Introductions

Review Agenda

Disaster Response Planning

Virginia reviewed the 9 questions

The group decided to start at question 1 and work through them as a whole instead of just debating a few

But how to separate this effort from state needs/directives and individual plans?

Question 1: What does the public expect from IT in Extension?:

• public internet access at county offices, perhaps
• information provider (reliable access under heavy loads, etc)
• liaison to Homeland Security
• local/state/regional disaster recovery plan
• IT infrastructure maintenance and recovery capabilities
• Ag Biosecurity support - IT support for detection, reporting, response
• data collection efforts, e.g., where are shelters, distribution points, etc.
• public expects Extension to have information to tell them where to go, who to talk to, etc.

Question 2: What are unique contributions IT program area has to offer in the disaster mitigation, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery phases?

• training on how to access/use the information (training infrastructure)
• scenario training
• electronic response/recovery procedures
• Infostructure support (wireless phones, satellite internet access, mobile video conferencing, ham radio!)

Question 3: How can other states in the region help a state or states in a disaster?

• Support for mirrors/backups, redundancy, failover
• Deliver on-line ed programs to neighboring states in need
• Print Publication support, phone support, radio, emergency radio, multiple paths
• Support for infostructure (satellite, mobile video, communication resources)
• State specific information for evacuee.
• Pooling of redundant resources (fact sheets.. etc)
• Collaborative funding efforts
• Standards development (eg common systems)

Question 4: What should the unique position of the Cooperative Extension System be in relation to disasters?

• communication effectiveness in time of disaster
• basic IT competencies + disaster issues
• training backup

Question 5: What competencies should we expect of agents and specialists in each program area to be effective in disaster education, response, and recovery?

• public information communicator support
• networking (connecting people-to-people, to agencies)
• networking (the IT network)
• needs to be a accountability, measurement of IT competencies

Question 6: Imagine a scenario involving a disaster in your state, what were the educational materials, skills, and educational support needs experienced by agents and specialists? (Do not get bogged down in development, apply what we have already discussed).

• How to (do things)
• How to find the how to (training vrs what do I do now?)
• Regional disaster web site (EDEN)

Question 7: What relationships are needed to be more effective?

• Between-state IT associations (mirrors, failover, IT recovery plans)
• Telecom
• State departments ADEC
• Software/Hardware providers
• Intra campus relationships, other educational institutions
• Other private/public institutions

Question 8: What resources are needed to be more effective (e.g. dedicated people, reserve funds, etc. and why?)

• Money
• People
• Time
• Administration (staff member dedicated to disaster response)

Question 9: What would your expectations be of EDEN to help make this happen? What resources are needed to be more effective (e.g. dedicated people, reserve funds, etc. and why?)

Break Review of PLC Meeting (Nina) State Reports Review

Q&A on state reports. [State Reports found here]

Discussion on Content Management Systems:

Anne (Auburn) was interested in who is implementing. Nina (Arkansas) has gotten 2 positions funded and will be going with Luminis. Hasn't bought it yet but hopes to get funding in the next 3 months. Is expecting an 18 month implementation and $110K just for the software portion. Rhonda asked Larry if TAMU would be following the LSU model for workflow since they are licensing LSU's CMS. Larry indicated the departments don't want to be centralized, so they will implement the workflow by channel and will probably employ a policy steering committee. Nina indicated they have an internally developed process but currently Communications posts everything. That would change with the new CMS. Tim (Virginia Tech) indicated they didn't want to "control" too much. eFARS showed they had hundreds of rogue websites. Fred and Kappie identified the need for top level support. A lot of issues are not really technical but more about marketing and identity. Larry gave an example of having that issue with Ag eHorticulture (?) and that the individual is now a proponent of CMS. Tim said another advantage is keywords and that over time they help to track info.

Master Online Educator Program:

Free to everyone. Tim passed out a fact sheet with details. It is now available in CECP. Tim offered to setup a Breeze account for anyone that would like one.

4H Club Websites

Nina asked if anyone allows their 4H clubs to develop websites. LSU has thought about it but is currently not pursuing. Auburn does not have enough resources to implement anything along these lines. TAMU indicated they do something along the lines of Master Naturalist using GroveSite. LSU does the same with Master Gardeners.

LSU Leadership advisory groups?

