Software Acquisition Committee Spring 2003 Report to the UTAC page 1. Software Acquisition Committee Report to UTAC

Transcription

1 Report to the UTAC page 1 Software Acquisition Committee Report to UTAC Committee Members: Rosann Cahill, Chris Greene, Nessa Kleinglass, Chih Lai, Tom Oscanyan, Melanie Weiss, Jim Vincent, Bob Warner, Paul Wieser, Pahoua Yang Software Acquisition Goal Statement: This group will produce a report that outlines issues with UST s current mechanisms for software acquisition and distribution and presents one or more models for resolving the issues. Special attention should be paid to the needs presented by the advent of mobile computing. Purpose of Report: To inform the UTAC members of issues and concerns related to software acquisition To recommend processes for the acquisition of software for the near future To suggest how to address software acquisition issues as the technological environment advances and changes To propose connections with other UTAC task forces SAC Process: The Software Acquisition Committee (SAC) met once a month from January through June The members first discussed the goal and mission of the committee. Tom Oscanyan, Software Acquisition Manager, informed the members of the software processes that exist on campus at the present time. This PowerPoint presentation can be viewed at The committee continued to discuss issues and alternatives on monthly basis gathering information for presentation of this report. The draft of this report was reviewed by all members and changes made accordingly. SAC members sense that the acquisition of software impacts the entire university community. Solutions and decisions regarding software must incorporate the needs of technological, academic, and service areas within the university. More time is needed to fully address, analyze, collaborate, and make recommendations on the numerous concerns that were identified.

2 Report to the UTAC page 2 Background Staff: One full time staff who works within Client Services as Software Acquisition Manager Software Used at St. Thomas includes: Microsoft operating systems and Office suite Network Associates (VirusScan and Virex) FileMaker Minitab Veritas Adobe Apple Macromedia SPSS Wolfram Software Licensing & Request, and Installation Process 1. The Software Acquisition Manager attempt to purchase volume licenses for most software. Volume licensing reduces cost and improves installation efficiency 2. Purchases can be made online through IRTpurchase@stthomas.edu or through the WebRFS. Many people call the Software Acquisition Asset manager directly, or him, with a request. The purchaser needs a budget code and approval for purchase. 3. Acceptable purchase methods are ProCard or Purchase Order 4. Software is ordered by the Software Acquisition Manager. 5. When software arrives, the Software Acquisition Manager inventories and tags the media, and sends an installation request to the Helpline which is internal call tracking software. 6. The Rapid Response Team member in IRT Client Services installs the software on the client s computer. The Software Acquisition Manager maintains a licensing inventory, media inventory and is the main contact with vendors. Three vendors used by St. Thomas include: Software One which handles volume licensing contracts, CDW-G which is perfect for ordering one or two items, and MicroWarehouse which has outstanding customer service and competitive prices. Issues 1. Availability of software 2. Cost of software 3. Distribution of software 4. Support of software 5. Evolvement of image standards 6. Licensing terms 7. Process for future licensing changes and software acquisition models 8. Staffing 9. Impact of software on hardware and visa versa

3 Report to the UTAC page 3 Availability of software Set up a dynamic, synchronized website to be used as a threshold for software options. This site would specify the kinds of software available, who is using what software, features, possibility for demo use, cost, packaging, suggested options, and process to acquire online. All software purchased should be approved and included in the campus inventory. The university needs to establish a protocol that all software must be purchased through the Software Acquisition Manager and be included in the campus inventory. The use of software in labs needs to be addressed separately. Cost of software: The committee found numerous challenges in establishing a model for cost. Licensing agreements differ. Some software costs are based upon the number of licenses or volume of licenses. In other cases, the charge is a flat fee. In some circumstances maintenance or upgrade costs need to be considered. The development of mobile computing adds a different approach to software use, which needs to be addressed. Options discussed but not limited to: Library model-software can be checked out or rented with option to purchase from outside vendor. Classify software with a standard cost or partial cost, some of which may be picked up by IRT Flat fees or graded fees: Charge full costs back to the users: either as a group fee; by the number of persons using the software, by the department, or by the individual software Distribution of software All software should be inventoried as received and tracked by the computer(s) using it The Software Acquisition Manager appears to be the likely person to coordinate the use of software on campus. The understanding for the cost of each specific software must by understood and approved prior to the distribution of the software. Support of software The university or IRT will not support software that is not purchased through the Software Acquisition Manager. Use academic techs to work with departments for software needs analysis. Evolvement of image standards Further evaluation of the goals and responsibility of the Image Standard committee should be addressed.

