for use when necessary.
5. They need necessary funding, along with support and buy-in. For instance, they need additional staff who will take on responsibility for training and user support.
6. They need to implement technology for value, not for technology's sake.

Summary of Findings

Strengths

Despite the purpose of the assessment to identify gaps in service and change opportunities, it is worth noting some of the strengths of the Division's technology practices. These strengths should be maintained during any change process, and indeed may provide the basis for making significant change to the Division's usage and provision of technology.

1. The BeachBoard availability and integration with Common Management System Student System is broadly perceived as a strength, particularly since this service provides one place to go for learning management system needs. Although usage of BeachBoard appears to be fairly basic, it does provide a true value to students and faculty, and there is a real benefit to the University having one system available.
2. The Library systems are perceived as very beneficial to both faculty and students. These services appear to be stable and meet the needs of users.
3. The passion of grassroots IT providers and faculty users, as well as their perceived autonomy, is a major strength.
4. I have seldom seen a campus more unified in the need to change and advance in our IT usage for the academic mission. In any change situation, one of the major challenges is to convince people of the need for change. Within the Division of Academic Affairs, there appears to be a broad acceptance for the need for change and a willingness to work together.
5. The local support model, while inefficient, does provide very responsive service to faculty in particular. Faculty members know that when they call for help, the help comes quickly and eagerly.

Gaps in Vision

One of the key purposes for an assessment is to identify the known gaps between what is needed and what is currently being provided. These gaps can help to focus the organization on the most productive changes to make. Beyond the identified gaps in service identified in the previous section, there is another gap worth considering - a gap in vision.
Because the Division has been caught in a reactive mode of supporting technology, there are some key questions that the University must address. These questions should be part of the active discussion within the context of strategy formation and planning, yet we have noted very little discussion on the following topics.

1. How should IT be funded in Academic Affairs? Does technology provide a more strategic way to manage the growing facility needs based on aging buildings and growing enrollments? Given the inadequate resources to support technology in the Division, should CSULB institute a technology fee?
2. In a related question, what is the University's vision or guidance for classroom augmentation, hybrid or online education? Should this decision be purely left to the department level? If a department chooses to pursue hybrid or online courses, how should the University support this effort?
3. Are there more effective uses of technology to support the academic mission without losing academic quality or violating academic freedom?
4. What is the University's interpretation and guidance for the system-wide Academic Transformation? How should the Division coordinate the resources to take advantage of this initiative and meet the system goals?
5. In which cases should the University try to meet student expectations for technology usage, and in which cases should the University resist student expectations? How should the University deal with the frequent mindless use of technology by students without adequate understanding of underlying concepts?
6. How can the Division provide policy support and guidance to help colleges and departments deal with campus-wide issues?

These questions are critical for the future, and they get to the heart of how technology should be integrated into the academic mission of the University.

Conclusions and Synthesis of Issues

Collaborative Approach - Direct Authority and Indirect Influence

The Division of Academic Affairs should make efforts to change the governance of technology services and implement a collaborative approach that focuses on centralized provision of common services and local provision of discipline-specific services. This collaborative approach requires a change in organization and a different approach to technology decision-making. By necessity, the governance of technology services within the Division of Academic Affairs should have a different approach than the governance within the Division of Administration and Finance. While there should be some overlap and lessons shared between the Divisions, the academic mission will always rely on some level of autonomous control by the colleges. The leadership approach of the Division of Academic Affairs must include both direct authority on common services and indirect influence on discipline-specific technologies and local support.

Focus on Decision-Making

The governance of technology services should focus specifically on how technology decisions are made. Decisions that affect more than one local unit should have the following characteristics:

• There should be an analysis of the academic and administrative implications of the decision - typically known as a business analysis; and
• Key stakeholders affected by the decision should have proper input before the decision is made.

Recommendations

Long-Term Cultural Recommendations

Although there are different approaches to addressing the issues in this assessment, I am providing specific recommendations as a starting point. The following recommendations are strategic in nature and will take significant time to implement.

Organizational Change as a Lever to Change Technology Decision-Making

The Division needs to establish a leadership position for all Academic Technology that can directly and indirectly lead the complex organization of the Division. This person must be able to directly set priorities, policies and plans, while indirectly leading the colleges and library into a common vision moving forward. I recommend the Division add the role of Associate Vice President (AVP) for Technology.

This position could be a signal for real change to the Division, and not just reshuffling the deck chairs. The most important lever for change is the provision of dedicated, professional leadership of IT within the Division that can change the decision-making, coordination, and advocacy of IT. This person or group should report directly to the Provost.

What I am not recommending is for the campus to create a campus-wide CIO role at this point. The real change opportunities are within the Division of Academic Affairs, and a campus-wide CIO would not directly support the changes needed. It is possible that after the AVP for Technology role has been filled and changes are underway, the University may want to explore whether the campus should have a campus-wide CIO; however, this is not the time to worry about inter-divisional reorganization.

I am also not recommending that the colleges change their formal reporting structure for IT staff. Rather, the AVP for Technology should coordinate the various activities of the colleges in a persuasion style, while directly overseeing many of the central services provided for the Division. The decision of which services are local and which services are shared should be made in a collaborative environment, chaired by the AVP for Technology.

