We have the opportunity to propose change in five major IT areas: Leadership, Budgeting, Coherence, Skills and Support. The recommendations below represent some current thinking of many UVMers involved in the implementation, support and use of information technology. Given our increasing reliance upon and investments in information technology and the rapid changes the higher education is currently undergoing, an effective IT organizational structure is essential...
I. Information Technology Leadership
Until now no single organization or leader has been responsible for the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of IT at UVM. Although committees, such as the Information Technology Executive Council (ITEC), have in theory had oversight responsibility, this structure has met with relatively modest success. And although University executives (principally the Director of CIT and various Deans) have authority over IT units, no common leadership or authority has been responsible for overall IT effectiveness.
We propose a single accountable leader, a chief information officer (CIO, though not necessarily by that moniker), who would report directly to the President and be guided by several advisory committees. Other institutions have dubbed this position "Executive Assistant to the President". This leader would have line authority over and accountability for all organizations currently dedicated to providing IT services. This would include, but not be limited to:
In so far as many of the associated staff are currently funded by separate units, this funding arrangement need not change. For example, an individual who is currently dedicated to the service of a particular unit would continue to provide services to that unit as long as the unit continues to fund the position. Setting of unit application priorities would continue to be a matter of each unit's authority. Setting of institutional IT strategic directions would be primarily determined through the coordination, and ultimately the authority, of the CIO. Although it is unlikely that this would result in immediate, dramatic changes in technology, an expected outcome would be greatly improved coordination and cohesiveness of our IT structure (see section III).
The CIO would be an ex officio member of the Provost's and Administrative Councils and would receive support and guidance from a variety of organizations:
1. The CIO's IT Service Council (Directors of IT service units)
2. The Faculty Senate Technology Subcommittee
3. The Administrative Systems Priorities Committee
4. The IT Executive Council (or similar)
Although the CIO would report to the President, he or she would be attentive to the IT needs of the institution, i.e., the needs of the Provost, Vice President for Administration, other Vice Presidents and the units reporting to them. Although much of the funding for IT would be under the direct control of the CIO, much of it would continue to be in the distributed units to be used according to their priorities. To improve IT coordination and cohesiveness, the CIO would participate in IT planning for all distributed units and would be present at the associated budget hearing serving both as an advocate and "expert witness" The CIO would not attempt to (micro-) manage IT deployment details and would not, for example, be involved in detailed purchase order approvals.
II. Budgeting for Information Technology
Currently, most of the IT dollars at UVM are spent at the local level. We do not see this changing significantly. However, 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 foresee the 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 and the IT "floor" to a level where everyone is able to participate in our electronic university.
Setting IT Budgeting Priorities
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 dollars might better be applied. 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 (see "Codifying Priority Setting Criteria").
Cost-Recovery Mechanisms
Among the most important decisions UVM makes is the method via which 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 lead us to decentralize most budgetary expense decisions (i.e. not the allocation of funds to each unit, but how budget dollars are actually used in those units). In some cases this will not work well or at all. 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 an 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 this as an appropriate model for the basic IT infrastructure. The cost-recovery model must be carefully designed, otherwise it can stifle necessary IT advancement, add needless bureaucratic overhead and increase costs .
III. Improving IT Coherence
Improving the compatibility, consistency and evenness of UVM's information technology will be among the first and most important tasks to be addressed by the CIO. The greatest challenge in improving IT consistency is achieving it in a way that does not excessively limit the local freedom of choice. It would be relatively simple for an autocrat to simply decree that a particular technology must be used by everyone without regard for needs or preferences.
Although there is a place for such edicts (the American practice of driving on the right is an example), standard setting at a institution of higher education and research generally needs to be a bit more flexible, collegial and responsive to differing needs. 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. As in the case of the personal automobile, many of us are empowered by being able to go where we want, when we want; few of us, on the other hand, are empowered reprogramming our engine computer or acquiring a vehicle designed for driving on the left.
IT Advancement, Exploration and Research
Because of the rapid advancement of technology, the solutions we chose 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. See "Supporting Divergent Technologies"
IV. Maintaining Essential IT Skills
No matter how much time 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. Currently the IT support staff in most units providing 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, online help facilities, and the education we provide must be geared towards consistency and self-guided learning skills.
V. Supporting the IT Infrastructure
Ideally IT infrastructure should be so effectively deployed that we are largely unaware of 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.
When our basic IT tools don't work (or the are counter-intuitive), prompt reliable support should be available.
IT Support Entitlement?
A 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. Given that our IT support resources are limited, limiting what can be supported will be necessary to ensure quality. Support staff cannot be expected to support any conceivable technology and do it well.
Supporting Divergent Technologies?
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.
Who Provides Support?
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.
Helpline Services
UVM's helpline service, which is completely staffed with student employees, does a remarkable job. This support model is among the most efficient. Although many people at UVM have praised the helpfulness and knowledge of the helpline staff, others have expressed frustration with:
We propose that a feasibility study and cost-benefit analysis evaluation of increasing the coverage by 50-100%.