revised january 2014 · 2010 kent state university information services strategic plan 2015 revised...

Revised January 2014

2010 Kent State University Information Services Strategic Plan 2015

Revised January 2014 2

Executive Overview – January 2014 Revision

It is my pleasure to present the revised and expanded Kent State University’s Information Technology strategic

plan. This document extends the existing IS Strategic Plan through 2015. The IT Strategic Plan remains directly

connected to the University’s plan. As such, it identifies specific, measurable objectives and milestones that will

ensure the greatest return on the university’s investment in this critical asset. The executive overview focuses on

three key elements of our strategy; Alignment, An Inclusive Process and IT Infrastructure Enhancement. The

complete strategic plan can be found at: http://www.kent.edu/is/about/ISstrategy.cfm

Alignment

With University Goals:

University Strategic Goals Information Services Strategic Goals

I. Ensuring Student Success 1: Enable Student Success

II. Enhancing Academic Excellence and Innovation 2: Empower Teaching and Improve Learning

III. Expanding Breakthrough Research and Creative

Endeavors

3: Ensure Reliable, Secure and Accessible Systems

4: Manage Costs; Improve Service Management

and Business Processes

IV. Engaging with the World Beyond Our Campuses

V. Securing Our Financial Future

VI. Developing and Recognizing Our People 5: Plan and Manage Information Services

With Academic Affairs:

This revision maintains our commitment to supporting the project needs of the other university divisions. We have

mapped our IS projects to the Academic Affairs “Our Voices, Our Vision Strategy”.

High Level Mapping

AA Strategic Plan Goal

Information Services Strategic Plan Projects

1. Ensuring Student Success

Implement :

1. the Degree Works system,

2. the Advising Scheduling System,

3. Automated Advisor Assignment,

4. Course Signals, and

5. expanded Dynamic Student Checklists,

To enable students and advisors to review degree progress and plan coursework



with a goal of graduation.

2. Enhancing Academic Excellence and

Innovation

Implementing CurricuNET to improve efficiencies within curriculum development.

Implement FPDC Productivity Database to monitor and evaluate FPDC

productivity indicators.

Provide integration between Distance Learning’s selected vendor support

organization’s computer applications and Kent State’s internal applications.

4. Engaging the World Beyond Our

Campuses

Maintain / enhance the fsaAtlas system to support streamlined processing of

international students.

5. Securing Our Financial Future

Maintain / enhance the Banner Faculty Load and Compensation Module to

provide an integrated, efficient process for determining faculty assignments and

workload.

Maintain / enhance the Electronic Data Warehouse (EDW) contains historical

trending information to allow for flexible analysis and timely decision making about

course enrollments.

An Inclusive Process

The process used to create this plan included four important elements:

1. DATA GATHERING:

Current State Assessment. This phase started with seeking answers to the questions, “Where are we

now? Where do we want to be? How big is the gap? What will it take to get where we want to be?” To

that end, we surveyed university stakeholders to determine their perspectives of the services we offer,

as well as to gather feedback and direction on strategic imperatives and university needs.

University Council on Technology (UCT) Faculty Audit. More than 300 faculty members

participated in a technology audit. Lead by the UCT, this audit provided clarity and direction around the

critical area of Learning Management Tools and Systems.

2. EXTERNAL INPUT: We reviewed the information technology strategy and tactical plans of approximately

10 institutions, as well as technology-related higher education resources such as Gartner, EDUCAUSE and

Campus Computing Surveys. These documents provided additional insights and perspectives as to current

trends, issues and concerns relative to technology and higher education. Additionally, the CIOs from five

major universities conducted a series of onsite interviews and discussions with major university

stakeholders to review and evaluate the plan, processes and organization. The full report of their findings

and recommendations is available at http://www.kent.edu/is/about/ISstrategy.cfm



IT Infrastructure Enhancements

The plan also includes a renewed focus on strengthening the University’s IT Infrastructure. This renewed

infrastructure focus includes:

Moving Administrative Applications to a single virtualized server environment (Banner off Sun)

Implementing Unified Communications including an upgrading of all network components to ensure high

quality of service

Improving Data Management which includes automating adherence to retention policies, implementing a

new distributed storage architecture, eliminating older storage methods (tape), provided increased storage

capacity.

Improving IS Disaster Recovery simplifying the process and reducing the recovery time. This will be

accomplished by replacing tape backup with more modern disk replication techniques. By documenting the

recover process in detail and training our vendor on these processes we will reduce the dependency on

Kent State’s IS staff during disaster recovery.

Implement a single IS Operations Control Center that utilizes enterprise management software to combine

the monitoring and management of the application, server and storage infrastructure with the network

infrastructure.

Evaluate and pilot the use of cloud based computing to support application and storage needs of the

university. Services that might be early adopters of cloud based computing include infrastructure

applications (email and calendaring), web applications and storage.

Thank you. My e-mail address is [email protected]; I welcome your reaction and ideas. Ed Mahon Vice President for Information Services and Chief Information Officer



Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW – JANUARY 2014 REVISION ............................................................................................ 2

I. UNIVERSITY MISSION STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 6

II. INFORMATION SERVICES MISSION, VALUES AND STRATEGIC GOALS .............................................................. 7

Strategic Goal #1: Enable Student Success ................................................................................................................... 8

Strategic Goal #2: Empower Teaching and Improve Learning .................................................................................. 12

Strategic Goal #3: Ensure Reliable, Secure and Accessible Systems ..................................................................... 14

Strategic Goal #4: Manage Costs; Improve Business Processes and Service Management ............................... 18

Strategic Goal #5: Plan and Manage Information Services ........................................................................................ 23

III. EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS – TRENDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION .................................................. 26

A. EDUCAUSE Top 10 IT Issues, 2012 .................................................................................................................... 26

B. The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012 ........................................ 27

C. Gartner Group, Agenda Overview for Higher Education, 2013 ......................................................................... 28

D. Campus Computing Project: The 2012 Campus Computing Survey ............................................................... 29

IV. INTERNAL ASSESSMENT (2010) .................................................................................................................. 30

ORGANIZATION PROFILE ......................................................................................................................................................... 30

SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................... 31

UCT FACULTY AUDIT SUMMARY – LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND TOOLS .......................................................... 33

SUNGARD BANNER ERP IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 34

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT – CIO ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................................... 35

V. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (2010) ............................................................................................................ 37

VI. MAPPING IS PROJECTS TO ACADEMIC AFFAIRS STRATEGY (2013) ............................................................... 39



I. University Mission Statement

Kent State University Mission Statement

The mission of Kent State University is to discover, create, apply and share knowledge, as well as to foster ethical

and humanitarian values in the service of Ohio and the global community. As an eight-campus educational system,

Kent State offers a broad array of academic programs to engage students in diverse learning environments that

educate them to think critically and to expand their intellectual horizons while attaining the knowledge and skills

necessary for responsible citizenship and productive careers.

Kent State University Vision

Kent State University will change lives by encouraging outstanding teaching and innovative learning opportunities,

by cultivating excellence in all we do, and by seeking greater access and affordability for our students. Kent State

shall expand its dynamic leadership through recognized scholarship and path-breaking research, through increased

levels of external support leading to new discoveries and economic development, and through partnerships with

other institutions and organizations in the pursuit of academic excellence. To further these common goals, faculty,

staff and students, as well as our alumni and community supporters, shall serve as collaborative partners in

advancing Kent State’s status as a model for 21st-century public higher education.

