How Globalization Has Impacted Strategies for Campus...

of 15

How Globalization Has Impacted Strategies

for Campus Networking Brian D. Voss, Associate Vice President for Telecommunications, Office of the Vice President for Information Technology & CIO, Indiana University Abstract The expanded reach of the Internet, the World Wide Web, and other advancements in the adoption of information technology has brought about a globalization of higher education institutions and the members of an institution's community. This globalization is driving an evolution in the way we think about the campus network. And it is driving institutions to develop new strategies for addressing the expanded view of a "globalized" campus network. This paper discusses the rationale for developing a long-term, sustainable, institution-wide strategy for campus networks, and the technologies that connect institutions to the Internet. Time Traveling If you could go back in time 10 years, and spend a day on your campus to revisit the information technology environment, it would undoubtedly occur to your 2004-era mind that things were quite different. Let’s not go into an excruciating list of all the processors, peripherals, applications, etc. and how they had changed. But what would likely strike you immediately is how isolated the campus fe lt in terms of information flow and information technology networking. Perhaps you would feel as if you were on an island community, advanced in its use of information technology and busy working hard to use networking to extend communication and collaboration across your campus to faculty, students, and staff—but only on the island, not off it. As you walk around your campus in 1994, you notice that the information technology issues were focused first and foremost on the desktop and the user (e.g., what hardware, how old it was, what applications it was using, how the user was supported, etc.). Included in those user/desktop issues was the need for that desktop and its user to be connected to the broader campus, whether that was to the data/computing center (for use of centralized resources like administrative applications, central computing platforms and applications, and electronic mail) or within a building or collection of buildings to facilitate local area network connectivity (for sharing of files, applications, printers, etc.).

of 15

What you’d likely notice, though, was that there was only the most minor interest in connectivity off the campus. There was, after all, BITnet, maybe a connection to ARPAnet, and perhaps a few other research-oriented connections that were handled using telecommunications services (leased lines – 56Kbps, or maybe even T-1). In fact, 10 years ago, the major institutional issue involving connectivity beyond your campus had to do with getting users who lived off-campus in the surrounding community onto campus to take advantage of the aforementioned resources (i.e., dial-up access via modem pools). We had little reason—other than hauling the mail—to connect our institutions and campuses together. Got that picture in your head? Okay, fast forward through time to your campus today, bringing your fresh impressions from 1994. The world got smaller, and your campus border no longer seems like the edge of the galaxy as depicted in a Star Trek episode! Your institution is still likely wrestling with ‘next generation’ variants of the 1994 challenges (desktops, user support, hardware, software, etc.), and there are a whole host of new IT challenges involving university information systems, research computing, course management systems, portals … the list goes on seemingly forever! But the comparison that likely stands out most is your perspective of networking—and that networking now is vastly more global and your campus vastly less isolated as an island unto itself. This is the key difference between ‘campus networking’ in 1994, and ‘campus inter-networking’ in 2004; the focus of the institution’s information technology networking environment—and yes, even the overall focus of the entire institution itself—on connections beyond the campus boundaries. The Evolving Nature of the Campus Network As early as the 1980’s, institutions of higher education realized the critical need for campus network strategies, and the commitment of institutional resources to establishing and maintaining a sound telecommunications infrastructure. By the 1990’s, most every institution had a campus network, and at varying levels were committing resources to it. But much has changed in the past 10 years – since the Internet burst onto the scene. Previously our campus network strategies were focused on connecting users to each other, and to our campus computing/data centers. We focused on providing sound on-campus wiring to every desktop (and pillow in our residence facilities) and on building ‘campus network backbones’ to establish and link local area networks in buildings to the campus core information technology resources. And today, we still have those many of those same concerns—keeping our campus community wired together and linked to our computation, storage, and data processing centers. But the landscape of the campus network has changed. The advent of the Internet—the web—and the globalization of higher education as brought about by the revolution in information technology is driving an evolution in the way we think about ‘the campus network.’