The purpose of the AVP for Technology position goes beyond merely adding one new position - the purpose is to facilitate changing how the Division of Academic Affairs makes technology decisions. The key characteristics of the AVP for Technology role and this recommendation are as follows:

1. This position reports directly to the Provost. It is critical for the new role to elevate the priority and responsibility for technology decisions, and this role should communicate a new, single point of accountability for technology decisions. This person must 'sit at the table' during broader discussions of University strategy.
2. The AVP for Technology would have direct organizational authority of all services that directly coordinate and provide technical support to the colleges (e.g. Academic Computing Services and the Technology Help Desk). The AVP for Technology would have indirect, dotted-line influence on library and collegiate services. By combining both direct authority and indirect influence in one place, the AVP for Technology would organize and consolidate information and decision-making for the Division of Academic Affairs.
3. When working on cross-divisional issues (e.g. defining Common Management System support needs for Academic Affairs), the AVP for Technology should act as the coordinating position to clarify technology priorities and to directly be involved in cross-divisional discussions. The AVP for Technology would partner with other Divisional management to create holistic solutions, with technology integrated with and supporting the academic mission.

Clarify Role of Library

The Division needs to get the library off the fence. Currently the library has been asked to provide many services for which it does not have the resources or decision-making authority to successfully implement. Either the Division needs to have the library pull back on only provide information delivery services (and not the technology support for the whole division), or the Division needs to give the library the resources and decision-making authority to adequately deliver the services.

My recommendation is that the libraryfocus its efforts on its strengths - providing solid enterprise IT and information services to the colleges, but not coordinating or directly supporting the whole Division. The broader leadership, coordination and support should be handled within a separate organization directly reporting to the new AVP for Technology. Talking more specifically, I recommend that the library continue to provide BeachBoard support, but that the new AVP for Technology's organization take over the Academic Computing Services role and any leadership efforts for the Division.

Review of Funding Models

Although the AVP for Technology should be involved before final decisions are made, I recommend the Division begin a review of the IT funding model, including the investigation of whether to implement a campus-wide technology fee. The primary intent for exploring a technology fee is to directly fund common services for the Division rather than purely local technology spending. Furthermore, the Division needs to change its view of spending money on IT as a zero-sum game. Wise investment in technology can save money overall and can dramatically improve the educational mission of the University. This new view of investment most likely will need a change in funding and budgeting mechanisms over the long-term.

Short-Term Recommendations

I would not recommend waiting for the AVP for Technology role to be filled before making improvements. The following recommendations should be started within the next month or two and are based on the high-priority issues identified in the assessment.

It is important that the Division avoid the temptation to make quick decisions - much of the current situation results from quick, ad hoc decisions. The point is to focus on collaborative decision-making with proper analysis and planning. The general theme of the short-term recommendations is to provide the basics of technology support in an effective, collaborative manner.

Transition Team - Core Group Reporting to Provost

I recommend creating a transition team as a small group (4 - 6 people) directly reporting to the Provost and any management group she identifies. This transition team would be tasked with identifying specific actions and decisions to make improvements over the next year. The transition team should also serve as a model in the collaborative approach to technology leadership - combing direct decisions on common services and indirect influence on local services.

An important facet of the transition team's work is to establish Division-wide priorities for technology projects. What projects or initiatives have the top priority for the remainder of 2007?

The Division should be careful that any people on the transition team be back-filled for a portion of their regular jobs, to avoid people merely adding a second job and adding stress. The Division should also be careful that this transition team be given specific tasks and produce concrete results.

Set Up Two Advisory Groups - Facilitated CTAG and Senior Management Council

There needs to be two levels of advisory groups involved with the collaborative approach to technology leadership. One level must involve the collegiate administration, gaining their input and buy-in to future decisions. The second level must involve the technical staff, -within the library, colleges and Division - again gaining their input and buy-in to future decisions. These meetings should be facilitated and run somewhat more focused than typical steering committees.

In addition to the transition team, I recommend the transition team should name a representative to act as a facilitator and support the CTAG group. The primary focus of CTAG should be effective information sharing. The secondary focus of CTAG should be to support the transition team and CITC meetings with a holistic view from the colleges. A LATS representative should be included in these meetings. To make this group work, we need full participation from all colleges on CTAG - there should be one participant from each college at CTAG meetings. As this group will have members beyond just the colleges, the group may need to be renamed.

As a method to connect with collegiate administration, I recommend that we create a sub-group from the Senior Management Council (SMC) to act as a second advisory committee. This group should ensure that collegiate administration are involved in the changes and that any technology changes are integrated into the strategic business of the university.

These two advisory groups - CTAG and SMC - should not replace the existing standing committees that advice on technology. Rather, the role of CTAG and SMC should be to facilitate collaborative decision-making by the Division. The role of the standing committee - primarily FACT and CITC - should remain to advise and vet the recommended decisions and strategies of the Division.

