Letter Of Transmittal
Members, Commission On Campus Computing
Introduction
I.	The Role Of Computing
II.	Student Computers
III.	Standards For Computer And Information Literacy
IV.	Student Computer Accounts
V.	Class Web Pages
VI.	Drop-In Computer Laboratories
VII.	Docking For Laptops And Dynamic Host Address Assignment (DHAA)
VIII.	Classroom Technology
IX.	Leadership And Administrative Organization For Educational Technology
X.	The Roles Of AVCIST, AVCET, The University Librarian, And Academic Departments
XI.	Support Of Departmental Computing
XII.	Provision Of Technical Support For Computing
XIII.	The Campus Network
XIV.	Future Oversight

Appendices

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

CALVIN C. MOORE CHAIR DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS

951 EVANS HALL #3840 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720-3840 TEL: (510) 642-4129 FAX: (510) 643-1100 EMAIL: ccmoore@math.berkeley.edu August 11, 1998

EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR AND PROVOST CHRIST

Dear Carol,

On behalf of the Commission on Campus computing, I am pleased to submit our report. It emerged from lengthy discussions among ourselves, fact finding, consultation with colleagues, and meetings with campus administrative officers responsible for various aspects of computing and educational technology. I want to thank everyone we talked with and sought information from for their helpful cooperation and assistance. After we completed a draft of our report, we had the benefit of the advice and review by a panel of external reviewers. Their comments are attached as Appendix A to the report.

For many years computing has been a contentious issue on campus and one that is capable of evoking strong opinions, often derived from years of frustration. There is a general view that our computing infrastructure is inadequate to support our role as a leading research university. Although the Commission membership represented diverse constituencies on campus, and we had many vigorous discussions in Commission meetings, we did in the end arrive at a clear consensus in our recommendations. These recommendations look to the future and urge that substantial additional resources be allocated to support the computing infrastructure. We believe that once adequate resources are in place, and the appropriate mechanisms that we are recommending for ensuring accountability are implemented, we will see great improvement. Ultimately we need to take every step to ensure that we meet the overriding goal that computing effectively serves the fundamental teaching, research, and service missions of the campus. A premier computing infrastructure is vital to support a premier University.

I want to thank the Commission members for many hours of dedicated service. I also want to thank the Commission staff (Richard Henderson, Tom Holub, Carolyn Katz, Sam Scalise, and Charles Upshaw) for their invaluable assistance.

	Sincerely,
	Calvin C. Moore Commission Chair

cc: Commission Members

MEMBERS, COMMISSION ON CAMPUS COMPUTING

Calvin C. Moore, Commission Chair Professor and Chair of Mathematics	John Radke Professor of Landscape Architecture; Director, Center for Geographic Information Science
David Culler Professor of Electrical Engineering & Computing Science	Barbara Romanowicz Professor of Geology & Geography Director, Berkeley Seismological Laboratory
Shih Kuao Chang Graduate Student, English/Comparative Literature	Larry Rowe Professor of Electrical Engineering & Computing Science Director, Berkeley Multimedia Research Center Chair, Academic Senate Computing Committee
Charles Faulhaber Professor of Spanish Director, Bancroft Library	Angelica Stacy Professor of Chemistry
Robert Full Professor of Integrative Biology	Ruth Tringham Professor of Anthropology
Christopher Hostetter Undergraduate Student, Electrical Engineering and Computing Science	Hal Varian Professor and Dean, School of Information Management & Systems
Genaro M. Padilla Professor of English and Vice Chancellor–Undergraduate Affairs
COMMISSION STAFF
Richard Henderson Director of Computer & Information Services, Haas School of Business	Samuel Scalise Former Director, Letters and Science Computer Resources
Tom Holub Programmer/Analyst, Letters and Science Computer Resources	Charles Upshaw Executive Assistant to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Carolyn Katz MSO/Business Manager, Department of Mathematics

INTRODUCTION

The Commission on Campus Computing was appointed by Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Carol T. Christ in October 1997. The commission was given a broad mandate to review the current state of academic computing on campus and propose principles to guide campus wide planning for information technology. The Charge to the Commission is found in Appendix B. The Commission focused attention on three major issues:

• Educational technology (ET), by which we mean the broad and multifaceted ways that computing and other technical resources are brought to bear on the educational function of the University;^*
• Departmental computing and how it is supported so that it meets the needs of faculty, students, and staff in the academic departments; and
• The campus computing network and, in particular, strategies for funding the ongoing operational and capital costs.

This commission is the first comprehensive review of academic computing on the Berkeley campus since the review chaired by Professor Eugene Hammel in 1990. The commission used many sources of information as input to our discussions, including the report of the Hammel committee, similar documents produced by various committees and organizations, and testimony by representatives of various groups. In addition, a public discussion of ET was held at the Berkeley Multimedia Research Center retreat in January 1998. Particular documents that influenced our thinking in addition to the Hammel report included:

1. The faculty survey conducted by the Instructional Technology committee of the Chancellor's Computer and Communications Policy Board (IT-CCCPB) that was completed during the spring 1998 semester;
2. Reports and studies done by the Library on the role of the Library in ET;
3. Reports and memos prepared by Information Systems and Technology (IST) on issues relating to computing policy, budget, and infrastructure; and
4. The Task Force on Scalable Funding Models for Network Computing (SFMNC) report completed in early 1998. (See Appendix D for the Executive Summary and Recommendations of this Report.)

Individuals invited to testify to the commission included Associate Vice Chancellor–Information Systems and Technology Jack McCredie, Professor Alice Agogino, who Co-Chairs the IT-CCCPB committee with Jack McCredie, University Librarian Peter Lyman, and Vice Chancellor for Resource Planning and Budget Jim Hyatt.

The Commission also conducted a survey of department chairs to gather information on departmental computing. A commission member conducted an interview, which lasted about an hour, with each department chair, along with any staff or faculty colleagues with computing expertise selected by the chair. In addition to answers to the specific questions sought by the Commission (see Appendix C for the list of questions), the interviews provided the opportunity for the various departments confidentially to articulate their most important concerns. The results of these interviews were summarized, and these data provided an invaluable basis for Commission deliberations.

Following our charge, the Commission formulated several principles to guide campus wide planning for educational technology and which served as a basis of our report. These are:

• Ubiquity. Computing has become ubiquitous. It is an essential tool for all aspects of campus activities. The use of computers, particularly email and the web, has become a critical tool for communication and work between all members of the campus community. Consequently, it is essential that everyone have easy access to computers with network connections and be trained to use them. Although computers have been used in instruction in some fields for many years, such use is just beginning in others. The commission believes computers will play an increasingly important role in educational delivery in all fields. Examples of the efficiencies and benefits to course administration are already evident (e.g., publishing syllabi, course notes, assignments, schedules, and source material on the web, and using email and bulletin boards for asynchronous communication). Some lectures are delivered using electronic presentation tools and dynamic simulations and animations. Over time the commission anticipates that more educational material will be digitized, including exams, audio/video recordings of lectures, demonstrations, and interviews, and interactive multimedia courseware. The use of computers and information technology is bringing about dramatic changes in education, research, and the everyday conduct of university business, and we need to make sure that this technology is available to all members of the campus community equitably.

   

• Adaptability. We must keep up with and adapt to a technology that is rapidly evolving and making possible new capabilities. Unfortunately, these new capabilities come with a price tag. Part of this price tag is the cost of upgrading and maintaining the computing and networking infrastructure. The commission believes the campus administration must continue to support improvements in technology and infrastructure and actively encourage experimentation with and deployment of these developing technologies, always striking an appropriate balance between the two.

   

• Transparency. Computing technology should be delivered as seamlessly and transparently as possible to the user. The user should be able to find help readily and simply when there are problems. Achieving this goal will involve careful coordination between those groups on campus that deliver computing resources and services. In addition we have a major institutional responsibility to educate our faculty, students, and staff to use these new resources effectively.

   

• Accountability. Providers of computing resources and services must be accountable to their customers for the quality of services and for the rates that are charged. Present arrangements on campus are not adequate for achieving the objectives we have in mind. One mechanism is to empower the free market to work by providing funding to operating units and allowing them to choose from among competing providers of services, both on and off the campus. In instances where there is a natural monopoly, mechanisms of regulation have to be put in place to enhance accountability to the customer. As a general principle we believe that providers should become more customer oriented, while fully recognizing that this will not be an easy transition for all to make.

