- Provide a recommendation to the Information Resources Council for a strategic direction for electronically enabled communication to include but not be limited to, E- mail, calendaring, scheduling, electronic forms, and collaboration. Recommend action that will strategically position the university to achieve this long-term strategy.
- October 13, 1994 Commission meeting 12:00-2:00 p.m.
- October 21, 1994 Open Forum I & II 8:30-11:30 a.m.
- October 25, 1994 Commission meeting 12:00-2:00 p.m.
- November 3, 1994 Vendor Presentation 12:00-5:00 p.m.
- November 4, 1994 Commission meeting 1:00-3:00 p.m.
- November 10, 1994 Commission meeting 12:00-2:00 p.m.
- November 29, 1994 Commission meeting 8:30-10:00 a.m.
- November 29, 1994 Commission meeting 3:00-5:00 p.m.
- Directory Services via X.500 Compliant system
- Internet mail exchange via SMTP/ MIME
- Sending and/or receiving messages via the Internet
- Sending and/or receiving university forms electronically
- Having a database which can be customized for storage and retrieval of documents for reference purposes
- Working with electronic mail from a home or portable computer by either dialing in via telephone or using the Internet
- Sending and receiving fax messages electronically via computer
- Using electronic bulletin boards
- Sharing data of various types in an ad hoc work group
- Tracking requests for service electronically
- Managing projects electronically
- Performing an automated check of the availability of resources such as rooms and equipment and scheduling their use via computer
- Information on UNT s strategic direction for information resources, including UNT s Vision for the Role of Information Technology (Appendix I), the University s Strategic Plan, the IRC s Strategic Plan, and the current IRC Program Committee Strategies to achieve university information resources objectives.
- The Campus Wide Survey of user requirements, as well as feedback received at the Commission s Open Forums
- The minimum technical and functional requirements established by the Commission
- Responses to technical requirements and the questionnaire provided each vendor
- Materials provided by vendors
- Reference Check of Vendors -external user satisfaction, costs, and reliability (Appendix G)
- Systems reliability and demonstrated scalability
- The economics of system implementation, maintenance, and training.
- Related equipment costs, software costs, project staff support costs, and other costs including training costs and costs associated with necessary desktop equipment upgrades.
- Current user comfort, including perceived costs associated with migrating users and technical support personnel from one system to another.
- establish compatible E-mail systems across the campus
- expand internal building networks to all campus facilities, and
- upgrade the communication network backbone.
- Implement a flexible, powerful, and expandable electronic communication solution that takes advantage of the fiber backbone that is already in place
- Use client-server solutions to distribute computing resources effectively.
- Include forms processing to increase the productivity of existing staff in a climate of shrinking budgets
- Include electronic conferencing and messaging to streamline and improve administrative interaction.
- equipment and services should be increasingly centralized within the university for the purposes of coordination, efficiency, and services. However, the commission also recognizes the need for continuing distributed support services, and the ability for departments to decide on specialized equipment and software needs should not be infringed.
- workstations for both faculty and staff need to be addressed centrally, on a university- wide basis, and
- necessary equipment upgrades will need to be followed by additional support for their implementation
- the management structure for computing and computer service should be defined from a central base. Models should be explored at other universities which have proven effectiveness.
- That this product be centrally administered and supported, and that a technical staff person undergo intensive training in installation, service and maintenance for the Novell Product GroupWise. This person would thus have a firm idea of its scalability and reliability, as well as an understanding of how to implement the system effectively.
- That the Computing Center work directly with Novell to determine the most effective system architecture and server configuration.
- That Novell GroupWise be implemented on a test basis during the Spring 1995 semester; that a report be made to the Council by May 1 concerning its reliability, scalability, and efficaciousness. After receiving complete GroupWise administrator training, should the Campus E-mail Analyst provide technical justification indicating that the product is not scalable to the needs of this University, then the test should be considered to have failed and the second part of the Commissions' recommendation be activated (i.e. going to the Lotus products) without waiting for the May 1 deadline.
- That the campus-wide implementation be scheduled for completion September 1, 1995. If GroupWise fails on a pilot basis, cc:Mail be implemented instead.
- The costs of upgrading workstations to accommodate electronic communication, library and administrative applications be made explicit to the Council and the university administration as part of this general recommendation.
- That an overall Information Resources strategy be adopted by the university central administration.
University of North Texas Information Resources Council Electronically Enabled Communications Commission
Final Report
December 6, 1994
Introduction
Upon the presentation of the final report of the E-mail Task
Force on September 22, 1994, the Council undertook a mandate to form a
broadly based committee consisting of representative faculty, staff
and administration from throughout the university. Potential
membership was discussed and time table, direction and charge of what
has become a Commission were set at the IRC Strategic Planning
Committee on September 27. It was clear that electronic messaging, a
concept broader than E-mail, was a critical university- wide
consideration, and that a seamless, if not a single, communication
system needs to be recommended by the Council. The Electronic
Communication Commission was charged to:
Initial deadline dates included the production of a final report on
November 15, 1994, with a recommendation being made by the IRC on
December 13, 1994, and a recommendation to the Vice Presidents on
December 15th of this year. An interim report was provided on December
15 in place of the final report, as important matters such as checking
vendor references, conducting an equipment inventory, and determining
related software, hardware, and staff costs need to be made. This is
the final report provided to the Council. This document is provided
for discussion at a special meeting of the Council on December 6. The
Council will be asked to vote on a recommendation at its meeting on
December 13, as scheduled. [The document was presented and approved at
that meeting Ed.]
Commission Membership
The Commission consisted of an Executive Committee of three
non-voting members and ten voting members, who are broadly
representative of faculty, staff and administrators throughout campus.
The executive committee consists of:
Raymond F. von Dran Dean, School of Library & Information
Sciences and IRC Chair Cengiz Capan Director, College of Business
Computer Center Bill Buntain Director, Network & Micro-computer
Support Services
Commission members include:
Jim Conover Asst. Professor, Business Administration College of
Business Kathryn Cullivan Assistant Dean for Fiscal Affairs
College of Arts & Sciences Paul Dworak Assoc. Professor, College of
Music Larry Hoke Director, Purchasing Leah Knack Registrar
Assistant Tom Irons Assoc. Professor, School of Community Service
Patricia Moseley Professor, Elem., Early Childhood and Reading,
College of Education Pixey Mosley Information Technology Librarian
Library Connie Newton Asst. Professor, School of Visual Arts John
Todd Assoc. Professor, Political Science College of Arts &
Sciences/Faculty Senate
Commission Activities
The Commission held the following meetings, forums, and
presentations since its inaugural meeting of October 6:
User Survey:
The IRC Strategic Planning Committee, on September 27th, reaffirmed
the Council s original recommendation of July 20, 1994 that a user
survey be undertaken. Bill Buntain, of the Computing Center, with the
assistance of Cengiz Capan and others, developed a survey instrument
which was reviewed by all Commission members (see Appendix A). The
survey was administered to 3,343 university faculty, staff and
administrators. The Commission received 649, consisting of 238 faculty
responses and 411 staff responses. This response rate of nearly 20% is
considered satisfactory for this type of mail survey. Respondents were
surveyed in terms of the desirability of various types of applications
and features of electronically-enabled communication systems. These
responses (see Appendix B) were tabulated and applications and features
ranked by faculty, staff and totals. Commission members feel that
opinions solicited on the applications generally validate preferences
on the parts of those surveyed. Later, public forums indicated that
some of the impressions regarding features may have been misunderstood
by those surveyed as a result of their own lack of experience in the use
of electronic communications functions.
Campus Open Forums:
The Commission held two open forums on Friday, October 21, 1994,
and publicized this event campus-wide both All appendices are found in
the complete report. To view this report, contact IRC Chair Dr.
Raymond von Dran in the School of Library & Information Sciences.
through flyers (see Appendix C) and E-mail. The open forum consisted of
presentations on issues surrounding electronic messaging and
discussion, feedback, and clarification of issues concerning
messaging, applications and functions. Most Commission members were
available for question and answer by attendees. Over 60 campus faculty
and staff attended the forum (see Appendix D - presentation
overheads).
Vendor Capability Questionnaire:
Both technical considerations and feedback from the campus
community assisted the Commission in the formulation of questions which
would be asked of prospective or potential vendors of proprietary
electronic communications systems. The Commission decided to solicit
responses from three vendors which provide large system operations.
These included Lotus, Microsoft, and WordPerfect/Novell. Questions
were reviewed by Commission members and sent to vendors asking for
their written response and scheduling them for formal, public
presentations on November 3, 1994 (see Appendix E -Questions).
Vendor Presentation:
Each vendor was asked to speak to their messaging strategy and
long-term strategic plans in 1-1/2 hour presentations held at the
University Union between 12:30 and 5:00 p.m. Vendors were instructed
not to provide demonstration of features, as those features are
available for observation and on file on the university campus. Each
vendor responded in writing, although only one met the designated
deadline. The final vendor response was received on Wednesday, Nov. 9,
the day before the Commission was to meet and recommend a system
(November 10). Vendors provided answers to questions, including list
of references, and a portfolio of material on applications, functions,
and technical matters relating to systems architecture. The three
vendors responses can be found in Appendix F.
Based upon criteria expressed by faculty and staff in the campus
-wide survey, and that agreed to by the Commission members and both
central and college-based technical staff, the following technical and
functional requirements were considered to be the minimum for
consideration as a communication system:
Factors Considered by the Commission in Making Recommendations
The Commission considered the following factors in making its
recommendation to the IRC and the university as a whole:
Recommendations
Strategic Direction
In the Fall 1993 semester, a special committee was commissioned by
the Information Resources Council to develop a vision for the role of
information technology at the University of North Texas. This IRC
Vision committee included in its vision a major focus on
communication. The vision stated that technology tools need to be used
to 1) provide all of UNT s community with a seamless exchange of
information worldwide; 2) enable data-based planning and well-informed
participative decision-making; and 3) facilitate university-wide
cooperation and coordination by networking complex resources. This
vision preceded the university s strategic vision and strategic plan.
Within the University of North Texas Strategic Plan, specific goals
and objectives speak to the need for seamless, electronically-enabled
communication. UNT s Goal #7, to nurture a spirit of community and
unity throughout the university, has as an objective 7.2, to
enhance communication within and across the university. This goal and
objective have been supported by information resource strategies of the
Council to
UNT s Goal #6, to provide high quality academic, financial,
administrative and university services in support of the university s
mission was followed by UNT objective 6.4, to develop more efficient
and productive use of physical, financial, informational, and human
resources to improve services. Specific information resource
strategies to facilitate the reaching of this goal and objective include
the establishment of an infrastructure to support electronic forms
approval processes. UNT s Goal #3, to promote the university s
commitment to scholarly activity by insuring a climate where basic and
applied research and creative activities flourish resulted in Objective
3.1, to improve facilities and equipment for research/creative
activity, rehearsal, performance, and exhibition to enhance the
university s competitiveness with other quality programs. An
information resource strategy to facilitate this objective is to
optimize UNT network server organization. And lastly, UNT Goal #1,
to help students realize their personal and career goals, and to be
competitive in the workforce of the future through innovative,
broadly-based undergraduate programs , was reflected in Objective 1.5.
to improve, enhance, and increase equipment, facilities, and
information resources required for quality academic programs and
resulted in an information resource strategy to upgrade the
communications network backbone.
Both the information resource vision and the UNT Strategic Plan,
coupled with the opinions of UNT faculty and staff, as mirrored in the
Information Resource Survey taken by the Commission, indicate need and
support for an information resource strategy which encompasses a
variety of functionalities and applications. Thus, the Commission
recommends the following as part of a strategic direction for the
University in this area:
The Commission also recommends as a strategic direction that:
Recommended Action
The consideration of the commission was thoughtful, with members
willing in many cases to suspend the preferences which they had before
they entered the deliberation process. Certain real reservations were
raised about the reliability and scalability of Novell GroupWise.
However, there were also real concerns raised regarding the comfort
and ease, of moving a large number of campus users from a product (Word
Perfect) to which they have become familiar to the less familiar Lotus
product. There would also be training costs as a result of such
migration. It was decided that whatever the clear best choice would
be, the Commission would recommend that choice. However, by the end of
the deliberations of the Commission, it was believed that both products
cc:Mail and GroupWise had concomitant trade-offs. In the opinion of
the Commission, both systems were essentially similar, and each
provided some special functionality not provided by the other. The
reference checks for GroupWise led the Commission to believe that it
was more reliable and stable than had been believed, and that
reliability problems may have been solved with its new version 4.1.
Moreover, economic issues, such as upgrades of desktop workstations,
were not significant factors to consider, since upgrades would soon be
necessary regardless of the messaging product chosen, as a result of
the natural obsolescence of equipment.
Since no compelling advantages were demonstrated on the part of
either system, and since there was greater familiarity, comfort, and
perhaps lower training costs associated with the Novell product,
GroupWise is recommended by the Commission for implementation as the
centrally supported and administered electronic communication package.
However, this recommendation is made with specific caveats:
Next Article
If you have problems or questions about this server, please contact me as soon as possible. You can send mail to the following address:
WWW@unt.edu