I. Teaching and Learning
Comment:
Teaching and learning issues belong to the faculty.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree that the faculty have the key role
in issues related to teaching and learning. Faculty were the primary
authors of the Teaching and Learning section; many members of the
faculty who were not on the committee were solicited for input; and
the Faculty Senate Technologies Committee was involved in the
process. The faculty were involved precisely because these are
faculty issues. Faculty members are seeking help and support in the
use of technology. On the other hand, to suggest that other members
of the University community do not have a role to play in teaching
and learning is insulting to both the faculty and the staff. There is
an institutional need to employ information technology to be
competitive and to reduce costs.
Comment:
How are we going to organize learning,
given the changing nature of learning and the changing nature of the
distribution of knowledge in society?
Current ITTF thinking:
This is a major issue facing higher
education. The Task Force members do not have all the answers, but
feel that information technology and, in particular, the development
of our on-campus facilities and off-campus connections will best
enable UVM to compete and serve in the evolving higher education
marketeplace. We have reviewed the plans and initiatives of other
institutions as well as the tools that will be needed to deliver new
learning and knowledge resources. The nature of what we do and will
do in the future is changing rapidly and will continue to change. It
is our belief that the most important thing the University can to is
to create a responsive decision-making environment and methods for
delivering the IT resources and enhancements effectively, but there
will be an ongoing requirement for responsive institutional and
academic leadership in these areas. Clearly the Provost's Council can
be a critical component of this leadership and planning.
II. Enhancing Communication
and Collaboration
Comment:
The importance of web-site development
for admissions was underscored, not just the admissions page, but the
entire University presence on the Web.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree. For this reason the Web
development team recommendation is prominently featured. We are
working on the recommended implementation phase on this important
project. Any suggestions for how this should be done are
appreciated.
Comment:
The IT floor is extremely important.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree. Currently many UVMers are unable
to participate in and contribute to our evolving electronic
community. We seek to solve this problem economically and
effectively. We expect to publish draft implementation plans
(tactical) in the coming weeks.
Comment:
It is very true that we have
inefficiencies due to lack of collaboration. However, this is because
of lack of central guidance and directions, which could be solved by
creating opportunities and incentives.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree. Although there have been earnest
collaborative efforts, they have not been sufficient to create the
level of continuity, compatibility and communication we are seeking.
The campus network and PhoneMail are examples of how financial
incentives have led to rapid deployment of technology made more
valuable by its widespread adoption. We agree that creating
opportunities and incentives is frequently the best way to engender
collaboration and coherent technology. Although this approach is
currently recommended in the draft document, we will make it clearer
in the next draft and include specifics in our implementation
plans.
Comment:
We need to find a balance, which must be
demonstrated in ways that are not apparent in the report, for the
appropriate mix between centralization and decentralization.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree that we must strike a balance
between centralization and decentralization. We devoted significant
effort and space to discussing our thoughts in this area, but will
try to make our recommendations clearer and more specific in
subsequent drafts. We have had a great deal of input in this area and
continue to be very interested in the recommendations especially from
key stakeholders such as yourselves.
Comment:
This plan is too highly centralized and
based on standardized platforms.
Current ITTF thinking:
This tension between centralized and decentralized approaches has been given a great deal of thought and discussion. The recommendations from the Task Force are intended to obtain the optimum mix of shared and dedicated models for information technology. Our recommendations do not call for the centralization of budgets, resources or support staff (although we examined this possibility). Although the choice of distributed technologies will be influenced by institutional needs, we envision technology application priorities continuing to be determined by distributed management.
Nearly everyone we talked with agrees that a more coherent approach to our IT deployments would allow us to be more effective and efficient. We are recommending the establishment of standard, supported solutions in the area of desktop computing. We are not recommending a model where a particular technology is imposed by fiat from an isolated, administrative authority. As stated in the draft report, it is our intent that supported solutions:
Further we recommend that solutions be
offered and supported in a way that will motivate units and
individuals to adopt them.
IV. Leading IT for the
Learning Community
Comment:
We should not be talking about new
administrative positions and their authority. That is the purview of
the President and the new Provost. We should be addressing
information technology for the campus, not organizational
structure.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree that the establishment of positions
and their authority is the purview of the President and Provost. We
respect that authority. However, we were asked for our organizational
recommendations (see the IT Task Force's charge ).
Further, we feel that organizational changes are fundamental to the advancement of our information technology environment. We discussed an earlier draft report with President Ramaley, and she expressed no concern whatsoever that we were exceeding our authority in making these recommendations--in fact, she specifically urged us "to be bold."
Comment:
CLIO is a good concept, but for this to
work, there must be a budget - more than that supporting the
office.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree. For managers to be successful with
areas for which they are accountable, they must have the necessary
authority, including significant budget authority. Otherwise the
position is likely to be little more than a figurehead.
Comment:
The CIO model is a good one, as has been
the case in Fletcher Allen. We need to see technology as an enabler,
an issue which needs leadership.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree. The "CIO model" is the foundation
of the organizational and technological evolution we envision. In
fact, we discussed the CIO position and some of the system wide
institutional outcomes with Bill Montgomery, FAHC CIO and Senior VP,
among others.
Comment:
CLIO should be a resource person,
providing, direction, and facilitation--authority is not the issue.
This person should assist in integrating information technology into
operations, budgets, and plans.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree that the CLIO needs to be a
resource person, providing guidance, direction, facilitation and
advocacy. We will work to place greater emphasis upon those roles. We
still feel, however, that the CLIO cannot be held accountable for
those aspects of IT over which he or she has no authority. Among
other things, this lack of accountable authority has led to the
fragmentation we see today. We would expect that this authority would
rarely need to be exercised, rather that most advances could be
accomplished through incentives, collaboration and partnerships.
Comment:
We should not create administration for
administration's sake.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree completely. We do not envision the
CLIO as adding a layer of management, but as being the Provost's
advocate and an institutional leader for campus-wide technology
coordination and innovation.
Comment:
We do not need fragmentation of budgetary
authority, but a priority process to weigh these and other financial
issues.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree. We do not recommend or envision
fragmenting budget authority. Assuming the Provost continues to be
given budget authority, we suggested that the CLIO
"Exerts strong influence over information
technology funding provided to other units."
While one might expect the Provost to follow
the advice of the CLIO, the ultimate budget authority is unchanged.
The actual designation of budget authority will be up to the
President, of course.
Comment:
Recent technology implementations at UVM
have resulted in cost shifting to the decentralized units.
ITTF response:
We agree that the shift to distributed
technology has resulted in a corresponding shift in expenses. Central
IT budgets have been substantially reduced over the past 5 years. The
use of technology that eliminates the requirement for administrative
intermediaries is one of the primary ways information technology can
improve service and reduce overhead costs. Although the corresponding
shift in budgets is probably appropriate in many cases, we agree that
it is time to reconsider how distributed technology is funded.
It is a common concern that UVM departments
sometimes make changes that have a negative effect upon the other UVM
departments. The CLIO should have authority to review IT initiatives
and weigh the negative impact on individual departments against the
overall benefits to UVM.
Sections To Be Covered
Comment:
Collaboration with Fletcher Allen is an
institutional issue, not just a College of Medicine issue. FAHC has
involvement in 26 academic programs with a presence in most colleges
and schools. We need to pay attention to their technology initiatives
and coordinate with them.
Current ITTF thinking:
We agree. This will come out in a later draft of the plan. We recognize the important role that our partnership with FAHC plays. We are learning more about changes underway at FAHC and seek to implement change in ways that bring our strategies into harmony.