CIT Committee for Online Document Management East Tennessee State University Final Report July 29, 2009

Transcription

1 CIT Committee for Online Document Management East Tennessee State University Final Report July 29, 2009 I. Introduction The Committee for Online Document Management was charged with the review of pathways to reduce duplication/printing costs through increased use of electronic documentation. The committee charge was general with flexibility in the approach and the deliverables generated for review by the Reversion Task Force, chaired by Dr. Wilsie Bishop. The recommendations below are presented in no particular order. II. III. Membership Janine Richardson Kim Blevins Sharon Campbell Daphne Henderson Hugh Miller Sarah Hill Mickey Morton Kathy Smith Karen Sullivan Karen King, Chair Issues and Considerations 1. During the CIT Committee meetings it quickly became evident that implementation of any or all of the recommendations below would require an associated training component. The development of a campus training program and communication plan to inform faculty, staff, and students of the online document management opportunities will be integral in successful implementation of the recommendations included in this report. 2. The Office of elearning will be responsible for training requirements that result from the implementation of recommendations included in this report. This would include presentations regarding ways to save print costs to faculty senate, staff senate, college meetings, department meetings, and presentations to administrative units. 3. The CIT Committee would like to note that the recommendations included in this document were made with priority consideration given to ETSU students. 1

2 IV. Recommendations Recommendation #1 Campus-wide requirement that all course syllabi and course handouts are posted in the university s course management system. Rationale The elimination of paper copies of course syllabi and course handouts is an acceptable method to reduce printing costs on campus. A D2L site is created for each course section each semester. Posting syllabi and handouts in the course D2L not only reduces printing costs, but also makes the documents available to students at all times. Resources Required Additional storage space on D2L is charged to the Office of elearning, therefore some of the dollars saved through this recommendation would need to be reallocated to cover the cost of electronic storage. Projected Cost Avoidance Consider the estimate of printing course syllabi alone for each of the approximately 3,000 course sections offered each semester. If each course syllabus is approximately 4 pages in length (length of syllabi varies greatly) and if each course section contains approximately 25 students the cost for printing syllabi at.10 per page is $30, per semester. It is difficult to estimate the number of course handouts for each course section, but is a conservative estimate to determine that at least 2 handouts of 4 pages each is distributed every semester. Therefore, the estimate of $60, per semester or $180, per year to print course syllabi and course handouts is realistic. However, some of the dollars saved would have to be allocated for the cost for storage in D2L. The cost for storage above the amount estimated by TBR last year was $22, If this recommendation is implemented, approximately 1/3 could be allocated to offset storage space until a definite number could be obtained. However, if this estimate is correct a savings of $120, per year could be possible. Recommendation #2 All student assignments should be submitted via or through the university s course management system. Rationale Course assignments could be submitted via the D2L dropbox or directly to the faculty member s address, depending on the preference of the individual faculty member. Resources Required This recommendation has the potential to also increase the storage costs in D2L. In addition, an increase in the campus box capacity would be required and consequently require an increase in the Microsoft Outlook server capacity. 2

3 Projected Cost Avoidance No cost avoidance projected in this recommendation since students incur the costs for printing assignments. However, this recommendation is an initiative that helps protect the environment and will be a direct cost savings to students and promote a cultural change toward the conservation of resources. Recommendation #3 Shift to centralized printing in all academic and administrative units. Printers would be networked and placed in a central location for use by multiple people in an academic or administrative unit. No printers on individual desks would be permitted other than for those who change paper types, such as labels and letterhead, frequently. Exceptions may also include printer locations for employees with disabilities. Rationale A campus-wide implementation of a standardized central printing initiative allows volume discounts for printers and toner, as well as enhanced capabilities such as scanning, copying, and printing. Resources Required Upfront costs for centralized Imagistic printers (OIT standard) is minimal. Departments are charged a monthly fee based on printing and copying needs that range from $40.00 to $ per month. If color printing is required, a color laser printer is recommended by OIT as a standard networked option. This would require departments to purchase a laser printer at a cost of approximately $2, However, the price per sheet for printing on a color laser is significantly less than desktop inkjet printers. In general, color laser is approximately half the cost of printing with color inkjet. Projected Cost Avoidance Estimates were based on the following: For every inkjet printer on campus, the cost is estimated at 1 ink cartridge (1 color and 1 black) every 2 months = $ per year per printer or $7, per year for 15 individual printers. Central printers and toners = $2, per year or a savings of $4, for every 15 printers on campus. According to OIT, an estimated 1500 individual printers are located on desktops across campus, the exact number is difficult to determine as these machines are no longer part of the OIT inventory. Associated Recommendation To further promote this initiative this committee recommends that a permanent university committee be formed to consider exceptions to the centralized printing policy. We recommend this committee be small and should include 2 faculty, 2 staff, and 2 students. It is beyond the scope of this committee to decide the appropriate reporting structure for this committee, but a place to consider would be as a subcommittee of ITGC. 3