Kent State University Strategic Goals:

I. Ensuring Student Success

II. Enhancing Academic Excellence and Innovation

III. Expanding Breakthrough Research and Creative Endeavors

IV. Engaging with the World Beyond Our Campuses

V. Securing Our Financial Future

VI. Developing and Recognizing Our People

Kent State University Strategy Map

In the fall of 2009, KSU President Lefton outlined a new vision and clear directive for the university. Capturing the

critical imperatives and core mission and values, a detailed university strategy map was developed. Likewise each

cabinet member was charged with creating a strategy map for their division. Imperative to the development of the

IS strategic plan was ensuring alignment with the university mission and strategy. These maps provided input and

clarity and ensured this alignment.

The university’s six strategic goals as well as individual division goals and key initiatives were transformed into

Information Technology goals and objectives that are necessary for the realization of the university’s objectives.

The resulting five strategic goals outline what Kent State University wants information services to accomplish during

the next three to five years.

http://www.kent.edu/president/si.cfm



II. Information Services Mission, Values and Strategic Goals

The following mission and value statement represents the division’s purpose and guiding principles in support of

the university’s vision and strategic imperatives.

IS Mission: The Division of Information Services provides the university community with technology solutions

that enhance the learning and business environment, support excellence in teaching, enable innovation in research

and provide opportunities for collaboration within and beyond our campuses.

Values: We are committed to excellence

We are strategic partners

We act with integrity and accountability

We are fiscally responsible

We value diversity in people and ideas

Strategic Goal #1: Enable Student Success

Enable student success by creating and supporting technology services that increase information availability

and improve customer service.

Strategic Goal #2: Empower Teaching and Improve Learning

Empower teaching and improve learning through technology.

Strategic Goal #3: Ensure Reliable, Secure and Accessible Systems Provide and maintain systems that are reliable, secure and accessible anytime, anywhere; thereby providing an

information technology infrastructure that enhances productivity and enables global access.

Strategic Goal #4: Manage Costs; Improve Service Management and Business Processes

Significant focus must be placed on cost of service, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), and improving

administrative and organizational efficiencies (resulting in reduced cost) through process improvement and

organizational alignment.

Strategic Goal #5: Plan and Manage Information Services

Critical to the efficient execution of the university IS mission are the organization, its people and processes. We

must have fully engaged and visionary teams in order to facilitate university wide information technology

strategies, priorities and decisions. Equally, we must deploy processes and disciplines that enhance

organizational efficiency, as well as reliable systems and environments.

The next few pages outline in detail the initiatives that are fundamental to the success of our strategic goals. They are high value projects that should be recognized across our organization as critical imperatives.



Strategic Goal #1: Enable Student Success

Enable student success by creating and supporting technology services that increase information availability and

improve customer service. Three references or points help to frame this strategic goal; (1) Critical to the university’s

success, of course is the success of its students, as determined by graduation rates, retention and the caliber of

first-year students. (2) The “Year of the Yes”, an underlying university theme for 2010, stresses the importance of

providing customer service and removing obstacles to helping students accomplish their educational goals. (3) The

profile of current students as highlighted in ECAR and EDUCAUSE studies shows they are more technologically

aware than ever before and they demand access, immediacy and information. Following outline several technology

initiatives in support of these university goals.

1.1. Graduation Planning System (GPS). Implement a graduation planning system that will provide a universal tracking method for students to easily understand and navigate their educational requirements through to graduation. The benefits of this system include:

Keeping students on a graduation path

Providing timely advising for student success in a major

Improving retention rates

Creating program requirements by semester

Tracking degree progress

Components to support this vision include Web sites, roadmaps, planning, tracking, advising and career counseling.

Completed Key Initiatives Measures

1. Develop and fully deploy GPS timetabling Completed Dec 2011.

2. Develop and fully deploy GPS tracking Complete initial implementation of GPS tracking Dec 2011. Continue with system enhancements as needed by the GPS initiative.

New / Revised Key Initiatives Measures

1. Deploy GPS timetabling based on course schedule demand.

Implement by Oct 2015.

2. Develop and fully deploy GPS tracking with system enhancements defined by the GPS initiative.

Implement by Dec 2015.

1.2. Business Intelligence and Reporting. Define and implement a business intelligence strategy and solution that facilitates presidential dashboards, quality scorecards, matriculation and graduation studies and predictive enrollment management in support of student recruitment, retention, diversity and other institutional metrics.


1. Implement Electronic Data Warehouse (EDW) for admissions and enrollment.

Completed implementation of the EDW for admissions and enrollment management 2011.


1. Enhance FlashLine Dashboards Add measures to current reports and create new reports prioritized by EMSA and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Continuing enhancements through academic year 14-15.



1.3. Improve the Web Presence and Processes for Incoming Students. Enhance the Destination Kent State online processes to improve registration, scheduling, and advising for incoming freshmen. Provide a robust technology solution to increase the usability and Kent State branding for the suite of Websites (including Admissions, Financial Aid, Residence Services and other student services) directed at incoming students and prospects.


1. Online graduation Process Implemented the online graduation application process, 2010.

2. Web Presence/Destination Kent Migrated the freshman suite of websites to the new design and navigation, 2010.

Enhanced Destination Kent processes for use with the summer 2010 program.

3. Appointment Scheduling Provided enhanced advisor appointment scheduling for use in Destination Kent 2012.

4. Enrollment Management Support enrollment management through improved integration of prospects and recruiting with the Banner system. (2011)

5. Improve www.kent.edu infrastructure facilitating redesign and improvements of divisional webs.

Completed infrastructure improvements to www.kent.edu (2010)

6. Implement Google Search Appliance Replace Google Basic Search with the Google Search Appliance (2011)

7. Develop Kent State's mobile presence Implement BlackBoard's mobile solution (2011)

Provide user-specific features (2012)


1. Identify a new CMS Replace Commonspot with new CMS and migrate all websites to new CMS by summer 2014.

2. Improve Search Experience on www.kent.edu

Implement advanced features of the Google Search Appliance to offer both simple and advanced search options to all users

3. Continue to enhance KSU Mobile for advanced student, employee, and staff functionality.

Provide parking information, bus routes, student events (what's up KSU), textbook lookup, and housing information.



1.4. Streamline and Improve University Processes. Continue to deploy and enhance an environment in which systems, individuals, and communities interact seamlessly for learning, teaching, administration and achievement.


1. Provide a change of program workflow for undergraduate students.

Completed the change of program workflow (2012).

2. Provide a timetabling workflow to track schedule change requests after the class schedule has been created in Banner.

Developed and implemented the timetabling workflow (2011)

3. Implement digital imaging for payroll documents.

Completed imaging of historical payroll documents (2010)

4. Implement HR improvements including self service for sick leave to vacation conversion, automated vacation cutback, new talent/performance management system and workflow for FMLA reporting.

Developed and implemented HR improvements (2012) · Implemented an online process to convert sick leave to vacation and an automated process to cut-back vacation time. · Worked with Benefits and Records to implement the use of the Banner delivered FMLA INB form to process and track FMLA usage. · We did not implement a new talent/performance mgmt. system but did see a demo of Ellucian’s Talent Mgmt Suite (partnered with Corner Stone). HR elected not to pursue.

5. Simplify and improve university time keeping system(s)

Developed, and implemented university time keeping system improvements (2012)


1. Implement Banner Transfer Articulation to provide timely and accurate processing of transfer student admissions

Complete the Banner TA Project in 2013



1.5. Enhanced End User Services. End User Services consists of three distinct areas including the technical Helpdesk primarily utilized by students and faculty, desktop support services for staff, and TechSpot – the computer care center for home computers. With the recent partnership established for providing Helpdesk services we not only reduce our cost structure but are able to provide enhanced support services including live chat, Web ticketing and click-to-call (ability to schedule a Helpdesk call). This goal is aimed at the continuous enhancement of support services offered to the university constituents.


1. Finalize efficient and effective processes, policies and procedures associated with the continued improvement of the Kent State Helpdesk.

