I think going to the schedule we were a bit worried when we saw a lot of sunshades in the morning and followed by a candle, so we have seen three sunshades in the morning, we waited for Satyananathan and Dr. Pallav and anyway we are moving ahead with the candle and thank you for the patience listening. Okay, first you would like to thank the open group for providing us this opportunity. Then our group head offer our practice and our knowledge management director and the internal team within Oracle for NPS architecture for the review of comments. So before I proceed, so I would like to give a quick context about what we are going to talk today. As per TOGAAP Capability Framework, it is business capabilities, sorry business capabilities that tries the need for business architecture and business architecture actually realizes the business strategy and vision. But considering the face of technological innovations are happening, so it is very much essential that technology capability has to be a very important enabler. So because of technological capabilities and because of technological innovation, lot of new business capabilities are emerging over a period of time. So it is essential that technology capabilities are taken into as the first place and then taken into business. So this thought process actually emerged as very certain we were working in this area and we were into professional bias and we were more concerned about the technology and that's how we started off. But as we started off we thought that the acceleration process would help and we also got some kind of references in terms of blocks and exploratory studies but we did not really get any kind of in-depth material when we started searching for this concept. So that is where we started and what we are trying to do is propose an approach, an iterative approach where strategic technological capabilities are an input to the business capabilities. So the additional capabilities, business capabilities are derived from that and then the top-down approach of Turgap takes over. So that is what we want to propose in this and to illustrate that we have used to articulate the one model based on FFC industry where we are familiar with to illustrate this point. So the core theme is going to be the proposed approach but to do that we need to take a quick look through this concept digital disruption strategy. So what is digital capability? Then enterprise architecture for digital transformation in a modeling for digital strategy and they have a quick FNCT use case. This is what we are going to see through today. So this is the digital disruption definition. So what digital disruption affects is the value of the position delivered by organization. So when digital disruption is actually giving rise to new business models where new engines are leveraging and they are threatening even existing established businesses. So this is from Harvard Business Review. So it is very clear from this that there is a massive digital disruption and it is impacting every industry. So this is an illustration of innovation at exponential speed. So if road maps which were created a few years ago they are very redundant because of the technological innovations happening at exponential speed. This is a very, very powerful course. These doctors don't set out to beat you at your own games. They change the rules. So these are some of the characteristics of and the disruptive new ways of growing business by exponentially growing companies. So we are not going to go through every one of them. So it is this one common trend line that is coming through this. They are all leveraging the social data to create new models and have a disruptive competitive advantage. So this back hit is very common. It has been a very popular word in all G-DRAWs, sorry, blocks of MIT. So the technological capabilities are readily available but those who are leveraging those capabilities and that requires actually the execution of those capabilities they are the ones who are creating that disruptive competitive advantage. So this is from a thesis by this design where strategic technological capability is actually supporting business strategy. So here we would like to differentiate between strategic technological capability and IT capability. So strategic technological capability is a prerequisite for gaining competition to advance through the technological independent technological innovations that are happening and successful technological maneuvers whereas IT is about enabling resources available to support an organization. Now this is about three models of IT evolution. So the first one is about where IT started supporting the business and the next stage of evolution IT was alluring with the business and the next stage of evolution it is IT that is enabling the business. This was again a very powerful picture representation from forest research. Second if you see it is the whole thing is about the customer journey and we talk about customer journey is this very customer experience journey or customer journey it is very important to develop a customer journey ecosystem. So that represents the relationship between all the stakeholders the people, the customer and so on. So in this case so we talk about the customer touch points along the journey it is all again through the digital experience. So it is more about the technological innovations happening on the front end customer facing capabilities which is actually supported by the back end system. So as we need to connect the dots between the front end customer facing capabilities where technology innovations are happening at a very, very exponential speed and the back end system. So it is the architects who can connect the dots. So in this slide we are trying to capture the entire digital capability map. So at the same time we also use animation to illustrate the incremental digital capability that we are building on subsequently. So this is in one step the entire digital capability map and the prioritization of those digital improvements. So in prioritization this first things first. So first it is mobile then it is web and these are part of the customer journey we are looking at. So this is the entire digital capability map that we have arrived and from which we will be picking up to augment those business capabilities. And this is a team of what we are trying to say on the left hand side you will see the capability based planning, then the architecture definition and the transition and the alignment to the enterprise architecture. So these are the iterations that we are suggesting. Morning again whatever we had in mind was it is not about digital disruption. It is the disruptive questions that Satya Dhanala Sathri has raised today morning. So where I tried to process it a longer time but in the orange list we are also trying to showcase a two-speed architecture where the iterations need to be faster. This is the proposed close to loop approach where strategic technological capability is looped into the business capabilities. So this is a loop of the previous one. So we will state how we have actually put this slide two-speed architecture because in the following slide we are going to discuss about the two-speed architecture. So here two-speed is essential because the customer facing capabilities need to be developed much faster way. So to get that advantage, competitive advantage, so we need to have a two-speed architecture where the front end