Overview of the State of Information Technology on MUS Campuses Mark Sheehan, CIO – MSU-Bozeman (for MSU) Ray Ford, CIO – UM-Missoula (for UM) November 2004

STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT THE GENERAL QUESTIONS 1.How are MUS campuses doing with their IT infrastructure? 2.How do MUS IT efforts compare to national benchmarks? 3.Are students on our campuses getting what they need? 4.What challenges do campuses face with regard to IT? OUR APPROACH Provide high level overview now Ask in which areas the Board would like more details

WHAT ARE WE DOING? STRUCTURE OF IT ON CAMUSES 1.CENTRAL RESOURCES AND SERVICES Networks (voice, data, video) Enterprise Information System (EIS) Banner and ancillary systems Web environment Course management system (WebCT, Blackboard) Library system Help Desk Hardware sales and maintenance (IT Center or Bookstore) Student computer labs (part) Support for student PC ownership

WHAT ARE WE DOING? STRUCTURE OF IT ON CAMUSES (contd) 2.DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES AND SERVICES Student computer labs (part) Local PC and application support Local Web servers Instructional computing resources and personnel Research computing resources and personnel

PRIMARY EIS BANNER AND RELATED SYSTEMS ALL CAMPUSES Have central Banner environments – in Missoula and Bozeman Are developing secondary backup/disaster recovery sites as budget permits Are on a regular Banner upgrade cycle, remaining current with manufacturers releases Have software license maintenance costs and hardware replacement costs centrally budgeted Are utilizing Banner/Web services to offer more efficient services to employees and students Are developing campus portals to further improve services

OTHER EIS WEB ENVIRONMENT ALL CAMPUSES Are utilizing specialized course management systems to provide instructional materials over the Web (more about this later) Are evaluating Web content management systems to make the task of developing and updating content more efficient Are beginning to look hard at how Web-based facilities can be used to streamline business practices

OTHER EIS AND LIBRARY SYSTEMS SYSTEMS All campuses utilize to streamline business practices But are struggling with the ever-increasing volume of incoming spam and viruses LIBRARY SYSTEMS UM and MSU use different but highly interoperable systems But struggle to meet the demand for costly on-line content

OTHER EIS COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ALL CAMPUSES Use course management systems (CMSs) at some level Are working to expand use of CMSs Hope to integrate their CMSs with Banner, Banners Web facilities, and their emerging campus portals to improve seamlessness of: Advising Class schedule Classroom Grade book Transcript

ALL EIS ASSESSMENT How are we doing? (1) Banner and library systems are mature and stable PeopleSoft and Oracle alternatives in use elsewhere are less so Universities have implemented many Web services for students and employees Portals will multiply the available Web services when rolled out (summer and fall 2005)

ALL EIS ASSESSMENT How are we doing? (2) General Web services are based on stable platforms Universities have mutual emergency assistance agreements Web pages are not now centrally branded and managed Both universities have projects to expand use of standard style, branding, and templates Both universities are evaluating content management systems

ALL EIS ASSESSMENT How are we doing? (3) systems at all campuses are migrating toward Web- based systems Available anytime, anywhere Soon all will be integrated with university portals Library systems are mature and effective Based on industry standards Highly interoperable Portal integration is planned

ALL EIS COMPARISON (1) Primary EIS and Portal 65% of doctoral-level universities either have or are implementing integrated primary EIS systems like Banner 58% of doctoral-level universities either have or are implementing a Web portal; another 30% are planning them EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey, 2003

ALL EIS COMPARISON (2) Course Management System 65% of doctoral-level universities support a single commercial course management system 13% of doctoral-level universities support more than one commercial course management system At 12% of doctoral-level universities faculty use course management systems for all courses EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey, 2003

ALL EIS COMPARISON (3) Use of courseware management systems University of Montana–Missoula –56% of students have CMS accounts –15% of sections use CMS Montana State University-Bozeman –47% of students have CMS accounts –8% of sections use CMS

STUDENT COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT MUS Owned Facilities (1) Student ownership of computers is not mandatory for all students at any MUS campus Certain programs do require computer ownership (e.g., MSU Architecture & UM Law) All campuses offer central student computing labs Degree of centralization varies Some central labs Some departmental or program-specific labs

STUDENT COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT MUS Owned Facilities (2) All campuses are moving toward: Regular hardware refresh (3-4 year cycle) With the help of student computer fee revenues Centrally supported software purchases and/or campus agreements (e.g., Microsoft Windows and Office, MacOS, Symantec/Norton anti-virus) Mandatory administration/security standards for installation of security patches, anti-virus updates, etc.