Completed 2010

2. Develop a comprehensive knowledge management process that utilizes change control, the auditing of escalated tickets and Tier II review, to keep the knowledge base current.

Completed 2011

3. Expand the services of Tech Spot to meet the changing needs of PC users across campus.

Completed 2010


Review / replace current helpdesk operations Complete review / replacement by March 2014



Strategic Goal #2: Empower Teaching and Improve Learning

Empower teaching and improve learning through technology. As noted within recent Gartner articles IT leaders

“must offer vision for investment in technology as well as management to both physical and virtual campuses”. The

Ohio Board of Regents (March 2009 Report), concluded that Ohio (universities) “must increase its use of

technology, aggressively grow E-Learning and promote greater student interface with technology as strategies to

increase success and improve efficiencies within administrative and academic functions”. As such Kent State

University must continue to develop and deploy educational technologies that include multiple forms of online and

blended learning. Outlined below are key initiatives that support this goal.

2.1 Course Management System and Related Applications Based on the strategy, goals and requirements articulated by the Provost’s Office for technology enhanced learning and with collaborative input from the University Council on Technology; select, implement and support an integrated suite of Educational Technology (ET) software applications to develop and deliver online and blended courses for Kent State University. This software will support course capture, synchronous learning, asynchronous learning, assessments and course management.


1. Select, implement, maintain and support an Educational Technology (ET) Software suite (course management, synchronous learning, and course capture) that provides efficient and effective support for developing and offering online and blended courses.

Completed implementation of new ET software suite by the end of 2011.


1. Implement Course Signals and Cognos Reporting in Blackboard

Complete implementation of Course Signals, including integration with Cognos by the end of 2013

2. Implement Blackboard Effort integration with Course Signals

Complete implementation of Blackboard Effort integration with Course Signals by the end of 2013

3. Implement Blackboard Learn Community Complete implementation by 2014

4. Implement Blackboard Collaborate Complete implementation by 2015



2.2 Classroom Technology Management Install and maintain technology enhanced classrooms; provide support for the Kent Campus renovation project by ensuring that classroom technology solutions meet the university’s future needs for advanced flexible learning spaces. In addition, provide ongoing support to the faculty through individualized training, user instruction manuals and responding to classroom technology issues as they arise.


1. Support annual classroom upgrade project Completed (annually)

2. Install centralized classroom equipment monitoring system to improve maintenance and support for classroom technology

Implement system to remotely manage classroom technology by December 2010

3. Plan, design and install the classroom technology for new and renovated spaces related to proposed $200,000,000 bond to replace / renovate buildings across campus.

in Progress


1. Plan, design and install the classroom technology for “Foundations of Excellence” campus expansion and renovation.

Ensure classroom technology is installed in time for the reopening of the building and / or the use of the new / renovated classrooms for courses.

2. Support annual classroom upgrade project

Install new technology in 20 - 30 classrooms annually



Strategic Goal #3: Ensure Reliable, Secure and Accessible Systems

Provide and maintain systems that are reliable, secure and accessible anytime, anywhere; thereby providing an

information technology infrastructure that enhances productivity and enables global access. IT security continues to

be a top strategic issue facing institutions of higher education and is ranked as one of the top three issues of CIOs

in higher education for the last three years. The prevalence of critical information available online makes securing

and protecting information resources paramount. Like all universities, we view this as a critical issue and have

dedicated strategic resources, processes and tools to this area. Following are key initiatives in support of this goal.

3.1. Identity and Access Management (IAM) System A comprehensive solution for identity and access management, designed to solve the core challenge the university has with the management of thousands of accounts across multiple applications. The goal of this effort is to improve the student and faculty experience and reduce the risks, cost, and complexity of ongoing identity management. In addition, the University endeavors to build a common IAM infrastructure framework for the deployment of new systems and applications.


1. Define and implement an Identity Management Solution fully integrated with Banner environment to provide improved account provisioning and de-provisioning, timely access to systems by those who need it, and password management.

· First phase – infrastructure systems integrated and deployed – Completed FY11. · Consolidate and streamline self-service password system. · Reduce help desk calls regarding ID and Password reset by 10%.


1. Upgrade network access control systems including wireless authentication and wired authentication

• Provide seamless authentication to network resources with KSU authentication (FY15) • Remove legacy IP based security requirements and enable user authenticated network identification for access"

2. Upgrade campus vpn and ssl-vpn technology

• Enhance performance of the Kent State VPN (FY 14) • Provide split tunneling capabilities to alleviate hairpin issues"

3. Upgrade datacenter firewall technology • Enable integration of firewall management into single pane of glass management software to speed up delivery of services in the datacenter (FY 14)



3.2. Unified Communications Replace the university’s messaging systems (email, instant messaging), telephone PBX and network infrastructure to provide anytime, anywhere connectivity that is highly available and reliable and provides flexibility and functionality in meeting end user needs.


1. Develop and implement new WAN design improving flexibility, bandwidth, redundancy, and efficiency.

Implement new design by December 2010 - completed

2. Provide advanced, integrated and mobile communication services: unified communications. (voicemail system, replace PBX).

In progress - replace existing telephone system and voicemail by June 2014


1. Provide detailed monitoring and delegated management systems for the new Cisco Unified Communications solution

• Implement Cisco Prime Collaboration suite for provisioning, monitoring, and reporting (FY 14)

2. Upgrade campus backbone equipment • Replace aging network backbone equipment (FY 15) • Upgrade capabilities to 10 Gb or higher • Reduce re-convergence delays with active/active node configurations • Document and resolve fiber bottlenecks on campus

3. Upgrade datacenter network fabric • Replace aging datacenter network devices (FY 15) • Enable fabric based computing for centralized management and speed up delivery of services in the datacenter

3.3. Wireless Complete implementation of the wireless network throughout the remainder of campus buildings

and residence halls to provide anywhere, anytime accessibility to students, faculty and staff.

Key Initiatives Measures

1. Complete implementation in remaining

academic and administrative buildings.

% of academic buildings with wireless – goal 100%

- Complete

% of administrative buildings with wireless – goal

100% - Complete

Increase number of concurrent wireless users -

Complete

2. Develop implementation and costing model to

allow wireless installation in the remaining

Residence Halls.

% of Residence Halls with complete wireless – goal

100%



3.4. Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity. Continue to enhance and strengthen our ability to provide continuous service and long term stability of core infrastructure environment.


1. Develop a disaster recovery discipline and processes in order to respond to major disasters affecting technology service and availability.

Completed 2011

2. Enhance and update DR solution focusing on reduced recovery time and recovery points for Tier 1 services including emergency web site, email and other core applications.

Completed 2012

3. Maintain stability of the technology infrastructure by purchase of best of breed software and regular upgrades and maintenance of hardware. Develop a model for the availability of consistent up-to-date technology.

Ongoing


1. Enhance the DR solution by obtaining managed recovery services, which will reduce/eliminate dependence on KSU resources for recovery activities.

Execute an agreement with our DR provider (IBM) to provide managed recovery services by 2Q 2013.

2. Continue to improve the DR plan, focusing on reduced recovery time and recovery points for Tier 1 services and emergency web site.

Yearly improvements and testing of the DR plan for Tier 1 applications.



3.5. Security. Continue to secure the environment through awareness, development standards and external evaluation and assessment.


