Overview of the State of Information Technology on MUS Campuses

Mark Sheehan, CIO – MSU-Bozeman (for MSU)

Ray Ford, CIO – UM-Missoula (for UM)

November 2004

STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

THE GENERAL QUESTIONS1. How are MUS campuses doing with their IT infrastructure?

2. How do MUS IT efforts compare to national benchmarks?

3. Are students on our campuses getting what they need?

4. What challenges do campuses face with regard to IT?

OUR APPROACH• Provide high level overview now

• Ask in which areas the Board would like more details

WHAT ARE WE DOING?

STRUCTURE OF IT ON CAMUSES

1. CENTRAL RESOURCES AND SERVICES• Networks (voice, data, video)

• Enterprise Information System (EIS)• Banner and ancillary systems

• Web environment

• Course management system (WebCT, Blackboard)

• Library system

• Help Desk

• Hardware sales and maintenance (IT Center or Bookstore)

• Student computer labs (part)

• Support for student PC ownership

WHAT ARE WE DOING?

STRUCTURE OF IT ON CAMUSES (cont’d)

2. DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES AND SERVICES• Student computer labs (part)

• Local PC and application support

• Local Web servers

• Instructional computing resources and personnel

• Research computing resources and personnel

PRIMARY EIS

BANNER AND RELATED SYSTEMS

ALL CAMPUSES• Have central Banner environments – in Missoula and Bozeman

• Are developing secondary backup/disaster recovery sites as budget permits

• Are on a regular Banner upgrade cycle, remaining current with manufacturer’s releases

• Have software license maintenance costs and hardware replacement costs centrally budgeted

• Are utilizing Banner/Web services to offer more efficient services to employees and students

• Are developing “campus portals” to further improve services

OTHER EIS

WEB ENVIRONMENT

ALL CAMPUSES

• Are utilizing specialized course management systems to provide instructional materials over the Web (more about this later)

• Are evaluating Web content management systems to make the task of developing and updating content more efficient

• Are beginning to look hard at how Web-based facilities can be used to streamline business practices

OTHER EIS

EMAIL AND LIBRARY SYSTEMS

EMAIL SYSTEMS• All campuses utilize email to streamline business practices

• But are struggling with the ever-increasing volume of incoming “spam” and viruses

LIBRARY SYSTEMS• UM and MSU use different but highly interoperable systems

• But struggle to meet the demand for costly on-line content

OTHER EIS

COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

ALL CAMPUSES• Use course management systems (CMSs) at some level

• Are working to expand use of CMSs

• Hope to integrate their CMSs with Banner, Banner’s Web facilities, and their emerging campus portals to improve seamlessness of:

• Advising

• Class schedule

• Classroom

• Grade book

• Transcript

ALL EIS

ASSESSMENT

How are we doing? (1)

• Banner and library systems are mature and stable• PeopleSoft and Oracle alternatives in use elsewhere are less so

• Universities have implemented many Web services for students and employees• Portals will multiply the available Web services when rolled out

(summer and fall 2005)

ALL EIS

ASSESSMENT

How are we doing? (2)

• General Web services are based on stable platforms• Universities have mutual emergency assistance agreements

• Web pages are not now centrally branded and managed• Both universities have projects to expand use of standard style,

branding, and templates

• Both universities are evaluating content management systems

ALL EIS

ASSESSMENT

How are we doing? (3)

• Email systems at all campuses are migrating toward Web-based systems• Available anytime, anywhere

• Soon all will be integrated with university portals

• Library systems are mature and effective• Based on industry standards

• Highly interoperable

• Portal integration is planned

ALL EIS

COMPARISON (1)

Primary EIS and Portal

• 65% of doctoral-level universities either have or are implementing integrated primary EIS systems like Banner

• 58% of doctoral-level universities either have or are implementing a Web portal; another 30% are planning them

EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey, 2003

ALL EIS

COMPARISON (2)

Course Management System

• 65% of doctoral-level universities support a single commercial course management system

• 13% of doctoral-level universities support more than one commercial course management system

• At 12% of doctoral-level universities faculty use course management systems for all courses

EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey, 2003

ALL EIS

COMPARISON (3)

Use of courseware management systems

• University of Montana–Missoula

– 56% of students have CMS accounts

– 15% of sections use CMS

• Montana State University-Bozeman

– 47% of students have CMS accounts

– 8% of sections use CMS

STUDENT COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT

MUS Owned Facilities (1)

• Student ownership of computers is not mandatory for all students at any MUS campus• Certain programs do require computer ownership (e.g.,

MSU Architecture & UM Law)

• All campuses offer central student computing labs• Degree of centralization varies

• Some central labs

• Some departmental or program-specific labs

STUDENT COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT

MUS Owned Facilities (2)

• All campuses are moving toward:

• Regular hardware refresh (3-4 year cycle)• With the help of student computer fee revenues

• Centrally supported software purchases and/or campus agreements (e.g., Microsoft Windows and Office, MacOS, Symantec/Norton anti-virus)

• Mandatory administration/security standards for installation of security patches, anti-virus updates, etc.

STUDENT COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT

• FTE students per public computer (est.)