capabilities are modular. There are three attributes one is modular and the second is they need to be deployed very fast and the third is it should not be time consuming and that time consumption also includes integration capability. They should not be very time consuming whereas the back end capabilities that support them they need to be robust and they need and they also have a very longer release cycle. So I request you to take over from here. Thank you very much. Thank you Guru for taking the context. So what we propose is the two-speed architecture. The participants will be in this where the digital enterprise adopt the reference architecture of Azade methodology. So in a two-speed auto architecture the platform provides the internet's digital capability and business capability platform along with the security and governance which is included into any digital platform. Where the bottom core systems are evolving slowly in a manner that is rigid and supporting the front end capability and the front end capabilities like the channel management capabilities are all evolving rapidly. So now let's start from the foundation where they take the core systems, core processes where it moves to a legacy application. So they have to first start with the foundation of the digitalization of the core processes and then expose those core processes through the platform services. So the platform services provides the robust integration and transformation layer through which these core services can be exposed and on top of that as I was mentioning is innovation agility. So we start giving the innovative capability by enabling programs for digital which will enable the business group to adopt it in a journey. That way the business services can be exposed to the any customers to the different channels. So that you can see the channels like mobile, security and the stores. So that is the first principle we have done in this digital architecture. The second thing is hybrid. So obviously when you are mentioning about two-speed architecture where you are talking about two hybrid target architecture. So the back end is having a slow architecture, target architecture phase and the front end is having a fast phase target architecture. To enable that we need to obviously have a hybrid IT. So we have both on-premise legacy along with cloud applications where the back end things are enabling the business capability and it's also through microservices and the front end is all dealing with those business services. Again it is a gene methodology that is business driven. So this is built as we see the digital map the customers will be going through journey. So we try to find the new environment that is required to deliver the innovative products. So again subdividing the platform services we talk about the data management for information exploration and mining and then we talk about service management which is the business course oriented integration and develop environment and mobile environment. And then we talk about business services exposed to the digital applications like sales automation and marketing automation, all digital applications and analytics where the data scientists get the insight of the customer. And finally it goes through this channel so we have the mobile web IoT store where the external customer's touch points except in the previous place I mentioned the touch points where we try to map the exact capabilities. So it's again it's a building block where you are building the robust back end and the flow phase and the front phase the innovative and the test. To illustrate this we have used the FMCG use case which is transformed into a lot of FMCG industries and then used this top down bottom capability based plan approach. What are the key factors and drying factors and the KPAs during the FMCG industry to adopt digital services? So these are studies on both and the KPMG and I'm not going to go through each point but the key thing is the file key object with the driver which is customer safety. Again pushing this to adopt the customer engagement and digital solutions. Then agility by sensing real-time demand and agile suppressing analytics to get into the real-time demand patterns and customer insight. Then the formal footprint obviously for the sustainability to capture from the provider and everything converging to the central theme of digital consumption. So that is the whole beginning. So in this case you put a simple thing it's not so simple FMCG like this but just to keep it simple to put the bullet points on this. On the consumer side we are engaging the worker customer to get the branded work to see to build the branded work to see and get it up offer personal offerings to them On the infant supply chain we try to be agile and responsible by sensing real-time demand and the importance and get the insight and be agile on that. An obvious optimistic keyword but again the insight of the customer and the importance of their buying behavior for key for the optimistic issue and then the final part is passed. So whenever you do it, it's again a less competitive to handle. So that is again done by the digitizing the process. So the key thing where the FMCG is moving is they digitize the process and expose the omni-chalance presence where you can buy it from the social, whatever thing and it will be different to anything. That's why most of the FMCG industry where we involved some top of FMCG companies they failed. So they have become more very difficult to transfer to digital. The key thing is the process around digitized. So the key thing is digitized in the process then after that have a platform to evolve it. So that's what most of this non-efficient carrying product. So we use the Archimede 3 which is having this strategy modeling for the capability they are planning and as well as it allows to track the EA architecture planning realization which is needed. Very good platform for modeling strategy. So what we did is we took the specialization of the mapping. So we used the digital capability specialization of the virtual capability then digital strategy which is specialization of course of action. So now we start with the phase A where we try to route to this top down bottom of the CBT approach where this is what we are trying to propose where you start the virtual strategy and you have obviously the capability supported. Then you need to also map the advanced development to adopt. That should add the emergent strategies. So what happens is these are derivative strategies. All SNCG based on their experience they have a deliberate strategy to do. But these are IT strategy which is a digital strategy provide the emergent strategy which only comes from the bottom. So they finally have an iterative process to get integrated IT business strategy which is a key block of technology. This raise the digital transformation programs. So once that is done and the operation is focused on then we iterate through this development iteration PCB where we try to find the capabilities to support that. It has an application, a bidet application, information. So again the key thing to make it agile is to keep only the minimum viable capability. We are not talking about target load. We have to put a roadmap. So we first find out the words. Whatever it is. So we take a step-by-step. So we find for the particular digital roadmap digital customer giant what is the key capability to it. So we just try to map it and what are the business capabilities around here. For example, the key thing is here we have only order management and productions capability to run a normal business whereas here we talk about data scientists and about the digital experience and customer engagement management. So the key capabilities which we are up from the readily available social mobile and digital capabilities. So once the capability is a baseline we try to put this in the internet class.  