1. Integrate effective application security designs into the application development and deployment methodology.

Completed training 2010

2. Complete External Security Audit and Assessment

Complete 2011

3. Establish on-going Pen Test and Vulnerability assessment process with 3

rd

party organization

Initial test completed 2011

4. Review, update and publish on an on-going basis Security Policies. Promote awareness amongst university constituents.

Deployed Security Awareness training module 2011


1. Implement the Security Access Workflow. Implement the Security Access Workflow in 2013

2. Conduct a privileged system audit on IT systems and document processes to maintain access records

• Interview system owners and document roles and access rights • Document access approval processes per system • Identify where management of access permissions and approval processes can be automated (FY 14)

3. Conduct a sweep of university systems to identify personally identifiable information and remediate any issues

• Identify and procure a PII scanning utility to discover sensitive university information • Identify and scan campus systems in scope • Remediate gaps and secure systems with PII requirements • Establish an ongoing process to monitor and remediate gaps (FY 14)



Strategic Goal #4: Manage Costs; Improve Business Processes and Service

Management

As noted in the Campus Computing Project 2009 survey, CIOs are struggling with the rising demand for IT

resources and services in the midst of significant budget cuts. Kent State is not exempt from these issues.

Significant focus must be placed on cost of service, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), and improving administrative

and organizational efficiencies (resulting in reduced cost) through process improvement and organizational

alignment. Following outline the imperatives for reaching this goal.

4.1. Financial Controls Establish a financial framework that permits us to present the financial impact of our decisions with greater clarity. Separate budget funds into three distinct categories, including capital, projects and operating providing for improved planning and control of cost.

A Responsibility Center Management (RCM) methodology is used in support of university goals to define service categories for the division and document the cost of the services identified. This allows us to aggregate costs by the services we provide, which may be more meaningful to the clients we serve.


1. Develop a sustainable financial model. Analyze

and define our current funding structure and recommend improvements.

Created sustainable three-part annual budget with funds allocate to the operating budget, capital refresh and discretionary projects. (2011)

2. Implementation of IS department costing model

for all Information Services departments. High level model created (2010)


Develop detail cost of service model tied to service catalog entries

Complete by 2014

Implement ongoing budget increases based on online registrations and total network user count

Complete by 2013



4.2. Post ERP Implementation/Optimization. Continue to enhance and integrate processes and functionality within administrative offices. Optimize utilization and functionality of Banner ERP Solution.


1. Continue to improve and streamline processes by taking full advantage of core Banner functionality

Upgraded to V8 in February 2010 Upgraded to V8.5 in May 2012

2. Ensure reliability, consistency, supportability of Banner environment

Refresh hardware by end of FY11 on strategic platforms

3. Reduce the number of “mods” (KSU home grown) applications

Complete projects to reduce Banner “mods” by 2013


1. Continue to improve and streamline processes by taking full advantage of core Banner functionality

Introduce Banner XE modules into production (Course Catalog and Class Schedule) by end of FY14

2. Ensure reliability, consistency, supportability of Banner environment

Refresh database hardware by end of 2014 on strategic x86 platforms

3. Manage data growth in key systems in compliance with University records retention schedules

Complete key milestones in Data Management project by end of 2013

4. Further leverage Ellucian Products. Implement BRM, Course Signals, and SRP in 2013



4.3. Storage Optimization. Anticipate the university’s increasing demands for additional storage by implementing proactive storage allocation and capacity management, creating a new funding and chargeback model and replacing old equipment to increase overall capacity. Control and manage storage growth

Key Initiatives Measures

1. Backup Storage – Tier Based Retention Architect

Reduced current 434 Tivoli Management classes (retention policies) by 34% (2012)

2. Implement chargeback model for storage (including Email, Personal File Storage and Application Storage)

In Progress

3. Complete deployment of SAN Storage with Tiered storage environment In Progress


1. Utilize the University Records retention rules to shrink the Banner footprint.

Implement Banner delivered purge process to comply with the records retention schedule by summer 2014

2. Reduce dependency on tape for backup data storage. Eliminate tape for all or most backup data storage 3. Reduce our storage footprint by employing deduplication and compression technologies.

A reduction of physical storage by a ratio of 5:1 to logical storage for backup data.

4. Implement a cost effective storage solution for on-site and off-site disk backup to migrate away from legacy tape systems.

• Provide low performance, high density storage • Decommission tape backup systems • Provide mirrored offsite storage for emergency recovery of data (FY14)

5. Implement a cost effective storage array for tier 2 file share systems

• Provide low performance, high density storage • Provide seamless management of dissimilar types of storage infrastructure, including low performance, high density disk • Quickly respond to incremental demand with minimal capital expenditure (FY 14)

6. Implement chargeback model for storage (including Personal File Storage and Application Storage)

• Establish consistent cost for tiered storage using a consumption cost model for price per GB allocated. (FY 14)

7. Integrate cloud storage options for personal and departmental storage

• Provide a secure method for management of university information in the cloud. • Lower the requirements of on premise storage hardware (FY 15)



4.4. Kent State Unified Desktop. Implement a single suite of desktop management tools and directory services for use across the entire university. Continue to allow local control of desktops while moving the university to a unified set of tools and procedures for managing the desktop environment.

1. Manage both Windows and Macintosh personal computers.

2. Bind to Kent Active Directory, with IS providing servers at each campus for redundancy.

3. Provide single authentication and similar user experience across all eight campuses, resulting in higher user satisfaction than multiple logons per campus.

4. Use Active Directory to enable settings management, automatic shared drive and printer assignment, and auditable security.

5. Encrypt university owned machines with full disk encryption software (Windows and Mac)

6. Use Altiris for inventory, security updates, and flexible software distribution


1. Provide full disk encryption for all faculty and staff personal computers (Windows and Macs)

Completed for windows machines 2010

2. Bind all faculty and staff personal computers to Kent State’s active directory Completed for windows machines 2010

3. Install a common software management application (Altiris) on all faculty and staff personal computers

Completed for windows machines 2011

4. Expand encryption, active directory and software management to all campus PC’s as appropriate.(i.e. encryption may not be required on Lab PC’s)

Determined not appropriate - cancelled


1. Provide full disk encryption for all faculty and staff personal computers (Macs)

Complete by 2014

2. Bind all faculty and staff personal computers to Kent State’s active directory (Macs) Complete by 2014

3. Install a common software management application on all faculty and staff personal computers (Macs)

Complete by 2014



4.5. Data Center Optimization and Efficiencies Improve operating and environmental efficiencies within data center. Implement server and storage optimization strategy; – virtualize and consolidate.


1. Continue to refine and focus resources to increase efficient resolution of problems and ongoing maintenance and support of systems.

· Documented DC resource requirements and update job descriptions and roles to reflect those requirements 2Q 2010

2. Optimize structure of computer room for more efficient cooling and power usage, as well as expansion of servers and machinery as required.

· Documented current DC cost structure by

3Q2010

3. Continue to deliver efficiencies in DC operations such as, but not limited to remote monitoring, shift eliminations, and “green” operations

· Complete initial evaluations and make recommendations for efficiency improvements by 3Q2010

4. Develop and implement server optimization strategy utilizing blade and virtualization technology. Virtualize and consolidate servers where feasible.

· Implement quarterly tracking of servers · Server chargeback model by FY11


1. Implement an Enterprise Monitoring Solution to provide a single pane of glass for system and service status monitoring.

• Document monitoring requirements for KSU critical systems and processes • Implement monitoring requirement processes • Upgrade centralized monitoring tools providing enterprise capabilities • Reduce disparate monitoring systems • Train personal on maintenance and development of product monitoring agents • Develop dashboards to accurately report the state of the KSU environment (FY 14)

2. Enhance compute and storage solutions by providing cloud brokering as an extension of the datacenter

• Establish policy for cloud service usage • Consolidate cloud services to maximize cost savings • Leverage available cloud capacity to speed up the time to deliver on request • Enable auto scaling of services to meet bursting load demands • Provide a seamless DR model for virtual services (FY 14)

3. Migrate on premise SharePoint to the hosted Office 365 service

• Decommission on premise services for SharePoint (FY 13)

4.6. Service Management: Improve client understanding of access to, and usability of IT Services.


1. Create detailed IT Service Catalog that defines service, who is eligible for service and method to access service.

Complete by 2014

2. Perform usability studies on select IT Services and Applications

Complete by 2015



Strategic Goal #5: Plan and Manage Information Services

Critical to the efficient execution of the IS mission are the organization, people and processes. We must have fully

engaged and visionary teams in order to facilitate university wide information technology strategies, priorities and

decisions. Equally, we must deploy processes and disciplines that enhance organizational efficiency, and reliable

systems and environments. Following outline the critical projects that are fundamental to our strategic success.

5.1. IS Leadership. Develop and recognize our people


1. Promote leadership skills of IS management staff through group professional development sessions

Implemented 2009 - Ongoing - conduct management professional development programs at least twice annually.

2. Encourage a culture of diversity and inclusion in which all employees can contribute fully

Implemented 2010 - Ongoing - ensure all employees attend at least two diversity related training programs or events each year

3. Implement a Training Reporting Application to consolidate staff training information

Cancelled

4. Support and promote the certification and continuing education of staff

Implemented 2010 - Ongoing - ensure support education and certification of IS staff


1. Promote leadership skills of IS management staff through group professional development sessions

Ongoing - conduct management professional development programs at least twice annually.

2. Encourage a culture of diversity and inclusion in which all employees can contribute fully

Ongoing - ensure all employees attend at least two diversity related training programs or events each year

3. Promote technical and leadership skills of individual contributors through group professional development sessions

Implement by 2013 maintain ongoing

4. Support and promote the certification and continuing education of staff

Ongoing - ensure support education and certification of IS staff



5.2. Strategic Planning. Develop and implement a university wide information technology strategic plan with means for continuous improvement.


1. Establish and implement an ongoing information technology planning process that continually assesses and evaluates information technology at KSU

Strategic plan process; published and delivered by FY10 revised 2013

2. Develop quantitative measures and KPIs that will assess the accomplishments and drive continuous improvement within the division

Quality Metrics developed for Helpdesk Services (2010) and time tracking implemented for projects (2012), additional metrics in progress


1. Develop new Strategic plan by 2016 Complete by 2016

2. Develop quantitative measures and KPIs that will assess the accomplishments and drive continuous improvement within the division

Complete by 2015

5.3. Project Management and Prioritization. Strengthen advisory, governance and communication

structure, providing coordination and prioritization process.


1. Review all current advisory structures

and design for an interdependent function i.e. IT steering committee.

Key stakeholders determined existing process should continue to be followed (2010)

2. Clarify IT priority setting process

3. Determine how to increase communication and engagement with key stakeholders

4. Further expand the PMO and disciplines to IS centered projects.

PM for Infrastructure and Operations FY10

Implement Project Management methodology and discipline including templates, reporting and time tracking by FY11


1. Further expand the PMO and disciplines to Service Management and Educational Technology projects.

Currently in progress (helpdesk project) implement for all major projects by 2015



5.4. Communication and Collaboration: Improve communication and capitalize on collaboration opportunities within IS organization and across university divisions


1. Ensure effective communication through regular division wide meetings

Implemented in FY10

2. Implement center of excellence by moving optimum/maximum number of IS resources into one facility

Completed by 2011

3. Develop and implement ongoing coordinated information services communications and feedback mechanisms for students faculty and staff

Monthly insight publications and board book contributions completed 2010

4. Hire communication person for division, develop more effective IS communication program within division and across university

In Progress - Person hired but moved to University Communications need replacement

5. Encourage participation in appropriate national, regional and statewide collaborative efforts to maintain competitive advantage, maximize economies of scale and capitalize on best practices.

Ongoing


1. Ensure effective communication through regular division wide meetings

Ongoing

3. Develop and implement ongoing coordinated information services communications and feedback mechanisms for students faculty and staff

Ongoing

4. Hire communication person for division, develop more effective IS communication program within division and across university

Complete in 2013

5. Encourage participation in appropriate national, regional and statewide collaborative efforts to maintain competitive advantage, maximize economies of scale and capitalize on best practices.

Ongoing



III. External Environmental Analysis – Trends in Higher Education

The information technology strategy and tactical plans of approximately 10 institutions were reviewed as well as

technology related higher education resources. These documents provided additional insights and perspectives as

to current trends, issues and concerns relative to technology and higher education. Excerpts from the various

sources are included below.

A. EDUCAUSE Top 10 IT Issues, 2012

Since 2000, EDUCAUSE (nonprofit association whose mission is to advance higher education by promoting the

intelligent use of information technology) has conducted its Current Issues Survey to identify what campus

information technology leaders see as their most critical IT challenges. General conclusions

1. Updating IT professionals' skills and roles to accommodate emerging technologies and changing IT management and

service delivery models

2. Supporting the trends toward IT consumerization and bring-your-own device

3. Developing an institution-wide cloud strategy

4. Improving the institution's operational efficiency through information technology

5. Integrating information technology into institutional decision-making

6. Using analytics to support critical institutional outcomes

7. Funding information technology strategically

8. Transforming the institution's business with information technology

9. Supporting the research mission through high-performance computing, large data, and analytics

10. Establishing and implementing IT governance throughout the institution

As noted previously, the KSU IS plan incorporates and attacks most of these critical issues.



B. The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012



C. Gartner Group, Agenda Overview for Higher Education, 2013

Table 1. Priorities for Higher Education

Key Initiative Focus

IT Governance IT governance is the set of processes that ensure the effective and efficient use of IT in

enabling an organization to achieve its goals.

IT Strategic Planning Strategic planning is the process of translating the enterprise's vision and mission into how

resources, including IT's capabilities, are deployed to generate maximum value for

stakeholders.

Innovation

Management

Successful innovation must combine creativity with process to transform novel ideas into

business value. Innovation management requires a clear strategy, a business focus and a

defined process model.

Enterprise Application

Suites and ERP

Enterprise application suites and ERP improve business processes and information usage

by integrating functions such as finance, order management and purchasing into a set of

interconnected modules.

Cloud Computing

Innovation

Cloud computing is a style of computing where scalable and elastic IT-related capabilities

are provided as a service to customers, using Internet technologies.

Vendor Management Vendor management is the discipline of managing, administering and guiding vendors in

an organized way to drive the right behaviors (product or service elements) to IT or

business outcomes.



D. Campus Computing Project: The 2012 Campus Computing Survey

The 2012 survey also confirms big gains in the proportion of institutions that are activating mobile apps and services for their students. Additionally, the 2012 data document the continuing decline in the number of campuses that continue to experience IT budget cuts as a consequence of the economic downturn that began in 2008.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Campus IT Investments The 2012 Campus Computing Survey reveals that senior campus IT officials offer a very mixed assessment about the effectiveness of various institutional investments in information technology. For example, three-fifths view the institutional investment in IT for library resources and for administrative information systems to be “very effective,” while just over half (55.2 percent) cite the investment in IT for on-campus instruction as “very effective.” In contrast, less than a fourth (22.7 percent) view the IT investment in “data analysis and managerial analytics” as very effective. Among CIOs at research institutions, only a two-fifths (41.7 percent) at public universities and a third (32.6 percent) in private universities assess current IT investments to support research and scholarship as “very effective.” More Colleges Go Mobile Across all sectors of higher education, the 2012 survey documents another year of big gains in the proportion of colleges and universities that have activated mobile apps. Three-fifths (60.2 percent) of the campuses participating in this year’s survey have activated mobile apps as of fall 2012 or will do so in the coming academic year, compared to two-fifths (41.5 percent) in fall 2011 and 23.1 percent in fall 2010. Across sectors, public universities lead the move to mobile: more than three-fourths (77.8 percent) report active or impending mobile apps for fall 2012, compared to 67.5 percent for private universities, and a range of 50-60 percent for public and private four-year colleges and also for community colleges. Fewer Campuses Experience Budget Cuts The 2012 data indicate that just over a fourth (27.0 percent) of the surveyed institutions experienced cuts affecting the current (A/Y 2012-13) budget for central IT resources and services, down from more than a third (35.8 percent) in fall 2011, 41.6 percent in 2010, and fully half (50.0 percent) in fall 2009. Small Gains in Cloud Computing Despite the continuing discussion in both the campus and the corporate sectors about the operational and financial benefits of Cloud Computing, the 2012 survey data show only small gains in the movement of mission-critical campus operations to the Cloud. Just 5.9 percent of the survey participants report that their campus has moved or is converting to Cloud Computing for ERP (administrative system) services, up from 4.4 percent in 2011 (range: from 10.2 percent for private universities to 2.1 percent for private four-year colleges).Similarly, just 9.8 percent have moved to Cloud Computing for storage, archiving, or business continuity services as of fall 2012, compared to 6.5 percent last year. And although Cloud Computing should offer significant benefits for research and high performance computing (HPC) activities, just 8.3 of public universities have migrated these activities to the Cloud as of this fall, compared to 6.6 percent in 2011; among private universities, 7.0 percent report cloud-based HPC activities, compared to 1.1 percent last year. Continuing Shifts in the LMS Market The 2012 data also document an increasing competitive campus market for Learning Management Systems (LMS). The proportion of survey participants reporting that their institution uses various versions of Blackboard (including Angel and WebCT) as the campus-standard LMS fell to 44.8 percent in fall 2012, down from 50.6 percent in 2011, 57.1 percent 2010, and 71.0 percent in fall 2006. Concurrently, Blackboard’s major LMS competitors – Desire2Learn (11.1 percent in fall 2012), Moodle (20.1 percent), and Sakai (6.1 percent) - have all gained share during this period. Additionally, Canvas by Instructure has emerged as an aggressive new competitor: 4.6 percent of the 2012 survey participants report that their institution has selected Canvas as the campus-standard LMS application, up from zero percent just three years ago.



IV. Internal Assessment (2010)

Organization Profile

The division of Information Services is composed of approximately 150 persons from a diverse background of

experiences and skill sets. The organization currently consisting of six organizational units, is aligned across

traditional IS boundaries including Infrastructure and Operations, Applications Development and Support and End-

User Services. In addition the Educational Technology team services the academic community providing end-user

support, course management software and tools and classroom technology support. In September 2008 a Project

Management Office (PMO) with seasoned managers and business analyst was established. Finally in the fall of

2009 the end user university help desk was outsourced to a 3rd

party organization.

Several members of the organization have taken additional training and education and achieved the following

certifications.

KSU IS Personnel Certifications

CPA CFP PMP CISCO Certifications

Microsoft Certifications

Dell Warranty

Apple Warranty ITL Certifications Oracle Certifications

Red Hat Linux Sun Solaris VM Ware

AMX Programming and Design

Video Bridge Operations

Dell EMC Storage CNA Microsoft Windows/IIS/AD

Linux

In addition, the SWOT analysis as framed by the IS management team, highlights areas of strengths and

opportunities to leverage and weaknesses and threats to address and mitigate.

Strengths Weaknesses

Talented dedicated staff

Reliable Services

Strong Problem Resolution

Relationship with administrative and staff

Communication

Lean Staff

Need to improve/streamline processes

Relationship with faculty

Opportunities Threats

Collaboration with other universities

New Technology

Communicate more with groups outside of IS

Improve Relationships

Financial constraints/budget

Resource burnout

Poor morale

Need to work more with Faculty



Survey Results

University constituents were surveyed to assess current state and perspectives of services offered as well as

gather feedback and direction as to strategic imperatives and university needs. Over one thousand (1060) persons

– student, faculty and staff responded to a detailed online survey. The first section of the survey allowed

respondents to rate specific services and tools (Help Desk, Desk Top Support, Multimedia and Course

Development, Training, Internet and Wireless Services, etc) on a scale from 1 to 5.

Results from the Campus Wide Survey indicate that most students and staff are very satisfied with the technology

services provided. Over 58% of respondents rated the Helpdesk and End-User Servers Above Average.

This is closely coupled with the Desktop Support and Services provided by the LAN Administrators and Federated

Team receiving 61% Above Average. Course Management Tools and Support received high-marks with over 56%

of the respondents rating the services Above Average. While the Internet and Wireless Services received a rating

of 54% Above Average, numerous comments about service in residence halls were embedded within the

comments sections. Of note also were the high marks received per the E-Mail environment (73% Above Average)

and the Computer Labs and Workstations (61% Above Average).

Figure 1: Campus Wide Survey Results



Similar responses and ratings were received in the surveys targeted toward faculty and staff.

Figure 2: Survey Results Faculty and Staff

Of note were the ratings pertaining to Course Management Tools and Support. Twenty-Two percent of those

respondents rated this below average. This rating may be attributable to the recent upgrade of the Vista CMS tool

and perhaps additional training is needed to facilitate adoption and acceptance. The December audit on Learning

Management Tools conducted by the UCT provides additional input and direction as to strategic initiatives in this

area.



UCT Faculty Audit Summary – Learning Management Systems and Tools

Summary provided by Pam Grimm – University Council on Technology Chair

In December of 2009 the UCT sent out an Educational Technology Audit to all instructors teaching a Fall 2009

course section at Kent State University. Twelve percent of the instructors (316) responded to the audit request. The

audit focused on several key educational technologies; Course Management Systems, Synchronous Learning

Systems, E-Portfolio Systems, Course Recording Software, and Survey Software.

The audit covered a wide variety of topics related to each type of software; usage, availability and quality of

support, ranking of specific vendor software, preferred vendor software and confidence in learning a new software

package. In addition the instructors were asked if they would be interested in participating on “Rapid Response

Tech Teams” to provide feedback on different types of educational technology software.

Some of the key findings are:

1. Except for the Course Management System other technologies are not widely used, though it should be

noted that individuals using the synchronous learning systems and course recording software are probably

leading edge user of tools to make distance learning more accessible and as such need to be supported in

their efforts.

2. The respondents were confident in their ability to learn a new software package.

3. The respondents did not strongly support choosing any specific vendor packages. The strongest support

for choosing a specific package was for Camtasia under course recording software with 15 responses

(31%). This probably reflects the availability of site licenses for this software and some support available for

it on campus.

4. Through a combination of responses to questions regarding resources available for training and open

ended comments it is clear that many member of the faculty feel that the resources available to support

technology are insufficient. More specifically, there seems to be a sense that the investment being made to

support faculty use of technology doesn’t’ match the stated goals of the provost and president with regard

to rapid escalation in the availability of web enhance or fully online courses.

Currently Using

Software Package

Somewhat or Very Confident in Learning

new software

Don't Know / Not Sure of one brand of software to choose

# Responses Percent

# Responses Percent

# Responses Percent

Course Management System 262 73% 255 92% 191 70%

Synchronous Learning System 30 9% 57 85% 50 79%

E-Portfolio 94 28% 113 93% 86 73%

Course Recording Software 38 11% 46 92% 22 45%

Survey Software 69 21% 102 94% 50 79%



SunGard Banner ERP Implementation Assessment

In 2008 the SunGard Banner ERP system was implemented for the University. This was a major implementation

and migration from a system that had been highly customized and in place since for several years. Key modules

supporting the university’s primary operations were installed including Finance, Student, Financial Aid and Human

Resources. As a means of providing constructive feedback and gaining maximum utilization of the system a post

implementation assessment was conducted by SunGard Higher Education Consultants. Results of this assessment

are documented below:

Successes:

Based upon survey responses and interview discussions, the University has developed and is successfully

utilizing integrated workflows to automate business processes, approvals, notifications, and form

processing.

