Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Current Membership

Voting Member


Term Expiration

VACANT (Bret Meckel)

Applied Sciences and Technology

May 2012

VACANT (Mark Hilson Schneider)

Applied Sciences and Technology

May 2013 (chair)

VACANT (Shannon Shoemaker)

Business and Hospitality

May 2012

VACANT (Jack Tessier)

Liberal Arts and Sciences

May 2012

Grady Miller

On-line Instruction

May 2014

Amanda Mitchell

Resnick Library and Academic Services

May 2014

Kristy Fitch


May 2014

John Padovani

Student Life

May 2013

Cindy Healy

Enrollment Services

May 2015

Carmen Andoh

Support Staff

May 2014

Officer Tim Ludden

Health, Safety, and Security

May 2013

Kemet Crawford

Student Body

May 2013

Non-Voting Member 


Term Expiration

Carol Bishop (or liaison)

Finance Cabinet Liaison


Jonathan Brennan

Chief Information Officer


Committee Charge

TAG shall assist the entire campus community (academic and professional) in assessing and articulating technology needs.  TAG is the voice of the campus community (faculty, staff, and students) at SUNY Delhi and is therefore responsible for representing their will.

Specific areas of responsibility:

Technology Policy

  • Address technology policy questions or requests for new technology policy as requested by members of cabinet or others with policy-making responsibility

Technology Research

  • Address technology research/opinion questions as requested by Senate


  • incorporate student views on technology by engaging the Student Senate on a regular basis, at least annually
  • report to Senate annually, providing
    • suggestions to improve TAG’s roles, responsibilities, processes, assessment rubrics, or communications
  • attend "quarterly" CIS updates to facilitate communications between CIS, Senate, and the campus community
    • review major technology implementation plans and encourage methods and schedules that minimize disruptions to teaching, learning, and normal work flow
    • review and make recommendations regarding the annual technology fee allocations


Composition of TAG should be a diverse cross section of the campus community.  Membership should include those with a broad campus perspective and understanding, rather than solely a technical focus. There shall be 13 members of this committee. The chair shall be elected by the voting members of the committee. Each member will serve a two-year term with terms staggered for continuity purposes.

  • Voting Members:
    **1 member from each academic division
    **1 member familiar with on-line instruction
    **1 member from the Resnick Library or Academic Services
    **1 member from CIS
    **1 member from Student Life
    **1 member from Enrollment Services
    **1 member from support staff (academic or professional)
    **1 member from the health, safety, or security areas
  • Ex-officio:
    **Finance Cabinet Liaison

Latest Meeting Notes

 Meeting Minutes - January 18, 2012


  1. Dear TAG members (and Barb because Tanja was a member),

    The former committees for technology advisement were dissolved in spring 2008 and absorbed into TAG in its current form. I can not speak for anyone else in the group, but I personally have not done anything for the benefit of TAG since I was asked to join. I've gone to a couple meetings, but I haven't done any real work yet. I would like to change that.

    Are other members of the group interested in helping me turn over a new leaf for TAG. If TAG is going to exist, I think it should be making a real contribution to the understanding of technology, project readiness, and project processes on campus.

    I don't mean to sound negative because I'm at least as much to blame as anybody else for the state of TAG, but I believe we need to become a real working committee or we should make way for others who have the will or the energy to do it.

    Ron, Patrick, and others laid out a pretty decent framework, which we could utilize to start making a real contribution. I have some thoughts on how we could go about making some progress, but I fear I may have overstepped my bounds with what I've already said. I would be really interested in reactions from others from within or outside of TAG. What have other TAG members been thinking/doing in their roles as TAG members? Any thoughts on the direction we should be taking?

    I apologize if I've sounded critical in this e-mail. Please understand that, to the extent any TAG member has failed to meet expectations, I am the guiltiest of the guilty. I am in no position to point fingers at others, and yet here I sit. I hope you'll see the underlying good intentions that rest just below the ugly surface of my approach. If so, please respond to all on this e-mail (and/or in Confluence) with your thoughts. Thank you.

    Best regards,


    Mark Hilson Schneider

    Instructor of Electrical Instrumentation and Controls

    State University of New York College of Technology

    218 Electrical Technologies Center

    Delhi, NY 13753

    607-746-4245 office phone

    607-746-4224 division fax

    1. I don't think this out of line and thank you for following up.

      I am very interested in developing the project management process as defined, however this has become very difficult as this process was developed with several assumptions. Perhaps, becuase we are not seeing technology development managed as I would hope, we need to take a step back and ask, why not?

      My inital thought is that the campus may not recognize or have the resources to work within the CIS Development Cycle as currently set up. For example, we place a high value on pre-assessment planning. That is folks who want to deploy a new service, or extend an existing one, are asked to assess how they do things now and how they would like to do things in the future. This should reveal the funtional requirements, that CIS can then use to develop the technical requirements. However, most folks on campus do not have the skill set tpo do this. Ron has been great to help people through this, but he and I both run into problems when we try to discover current operations.

      I know we spoke a bit about promoting the process. Maybe there is some way to "train" folks.

      I am thinking of several things, maybe a discussion is in order?

  2. Dear TAG,What I'm hearing so far leads me to believe that there are a number of members ready and willing to do some of the heavy lifting for TAG.  In light of some of the specific comments I've heard back from TAG members, I have the following recommendations/requests for you all: 1)  Please make sure you have a Confluence login2)  Please configure your Confluence account such that you receive notifications if any changes or additions are made to the TAG pages3)  Let's try to eliminate the requirement for face-to-face meetings so that folks like Deborah can be full, active TAG members I want to give other TAG members a chance to join in the discussion before I make any other recommendations or take any other actions, but I promise to take some of the steps Jack requested in his e-mail by the end of next week (4/17).Best regards,mark

  3. Hello TAG,

    I've been refraining from commenting so I don't dampen the conversation. I'll be rolling your input back into the page in the next edit.

    I want to tell you, as Patrick has, that I too am disappointed in the slow adoption of the new Project Management process. Key to the shift is the understanding that technology isn't a solution, it is a tool to that helps implement the solution. To fail to fully understand the change in the practices of a department that are really being sought through the use of technology is to invite folly. That's why the Project Development Template asks the Project Sponsor to think about why change is desired, what the impact of the change will be and how it will change other departments around you. Fully identify the problem that needs to be resolved. Worry about the solution after you understand how the problem intertwines with other practices. Know how the solution will be implemented and how your staff will be trained to use it in advance. Any solution has more than dollar costs - it will take time as well. Are there man hours available to serve the solution both in implementation and practice?

    We too often think that technology will solve problems. It is not a magic salve, but only a tool. Too often technology purchases have been made that are not implementable. CIS's Project Management process, while time consuming, is meant to stop that from occurring. If you review the Active Technology Projects list it is clear that many ideas that sounded good at first thought have "died on the vine." We can conjecture they were either not important enough for the Project Sponsor to document or once they were thought through they were not viable.

    What disturbs me most is that reviewing both our Active Technology Projects and CIS's current workload, beyond operational tasks, most of the projects we are involved in do not follow any evaluatory process. There is an expectation that they will be done regardless of how realistic it is to implement them or what work they will displace. They proceed without benefit of study of the impact on the sponsoring department and CIS. This is echoed in this year's Budget and Planning Committee Unit Plans. Few units followed through the process of submitting tickets to CIS for the technology components of their requests. Nor has there been any follow through to let CIS know what technology initiatives were funded.

    Moving forward, I agree with Patrick's suggestion that TAG needs to spend some time focusing on how we can promote the process. We need campus buy-in. The campus, particularly in these tough fiscal times, needs to follow the process so dollars aren't wasted and CIS's few available man hours aren't squandered on a project that will end up on a shelf.

