Please note: This material is no longer current and appears online for archival purposes only. Use the search and navigation tools above to locate more up-to-date materials, if they exist.

Information Technology (IT) Advisory Board Agendas/Highlights

10/2/2000

I. Welcome, Introductions, and Board Charge

II. Background

- Fall 1999 Distributed/Distance Learning Committee

- Last year's IT Advisory Board and June planning retreat

- Spring 2000 Intellectual Property Task Force

- Agenda for Excellence Phase II and Trustree Retreat in November

III. Expectations

Frame the issues Penn is facing that need to be resolved, and provide guidelines and recommendations to the Provost

Goal for 10/2 meeting: identify issues; decide on a framework for defining an overarching strategy for cross-school initiatives.

- distributed learning objectives, IT role, funding requirements and potential sources

-- what are our objectives for IT in education and what will it take to meet them?

-- how will IT enable/facilitate academic strategy?

-- how can we best determine what constitutes "sufficient investment?"

-- what are the potential funding sources?

-- how can potential funding sources see Penn as committed in this area?

- other implications that need to be addressed institutionally

-- infrastructure support

-- educational policies

-- faculty support

-- teaching release

-- tenure issues

- what should be the metric for success?

-- excellence in teaching and/or research

-- leadership

-- reputation

-- (revenue stream?)

-- some combination thereof?

HIGHLIGHTS

General themes from introductions and overview of environments:

- with a few exceptions (Nursing, Wharton Direct, PennAdvance), little "distance" learning activity

- most distributed learning work to date is internal, experimental, with little reliance on central

- Blackboard use crosses multiple schools; need to address support for scaling beyond pilot

- increasing experimentation around digitizing audio and video

- some schools have or are creating in-school facilitation units

- many looking at how to further 24x7 access (e.g., on-line knowledge base)

Early recommendations:

-the last DL committee effort was too broad; need a much narrower scope this time around, focusing on reasonable adjuncts to what Penn already does well

- longer term, we need to look at whether there is a better "Web way" of learning -- not simply converting existing models to Web delivery

*Question for the Provost: Does Penn want to be a discoverer or early adopter here?

- determine what's a reasonable cost for on-campus course >(~$1500/finished minute says Gerry McCartney) but keep in mind this is related to level of quality, which the University must decide

- need to address faculty release time and other incentives

*Question for Provost: possible Provost pool to provide additional TA support?

- need to address tenure issues to engage innovative young faculty

- need real assessment data to determine whether IT improves learning; who coordinates? perhaps Bob Zemsky's group?

- need to address where investment in supporting infrastructure will come: reallocation of existing money or new investments (e.g., foundations, net-savvy entrepreneurs)?

Other things the Board would like for Penn:

- some level of coordination and a way to exchange information, observations and learnings from projects and experiments across schools

- campus-wide authentication structure for access to library databases and other campus resources

- remove obstacles to cooperation; have some mechanism for rewarding collaboration where one school helps out another

Suggested next steps:

- continue experiments for incremental innovations (e.g., using standard tools such as Blackboard and WebCafe that don't place heavy demands on faculty), in a more formal fashion with requisite funding

- following the Wharton model of the business plan competition, create an analog for distributed learning initiatives

- hold a peer forum (e.g. poster session) once or twice a year as a way for faculty to showcase what they're doing and introduce other faculty to new tools and ideas

11/2/2000

I. Welcome and brief recap of last meeting re: Board recommendations

II. Provost Barchi response to recommendations; expectations for Board

III. Discussion

A. question and answer for clarification

B. what additional advice does Provost want from Board for Trustee retreat?

C. plans to re-address Board's role in response to Trustee input

IV. Next steps: what does it take for a successful initiative?

A. School participants will share 1 or at most 2 initiatives that exemplify what it takes to mount a successful program and what challenges we continue to face in doing so.

- development/financial plans (constraints, compromises)

- role of the Center

- how might the Center play a more productive role?

B. discuss other collaborative opportunities with high educational value

- e.g., meaningful academic collaboration between Schools (such as New Tools initiative and Blackboard) and across peer institutions

- what are the goals? what are the obstacles?

- what is a good investment strategy?

V. Discuss plans for December meeting

A. report back from Trustee retreat and impact on Board's role

B. move toward a means of refining and implementing IT strategy in support of academic mission

HIGHLIGHTS

Provost Barchi response to earlier recommendations, and expectations for Board:

Bob communicated his appreciation to the Board for its work to date - the report from the last meeting was helpful and illuminating. Most points he can get behind and support, but he needs us to go a level deeper.

Bob is comfortable with the IT Roundtable addressing strategies for infrastructure and technology planning. Bob wants his IT Advisory Board to be a "go to" group, a body with a long-term commitment, not simply a 6-month working group - an ongoing relationship with continuity. He is looking for a formal group with credibility in this area that can be his Provost Advisory group - more broadly, the University group with expertise, commitment, vision, wisdom, and institutional memory to advise and recommend "go/no go" decisions (similar to the President's Council on Science and Technology to help develop guidelines and policy). Bob doesn't want separate committees around related issues - he thinks this is the group that can get beyond the comfortable inward focus and expand beyond this.

Bob's goal for the Advisory Board is to provide the vision to tunnel through the "energy barrier and jump to the next level, rather than simply following the wagon train over the top." He believes Penn can't afford to do this. A strategic goal is to present Penn as a "go to" place for large-scale agreements. We need a compelling strategy statement. Don't be exclusive - have integrated strategic plan across the academic spectrum. Worry less about where the money will come from vs. what it will cost.

The following are specific needs that Bob communicated:

*Advice on the "technology of pedagogy" in the broadest sense - not just how we teach on campus but where we go over the next 10 years with our mission nationally and world wide. Need more than an intranet.

*A body that can act as a vetting group to evaluate opportunities, explore opportunity costs, and advise on next steps. Develop University-wide strategies and processes for moving Penn forward. As we move forward on larger University efforts, needs a group to help hammer out the details (the "how" after the "if.")

*Group to help coordinate School-wide activities, not just here on campus but globally. Look at how to get faculty to buy in. Also look at how to measure and how to share successes. He likes the idea of an annual showcase of faculty innovation, as a way to share and as a way to help foster collaboration.

*A model for stimulating local innovation - look at what we can do to make campus efforts work and provide advice to Bob so he can take action. Projects and pilots may come back to the Board to own/oversee. Also advice on developing some central mechanism for support (perhaps support for a common platform).

*Investigate how we can support the cost of innovation. Likes the idea of a proposal competition. Would be in favor of a pool of money to support innovative pedagogical experiments using IT. Then look at ways to scale more broadly if successful. Help the Provost's office provide top-down strategy for local investments and larger-scale deployment. Also need a plan for supporting mainstream, not just innovative experiments.

*An "early warning system" - antennae out so he can be advised of trends and potential impact.

Strategy from the Provost Office re: Trustees:

Sr. administration has been under pressure from Trustees to do something. Bob needs to make them understand that doing nothing is doing something - it is a strategy, not a missed opportunity. Penn will continue to evaluate things as they emerge and continue to explore options for partnering or institutional alliances. His office has said no to all but one potential partner so far. There will be no single exclusive agreement. His concern is that nobody has DL right yet - most efforts currently in the spotlight are not pedagogically sound. There are no windfall profits, and there is real potential for losing faculty commitment and money and for damaging Penn's reputation.

At the same time Bob will emphasize the desire to stimulate innovation in the Schools and to explore ways the Provost's office can help. He expects Penn to continue at the School level with as many vertical plays as possible - playing as a way to learn.

Bob is also looking at global opportunities to evaluate. One parameter: does this provide a platform to experiment at low cost and low risk, and if it does fail it won't take us down. He is pursuing some opportunities here re: peer-to-peer alliances. These will be driven by academic goals rather than by DL technology - IT is simply the enabler. Globalization for Penn does not mean setting up satellite campuses, but Penn needs to be seen as a leader in globalization of learning - not for the masses but targeting the top tier.

Bob will look to IT Advisory Board and IT Roundtable for data to back up the view of the wise heads re: DL at Penn, in a way that Trustees will understand. This is particularly important on the issues of volume business vs. brand. Penn shouldn't be in the volume business. How important is distributed/distance learning in our peer group? How much competitive advantage would it provide? How important are central platforms? How important is the perception of control? Is a central facilitation unit critical for Penn to succeed or is a strict RCM approach better in our environment? Is there benefit in Penn demonstrating a commitment to central facilitation - at least to help bootstrap initiatives? What will it take to build this (staff, dollars, support, production facilities)?

IT Advisory Board follow up discussion and recommendations:

*provide opportunities for faculty to showcase their innovations and share their anecdotes and learnings

*coordinate a "teaching foundation" (learning fund) to support the creative use of IT in learning and to support partnering across Schools. Develop criteria and guidelines as a way to ensure feedback to the rest of the community.

