MINUTES OF
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
FRIDAY
NOVEMBER 9, 2007
9:00-11:00
A.M. -- ROOM LC-62
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Deb
Moore, Wes Nance, Bernie Negrete, Patrick O’Donnell,
MEMBERS
ABSENT: ML Bettino,
Mario Morales
The
meeting of NOVEMBER 9 was brought to order at 9:00 a.m.
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 21, 2007
Lee
asked if anyone was uncomfortable with the Minutes of the IT Standards
Committee meetings being published in draft form on the web prior to
approval. No objections were raised.
The
Minutes of September 21, 2007 were reviewed by members in attendance. There was no discussion. It was moved by Dean Mellas, seconded by
Bernice Watson, and accepted by attending members to approve the minutes as
presented, with one abstention (Bernie Negrete).
FLAT SCREENS
LA 4 AND LA 6
Hand-me-down
LCD monitors were installed in LA 4 and LA 6.
Wes reported that when students try to select and highlight a range of
data on most of the used flat screens in LA 4 and LA 6 (particularly when using
Excel ’07), the selection will not highlight for them. Lee said there should be an option for changing
the resolution to adjust brightness and contrast on the monitor. Committee members assisted with additional suggestions.
INSTALLATION OF NEW COMPUTERS/MONITORS
Lee
reported we are standardizing on the convertible mini tower because it gives us
the most expansion options. Bernie
Negrete asked if the furniture has been measured to determine if there is going
to be a problem with fitting the new computers to the space allotted. The response was if that came up in any
particular area we usually could change the case if we wanted to, but the ¼”
would probably not make that much difference.
DISCUSSION
OF EVALUATION RESULTS REGARDING THE DC 7800
Lee
provided a report concerning the Desktop DC 7800 we requested from Hewlett
Packard as an evaluation unit. She
explained that because the front of the box is all black, it is a challenge to
see in any of the photos, but that they were able to evaluate the unit itself. The evaluation was very good. The CPU that we were able to get is an
upgrade from the current CPU that we had on the prior standard on the DC 7700. Also, we are able to get 2GB of memory rather
than 1GB in preparation for Vista.
PRICING AND SPECIFICATIONS
Referring
to the information Lee put up on the screen, she explained that the pricing
sheet printed for the prior meeting, is out of date. She explained that HP was able to provide us
with the new system at the previous pricing of $933. The new processor being
proposed includes virtualization within the hardware -- not necessarily to be used this
year but for the future years -- because these units last about 5 years.
The
video on the unit is standard video, so if you work with a digital monitor, to
get the real benefits you would need to buy another video card and utilize DVI. The analog was discussed and Wes said he had
been under the impression that the analog was on its way out. Lee responded that there are some lines of computers
that have DVI options, but not the business desktop.
Lee
further explained that the PC quality was good and the Survey results have been
positive on the DC 7700. With the
standard desktop replacement of 250 computers this year, we went with an analog
only monitor because of the price of $199 and that we can standardize on the
19”. The result of upgrading to the DC
7800 is more memory, faster CPU, and a new case. One of the few concerns from recipients has
to do with the ergonomics because of the lack of adjustment to the height of
the monitors. The area with the
complaint was actually placing the monitor higher than it should be
placed. So in reality there are not too
many office configurations that cannot handle the monitor well. As an alternative, an inexpensive monitor
stand could be purchased.
FEEDBACK
Lee
explained that if a better video card is requested we usually recommend ATI
cards that provide DVI as requested, on a one-on-one basis. Bernie asked if this could be an issue with
different formats. Lee responded that
she has not seen or heard of any issues.
We’ve installed many single and dual DVI monitors & video cards.
It
was mentioned that people are watching the increased popularity of HDMI. Harry
clarified that HDMI is being driven by the consumer, and not business. He also
stated that HDMI will take over, but not
yet. Wes asked if the screen moved
forward and back and Harry responded, “Yes, I believe they all do that.”
Wes
asked if faculty and students can purchase GST’s equipment at the original
price. Lee said she would ask GST if
they are able to honor that price because we do not actually buy from GST,
explaining that since we make the purchase through Hewlett Packard, they would
have to decide. Our pricing is based
upon educational pricing via the Glendale bid, so she was doubtful. After the meeting, Lee will follow-up and
clarify to the group via email (see addendum A.)
She
also noted that these new computers are not really designed for personal use because
they are the business desktop line, so there might not be a great demand for
them and they might not be as appropriate for the consumer as other HP
models.
Lee
reported that we will build a new base image for this hardware platform. Information Technology has returned the
evaluation box already. This unit has
one DVD burner and one DVD Driver. The
reason we have two is because we are taking a standard unit that Hewlett Packard
builds for lots of people and consequently we get the 2nd Drive basically
free. Hewlett Packard is able to provide
better pricing on their most popular items.