^* We prefer the term "educational technology" to the term "instructional technology" because it conveys a broader scope, encompassing classrooms and audio/video services, and avoids the potential confusion with the use of the acronym IT, which is widely used to mean information technology.

Summary of Recommendations

Based on our interviews, the data we collected, and these principles, the Commission makes fourteen basic recommendations. The first recommendation (I) urges the campus to recognize the ubiquity of computing and the need to include it in all aspects of campus planning. The next eight recommendations concern various aspects of educational technology and include the recommendation (II) that, starting in the fall of 2000, the campus should as a matter of policy require all student to possess a computer with a recommended baseline set of functional capabilities. We also recommend (III) that the campus develop computer and information literacy standards for all students and provide the necessary training so that all students will be able to meet these standards, and (IV) that all students be given a permanent computer account that will stay with them for their entire campus career. Recommendation (V) is that a skeleton web page be created for each class and linked to relevant student databases. We further recommend (VI) that the campus build additional drop-in computer labs on campus, (VII) provide docking facilities for laptops on campus, and (VIII) continue to make progress on the classroom technology project.

With regard to the organization of ET on campus, the Commission recommends (IX) the creation of a new position of Associate Vice Chancellor for Educational Technology (AVCET), with responsibility for budget, planning, and management for campus-wide aspects of educational technology. The AVCET will directly manage various educational technology programs and units, and will act as a leader and an advocate for educational technology. We recommend (X) the appropriate principles delineating the respective roles of the AVCET, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Information Systems and Technology (AVCIST), the University Librarian, and the Academic Departments.

With respect to support of departmental computing, we recommend (XI) that the Chancellor provide a permanent infusion of $1.75M into the annual departmental operating budgets to provide assistance for purchasing hardware and software, and for funding technical support for departmental computing. Recommendation (XII) is addressed to departments and concerns strategies for meeting technical support needs.

Our single recommendation on networking (XIII), which involves the greatest amount of money of any of the recommendations, urges immediate steps to upgrade the campus network and recommends a preferred funding model for allocation of costs using the SFMNC report as a starting point. Our final recommendation (XIV) urges the establishment of a permanent body to oversee and monitor computing, communications, and educational technology services provided centrally on campus.

I. THE ROLE OF COMPUTING

The computer has become a ubiquitous and indispensable tool for conducting all aspects of the operation of the campus. We recommend that the Chancellor clearly and forcefully articulate this fact to the campus community, and we further recommend that the consequences of the central role that computing plays be incorporated into all aspects of academic, budgetary, and organizational planning. We must include in the planning process preparation for the inevitable institutional change, a renewal model for hardware and software, provisions for technical support, and networking. The campus should establish baseline standards for the computer services and resources that will be provided to all members of the campus community. Society at large is beginning to separate into information haves and have-nots, and we must make every effort to ensure that no such inequities exist on campus. Information technology should be available to the entire campus community as a right.

Electronic mail has reached a point where every faculty member needs to use it regularly, even constantly, to communicate with colleagues on campus and at other universities in this country and abroad. Faculty will use it everyday to communicate with their students, with departmental administrators and staff, and with other campus offices. Digitized resources available on the Internet and through our own Library have become so invaluable for research and teaching that faculty and students need constant access to them. Development of web pages for courses is underway and although only a relatively small fraction of our courses have their own web pages, the trend line is clear. The value added by web pages for student learning, faculty-student interaction, and convenience for both is substantial and clearly evident already. Students, of course, will use e-mail for communicating with faculty and other students, and for accessing the Internet, the library, and web page resources. Staff need e-mail constantly for communication with faculty, students, and campus offices. The new Berkeley Financial System and Human Resources Management System will move us toward conducting campus business primarily by electronic means.

One clear consequence of these developments is that faculty members who do not have access to a computer on their desktop will be substantially disadvantaged. Likewise students, in spite of availability of numerous drop-in computer labs on campus and computer facilities in the dorms, will be at a substantial disadvantage if they do not possess a computer. All or almost all staff members in academic departments will need to have a computer on their desk simply in order to conduct the University's business. In addition, it is vitally important that adequate technical support staff be available to assist faculty, students, and staff in the use of rapidly evolving computer technologies. Salaries for these support staff are a very significant expense in the overall expenditures for support of computing; and we should note that currently the salaries established on the campus for these support staff are not competitive in the market place, as is evident by our record in recruitment and retention. An integral part of the planning and budget process for computing must be continued review of these salaries.

II. STUDENT COMPUTERS

We recommend that, as a matter of policy, the campus require that every student possess a computer (with some basic functional specifications as outlined in Appendix E). By "required" we mean essentially the same thing as faculty members do when they specify that a text book is "required" for a course. Currently some 75% of our students do own and another 10% indicate their intent to purchase one within the next year. Other Universities have moved or are moving in this direction (e.g., the University of North Carolina and the University of Florida). Such a policy will serve to underscore the point that the computer is now an indispensable tool for conducting all aspects of campus business. Moreover, under current law, the expense of purchase or lease of a computer can be folded into the financial aid budget, if the institution requires its possession. Given the necessary lead time, such a policy could not be effective until the beginning of the 2000-01 academic year. We recommend that the implementation of this requirement become effective at that time.

We further recommend that costs of software, maintenance contracts, a baseline level of technical assistance, and charges for network access be included in the financial aid budget for students. We must stress that such services are essential if users are to take full advantage of the hardware. The campus may wish to negotiate special arrangements with vendors for a reduced purchase price for specified hardware/software packages for students. The campus might also bundle together a package of hardware, software, maintenance contract, and technical support that students could purchase or lease.

III. STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER AND INFORMATION LITERACY

We recommend that the campus develop baseline computer and information literacy expectations or standards for all students. These standards should articulate what every student should be able to do (e.g., use certain standard software packages, use email, search the Internet, campus databases and library catalogs for information). These are then skills which faculty may assume students have when making assignments in courses and in setting further expectations for what students are able to do. These standards could be tiered by the academic level of the student; i.e., certain skills would be expected of freshmen, while certain more complex skills would be expected of sophomores or upper division students. The CCCPB-IT Committee is already working on this project and we urge that they move forward. We particularly urge that the computer and information literacy standards include a provision for awareness of and the necessity for paying attention to computer network security issues.

At the same time, the campus must make sure that appropriate training is available to all students so that they can achieve the necessary level of computer skills. The Residential Halls Information Systems already offers training in such skills to students living in the dorms, where most freshmen reside. This is an ideal time and venue to help students develop computer skills that will be necessary for them in their coursework. We urge that the CCCPB-IT Committee and the Residence Halls Information Systems work together, along with other campus units such as the Teaching Library.

IV. STUDENT COMPUTER ACCOUNTS

We recommend that all students, upon enrolling at UC Berkeley, receive a computer account that stays with them during their career at Berkeley (possible name–Plato Accounts). Each student account should be provided with a basic allocation of disk storage, backed up centrally, and should have web publishing capabilities with a link to the student's e-mail account. Additional storage space should be available at a small additional cost if needed. In some cases, additional disk storage might be provided for periods of time based on the instructional needs of the student as attested to by a faculty advisor.

V. CLASS WEB PAGES

We recommend that at the moment a course is scheduled and assigned a classroom a skeleton web page for this course be established automatically on a central server with links to the TeleBears listing and the campus On-line General Catalog. The web page would contain a class list of students with their email addresses maintained in real time and updated as students enroll and drop. For privacy and security reasons, this class list cannot be available as a public part of the web page but is available to the instructor, departmental student services staff, and staff in the Office of the Registrar. A capability for keeping student scores and entering grades on line should also be available only to the instructor.

The public part of the web page should contain, at a minimum, the course description, a syllabus, contact information for the instructor and GSIs, including office hours, class location, and schedule. This information is now available in the departments. We are recommending that it be entered into an electronic format that makes it readily accessible to students over the network. This skeleton web page could have a pointer to a more elaborate, complex, and richer web page maintained by the faculty member on another server. We wish to emphasize that the goal of this recommendation is the immediate establishment of a simple skeleton web page for all courses. The development of more complex web pages for a small but increasing number of courses is a desirable but quite separate project.