Top Technology Issues to Address

Within the context of providing a coordinated vision, there are several issues that should be higher in priority than the others. Without addressing the following issues, it will be difficult to address the long-term needs of the University. I recommend the transition team should make specific recommendations on each issue, and the Provost and her management group should support this team with timely decisions.

1. The Division needs a coordinated distribution of basic services and infrastructure throughout the Division. The basics include
   • scheduled desktop and laptop refreshes for the colleges and academic services,
   • computer labs with software release management
   • classroom basic technology (computer, projector, video source, screen).
2. The Division needs to streamline support for faculty who use technology - technology support, pedagogical support, outreach, sharing of best practices. Faculty members should have a very clear picture of where to go for support, and they should expect to get the holistic support needed.
3. The Division needs to provide proactive and just-in-time IT training and education for technology users and providers. This training should be tightly coordinated with the technology support listed above. This training should include basic training on the usage of IT tools, special-topic training on new technologies, and an online set of training material that users can self-select and use as needed. Technology providers should have access to training on advanced usage and support for academic technologies.
4. The Division needs to facilitate a cross-Division (including the colleges and library) group to define a target list of common technology services as well as a list of services that should remain discipline-specific and under local control. The effort to define and implement common services should be framed as a way for colleges to shed the burden of providing duplicate services and to free up their resources to focus on discipline-specific support.
5. The Division needs to set up a more formalized method to prioritize needs with the Division of Administration and Finance, particularly focusing on the Common Management System student system and network services. It should be clear to both divisions what the top-priority technical issues entail as it relates to academic priorities, and the decisions on these requests should be coordinated.
6. The Division needs to create guidelines to specifically call out best practices to manage the system-wide security, accessibility and the academic transformation initiatives.
7. The Division needs to support the informal communication methods by providing the following common services:
   • Division-wide (if not campus-wide) email and calendaring system;
   • Division-wide portal; and
   • Group-based collaboration tools to support ad hoc group communication.

Guidance to Manage System-wide Initiatives

There appears to be a growing need for the Division to manage system-wide initiatives. The two biggest initiatives right now are the Security Initiative and the Accessible Technology Initiative. While there are already efforts at CSULB to define the initiatives, there is little support in the way of helping colleges or departments to implement changes in a realistic manner. One key missing service for the Division is to provide this guidance - how should academic units realistically comply with policy. I recommend the transition team should provide this guidance on the security and accessibility initiatives, providing the bridge between policy and real-world implementation.

Support for Interface with Division of Administration and Finance

The Division needs a more formalized method to communicate priorities to the Division of Administration and Finance. This Division is looking for a consistent voice from Academic Affairs and it runs much more like a business than does the Division of Academic Affairs. Specifically, I recommend that the transition team and AVP for Technology start and maintain a monthly tracking system for the following:

• Identifying top priority issues between the two Divisions, including DAF input;
• Track the status of the top priority projects or requests; and
• Publicly communicate the status to both Divisions.

Next Steps

This report should contain the information needed for the Division to begin an important transition in how technology supports the academic mission. While there are specific recommendations contained in the report, the Division of Academic Affairs and CSULB at large must take ownership of the transition and commit to the changes necessary to improve the technology practices of the Division.

Appendix A - Strategic Plan Starter Document

Goal - Ensure baseline classroom technology and computer labs are available throughout the campus

Based on feedback from the assessment, aggressively focus on providing baseline support to academic units

Strategies

TRANSITION TEAM

Create a transition team reporting to the Provost to begin work on the top priority issues

COMMON SERVICES

Using the new organization and governance, determine a list of services which should be provided by the Division and a list of services which should remain locally controlled

Goal - Provide the tools and services to support new communications channels

Define the needs and select technology to support the communications channels already in place

Strategies

EMAIL AND CALENDARING

Provide a Division-wide email and calendaring system

PORTAL

Provide a Division-wide portal

COLLABORATION SYSTEM

Provide a Division-wide collaboration system capable of supporting ad hoc groups

Appendix B - Organizational Models

Lessons from the CSU System Studies

In 2005, the California State University system performed an investigation of almost half all campuses related to academic technology, with an emphasis on Learning Management Systems. The following two findings from these campus visits are quite relevant to CSULB decisions.

• In general terms, campuses with more centralized Academic Technology support organizations had larger and more resource rich support structures.
• On many campuses the lack of a well-staffed, coordinated support structure for academic technologies tends to limit adequate support to just a few faculty. In many cases, faculty are quite pleased with the support provided, but complain that there is not enough staff and they have to go to too many places to get support. Quite often, our decentralized academic support organization and staffing levels present a major barrier to faculty adoption.

Recommended Structure for CSULB

Given the assessment of this report along with lessons from the CSU system and peer institutions, I am proposing the following structure as the starting point for CSULB organizational changes.

The AVP for Technology will serve as a focal point to elevate the technology discussions within the Division of Academic Affairs and to coordinate the complex organization. Note the direct-line authority over common services (ACS, Classroom Support / AV, Computer Lab Management as example services) as well as the dotted-line influence on local collegiate and library services.

Appendix C - Starter List of Common Services

• Feedback
•   Last Updated 2/23/09