University of Minnesota

Institute of Technology

Minutes of ITICC Meeting

April 13, 2000

3:30 p.m., 133 Physics

Present: Bance (ADCS), Chase (ME), Du (CSE), Garrett (Math), Heitke (ADCS), Heller (Phys), Hudleston (IT Stud Aff), Kachelmyer (ADCS), Larson (ADCS), LeMay (ADCS), Li (ECE), MacDonald (CSE&ITlabs), MacEwan (Chem), Victoria (CCE, BIN)

1) Final Presentation by ITTech Committee of Proposal for Lab Improvements for 00-01

MacDonald presented the list of proposed lab improvements for 00-01. This list had earlier been sent to committee members in pdf format. It is essentially the same as the provisional list presented previously to the committee, now with the recommendation to replace the SGI Indys with a 50:50 mix of Sun Ultras and Dell Windows machines. The idea is to have this equipment installed by the start of fall semester. After testing to make sure there is software compatibility, the NT machines will be upgraded to Windows 2000. This should also occur by the fall. The total cost of this phase of improvements for 2000-2001 is $388,204. In addition, proposed software purchases total $17,943

Hudleston has also received a proposal from Computer Science & Engineering (MacDonald and Du) for modifications to the layout and entrance of EE/CS 4-204. The primary motivation for the changes was to divert lab traffic away from the current entrance, because of the disruption this causes for occupants of the rooms opposite. The proposal moves the entrance of the lab to the corridor on the south side, where there are external windows rather than offices. The proposed rearrangement within the lab will create 16 additional seats. This appears to be a win-win proposal - it adds seats to the lab and solves a noise problem for CSE. An additional part of the proposal is to modify EE/CS 4-240 (the small room at the south-west corner of the lab) to serve as a place where TAs can hold office hours. The total estimated cost of the changes is $24,000.

Hudleston said he would proceed to put the proposal to e-mail vote of the committee. He noted that the plan again next year is to make improvements in several stages, to enable the replacements to be done in manageable chunks without significant disruption of lab activity, and allowing advantage to be taken of potentially better deals for hardware during the year.

Other Business

2) Lab Use

Bance informed the committee that the labs currently are busy during much of the day, but that there is seldom more than one or two people waiting to get on a machine. This is a better situation than in the fall.

3) Physics 130

Hudleston told the committee that there had been discussions among staff in the dean's office (Steve Crouch and himself) and the Physics Department (Allen Goldman and Ken Heller) concerning utilization of lab space in the Physics building. The issue is how to accommodate an increased need for lab space in introductory physics courses. Phys 130 is ideal for this purpose. Such use of the room, however, would remove 34 computers (about 10%) from the IT Public Lab inventory. Hudleston said he wanted to be sure that alternative arrangements be made to accommodate the instructional computing currently being done in Phys 130, should the room be transformed into a physics lab. Phys 130 is well utilized during the semester, typically with about two-thirds of the machines in use during the middle part of the day most of the term. Much of this use, and probably most of it, has been by students taking quizzes for the introductory physics courses (Heller estimated that about 1500 students per semester use the lab, taking quizzes every other week). Currently Phys 130 is the only location where these quizzes can be taken. Physics is proceeding with plans to shift the quiz-taking to a web-based format, which will allow wide dispersal of test taking, and relieve the lab of a significant part of the demand for seats.

4) User Survey

In part to be able to assess the ramifications of the plans for Phys 130 and in part to address other issues of lab use, Hudleston said he would run a user survey, similar to that done a year or so ago.

5) Problems with Collection of the Computer Fee

Hudleston informed the committee that he has become increasingly concerned about possible significant loss of tuition revenue this year as a result of the switch to PeopleSoft, and associated reworking of the system for billing the fee. He had recently been informed that the billing associated with student registration for spring semester should essentially have been completed. Allowing that the fee for students who are 'charged at lab' is yet to be assessed, there is still a large gap between anticipated revenue and the funds so far credited to the account. Hudleston said he plans to review the situation and compare the list of those who have paid the fee with the list of those who should have been billed. He also said it would be prudent not to make any additional expenditures for FY 00 until the situation is clarified. This should not affect any of the budgeted plans approved so far for FY 00.

6) Departmental Reports and Plans

Hudleston had told the committee at the last meeting that he would issue a reminder about the deadline for getting in the reports of departmental use of ITICC funds and about plans for 00-01. He had not got around to this by the deadline of April 7. He emphasized that this was not a firm deadline - departments should realize that, as in the past, there will be no funds transferred for 00-01 until both the report of use for FY00 and plans for use in FY01 have been received.