4 Report to the UTAC page 4 Licensing terms/volume, home use The SAC committee members suggest further investigation of the needs of students, faculty, and staff regarding home use and campus computing software needs. Process for future licensing changes and software acquisition models Establishment of a permanent Protocol committee to look at requests that are outside the standard established processes and that are a result of technological advances. Staffing Evaluation of the tools available for the Software Acquisition Manager to effectively inventory software, communicate with the university regarding software options and changes in policies or procedures, Expansion of academic techs concept into the university community Impact of software on hardware and visa versa Should the university consider a centralized UNIX resource that offers access to multiple software packages? More products are offering centralized administrative computing options. With these updating and management tools system-wide changes can be made reducing the need to visit every desktop. A challenge exists to address the catch 22 issue that hardware drives software and software needs drive hardware needs. The SAC members foresee the need to work cross-functionally with the Mobile Computing committee in order to gain and understanding of the vision for mobile computing at the university. The integration, timeframe and expectations will impact the recommendations of the SAC committee. Actions needed Review of the software we have now Licensing issues and models that we face now Collaboration with Mobile Computing committee Extensions of time for SAC to further investigate software issues and learn the concerns from the community. Recommendations 1. Develop a web site to show what we have and the users of that software. Since IRT cannot support all software, the website could identify communities using specific software. This site could provide information on the experts using specialized software. 2. Search for other university models to see what they re doing on this issue. Look for other institutions that have a position similar to St. Thomas s Software Asset Manager position. 3. Evaluate opportunities and resources for the Software Asset Manager to evaluate models on other campuses 4. Continue work in order to come up with better answers to present issues and to address new issues

5 Report to the UTAC page 5 5. Get feedback (including that from other UTAC subcommittees) in order to make knowledgeable decisions 6. Study what kind of software can/will be used on wireless networks 7. Focus on multi-departmental licenses 8. Recommend that the Software Asset Manager participate in IRT decisions 9. New releases are often dealt with on a case-by-base basis; there can be a disconnect from cumulative upgrades. Matlab is an example of software for which there is no centralized vision; there is a need to coordinate responsibilities/decisions for upgrading this software across multiple departments. 10. Continue the development of the master inventory database 11. A need exists to coordinate responsibilities/decisions for the MAT lab 12. Formation of a permanent advisory committee for software 13. This committee request that this committee continues to further investigate software acquisition issues. Further Questions Who will select software? For example how many research applications will the university support? Which ones? Who will select new tools and who will replace out-dated tools? At what point do we deem an application to be mission critical to the university s computing objectives. If more than one department uses the software, cost is distributed and the university supports the software If a Protocol committee is established, can the university partially cover costs for applications? Who will make training decisions? Are the policies to be the same for small scale and large-scale use of various applications? Should software acquisition decisions involve the community members that may be impacted or made through IRT alone? The key is to find the process that allows for the most informed decisions? Blackboard: Should a committee decide when software like this is upgraded? Several companies are developing building blocks which are programs that work with Blackboard. How do we decide which pieces we want to add? This is similar to deciding to purchase software except it impacts the entire university. Is it the scope of a committee to decide enterprise system upgrades and when to upgrade? Do we need community input? Faculty input? How can a process be developed to evaluate the impact of decisions before they re made? We need to stay in touch with our customers. It is important to make a reasonable effort. How do changes in the curriculum impact needs and decisions? How do changes made by IRT affect customers? Example Upgrades: Matlab for example-sometimes upgrades are safe, necessitate teaching change

6 Report to the UTAC page 6 Should the processes be broken down by categories such as desktop, enterprise, server, development, etc.? Or should we break down by multidepartment, lab, used by few departments, used by one individual, used by all? Presently IRT wants to know in June and December what we need for Windows server. Now decisions are made by the server administrator and Jeff Mayor. Should this process be evaluated? Has there been too much of a disconnect between server software decisions? To what degree do we need to see accountability? We should ask Jeff if he sees instances where decisions about server software will affect more than your immediate community? Do we need to evaluate and discuss the differences between the technical perspective vs. user perspective? How should decisions be made? Server side: IRT in charge of decisions Desktop side: larger community should be in charge of decisions How should special interest groups be part of the process? ATCs (Academic Technology Consultants) could indeed be the moderators for various applications! How can we get useful software inventory information to the community?

7 Report to the UTAC page 7 Addendum to Final Software Acquisition Committee Final Report October 29, 2003 The Software Acquisition Committee reconvened to discuss the acquisition of library resources. Linda Hulbert, Associate Director Technical Services O Shaughnessy-Frey Library provided information about the process for acquiring resources in the library. Based upon her presentation and discussion at the meeting the following recommendations and questions are being added to the Software Acquisition Committee Report from Spring Recommendations o The Software Asset Manager confer with the Library acquisition managers for all licensing o A group be gathered to resolve and make connections between library and non- library acquisitions o UST obtain legal counsel that specializes and is associated with copyright and intellectual property licensing and contracts. This person can be on retainer and does not need to be a full time employee. o Further discussions include representation from all libraries within the University. Further Questions: 1. What are the differences between the licenses for the library and the rest UST? 2. Where do the libraries converge with other software acquisitions? 3. How does and how should UST as a whole deal with vendors? 4. How do we centralize or make clear that acquisitions all come through the library or Tom? Ex. department buys material that library already has 5. Who manages information? Is there one person or place? How can those who manage information work together?