    Also, in re-reading Mark's comments, I wonder if something important has been lost in the combination of prior committees into TAG. Is there a need for a formal group that discusses technology and pedagogy? Is there an expectation that TAG is more than it actually is?

    TAG has the potential to serve as an integral part of an important process. Thank you all for your continued interest in participating.

    1. Ron, thanks for sharing this with us. I have to tell you that I do think we need to "get the word out" about what TAG does and doesn't do. While I'm not on-campus, I still had heard of it and that's why I wanted to be a member. That said, even for me, the role of TAG was confusing for quite awhile and, it appears, it is/was for other members on our committee, too. If we are confused about TAG, how can we expect the rest of the Delhi community to know what and who we are.

      Now, you asked several good questions and I would like to respond to just one of those: "Is there a need for a formal group that discusses technology and pedagogy?" I copied and pasted TAG's mission here from above:

      • Provide technical and operational assessment to determine a project Readiness Ranking for all IT related enhancements and projects. Includes impact of emergency and mandatory initiatives.
      • Identify owners/sponsors/product managers for enterprise-wide technology services/systems.
      • Provide communication and consultation as to the readiness of specific projects.
      • Provide clear communications of the Technology Mission for the Campus.

      Then I went to the Technology Mission page and read that:

      • Provide leading edge technology to students & campus
      • Continue to lower total costs to allow for increased technology investment
      • Support a Self-Service  Environment
      • Broaden support services to include program-specific labs
      • Solicit external funding & input
      • Provide campus-wide communication of priorities,project plans, time line & insight into processes & service levels
      • Tie into IT technology program including internships
      • Improve Business operations through technology
      • Develop & maintain prioritization process
      • Improve Security and Internal Controls
      • Backup Up time
      • Testing

      Nothing I see there has anything to do with technology and pedagogy and I'm not sure that TAG should have anything to do with pedagogy. I believe that role is filled admirably by Clark and he should be the one the campus turns to for help in that area. Then, when he has a project related to one of our roles, he can bring it to us.

      Just my 2 cents, which, as we all know, in this economy, is worth nothing.


      1. Looking at TAG's mission from above, I would offer 2 and four are foundational for reaching the vision for Project Management as defined by CIS.

  4. Why have most of the comments been removed, especially ones with important links?

    1. The comments have been rolled into this page and the Meeting Notes 2008-09 page. The links can be found at the top of the page.

      Your organization comments for page structure are welcome (or you can rearrange).

  5. Hi TAG Members and TAG Watchers,

    I propose a synchronous (same time, not necessarily same place) meeting or TAG workshop during which we can work out some details of our priorities, commitments as members, and processes.  I apologize for the long e-mail, but I encourage TAG members to read it in its entirety and get back to the group with your thoughts.

    Patrick tells me that one project proposal (maybe it was ePortfolios) is almost ready for review by TAG.  I think we should each do our best to apply the Readiness Rubric to that project prior to our meeting.  Patrick or Ron, can you please give us an idea if/when that project proposal will be ready for review?  Pending a response from Patrick or Ron, I propose a synchronous meeting during one of the following time slots:

    Monday, June 1, 10 AM to 12 Noon

    Wednesday, June 3, 12:30 PM to 2:30 PM

    Please resond to the whole group with your availability during those time slots and with your comments on the proposed agenda.  Thank you.

    Here's a proposed agenda for our meeting:

    1)  Nomination and election of a chair or co-chairs

    2)  Confirm committee membership, agree on what number of members constitutes a quorum, agree (hopefully) that a quorum may be achieved via confluence and not require members to be engaged in the same place or at the same time

    3)  Discussion of Confluence etiquette for our group

    I propose that all committee members' comments should remain on the page, unedited, as a permanent record.  I propose that documents that must be nicely formatted such as policies and procedures of the group should be saved as child pages or some other way of separating them from the "messy" discussion space of the main TAG Confluence page.  I'll look to Jack or other committee members to make suggestions on how to best handle this.  I propose that policies or procedures of the committee, including the rubric itself, should not be changed by individual members or others without approval by a quorum.

    Because I hope we will rarely, if ever, be meeting syncrhonously, I propose that any committee member should be able to "make a motion" at any time.  It should be the responsibility of the chair to establish a timeline for discussion and "voting" on a motion.  The chair should also be responsible to communicate the results of such a resolution as appropriate inside or outside the committee.  The chair should also be responsible for making sure that any changes to policies or procedures of the group that result from an approved motion are reflected on the Confluence documents.

    4) Clear definition of Readiness Rubric process

    I believe CIS should notify the committee via Confluence that a project is ready for review.  The chair should establish a timeline for a given project or group of projects and communicate that through Confluence.  Members will independently apply the Readiness Rubric, engaging in group discussion as appropriate through Confluence.  The chair will monitor the groups progress, encouraging members as necessary.  If TAG finds the information provided to be insufficient, the chair will notify the project sponsor and CIS, requesting specific information needed for completion of the Readiness Rubric.  Members should have the ability to modify their responses after considering the input of other members.  The chair will notify members and CIS of the drop-dead date and time to make any changes.   After the Readiness Rubric is complete and the drop-dead date has passed, CIS will become the recipient of the completed Rubric.  It will be CIS's responsibilty to integrate the Rubric results into their own decision making proecess and the decision making processes of other adminstrators or committees on campus.

    5)  Clear definition of project development process advocacy role.

    I believe each committee member should be responsible to reach out into their unit area during the fall 2009 semester to do the following:

    a)  Educate fellow faculty and staff about how projects get evaluated and adopted

    b)  Encourage folks to begin utilizing Confluence as a way to communicate and document their ideas

    6)  Discuss any difficulties encountered in applying the readiness rubric to our first project and any suggestions for improving it.

    Note that if we complete agenda items 1 through 3, we can continue with other agenda items asynchronously through confluence if necessary.

    Best regards,



    1. I will not be avaliable for the June 3rd proposed meeting time, but I can be available (by cancelling participation in the InDesign Workshop) for the June 1st proposed meeting time.

      In order to keep policy pages separate from activity pages, we could have a child page for each academic year, in which we post scores for readiness rubrics and hold votes for modifying policies and procedures.  That way our activiites do not become unwieldy yet remain in evidence in Confluence.  I concur, that discussions should remain visible as evidence of and resources for the committee's acitivites. 

      1. The June 3rd InDesign Training is now on the 17th (10-12), so the third works for me.

    2. Mark, I'm free on both dates at this point.

      I agree with all you wrote. My only question concerns: "I believe each committee member should be responsible to reach out into their unit area during the fall 2009 semester". What do you mean by "unit area"? Being fairly new to Delhi, I'm not sure if you mean, for example, the RN-to-BSN program or Nursing and Allied Health. If you mean the latter, I'm not sure how I could do that, since I'm in IL and don't know 90% of those who are part of our whole department.


      1. I'm also free on both days.  Just let me know what I need to do.  (big grin)

        1. TAG Workshop Scheduled

          Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 12:30 - 2:30 PM

          Electrical Technologies Center Conference Room (2nd floor)

          Your homework assignment due by 12:30 PM on Wednesday, Jun 3:  Apply the Readiness Rubric to the Vet Sci Computer Lab project proposal.  The project proposal can be found at  The Readiness Rubric is available on this Confluence page under Related Links and also under Refrences.

          The full agenda for the workshop is shown in my May 19 posting to this Confluence page.  We'll get through as much as we can during the scheduled workshop and then do the rest asynchronously if all TAG members agree to that.

          Best regards,


          x4245 office

          746-8683 home

      2. Deborah,

        As a committee, we need to find ways to reach all faculty and staff.  I was hoping you could be responsible for the whole nursing area because you are the only committee representative from that area.  Could this be a good excuse to get to know the other 90%?  If not, we'll have to strategize about ways to cover those other faculty and staff.