of 15

Today we need not only be concerned with linking our users to each other and to the information technology core on campus, but also to the world beyond our campus boundaries. In fact, it is the case that this external linkage has become the primary focal point of our network services. Campuses are no longer isolated villages operating solely to their purpose. Rather, they now are part of a global community in which they play a role of both provider of information and user of information. Today, our institutions are tightly interconnected with each other. We all have our own special address space (e.g.: www.something.edu) just so we can communicate with each other, and find each other in the vast ocean that has become the Internet. As a result, networking at our institutions is now focused not just on how connectivity is done on our campus but also on how connectivity is provided to the world beyond our campus—to the Internet, and back. In fact, our network managers can likely document that more traffic today on our campus networks is bound to-and-from the Internet (i.e., off our campuses) than flows within the on-campus network boundaries. We are all broadening our horizons, and while we still make use of resources on our campuses, we now are more likely to look off-campus the majority of time. And those same resources are increasingly used more by Internet users, than those on our campuses. As our institutions have evolved to live in a world where the Internet exists we have come to realize we are all now part of a global community of scholars and researchers. Our institutions—our campuses—are no longer self-contained, independent islands of higher education and research, but are part of a globalized world of information used in research, teaching and learning, general information gathering, and recreation. We should seek to help campus administrators and the campus communities of scholars understand the importance of developing a long-term, sustainable, institution-wide strategy for their campus networks. To do so, and to secure their committed support to such strategies, we must articulate the primary elements to consider in developing that strategy, how to frame such a strategy, and most importantly why doing so is critically important to the institution’s ability to survive and advance in the 21st century. The Importance of Having a Sustainable Institutional Strategy for Campus Networking in the 21st Century Does This Impact My Campus? The focus on the institution’s network landscape and how it relates to the rest of the world is not simply technical. In fact, while ‘connectivity’ is technical, the connection’s purpose has little really to do with technology. It has to do with the evolving nature of research, teaching and learning, and service and outreach missions of our institutions. Whether your institution is research-intensive, teaching

of 15

and learning focused, residential in nature, or a combination of all three—whether you are la rge, medium, or small in size—whether you are public or private—your institution is impacted in a significant way by this evolution in networking in higher education. Research-focused institutions have concerns about ensuring their faculty researchers are well-connected into the growing cyber infrastructure, so that they can participate in research activities and claim a share of grant funding for those activities. Without successful collaboration in this growingly interconnected world, an institution’s research mission can flounder, and even fail. Research agendas (and thus research grant funding) is now broader, and more global in perspective. Hence, grants are more and more often going to collaborations and consortiums of researchers at several institutions (and not just to an individual or group of individuals at a single institution). Institutions with a focus on teaching and learning must realize that this area, too, is now far more global. It is more global, both in terms of the course materials brought into on-campus teaching and the outreach via online education to a broader community of students. Institutions that do not well-leverage their connectivity to the outside world will not provide the rich courses demanded by today’s students on their campuses (and if they don’t get their demands, the higher education environment is competitive and they can go elsewhere) nor compete for the growing community of ‘online learners’ seeking education provided via the Internet (and who pay real dollars for that education and can take their money elsewhere). Institutions that feature significant student-residential foci must accept that there are both pedagogical and recreational components to their on-campus residents’ use of information technology and overall residence life experience. These institutions should seek to ensure that they provide for growing use in both components, or risk losing their students to off-campus residences, or to other institutions that provide better connectivity in support of both sets of needs. The case can be made that no institution is immune to the impacts of globalization, and the resulting impact that globalization has on its network landscape. Definitely, some types of institutions are impacted to greater degrees than others. It depends upon what kind of institution is involved, and the impact on its network will likely be just as significant (or insignificant) as the impact of the broader globalization. If we are now convinced that indeed, globalization has impacted our institutions (regardless of size, funding, or focus) and we accept that this impact has led to an evolved landscape in networking in higher education, then understanding that evolution and the ramifications it has for network strategies and funding is of importance to not only CIOs, but to all parts of the institution—administration, faculty, students, and staff. The key feature of this evolved network landscape is that now, not only are our campus networks of strategic importance, but so too are the

