KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE

Q. What is the primary goal of the Integrated Technology Strategy?

A. As a result of the Integrated Technology Strategy (ITS), all CSU students, faculty and staff will be able to communicate with one another and to interact with information resources from anywhere, to anywhere, and at any time of the day or night using a state-of-the-art integrated electronic environment.

Q. Why must the CSU establish a technology infrastructure in order to advance its mission?

A. The CSU needs to upgrade its technology infrastructure to meet the growing needs and demands of the CSU, its faculty, students and staff, as well as meet the growing technological demands of the business community and the global economy. CSU students need the competitive advantage that a technology-enhanced education can provide in these highly competitive times.

Q. Who decided what technology issues were most important?

A. Faculty, students and staff played an active role during the ITS planning phase. They told the ITS planning team that while the individual initiatives and projects were important, their basic needs for network connections, access to hardware, software, training and support must be addressed first. These needs form the baseline Technology Infrastructure Initiative (TII).

Q. What has the CSU done to promote campus communication?

A. To facilitate improved communications the team held a series of meetings with Presidents and campus and system executive management and other constituencies including the Academic Senate, CSSA, Information Resource Management Program Designees, et al. This process is ongoing.

The CETI Communication Team also produces an ITS Weekly Update which has wide distribution and offers a WEB site which contains up-to-date information on the partnership

Q. What is the TII public/private Partnership?

A. It is a combined public/private partnership designed to help CSU become technologically competitive. This is especially important now that traditional resources cannot be counted on to fund the large amount of capital and operational funds needed for CSU’s technology needs. Of all the funding gaps facing the CSU, only the gap in technology lends itself to a partnership between the public and private sectors. A public/private partnership that leverages the size of the CSU system can provide alternative means to pay for technology infrastructure.

Q. What is the partnership team with which the CSU is currently negotiating and how was it selected?

A. The team of GTE, Fujitsu, Hughes Communications, and Microsoft was selected after being evaluated by the CSU team using the following criteria:

· Cultural fit with the CSU · Shared vision of the future of education · Level of Executive Commitment · California presence · Operational and financial stability of team · Quality of the team assembled by the partner · Creativity/innovation of proposed solutions · Match of partner capabilities to CSU needs · Technologies represented

Q. What is the name of this new partnership?

A. The team is being called "CETI" which stands for California Education Technology Initiative.

Q. When can we expect to see a plan?

A. With the continuing involvement and assistance of representatives from all 22 campuses, the partnership hopes to have a final plan in place by late December, 1997 or early January, 1998.

Q. Will the partnership mean job losses for staff?

A. We do not expect to experience direct or immediate job losses within the CSU. In fact, the CSU team is charged with protecting and supporting the interests of CSU employees. The wide use of technology, however, is going to change job descriptions and assignments with or without a systemwide partnership. It is possible, therefore, that some jobs may change and that in the long run, with normal attrition, we may be able to use technology to its best advantage by consolidating some functions.

Q. How might a business partnership with the CSU affect faculty intellectual property issues?

A. While this issue was not directly addressed in the private sector proposals, the CSU’s guidelines on intellectual property will continue to prevail. The CSU will not negotiate away any academic freedoms, choices or control of curriculum content.

Q. Why didn’t the CSU put together the partnership by mixing and matching corporations from all three potential teams?

A. The Technology Steering Committee decided at the outset of the project that the University would not take on the burden of creating and managing a series of relationships and contracts with multiple providers. Instead, the focus of the partnership is to provide infrastructure, access, and support.

In addition, constructing an alliance of corporate entities without regard to existing relationships risked either (a) creating an unworkable alliance, or (b) having to broker the melding of disparate corporate entities, both of which were unacceptable.

Q. Is this Initiative a foregone conclusion?

A. The need to complete this Initiative is a foregone conclusion. In 1994, the CSU Presidents determined it was essential for all CSU individuals to have at least baseline access to the appropriate technology infrastructure if the CSU and its campuses were to be competitive. Furthermore, the Presidents, in consultation with the Chancellor, determined that the CSU needed to accomplish this objective as soon as possible and no later than 2000.

Q. Will the partnership agreement curtail gifts/donations to campuses from technology companies?

A. Quite the contrary. If the CETI partnership develops as planned, the ability to generate gifts, donations and grants for a wide range of academic program needs will be enhanced, not curtailed. Today, more and more donors and grantors are seeking institutions with academic departments and faculty who already have the basic technology infrastructure capabilities locally and systemwide so they can invest in the development of applications using technology to advance learning and scholarship. In fact, donors tend to invest in the "the margin of excellence" rather than in basic needs.

Q. Don’t many companies choose to donate computer hardware and software?

A. We know from experience there are a number of reasons why companies opt to donate equipment and software. One fundamental motivation is almost always self-interest, i.e., they want students in certain disciplines to be familiar with their products and applications before they enter the workplace. A second motivation is for these companies to use campus expertise to develop products for commercialization. Specialty labs and development projects are excellent ways for the CSU to build such capabilities.