        1. It would be quite an exercise, Mark. I'm open to it. I just need some suggestions as to how you think I could do that? Since I live 781 miles from Delhi and haven't met everyone who is in the nursing department, I can't exactly do a F2F meeting with them.

          I can reach out via email. Just not sure what to say in it or how to proceed with it. If I can have some guidelines about what we mean by "reach out", I'll try it. They all know I'm out here in Cyberlalaland, they just all haven't heard from or met me.

          I actually think it might be better for me to share with Mary Pat what we want to contain in a "reach out" contact. Then she could give them the information at a faculty meeting. Or I could conference into one of their meetings. I've done that before . . . sitting and listening to them enjoy the baked goodies they bring to the meetings. (wink)


          1. Deborah,

            It sounds like working through Mary Pat and the faculty meetings might be a good start.  Our committee will have to agree on what our "reaching out" message needs to be.  In my opinion, we committee members want to give people in our unit areas the information they need so that the project development process works as smoothly and effectively as possible for them.  I think that includes offering ourselves as resources to assist when our colleagues are proposing a new project.  I think the message includes encouragement for folks to begin using Confluence to monitor and participate in campus discussions.

            We also want to become recipients of feedback about the project development process, so you want to make sure people know you're there to listen to them and try to change the process where appropriate.

            Others on the committee will need to weigh in with their opinions on what, if anything, our "outreach" role should be.  Once we have a consensus, I could try to document those decisions in a form that might be helpful to committee members as they begin the outreach process.  For example, maybe I could create a single sheet of talking points or maybe a short power point presentation would be better?


            1. I agree that having Mary Pat convey my message is probably the best way to go, Mark. I also agree that we might want to put together a list with talking points to pass on, so we all give a consistent message.


  6. How about setting up a DimDim meeting for this? I too am off site on June 3rd (today).

    1. That's fine with me. I've conferenced in like that before here. Just let me know. Deborah

    2. I assume everyone else will still meet at the physical location?

  7. I just realized I am not actually a member of TAG, so I will exit the group (although I will be watching/commenting with interest) and leave TAG business in all of your capable hands. I will be happy to provide any assistance as requested (confluence issues, CIS issues, etc.)

    Quite honestly I think the group is mature enough and headed in the right direction so I can simply butt-out.

    Best of luck,


  8. Dear TAG Members,

    If you were a TAG member as of June 3, 2009, please submit your completed readiness rubric for the Vet Sci Computer Lab to the following location as an attachment:  Alternatively, you can e-mail it to me.  I'll put all of the data in a single spreadsheet that summarizes each evaluation criteria and does not show individual TAG members' scores.

    If you are a new TAG member since June 3, 2009, you are not responsible to complete this particular readiness rubric.  You may want to look through a couple examples and familiarize yourself with the rubric.

    Best regards,


    1. Restrictions need to be lifted to permit TAG members to add attachments to that page.


      1. I added you Jack. Anyone else having trouble with access?

      2. Jack,

        I put a help desk request in so that I can understand this better.  I dont' know how to confirm whether someone is within a particular Confluence group.  If you were already in the Confluence TAG group, I'm not sure why you had limited access to the page.  I'll let you know what I learn.



    Dear TAG members and other interested watchers.  I am currently seeing the technology project proposal process from "the other side of the fence."  I'm trying to advocate for a better way for students to save there electronic files that is secure and accessible from various locations.  Therefore, I've been posting stuff in Confluence under the Active Technology Projects area in a page called Project Proposal - Protected Personal Network Storage.  I've run into some resistance when I've tried to get others to post their thoughts in Confluence. 

    One faculty member made it clear that he does not and will not use Confluece for any reason. 

    One faculty member expressed a very legitimate concern.  She does not want to post her thoughts in a venue that is open to the public.  Her perception is that the general public can view things she posts on Confluence.  So far I haven't been able to disprove her notion.  Although I'm not totally sure she is correct, we must at least address the perception if we want to get honest participation in debates about projects on Confluence. 