We recognize that student and course web pages raise a host of issues involving appropriate use, privacy, intellectual property rights, directory services, and authentication protocols. The experiences of similarly-situated institutions should be reviewed and used in the initial design of our policies regulating these matters.

VI. DROP-IN COMPUTER LABORATORIES

A requirement that all students possess a computer does not in any way reduce the need for drop-in computer labs on campus. Indeed it might even increase the demand, because computer use will increase and students will not be likely to bring their computers to campus, even those who own laptops. The generally accepted optimal ratio of students to drop-in computer lab "seats" is 8 to 1. As the campus has 506 seats in labs managed centrally by IST, and, according to our survey, the departments have about 1450 seats, for a total of about 1950, we need to nearly double the number of existing computer laboratory seats in order to reach the desired ratio for our 29,500 students.

We urge that the campus continue to build drop-in computer labs both centrally and departmentally managed. Construction of such labs has been and should remain a very high priority use of Minor Capital Improvement funds. The number of seats in labs managed by IST has doubled in the past five years, a result for which IST, which has worked collaboratively and effectively with academic departments, should receive considerable praise. The campus should set a goal of another substantial increase in the next five years. We recommend that when buildings are seismically retrofitted and rehabilitated or remodeled, inclusion of space for drop-in computer labs should receive a high priority. In particular, when IST relocates the machine room from the basement of Evans, this space would seem ideal for computer labs. Also, as plans progress for the future use of Moffitt Library, additional general drop-in computer labs should be a high priority.

The full cost of drop-in labs managed by IST is approximately $3000 per seat per year, assuming a three-year hardware and software replacement and upgrade cycle. A substantial fraction of this cost is devoted to technical assistance. The full cost of departmental computer labs is quite variable, depending on the amount of technical assistance provided, how often the computers are replaced, and whether, as often happens, the machines have been recycled from other functions.

VII. DOCKING FOR LAPTOPS AND DYNAMIC HOST ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT (DHAA)

We recommend that the campus provide docking capabilities in many locations across the campus for laptops in order to accommodate those students and faculty who bring their laptops to campus. In order to provide such capabilities, as well as to accommodate instructors who want to bring a computer into the classroom and departments that wish to move computers from one office to another easily and quickly, the campus must develop robust Dynamic Host Address Assignment capabilities as well as authentication protocols as a very high priority.

VIII. CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY

The idea that classroom equipment need only consist of blackboard and chalk is clearly outdated. We are pleased to hear that within months all general assignment classrooms will be connected to the network. The campus should continue an aggressive program to install computing and projection equipment in selected classrooms so that those classrooms may be used for those classes that require such equipment. Reliability must be an absolute priority in the planning, selection of equipment and provisions of technical support. When something is not working, which we hope is rare, the instructor needs help on the scene immediately, and should not have to rely upon help called from across campus. The provision of such equipment in every general assignment classroom is not as high a priority as others highlighted in this report, but getting such equipment permanently installed in selected classrooms with excellent maintenance and support staff should be a high priority.

IX. LEADERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

The Commission recommends that a new office be created under the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost headed by an Associate Vice Chancellor for Educational Technology (AVCET). The AVCET would have three interrelated roles:

1. Lead the budget and planning process for campus efforts and programs in ET;
2. Manage an array of ET programs and units, specified below; and
3. Serve as a leader and advocate for ET on campus and create a climate which fosters innovation and change as well as critical assessment of these innovations.

The need for a such an administrative structure results first of all from the current lack of a coherent, comprehensive, and robust planning and budgetary process covering all aspects of ET. Additionally, the dispersal of administrative responsibility for components of ET among the portfolios of three different Vice Chancellors makes it difficult to coordinate them seamlessly. Finally, the current structure does not lend itself to the establishment of the appropriate accountability for providing service. Faculty, as is evident from the recent questionnaire done by the CCCPB-IT Committee, do not know or are confused about where to go to get help and advice on almost all educational technology matters. Establishing a single clearly defined and highly visible locus of responsibility will, we believe, move us forward significantly. Finally, with the distributed system we now have, there is no one person or office that feels empowered to speak on behalf of Educational Technology and to make the case for the appropriate level of resources.

The Office of AVCET should assume responsibility for assessing what baseline services are available to all students and faculty and make recommendations for appropriate increases in baseline services. The Office of the AVCET should have the responsibility and the necessary resources to coordinate campus wide educational software licensing. Leadership at this level is needed to facilitate and seek out appropriate aggregations of departments or research units who need a particular software package, and to broker deals and come up with entrepreneurial and innovative schemes to obtain these software licenses. The Office of AVCET should monitor innovations in ET at other universities, keep abreast of (or, even better, stay ahead of) such developments, and sponsor and nurture programs on campus that are developing cutting-edge new technologies. Just as we need to engage in constant experimentation, we also need to make sure that those experiments are evaluated and that the ones that are found to have permanent value for student learning are integrated into ongoing services and programs as part of the normal budgetary process. There needs to be a way of moving from successful pilot projects to production services on a campus-wide basis.

The opportunities to bring new technology to the classroom and to all instructional activities are so rich and filled with such potential that we need to have a new conception of what is needed in the classroom and other instructional contexts. We as a campus need to plan and prepare for this future, and we need to organize ourselves so that the services and assistance faculty and students need are provided in a way that is responsive, user friendly, and accountable to the users or customers.

We considered the possibility of incorporating the AVCET function into the Library (with a title perhaps something like a Deputy or Associate Librarian for ET). Some universities have adopted this structure with success. There is a certain rationale for it based on the evolving role that university libraries are playing and can play in ET, plus the fact that some of the units we suggest placing under the AVCET are currently part of the Library. However, we do not believe this structure would work well at Berkeley at this time. The Library is facing immense challenges and problems, as outlined in the recently issued report of the Blue Ribbon Committee on the Library. Taking on the additional responsibility for Educational Technology would, in our view, be a diversion from the principal tasks at hand in the Library, although it might make sense at some point in the future to reconsider the structure we propose now and move responsibility for ET into the Library. At all events, the AVCET will have to coordinate with the University Librarian on matters of common interest and the appropriate demarcation of their respective responsibilities.

We recommend that the eight units or parts of units listed below be included in the portfolio of the AVCET:

1. Office of Media Services including
   • Classroom Technology Project
   • Computer Assistance Program (CAP)
2. CyberSummer for Faculty (if funded)
3. Berkeley Language Center
4. Instructional Technology Program
5. Social Science Computing Laboratory
6. Certain functions of the Media Resource Center
   (details to be worked out as the AVCET position is further refined)
7. Certain functions of the Teaching Library
   (details to be worked out as the AVCET position is further refined)
8. Workstation and Microcomputer Facilities
   (i.e., that part of Workstation Support in IST devoted to centrally managed drop-in student computer labs; design, planning, and general oversight belong with the AVCET, who may chose to subcontract with IST for some day-to-day services)

Two additional units might be considered for inclusion in the portfolio of the AVCET, namely the Berkeley MultiMedia Research Center (BMRC) and the Museum Informatics Project (MIP). The BMRC has funding for an initial period from the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, and reports to Vice Chancellor Cerny. It is an interdisciplinary group doing research on and developing new cutting-edge applications of multimedia technology. As such, the unit fits naturally within the scope and responsibilities of the AVCET. We hope that both the BMRC and AVCET would see advantages to incorporating BMRC in this organization. We hope that the AVCET would be able to create an environment and suitable incentives so that units working on new technology, such as BMRC, would find it to their advantage to be a part of this organization. Indeed the AVCET could serve a useful function as a kind of incubator (to use a technology transfer term) for innovative ET projects on campus.

The Museum Informatics Project (MIP) serves the museums on campus by assisting them in using information technology to manage their collections. MIP has strong affinities with the VC Research portfolio, which includes the museums. Thus, it might make sense for it to remain in IST in spite of its essentially ET function of also providing tools that assist faculty and students to gain access to these museum (and Library) collections for instructional or other purposes. Indeed, in this respect, it is beginning to overlap with some functions of the Library's digital library program. Absent other compelling considerations, it makes perfectly good sense for MIP to retain its present reporting line.

