Wednesday, August 27, 1997
Perhaps the major problem in the development of information technology at UVM has been the structure of its leadership. I most definitely do not mean the people, who in my opinion are excellent, but the structure under which they have been forced to operate. No one has been given the scope and authority to function as a leader in technology at this university, and until that is done I see no way in which we will develop as we need.
I propose a position of Director of Information Technology, reporting directly to the new Provost. The Provost will be the chief budget person at UVM, so that reporting line is appropriate. (At this point I don't see the need to argue over the Provost versus the President.) This position should involve a full-time assignment for information technology, and not be simply an oversight position, as Tom Tritton occupied. Technology is too important to have the person who has primary responsibility for it to be handling half a dozen other things as well. In words the Committee has used in the past, we want someone we can fire, not because we want to fire someone, but because we want someone whose clear role is the coordination of our technology resources. You can't fire a committee, and you are unlikely to fire someone when one of their many responsibilities doesn't work out very well. But if technology is your overall responsibility, you can and should be held accountable for it.
I would also recommend a carefully selected committee of knowledgable and thoughtful people who would advise the IT director. This committee would meet frequently, not just once/month, and would have a clearly defined role to play. Its role would, however, be advisory, and it would be only one of the advisory committees this director would have. (Presumably the heads of departments most involved would also constitute another committee.)
It may seem strange that the former chair of the Faculty Senate would recommend only an advisory committee, but we have not had much success in the past with committees. We put good people on them, and they work hard. But these people have too many other legitimate demands on their time, and cannot provide the follow-through that is needed if we are to move ahead. Someone needs to listen to ideas, take the good ones, reject the bad ones, and move on.
UVM has never had a clearly identified focus for information technology. CIT has had a focus, my own department has had a focus, and my college has had a focus, but they have never been unified. Are we going to implement greater technology in the classroom? Who will decide? Who will use it? Who will pay for it? Who will evaluate it? Are we going to ask our students to communicate with us electronically? How will this happen? Are we going to put more of the adminstrative functions on people's desktops? Who will decide? Which departments will connect? Who will pay? Will we have more electronic documents? How will we circulate those? What software will be used to create them? What software will be used to read them? Where does the telephone system fit into this? Who will decide? How will departments budget for that system? Who will have a connection through that system and who won't? Who will pay? Will there be a computer-based projector in the classroom I use? Who will decide? Will it have a Mac-based machine with it? Who will pay for it?
I have reaped the advantages of a decentralized system for many years, and will defend many parts of it. But it is time that we decided that some things, like our oft-referenced phone system, are central to the University, not to a department, and need to be moved centrally. I don't get to decide that Sprint will handle our long-distance calls, nor who will make my telephone. I don't schedule the times when the lawn in front of my office gets cut. A centralized system can get too centralized if we let it (they could take away my Mac!), but I really don't see that happening. I have not noticed a lot of people at UVM who are afraid to speak up for themselves, and everyone I know in the computing area recognizes the need for flexibility.
But centralization carries with it costs to the University (though I hope cost savings as well). The system that I envision will provide me with the software that I currently buy out of my own pocket. It will give me a machine that is of recent vintage, and it will supply the training that I need. It will also have to put up with my screams when I see no reason why I need to move from some esoteric word processor (remember WordStar?), which I want them to dearly pay for because I know how to use it), to a different one for which we have a site license.
There needs to be a clearly defined budget for information technology that is under the control of the Director. This budget will be initially developed by pulling together resources that are currently centrally budgeted, but over time will grow as other resources can be moved centrally. Either we would withdraw technology funds from individual budgets so that it can be held centrally, which is a political minefield, or the Director would oversee technology budgets to colleges, who oversee technology budgets to departments. In either event, clearly specified people are responsible for using those funds to provide the technology we need. And we can't treat technology funds the same way we (or at least my college) treats staff salaries-everybody gets the same percentage. We have to set up criteria so that those who make the most productive use of resources get what they need, and those who make less use of resources get what they need.
Changing budgets is a nasty business. People get mad!! But if we don't think about it now, when we have a new president and a new provost, we certainly won't entertain it seriously two or three years down the road. The central question in all of this is accountability. The Provost must hold both the Director and the Deans accountable. The Deans must hold the departments accountable. The chairs and supervisors must hold the faculty and staff accountable. If the Dean or adminstrative department head doesn't have a technology plan in place for the unit by the end of the Spring '98 semester, then no technology funds flow to that college or department in the next fiscal year. If there isn't a plain by the end of the second year, we can search for a new dean or department head. If technology is important, then we need to make it important.
Standards need to be set centrally for equipment and for software. I would charge the Director with ultimate responsibility, although the director will obviously have to work in cooperation with those who will be affected. There will never be a one-size-fits-all solution, nor should there be. But we're not talking about Ben and Jerry's ice cream, that comes in 45 flavors. The telephone system is going to take care of itself. Classrooms can be coordinated by the media center, who funds some of them, in conjunction with departments, who fund most of the rest. We don't want 8 different kinds of overhead computer displays and eighteen different kinds of video projector. Two or three styles will probably suffice. If there is a good reason for some different version, then we can probably go with the different version. But if there is no compelling reason, then it should be possible to persuade the department to go along with a unified standard.
We complain a lot about training, but this university has done a remarkably good job over the years of bringing faculty and staff along as we add new technology. Certainly there are still staff who type page numbers at the bottom of each page, and faculty who hit 5 spaces instead of a tab key, but that's probably true everywhere. In general, people seem to learn at least the minimum of what they need. But there presumably is real dollar savings in having a better trained staff. Why else would large corporations spend so much on training? Presently we operate by snatching highly skilled specialists away from their current jobs to do training to whoever signs up. I would propose that the University either develop in-house training specialists, whose job it is to train employees, or contract the work out to someone, like Champlain College, who is noted for doing an excellent job. Colleges and departments should then budget for this training when making up their next year's budget.
I have answered most of this above. I don't have much else to add. Roger Lawson has done an excellent job of this.