STUDENT COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT FTE students per public computer (est.) UM-Missoula 5.5 MSU-Bozeman 13.0 All Public Universities12.4 * * 2003 Campus Computing Survey

NETWORKING LEVELS OF NETWORKING Network types: Campus Between offices; between buildings Intercampus Between campuses; between campuses and state agencies Wide Area Between campuses and the Internet and Internet2

NETWORKING CAMPUS NETWORKING Components and issues (1): Building wiring Requires replacement on 10-year cycle Current standard is Category 6; most buildings have Category 5/5e Major overhaul will be required in 3-5 years Campus backbone Most campuses have fiber optic backbone Good for another years Most campus backbones operate at one gigabit per second Faster than most current PCs can transmit or receive May prove inadequate for emerging research needs

NETWORKING CAMPUS NETWORKING Components and issues (2): Wireless networks Offer generally slower speeds than wired networks Do not support some popular applications will, e.g., audio file sharing Offer greatly enhanced convenience PCs PDAs Very popular among students Turns public areas into labs Enables classroom innovation Has student recruitment and retention value

NETWORKING INTERCAMPUS NETWORKING Summitnet Partnership between UM, MSU, and the State IT Services Division Has been useful for: Linking smaller campuses to larger ones Linking all campuses to state government agencies and OCHE Providing transport for METNET video teleconferencing services

NETWORKING WIDE AREA NETWORKING (1) Internet: Connects campuses to other universities, government agencies, organizations, and commercial enterprises Primary conduit for and Web traffic Supplements Summitnet for intercampus communication Demand from students and employees doubles every year or two

NETWORKING WIDE AREA NETWORKING (2) Internet2: A separate, uncongested, high-speed research-focused network MSU-Bozeman, UM-Missoula, and UM-Montana Tech are participants Requires expensive high-speed circuit Takes some load off of commodity Internet circuits Research community demand for I2 is increasing much more rapidly than campus demand for Internet

NETWORKING WIDE AREA NETWORKING (3) Future networks: MSU-Bozeman has a grant to increase research network bandwidth this year to 2.4 gigabits per second (a 50-fold increase). UM-Missoula has taken a leadership position in the Northern Tier Networking Consortium which seeks to bring similar research network speeds to the I-90/I-94 corridor from Washington to Minnesota. MSU and the state IT Services Division are also a members of NTNC

NETWORKING ASSESSMENT Campus networking: The campuses are keeping pace with technology Intercampus networking: Summitnet can continue to serve the universities for 3-5 more years – longer if NTNC becomes reality Wide Area Networking MSU-Bozeman and UM-Missoula are leaders in our part of the country.

NETWORKING COMPARISON (1) Commodity Internet bandwidth MSU-Bozeman and UM-Missoula provide megabits per second (mbps) Only 17% of doctoral universities provide 44 mbps or less 60% of doctoral universities provide 90 mbps or more 2003 EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey

NETWORKING COMPARISON (2) Internet2 bandwidth MSU-Bozeman and UM-Missoula provide 45 megabits per second (mbps) Only 19% of doctoral universities provide 44 mbps or less 63% of doctoral universities provide 90 mbps or more 2003 EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey

FUNDING REVENUE SOURCES All campuses fund IT from a variety of sources: Regular funds (tuition and state money) Specific fees (Student Computer Fee, Technology Fee, Instructional Equipment Fee) Charge-backs for some services Campuses with large research programs may have additional large but restricted funding for IT

FUNDING BUDGETS All campuses: Are constrained in the new initiatives they can take on Face challenges in having to continually support new technologies Are managing to stay more or less even, helped by cost decreases in some areas Are seeking stability and efficiencies

FUNDING FOR IT IT expenditures as a percent of total institutional expenditures: UM-Missoula 2.60% MSU-Bozeman 2.25% Public Universities Avg. 4.8% * * 2003 Campus Computing Survey

CAMPUS HIGHLIGHTS University of Montana Missoula – Implementing CampusEAI Oracle portal; Missoula first, then other campuses – Working to join Lariat regional optical network Montana Tech –Development of wireless network –Development of an Access Grid Node Western –Installation of wireless laboratory –Completion of Gigabit campus network backbone Helena College of Technology –Working with ITSD on sharing network infrastructure

CAMPUS HIGHLIGHTS Montana State University Billings – Implemented Voice-Over-IP for telephone & unified messaging – Academic Technology Development Resource – 60 computers Bozeman – Implementing Luminis Portal with and for all four campuses – Bringing up 2.4 Gbps Lariat regional optical network Great Falls – Developing a campuswide wireless network – Building grant-supported Consolidated Classroom Northern – Purchased 4 TB network-attached storage for shared disk space – Enabled secure wireless access in Library and Student Union