Business units have incorporated imaging technology to great advantage reducing the need for physical

storage, improving access to information for reviews of application and supporting materials, and

automating and reducing the paper processing typically involved in admissions checklist management.

The concurrent implementation of the Operational Data Store along with the Cognos Business Intelligence

Suite resulted in significant improvement in the number of end users able to develop their own ad hoc

queries and reports.

A new and improved FlashLine was unveiled January 1, 2007. With the updates to the technology behind

FlashLine, many of the University’s services were available in one place, and accessible with a single sign-

on – providing the foundation for Kent State’s Unified Digital Campus.

Areas for Improvement:

Relationship Management - Each admissions area is recruiting and tracking prospects using their own

processes, with the exception of Kent State UG Admissions, Stark UG Admissions, and Geauga UG

Admissions who are using Hobsons’ EMT Connect and EMT Retain for their key interaction with prospects.

Admissions Centers would benefit from the utilization of a single solution and database supporting

recruiting and admissions activities.

EDW Reporting Strategy - Trend analysis is difficult to manage with the operational data from the ODS

without the ability to define extracts and the capture of point in time data on a prescribed frequency.

Recommended New Solutions:

Banner Relationship Management and Banner Recruitment and Admissions Performance - Admissions

Centers would benefit from the utilization of a single solution and database supporting recruiting and

admissions activities.

Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW) component of Banner Performance and Reporting Analytics (BPRA) -

Kent State will take full advantage of the data stored across the Banner ERP, turning it into applied

knowledge to support making informed decisions, and guide strategic institutional planning.

Banner Flexible Registration – Registration and continuing education processing requires much oversight

and management on the part of staff regarding both registration and payment processing and billing.

CASS Certified ™ software - With CASS (Coding Accuracy and Support System) Certified™ software, Kent

State can standardize addresses and obtain the correct ZIP + 4® assignments and associated delivery

point codes (DPC).



External Assessment – CIO Analysis and Recommendation

A comprehensive external review was conducted with the purpose of providing an independent assessment and

evaluation of the IS organization and the strategic plan. The review was conducted by a visiting committee of

experienced higher education CIO’s and an independent higher education consultant. The review team conducted

a two day visit to the Kent campus in March 2010. The review focused on two broad questions;

Is the IS strategy well aligned with the needs and priorities of the institution

How can KSU use and manage technology more effectively

The Division is extremely grateful for the participation of approximately 40 faculty, staff members and students who participated in the review process. The Division is especially appreciative of the efforts of Larry Conrad, Phil Goldstein, Kathy Lang, Polley McClure and Jack McCredie in identifying IS’s strengths as well as opportunities for improvement. Highlights of the external review are included below. Additionally included is IS’s response to the review and plan

for implementing the review recommendations.

Summary of Findings

1. The University enjoys a reliable and solid technology foundation. The IS team is recognized for their

dedication effort and willingness to collaborate. There were few concerns expressed with the quality of IS

services.

2. IT is viewed as strategic across campus. As such, it is an opportune time to engage in a conversation

about how technology can support broad institutional goals in teaching, research and outreach. An

opportunity for IS to rebalance its focus, ask what comes next?

3. Clarified and more structured IT priority setting within and between the different missions technology

support will continue to build even greater confidence in IT decisions and will improve the utilization of

scarce resources. Additionally it is very important that IS increase its communication and engagement with

key stakeholders.

4. While advisory groups exist on campus (UCT, Banner User Groups, etc.) their current role and impact

needs to be strengthened.

5. IS needs to lead a conversation to establish a shared understanding of the optimal division of responsibility

for technology between its own organization and colleges and other administrative units.

6. Consider a broader set of options for addressing the challenges of managing the workload of maintaining

and enhancing Banner

Response

In response to the external review several initiatives are underway and or reenergized with further clarity and

direction.

1. Strengthen advisory, governance and communication structure, providing coordination and prioritization

process.



Review all current advisory structures and design for an interdependent function i.e. IT steering committee.

Clarify IT priority setting process

Determine how to increase communication and engagement with key stakeholders

Assess how desktop and laptop computer standards are established

Identify gaps in research computing support

Hire communication person for division, develop more effective IS communication program within division

and across university

2. Evaluate complete IT services with an eye toward re-balancing the services toward teaching and learning.

3. Review division of responsibility between central IT organization, colleges and other administrative units.

Fully engage Provost Office, Deans and Departments Chairs to assess tradeoffs associated with cost

of IT services in a RCM model.

Evaluate and determine optimal division of responsibility for providing technology services.

4. Utilize newly structured steering committee to finalize draft strategic plan.

5. Await options and recommendations of recently commission team tasked with increasing efficiencies of the

software development and maintenance teams.



V. Additional Information (2010)

External Environmental Analysis References

1. EDUCAUSE and ECAR surveys and research: (2008 and 2009) a. http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume44/TopTenITIssu

es2009/174191 b. http://www.educause.edu/ers0808 c. http://www.educause.edu/Resources/TheECARStudyofUndergraduateStu/187215

d. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EKF/EKF0906.pdf

2. Gartner Group’s research : http://wistechnology.com/articles/5129/

3. Campus Technology : http://www.campustechnology.com/Articles/2009/04/15/Why-Web-2.0-is-Important-to-Higher-Education.aspx?Page=1

4. Insider Higher Ed – various articles:

a. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/01/06/gonick b. http://www.kuali.org/faqs/

c. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/06/kuali

5. Ohio Board or Regents Report: http://www.uso.edu/downloads/reports/ConditionReport2009.pdf

6. The Campus Computing Survey 2008 – prepared by the Campus Computing Project: http://www.campuscomputing.net/content-item/new-2008-campus-computing-survey-executive-summary-29-oct-2008

7. The Campus Computing Survey 2009 – prepared by the Campus Computer Project: http://www.campuscomputing.net/sites/www.campuscomputing.net/files/CampusComputing2009.pdf

8. Miami University Information Technology Strategic Plan (Debra Allison, CIO)

(http://www.units.muohio.edu/mcs/ITStrategicPlan/Renewal/Mar09.pdf

9. Ohio State University Information Technology Strategic Plan (Kathleen Starkoff, CIO)

http://cio.osu.edu/planit2009/planit_2010_14.pdf

Internal Assessment Statistics

1. UCT Faculty Audit Results: Conducted December 2009, 12% 316 Respondents.

2. Campus Wide Survey Results: Conducted September 2009, Student(88%), Faculty(5%) and Staff (7%) – 1040

Respondents – Primarily Kent Campus

3. SIS Academic Advisory Survey Results: Conducted September 2009, Staff and Administrations : 39%

response rate

4. University Banner User Groups Results: Conducted September 2009, Staff and Administration: 62% response

rate

CIO Assessments - Participants

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume44/TopTenITIssues2009/174191

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume44/TopTenITIssues2009/174191

http://www.educause.edu/ers0808

http://www.educause.edu/Resources/TheECARStudyofUndergraduateStu/187215

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EKF/EKF0906.pdf

http://wistechnology.com/articles/5129/

http://www.campustechnology.com/Articles/2009/04/15/Why-Web-2.0-is-Important-to-Higher-Education.aspx?Page=1

http://www.campustechnology.com/Articles/2009/04/15/Why-Web-2.0-is-Important-to-Higher-Education.aspx?Page=1

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/01/06/gonick

http://www.kuali.org/faqs/

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/06/kuali

http://www.uso.edu/downloads/reports/ConditionReport2009.pdf

http://www.campuscomputing.net/content-item/new-2008-campus-computing-survey-executive-summary-29-oct-2008

http://www.campuscomputing.net/content-item/new-2008-campus-computing-survey-executive-summary-29-oct-2008

http://www.campuscomputing.net/sites/www.campuscomputing.net/files/CampusComputing2009.pdf

http://www.units.muohio.edu/mcs/ITStrategicPlan/Renewal/Mar09.pdf

http://cio.osu.edu/planit2009/planit_2010_14.pdf



1. Larry D. Conrad, Vice Chancellor for Information Technology & CIO - University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

