The context for this discussion is a just-released report [see insert in today's Dateline] that recommends how to complete and maintain UC Davis' network infrastructure, considered the least developed and needing to cover the largest acreage of all nine UC campuses.
Meeting the information technology needs of a major research university "is an expensive proposition," Grey said this week. "It will mean some reallocation of funding--and I understand how difficult that is--but we really have little choice. We've reserved some funding to help the schools and colleges, and we will continue to pursue every means available to us to acquire additional funds."
Over the past two years, much has happened to raise the collective consciousness about the importance of this type of communication, Grey explained to the Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors last week.
At the beginning of that period, Grey said, many wondered whether UC Davis was doing more than is needed to upgrade the computer connections.
"Now the conversation has shifted to 'Why are we not doing more and sooner?'" Grey said.
When it is completed in mid-1997, Network 21, originally a $26.8 million plan later reduced in scope to $23 million, will have connected some 290 buildings (including 80 buildings independently funded by units such as Housing). The infrastructure project is being financed through chancellor's discretionary funds, the vast majority of which is paying off a 10-year bond, according to Richard Meisinger, associate vice chancellor for planning and budget.
Even before Network 21 is completed in the summer of 1997, the campus must have a plan to connect those buildings and employees not included in the original project and to upgrade the remaining building wiring to meet anticipated future demand.
Two paths are proposed by the committee. The first, a $9.25 million capital project financed through state bond money, is questionable given the competition for limited state funds, according to the Network 21 commitee. The second suggests a phased-in program of several years, using as funding a reallocation of existing campus resources.
The plan also proposes strategies to pay for the operation and maintenance of the network. Included is a possible student technology fee that must be approved by the students, and a data communications fee calculated on the 10,000 faculty and staff members on campus. If the students approve an assessment fee, then the monthly faculty/staff communications fee would be $8 per person. If the student fee isn't approved, the faculty/staff fee is proposed at $12. The data communications fee would be paid at the level of the vice chancellor or dean.
According to Carole Barone, associate vice chancellor for information technology, the various UC campuses use combinations of funding mechanisms that include recharges per employee and campuswide assessments "off the top." And, similar to the UC Davis proposal that asks students to assess themselves for part of the cost, universities across the country are asking the students to pick up their share through fees and assessments.
At a recent national conference for education financial executives called "Technology and the Competitive Landscape of Higher Education," Janet Hamilton, vice chancellor for administration, heard from many campus leaders on the topic.
"Basically, our problems are similar and the solutions we are identifying are just as similar," Hamilton said. "I can't think of a campus in the country that isn't at some stage of addressing the need for better access to information technology and constructing the infrastructure to accomplish that access."
Hamilton also learned that "the dollar amounts we are discussing for UC Davis and for UC as a whole are small by comparison to many of the larger institutions and larger systems in the Midwest and the East."
Universities are struggling with how to handle informational technology for a very basic reason, explains Jerry Hallee, special assistant to the provost, a member of the committee.
Even as UC Davis moves toward giving information technology a place of its own in the budget, Grey has told campus leaders that UC Davis must still face the greater challenge of planning wisely for the future.
"I continually hear in national forums that it is difficult to predict the future of information technology and as a consequence there is a tendency to underestimate what you're really going to need and what it will cost," he said. "It's always too low. This is a fast-changing technology and we're likely to make mistakes; nevertheless it is important that we continue to plan as carefully as possible and move ahead."
With the release today of the committee's report, Grey said he is hoping "that everyone will pitch in and help us figure out how best to get this done. Without this kind of informational system, we won't be capable of fulfilling our responsibilities as a major university."