*research possible funding sources (e.g., Craig Carnarolli's suggestion to speak with investment advisors and VC experts to get a better handle on this)

*advise on other ways to invigorate, encourage and support local innovation

*scour journal articles and peer activities to stay abreast and provide "early warning system" for Bob

*screen opportunities for partnerships/alliances and bring those we deem worthy to Bob

*serve as drivers of strategic vision for distributed and distance learning

Concerns:

*Some staff to Advisory Board will be needed to assist in these activities.

*Charge to the Board still seems too broad

*There is lingering concern about a "laundry list" approach to Advisory Board role.

Note to Joe: I left out the discussion re: Singapore, as that was confidential and information Bob shared was tentative until negotiations develop further over the next several months

12/7/2000

I. Welcome (Joe Farrell)

II. Overview of relevant highlights from Trustee Retreat (Peter Conn)

III. Review outcomes from last month's meeting with the Provost and discuss actionable items for Spring 2001 (address opportunities, incentives, anticipated obstacles, and how to push forward)

a. establishing and overseeing a venture fund (learning fund) with requisite criteria and a process for collaborating across Schools and sharing discoveries

- what form might this take?

- what is the role, if any, for Development?

b. serving as a "filter" for potential opportunities/partnerships/alliances for Penn

- includes keeping an eye on trends and opportunities

c. preparing a showcase to share innovations in teaching and learning among faculty; thinking about how to measure and share successes and lessons learned

- how best to attract faculty to showcase and to attend?

IV. Reality check: what else should the IT Advisory Board be?

HIGHLIGHTS

The Board reviewed and agreed upon the agenda for Spring, recognizing that the activities below are inter-related and mutually supportive. The Board also acknowledged the focus seems to be more on "1000 flowers blooming," and that there is still no central coordinating plan. The hope is that these activities will stimulate consideration of the benefits of such coordination.

1. establish a learning foundation (with criteria for participation and a process for collaboration)

2. serve as a filter for potential opportunities/partnerships/alliances (here and outside of Penn)

3. prepare a showcase to share innovations among faculty, deans, Provost (e.g., "Provost Forum on Innovations in Teaching and Learning")

Each of the above activities is expanded upon, with ideas from the Board's discussion, at the end of this summary.

Peter Conn shared (via the Provost) highlights and implications of the November Trustee retreat. After last Fall and Spring presentations, the Trustees have a much richer understanding of how Penn uses technology productively in research, instruction and administration. They acknowledge the important and world-class accomplishments at Penn.

Regarding Distance Learning, there's a sense that "if there's a homerun, no one has hit it yet," and it's unlikely anyone will. The Trustees are less intimidated by the catchy headlines regarding DL alliances. The direction appears to be to forge alliances based on academic drivers, Singapore being an exemplar of the intersection of globalization and IT.

Dean Hack added that IT was #4 on the Provost's list of what keeps him up at night. He sensed the Trustees acknowledge that we can be entrepreneurial but direction should be central to the core mission. They view IT as critical supporting infrastructure that will require investment.

Other important themes from the retreat:

- life sciences as a hot new topic

- faculty as most critical high-risk asset

Learning Foundation

Funding:

- look at making this a central fund with possible School matching funds

- explore opportunities with the Development Office to identify funding

Action Item:

- ISC will explore whether the Schools have such programs locally, and how they're managed

Filter for Opportunities

Guidelines:

- make sure they're academically driven with technology component

Action Items:

- scan Penn and know what people are doing that can draw potential partnerships

- look for opportunities to leverage with the competencies across Penn's Schools, the Library, and administrative areas

- explore how our peer institutions are doing this

- look for where we must invest - where our competition might jump ahead on things that are core to Penn's mission

Showcase

Format:

- target March/April timeframe

- use proposal process to select

- provide some support staff (e.g., to help write proposals, to assist with logistics, etc.)

Suggestions:

- identify 5-10 faculty with the best ideas (preferably not the "usual suspects")

- presenters should also address what it took to get started and the support available on campus

- ask Provost for staff support

- determine where ownership for this effort will reside (e.g., Provost, Library, ISC)

Anticipated Results:

- this will help the Board present powerful options to the Provost and Deans about how IT can enable and transform what we do well now

- this will also help us inform Trustees on an ongoing basis about Penn and what we're

Back to IT Advisory Home   

---

Please note: This material is no longer current and appears online for archival purposes only. Use the search and navigation tools above to locate more up-to-date materials, if they exist.