THE ROLES OF AVCIST, AVCET, THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN, AND ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS

Recommendation IX above would establish a second high level position with responsibilities in the general area of academic computing. The principle that we recommend be used to distinguish between the services that the Office of AVCET will provide and the services that IST will provide is based on the criteria that IST will provide generic infrastructure services for campus as a central utility, while AVCET will provide more specialized services and help, related to content and the core functionality of the educational role of the faculty. A member of the regular faculty, we believe, should fill the AVCET position. We stress that the academic departments and the faculty in them have the primary responsibility for development and implementation of educational technology in the classroom and the laboratory, and that the role of campus wide units is to support, encourage, and facilitate that development.

It is essential that the AVCET work very closely with and coordinate activities with the Associate Vice Chancellor-Information Systems and Technology (AVCIST). There are clear synergies between functions that they are charged to perform and between and among many of the individual units within these organizations. In addition, both these individuals must coordinate with the University Librarian because of interconnections in the missions and synergies among units within the organizations. In order to promote cooperation and take advantage of the synergies already noted, it would make a great deal of sense to change the reporting line of IST from the Vice Chancellor Research to the EVC&P;, and we so recommend. This change would bring the three individuals with interconnected responsibilities in Computing, Communications, Educational Technology, Libraries and Information storage and retrieval together under one Vice Chancellor who can coordinate and give overall direction to their activities. There are historical reasons for having IST report to the VC Research based on the close connections between computing and the research functions of the campus. But now that computing is already playing such a large role in education, and as this role that will clearly expand, we should recognize this change of reality by a change in our organizational structure. We fully realize that the EVC&P; already has many heavy responsibilities, and that this recommendation would add to them. However we believe that the nexus of issues and problems encompassed here is of sufficient importance and significance for the future of the campus that it deserves this level of coordinated leadership and involvement.

The External Review Team in its Report (see Appendix A) likewise recommends the transfer of IST to the portfolio of the EVC&P.; The Team also recognizes the need to have a high level position on campus with the responsibilities that we have laid out for the AVCET, but suggests organizational structures that incorporate a single reporting line to the EVC&P; for information technology. The Team offers two plans, Plan A, and Plan B. Under Plan B the mission of IST is expanded to specifically encompass the set of responsibilities we have proposed for the AVCET, and the AVCET position becomes a high level deputy to the Associate Vice Chancellor--IST. The Commission, while recognizing the elements of administrative simplicity implied by this proposal, does not agree with it. We believe that the visibility, leadership, planning and budgetary role inherent in the AVCET, as we have formulated and described the position, requires direct access to the EVC&P.; Moreover, the AVCET is charged to perform high level planning functions, the results of which should drive the development of the campus computing and communication infrastructure. We believe that this planning is best done in collaboration with IST and the Library as we recommend, and not as a sub-unit of IST. IST has a full plate of challenges in the coming years, as does the Library, and we oppose the incorporation of the role of the AVCET for many of the same reasons we recommended against incorporation of the AVCET position into the Library.

Plan A of the External Review Team, as we read it, includes several options, one of which might be that the AVCET and the AVCIST both report to someone who in turn reports to the EVC&P.; This however creates multiple layers of administrative structure which, in our view, would not be healthy. Another option within Plan A is that, in effect, the AVCIST report to the AVCET (who in turn might need a different title). This could work, but the AVCET might end up spending so much time on IST issues and problems to the point of diluting crucial efforts in Educational Technology. At all events there is agreement on transferring IST to the EVC&P; portfolio and on creating a high level position with the responsibilities as we have outlined for the AVCET. There are differing opinions on what the optimal organizational structure might be. Our preferred solution remains to have three administrative officers, the University Librarian, the AVCET, and the AVCIST all report to the EVC&P; with a clear charge to all three that they coordinate their activities under the leadership of the EVC&P.; We recognize, however, that the campus leadership needs the flexibility to explore organizational arrangements that make sense in the context of the occupants of these positions, two of which do not have permanent incumbents at this moment.

Returning for a moment to IST, we recommend that it concentrate on providing efficient, cost effective central services to the campus as a kind of public utility. This includes universal e-mail service (UCLink), Socrates accounts ( both of which have been great successes), Plato accounts -see Recommendation IV above- networking, about which more will be found in Recommendation XIII below, administrative and student record computing, and so on. With respect to UCLink and Socrates, we recommend an addition to these services to enhance their usefulness. Specifically, UCLink and Socrates should include a domain name server so that users in a particular unit can maintain email addresses with a domain name e.g., xxxxx@physics.berkeley.edu. Of course individual units could install a server that accomplishes that function, but such servers would not have the "24 X 7" service that would be required for reliable mail service. This is indeed a service that is best provided centrally. Additionally, e-mail addresses should be assigned on a rational basis, transparent to users.

It should be recognized that it may be most cost effective to outsource. If so they should be outsourced providing that the necessary quality can be maintained. Possible examples include instruction in specific applications, warrantee service, and maintenance contracts.

We are pleased to see that under its current leadership IST is placing more emphasis on customer service. We believe that IST must continue to do so and indeed increase the priority placed on customer service to evolve into an organization that is truly customer oriented. IST should initiate a systematic practice of customer satisfaction surveys. Other units providing computer resource or educational technology services to the campus (e.g., AVCET) should take similar steps to ensure that they are customer-oriented.

We mention one final point concerning IST. We have had reports and observed a number of instances in which the divisions within IST are not adequately coordinating their activities, policies, and practices with each other and indeed at times appear to be working at cross purposes. We urge the Associate Vice Chancellor to address this issue.

XI. SUPPORT OF DEPARTMENTAL COMPUTING

All faculty members and all departmental staff members should have a desktop computer meeting minimum hardware and software specifications (which are attached as Appendix E). Moreover, provision should be made for periodic replacement of this system on a three-year cycle to avoid obsolescence of both hardware and software, and to reduce labor intensive, and have expensive, technical support. Faculty and staff must also have access to the services of technical support staff at a minimum baseline level described in appendix E.

From our interviews with department chairs we found that current resources to support computing at the departmental level are woefully inadequate. Most faculty do have computers on their desks (we identified only about 140 regular faculty out of a total of about 1500 who did not). While for some of these faculty, this was a matter of choice (a machine was available if they wanted it), others cited fear of theft from their office as a reason for not having an office computer, and many reported that they had a computer at home that they were using for research and that they or their department could not afford a second computer in their campus office. Virtually all staff have computers on their desks. We found only 23 out of nearly 1500 departmental staff who did not have a computer. In spite of these high rates of computer availability, many of these computers are outmoded. In only a few instances is there any systematic plan for regular replacement and upgrade. In addition. the resources available to provide technical support for faculty and staff are far too small, and in some cases absent altogether, a situation which hinders the effective and efficient use of computing. Departments urgently need help to provide adequate levels of technical support for departmental computing.

In our view, funding for the provision of all aspects of computer support is properly a shared responsibility among multiple sources. Extramural grants for those in fields where this is possible should be the first source. One would expect faculty and chairs to be entrepreneurial in seeking to put together funding packages for purchase of computers and software for faculty and staff. We recommend that the Chancellor discontinue the practice of allocating funds to COR for re-allocation to the faculty. Instead, these funds should be allocated to a general pool for faculty computer support. Faculty should not have to prove a specific research need in order to get a new computer. Departmental or College funds would be next in line for use; and, finally, where these other sources are insufficient, funding from the Chancellor on a continuing basis is required. Given other sources of funding, aggressive cost sharing strategies, and the fact that a base-level computer is rather inexpensive and becoming less expensive every year, the level of funding required from the Chancellor is relatively modest.

Specifically we recommend that the Chancellor provide a permanent budget allocation of $1.75M to supplement departmental operating budgets for the support of computing. The funds should be allocated through the deans to the individual departments for use at the departmental level. Guidelines describing broad outcomes, rather than overly prescriptive instructions on the detailed use of the funds, should accompany the allocations. Each Department will have different problems and challenges and should have the flexibility to expend the funds to support computing needs in the most efficient and effective manner. Although the formula below that leads to the figure of $1.75M is based on a certain dollar amount per faculty FTE, this represents a broad average of the estimated needs across many departments, but needs differ substantially from department to department. Since a major goal of this allocation is to bring all units up to a minimum level of computing support, there is no reason that funds should be allocated by formula based on FTE. Departments whose current resource base is particularly deficient relative to needs might be favored in the allocation process.