Then we have digital platform which will do the roof coupled architecture that is the core principle behind that. So for example, digital platform we have the mobile analytical integration which makes it evolve and then the friend you have the state confirmation mobile apps, yearable and dynamic side. So once that is done then we do a mapping of the maturity of the digital maturity what the class is at 2D then we find the gap and once the gap is found then we find the opportunity and migration. Then we find the work packages then we go through the transition phase. Most of the companies fail in transition the problem is they don't plan the equipment properly so that's why they are already into the business and that's why we have to disturb the business. We have to find such a way that it is smooth and it is incremental. Each increment has a business out. So we plan the equipment which is very key and the mobile and other things then the back end the capabilities can be stored most of the cloud. The problem is with the cloud here we move everything to the cloud being in the cloud we get many things we have to do an assessment whether you are ready to move your digital processes or you want to move it in a sequence phase you can move the CX and TS digital experiments there are a few innovative ways and first consequence is data management data management is the key now we are talking about lucy corporate architecture so your information and the software, customer, geography all of them are very key to maintenance so this is the example for our approach traditionally enterprise architecture is about problem approach where this is strategy and mission capabilities and technical capabilities so we end up in almost bottom most area back end platform information services will support that whereas due to the revolution of the technology where you are finding digital technology and where you need to be talking in the description transformation so we need to have bottom capability where we have the analytical CX and TS capability so put them together both bottom up we will be covering the breadth and width of the functionality and capability because of business to run and up close the depth so we get all the layers of information, application, business and the technology honestly to you all we want to just conclude that we have bottom capability where the IT enables the EA to the innovative capability of digital capabilities integrated to this so most of the companies fail to do this they try to take big data, they go behind that they fail so they have to find an integrated way that they integrate both the IT and the business strategy enabled by this technology to platform the incremental approach of realizing this of all the channels and all the moving, thank you


My name is Dan Moguloff. I'm with the campus office of communications and public affairs and really delighted and thrilled to welcome Chancellor Christ and Paul Alavisatos, our provost and executive vice chancellor to what is the last campus conversation of the semester. I think we can dispense with resume reading. And so they each have a few opening comments. I have a few questions and then we'll get to the questions that you have. So without further ado, Chancellor Christ. OK, well, thank you. First of all, how wonderful to see all of you here today. There are so many staff in the room as well as some faculty. I first want to thank you for everything that you do for Cal. I just feel so fortunate to be leading a place that has such extraordinary people. So first, thank you. When I began as chancellor, I identified five goals and I thought I would say where I think we are with each of these goals. The first was to build a community. That has been, perhaps not paradoxically, the most difficult goal, I think, to achieve. This is a big place. It's bigger than many small cities and there are many, many neighborhoods trying to figure out how to inspire this community with a sense of shared identity and spirit has been more challenging than I thought. And it's one of the things in which I'd love to hear your suggestions for. The second goal that I set was to enhance the student experience. Absolutely critical to this is housing. We house only 22% of our undergraduate students and 9% of our graduate students. This is compromising the quality of a Berkeley experience for both sets of students. We all know how horrible the Bay Area real estate market is. And so we're moving ahead with an ambitious plan to double the amount of student housing that we currently offer our students. But housing students and feeding them isn't enough. The provost and I, together with many members of our leadership team, have been developing a set of commitments for undergraduates. I'll very briefly identify what they are. The first is Berkeley Connect, making available to every student the navigation resources that he or she needs to be able to find the opportunities that fit their educational ambitions. That means making Berkeley Connect the program universal. It means golden bear orientation. It means more investment and advising. The second is Berkeley Discover, making sure every student has the opportunity for what we're calling a discovery experience. In other words, an experience in doing independent discovery research of the sort that really drives this place. The third is Berkeley Engage, which is giving every student the opportunity to take his or her knowledge out in the world, whether through an internship, community service, study abroad, and finally Berkeley Reflect, because every education should have moments that are encouraged of reflection. My third priority is diversity. This is the place where I think we have the most work to do. We lag the rest of the system in the percentage of underrepresented students in our undergraduate student body. Only 3% of our students are African-American. Only 14% are Latinx or Chicanx. That's really in contrast to the rest of the system, where the other undergraduate campuses are either at 25%, above 25%, or approaching 25%. So we have lots of work to do there. And Native Americans are tiny, tiny, not even a single percentage. So as I've written to the campus recently, I'm setting up a set of task forces to develop action plans in three areas. The first is outreach and yield activities. The second is looking very carefully at our admissions process to make sure there's not unintended bias in the way in which we do admissions. And the third is support for our students once they get to campus. Then the fourth goal I'm going to let Paul talk about, which is supporting our research enterprise in ways that enable our faculty to continue doing both basic research and research that has very important policy consequences for our state, our nation, and our world. And then finally, I want to create a new financial model for the campus. Things are going well financially. We've essentially eliminated the deficit. I am really thrilled. We will end. Thank you. We ended this year with