|
|
Task Force |
| |
|
|
Task Force |
| |
As presented to Dr. Judith Ramaley prior to her meeting with the Task Force on October 2, 1997.
Information is core to UVM's mission: we create it, we enhance and extend it, we catalog it, we seek it, we organize it, we teach it and distribute it. Given the fundamental nature of information, the technologies we use to convey, locate, access and organize information are and will continue to be absolutely critical to our success. In order to achieve excellence in other areas, it will be necessary to achieve and sustain excellence in our use of information and information technology (IT).
We envision IT as a fundamental part of the educational and discovery process. IT is not an end we are seeking to achieve; it is a means for all students faculty and staff to achieve their goals. In order to enhance the capabilities of UVM as a learning community committed to the creation, integration, interpretation, and application of knowledge for the benefit of society, we endeavor to provide each member of this community with the necessary information technology. Information technology serves a critical role in our academic endeavors, supporting teaching, learning and research while enhancing the effectiveness of those who support these activities. Some examples of our vision:
The pace and scope of change in higher education and technology is unprecedented. Patterns in creating new knowledge and disseminating it broadly will continue to change as informational and educational technologies become part of the faculty member's and student's academic lifestyle. Therefore, flexibility in envisioning and planning for information technology will be crucial in ensuring the viability of these activities as we move into the future. In addition, an emphasis on connectivity which will support continuing technological advances is essential as we move in directions we can only anticipate at this stage.
What Separates Us From Our Vision?
Currently UVM devotes millions of dollars to IT and UVM has a number of nation-leading IT operations. Our students, faculty and staff are highly qualified, and UVM has an enviable reputation. Yet a tension between our current situation and our vision remains. There are a number of possible adjustments that might serve to close the gap.
Our approaches to budgeting for information technology have allowed us to develop some strong and innovative centers of IT excellence, but they have also led to fragmentation, inconsistencies and redundancies in IT utilization. There are far too few staff to provide support to the burgeoning growth of desktop computers and network infrastructure, and there are also many who do not yet have access to facilities that would allow them to participate in the electronic systems that have become available. Until now, information technology has not been given sufficient institutional priority. Additional funding will be required in some areas to reap the benefits of the substantial investments we are already making. But while budgetary recommendations will be a vital part of this planning effort, we do not see inadequate funding as the only element that separates us from our vision.
There are five major areas where fundamental change is needed. If we can bring about these changes, we will have established a foundation upon which our IT vision can become a reality.
We have a serious need on this campus for leadership in the information technology arena. Like so many of our efforts, we have many fine examples of achievement in IT. What we lack in IT is institutional focus and direction. The blurring of technologies previously considered separately, such as computing and multimedia, print and electronic information, local databases and international networks, just to name a few, creates an environment where coordination and coherence in our approach to technology are essential to our effectiveness as a university. In considering new leadership for IT, we should be looking for ways to promote coordination, to enhance collaboration, to learn from local successes and translate them into campus wide programs. We need to think carefully about the academic mission of the institution and find avenues for enriching this mission through technology. We need to develop and manage information technology as a strategic resource, but we must not view IT as an end unto itself. We need to focus this resource more deliberately, but we need to do this in ways which will not undermine the creativity and diversity of our academic programs or impair the effectiveness of our business operations.
We propose an IT leader, a senior executive who would be accountable for the coordination of IT at UVM. Although the specific reporting line should be left to the discretion of the President, recognizing that reorganization of the senior administration may occur in the near future, we suggest a title of either Vice Provost or Vice President. For the purposes of this document, we will use CIO (chief information officer) with the intent of addressing technology issues and not information in its broadest definition.
The CIO will provide a focal point for the articulation of the value and potential for information technology for the University. Working with the IT Council (see below), the CIO will have responsibility for coordination and oversight of IT activities throughout the campus, both academic and administrative. Initially, this will be implemented through a combination of direct reporting lines and a secondary line of accountability for deans and directors with IT operations (in addition to the Provost/VP). Over time, some of these activities will converge into a more cohesive IT organization.