Q. What are the system benefits vs. the campus benefits?

A. The measure of success of this effort is not a matter of system vs. campus benefits. Rather, the success and benefits of ITS-TII/CETI must be measured by how well we provide each and every CSU student, faculty and staff the appropriate inter- and intra-campus networking, and access to hardware/software, training and support to be individually and collectively productive.

Further, the CETI partnership exploits the combined strength of the CSU campuses to compete against other institutions and avoids intra-CSU rivalry. While some individual CSU campus efforts have achieved outstanding success, most of these successes have been one-time events without accomplishing long-range, comprehensive support.

Q. Does any CSU campus currently have full technology capabilities?

A. While some campuses may already possess the infrastructure needed to provide adequate (or better) access, support, or training to their students, faculty and staff, not one campus currently adequately provides all three. As long as this condition prevails, the CSU cannot make full use of its educational resources. Bringing access, support and training to all CSU students, faculty and staff enhances the educational resources of the campuses both individually and collectively.

Q. How do we evaluate individual campus benefits?

A. The partnership is designed to benefit individuals, campuses and the CSU system. The ultimate criterion for judging the success of this effort is whether each and every student, faculty and staff has access to an appropriate technology infrastructure capability and whether that infrastructure can be sustained and refreshed on an ongoing basis. This must be documented by reference to performance metrics. One of the CETI teams is developing a methodology to assist the campuses in this task.

Q. Can individual campuses elect not to participate in the TII/CETI project?

A. As stated by Chancellor Munitz on October 7, 1996, the burden of proof will be on the campus President to demonstrate that her/his campus can accomplish the stated objectives at a better price-performance than can the partnership. In this case, the partnership will be required to match or better the price/performance of the campus’s plan. No campus will suffer "irreparable harm" from participating in the CETI partnership.

Q. Will this partnership concept work?

A. The TII is a comprehensive, long-range plan which begins with near-simultaneous introduction of technology on all CSU campuses. Past accomplishments have included good campus-based pilot projects, most of which have not been replicated systemwide to the detriment of our students and faculty. In the future, we cannot afford isolated, fragmented attempts at solving systemwide problems. In addition, the private sector partners have enormous experience at achieving projects, like the TII, on a global scale.

Q. How will the involvement of corporate America in the CSU affect academic autonomy?

A. There is a long history of academia forging partnerships with corporate interests. But, as with any public-private partnership, it is important that strong controls be put in place. This is especially true when the partnership involves academia. In keeping with this philosophy, CSU will maintain a controlling interest in the partnership so neither the system’s overall mission or program is in any way compromised. CSU’s guidelines on intellectual property will also remain in place and no academic freedoms will be negotiated away.

Q. Can this initiative be paid for with CSU cost savings alone?

A. No. The private sector team recognized the inadequacy of CSU financial resources as the sole means of fiscal support and included in its business plan not only a major revenue component, but also projected cost savings realized by streamlining existing services. In order to pay for this effort, the CETI partnership will: (a) obtain information technology and services at/or below-market prices, (b) gain cost savings by effective and efficient use of partnership-provided technology and services, and (c) share externally-generated revenues from the partnership’s activities.

Q. What is the funding gap we keep hearing about?

A. The CSU faces serious funding gaps such as faculty salaries, deferred maintenance, capital improvement and enrollment funding. In addition, neither the capital cost of the TII (approximately $300 million), nor its annual operating cost (approximately $105 million), can be fully provided by the state. But, through a revenue-generating partnership such as CETI, the technology gap is one funding gap that has the potential of being partially closed and of easing the competition for the remaining available CSU dollars

Q. The "partners" are profit driven while CSU is not. Could this difference in motivation conflict with our education agenda?

A. Both the private sector partners and the CSU are motivated by a desire to garner revenues to support their respective objectives. While the CSU does not share directly in the profit motivation of its private sector partners, the CSU is increasingly required to generate alternative sources of funding to sustain core programs. As a result, the CSU and its partners share accountability as a motive - the CSU to its stakeholders for the tax revenues and student fees received; they to their stockholders for the "bottom line".

The CSU and the private sector share an understanding of the absolute need of a well-educated workforce. CSU is the supplier of the personnel who will be (or should be) the competitive edge for these companies in the future. Business understands that without CSU graduates they will be severely hampered in the future. This does not mean that the partners will forego their profit motive. It does mean, however, they will work with the CSU to forge a mutually beneficial relationship.

Q. Who will control the Partnership?

A. CSU will maintain a controlling interest in whatever partnership governance mechanism is ultimately developed. A good business relationship will be one based on a sound educational mission that serves the needs of the CSU and its corporate partners.

Presidents and SIP representatives are actively ensuring that faculty, students and other stakeholders are frequently provided with timely information on partnership development.

(11/3/97/OGA/am@3:30) Legislative Version