Rhonda asked if LSU has Leadership Advisory Groups in the counties. Yes.

Arkansas Instructional Designer

Arkansas indicated they got an instructional designer. Since the need across the region is so great, this is quite an accomplishment.

Online Reporting of State Reports

Online reporting of state reports: Nina indicated it was difficult to compile the information from 4 different committees, especially when deadlines weren't met. Perhaps wiki's should be used in the future. Dwayne suggested we use one more year since it is simple and straight forward.

Plan of Work Update

CECP Modules

• Master Online Educator is complete (Tim Mack - VT).
• Distance Education (Debra Davis) was interrupted due to Katrina. No current status is available.
• Information Security (Kappie) a PowerPoint is completed but needs to be put into CECP format.
• Acrobat is in progress.
• Going to drop Web Technologies, but Tim said they are getting ready to finish a "How To" for podcasting.

Video Conference Inventory

• vcsi.tamu.edu: list of video conference sites that each institution has, if that institution has updated the list.
• ii. It was determined that this is not really a plan of work item, but a reminder for each institution to keep their list up to date.

XML Standards/LMS - eXtension advisory group:

Maybe the PLN IT group could work with them to help set the standard. Fred suggested approaching Beth Rainey. Nina felt that eXtension was not ready to discuss this particular issue. Fred indicated they are using Atom as a syndication service both in and out. Howard stated that a lot of work is involved to manually incorporate many different formats, while Nina indicated that is the way it will likely be for a while. The same applies for image libraries. Larry indicated his group wants to facilitate the sale of images.

CECP Taxonomy :

combine/update CIP codes, NAL thesaurus and CECP terms.

Tim indicated Virginia Tech has to use a particular taxonomy, specifically Knowledge Areas. Howard asked which Knowledge Areas they use. Response was that there are about 8 pages of Knowledge Areas. If we move to the eXtension platform, whatever that is, we may need to combine this with that effort.

Outsourcing Guidelines and Evaluations:

No real interest any more by the group.

Bill Bristow from CSREES gave a couple of updates, including One Solution and their desire for collaborative efforts with other institutions.

CSREES Information Systems and Technology:

First Bill talked about CSREES Information Systems and Technology Management (ISTM) Department. It is only 4 years old. Has 3 departments: IT Policy, Operations and Applications (Bill's department). Currently, they have several systems that other universities developed and now host. They want to collaborate and do more of that. They are trying to learn about competencies across the system to partner with various institutions on particular projects. They want to fund grant-type arrangements using institutions' IT departments to fulfill the product need. Right now, there aren't specific projects but there are plans for several projects in the works. Feedback from the group: Most of us have done such arrangements with one entity or another in the past. Maybe if a communication channel was established whereby CSREES could keep in contact with the states' IT departments, then when there is an opportunity, different universities might want to respond. An RFP process was suggested as a way to determine interest in a particular project. Nina indicated she would add Bill to the PLN IT Listserv so that he can communicate with the group easily. Discussion was had on whether we should create a list of "competencies" at each institution. Bill indicated he would produce a list of questions and get that to Nina for distribution to the committee.

One Solution Briefing

Bill handed out an Administrator's Report for Summer 06. All data input from the different systems will go into a data warehouse (REEIS). They want to standardize entry across systems with no duplication of data entry. Nina indicated many states are trying to do this on their own as well. Tim submitted that because program areas can change, this causes historical problems with the data. Need to lock down the USDA Knowledge Areas. Continuing, Bill stated that their system combines progress reports with CRIS data to produce standard reports. In addition to CSREES, the entire Federal Government is trying to standardize reporting and data entry across all agencies. Greg Crosby can give more information. John Mingee is the CSREES IT Key Contact. And more information and/or updates on One Solution can be found at www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/onesolution.html

POW Item Number

Howard asked if we need a POW item (no). Kappie/Dwayne suggested keeping CSREES on the meeting agenda so we can get regular updates during the year.