    Other faculty members tell me they don't have any objection to using Confluence, but they haven't gotten around to learning how to use it yet.

    In addition to pointing out some specific obstacles to a truly inclusive Confluence community, I want to make the point that it may be incorrect to assume that the consensus on Confluence resembles the consensus on campus.  It may not resemble the consensus of the campus community or the project stakeholders at all.  This all just makes our jobs as TAG members a little more difficult.  If we want Confluence to be THE repository for discussions of technology projects we need to get out there and convince people to start using confluence.  In the meantime, we have to be careful not to misinterpret what we see in Confluence.

    Any thoughts from other TAG members?


    1. Mark, I can give you my take on Connie, as we "affectionately" call Confluence in the online RN-to-BSN program.

      • When I first started trying to use it, I hated it.  It takes time to get used to Connie and to learn to think in the right manner.
      • Our new faculty usually find it confusing and frustrating.  FT faculty, who precept new adjuncts, call their preceptees and actually go through how to use it on the phone together.  There isn't a real measure of comfort that I'd say they ever reach, but they get used to it.
      • I find some things very frustrating:
        • The search engine is a pain to use.  I never really understand how it gives me what it does, even when I use actual names of pages I'm looking for, because I get back large numbers of hits that just don't make sense in what they say.
        • We often find that tables act odd when we try to add to them.  It's not always because we're pasting something in, either.  I have a very vague acquaintance with wiki markup and still can't get some of the errors fixed and have to got back in the history or ask someone in CIS to help me.

      We use Connie a lot in our program.  We have student files on here and faculty files, too.  Once we learned the hierarchies and how to restrict areas, that helped.

      I can understand your colleague's worry about confidentiality.  Awhile ago, an email came out from, I think, CIS saying that all files on Connie were in the public domain and to be careful about what goes on here.  Since I knew that confidential student information and other confidential material was being kept here by our program, I rather freaked out about it.  I wrote to Patrick, I believe, and was told that email had incorrect information in it and that what is in Connie and has viewing and editing hierarchies on it is not open to the public domain.  I do believ another email was sent out correcting the misconception there.

      I don't, personally, have any need for students to use Connie, but we use it heavily in our program.  It works well, even with the small issues I mentioned above, and helps us keep common information and files accessible to all our faculty.  We use it to keep minutes of meetings, student academic challenges pages, advising pages, announcements for faculty, accreditation files, and course revision histories accessible to those who need it and to store important information with a faculty stretched from Hawaii to the Middle East.  Clark keeps pages on various aspects of how to use VH tools and start classes and so on.  It's doing a great service for us.

      I'm not sure what more we can do than to offer support to our colleagues.  Clark offers some excellent courses on how to use Connie, too, from what I've seen.

      I've been won over.  I am happy to share what I've learned about the wonders of this wiki, if anyone is interested in having me do so.


    2. Tag Members,

      If I understand Mark's comments correctly (adoption and contribution), I think the issue with Confluence, and thus with a project management and IT governance structure that relies on it, is really either a lack of understanding of a bottom-up model (process), or perhaps more directly, simply a lack in confidence that such a model can work (value). Confluence's features and functionality may require, as any new tool would, some learning. However, the "culture" of Confluence might be much more challenging for folks.

      I think the feedback Mark is getting is common as folks enter a collaborative, open process - we had much of the same in CIS when Confluence was first introduced: concerns that posts made might be controversial, taken out of context, inflammatory, ridiculed, etc.

      However I will continue to argue it's value and look for ways to raise awareness, increase understanding, foster adoption and promote contributions. Therefore, perhaps we can position ourselves, first as advocates for the process in order to grow the acceptance of the process on campus.

