Smart Classroom construction costs and construction time will be reduced by developing a written agreement between interested parties. The Smart Classroom contract would be signed by the Smart Classroom engineer (Nathan Sauer), Physical Plant, Telecommunications, deparment chair and/or college dean. My goal is to have this process implemented by July 1, 2005.
The contract package will include:
-- drawing of the instructors' station
-- location of console
-- system components
I would like AIC to work with me on developing the agreement form.
Hi Bill - here's what I am proposing to the AIC committee regarding smartroom protocol:
Bill Kernan of UCS has recently proposed a “chain-of-command� approval sheet associated with design and installation of smartroom technology. AIC endorses this proposal with recommendation for the following decision model: (a) AIC works with division colleagues, Deans and UCS personnel to establish a one- to two-year smartroom prioritization plan, (b) AIC priority recommendations are submitted to Deans / administration for final approval and development of an installation schedule, (c) room-use statistics are pulled for candidate classrooms for the previous two years, all historic faculty users are identified and surveyed as to their smartroom technology needs, (d) faculty needs are considered in the context of available funds and technology; a design plan is drafted accordingly, (e) the final design and installation plans are crafted by UCS personnel, (f) plans are submitted for final chain-of-command approval signatures to Department/Division Chairs, Deans, Telecomm/Physical Plant, UCS Personnel.
Steve:
I would like to see us develop an informal written "agreement between interested parties". You will find a draft agreement here. The goal is to have all interested parties agree on the project design specifications before work begins. If AIC doesn't think this process will provide better direction for the design and installation process, then I would be happy to discard this idea.
hi Bill - this is definitely a good idea, and will eliminate miscommunication.
Two Items:
The Dean approval needs to be separated from Division Chair. The Division chair is the local representative of the faculty and often the building manager. The Dean may or may not be aware of local faculty-related room use issues. These two approval sections need to be separated out.
I think there also needs to be a mechanism to ensure that faculty who work in the proposed room have a chance to provide input, regardless of who signs off on final design approval.
Thanks for setting this up.
s.t.
Steve:
I seperated the Dean and Division Chair and added a signature line for "Interested Faculty Member".
Does this work? How do I know who the "Interested Faculty Member" is?
Thanks for the help.
Bill