having reduced our deficit from $150 million to $20 million. And we will have our budget balanced by the June of 2019. What I'm now shifting my attention to is the capital side. We have huge amounts of deferred maintenance on this campus that has not been attended to. And we are, of course, in an active fault zone. So we're involved in a two-year process to seismically reassess each of our buildings. And then we will be developing a plan to try to address our seismic deficiencies. We estimate the cost of deferred maintenance and seismic retrofit is about $2 billion. So this is not trivial. And we've also been working hard in a way that I can talk about more if you're interested later on in developing a new financial model for the campus that has, at its center, multiplying and diversifying sources of revenue. So why don't I stop there and turn to Paul. Well, thank you. It's just so wonderful to see this turnout today, to see how engaged you are in thinking about the life of the campus. And I feel personally that this has been a really impactful semester that we're now winding down. A lot of very important things have happened. So much of what I see in that regard has started to flow when the chancellor announced our strategic planning process last year. The plan was just issued so that it's available for people to see. And it has such a remarkable set of ideas about what the future of a great public university should be like. Those ideas are what are going to propel us forward and help us to be very successful and to accomplish many of the difficult, challenging things that the chancellor talked about. So I want to mention a few things which happened this semester that I'd like to call your attention to in particular. At the core of our strategic plans reside some changes in how we do our research. And there are a set of five signature initiatives that we have designated as they're not exclusively representing all the work that's done at Berkeley. Actually, I don't think that's even possible to do. But it is really five areas in which we'd like to see a focus emerging in the coming years. And so those are the areas of the future of democracy, the challenges around inequality and opportunity, the future of health, resilience in an era of energy, environment, and climate challenges, and the deep connection between human and artificial intelligence. So those are five areas which we've designated as signature initiative areas. And right now, there are, in each one of those areas, a group of faculty. Many of the deans are helping. And many other colleagues are helping and friends of the campus for us to think about how, within each one of those, what are some specific things that we will work on? For example, an example might be in the future of health, we will be thinking hard about a topic related to neurodegeneration aging Alzheimer's. That might be an example. So you will be seeing next semester even more discussion around how we will elaborate and develop those initiatives. One thing, the last one that I mentioned there, the connection between human and artificial intelligence also connects very much with a very large development that we announced this past semester, which is the creation of our new division of data science and information. Perhaps you know, we have now almost 1,100 students, undergraduates, who have declared their major to be in data science in the first semester that it was possible to do that. And the growth is essentially explosive. And one reason is because it is offering a pathway for all of our students to connect with topics that they care about deeply. These might be not just students in fields like computer science, it might be in cognitive science or sociology, English, physics. Across the entire university, this is now a big change in how we discover things, how we learn. And we have created a really new structure. Many faculties from computer science, from statistics, from the School of Information will come together. But also other faculty in the data science commons. And you'll be hearing more and more about that being a place where students and faculty can come together and work with your help as well to create really new environments for learning and new environments for discovery. I think there's a whole set of very powerful ideas about how to organize ourselves about the topics. And perhaps one final thought I'll leave with you on that is if you think about the topics that have been chosen as signature initiatives, each one of those is an area where it expresses an area where there's a deep societal challenge but where fundamental discovery will still play an enormous role. And in many ways Berkeley is trying through these signature initiatives to speak to the whole world and to say that we really wish for our discovery to have an impact on the lives of the people that we are serving through this public university. I think it's a very compelling academic plan in the research area and as it grows it's going to be a real anchor point for us. So thanks to you both. Let's start off talk a little bit more about the diversity issue. And Chancellor, let me begin with you. I'm just curious about why now, why you decided to take on something which is obviously controversial and complicated. And the second part of the question is what do you say to those who might be skeptical? We've heard the words before but we're somewhat dubious that the university has the willpower of the ability to really advance on the goals and objectives you laid out in that recent message. Well, the why now question is easy. It's because it's been a very important value to me throughout my career. And so it was one of the goals I initially identified as a place where I wanted to make a difference as Chancellor. And I think as I've been thinking about it for the past year, it's very clear to me how much we're lagging the rest of the system. And it's easy to say, oh, it's proposition 209, we can't do anything. But that's not getting in the way of UCLA. It's not getting in the way of UC Davis. And so the fact that we are lagging the rest of the system seems to me to suggest there are different things that we could do that would increase our diversity. As with everything, the big challenge is always implementation. There's a business strategist. I like a whole lot that says, good ideas are really plentiful. Good implementation plans are much, much rarer. And so I think we have to have the will to stick the course, to keep our focus, and to make sure that our talk turns into real differences in initiatives, in programs. But I also want to say talk is really important. I mean, it has to be part of the discourse of the campus. We all need to do a lot of talking about it. And because I'm talking about students doesn't mean that I don't think we have real strides to make in staff and faculty diversity. And indeed, emails early in the net campus messages early in the beginning of the year will talk about what we plan to do with faculty and what we plan to do on the staff front. So Paul, maybe just as a little preview on the faculty side, talk a little bit about what we're thinking and also why it's important. Yes. Well, I mean, the why it's important is for multiple reasons. One of them is our students that come in want to see themselves in the faculty. And we need to offer that. We also need to have the best possible faculty. And here we are in a state that's so rich with talent, we need to make