CECP Update (Fred Piazza)

CECP Interactions

eXtension met with CECP about how they need to interact with everyone in regards to an LMS. eXtension wants to partner with CECP committee to develop requirements and select an LMS. At that time, CECP would not be separate but be incorporated into the eXtension LMS effort. Ron Brown agreed that CECP needed to be incorporated into the eXtension effort as one of its "building blocks". Even though the CECP Steering Committee voted to approve that direction, they didn't know if they had the authority. Maybe that needed the approval of ASRED. eXtension may be submitting/releasing an RFA. Or they may just want to use the CECP Steering Committee. Howard asked if the LMS would include content capabilities. His concern was that if it integrated with eXtension wikis then enhancements would need to be included for interactivity. Jenelle indicated that Blackboard, WebCT and others do integrate. They would need to be able to use all tools such as Flash, Captivate, etc. Fred stated that we may want to look at additional features such as evaluating a student's needs, curricula requirements, etc. We want a system that will analyze what a student needs and make recommendations. Larry indicated that one of the things that came up in the CECP/eXtension meeting was the lack of instructional designers. Maybe we look for tools that lessen the need for that. Jenelle indicated a strong need for instructional designers so that the lessons are effective. She feels they need that oversight from the human perspective. It was indicated that the LMS would be used not only internally by extension personnel but also eventually externally by the general public. We'd of course have to look at how we train our staff and the timing, as we are supposed to be the "experts' in these subject areas. On the subject of continuing to add modules to CECP given the long range plans: it was determined we need to continue on, as the LMS effort is a long term effort and there are still short term needs. Effort will be made to minimize the manual effort needed to move a CECP module into the resulting LMS system. How much control would the CECP Steering Committee retain after it moves into eXtension. It would become a Community of Practice and would grow to include national representation and then it would function as any other CoP.

State Experiences with eXtension

States' Level of Participation

There was discussion at the Director level on the states' level of participation with eXtension, therefore we needed to discuss this issue specifically.

Collaboration with CSREES

An Information Item was created indicating that we are working to collaborate with CSREES on application development.

eXtension not an IT Project

Discussion was had on the fact that eXtension is NOT an IT project. We need to tell the Directors that they need non-IT folks taking the lead with iTeams and in liaison roles.

Concerns on Implementation of eXtension

Concern was voiced that the current execution and implementation of eXtension is coming out to be something different than the original intent. Tim was concerned that eXtension is redefining the agent's role and that Directors haven't defined that some of the agents' work should be at a regional level to accommodate eXtension. Nina suggested that it is really more of a communication and collaboration issue than a technology issue. Ann indicated that we need to listen to those pioneering Communities of Practice and the issues they have. For example, agents have no idea what a wiki is, so she's having to explain the technology to the content providers. We need to provide this support to eXtension. Rhonda agreed that we need to stay attached so we can support the efforts of eXtension but that the effort needs to be led by content providers with us in a supporting role. It was agreed that everyone needed to participate to a greater extent with eXtension via the website and their many teleconferences. Fred said it was very important for everyone to go to the eXtension website and chime in on the wiki. Larry suggested this might be easier for everyone if they went to the website and subscribed to the Atom feed so you can automatically get updates. On the subject of communication, the question was asked whether or not we were being heard by eXtension. The general consensus was that the feeling was that most times the answer had already been decided, with eXtension then trying to address all the concerns brought up based on the decision already made.

Break Draft of the Information Item to the Directors

Duplication of Effort with Data Entry

Discussion was had on whether or not we include something re: duplication of effort with data entry. Nina indicated we should run this part of the information item through the normal chain of command.

Info Item: Discussion of relationship between eXtension and individual states.

• working with Ron Brown and eXtension team to address relationships between individual states and eXtension.
• the IT committee will work with content providers to emphasize that eXtension is a programmatic effort and not a technology effort.

Info Item: CSREES ISTM (Bill Bristow)

The PLN IT committee will develop relationships with CSREES to improve opportunities for communication and partnering, acting as liaison to individual states as it relates to One Solution and other ISTM applications.

Info Item: Disaster Planning from IT Direction

IT competencies are needed before a disaster situation. Discussion was had on IT competencies and how to measure/improve across the organization. We may not need an info item but rather a Plan of Work item that says we will look at assessment tools and how we can use them in each state to identify training needs, etc. Maybe need an Action Item asking for approval to develop an assessment tool since we would need their authorization to facilitate executing the assessment tool. Finalized one action item and two info items. Howard put in proper format and provided to Kathy.

Officer Elections

Secretary

Nina indicated we needed an 1890 rep, if possible. Jenelle Sargent (Tennessee) volunteered to be secretary. Vote was unanimous.