4 Recommendation #4 Support of all processes that can be performed with the electronic routing of forms for approval. Rationale Electronic data collection forms should be developed for easy interaction. Resources Required Creation of electronic forms for data collection. This would require an OIT resource to provide the programming and implementation of these forms. In addition, OIT would be able to ensure the new forms were not a security risk for the university network. Projected Cost Avoidance Cost avoidance or savings would be associated with the migration of each process to an electronic format. For example, when all travel forms are available online and electronic signatures could be added, it would then be possible to determine the savings or cost avoidance for one process. There are multiple processes on campus (travel, grant submissions, hiring processes) that could benefit from electronic signatures and approval procedures. Recommendation #5 Purchase online newspaper subscriptions for students rather than hard copy subscriptions. Rationale Electronic subscriptions to a number of area newspapers are available through the library. Usernames and passwords are available to students, faculty, and staff. Resources Required No resources are required, however, making the information available to students is a significant issue and may require some communication resources. Projected Cost Avoidance According to the Director of Housing, ETSU spends approximately $20, dollars per year for a hard copy delivery of the Johnson City Press to each dorm room on campus. Recommendation #6 Faculty members have the choice to select a laptop rather than a desktop computer for their ETSU assigned computer. Rationale Many faculty frequently work from home and print assignments to grade from home. If faculty selected a laptop rather than a desktop as their ETSU assigned computer, perhaps grading assignments would be done electronically. Resources Required According to OIT, faculty currently have the choice of a desktop or laptop computer. However, the department will be responsible for the difference in cost between the laptop and desktop. 4

5 Laptops are typically between $ and $ dollars more expensive than desktop computers. Projected Cost Avoidance Moving to a laptop in all instances is probably not a feasible solution in every case. It is difficult to determine if enough savings would be available from print costs to cover the additional costs for laptops. Recommendation #7 Utilize S drives and Q drives to file general office information and for collaboration with colleagues on university projects. Rationale Each academic and administrative unit has access to network storage space designated as the S drive. There are currently no space limitations on the S drive. Each ETSU employee has access to network storage space designated as the Q drive. The Q drive is limited to 500 MB of storage space. This network storage space is already in place and available to file general office information as well as manage collaborative projects with others in the ETSU domain. In addition, all ETSU network drives are backed up on a regular basis to ensure data security. Resources Required According to OIT, if all departments fully utilized the S drive capacity and all individuals fully utilized their Q drive capacity, network storage space would be a significant problem. In addition, a significant training campaign would be required for the entire campus. This recommendation also requires the use of central copy/print units that also scan documents into a.pdf or other usable format. Documents could be scanned and stored electronically, rather than filing the hard copy. It is understood that there are instances when hard copies of original documents must be maintained for legal purposes. Projected Cost Avoidance Although it is difficult to estimate, it seems logical that reduction of physical filing space for hard copies of documents would be beneficial on several levels. First, the benefit to the environment is apparent. Second, electronic documents are searchable and this could produce a more efficient document retrieval process. Third, the convenience of having all office documents easily available to all employees in a particular office also improves efficiency and productivity. Individual Q drive space also allows users to manage the permissions for the Q drive space. Colleagues could collaborate on specific projects saving documents on the Q drive until the project was over and the owner of the Q drive space could then remove the permissions for the collaborator. It should be noted that using the Q drive only allows collaboration between those in the ETSU domain. A more elaborate and expensive system would be required for collaboration with individuals outside the ETSU domain. 5

6 Recommendation #8 Move the current Student Assessment of Instruction (SAI) to an online delivery format. Rationale Paper Scantron forms are expensive and have a greater potential for loss or abuse than electronic formats. Many packets come to the Office of elearning having been opened somewhere in the routing process. Resources Required A commercially available SAI or something programmed by OIT would be required to move from our current system to an online SAI. This project seems to be most appropriate for OIT since any system, in-house or commercial, would need OIT to work out the integration with Banner. Other institutions do not use a course management system for the delivery of the online SAI because students are not confident that instructors do not know the identity of the student completing the survey. Therefore, it is the recommendation of this committee that OIT integrate the SAI with Goldlink/Banner. Projected Cost Avoidance - The current delivery system requires hours of staff time in every academic department. In addition, 3 staff members in the Office of elearning spend approximately 3 weeks per semester (approximately $5, including benefits) processing the paper Scantrons. Scantrons and results are then delivered to the Office of Institutional Research for analysis. The cost for Scantron forms is approximately $4, per year. Therefore a total estimated savings of $14, annually would be possible. Although the initial investment for development of an online system would be substantial, the long term savings are significant. Recommendation #9 The establishment of a physical, staffed, testing center where exams could be administered to students. Rationale - Administration of exams in a central location would: Increase classroom instruction time by requiring students to take exams outside of the regularly-scheduled class meeting time, instructional time would increase accordingly. Prevent academic dishonesty in large classes where proctoring exams is extremely difficult and cheating is on the increase; and, faculty have no way of verifying the ID of students who take exams. Promote conservation and increase the green initiative at ETSU by submitting exams electronically. A significant amount of paper could be saved by one professor during the course of a single semester. 6