The IT Council will be made up of the key campus stakeholders in information technology use and support. Responsibilities of the IT Council will include strategic IT planning, involvement in the development of annual unit IT plans, decision making for major campus investments, consideration of appropriate standards, investigation of funding issues, and facilitation of communication.
The CIO will have ultimate responsibility and authority for building a successful organizational structure which will be accountable to the entire campus. The CIO will play a role in all major IT planning and purchasing decisions, approve IT standards and practices, and serve as the key long-term IT planner for the institution. With guidance from the IT Council and other advisory committees, the CIO will establish a common "technology floor" for both academic and administrative IT users, and promote the continuing development and improvement of our IT infrastructure. S/he would also oversee the development and implementation of instructional technology.
Within this context, IT budgeting will consist of a combination of direct responsibility for unit budgets and dual responsibility, with the Provost or appropriate VP, for IT budgets within colleges, schools, or administrative units. Coordination of existing resources in various loci will occur with institutional objectives in mind, but unit priorities will continue to be set, after appropriate consultation, by the dean/director. Areas for improving the effectiveness of IT operations through closer coordination will be pursued, particularly in the area of training and support. Consolidation of some budgetary resources will provide funds for program improvement as an incentive for greater collaboration.
Currently, most decisions about spending IT dollars at UVM are made at the local level. While we do need to improve the efficiency, consistency, and capability of UVM's IT infrastructure, most of this can be accomplished through better coordination, possibly combined with some reallocation of IT budgets. We have heard about and observed substantial unevenness in the allocation of IT resources. Although it is vital that all UVM students, faculty and staff have sufficient access to IT resources to achieve their goals, we do not need to equalize the distribution of IT dollars. There will always be programs, projects and individuals whose requirement for IT investment exceeds the base. We do see the need, however, to define a basic level of IT where everyone is able to fully participate in our University.
As we emerge from a decade of declining enrollments, low state support, and budget reductions, we need to clearly assess the value of IT investments. Given that our resources are not unlimited, it will not always be possible to fund every "worthwhile" program or project, and there will always be a need to establish priorities. Currently, there is a widespread sense that some activities are funded without sufficient consideration for how these investments might better be coordinated. This applies both when considering various IT expenditures and when considering IT vs. non-IT alternatives. Although this issue may never be completely resolved and budget allocation decisions may always be subject to second-guessing, we feel that the allocation process can be enhanced by codification and publication of the priority setting criteria.
Among the important decisions UVM makes is the method via which we fund IT and other services. In general UVM has tended to make the expense decision "local" to the place where it has value (or not). This avoids the problem of the institution blindly funding something regardless of its relative value as perceived by those who employ it. This philosophy has led us to decentralize most budgetary expense decisions, with varying results. In cases where the University does not wish to defer to units the funding of infrastructure (e.g. building maintenance and institutional accounting), those activities are funded as overhead (general funding). In cases where there are clear economies of scale or a strong need for consistency (e.g. telephones), the infrastructure is deployed on a cost-recovery basis (with annual or monthly charges). We recommend that this be explored as a possible model for the basic IT infrastructure. Such a cost-recovery model must be carefully designed, or it will stifle necessary IT advancement, add needless bureaucratic overhead and increase costs.
The task of improving the compatibility, consistency and evenness of UVM's information technology should be engaged at the highest level and should be among the first and most important tasks to be addressed by the CIO. While we recognize the richness that a diverse selection of IT solutions can bring to the higher education environment, we also appreciate the value of having a coherent information technology infrastructure. Exploration and research into alternate and emerging technologies must be fostered, but not at the expense of a compatible functioning infrastructure. Exploration activities should be coordinated to avoid "reinventing the wheel". Recommendations and other results should be published (preferably via the Web or similar technology). There should be a codified process for determining if, when and how alternative technologies go from research to "production". Opportunities for setting standards in campus communication systems, such as email, document sharing and calendaring, should be actively pursued. Current solutions from our existing testbed should be seriously considered for broader adoption. Our choices of common IT solutions should:
Imposing consistency is not intended to limit our flexibility, but we should appreciate the difference between choices that empower us and those that are essentially arbitrary.