of 15

connections of our campus network to the broader Internets (both the commodity Internet and advanced Internets and cyber infrastructure supporting research). What is driving the need? Today our campus networks are driven by the mission of the institution, which is becoming far more global; campus networks link students, faculty, and staff on our campuses to the world beyond our campuses, not just to each other. The overall driving factors include the evolving nature of research, teaching and learning, and service missions of our institutions. As well, institutions need to realize that our constituents are becoming far more mobile.1 No longer are users satisfied—and productive—simply to sit in front of a device that is hard-wired into the campus network in an office, lab, or dorm room. Today, information technology has gone mobile—laptops, PDAs, smartphones, etc. Users are expecting to be freed from the ‘tyranny of place’ (being tethered to a fixed location to access information technology) 2 and to have access to participate in the global Internet not just from their homes, computer classrooms, offices, and labs, but also from every space in-between where they can work, study, investigate, and communicate. This expectation is not the result of an institution’s CIO and information technology organization; it is instead one that has been driven by the marketplace. Colleges and universities are living in a world where mobile access to information technology is becoming an expected norm; not because the institution has necessarily fostered it, but because the institution is a part of a world that itself is moving to mobile solutions.3 Another key feature of this evolved network landscape is that now, the very shape and scope of our on-campus network infrastructure is one that needs to support user mobility, while continuing to support the ‘static’ desktop user. If our campus networks are now being driven by the need to extend connectivity beyond the campus borders to the connection to the Internet(s), and within the borders to open up connectivity and free users from the ‘tyranny of place’, then these overall mission drivers are also impacted by events that are driving the foundational architectures behind them. These include: • Broadband pricing—as we now must seek higher and higher capacity

connections from our campuses to the world beyond (the Internet), we need to find ways to get control of the costs of these larger ‘pipes’ and find ways to reduce the marginal costs of expanding, as that expansion is linear or geometric over time.

• Security and reliability of the network—we now are much more concerned about who is connecting to our networks, and how and where our network is open to access (in times when, due to security threats, we might not wish it to be).

• National Cyber infrastructure—there are now more ‘Internets’ to connect to; not just to the www world of companies and information resources, but also to

of 15

collaborative networks (Internet2’s Abilene Network), and advanced research networks (such as the Teragrid and National LambdaRail) which are driving research activities.

• Mobile computing (WiFi) – with the pervasiveness of information technology today, we need wireless networks to enhance and expand the connectivity available on our campuses (and off).

What Are The Opportunities? As our institutions seek to develop their campus network strategies, there are opportunities to be seized – not just additional expenditures to be made! While no CIO will likely ever (or should ever!) state “… this is completely a one-time expense” there is the opportunity to make strategic one-time investments that can control future ongoing expenses, to the point where budgets can be maintained at close to zero-growth while not hindering the advancement of the institution’s ability to serve a growing mobile and ‘globalized’ community. Specifically, wireless connectivity (WiFi) that expands on-campus network access, and dark-fiber connections to the Internet(s) that extends the campus borders to strategic Internet access points, are areas of opportunities to be examined, where a one-time investment can pay great dividends and may be easily maintained within existing ongoing budgets. Wireless infrastructure today is more affordable that it was at its outset.4 Access points are now only a few hundred dollars each (some as low as $150) and no longer require expensive-to-install power connections (they get power from the network, much like a telephone). Even very large campuses can often today install a broad-coverage WiFi network for under $500,000, with a life-cycle replacement cost of about $140,000 per year (3 year replacement cycle). Smaller campuses can get by for much less. And with the continuing drop in hardware costs for wired networks, it is quite possible to, over time, absorb this additional expansion of the network into existing base budget ongoing funding models. Acquiring a dark-fiber connection between the campus and the nearest major network peering point is another example of an initial capital investment being amortized very quickly when compared to the costs of broadband services leased from providers. And right now, for perhaps a limited time, there is a ‘glut’ of dark fiber underground in many of our states and communities (put there during the dotcom surge in the late 1990s and never lit). This fiber can sometimes be acquired at ‘fire sale’ prices, and it represents a capital investment that replaces an ongoing expense (though some component still is needed for operation and maintenance). But perhaps more importantly, once acquired, it provides a very scalable platform for expanding connectivity as costs for high-speed communication equipment follows the usual diminishing marginal cost curve. In essence, an investment in this kind of resource today may not only pay for itself quickly, but also represent a way to make future expansions with small capital investments, rather than increasing ongoing expense commitments.

of 15

In this area, opportunities also exist for collaboration and partnership with other institutions. Nearby institutions can form consortiums to build or acquire dark fiber infrastructure to link themselves to each other, and to the Internet. Institutions can partner with commercial home-consumer-serving broadband and wireless providers to establish ‘shared’ wireless access spaces. Unlike on-campus components of a campus network strategy, ‘globalization’ components can be developed in partnership and effectively shared. And of course, we still have the on-campus wired infrastructure to maintain. A solid foundation of wired infrastructure remains the cornerstone of any campus network strategy, providing high quality network access to users at their desks, in their labs, in classroom, and in their residences. It is well recognized5 that a wired infrastructure will, for the foreseeable future, provider much higher bandwidth than a wireless infrastructure can. Therefore, WiFi is an extension to the campus network, not a replacement for a well-connected desktop. And it makes no sense to acquire a massive ‘pipe’ to the Internet(s) when you can not well distribute that connectivity on your campus. But it is the case with wired infrastructure, that drops in the pricing of equipment (per port costs) can help the institution keep pace with advances in technology even as budgets are held constant, or even are constrained. What if the institution can’t afford to do it all? Is it possible to struggle along without a long-term sustainable campus network strategy? Perhaps, the real question is not whether you can make progress without a strategy; because you should have a strategy and plan regardless of whether you can fund it. The real question, then, is that once you have developed a campus network strategy, can you ‘muddle through’ implementing parts of such a plan if funding limits your ability to implement it fully? The answer is yes, of course! While it may impact your institution’s ability to be a leader in its field, perhaps that is not your institution’s goal; one can still be a key member of the peloton without having the yellow jersey! And perhaps, even with the best of intentions, making these investments is not possible right at this moment due to budget reductions and financial constraints. While the argument may be made that over the long-term, these investments will pay great dividends later, even the best investment to be made can not be made if you don’t have the funding in hand. So what to do? One strategy is to prioritize your campus components – on-campus wired infrastructure, wireless infrastructure, and links to the Internet. Take stock of the condition of each and decide “which one can I possibly afford to do?” And then do it, and save the others for later, when times may be more conducive and the costs to do so may be less (as we all know they always will be). Which component to invest in will depend upon the type of institution, your focus and needs, and the condition of your existing infrastructure? For instance, it makes no sense to invest in ‘fat pipes’ to the Internet if your campus network is broken or archaic. However, if your campus network fits this description, it may make better sense to invest in on-