1890 Rep

Michael has another year on his appointment so we don't need another one at this point since we reelected Nina.

Lunch Plan of Work Update

Added information and action items (above) to POW.

Discussion of Disaster Planning Exercise

Discussion of disaster planning exercise and presentation made at lunch. Did we really walk away with what the committees are supposed to do? Nina and Michael need to bring this up to the PLC tomorrow to clarify what the IT PLN needs to do.

Encourage Progress Between Meetings

Discussion on how best to get things accomplished once we get back to our offices. Chair and Vice Chair need to "encourage" more regularly so that progress has been made between meetings.

POW:

CECP Modules

• Information Security (in PPT, needs to go to CECP format, Kappie)
• Acrobat (in progress, John)

PLN IT and eXtension (group)

• Help to promote, address, raise issues related to IT support for CECP transition to eXtension.
• Specifications/Features/Issues/LCMS in eXtension, transition/absorption of CECP into eXtension
• Larry is official IT Rep to CECP Committee. Fred is At Large. PLN IT will forward items to CECP Committee via Larry.
• Relationship: the PLN IT committee will work with Ron Brown and eXtension team to explore relationships between individual states and eXtension.
• State-level IT work with content providers to emphasize that eXtension is a programmatic effort more so than a technology effort.
• State involvement: how does eXtension coordinate state information:
    a. Information is being duplicated rather than consolidated.
    b. Not an "IT" focus, should be a "content provider focus"
    c. Extension Administration must provide emphasis on content development
    d. Local IT leadership is the for SUPPORT but not to make programmatic decisions (eXtension is falsely being perceived as an IT effort more so than a programmatic effort).
• Improved Communications: what is the decision making process and role of IT in technology selection, standards development (such as XML) and authority keyword systems.
• Participate in eXtension Wikis to bring these issues forward for discussion
• Individuals should participate in state iTeam meetings
• eXtension IT Steering Committee: invite eXtension reps to the quarterly PLN IT meetings).

CSREES ISTM (Information Systems and Technology Management), Nina

• The PLN IT committee will develop relationship with CSREES to improve opportunities for communication, partnering, acting as liaison to individual states, as relates to One Solution and other ISTM applications.

Disaster Planning from IT Direction (group)

• The PLN IT committee requests approval to develop and conduct a regional survey assessing IT competencies and capabilities with regards to disaster management.
    a. Do you (a particular state) have a disaster plan?
    b. Do you have resources (servers, satellite phones) that can be provided/shared in the event of disaster?

Reminders:

• Video Conference inventory: vcsi.tamu.edu

Middle Managers Meeting (4 PLN IT members went to their meeting)

Web Conferencing vs. Video Conferencing

Ann indicated they asked the difference between web conferencing and video conferencing. And how they could benefit from each. Larry gave them an overview of alternative methods of teleconferencing.

Encryption Standards

Nina asked if anyone else had encryption standards coming down the pike. Many indicated yes that they were looking at it or already implemented it.

Adjourn

Review of PLC Meeting (Nina)

Assessment Approval

Program and Staff development group asked for approval to do an assessment of CECP and make recommendations. This is along the same lines as the assessment we talked about yesterday

Collaborative Obesity Programs

Collaborative obesity programs will be enhanced and promoted. Larry indicated this may have some data collection implications. They have a database for this already.

Many other committees didn't have anything.

Location of Next Year's Meeting

Next year's meeting location has not been determined.

Donation to Scholarship Fund

Larry Turner's family has asked in lieu of flowers to please make a donation to a scholarship fund that has been established.

Importance of Understanding eXtension

Some of the other committees need to rev up their collaboration and understanding of eXtension.

Disaster Planning

Disaster planning: Nina and Ed will discuss next steps at a later date. IT PLN was the only committee with an information or action item on this. Most of the other committees feel they are "done".

Review of POW (Howard)

See Above for completed POW

Dates for Meeting over the next Year

Usually One Week Before PLC Meetings

Dates are:

Oct 12, Feb 8, Apr 12, June 14, July 12 at 9am central time via Centra

Creating a Wiki for Discussion and Assessment

Larry will create a wiki for us to discuss assessments of competencies as well as capabilities for disaster planning.

Adjourn