7 Prohibit unintentional, unfair discrimination against students who miss regularly scheduled exams. Resources Required This initiative would require large physical space and enough computers to accommodate the demand. The Office of elearning currently purchases the Respondus lock down browser for computer based exam delivery, which would facilitate the implementation of a testing center. It is also recommended that further exploration of this idea is completed in conjunction with the current Testing Center to determine if there are opportunities for growth or collaboration with the current system. Projected Cost Avoidance According to the estimate by Stacy Wild, Biology, one professor giving 4 exams of 8 pages each in 4 course sections totaling 650 students could save 20,800 pages per semester. At.10 per page that translates to $2, per semester per professor. Recommendation #10 Migration of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process to an electronic system. Rationale - Current IRB applications are paper-based, resulting in: frequent consumer complaints Lack of a web-based electronic submission platform was a primary complaint by faculty at the recent IRB Open Forum in April 2009 Costs of paper, printing and distribution, to Office for the Protection of Human Research Protection Program, main campus and the COM Reduced efficiency by IRB staff who are currently required to perform routine tasks that could be readily automated Potential for non-compliance with applicable federal regulations, particularly if protocol fails to undergo required continuing review (at present, continuing review process is handled by physically looking at a sticker on a paper file, which is rife with the potential for human error) Greater wait times for researchers, IRB Chair must come to the office to physically review when schedule allows, and PIs must wait to receive letters of approval in the mail. Resources Required In 2009, a search was conducted to identify the least expensive web-based IRB submission platform that included all required elements. The IRB office has signed up for a 30 trial with IRB Manager, and the IRB Chair has completed 6 hours of training. A contract with IRB Manager has been sent to Kathy Kelley for review and funding for this software has been identified. 7

8 Projected Cost Avoidance The following estimates of print requirements for IRB illustrates a savings estimated at $9, per year for Principle Investigators. However, that cost will be shifted to the purchase of the IRB Manager software and maintenance. Full studies For medical: 35 copies X 28 new full studies in 2008 X 60 (average number of pages) = 58,800 copies Plus 3 copies of protocol required: 3 X 20 (approx number out of 28 that had protocols) X 150 (average number of pages) = 9,000 Plus 2 copies of investigator brochure: 2 X 15 (approx number out of 28 that had IB) X 100 (average number of pages) = 3,000 For Campus: 35 copies X 2 new full studies in 2008 X 45 (average number of pages) = 3,150 Expedited studies For medical: 3 copies X 44 new expedited studies in 2008 X 30 (average number of pages) = 3,960 For campus: 3 copies X 33 new expedited studies in 2008 X 30 (average number of pages) = 2,970 Exempt studies for medical: 1 copy X 18 new exempt studies in 2008 X 30 (average number of pages) = 540 for campus: 1 copy X 64 new exempt studies in 2008 X 30 (average number of pages)= 1,920 Modifications For medical: 1 copy X 270 new minor modifications in 2008 X 5 (average number of pages) = 1,350 1 copy X 39 new non-minor modifications in 2008 X 100 (average number of pages) = 3,900 For campus: 1 copy X 111 new minor modifications in 2008 X 3 (average number of pages) = 333 Continuing reviews For medical: 1 copy X 214 continuing reviews in 2008 X 4 (average number of pages) = 856 For campus: 1 copy X 109 continuing reviews in 2008 X 4 (average number of pages )= 436 8

9 Recommendation #11 Adoption of Adobe Acrobat as the campus-wide standard for.pdf creation. Rationale - Many of the external grant agencies require the.pdf document be created in Adobe Acrobat. Resources Required Adobe Acrobat campus-wide license. Projected Cost Avoidance Although no direct cost avoidance is associated with this recommendation, the rejection of grant applications due to improper electronic format of submissions is a significant issue that should be addressed immediately. Recommendation #12 Administrative meetings distribute documents electronically. Rationale - When possible all meetings should be conducted in an environment that allows projection of documents onto a large screen so that the entire group does not require a printed copy of the document. Resources Required Media equipment in administrative conference rooms. Projected Cost Avoidance The additional examination required to determine if there would be any cost avoidance or savings regarding this recommendation was beyond the scope of this committee, but does warrant further investigation. 9