The rationale for the sum of $1.75M is based on providing computer support for permanent faculty and state funded departmental staff. According to budget data, there are .65 FTE state funded departmental staff per permanent faculty FTE on average across all departments. Thus the responsibility extends to providing assistance toward computer support for 1.65 computers per permanent FTE. Since there are approximately 1500 faculty FTE, this calculation yields a round number of 2500 computers altogether.

The expense calculation is based on providing a desktop machine meeting the baseline specifications in Appendix E. Our cost model allocates $1200 for the purchase of a baseline desktop, and adds $300 for software plus $300 for maintenance over a three-year period, for a total of $1800, assuming a three-year upgrade cycle. This amounts to $600 per year. The assumption of the funding model is that the Chancellor's allocation would pay for one third of this total, with the expectation that departmental, decanal, or research funds as outlined above would provide the balance on a cost sharing basis. One third of $600 comes to $200 per computer per year. It is expected that faculty, department chairs, and deans would have to be entrepreneurial in putting together funds to make these purchases. Some faculty will require more sophisticated and more powerful machines with a greater array of software. Funds for such enhancements will have to come from other sources.

Additionally, in our model the Chancellor would provide funding for a bare-bones package of technical support at $500 per computer per year. The cost of more extensive technical support, if needed, should come from other funds. Thus the recommended level of additional central funding is $700 per machine per year, which, using a base of 2500 machines, comes to a total of $ 1.75M

We emphasize again that these funds should not necessarily be allocated by formula based on FTE, but rather that the Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, and the Deans should evaluate needs of individual units. In part these funds are intended to level the playing field between units and to ensure that the computer does fulfill its important role in supporting the educational, scholarly, and administrative functions of all academic departments.

Finally, we note that departments have other computing needs that we are not specifically addressing at this time. The current 1450 machines in departmental computing labs, if upgraded by buying new machines and software every three years, would require under the previous cost model a yearly expense of $600 times 1450 or $870K, not to mention whatever technical support is provided. We also realize that few departments have established such a replacement and upgrading plan for their labs and in many cases are using recycled machines with inadequate technical support. In addition, Recommendation XIII below will impose additional costs on departments for network access. Finally Recommendation V will likely require departmental staff time to enter the information on course web pages. Departmental computing costs should be reviewed again in three years to determine unmet needs. An additional allocation of funds to support departmental computing may be needed at that time.

XII. PROVISION OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR COMPUTING

Departments should be able to choose from among many options for providing technical support, including hiring dedicated in-house staff (usually a realistic option only for the largest units), partnering with nearby and/or related units to hire dedicated staff, contracting with a college level provider, such as Letters and Science Computer Resources (which in our view is providing a valuable and cost effective service that should be supported), contracting with IST or other campus level providers such as CAP in the Office of Media Services, or, finally, contracting with an outside vendor. In laboratory sciences computer support within research groups may be provided by graduate students in the group. Competition is healthy and should act to control prices and to provide accountability for levels of service. Consequently, it is necessary to place the financial resources at the individual unit level to allow units to make the choice that is best for them, to enhance competition among providers, and to provide mechanisms to ensure accountability for quality of service.

XIII. THE CAMPUS NETWORK

We have already made the case that the computer is now a ubiquitous and essential tool for conducting university business, especially the academic functions of teaching, research, and service. But, unless our computers are connected to the campus network and that network is functioning properly, the usefulness of computers is vastly decreased. The network is indeed the central element of the campus computing infrastructure and its proper functioning is absolutely essential to the operation of the campus. For instance, an up-to-date and fully reliable campus network is a requirement of the California Digital Library and the other cooperative arrangements recommended by the University-wide Library Planning and Action Initiative to provide desperately needed help to our libraries.

The network has grown explosively from 7,500 nodes to 32,000 nodes in the last six years, and a very dedicated network staff has overseen this growth and solved many problems. The rapid recovery of the network from the campus-wide power failure on May 19, 1998 is an indication of the challenges the staff have faced and resolved. At the same time it is evident from the thoughtful and careful report prepared by the Task Force on Scalable Funding Models for Network Computing (SFMNC) that the network has not received adequate funding for many years. (See Appendix D for the Executive Summary and Recommendations of this report.) Not unexpectedly there are problems with the network; portions of it are subject to failure, and do not provide sufficient bandwidth; substantial elements of the wiring and equipment are obsolete and in urgent need of replacement and upgrading. Staff maintaining the network are stretched to the limit or beyond. We heard of many instances of what seem to us to be inordinate delays in scheduling installation of network connections and even further delays, often of many months, in completing work even after a schedule has been established and agreed upon. Consequently, there is a high degree of frustration among faculty, which could in turn lead to serious faculty retention and recruitment problems. Providing the necessary funding to bring the network up to a level that is required for a top-ranked research university is the single highest priority among the myriad of computer resource problems the campus faces.

We are also aware that the work to achieve the required level of performance in our network is very expensive. It is infrastructure work (just as essential as electricity, water, heat, or sanitary sewers, etc.), but as such, it is a project for which it is not easy to raise outside money. Nevertheless, it is a problem that the campus must face posthaste to ensure the present and future well being of the intellectual enterprise at Berkeley.

We endorse the general principle that everyone should have a certain baseline level of service, currently 10 megabit service. We must realize that this baseline is a moving target and that some time in the not too distant future the baseline should be 100 megabit service. In addition, those who need more than the current baseline service should be able to have access to higher bandwidth by paying an extra fee.

In order to analyze the funding requirements of the network, it is helpful to disaggregate what is in effect a one-time capital expense–the replacement of building risers, and the Intra Campus Communications Systems (ICCS) project to replace the interbuilding communications system–from the ongoing yearly operational and maintenance costs. The cost of the two capital projects taken together is estimated to be $35M spread over a number of years. This figure needs to be refined and reviewed by outside consultants, but these projects must go forward, and we cannot wait 10 years. They must be approached with greater urgency. It goes without saying that a necessary part of any seismic retrofit project should be an upgrade of the network in the retrofitted building.

The Commission discussed the advantages and disadvantages of distributing some of the costs of this capital project to the users. We strongly believe that this is quintessentially a central campus responsibility, a basic utility provided to the entire campus community. It should be coherently and centrally planned to serve the needs of the campus. Allocating some portion of the costs to users would create confusion, inequities, and might lead to shortsighted planning by some units. How could one equitably allocate the costs of risers in a building with multiple occupants? Also, allocating some part of such costs to units that have already upgraded on their own seems hardly fair. In sum, this $35M capital project should be centrally funded.

We recommend that network services rethink the charges it currently has in place for network connections. It is perhaps reasonable to assess a one time charge (now $485) for a new node added to the network, but it is not reasonable to charge for upgrading an existing network node to the baseline level of service. We understand that the assumptions in the SFMNC eliminate this $485 charge for upgrading an existing node to baseline service, and the Commission endorses this concept.

With respect to the required yearly operating and maintenance costs for the network, which are estimated to be $6.6M for 1998-99, rising to $7.1M for 2000-01, it is reasonable that a portion of these should be distributed to users. We recommend an allocation methodology based on the number of active network connections (allocation model 5, interpreting "nodes" as active network connections in the SFMNC report) as the fairest method of allocating costs. It directly builds in a needed feedback loop that will provide a modest incentive to units to evaluate carefully their needs for additional or even some current network connections.

A key question for the Commission was what fraction of the operating costs of the network should be distributed to operating units and what fraction should be funded centrally. First, we agree that the current $3 per month surcharge charge per telephone line, which is currently used to fund network operating costs, should be shifted in a revenue neutral way to a charge per active network connection. Although it is not made explicit in the SFMNC report, there is another charge of $31 per year per telephone line that is currently being transferred from Voice Services to Data Services, and forms what the SFMNC report calls the "reserve fund". Our recommendation is that this charge should also be converted in a revenue neutral manner to a per node charge. Thus, altogether, charges of $67 per year per telephone line will be converted to a per node charge, which should come to about $35 per year per node. While the conversion will be revenue neutral on the campus as a whole, it may not be revenue neutral for some individual units. We suggest that, before implementation of the conversion, a calculation be performed, unit by unit, to identify any major deviations from revenue neutrality.

