Please report any problems to the Shared Tools Team at st-help@doit.wisc.edu    Broken Links? Missing Macros? WIKI Retiring Plugins
Child pages
  • ITAccessCG Meeting 2014-08-07 Joint Chairs
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Agenda - Accessibility/Usability of IT Coordinating Group (Coordinating Group)

Meeting of co-chairs of the Coordinating Group and Tools Team

Aug 7, 2014, 11:00-12:00, Union S. 

Plot the course based on where we are now with the goal of answering the following so that we can continue to move ahead as collaboratively and efficiently as possible.

1)      Determine what/when is the endpoint/transition of the tools team.

AND

2)      Determine what tools-related group will likely do the follow-along with Cathy Riley’s (or other DoIT) implementation team

Action:

    • The Tools team has almost completed the initial portion of its charge, i.e. to purchase suitable tools.
    • The team has been working on the purchase by having bi-weekly since November of 2012. That is a tremdous amount of effort. At this point it is not reasonable to expect the current Tools Team members to continue.
    • The consensus of the joint chairs of both the Tools Team and the Coordinating Group is that the Tools team should end with the completion of the purchase, and another team be formed to carry on with the implementation.
    • There will be some carry-over in membership between the Tools Team and new team. Individual members will have the option of continuing or not. (Some have already decided they will continue.)
    • The joint chairs are concerned about the need for close coordination between the Coordianting Group and the tool implementation during Phase I.
    • To assure close coordinatiion, the joint chairs propose that the new team report directly to the Coordinating Group. That new team would be charged with conducting phase I of the tool implementation as outlined in the plan for a phased implementation, including detailed interaction with DoIT on the implementation of the tool.

Immediate action:

    • Both teams should discuss this proposal at their next meeting on Aug 21.
    • The tools team should invite Phil Jochimsen to one of their meetings, soon.

3)      Determine what the structure and relationship of that tools-related group is to the Coordinating Group

Action:

    • The "Phase I Task Force" would be function as a subcommittee of the Accessibility Coordinating Group. The membership would consist of one representative from each unit that is participaing in Phase I, plus a few other members from the either the existing Tools Team or the Coordinating Group, plus others as needed. (NOTE: In the meeting we called this a "steering committee" and that is essentially how it would function. "Task Force" is a better name for it, because a "committee" at UW-Madison is generally understood to be part of shared governance.)
    • Since the Phase I Task Force reports to the Coordinating Group, there will be frequent communications, and the Coordinating Group will be able to guide Task Force activities.
       
    • The Task Force will focus on:
      • a) issues related to the implementation of AMP that are of interest to the user community
      • b) other tools related issues as outlined in the phased implementation plan
      • c) assuring good communications and cooperation among units participating in Phase I, as described in the phased implementation plan.
    • The Coordianting Group will handle:
      • a) interaction with the sponsors and with the campus as a whole,
      • b) requests for further funding
      • c) all the other things specified in the Coordinating Group charter, except those delegated by the Coordinating Group to the Task Force.

 

Immediate action:

    • Gary will modify the phased implemenation plan to include the proposed duties of the Task Force, and other "charter-like" issues.
    • The Tools Team will revise the phased implemenation plan (starting at their Aug 21 meeting,) and when ready will submit it to the Coordinating Group for further refinement and action.

4)      Determine next steps for getting funding for other parts of the implementation, not including the staffing.

AND

5)      Determine next steps, team, and timeline for the staffing proposal.

Action:

    • The plan for obtaining the remainder of the funding needed s divided into two parts:
       
    • Part 1: The Coordinating Group will communicate with the sponsors and request initial funding for an immedaite minimal implementation of AMP at UW-Madison, which will allow users to log in and use the software. This includes funding for:
      • a) integration of NetID login ($8000)
      • b) partial funding to cover the initial work at DoIT to contract for the software, coordinate DoIT and SSB Bart Group activity, provide minimal documentation for logging in, etc. (approximately $4000 – this estimate is to be improved by consulting with Phil Jochimsen of the DoIT Productive and Collaborative Solutions group.)
    • Hope is that Part 1 can be "fronted" by DoIT, on the basis that the purchase of the software is wasted unless there is at least a minimal implementation that allows users to login and use it. That is, if we spent $60,000 in year #1 to purchase access to the software for three years, it is not unreasonable to spend an additional $12,000 in year #1 so we can actually use it at some minimal level of support while further funding decisions are considered.
       
    • Part 2: The Coordinating Group will create a more complete proposal that includes:
      • a) the remainder of the funding budgeted for the AMP tool implementation (see Appendix A of the Tool Team recommendations.)
      • b) a staffing proposal for an accessibility consulting service to help the campus improve the accessibility of websites and web applications.
    • It is unclear at this time what mechanism will be used to advance Part 2 of the proposal. It is possible that the CIO will want to have that proposal be the first project to run through IT Decision-making.  The Coordinating Group will continue working on the staffing portion of Part 2 in anticipation that some mechansim will be found by which Part 2 can be advanced.

Immediate action:

    • Gary will draft a letter to the sponsors proposing the above plan and requesting the initial funding.
    • The two teams can review it at their Aug 21 meeting, and when ready, the Coordinating Group will submit it to the sponsors.

References:

April 17 Joint meeting of the Tools Team and Coordinating Group

Tools Team charter

Coordinating Group charter

Tools Team Recommendations

Contact

  • No labels