sure that the whole community is here present able to contribute. There are many things that we're already undertaking in this area. And then there's still much more that we can do. Last year, with support from Office of the President, we ran a pilot project in the College of Engineering in which rather than searching in very specific areas of the mechanical engineering of a particular kind, we conducted a broad search across the entire College of Engineering. And by opening it up in that way, by saying we're open to just the most talented people across all of engineering, we received, as you can imagine, an incredible number of proposals of applications. But we were able ultimately to select a much more diverse group of people from those five slots, two African-American men and three women ultimately have agreed to join us, most of them starting this coming July. And we're now running a similar set of cluster hires in the life sciences encompassing the Biological Sciences College of Natural Resources and Chemistry. We're running a similar kind of search. And from what I have heard reported, the candidate pool is positively extraordinary. So I imagine that we will do very well there. In addition, the Chancellor has now designated a total of 25 positions, which will come in groups of five. The first group will be five related to the Native American experience. So scholarship related to the, yeah. Is that what you mean by a cluster hire? Because I hear that phrase cluster hire. A cluster hire means a group of faculty who have a kind of connection via a theme but may be distributed in different parts of the university where we will take extra care to make sure that they can stay connected with each other and that they are able to help change our whole community in some way. So we will be hiring five scholars, we're running searches for five related to Native American studies and we have put out a proposal to all of the academic parts of the campus for future years for them to define topics, to propose to define topics. For example, it might be a topic around incarceration or immigration and so on. So in these kind of areas of inquiry, areas of problem, areas of discovery, we'll be bringing groups of faculty together and by defining those subjects in this kind of cross cutting way, we feel we'll really be able to help alter the faculty diversity and also to really help the campus to be ready to address some of the goals that we were talking about earlier. For example, inequality or the future of democracy. So these things are all connected with each other and they're reinforcing each other. We're making some progress. We need to grow the faculty. New faculty are much more diverse because of how the hiring patterns have changed over the years because of how our society has changed in terms of being open, where before it wasn't. So we need to grow our faculty and I'm also pleased to say that we have philanthropic support this year to have a net increase in our faculty by eight and we are poised I think to make rapid progress ultimately towards the goal of increasing the faculty by 100 within approximately five years. That's a goal that the chancellor has set. That will make a big difference because there will be a much more diverse group of faculty. So by growing and by making some commitments about how we hire, we can really make a big change. Chancellor, let's talk to finance. Let's turn to finances for a second. I'm 150 million, it's a big number, but okay, we're balancing the budget. What does that mean for those of us who aren't working in finance? What does it mean for the university? Do we breathe a sigh of relief? The workforce is now stable. How do we understand the importance of that milestone? It is so important and just about any way you can imagine. First of all, we have access to the debt markets. We didn't have access to the debt markets so long as we were in deficit. Secondly, donors are opening up their checkbooks and their pocketbooks because they are, nobody wants to contribute to an organization that they think is flailing or faltering. And so it means an enormous amount in terms of our donor community and our alumni community. It means an enormous amount in terms of the legislature. I just had a lunch yesterday for a group of legislators who are eager to collaborate with us now that we've shown we can put our financial house in order. Yes, we are stabilizing the workforce and we can think about growing the faculty, which we couldn't even think about when we had a deficit. Now it doesn't mean, I mean the kind of sobering thing about having balanced our budget is just standing still. No increases in programming. We need $50 million additional each year in order to pay for increased salaries, for increases in energy costs, for price increases. And so the key, as I've said very frequently is multiplying and diversifying sources of revenue in order to be able to produce that additional money in our budget each year that enables us to sustain our operations. But, and then the other thing that's important is building a reserve. Currently, we have about a large enough reserve to keep the university in operation for two weeks. This is not prudent. And we really should, the kind of rule of thumb is you should have six months, not two weeks. And so we'll be working to try to build up our reserve. Paul, do you wanna talk a little bit maybe also about the intersection between our improving financial health and the strategic planning process? Is there an intersection there? And how are you thinking overall about the strategic planning process?  Yeah, well, first of all, already the strategic plan talks about things like growing the faculty, which can only happen in an environment where we're able to secure more support. But also what we see is a situation where how we organize ourselves financially will help us to be more successful. So we do have right now three working groups that are helping us think through a set of reforms on how money is flowing through the university. One of them relates to what we're calling the common good. In other words, we have all kinds of resources coming into the campus that are directed towards particular academic programs or towards a particular way of serving students and so on. But we also just have the overall common good, whether we're talking about the police or the Student Learning Center, these are things that just cut across all of the academic areas. So that group is thinking through how can we set up a system where the common good is supported in a right-sized kind of way and then funds can flow out to the different parts of the program. There's a group that's thinking through how we send monies from the center, monies that come either through tuition or through the state allocation. How do we apportion those monies back out to all the academic programs? Should it be proportional to the number of students, the number of majors, the number of degrees awarded? Should it reflect our academic priorities so that even if there's a topic which doesn't have the most number of majors, we still think it's really important for us to be doing because we're here to really challenge society sometimes to change in certain ways. So there's a group thinking about that and then there's a group thinking about revenue share, meaning if we have a new kind of academic program and it's bringing in monies we didn't have before, what is the right balance between that academic