The scenarios outlined in the SFMNC Report call for a substantially higher yearly per node charge over and above the converted Voice Service charge. We believe that charges at that level are beyond the ability of departments to pay in light of the funds that are available at the departmental level. Setting a high charge and then buying it out with offsetting allocations from the Chancellor achieves nothing and would breed a level of cynicism, as do most such schemes. Setting a high charge and not providing offsetting allocations would do catastrophic damage to departmental budgets that are already deeply stressed by the recent budget cuts. Moreover, a high charge would lead Departments to make destructive decisions (such as disconnecting many network connections that are essential for the operation of the unit, thereby undermining the central thrust of this report, the ubiquity of computing).

In our judgement, the total yearly charge per node should consist of the converted Voice Service charges described above, plus an additional yearly per node charge of between $30 and $40. Thus our recommended new yearly per node charge N would be calculated from the formula

N = 67 * (# telephone lines / # active nodes) + S,

where S is a number between 30 and 40 to be determined by further discussion (although the Commission would prefer the number S to be closer to 30 rather than 40. Such a yearly charge, which would come altogether to something like $65 to $75 per node (but with a partial offset by a reduction in Voice Service charges), would be painful to many units, but in the end is bearable by the academic departments. It is appropriate that end users recognize the costs of operating the network. Contributing to the costs, even at this modest level, will make it clear to the Chancellor the urgency with which the underfunding of the network needs to be addressed. We fully realize that this recommendation distributes only about $2.1M (based on a $65 charge) of the costs to the users while the various cost distribution models in the SFMNC report propose to distribute between $3.4M to $7.0M to the users. We do not believe that distributing that large a proportion of the cost is feasible or possible given the state of budgets in the end-user units.

The network operations group has a current permanent budget of approximately $2.3M, and has had a temporary yearly allocation of $1.6M for the last two years. Under our funding model, the network group would receive about $2.1M from the yearly per active network connection fee assessed on users, but, at the same time, would lose income from the transfer from Voice Services, including income from the "reserve fund". Thus, in order to fund this unit at the necessary level of $6.6M, the temporary allocation of $1.6M must be made permanent and must be supplemented by an additional permanent allocation of $0.6M from central sources. In addition, there must be provision for inflation and funding for expected incremental network growth. This funding is over and above the $35M capital project for building risers and interbuilding networking.

XIV. FUTURE OVERSIGHT

We urge creation of a permanent commission (like the Public Utilities Commission that oversees providers of utilities in a natural monopoly environment) that would oversee campus providers of computing services and resources with respect to the quality of services, including both those provided as a free good to the campus and those for which a charge is levied. It would review and approve (or disapprove) rates charged by providers for computing resources and services (this function for these computing rates should be shifted from the Campus Recharge Committee to this new commission, which might be called the Computing Utilities Commission). By monitoring the quality and reliability of service, and by providing a central place where users can take their complaints, the Commission would facilitate in a systematic manner the accountability of the providers to their customers. A public forum for complaints and their resolution is lacking in the current structure. Indeed, one of the most pointed observations expressed in our data collection was lack of knowledge by faculty and others as to where to take complaints about computing and educational technology services. The functions and role described here for the CUC can be distinguished from the role of the Chancellor's Computing and Communications Policy Board (CCCPB), but attention should be given to clearly delineating their respective roles.

This Commission can also play an important role in administrative computing over the coming years. The Commission should have a definite role in reviewing the campus administrative computing initiatives to assess their impact on the functioning and the budgets of academic departments. In particular, as computerization of campus administrative functions proceeds, we, as a campus, should attempt to capture cost savings from this automation and then redirect these savings to our academic programs.

We recommend that this Commission be appointed by the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, and we suggest a composition of four faculty members, four administrators and staff, and two students.

Appendix A: External Review Team Report

Original on University of Virginia Stationery

OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. Calvin C. Moore
Chair, Department of Mathematics
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720

Dear Carol and Calvin:

As promised, enclosed is the paper version of our review of the draft report of your Commission on Campus Computing. As you can see, we found the overall state of information and educational technology at Berkeley to be very solid, and we agree with almost all of the Commission's recommendations. Even where we do not agree in full with the specific solution proposed, we do see the reasons for the recommendations. We've tried to suggest alternatives that would accomplish your goals without raising the issues of dis-integration that concern us.

Again, we all thank you for your hospitality and for the stimulating day we spent with members of your community. Of course, we are available should there be questions or follow-up about our report.

Sincerely,

[Signed]

Polley Ann McClure
Vice President and CIO
(also in behalf of William H. Parker
and Vijay Kumar)
PAM:mdc

Enclosure

Report of External Reviewers

July 1998

General Status

In the course of our professional activities, we have the opportunity to visit and learn about many institutions of higher education. In comparison with its peers, U.C. Berkeley compares very well. The goals stated by the CCCPB subcommittee on IT of accessibility, connectivity, other infrastructure issues such as classrooms, and a culture of experimentation and reflection, are excellent directions and are similar to those of other major research universities. We note especially your current networking activities. Most of the recommendations set out in the Commission report seem to us to be right on target; indeed, as we learned, many are well along toward implementation already.

"Raising the Floor"

We observe that the thrust of the Commission of Campus Computing recommendations can be characterized as raising the floor for everyone rather than the ceiling for a few. The principles of ubiquity, adaptability, transparency and accountability appear to be motivated by a desire to ensure that all members of UC Berkeley academic community are provided the opportunity to participate in the emerging era of electronic communication and information. We support this characterization and believe it is the responsibility of the campus administration to provide the appropriate basic physical infrastructure, tools and services to all faculty, staff and students.

Those faculty who have strong and personal interests in using sophisticated electronic communication tools and capabilities in their research and/or educational activities are likely to find the resources to support their activities if the university provides the basic infrastructure. These faculty will successfully raise their own ceiling.

Campus Network

A modern network available to all faculty, staff and students is essential to the achievement of the goals of the university. We concur enthusiastically with recommendation XIII concerning the campus network. The technical capabilities of the campus network, as proposed, are appropriate. The campus should not delay taking those actions necessary to extend and upgrade the network in all departments on the campus.

It is important to recognize that a critical component of the network is its reliability. We were told that the current network is reliable. Management changes that might possibly affect the operation of this essential utility should be made with great care to avoid weakening what appears to be an effective support organization.

The recommendation that user fees generate approximately twenty five percent (or less) of the cost of the network is appropriate. The network is best thought of as another campus utility and should be funded in a manner to ensure its availability to every member of the academic community. A large user fee may disenfranchise some faculty or students. Such a consequence should be unacceptable in a modern university.

Distributed Support

The Commission recommended that additional funds for computer support be distributed to departments in order to enable a free market and competition. We fully support the idea that additional support resources are needed, but we suggest that care be exercised as to the unit and ground rules under which those resources are provided. The risk of complete free-market dynamics in an immature system such as this is that local managers will attempt to optimize support in isolation from the broader system, which will be wasteful and, across the board, will provide worse rather than improved support services. Depending on the size and complexity of the unit, it may be most appropriate to allocate additional funds to a college, school, or other aggregation.

We recommend that Berkeley develop a formal definition of which support, service and facilities responsibilities for information resources belong to the campus, school, department or individual levels. In general, campus responsibilities should include infrastructure and the basic support, services and facilities relevant to most users. Schools or departments should be responsible for those functions that are specific or unique to their own needs. Individual users should also be responsible for their unique requirements. Authority for decisions and responsibility as well as the resources should all reside at the same level as a general rule. We think the goal is an organized system of distributed support, which is not the same as the result of a haphazard scramble.

Organizational Structure

We resonate with the commission's concern/interest in devising the organizational arrangements that will:

• give the necessary prominence and attention to UCB's instructional computing agenda;
• align the energies of the multiple agencies that are, and will be, involved in promoting and supporting instructional technology at UCB;
• provide the educational technology oversight and planning function; and
• make accountability and the locus of responsibility for educational technology very clear.