SURVEY
RESULTS
Lee
reported that when Phase 2 desktop replacements were being completed, after the
hardware was distributed, a survey was distributed to gather information. She created a survey entitled, “Installation
of your new Computer.”
Lee
reviewed the survey and the results with the committee. Lee reported that the survey, while anonymous,
did not make it possible to assist people with specific computer issues that
were reported. Some of the concerns
expressed through the survey included:
dislike of the new keyboard & mouse, lack of knowledge of use of
DVD’s and the DVD drive, and ergonomic concerns.
Over
all, Lee said she is very pleased with the survey results, and asked for input
from the committee. Lee explained that
we have results other than what is shown in this one page, which she showed on
the screen, but only the aggregate results are available for everyone to see,
and not the actual details.
TECHNOLOGY
MASTER PLAN
Lee
announced that we as a committee are being asked to work on an Information
Technology Master Plan. Basically, we
would be responsible to decide what should go into the Master Plan. We can start the outline of the plan as one
large group, and then we could apportion sections out to smaller groups if we
want to. Moreover, she suggested the
plan would include both instructional and administrative computing areas.
There
were several comments made to suggest looking into gathering samples from other
institutions.
She
said she has looked at many IT master plans through the years -- some small, and
some humungous. Nonetheless, many
institutions don’t have a technology plan that they make available via the web. Her conclusion is that we do not have what she would consider a
satisfactory technology master plan. We
have a strategic plan, but an overall technology master plan has never existed
for Cerritos College.
Bernie
Negrete asked what the purpose of a Master Plan should be, what the Mission
Statement would include, who the clients are, who it will serve, and what is
the goal we are trying to achieve? He
also commented that there is not a typical master plan because there are so many
different areas and individuals serving those areas.
Acknowledging
Deb Moore’s concern about a possible conflict with unit plans, Lee said because
Patrick will be creating 4 unit plans for the Information Technology Department,
we should be able to integrate some of that information into a master
plan. She recommended starting from that
point.
She
also related that a lot of IT people from other institutions are not willing to
share much on master plans because of security issues, since that does create some
risk. The thing she has seen in such cases is the plan focuses on specific
details for example, a poor infrastructure, and the plan is used for purposes of
getting funding. She does not see this master plan as trying to achieve this
goal.
Additional
questions and comments and opinions concerning this issue included:
McGinnis: asked if this should be something that will
address monetary issues? Lee responded that
unit plans are a good tool as a means to provide that.
Negrete: We need to determine what the perspective of
this document is to be. It should be one
that addresses how the institute is going to make provision to meet the needs of
the campus by Information Technology. It
is a matter of the perspective from the top or the various areas at the
institution.
McGinnis: Could we look at all the applications that
are out there and then decide from a technology standpoint what is needed to
support that? John McGinnis replied that
he believed we need to begin by looking at the applications being supported and
go from there. Lee believed that we
should begin by looking from the bottom-up.
She believed that we should start at the fiber infrastructure and move
upward, leaving the applications for last.
Dean
Mellas: Dean suggested that the way to
address this is to identify the application, the service areas, their needs for
support, and the people who can take responsibility for those areas and who understand
the application for each, and then collect that together and then look into
growth and expansion resulting from that.
Lee responded that from an IT and a master plan standpoint, the
applications don’t matter in the implementation of the technology, and it seems
irrelevant if that application is for Business or for the Language Lab, or
whatever.
Dean
Mellas: The issue is that certain applications
are important in each area, and because of their choice, those details should
be part of the Master Plan.
Overall,
this topic will require a lot more dialog.
NEXT MEETING
Lee
said she will be responding by email if she receives any new guidelines from
the Coordinating Committee or Jo Ann.
AGENDA ITEMS
HELD OVER FOR NEXT MONTH
Update
on various codex media types not working – Bernice and Patrick.
The
meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
Submitted
By:
ADDENDUM -- A
QUESTIONS RAISED
AND DISCUSSED – 11/09/07
At
the IT Standards Committee meeting today, I did not have answers to the
following. Below is my follow-up:
For
those that were not in attendance today: the committee came to the
decision that I would complete our IT Unit Plans and using this information
begin building an IT Technology Master Plan since many IT topics will be
addressed in the Unit Plans. Then, we will review the Accreditation
Report, and pull some appropriate information from that venue. After that,
we will continue filling in any blank areas as necessary. FYI - I will
provide Technology Master Plans from other schools to use as examples when the
appropriate time comes. I have copies of Cabrillo, Palomar, and Mira Costa.
Addendum
Submitted By: