Management Committee 2004 meeting minutes

*** APPROVED ***

IHETS Management Committee

May 18, 2004

Boardroom

PRESENT: Patrick Alles, Independent Colleges of Indiana; Alan Cloe, Public Broadcasting; Michael Gay, Purdue University; Vernon Houchins, Vincennes University; Ed Kinley, Indiana State University; Bill Kramer, Ivy Tech; Robert Ruble, University of Southern Indiana; O'Neal Smitherman, Ball State University; Brian Voss, Indiana University STAFF: Tim Fisher , Dave King, Tim Ping , Kevin Siminski , Ed Stockey, Lynn Ward , Julie Wheeler

Chairman Kramer called the meeting to order at 10:05am. Introductions were made and the minutes of the last meeting were approved as distributed.

CHAIR'S REPORT: Kramer reported on a meeting with King and President Benjamin to discuss the major directions/functions and structure of the IHETS organization related to committees. They discussed ways to improve communications, especially with the Board of Directors, in preparation for the upcoming meeting. Benjamin indicated that the presidents are very busy and the lack of feedback indicates that the current structure is working.

PENDING ISSUES: King reported that the Board will meet on July 13 to review and approve the budget request for 2005-07. He provided background on the strategic initiatives that are driving the biennial budget request.

Siminski updated on I-Light2 project. A multi-agency team was assembled to review and recommend the direction for the Phase II system for I-Light2 - the backbone for the state of Indiana that extends through the 14 recommended pops throughout the state. That team met and reviewed the RFP's and turned in a formal recommendation to the Department of Administration and Procurement at the end of March. We had hoped to have news by now in terms of where the pops will be located and what the network might look like, there was some delays at DOA with background checks, etc. We hope to have formal contract negations begin in the next two weeks. Once negotiations are complete, we can formally announce where the pops will be and what the network will look like.

Siminski added that the State Budget Agency and Intelenet Commission have engaged experts in telecommunication laws to assist us in facilitating the actual contracts and leases. The goal is to have those negotiations completed within 4-6 weeks. Once that is complete, that will kick off the technology phase of the I-Light2 project. The RFP document for the optical switching equipment is nearly complete and once we are able to talk with the selected vendor(s), we can get all the detailed information included in the proposal and distributed to the vendor community. We are still looking at December 2004 turn-up date.

Fundamental support for this was development through an NSF proposal that PU and IU jointly put together in June 2003, to join the teragrid community. The idea was that this is a collaborative space on a national basis to allow for increased sharing of resources and increased research capability. That has led to the proposal to NSF, which was announced in September, 2003 for $3M funding. The run to Chicago was expected to be completed in March, 2004.

Voss confirmed that the fiber is complete, but the connection into the terra grid has been delayed. King reviewed the teragrid map and reported that this was how Indiana got connected into the teragrid project. He noted that as the lines start to build the most important thing is that we are right at the heart of it and the question is what value that brings to other institutions in the state.

The next question, how does that relate to the LambdaRail (NLR)?  King reviewed that map and showed how the proposed and current structure for the national fiber network is. The connection that we have now to Chicago is primarily to connect us. The LambdaRail (NLR) is a larger version of the consortium that we are building around I-Light. As we connect I-Light2 then we start to see the opportunities for not only IU and PU but also other major campuses in state to have connectivity at significant speeds. Again it shows how this in fracture not only serves internally but also to the rest of the country. He added that the LambdaRail (NLR) is not a replacement for Internet2 and the Abilene Network.

IDEAS Lifelong Learning Service: King reported that IDEAS Lifelong Learning Service in the middle of some analysis and transition. Ward reviewed what has been accomplished over the last year. About a year ago Richard Miles joined the staff as Program Manager for the services. He was charged with getting the service off the ground and some of the other goals associated with this partnership. Miles' initial focus was to bring the service up so that partners could understand what we were trying to do. We created a simple master control environment, which allowed us to assemble a stream of video programming and get it out to the stations in a cost effective manner within our existing budget constraints. Those processes began last summer and proceed into fall. In Jan., 2004 we launched a pilot service which is still active and consists of six hours of programming from midnight to 6am, seven days a week, with carriage on seven stations. In addition, we have a commitment from Comcast in Indianapolis to begin carriage of the service on their digital tier. WFYI is carrying the service 24 hours on one of its digital multicast channels.

In addition, over the last year it was decided to reconstitute the Joint Advisory Board to allow for broader representation of Indiana 's public television stations. All nine were invited to participate and elect members to the board. A business plan was drafted which will be used as a starting point for discussion on issues related to growth and sustainability. Another major accomplishment was the development of a co-branded website and includes the logos and links to all of our partners.

Ward reviewed some of what we learned since the inception. Staff and in particular the stations have gained a much greater understanding of multicasting. There are a variety of issues associated with moving back and forth between using bandwidth for one high definition and one or two standard definition channels and moving to four definition channels during the day, then feeding to cable providers. We also learned that it requires less bandwidth to deliver an acceptable signal quality to partner stations. We originally looked at MPEG2 as the compression technology, but we were able to use Windows Media 9. Currently, we are delivering via satellite but that could easily be switched to a T1 and we can incorporate live programming into the stream.

We also learned that we need more involvement and participation from our partners if we expect to build up the service to 24/7. WFYI has been a very active contributor, but basically IHETS has borne the bulk of responsibility to make this happen.

Ward continued her report discussing the challenges that we will be facing. Over the next couple years, we will need a new method for distributing the signal. Currently we are using the satellite network, which is due to be retired in June, 2006. We want to move this programming into more normal viewing hours, and we need a method of distribution to get content to the stations during those hours or cache it for playing at a later time.

Ward added that sustainability is an issue. We expect to seek startup money in the form of a grant but we will also need to develop a business model that will allow us to cover the many and varied cost associated with offering the service. From the beginning, we envisioned this service as a means for getting out new programming. Rather, identify specific and educational needs within the state; seek funding to support the development of new programming to support those needs and then produce those programs. These items need development, which requires cooperation and resources.

The challenge of growing from a pilot to a 24/7 operation requires growth in staff, equipment and support capabilities. We would like this to eventually be a more interactive channel. Ward noted that the partners in public broadcasting are concerned about the cost of operating the service in particular about how they will support an alternate distribution channel and any indirect cost that come with distributing the service, and when they will we see a return on their investments. We know that public broadcasting has competing demands for the bandwidth, and opportunities for existing bandwidth to be used for revenue generating opportunities.

Ward added that programming coming from our member institutions has been very limited, possibly due to the fact that many are moving away from video based programming and more towards to the internet delivery. There is concern that we are not effectively reaching individuals or departments that have a particular interest in using video to provide instruction or as a means for achieving outreach and engagement goals.

Richard Miles has been invited to WFYI as the VP for Audio Services. This issue might provide an opportunity to look at where we've been and where we're going and give us an opportunity to revisit some of the original assumptions to determine whether they are still valid and to have very candid discussion with each side of the partnership to find out what their goals, expectations and priorities are.

During summer 2004, we will make every effort to keep the service going and to make the transition as seamless as possible. A full-time staff member will assume primary responsibility with the assistance of an intern. We will be engaging each group of partners in active discussion about goals expectations and commitment to the service. Based on their input, we will prepare a plan to proceed. At the same time we will be pursuing funding opportunities and write a major grant proposal by early fall.

We hope to have a plan to present to the Joint Advisory Board by early fall. We are postponing filling the Program Manager position until we have a clear sense of how to proceed and we will continue to operate the pilot service but will not plan to add any off any courses for credit.

How can we gauge the level of commitment and interest in this service by the member institutions? Miles had a difficult time trying to elicit from our member institutions video-based programming to air. We have focused mostly on videotaped classes, but we would like to expand to include credit and non-credit continuing education and informal learning opportunities. Many campuses have very high profile community engagement efforts in place, we wonder what role this kind of service might play in those outreach engagements? How can we identify the right people to talk to in determining what role we can play?

King wondered if we have communicated what we are doing and the value, among others at the campuses. King added that staff is available for stakeholder meetings with individuals who might be able to take advantage of the information. Staff will be in touch within the next 2-3 weeks to identify individuals who should be involved in these discussions.

SATELLITE TO STREAMING: In the interest of time, Ping briefly summarized the results of surveys and focus group meetings. He noted that both the ITC and IPSE groups have seen this information in detail and understand what processes we followed and how we came to the conclusions.

As a starting point, we went with the assumption that the system that we developed, as a minimum, must have the same functionality that we have with the current satellite system, i.e.: one-way video capability and a two-way audio component; the ability to “raise hand” from a students perspective; and support at least four concurrent programs. A fifth requirement might be the ability for a scheduling service.