of 15

campus wireless infrastructure to help address traditionally-wired shortfalls (even with the understanding that wireless does not replace sound wired infrastructure over the long-term). Be aware that some data communication vendors will work with you – perhaps ‘donating’ (or providing an outrageously high level of discount) equipment that for them is at the end of its production cycle (though which may be many times more advanced that what you have in place!) in exchange for you spending your limited funds on new technologies (wireless, voice-over-IP, optical networking, etc.) Look for ways to build portions of your network as ‘showplaces,’ in an effort to capitalize on putting the newest technology where it will do your institution the most good. IT organizations that are forming strategies are often ‘hung up’ on homogeneity – wanting everything to be the same, new, top-drawer, and funded. Yet, perhaps only a key portion needs to be done today; better to have a multi-phased project with funding secured for the initial phase, than to spend years trying to find funding for doing everything in “one shot.” A good example of this scenario involves upgrading on-campus wiring. Today, the most advanced users and devices (perhaps 5% of the population) can make use of 100 megabit speeds with the promise of Gigabit to the desktop on the horizon. This is leading some CIOs to consider wireplant upgrade strategies to bring their 10 megabit-capable wiring up to the higher standard – across campus. This is how it was done before – massive wire upgrade installations in the 1980s and 1990s. But does everyone really need 100 megabit? Maybe your physics department, your informatics and computer science school, or your engineering college needs it? Maybe your advanced visualization facility needs it? But does your physical plant? Does your enrollment services, finance, and other administrative offices? Likely not. A key pervasive application that drives bandwidth use is desktop video conferencing; but the popular desktop video conferencing devices using H.323 compression do just fine with well under 1 megabit speeds. So don’t invest where you don’t absolutely need to; save that funding for other areas. This same case-by-case or phased-in approach can also effectively be used for wireless connectivity. Wireless in every dorm room is showy and makes good press – but if you have a 10 megabit wire to every pillow, is there really that much to be gained? Consider covering common gathering areas, where ‘mobile’ collaboration is most needed (as opposed to in a room where a 25’ cable can do wonders). And as previously mentioned, institutions should look for ways to ‘partner up’ with nearby colleagues when it comes to connecting to the Internet. Regional optical networks (RONs) are developing quickly in many states,6 and these offer the option of cost sharing and resource-pooling to those who can not afford to go it alone. Which area of your campus networking strategy can be most effectively advanced with a smaller investment, if funds are truly constrained, will differ on an institutional basis. But the key concept should be to do what you can, when you can, anyway you can and make even piece-meal advancements (using budget ‘dust’) than to sit

of 15

idle, thinking only of how to fund a large-scale plan if the funding isn’t likely to materialize. Primary Elements to Consider In Developing and Articulating a Campus Network Strategy There are two key areas to consider when looking to build a campus network strategy: Broadband connectivity to the Internet(s), and integrated communication strategies in support of mobile technologies (wireless). Broadband connectivity to the Internet covers the campus’ connection from its boundary to points where it connects into the national Internet infrastructure, whether this is for commodity Internet service or advanced research network connectivity (Internet2, National LambdaRail, etc.). There has been a great deal of study discussion, presentation, and collaboration built by such organizations as the Net@EDU working group of EDUCAUSE (http://www.educause.edu/netatedu/groups/pricing/) and Internet2’s IP Optical Working Group (http://ipoptical.Internet2.edu/), and this information can be extremely valuable in assessing the needs of your institution and looking at alternative strategies for acquiring connectivity. Dark fiber is the buzzword for broadband connectivity. Dark fiber is a fiber optic path that extends a campus backbone network (often itself also a fiber optic system) out to major Internet(s) access points. Metaphorically, it provides an “on ramp” to the information superhighway. Dark fiber is a way for your institution to get access to a critical commodity – bandwidth7 – and for it to take better control of a critical strategic institutional asset – network connectivity. Many institutions, such as Indiana University (http://www.i-light.iupui.edu/) can also provide detailed “how we did it and why” input. In general, significant costs present to the institution to pay for “Internet drainage;” the amount of connectivity your institution has that ‘drains in and drains out’ of your campus to/from the commodity Internet. Likely, unless your institution is located in a major national network ‘hub’ point, you are paying a very high cost per megabit of drainage to the Internet. This is because your location may not avail you to access to many Internet providers (and thus you are not able to price the service from multiple competing vendors), and/or because your location is far from the nearest Internet access point, necessitating a long-haul leased circuit just to get you that location. And even if the distance is not great, sometimes due to lack of competition or pricing tariffs, your institution pays a great deal for this ‘last mile’ connectivity. By expanding the concept and form of the campus network to include these connections from campus to Internet access point, your institution can reap several benefits with regard to commodity Internet drainage costs. Having an ‘on-ramp’ into the Internet service hubs can eliminate the costs of leased, capacity-constrained connections from your campus boundary to the place where you access the Internet.

