Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 01:03:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1866836862.7317.1711674217991@ip-10-10-7-29.ec2.internal> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_7316_922098996.1711674217988" ------=_Part_7316_922098996.1711674217988 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
DRAFT Minutes
ITANA Conference Call<=
/strong>
October 2, 2008
*Attendees*
Jim Phelps, University of Wisconsin (chair)
Marina Arseniev, University of California -Irvine
David Bantz, University of Alaska
Tom Barton, University of Chicago
George Brett, Internet2
Michael Daley, University of Michigan
Michael Enstrom, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Mike Fary, University of Chicago
John Giltner, University of Colorado
Mike Halm, Penn State University
John Hammond, University of California-Santa Cruz
Piet Niederhausen, Georgetown University
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
Chris Phillips, University of Maryland-Baltimore
Mark Poepping, Carnegie Mellon University
David Walker, University of California-Davis
Ann West, Internet2
Dean Woodbeck, Internet2 (scribe)
*Agenda*
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Bash
3. Accept minutes of last call
4. Data Management Survey Results - Klara, Mike Fary
5. Meeting schedule for next year
6. Social Software
7. Next steps, next call
Future Agendas:
=E2=80=A2 Social Software - LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, et al
Items on the shelf:
1. Architecture Tool discussion (All)
2. Paul's piece on Standards for Arch Documents - standards for architec=
tural documentation (Paul H)
3. UC-Berkeley Roadmap document (Hebert)
*Action Items*
(Mike Fary) will ping the DASIG list and (Jim Phelps) will ping the ITANA =
and CIO lists to encourage more responses to the data management survey.
(Michael Enstrom) will share his working definition of business intellig= ence with the ITANA email list.
(Jim Phelps) will place business intelligence on the agenda for the next=
call.
(Jim Phelps) will draft some initial survey questions concerning Face2Face=
meetings. This will be done on the wiki.
(Other working group members) should read, revise and contribute.
(Jim Phelps) will explore ways to aggregate conversations from various s= ocial software sites (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn), with the goal of making the= m accessible from one location.
*Data Management Survey*
Mike Fary reported 56 responses so far on the data management survey, in= cluding about 20 from the EDUCAUSE DASIG constituent group list and 30 from= the CIO and ITANA email list mailings. The results track closely from each= group, with clustering in certain areas. Respondents tend to rate themselv= es low in data governance and high in database management.
The responses also indicate that, for future surveys, business intellige= nce should be a separate question from data warehousing.
Results are available at http://www.itana.org/wp= -content/DMS_Results/SurveySummary.html
(AI) (Mike Fary) will ping the DASIG list and (Jim Phelps) will ping the= ITANA and CIO lists to encourage more responses. The survey will remain op= en for another week, then Mike will compile results and create some graphs.=
Once the data has been compiled, there will be follow-up with institutio= ns that rate themselves high in certain areas to see about documenting best= practices. The Data Management Association (DAMA) also has some suggestion= s and best practices to map against.
Mike Fary will use the survey results as part of the DASIG constituent g= roup meeting at EDUCAUSE in October. Jim will also use the results for the = ITANA constituent group meeting at that same conference.
*Business Intelligence*
There was a discussion about the area of business intelligence, whether = there is a common definition for the term and the types of things universit= ies are doing. Are people interested in dashboards and real-time data or hi= storical reporting? The answer is, both.
(AI)(Michael Enstrom) reported that he has a working definition of busin= ess intelligence that he will share with the email list. He believes that a= good program needs to accommodate data warehousing and also unstructured d= ata, and that it should not be platform-specific.
Jon Giltner reported on implementing a business intelligence solution at= the University of Colorado. He is finding that, whether it is real-time or= historical data, the interpretation of the information is still subjective= and users need help with that. This adds a service layer - helping users u= nderstand and interpret data - on top of the technology layer.
(AI)(Jim Phelps) will place business intelligence on the agenda for the = next call.
*Meetings 2009*
There was a discussion about upcoming meetings, as well as the need for = Face2Face meetings in 2009.
There is a constituent group meeting at EDUCAUSE in October, which provi= des an outreach opportunity.
Tentative plans include a Face2Face in conjunction with the CSG meeting = in Boulder. ITANA would meet on January 6, 2009, and CSG meeting January 7-= 9.
The discussion centered on a cycle of three Face2Face opportunities per = year. The EDUCAUSE constituent group meeting is short and an outreach oppor= tunity. A full-day Face2Face in conjunction with another meeting (like CSG)= would provide the opportunity for a working session to do some business, d= evelop models, work on white papers, and otherwise develop deliverables. A = third meeting would provide an opportunity for a strategic planning session= . This could also be in conjunction with another meeting, perhaps the EDUCA= USE Enterprise Information and Technology Conference, which is scheduled fo= r May 6-7, 2009, in Indianapolis.
Several institutions reported on reduced resources for conferences and t= ravel. Pigging-backing on other meetings might help. There was also a sugge= stion to explore virtual meetings, using EDUCAUSE tools or other video and/= or audio solutions.
A survey was suggested to determine the level of interest in the three-m= eeting concept (i.e. EDUCAUSE outreach, working session and strategic plann= ing session). The survey would focus first on whether there is support for = this programmatic proposal, but there should also be some discussion of log= istics. This comes at a time when EDUCUASE, Internet2 and CSG are all re-ev= aluating their meetings, in terms of purpose and frequency.
Ann West mentioned that Internet2 would be willing to host a meeting onc= e a year with a modest registration fee, depending on the logistics (such a= s meeting location and whether meals are involved).
(AI) (Jim Phelps) will draft some initial survey questions on the wiki. = (Other working group members) should read, revise and contribute.https= ://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/itana/Face2Face+2009+Survey
*Social Software*
Jim Phelps reported setting up ITANA groups in Facebook and LinkedIn. Th= ere are about 20 members on Facebook and 30 on LinkedIn. Working group memb= ers expressed a concern about fragmenting the group, with different discuss= ions occurring in different places. (AI)(Jim Phelps) will explore ways to a= ggregate such conversations, with the goal of making them all accessible fr= om one location.
*Next Call, Thursday, October 16, 2008, 2:00 p.m. EDT*<= /p>