UAS FACULTY SENATE REVISIONS,05/06/05
Hinterberger’s
version of UA Faculty Workload System
Project Charter (
Purpose
Implement a more efficient and
interactive electronic database system for faculty workload and activity
reports across the
Specific Objectives
Convenient, automated process
for creation, review, revision and communication of a faculty workload
·
Workload
document conversion into an editable activity report
·
First
step towards an automated system for electronically updating CV’s, promotion
and tenure packets, and grant proposal information
·
Paper-less
·
Integrates
with existing information technology (Banner) to the greatest extent possible
·
Controlled,
secure access to faculty workload and activity reports over the public internetwithin the UA
network
·
Meet
the needs of faculty members (e.g., reduced time for compiling, easily revised
and resubmitted)
·
Meet
the needs of faculty unions (e.g., determining whether workloads are consistent
with CBAs)
·
Meet
the needs of UA administration (e.g., supply composite aggregated workload
and activity data to Legislature)
Constraints
Implementation requires full
participation of faculty, chairs and deans.
·
System
must not
collect extraneousonly collects data not directly related
to the substance of faculty workloads and activities (e.g., not data on
timeliness of workload submission or frequency of revisions).
·
System must be subject to faculty oversight regarding
policies for authorized access to data, distribution of
personally identifiable information, and archiving of data in order to guaranteeing the
appropriate use of the workload and activity information
within UA.
·
System
must be protected from unauthorized external access.
·
Information
content must remain essentially the same as the current paper-based system, to
avoid altering CBA-defined conditions of employment.
·
Funding
for on-going operation of project beyond existing one-time funding through