      Fortuitously, I just came across an opportunity that might help the TAG in these efforts. The Northeast Regional Computing Program (NERCOMP), which supports the use and administration of information technology in higher education, academic research and educational administration and an affiliate of EDUCAUSE (the .edu domain administrator with a mission to advance higher education by promoting the intelligent use of information technology), is offering a workshop: "New Models for Collaboration: Technology Supported Cooperative Work."

      The topic of this workshop is collaboration, and the role that technology can play in enhancing peer-to-peer and student-instructor communication. This workshop will provide the audience with ideas for how to supplement or transform face-to-face teamwork into effective online collaboration. Presenters will share their stories and best practices for how they overcame collaboration and communication challenges and offer methods to improve these processes.

      The workshop is designed for "people who use or are considering using web 2.0 models wikis1 for collaboration, including team members, leaders, managers and supporters."

      DATE: September 15, 2009
      TIME: 9:00 - 3:00 (Coffee and Registration start at 8:00)
      LOCATION: The College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA.

      CIS would be happy to sponsor any TAG members interested in attending. My hope would be that we could use the information provided to help us with our own, "collaboration and communication challenges."

      Please let me know what you think, thanks,

    3. Under the offical Delhi logo on any page in Confluence (the upper left corner) restricted pages are displayed with a lock symbol. By clicking on it, it will open the document info page. The 5th section down on the left will display the page restrictions. If there is no lock icon displaying, then there are no restrictions and that page is open to the entire world.

      The other issue I hear being discussed is theInnovation Adoption Curve (Rogers). Confluence has moved past Innovators and Early adopters and through Mark's  observation Confluence is somewhere in the Early Majority phase of the adoption curve. We can also see from Mark's sample that Delhi is not unique and contains people in the latter two catagories as well. I offer this merely as reference material for the group to assist in understand technology (innovation) adoption.

      Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Edition By Dr. Everett M. Rogers. Another point to consider that is not expressed by the curve alone can be found in his text. See Pages 10-11 on the QWERTY keyboard versus the Dvorak keyboard.

      One of the largest challenges for TAG (IMO) is determining what constitutes a critical mass to proceed with an innovation versus innovations that never achieve a critical mass for adoption.


    4. Mark,

      From an observation point of view, I've seen that Confluence is just not adopted on campus, in my opinion, because it's one more thing that people don't want to take the time to learn.  For those not brought up in the technological era, its difficult for them to play around and experiment with new technology, and I think it is a frightening prospect to not know where to begin. 

      With that said, I've found that people will start to use it when they see the value in it (as Patrick pointed out).  For example, the Middle States steering committee will be using Confluence as a common place to share files, organize events, and share thoughts and information (I have dragged my collegues kicking and screaming).  Most on the committee had never used it before, but they immediately saw the value in it, and are now slowly but surely coming on board with it.

  10. Dear TAG Members,

    As you probably all  know, there has been quite a bit of discussion over the last month among the Senate, Brian Hutzley, and others regarding TAG.  As of this time, that discussion has not resulted in any change in our charge.  Our charge is still two-fold:

    1)  Review of technology project proposals per the readiness rubric:  We are to review projects and report our findings to the CIS Project Management Office, Ron Rosenblum specifically.  So far we have been asked to evaluate a single project - the Vet Sci Computer Lab.  The following TAG members completed rubrics and uploaded them to the Project Proposal page in Confluence:  Deb Adelman, Bret Meckel, Angela Rhodes, Mark Schneider, Jack Tessier.  These 5 TAG members constitute a quorum of TAG and therefore TAG completed its only assigned rubric review task in June of 2009.  Since that time there have not been any other projects in the "assessment" phase, which would require evaluation per the rubric.

    2) Communication about and advocacy for the project management process within our home academic divisions and administrative/operational areas.  I'd like to get a conversation going regarding this area.  I'm hoping that those who have been with TAG since the beginning can share their experiences and collectively we can give some guidance to newer TAG members and gather some lessons learned to share with CIS and others in Bush Hall.

