College of the Desert

College of the Desert College Planning Council THINK TANK REPORTING FORM This form may be modified by the Think Tank to meet the specific needs of the area being studied for recommendation

1. Think Tank Membership (# of team members to be determined by individual Think Tanks) Think Tank Subgroup: Jeff Place( leader), Zerryl Becker, Mark Rizzo, Bina Isaac, Michael Harlow,

2. Brief description of current program structure/activity/service studied Student computers on campus. ITIR presented a list of student computers that showed a total of 930 at 40 different locations. Two of these locations are Mecca Thermal and EVC; the remaining 38 locations are all on the Palm Desert campus. Approximately 250 of these computers are off warranty. Six of the locations are classrooms. A second subgroup is looking at effective use of classrooms so this group did not pursue any recommendations for those computers, except to comment that the CIS labs are a combination of classroom and TBA lab and the TBA lab should be considered FTES generating lab.. The remaining locations are a combination of FTES generating labs and “free” labs. All FTES generating labs must have faculty present whenever students are in the lab; there are additional requirements that the faculty meet minimum qualifications in the area for which the FTES is being claimed. Most of these labs also have ISA’s ( Instructional Support Assistants) responsible for the positive attendance collection ( FTES) and first call for software issues. Non-FTES generating labs do not require faculty nor do they provide assistance to students; they do require some kind of clerical “watchdog”.

This subgroup recommends the following:

 these computers shoul be consolidated and relocated into a smaller number of locations.  outsourcing should be considered for maintenance of the computers.  a new job description for “Super ISA” be considered; a job that would allow ISA’s to provide basic computer software maintenance and updating ( for example, deploy an image created by ITIR specialists). Revised 8/9/11  the Revenue Think Tank consider the possibility of creating more FTES generating labs; investigating the curriculum feasibility of charging students for a half unit or full unit in order to access labs on campus.  There should be a moratorium on new labs, unless the request has a five year plan and funding for maintenance and replacement  Whenever possible, bond funds should be used for the purchase of new computers, older labs merged into the new labs and eliminated

3. Type of Program Identify whether the area under study is a legal requirement, necessary for operations, or optional

Comments

 Legal (provide legal citation)  Requirement  Necessary for (provide explanation)  FTES generating labs are necessary Operations for curriculum and learning.

 Optional (provide explanation)  Non-FTES generating labs are a convenience to students.

4. Stakeholders Input (Qualitative Data) The next step is validating these recommendations is to contact each of the 38 areas to determine reasons why that specific area might need to exist as a separate lab; what potential savings could be realized by combining that lab with others; what reorganization would need to occur in order to work with a relocated/consolidated lab; what software issues need to be considered.

5. Think Tank Data/Information (Quantitative Data) List of student computers on campus by location

6. Recommendation to President Patton

Revised 8/9/11 O x O O O Continue Continue /w Discontinue No Recommendation Recommend Qualifications Must provide rationale as to New/Innovative why the Think Tank could not provide a recommendation Program/Service Must be within the scope of the College meeting its fiscal target

7. Rationale for recommendation and qualifications There are several areas of FTES generating labs on campus: ASC, Foreign Language Lab, Math labs, CIS labs, DDP lab, CAD lab. Most seem to be used effectively during peak hours ( although more data is needed to actually determine this) but evenings and late afternoons are frequently underused. With consolidation, there could be one lab open rather than 5 or 6, reducing the need for ISA positions. For non-FTES generating labs, consolidation is even more likely to generate savings since one person could easily watch several labs.

8. Provide an evidence based rationale for how the following may be impacted by recommendation:

Students: Considerable positive impact on students since it would be possible to have consolidated labs open more hours, with assistance available. Possible negative impact if all computers are busy during peak times, but a waitlist system could be generated to allow students to pursue other activities until the lab is available.

Community: No impact

Budget: With consolidation, the number of student computers on campus could probably be reduced by 30%. Computers no longer on warranty could be discarded whenever they are no longer efficient to maintain, without funds being required for replacement. Consolidation from 38 locations to 4 locations could impact up to 30 workloads for classified staff.

Academic Programs: Faulty will need to think innovatively to make consolidated labs work with curriculum, but it can be done.

Personnel: Reduction in ISA, Classified, and Faculty requirements. Fewer computers could also result in less ITIR support needs; or result in a lower outsourcing contract.

Revised 8/9/11 Service: Longer hours for students, some possible reduction in access during peak hours.

Other:

Some categories above may not be applicable to your area of study. Responses can be in bullet form.

9. Additional Information (if applicable)

Revised 8/9/11