unit or that other unit holding on to some of those monies so that they can support themselves versus again supporting the common good? So those three working groups are busy and we've asked them to produce a very, very first version of what this coordinated flow of money might look like by early February and we expect to be sharing it very broadly for discussion throughout the spring semester. So one of our collective products in the spring semester is going to be a plan for reimagining how monies flow through the system here. I'm gonna stay with money for one more question then turn to the questions that are coming in from folks in the audience and that's the campaign. We're on the verge of a new campaign to raise, I hope you'll hopefully tell us how much is where we at, how are you thinking about it and does it intersect in any way with the diversity objective that you talked about earlier, Chancellor, let's start with you. It certainly intersects with the diversity objective because that will be one of the important things we'll be raising money for. We're right now in the really almost final stages of the work of a campaign planning committee that is identifying the goals for the campaign. We should have that work completed by January. Then our campaign consultants, campaign council, Martz and Lundy is going to take those ideas out to our most generous donors to try to road test them if it were to find out if they have a traction with those donors. They think that there are good objectives for the campaign and then we will develop a campaign prospectus and we hope to go public with our next campaign in either late 2019 or early 2020. We are already in the counting period for this campaign. We had a record fundraising year last year and we have extraordinary fundraising results in and the first six months of this year aren't even over but we are way ahead of even where we were last year. So I think things are very bright on the fundraising side. What the goal is is something we'll decide after these feasibility interviews but it will be a very big number. Okay. Well, Paul, anything you want to add to that? I think that speaks for itself right there. All right, so let's turn to some of the questions you brought forward and there were a couple having to do with our new incoming governor. And it says our incoming governor and lieutenant governor don't always seem to understand the UC's mission and needs. How do you hope to communicate with them in the weeks and months ahead? And I think by communicate, maybe they also meant educate. And I think attendant to that as second question is what are your expectations in terms of the new administration's willingness, readiness and ability to provide additional funds to the UC system? Chancellor, let's start with you. Okay, lots of things that are embedded in those questions. First, I want to say that Gavin Newsom was really faithful in his attendance at Regents meetings. He listened carefully, he asked smart questions. So I think we are going to have a governor certainly that is going to have lots of competing priorities for the use of state funds, but someone who is more interested in higher education and perhaps less idiosyncratic in some of his ideas about the University of California than our previous governor. The lieutenant governor is a Berkeley alum. So, and we already hosted her at the football at the big game, that's a beginning. And one of the things that I have determined to do is spend a lot of time not only with the executive branch of the government but with the state legislature. We've hosted two meetings in the past two weeks here on campus of legislators. And I will be spending a lot of time in Sacramento in the spring. I am so grateful particularly to the students who came with me to Sacramento, lobbied the legislature and they, I think views are changing in the legislature about the need of the University of California and indeed all higher education in California for more funds. We are lucky the state is really flush with money right now, so it's a good environment. But one of the most difficult policy issues is remember that $50 million figure. How do you cover increasing costs? Most colleges and universities do it by small but predictable, small predictable tuition increases. We live in an environment in which everyone seems almost allergic to the idea that we would have cost of living or really modest tuition increases. So either the state legislature has to be committed to buying out those increases, or we have to reach a different consensus about the role that small, predictable, sort of cost of living increases play in relationship to our state support in our financial plan. Paul, anything you wanna add to that? Well, maybe I will, yeah, the chancellor talked earlier about one of the things we're talking about for our undergraduate students is this Berkeley discovery experience of connect, discover, engage, reflect, by which we mean helping in the beginning for the students to find out what opportunities there are for them. But then later, understanding that a big part of their Berkeley experience is really about doing in an active way about experiential learning, whether it's in a laboratory or a nonprofit or in a performance. And we're finding that making that a centerpiece of some of our thinking around the undergraduate experience is actually something that the people in Sacramento, the legislature and others really resonates with them. They can see that that will make a big difference. And so there's this very delicate balance between explaining how stretched the organization is or how difficult it is to deliver in a circumstance where the budget has been so tight for so long versus showing that there's really interesting new ideas afoot at Berkeley that will be first in kind if we really are able to offer a discovery experience in a substantive way to every student. That's transformational for higher education. And so when they see those things from us, the conversations become better. Thanks. So Chancellor, in your message about diversity, you invited people to ask hard questions and they've responded. This being Berkeley. And so I'm actually, if you'll indulge me, I'm gonna read three because I think it really calls, I think, what I've gleaned from these, just reading them that people want to go a little bit deeper on the subject. So let me read these. First one, you spent a great deal of time talking about the student experience in your message. How do you reconcile your words with asking our students, particularly our black students, to sit, learn, study in Barrows and La Conte, buildings honoring races, which serve as daily reminders to their oppression. That's the first, buildings. The second is for some of those in the communities directly referenced in your message, the words read more like a blanket over very real inequities we experience daily on campus. The conversations we must have are tough, deep, and yes, painful.  Then the next one notes the fact that this is not exactly a diverse group sitting here on the stage, and nor is the leadership, the cabinet, in an extraordinarily diverse, I would say the least. And so it says the optics of three white people, two of whom are men talking about diversity, somewhere between jarring and offensive.  