It is our opinion that these ends can be achieved effectively and efficiently through either of the following two action plans described below. Both these plans incorporate a unified organizational construct for ET services with a single report to the Executive Vice Chancellor because we believe that having the individual units ( IS&T, Library, Media Services) report independently could well lead to a situation where a disproportionate amount of the EVC's energy will be directed toward managing the interface between these units. We are also of the opinion that the placement of the ET function within the Library organization would not be appropriate at this time.

Plan A

Create a new "Education and Information Technology Services" organization reporting to the Executive Vice Chancellor that incorporates the current IS&T, the Media Services division, and other relevant campus-wide technology service delivery organizations. This unit would receive budget support from UCB general funds for Educational Technology.

The expanded charter for the Education and Information Technology Services group would include:

• Oversight of the delivery of high quality educational and infrastructure technology services and support that enable the academic mission of UCB;
  
• Recommending/selecting/undertaking meaningful ET explorations in collaboration with other agencies and in consultation with faculty advisory committees;
  
• Undertaking evaluation/assessment of UC Berkeley's ET efforts;
  
• Advising on ET Policy;
  
• Coordinating and promoting synergy among the various groups that are and will be engaged in implementing and supporting educational technology initiatives at UCB;
  
• Influencing IST priorities based on UCB's educational priorities; and
  
• Advising the Educational Leadership on IST issues and concerns.

Plan B

Place IS & T organizationally under the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost and enlarge its charter to explicitly include Educational Technology coordination and support.**
Appoint a Deputy/Assistant Vice Chancellor or Director of Educational Technology whose primary responsibility would be to coordinate, champion and represent academic priorities, as well as to coordinate the multiple agencies
** Expanded Charter as in Plan A above.

Submitted by:

William Parker
Associate Executive Vice Chancellor
University of California at Irvine

Vijay Kumar
Director of Academic Computing
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Polley Ann McClure
Vice President and CIO
University of Virginia

Appendix B: Commission Charge

PROFESSOR CAL MOORE - CHAIR

MR. SHIH KUAO CHANG

PROFESSOR DAVID CULLER

DIRECTOR CHARLES FAULHABER

PROFESSOR ROBERT FULL

MR. CHRISTOPHER HOSTETTER

VICE CHANCELLOR GENARO PADILLA

PROFESSOR JOHN RADKE

DIRECTOR BARBARA ROMANOWICZ

PROFESSOR LARRY ROWE

PROFESSOR ANGELICA STACY

PROFESSOR RUTH TRINGHAM

DEAN HAL VARIAN

Dear Colleagues:

Information technology has changed radically over the past decade. At Berkeley and at most universities, it has become a necessary resource for learning, teaching, research, management, and public service. Deans and other senior administrators of most segments of the campus must now attend regularly and directly to information technology issues as a fundamental part of the academic enterprise. The power, accessibility, and effective management of information resources are among the criteria used by students, faculty, staff, and the public when they make decisions about where to study and work, and which university to support.

Computing needs have burgeoned, and the technology available to meet them has progressed faster than most of us could have anticipated. In spite of the efforts of the Computer and Communications Policy Board, the Information Systems and Technology organization, and campus managers who have made major investments in local computing support, it is clear that demand has outstripped campus plans and historic funding patterns.

As a result of these developments, Chancellor Berdahl, Vice Chancellor Cerny, and I would like to appoint a Commission on Campus Computing to assess Berkeley’s computing needs and propose a set of principles to guide campuswide planning for information technology. Our goal is to determine how the campus can become a "technologically wise" university in support of departmental missions and major programs.

We would like the Commission to concentrate on two issues: instructional technology and the distribution of responsibilities and funding for computing on campus.

In regard to instructional technology, we would like the Commission to evaluate what technological initiatives or directions offer the greatest opportunities to enrich teaching and learning. Where in this area should the campus invest its resources? What should have funding priority? Are there base-level services that should be provided to "all" faculty? What should they be? What base-level services should be provided to "all" students? Many people have been concerned that the campus has not adequately organized its instructional technology programs and efforts. What is the most effective organization for instructional technology?

In regard to the distribution of responsibilities and funding for computing, we would like the Commission to clarify the most appropriate role(s) for individual departments, for colleges and schools, for Information Systems and Technology, for the University Library, and for the UC system. What services should be offered at what levels? How should support functions be aggregated? Should computing support staff serve departments, clusters of departments, or clusters of clusters? Are there support functions that should only be provided by the central campus computing group or only at the local level? Who should administer the appropriately aggregated support staff and services? What funding models are the most appropriate and most likely to produce the desired outcomes?

We anticipate appointing an external review team that will comment on the preliminary findings and recommendations of the campus Commission and assist it in the latter part of its work.

We also anticipate that the Commission will require substantial staff support. Charles Upshaw in my office will coordinate that support. We anticipate that the Commission will complete its work by July 1 of 1998.

Thank you for agreeing to undertake this critically important work.

	Sincerely,
	[Signed] Carol T. Christ The Vice Chancellor and Provost

cc: Chancellor Berdahl
Vice Chancellor Cerny
Chair Oldham
Executive Assistant Upshaw

Appendix C: Departmental Interview Form

Commission on Campus Computing
Questions for Discussion with Department Chairs

1.0 Does your Department operate its own computing service or computer center? (circle one) Yes. No.

2.0 How many people are paid to provide computing services support in the Department and what is the total payroll?

3.0 How many faculty have computers on their desks and how many do not?

Have ______ Do not have ______

4.0 How many computers in your Department are connected to the Campus network?

Connected ______ Not Connected ______

5.0 How many Department courses have web pages and how many do not?

Have web pages ______ Do not ______

6.0 What computing needs do your graduate students have and what do you do to meet them? [e.g. access to computers, e-mail, web access, applications packages, disk storage, etc.]

7.0 What are current unmet needs for computing resources?

8.0 What additional issues and concerns about computing resources do you have that are not addressed in these questions?

Appendix D: Excerpt,Scalable Funding Models for Network Computing Report

Executive Summary

Following the 1996 Budget Retreat, a task force was formed to identify sustainable funding strategies for the campus computer network. The committee was asked to review the current status of the campus and identify critical issues, determine the full cost of maintaining the network, and develop a scalable network funding model for the Berkeley Campus.

The committee began by reviewing components of the campus network infrastructure. Through this review, major problem areas were identified and critical network remediation and maintenance needs defined. With the completion of this assessment, the group went on to identify full costs of network remediation and maintenance. The campus’s current network funding model was then reviewed and an estimate of current unfunded liabilities developed. The committee studied network funding models used by other universities and identified optional cost division and allocation strategies for the Berkeley Campus.

The most critical issues identified include:

• Annual network costs are estimated at $12.1 million in 1997-98 dollars –$7.6 million for ongoing maintenance, $4.5 million for capital projects. As of 1997-98, only $4.4 million of the $7.6 million needed for ongoing maintenance has permanent funding. In addition, full funding for the capital projects has not been identified.

   

• Costs for critical capital projects (annualized at $4.5 million above) total approximately $35 million in 1997-98 dollars. These projects include completion of the Intra Campus Communication System (ICCS) and remediation of campus riser wiring systems.

   

• Network equipment components have a three to five year life. Without an equipment replacement plan, the network will begin to collapse as this equipment fails.

   

• The campus’s current network funding model is inadequate and only partly scalable. In addition, a significant portion of current distributed costs is not recovered in accordance with University and federal direct costing policies.

A full list of recommendations appears on Pages 34 & 35. In summary, the committee recommends that the campus adopt a new scalable funding model for the campus network that includes the full costs of providing base-level network services to all campus users. This model should correct weaknesses of the current funding system, be sustainable and scalable, and create incentives for efficient network use. Any model adopted must rely on funding both from the central campus and campus units. The committee recommends that the new funding model should be implemented July 1, 1999. To ensure a smooth implementation, central campus emergency network funding should be extended through fiscal year 1998-99 and a funding model determined by September 30, 1998.