UM-Missoula 5.5

MSU-Bozeman 13.0

All Public Universities 12.4*

*2003 Campus Computing Survey

NETWORKING

LEVELS OF NETWORKING

Network types:

• Campus• Between offices; between buildings

• Intercampus• Between campuses; between campuses and state agencies

• Wide Area• Between campuses and the Internet and Internet2

NETWORKING

CAMPUS NETWORKING

Components and issues (1):

• Building wiring • Requires replacement on 10-year cycle

• Current standard is Category 6; most buildings have Category 5/5e

• Major overhaul will be required in 3-5 years

• Campus backbone• Most campuses have fiber optic backbone

• Good for another 10-20 years

• Most campus backbones operate at one gigabit per second• Faster than most current PCs can transmit or receive

• May prove inadequate for emerging research needs

NETWORKING

CAMPUS NETWORKING

Components and issues (2):

• Wireless networks • Offer generally slower speeds than wired networks

• Do not support some popular applications will, e.g., audio file sharing

• Offer greatly enhanced convenience• PCs

• PDAs

• Very popular among students• Turns public areas into “labs”

• Enables classroom innovation

• Has student recruitment and retention value

NETWORKING

INTERCAMPUS NETWORKING

Summitnet

• Partnership between UM, MSU, and the State IT Services Division

• Has been useful for:• Linking smaller campuses to larger ones

• Linking all campuses to state government agencies and OCHE

• Providing transport for METNET video teleconferencing services

NETWORKING

WIDE AREA NETWORKING (1)

Internet:

• Connects campuses to other universities, government agencies, organizations, and commercial enterprises

• Primary conduit for email and Web traffic

• Supplements Summitnet for intercampus communication

• Demand from students and employees doubles every year or two

NETWORKING

WIDE AREA NETWORKING (2)

Internet2:

• A separate, uncongested, high-speed research-focused network

• MSU-Bozeman, UM-Missoula, and UM-Montana Tech are participants

• Requires expensive high-speed circuit

• Takes some load off of “commodity” Internet circuits

• Research community demand for I2 is increasing much more rapidly than campus demand for Internet

NETWORKING

WIDE AREA NETWORKING (3)

Future networks:

• MSU-Bozeman has a grant to increase research network bandwidth this year to 2.4 gigabits per second (a 50-fold increase).

• UM-Missoula has taken a leadership position in the Northern Tier Networking Consortium which seeks to bring similar research network speeds to the I-90/I-94 corridor from Washington to Minnesota. • MSU and the state IT Services Division are also a members of

NTNC

NETWORKING

ASSESSMENT

Campus networking:• The campuses are keeping pace with technology

Intercampus networking:• Summitnet can continue to serve the universities for 3-5

more years – longer if NTNC becomes reality

Wide Area Networking• MSU-Bozeman and UM-Missoula are leaders in our part

of the country.

NETWORKING

COMPARISON (1)

• Commodity Internet bandwidth• MSU-Bozeman and UM-Missoula provide 45-50

megabits per second (mbps)

• Only 17% of doctoral universities provide 44 mbps or less

• 60% of doctoral universities provide 90 mbps or more

2003 EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey

NETWORKING

COMPARISON (2)

• Internet2 bandwidth• MSU-Bozeman and UM-Missoula provide 45

megabits per second (mbps)

• Only 19% of doctoral universities provide 44 mbps or less

• 63% of doctoral universities provide 90 mbps or more

2003 EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey

FUNDING

REVENUE SOURCES

All campuses fund IT from a variety of sources:• Regular funds (tuition and state money)

• Specific fees (Student Computer Fee, Technology Fee, Instructional Equipment Fee)

• Charge-backs for some services

• Campuses with large research programs may have additional large but restricted funding for IT

FUNDING

BUDGETS

All campuses:

• Are constrained in the new initiatives they can take on

• Face challenges in having to continually support new technologies

• Are managing to stay more or less even, helped by cost decreases in some areas

• Are seeking stability and efficiencies

FUNDING FOR IT

• IT expenditures as a percent of total institutional expenditures:

UM-Missoula 2.60%

MSU-Bozeman 2.25%

Public Universities Avg. 4.8%*

*2003 Campus Computing Survey

CAMPUS HIGHLIGHTSUniversity of Montana

• Missoula– Implementing CampusEAI Oracle portal; Missoula first, then

other campuses

– Working to join Lariat regional optical network

• Montana Tech– Development of wireless network

– Development of an Access Grid Node

• Western– Installation of wireless laboratory

– Completion of Gigabit campus network backbone

• Helena College of Technology– Working with ITSD on sharing network infrastructure

CAMPUS HIGHLIGHTSMontana State University

• Billings– Implemented Voice-Over-IP for telephone & unified messaging

– Academic Technology Development Resource – 60 computers

• Bozeman– Implementing Luminis Portal with and for all four campuses

– Bringing up 2.4 Gbps Lariat regional optical network

• Great Falls – Developing a campuswide wireless network

– Building grant-supported Consolidated Classroom

• Northern– Purchased 4 TB network-attached storage for shared disk space

– Enabled secure wireless access in Library and Student Union