And finally, before increasing the number of native black Latinx student populations on campus, we need to make sure support systems, resources, and services are well thought out and built up. Sorry, I'm gonna just shorten this a little bit so we can actually hear them, not me. And some more about what plans are to support all the staff, support the students. So we sort of have buildings, diversity among leadership, really testing your commitment and the extent to which staff will be supported. So maybe give you first shot at some of that, Carol. Okay, let me try to figure out what order. Maybe I'll just do it in the order of the questions. First of all, the buildings. Nayila Nasir did us, the campus, a great favor before she left to be president of the Spencer Foundation in chairing a committee that developed a process for the un-naming of buildings. And that process is now established. We have the committee set up, basically the way it works is that a proposal needs to come from someone in the community, both stating obviously what their request is but also the grounds of it. Then there is a request for the community of anybody who wants to offer a counter argument to that. It goes to this committee that is now established, that committee's recommendation then comes to me and I make a recommendation to the president. We already have one of these processes or one of these renaming or un-namings in process which is Bolt, which is a recommendation has come forward from the law school to take the name of Bolt away from the law school because of similar concerns about Bolt's prejudice about actually Asian Americans, specifically Chinese. So it's I think a robust process and I really look forward to recommendations from the community. I do believe we should rename buildings, un-name them and then rename them if they do not reflect our current values. The second question is asking for a public commitment to diversity. Diversity has been, I'm probably older than most of you in this room. I'm a child of the civil rights movement. This has been deeply important to me in my whole career and indeed one of the things that was attractive about being the chancellor at Berkeley is to try to make a difference on the subject. Berkeley used to lead the system in diversity in the 90s. Now it trails the system and for me that's simply unacceptable. I mean, I know of course this is all white at least on this stage, but I don't think that you can say and indeed make progress on diversity if you don't have the commitment of the whole community to say that you're just committed to diversity if you yourself are an underrepresented individual doesn't seem to me the way to drive this issue forward. I very much hope I get lots of advice from the community. One of the most important pieces of advice is what we do for our students when they're here. One of the most powerful learning experiences of last year is to realize the extent to which we do not have on this campus what I call equity of experience. There are just dramatically different levels of resources available to different students. We start with housing, about 10% of our students experience homelessness at some point in their career as a student. Many of our students don't have enough food to eat.  And then this campus is a complex campus that is very difficult to navigate. That's easier for some students than it is for others. We want to level the playing field. And so that's the third of these groups is to me the most important, which is what are the support services that we're gonna put in place that is going to create the equity of experience to which I aspire to for our students. Yeah, I mean, so then let's go to what you said, let's talk some nuts and bolts here so it's not just a theoretical. So we have established and we will be running starting in the spring our first faculty leadership academy will be the first time that we're taking faculty and bringing them together as a cohort from around the campus. We had an overwhelming number of applicants to this and we've selected 20. They are a very diverse group and they're going to come together over a one year period. They'll be given a lot of opportunities to develop many skills which will be valuable to this community. And so that's a group that's gonna have a lot of opportunities over time to grow on this campus. We have seven searches that are open right now whether they be for deans or cabinet level positions. And so there are a number of openings and through the semester we've been having a very significant discussion about how do we do these searches? How do we ensure that we have the right way of approaching this? So for example, and we've put out in my office now an FAQ about all the ways in which these searches are run. And so some of the things that we are doing now as we have said that it will be the norm that searches will be open both to internal candidates from Berkeley but also to all the people from outside. That move in itself already helps us to achieve a much broader pool of candidates. So it increases our possibilities of diversifying our leadership but it also ensures that we have the best pool. And we've also had a very difficult discussion to be candid with you with many of the different parts of the campus around the need for searches when we conduct them in this way to also have confidentiality for the candidates. Now we have a tradition of shared governance. Everybody wants to be involved in the discussion but if we want to for example attract candidates from the outside and particularly imagine a candidate who might be potentially interested in being a dean and they're at another university or at another institution from an underrepresented group who already maybe is in a vulnerable situation or feels lack of support where they are now. How easy is it gonna be for them to decide to be a candidate when their candidacy could be exposed? And so ultimately through a very, we've had a very deep discussion with many, many of the places around the campus around how can we balance out the need for openness and transparency in the search and there are many ways to do that that we've been developing. So I think those are examples of concrete things and ultimately you'll have to look and see if we deliver but we certainly will. Let me say a little bit. One of the questions I didn't answer that you asked Dan was about staff diversity and particularly leadership diversity. So we have an equivalent program on the staff side to the one Paul described on the faculty side in order to develop the leadership capacities of people currently working here who are underrepresented. And I believe very strongly in career ladders and want to provide more structural programs that enable people to expand their skillset and thereby compete really successfully for leadership positions because I agree our leadership team should be more diverse and we've made some progress but we still have a lot further to go. One quick note before we roll on, look quickly we have a lot of questions here and they're excellent. We're not gonna get to all of them here but we will get to all of them online. Probably sometime after the break on the campus conversations website if your question isn't answered today it will be answered in writing online. So don't despair if we don't get to it everything will eventually be answered even if we don't manage to reach your question in the next 10 minutes. So we're gonna stay with the diversity issue. The next one is about the HSI status. You announced recently the campus's goal is to achieve HSI status which I believe means 25% the student