of 15

Being ‘co-located’ in the Internet access point (carrier hotel) means you can seek competitive bids from many providers, and get lower per-megabit pricing. And being co-located with other consumers of Internet drainage means you can seek out cooperative agreements, wherein you “pool” your collective demand and buy larger quantities of bandwidth at volume discounted pricing. Then there is the advanced Internet component. There is significant activity going on nationally, both in the development of national cyber infrastructure as well as regional high-speed optical networks (RONs). The direction being taken by a growing number of higher education institutions and consortia of institutions is to own (or acquire long-term leases) on dark fiber. This provides the institution with an asset that can be scaled as technology develops to provider higher and higher capacities of connection, as those capacities are needed by the function of the information-technology-enriched institution. The key point to consider is that the impact of globalization on higher education has made this component far more critical today than ever before. And it is likely to be the most critical element for at the least the rest of this decade, if not permanently, for consideration in the development of a campus network strategy. On the national front, initiatives such as National LambdaRail are driving the broader research component, providing very high speed ‘waves’ (10 gigabit connections) that will link individual researchers or campuses to each other to foster research collaboration. Regionally, many states have either acquired, implemented, or are planning acquisitions and implementations of optical fiber networks to link their institutions to each other and to the developing national cyber infrastructure.8 These RONs are becoming the segmented ‘quilt’ pieces, which are being woven together to create the national-level cyber infrastructure. Figure 1 shows the relationships quite well in this symbiotic process involving campus, regional, and national connectivity development. Elements include campus researchers, campus infrastructures, RONs, national experimental and optical infrastructure, and dark-fiber. Each element is both an enabler and motivator of the other, resulting in a process by which advances are driven in all areas.

of 15

Figure 1 Used by permission of Steve Corbat? of Internet2, and Ron Johnson of the Pacific Northwest GigaPoP

Integrated communication strategies are more than the convergence o f voice, data, and video applications onto a single network. The real driving factor in this area is the broader development of mobile communication technologies (laptops, PDAs, smartphones, etc.) that are pushing the campus network to grow beyond the ‘walls with wires’ model to accommodate access to these devices. Wireless networking has reached maturity and its deployment at universities has the potential for radically changing the way they do business. Potentially most significant is that no longer will students and faculty be bound by needing to connect to a fixed network connection in order to access network resources. Wireless networking frees them from the tyranny of place and allows them to work anywhere on campus with the existing and developing mobile communication technologies. And the presence of a quality and pervasive Wi-Fi network will further encourage students and faculty to integrate mobile technology into their academic pursuits, as well as increase the productivity and availability of a ll members of the institutional community. Presenting a Campus Network Strategy Within the Institution Campus network strategies, to be both successful and of high value to the institution, must flow from the institution’s overall strategy for information technology, which should be based upon the primary institutional strategy for its role in higher education. Without a firm understanding of the institutions mission and strategy, and of how information technology more broadly fits within that mission and strategy, it is hard (though not impossible) to develop a stand-alone campus network plan. In the context of part of an overall strategy for information technology, the campus/institutional network – both physical and human in the staff that supports it – should be portrayed as a fundamental strategic asset for the institution. Harnessed