Because of the rapid advancement of technology, the solutions we choose should be constrained in number for efficiency, but must not be static. Exploration of emerging technologies and updating of existing standards must be ongoing activities.
No matter how much tme and money we dedicate to the latest computers, spiffy software, advanced information systems and blindingly fast networks, if we don't have the sufficient skills to employ them, our investments will have been largely wasted. Our success depends on people understanding what tools are available at UVM and how to use them effectively.
The current IT curriculum is quite extensive, although it has been developed for diverse audiences and is largely uncoordinated. There are specific gaps in this program, such as in the area of instructional technology. Assessment of the needs of students, faculty and staff for IT instruction and training is required, as well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of current programs in meeting these needs. The coordination of these offerings, together with a more coherent approach to planning for a comprehensive program of training and instruction is needed.
Currently the IT staff in most units providing support and training are over-extended. We have heard repeatedly that "more training is needed." But that is only part of the problem. We also need to:
We need to make sure we are all learning, all the time, not just when we are sitting in a classroom or being individually tutored. Rather than attempting to teach everyone all the answers, we need to make it possible, even pleasant, to discover our own answers. IT knowledge should be more "just in time" than "just in case". Our systems are already moving in this direction, but to further this goal, all our systems, the integrated documentation, on-line help facilities, and the education we provide must be geared towards consistency and self-guided learning skills.
Ideally IT infrastructure should be so effectively and transparently deployed that we rarely think about it. It's just there, consistently available and natural to use. Ideally it should be clear where to get support, what support is available, how it will be provided and how much it will cost (if anything). When our basic IT tools don't work (or are counter-intuitive), prompt reliable support should be available.
All support structures need to be formulated so that they appear seamless to end users. Support personnel should be aware of the breadth of central and distributed resources, including exploratory projects where applicable. Central databases or other tracking systems should be used to log calls requiring follow-up so that the end user can effectively "one-stop shop".
Although administrative and academic missions are clearly different, the basic IT infrastructure needs (primarily electronic communications, document creation and collaboration) are essentially identical. These needs can be met most effectively with common standards and support infrastructure. We do not envision a "one size fits all" solution for everyone, but an offering of standard configurations meeting a range of needs. As with the current standard desktop hardware offerings, there might be a baseline system that is sufficient to meet all "normal" infrastructure needs plus one or more alternative systems designed to meet those with greater needs. At this time, we do not envision these standard offerings meeting the needs for specialized engineering or research workstations.
In order to meet special needs and respond to unit priorities, some units will continue to require dedicated, local IT support staff. To avoid introducing needless or arbitrary technology discontinuities, the distributed IT support staff will also report to the IT umbrella organization for technology coordination and approvals. Distributed units will determine application priorities for dedicated staff.
This basic IT capability including a support commitment should be provided as part of our infrastructure. Where we have infrastructure support, we tend to have consistent, reliable, supportable solutions. Where it is absent and each unit has been left to research and implement their own diverse solutions, we frequently waste time and effort, ending up with a potpourri of technologies, not all of which work well together; not all can be efficiently supported. Limiting what can be supported will be necessary to ensure quality, given that our IT support resources are limited. Support staff cannot be expected to support every conceivable technology - and do it well.
Not everyone will be able to achieve their goals using the standard issue hardware and software. When an individual or department chooses divergent technology, this choice and associated service expectations should be discussed with the IT support organization. Valid experimentation should be coordinated and results reported to the community (via the Web) to advance our institutional knowledge of alternate and emerging technologies. In general the unit experimenting with alternate technology should expect to provide their own support until or unless that technology is adapted as a supported solution.
Currently IT is supported by a combination of dedicated (decentralized) and shared (centralized) support staff. Each support model has advantages and disadvantages. The local support model typically has the advantages of being:
On the other hand this model:
We feel that the mix of dedicated and shared support is a viable model; however, the currently decentralized IT support staff should report to the CIO in some manner (as proposed in section I). Also consolidation of some functions (e.g. decentralized server support) should be evaluated for cost savings and better continuity of support.
This page maintained by David
Punia
Last updated: October 25, 1997