body to be a Hispanic serving institution. So the question is can you share with us why you think this move is in the best interest for all students, they underlined faculty and staff at Cal. That first of all I've learned a lot about what means to become an HSI institution. Briefly it makes you available, makes you eligible for federal funds but the funds go to serve all underrepresented students all Pell Grant students. So it brings additional resources to the institution. So it, we are not nearly representing at Berkeley the percentage of Hispanic students that are graduating from California high schools. They're really, really underrepresented and I believe it's important for students who are here to go to school in a student body that is representative of the population of the state of California and is diverse that teaches them just by virtue of being here what it's like to live and work and learn in a diverse environment but it's also important in terms of how we're serving the state of California. Got it. And that's a 10 year goal. I wanna be clear about what the time length is for the goal. So now I'm just bored down a little bit also in the message you referenced on sort of the work plan, the projects that were three committees that were mentioned, the question here is how will the committee members be chosen if they haven't already been and will they be inclusive of functional staff not just managers and high level administrators? We have already, I think almost completed the recruitment of the co-chairs for each of these committees and they're gonna be relatively small because I want them to be able to work fairly quickly. They will all have students and staff on them but the committees will each of them be encouraged to do a lot of outreach and to get input from the community on whatever is the issue that they're addressing. Got it. So this is an interesting question I think for both of you also on the diversity issue. The question here really has to do with the fact that we haven't talked a lot about age diversity. And- Represent it. I didn't want to mention that but all right. So the question here is how might we consider having a diversity of ages engaged in supporting in supporting all that we're doing here and include retirees and emeriti and all the rest of that. Can I- Okay so we've been setting this a lot. I think there's a tremendous amount that we can do. We have, first of all, if we look at what's happened is our possibilities for having more capacity to help students and to do our mission here is only increasing as our faculty and our staff and our student, our faculty and our staff have become able to work longer. That's an asset to us. It's not a disadvantage. But our faculty has aged significantly. If we look at their almost six years older than they were in 1995. So the median age has increased enormously. And because of how we are doing things without enough care on this topic, the age at which people first joined the faculty has also been increasing. So that means all of a sudden there's a group of people who are not here on the campus that used to be at the beginning of career. We're not accessing them the way we should. And then there are other people who are ready to continue to serve us later and later in life. So we have been in a very good discussion with our emeriti. There's a proposal out there. I don't know how it will develop over time around creating a new structure for emeriti that would recognize their work, perhaps define some new roles for them on the campus and essentially write a new compact with them. And it's a very active discussion. I do wanna mention we talked about wanting to grow the faculty by a hundred. There are more than 230 faculty who are so committed to this place and they love it here so much that even though they would make more money if they took retirement. Is that a hint? No, it's not a hint. It's just a reality that they would make more money if they retired and then we would of course be able to hire more people and increase the diversity. It's our problem is to figure out a way that they can stay engaged with our community longer and more productively and then we will be able to have more age diversity on the campus. So we're working hard on that and stay tuned. You will see more proposals in that area. So we're just gonna shift gears just a little bit because there were a few questions about this. Our favorite subject, People's Park. And one question was just went right to the heart of their concern. Why hurt People's Park? And the other question is why with all of the potential building sites are you, it's hard to see, oh, choosing to build on People's Park, a landmark site, mentioning the history. And so I know these are, hi there. Can we see the signs you're holding? Hi, I was Berkeley. Can we just see the signs of? District number seven candidate representing UC Berkeley in 2018 this year. All right, thanks. So appreciate it. So Chancellor, perhaps talk a little bit about why you chose People's Park and in the context of all the other sites and how you reconcile the campus' plans with the parks past. Okay, let me start with trying to describe the dimension of our housing problem. We are actually fairly land poor as a campus given our population. If we built on every single site on which we could possibly build, we would just about meet our rather modest goal of doubling the amount of housing that we offer our students. And that would only offer our students housing for half the time they're here. Both UCLA and UC San Diego are moving toward a four year housing guarantee for students. This would only allow us to move from one year to two years. So people who say, oh, don't build on People's Park build on the Oxford Track or don't build on the Oxford Track, build on that parking lot at Ellsworth and Channing simply do not understand the dimension of the problem. And this is a problem that deeply, deeply affects the experience that we can offer our students. So that's one piece is just the dimension of the problem. Second piece, I'm sure everybody in this room is moved by concerned about the enormous increase in homelessness on Berkeley's streets and on the streets of every city in the Bay Area. I think it's a shame to our country and that we have to come together as a community to help alleviate the situation of homelessness. I believe that this should be a commitment that Berkeley should make is to work with the city in helping the city in its goal of creating a permanent housing. It's called sustained housing for the homeless. I think that People's Park is an appropriate place to put such housing. And as probably everybody in this room knows that I think a quarter of the site should be used for about 125 beds of permanent housing and have lots of conversations with regions, with community members about this plan. We would, when we start construction, find a place, find housing for the homeless people that currently make it their community. I would reply to the question, why hurt People's Park? I think People's Park is profoundly hurt as someone who was here when People's Park was in its early days. The park today bears very little resemblance to the ideal that it was created to serve. And I think it's time to think about the park differently in a way that both acknowledges the needs of the homeless people who spend much of their days in the park, but also acknowledges our need for much more housing for our students.