of 15

properly, it can make a major contribution to institution’s quest for success in its broader mission, and as such becomes vital that the institution keep control over its telecommunications infrastructure and most effectively manage it to maximize its contribution to achieving the institution's fundamental goals. So a good starting point is to ensure that as you develop your campus network strategy, that it fits will within your institution’s information technology strategy, which in turn fits well within your institutions overall strategy. A good next step is to take stock of your current campus network environment. Key factors examine are the technology and its vintage (age), replacement value (i.e., how much would it cost to replace everything with more modern equipment to perform similar function), and the budget currently being spent to maintain it (in capital, expense, and human resource). The last is key, in that the three elements are tightly linked, and investments in one (capital) can be sometimes off-set (paid for) by reductions in another (expense) due to modernization. Of course, funding is another key component to examine. There are a wide variety of funding models and mechanisms deployed in higher education to support the campus network, and the links to regional and national Internet(s). Each institution has evolved funding strategies based upon their historical practices, as well as taking into account new uses and sources of funds. The models range from a ‘taxation-model’ (based upon departmental/sector headcounts), to per-port-access charges, to use-based fee models (the ‘utility model). There are even ‘cafeteria style’ models which take elements of all three to fund components or portions of the campus network. Each model has its particular advantages and disadvantages, and it is very much a one-size-does-not-fit-all issue. However, perhaps if I am to opinion in favor of any model, finding one that supports the network without inhibiting or restraining access and use of it will best serve an institution wishing to make good use of information technology. Viewing access to this critical asset the way one uses a parking meter –paying per bit transferred – will do wonders to cut down on abuses of the network by a few; but it will also potentially impede legitimate expansive use of the network by researchers, instructors, and students, and thereby impede scholarly advancement that these resources can so well support. For this reason, perhaps a model which relies on a taxation principle best serves the purpose of providing an abundance of network access, and therefore an abundance of information technology to the strategic-thinking institution. Abuses can then be the focus of attention, using the variety of tools that are becoming available in the network management environment, and policies and enforcement can become a task directed at the relatively few (usually less than 2%) of the community who abuse the abundance. And beyond this, if there are legitimate but ‘high consumption’ segments, then surcharges on these few high-end (and usually well-funded) users can be negotiated to the benefit of all. Next is to assess how well your campus network is performing, both in literal technological terms (reliability/up-time) as well as user feedback. Are your

of 15

researchers, faculty, students, and administration being well-served, or is there un-met demand? A new campus network strategy will be dead-on-arrival if there isn’t un-met need for service, or a compelling cost-savings argument (which there rarely is). Give careful assessment to the previously identified needs areas – campus wired network infrastructure, integrated communication strategies, and broadband connectivity from your campus to the Internet(s) Key stakeholders will vary by institution. But since most every university believes that its faculty is its heart, involving faculty early and often is a good choice. Researchers will be better able to help administration understand the value of network investments that support their research efforts (i.e., bring in grant funding). Faculty can better articulate the value of information technology and the improved flow of data to their pedagogical activities. Students will be better able to motivate investments by the institution if it becomes clear that information technology in general, and network access are critical to their learning, advancement, and ultimately in helping articulate the factors that influence their choice in institutions. All can do this better than the CIO alone, who may be viewed suspiciously as only wanting new ‘toys’ and to pad his/her portfolio. Significant decisions regarding the development and adoption of a campus network strategy are usually made at the institution’s cabinet level. Whether that is the Chancellor or President depends upon the size of the institution, but usually this cabinet includes a chief financial officer, a chief academic officer, and a chief administrator. All must be ‘on-board’ for significant decisions involving expenditures to be made. If it is the case that the institution also views information technology as strategic an asset as buildings, administration, or financial holdings, then the CIO is well-placed to start the process of building consensus. But if the CIO is not at ‘the big table’ then the key will be to find someone who is who can articulate – passionately – the case for investment in campus network infrastructures. What Do Network Models Look Like? Campus network models vary by institution, depending upon the nature of the institution. Usually, though, they deal with the following main components:

• On-campus infrastructure – including wireplant, data-jack connectivity, building/floor aggregation, switching infrastructure, and campus core backbone and routing. Also included is any residential connectivity, provided to dormitories and Greek residences (fraternities and sororities).

• Services provided – including voice (may be a premise-based exchange or

PBX, central office services provided by local telephone companies, and even large campus-based telephone switching), data, and video applications.

• Extended infrastructure – including wireless access networks

of 15

• Off-campus connectivity – including modem pools and links to local Internet service providers that provide for local/regional ‘peering’ connections that allow students, faculty, and staff to access the campus (and the Internet beyond) from their homes.

• Connectivity to the Internet(s) – including connectivity to the commodity

Internet, connection to regional higher education networks (education groups), and advanced Internets (such as Internet2)

• Funding models – covering how this infrastructure and services are funded for

delivery; via assessment (campus tax) and/or fees for services (charges for dial-tone, etc.)