2. Phil Goldstein - Cap Gemini Ernst & Young and ECAR Consultant

3. Kathy Lang, CIO - Marquette University

4. Polley McClure, Vice President for Information Technologies, Emeritus, - Cornell University

5. Jack McCredie, Associate Vice Chancellor and CIO Emeritus - University of California, Berkeley

Strategic Plan Team

1. Jennifer Goings Smith – Strategic Plan Chair – Infrastructure and Operations

2. Francine Murphy – Training Coordinator – Survey Administration

3. Information Services – Senior Staff

a. Paul Albert –Educational Technology

b. Tom Beitl – Network Services and Telecommunications

c. Annette Frye –End User and Business Services

d. Ed Mahon – CIO, VP Information Services

e. Andrea Nunley – Enterprise Application Services

f. Coleen Santee – Project Management



VI. Mapping IS Projects to Academic Affairs Strategy (2013)

IS Hours

AA Strategic Plan Goal Information Services Strategic Plan Goal Spent Remaining

1. Ensuring Student Success

1.a. Define elements of a graduation-

oriented academic culture.

IS 1.1 Graduation Planning System (GPS) Implemented

DegreeWorks, to enable students to review their degree

progress and plan their coursework with a goal of

graduation.

18,600 6,000

2.b. Identify and require critical activities

that benefit all students (e.g., required

advising, peer-mentoring, career-related

coursework and activities, experiential

and problem-based learning, graduate

school guidance and assistance,

academic support offerings).

IS 1.1 Graduation Planning System (GPS)

Currently building an Advising Scheduling System, that is

integrated with Banner, to allow students to easily

connect with their advisor.

260 1,500

2.c. Provide increased assistance with

difficult classes (i.e., those with large

numbers of D, F, and W grades).


Implement Course Signals to provide early indicators

based on class engagement and performance criteria, to

allow faculty to identify and remediate student

challenges.

500 750

3.a. Consult with students to determine

the most effective ways to provide

critical information regarding dates,

resources, and opportunities (including

traditional communication channels,

non-traditional communication channels

such as social media, combinations of

other channels).

IS 1.5 Enhanced End User Services

Continue to roll out the Dynamic Student Checklist to

various student groups (freshmen, adults, regional

campuses, international, graduate, etc.) to provide one-

click access to required activities.

5,000 1,700

3.b. Use effective 21st-century methods

for connecting faculty and advisors to

their students.


Implemented an Automated Advisor Assignment system

to allow colleges to quickly match incoming students to

advisors.

1,270 150

4.b. Expand Kent State’s more

successful retention and graduation

strategies and evaluate the fit of

evidence-based best practices that

improve retention and graduation.

IS 4.2 Post ERP Implementation/Optimization

Implemented Banner Relationship Management (BRM)

to manage and track student communication campaigns

based on any criteria in Banner.

1,100 500

4.c. Build well defined articulation

agreements and foster strong

relationships with community colleges

and other higher learning institutions to

ensure clear transition pathways for

students.

IS 1.4 Streamline and Improve University Processes

Implement the Banner Transfer Articulation module, the

Transfer Student Transcript Notification and a Dynamic

Student Checklist for transfer students to allow accurate

and quick admission of transfer students.

1,350 3,000

4.e. Use retention and time-to-degree

data to identify where resources should

be targeted.


GPS Tracking will be implemented in Fall 2013 to identify

and remediate students that are off track. Also GPS

Reporting will be built to provide student retention and

graduation measures and metrics.

300 1,250



IS Hours


2. Enhancing Academic Excellence and Innovation

1.a. Review and update curricula to

further stress critical thinking.


Currently implementing CurricuNET to provide

efficiencies with curriculum development.

150 220

1.d. Renovate and expand the services

offered by the Faculty Professional

Development Center.


The FPDC Productivity Database project has been

requested to monitor and evaluate FPDC productivity

indicators.

0 300

2.c. Expand alternate pathways to

degree completion (e.g., advanced

placement, dual enrollment, etc.).


GPS will be enhanced to allow students to run What If

Scenarios, showing the affect on their pathway to

graduation.

0 100

2.d. Increase student opportunities for

and meaningfulness of advising and

faculty/peer mentorship.


Currently building an Advising Scheduling System, that is

integrated with Banner, to allow students to easily

connect with their advisor, and allows the advisor to track

student interactions.

260 1,500

3.b. Further align professional course

offerings to ensure applicability to

current projected job opportunities and

contemporary knowledge and skill

requirements.


Implementing Banner Flexible Registration to provide a

familiar shopping cart interface for continuing education

students.

600 400

6.c. Incorporate best DL practices in

hybrid course delivery.


Will provide integration with Banner, DegreeWorks,

Blackboard, and the IT helpdesk to support the

Everspring Integration project. Flashline and GPS will be

enhanced to handle Everspring DL students, and data

will be provided to the external Everspring recruiting,

enrollment, mobile, and CRM applications.

0 2,000

7.c. Develop training and support

programs that assist faculty and

administrators with recruiting and

retaining AALANA faculty.

IS 1.2 Business Intelligence and Reporting

Currently building the EDW Diversity Scorecard to

provide real-time analysis of campus diversity.

200 200

3. Expanding Breakthrough Research and Creative Endeavors

1.b. Track the value of research/creative

activities at the college level so that its

impact is communicated to the

university and the general public.


Development of the Faculty Information System will

begin in Fall 2013 to provide management of faculty

portfolio information.

100 1,000

3.a. Verify that outstanding peer-

reviewed teaching and

research/creative activities are

recognized in the reappointment,

tenure, and promotion standards of the

department.


The Promotion/Tenure Review project has been

requested to facilitate the collection of data and

streamline processes for promotion and tenure review.

0 400



IS Hours


4. Engaging the World Beyond Our Campuses

1.a. Investigate the costs to colleges

when they encourage domestic

students to study abroad, and build in

RCM incentives for such study

experiences.


Cognos RCM Reports and Extracts were developed to

provide detailed cost information, and the ability to

perform analysis of changes in spending or funding.

750 0

1.c. Investigate the programmatic costs

and revenue to colleges when they

recruit and attract international students.


fsaAtlas was implemented in April 2012 and upgraded in

March 2013 to streamline processing of international

students.

600 0

5. Securing Our Financial Future

2.a. Explore the possibility of differential

tuition rates for targeted academic

programs.


Banner Fee Assessment must be enhanced to support

differential tuition rates.

0 240

3.a. Evaluate current academic

processes to identify areas for

increased efficiencies (resource

allocation, load assignments, time, and

financial savings).


Implemented the Banner Faculty Load and

Compensation Module in Jan 2013 to provide an

integrated, efficient process for determining faculty

assignments and workload.

2,000 0

4.c. Evaluate low enrollment courses

and sections to find and implement

greater efficiencies.

IS 1.2 Business Intelligence and Reporting

The Electronic Data Warehouse (EDW) contains

historical trending information to allow for flexible

analysis and timely decision making about course

enrollment.

3,000 550

6. Developing and Recognizing Our People

4.a. Recognize and use faculty and

student needs for scheduling courses

and meetings more effectively (family

friendly, research needs for faculty /

employment needs of students).


Timetabling was implemented, and continues to be

enhanced with the growing capability of GPS, to provide

efficient scheduling of the courses students need, when

they need them.

1,000 200

Total Hours 37,040 21,960

revised january 2014 · 2010 kent state university information services strategic plan 2015 revised...

Documents