Ping reported that based on all the data that we gained, we compiled a set of functional requirements which we passed on to our engineering group. They spent a good deal of time analyzing the data, evaluating potential solutions and potential offers for those solutions. They started with 11 different hardware/software platforms as part of the initial analysis. Those were narrowed down to the top five and with further testing and demos, we concluded that a hardware-based encoder and a web conferencing environment would be the best solution to satisfy the needs identified by the institutions.

That solution will be rolled out in three phases, first will be a pilot beginning in August, 2004 and will be conducted through the fall semester. In addition, for this first phase of the pilot we will meet all of the primary functional requirements, plus Application Sharing; Basic Scheduling; Web Tours; White-boarding; PowerPoint; Text Chat; and Basic Access Control. These added features will all be part of the testing and evaluation that will be conducted through the pilot in the fall semester.

In the spring, the second part of the pilot phase will add an Archival/Retrieval system; On-line Attendance and Quizzing/Polling. We will then add Production in the following semester to include Authentication/Authorization capabilities, remote management and full scheduling service.

Finally, the budget estimate is based on actual costs for hardware and software. In addition, the costs for one-time and ongoing cost per fiscal year are broken out as a separate figure. For a different perspective, Ping noted the costs based on a per site basis.

King noted that these are very preliminary figures as we work through each of these steps. This is what we are expecting it to cost us to go through the transition phase from satellite to s full streaming environment with full functionality. The goal in the process was to create something that matched and surpassed what we currently offer with the satellite as in the ability to get video-based courses into learning centers and homes through a streaming environment. Staff addressed several questions about receive site costs and equipment needs.

BIENNIAL BUDGET STRATEGY: King reported that there are four competing strategic initiatives. They are designed to provide member institutions, faculty and their students the opportunity in the future to use the technology we offer.

King reviewed the strategic initiatives and the biennial budget request will take these four initiatives into account. In addition, we have several on-going operational efforts that need to be factored in. The message sent to the Board indicated that the July 13 meeting is to approve the biennial budget request also points out that it will be the foundation for the services we provide to our members for the next 3-5 years.

As discussed earlier, I-Light2 has a $5M request on the table.

Satellite to streaming initiative: In the operating budget submitted the last time, we showed how we were reducing four channels to three prior to the 2006 deadline, generating the developmental funds necessary to get us through this process by carrying forward funds from last years budget to cover expenses.

IDEAS continues to commit $130,000. Any growth or integration into the overall streaming initiative will require additional funds from additional sources, (partners, branding agencies, revenue).

The Portal and the digital learning space is another partnership on the table and has approximately 10 players involved. The Portal partnership met last week to discuss specifically the strategy for raising the development funds for the portal learning space and for the important and on-going maintenance funds. King has been in contact with 2-3 major funding agencies (Lilly Endowment, Lumina and Sloan Consortium). The main question remains, who will spend the money to maintain it for sustainability. The budget for the developing this fully functioning space is about $10M with the annual maintenance of $2M/annually. Working with various structures and idea for how we will fund the maintenance among the 10 partners. The outcome of this weeks meeting was that we could find at least potential sources for about half of the $2M and then the 10 partners will go to the legislature to request the additional $1M. When it comes to IHETS' biennial budget request we are not expecting to put that in our budget.

King addressed questions regarding the biennial budget request and program improvement. Would the group support including $250,000 as a program improvement in 2006 to cover on-going sustainability and expansion of each initiative? He added that we still have an issue with $600,000 that was cut two years ago and then covered by recurring resources. We are still looking for that money to be reinstated. If that were to resurface, we would have to cut that amount from our budget. King noted that at this point there is no discussion about that.

Kramer stressed the need to have something in the narrative to explain these partnerships. He stated that it is important that the Board understand that IHETS is making commitments to be partners in major initiatives and when the partnerships moves forward there won't be any surprises.

Board Membership: In 1993, the Governor's office appointed a member to the IHETS Board of Directors. Up to this point, that member of the Governor's staff has participated infrequently. We are wondering if it would be a good idea for the chair of Board to send the Governor a note asking if he might consider filling that position with the Lt. Governor. King added that even if the Governor doesn't get around to it prior to the election, the proposal would be on the table. The current Lt Governor seems to be taking a broader role in education and technology this seems like a logical appointment. King asked that the group to give this some thought and send him feedback.

In preparation for the Board meeting, King will send the group bullet items for discussion at their institutions and with their presidents.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

IPSE Update: In the interest of time, Ward agreed to forward the IPSE report to the group via email.

King noted that there will be a joint meeting of the IPSE and ITC on June 10 to discuss some of the specifics related to the satellite to streaming initiative.

With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 12:10pm.