There are sources of tools to help one construct a campus network model in some detail, examining both the service and technical component views (including the Author’s Research Bulletin for the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research). The exact model is not as critical as the need to ensure that the one chosen provides an accurate way to articulate these elements. What Does It All Mean? There can be a tendency for institutional administration and its faculty and students to view all these “new” campus network needs as somehow the result of an overenthusiastic CIO/IT function. To make such an assessment is in error. Institutions are not isolated islands of research, teaching, and learning—they are a part of a world that has become connected, interdependent, and collaborative. Institutions no longer drive the use of information technology in the global sense; they are passengers on a train that has left the station. Institutions must react to the changes in the world that reflect the criticality of IT—and network systems in particular—and adapt, improvise, and overcome obstacles to their participation in the new global environment. These elements are critical factors in positioning the institution for success, or some might say survival, in a global higher education environment. Campus network strategies, to be both successful and of high value to the institution, must flow from the institution’s overall strategy for information technology, which should be based on the primary institutional strategy for its role in higher education. Without a firm understanding of the institution’s mission and strategy—and how information technology more broadly fits within that mission and strategy—it can be difficult to develop a stand-alone campus network plan. In the context of part of an overall strategy for information technology, the campus/institutional network (both the physical network and the staff that supports it) is a fundamental strategic asset for the institution. As such, it is vital that the institution keep control over its telecommunications infrastructure and most effectively manage it to maximize its contribution to achieving the institution’s

of 15

fundamental goals. By doing so, the institution can keep pace with the globalization of higher education that will undoubtedly continue through the rest of this decade, and further into the 21st century.

_________________ About the Author Brian D. Voss ([email protected]) is Associate Vice President for Telecommunications in the Office of the Vice President for Information Technology & CIO at Indiana University. He also serves as the Chief Operating Officer for the Pervasive Technology Labs at Indiana University. Endnotes Special Acknowledgement The author wishes to specifically acknowledge the EDUCAUSE Center for Advanced Research (ECAR) for use of significant material in this document that was drawn from the author's ECAR Research Bulletin (Volume 2004, Issue 4) "The Impact of Globalization on Campus Networks," published February 17, 2004. The EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) provides timely research and analysis to help higher education leaders make better decisions about information technology. 1 Arabasz, Paul, and Judith Pirani. Wireless Networking in Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Research Study #2, 2002. 2 McRobbie, Michael, J. Michael Dunn, et al. Indiana University Information Technology Strategic Plan –Architecture for the 21st Century, Publication of the Office for the Vice President for Information Technology and CIO, Indiana University, May 1998 3 Boggs, Raymond, and Paul Arabasz. The Move to Wireless Networking in Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin Issue 7, 2002. 4 Boggs, Raymond, Jason Smolek, Paul Arabasz. Choosing the Right Wireless Network: A Technology Challenge for Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Research Bulletin Issue 12, 2002. 5 Hartman, Joel. Campus Networking – A CIO’s Perspective, Lighting Up the Network . Syllabus (101 Communications, Publisher), Volume 17, Number 6, January 2004, pages 6-8. 6 Corbató, Steve. FiberCo – A Tool for Supporting Regional Optical Networks. A presentation session at the Internet2 Fall Member Meeting, Indianapolis, Indiana. October 2003. http://www.Internet2.edu/presentation/fall-02/20041014-FiberCo-Corbato.pdf 7 Voss, Brian D. Lighting Up the Network , Syllabus (101 Communications, Publisher), Volume 17, Number 6, January 2004, pages 14-20 8 Corbató, Steve. Towards a Hybrid Packet Infrastructure (HOPI) in the US. A presentation session at the Internet2 Fall Member Meeting, Indianapolis, Indiana. October 2003. http://www.Internet2.edu/presentation/fall-03/20031015-HOPI-Corbato.pdf

How Globalization Has Impacted Strategies for Campus...

Documents

Transcript of How Globalization Has Impacted Strategies for Campus...