VII. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee’s charge was to review the current status of the network, determine full costs of maintaining the network, explore current funding models, and develop a scalable funding model or models for the Berkeley campus.

Summary:

 
• Only about 20% of the Intra Campus Communication System (ICCS) has been completed.

   

• More that 65% of the campus riser wiring is outmoded.

   

• Network equipment components have a three to five year life. Without an equipment replacement plan, the network will begin to collapse as this equipment fails.

   

• There is very little redundancy built into the network and the campus has an insufficient emergency power system. This creates serious potential business continuity problems.

   

• Total annual network costs are estimated at $12.1 million – $7.6 million ongoing maintenance, $4.5 million capital projects.

   

• Solid permanent funding – permanent budget or allowable recharge methodology supports only $3.3 million of the total annual network costs identified.

Recommendations:

 
• The campus should adopt a new funding model for the campus network based on the full costs of operating the network that promotes usage of this resource in a manner consistent with campus priorities and goals.

   

• The funding model should address only base-level services that all campus users will receive. Enhanced or experimental services should be available on a for-fee basis.

   

• This model should correct weaknesses of the current funding system. The model should be sustainable, scalable, and create incentives for efficient network use.

   

• The model should be auditable – both in terms of financial practice and quality of service provided. It should conform to federal direct costing policy and be accountable to users for a defined level of services.

   

• The model should reflect campus priorities: support of instruction, research, computing for students, library, and administration.

   

• The central campus should commit continued central funding to augment any distributed cost model. State of the art network infrastructure is an integral part of sustaining academic excellence at Berkeley. Maintaining this is an important strategic element to the future success of the campus. (Augmentation could include credits to units that have invested substantially in intra-building infrastructure within the last few years if either Funding Model 3 or Funding Model 4 is selected.)

   

• The new funding model should be implemented July 1, 1999. Selection of a model should be made no later than September 30, 1998 to ensure timely implementation.

   

• Emergency network funding should be extended through fiscal year 1998-99 to allow IST to continue to address the most critical network problems.

   

• Any continuing recharge system should split fees for voice lines from fees for data lines, and both should be based on full costs of service.

   

• Every effort should be made to coordinate ICCS and riser remediation with other major capital projects (e.g., SAFER and other campus construction).

   

• The campus should review the impact of current and proposed large new initiatives (e.g., the digital library project and the California Virtual University) on the cost of maintaining the network.

   

• The campus should explore new revenue sources for network funding.

   

• Prior to implementation, the campus should hire a rate consultant to provide an independent assessment of the cost figures and design a rate structure for cost distribution.

   

• Appoint an implementation committee to review any issues that arise during the implementation process (e.g., unit equity issues).

   

• The implemented funding and cost distribution models should be reviewed after five years to evaluate their continued effectiveness.

Appendix E: Minimal Hardware and Software Support Levels for Faculty, Staff, and Students

This document describes a minimal level of hardware, software, and support that is needed by any Berkeley faculty or staff member for communications and information access, and to obtain network backup service. Levels of support needed for commonly used desktop productivity applications are listed as an option. It is our view that these standards should apply to the entire campus. These standards also apply to students, with the exception that students are expected to handle the computing support of their personal computer.

Because of rapid changes in hardware and software markets, these standards must be revised ANNUALLY. The following standards apply to the 1998-99 academic/fiscal year. They should be revised at the beginning of each academic/fiscal year; the Executive Vice-Chancellor & Provost should assign responsibility for revisions.

Functional Requirements

Functional requirements define the activities to be supported by the hardware, software, and service standards.

Two standards are defined, BASIC and SUPPLEMENTAL.

BASIC Functional Requirements
Requirement	Implementation
Send and receive e-mail	A POP mailer such as Netscape or Eudora, or a Unix-based mailer such as Pine
Access the World Wide Web	A browser such as Netscape or Internet Explorer
Have regular backups of all user files	The UCBackup service, LSCR's backup service, or a local backup device
Secure network access	Kerberos client, ssh client, APOP client

SUPPLEMENTAL Functional Requirements
Requirement	Implementation
Discipline-specific needs	Utilize discipline-specific software
Office productivity	A desktop suite such as Microsoft Office
Appointment/meeting scheduling	A scheduling package such as Meeting Maker
Access to BFS and HRMS	Citrix client
Reliable, secure authentication	Public-key authentication package

Software Standards

Software standards are recommendations for effective use of the hardware; all choices are ultimately up to the end-user.

BASIC Software Standards
Software type	PC Standard	Mac Standard
Operating system	Windows 95 or Windows NT	MacOS 7.5.1 (8+ recommended)
E-mail	Eudora 4+, Netscape Communicator 4+, or Microsoft Outlook 97+	Eudora 4+, Netscape Communicator 4+, or Microsoft Outlook 97+
WWW	Netscape Navigator 4+ or Microsoft Internet Explorer 4+	Netscape Navigator 4+ or Microsoft Internet Explorer 4+
Virus protection	Dr. Solomon's Anti-Virus Toolkit 7.8+	Dr. Solomon's Anti-Virus Toolkit 7.8+
Backup	Retrospect Client 1.1, UCBack up/ADSM client, or local backup software	Retrospect Client 4+, UCBackup/AD SM client, or local backup software
Secure network access	F/Secure SSH client	F/Secure SSH client

SUPPLEMENTAL Software Standards
Software type	PC Standard	Mac Standard
Discipline-specific	As required	As required
Office productivity	Microsoft Office 97 or equivalent	Microsoft Office 98 or equivalent
Scheduling	Meeting Maker 3+ or equivalent	Meeting Maker 3+ or equivalent
Secure authentication	PGP or equivalent	MacPGP or equivalent

Minimum Service and Support Standards

Two standards are defined, BASIC and SUPPLEMENTAL. The BASIC standard applies to support for computers which are employed for the BASIC functional requirements above. The SUPPLEMENTAL standard applies to support for computers which are employed for the SUPPLEMENTAL functional requirements.

BASIC Service and Support Standard

The goal of this service level is to ensure that faculty and staff have access to the campus network, access to the appropriate hardware and software for accessing the Internet, access to backup service, and emergency service help, including:

 
• Purchase advice for necessary computer hardware and software.

   

• Assistance with obtaining a network connection and an email account.

   

• Installation and configuration of approved Internet hardware and software.

   

• Installation and configuration of backup software, and regular backups.

   

• Emergency visits from staff qualified to keep the BASIC services operational.

SUPPLEMENTAL Service and Support Standard

The SUPPLEMENTAL support and service standard provides for those faculty and staff who need support for discipline-specific software, office productivity applications, or scheduling programs in addition to communications and backup support. This service includes BASIC services, plus the following:

 
• Purchasing advice for the necessary hardware and software.

   

• Installation and configuration of supported productivity and scheduling software.

   

• Access to training for supported software.

   

• Emergency visits from staff qualified to keep the SUPPLEMENTAL services operational.

Minimum Hardware Standards

At this time, standards are defined only for PC and Macintosh systems. Because of the wide and divergent variety of hardware, operating systems, and applications software for UNIX, straightforward standards for the UNIX platform are difficult to define.

Three hardware standards are defined, RETAIN, PURCHASE, and OPTIONAL. The RETAIN ("worth keeping") standard applies to existing computers which meet the basic and supplemental functional requirements. The PURCHASE standard applies to new computer purchases. The OPTIONAL standard is a supplement to the RETAIN and PURCHASE standards and applies to components that are generally desirable and may be necessary for some individuals.

Hardware Standards
RETAIN		PURCHASE		OPTIONAL
PC	Mac	PC	Mac	PC	Mac
80486+	68040+	Pentium	PowerPC	PPro or PII	PowerPC G3
16 MB RAM	16 MB RAM	32 MB RAM	32 MB RAM	8-24x CD-ROM	8-24x CD-ROM
500 MB HD	500 MB HD	1 GB HD	1 GB HD	Fast SCSI-II or Ultra SCSI disk	Fast SCSI-II or Ultra SCSI disk
Ethernet	Ethernet	10/100baseT Ethernet	10baseT Ethernet	10/100baseT Ethernet	10/100baseT Ethernet
		SVGA video		17-inch monitor	17-inch monitor
				Removable- media drive	Removable- media drive