    Let me be the first to share my experiences as they relate to being a technology project management process advocate within the Tech Division.  At each of our Tech Division meetings I make a pitch for our process, meaning I let people know that if they have technology project needs or ideas they should look at the project template.  I let them know that I am there to help them through the process.  I tell them that all the data is gathered in Confluence.  So far the feedback I've gotten has been fairly negative.  The reasons include a sense of disillusionment based on past experiences with technology decisions and a general resistance to Confluence as a means of gathering data and developing consensus among members of our college community.  I'll keep my comments brief for now and encourage others to chime in with their thoughts so that we can contribute ideas to improve the process.

    One last note on TAG - I plan on meeting with Brian Hutzley soon to have an exchange about TAG.  In fact, we were supposed to meet before break but Brian got snowed in so the meeting was postponed.  Please let me know if you would like to be a part of those discussions.  Otherwise, I'll just keep you up to date by posting my meeting notes in e-mail and in Confluence.

    Best regards,



  11. Dear TAG and TAG "Groupies" -

    First, I'm providing an update on TAG Committee Chair activities:

    1)  I, along with Jack Tessier, attended the latest CIS leadership meeting to begin our new role in communications between campus/senate and CIS.  The meeting had a very friendly and welcoming feeling, although not much real CIS business took place.  Most of the discussions centered around TAG, the TAG process, etc.  I anticipate attending all future CIS leadership meetings and seeing more of the "normal" workings of a CIS leadership meeting.

    2)  I haven't appeared before Senate yet since our last TAG meeting because I got kicked off the agenda (in a nice way) 2 meetings ago and the last Senate meeting was cancelled.  However, I am on the agenda for the Senate meeting on Monday, June 14 at 9 AM.  All TAG members are welcome to the meeting, which is on the 2nd floor of Alumni Hall.  If you want to attend via phone, please let me know.

    3)  CIS had a few comments on our updated TAG process, all of which were good clarifications, but tended to complicate our very simple 4-phase project evaluation process.  I'm hoping to meet with Ron tomorrow or soon after to finalize the presentation of that process so that we can point all project sponsors to a single location for a complete (but still very simple) explanation of how to get their projects considered for funding in their unit plans.

    Second, I'm asking you to do some leg work as TAG members:

    Please see the attached spreadsheet, which is cut and pasted from the "Active Technology Projects" page in confluence.  I would like to eliminate projects from this list in one of two ways:
    1)  Have the project move successfully through the TAG process so it goes into a unit plan this September OR
    2)  Have the project sponsor say that the project is no longer relevant so Ron can move it to an Inactive Projects list.

    For each project in the spreadsheet, I've assigned a TAG member to guide the project by helping the project sponsor.  For projects in the Discovery Phase, we need to find out what, if anything, needs to be done to complete the project template.  Once the project template is complete, Ron Rosenblum should be notified so that the Evaluation Phase can be completed, typically within 30 days.

    For projects in the Evaluation Phase, Ron and his partners in crime owe an evaluation to the project sponsor and TAG within 30 days unless they have specified another specific timeline.

    There are 21 projects on the list. I've tried to spread them out fairly to TAG members.  Since 5 of the projects are sponsored by folks within administration, I chose not to assign all of those to Lori.  A couple others have been assigned projects with administrative roots.  I hope you don't mind.

    If you need help getting started, please contact me and I'll spend time with you at your convenience over the next couple weeks.  Thank you for your contributions to TAG.  I look forward to working more with you.
    Best regards,
    607-746-4245 office
    607-746-8683 home

    1. Hi Mark, Until we hire a new librarian, we won't have a representative to replace Angela Rhodes on TAG. 
      Let me know if there is anything you might need input on from the library side until then.  

      We hope to get someone one board early fall.   Hope this won't slow down your group's work.

      Pam x4643,

  12. Dear TAG,

    Please see the year-end report I'm submitting to Senate and Cabinet, which is an attachment to this page.  Let's plan on meeting early next semester.

    Best regards,