Information Technology Leadership

  1. ...administrative structure in which a CIO focuses the responsibility and the representation for a broad array of IT functions within the highest levels of the administration. Furthermore, this CIO would work out of the base of an IT Council that is composed of the primary top level administrators of IT-critical areas.
     
  2. The IT Leader will provide a focal point for the articulation of the value and potential for information technology for the university. Working with the IT Council, the IT Leader will have responsibility for coordination and oversight of IT activities throughout the campus, both academic and administrative.
     
  3. a rearrangement of some administrative functions and positions. The primary difference lies with the subdivision of current CIT functions into Administrative and Academic (as they had been several decades ago). This division makes sense due to the diverging nature of the two missions. The administrative division would have primary responsibility for the central data processing (HRS, FRS, SIS, etc.) and other IT infrastructure like Telecommunication and IT security. The academic division would administer the student and faculty IT resources regarding PC computing and the Depot, student laboratories, e-mail and web accounts, course development support, internet I & II access, and research computational infrastructure. In addition, the academic division would be responsible for IT instruction. The Divisions of Libraries and Continuing Education both overlap each of these other divisions. Thus a clear working relationship between these two directors and the directors of administrative and academic IT on the Council, coordinated by the CIO would bring together the major, interlocking, partners in campus IT.
     
  4. An IT executive at a very high level, a CIO, should have ulitmate responsibility and authority for IT funding allocation and policy, and s/he should be guided by a representative group of University citizens, along the lines of the ITEC, but advisory to the CIO.
     
  5. The organizational structure needed to enhance the campus-wide IT infrastructure should be managed by a senior-level CIO with the latitude to review and coordinate the University IT projects, provide and enforce IT guidelines and standards, and have additional budget capabilities to approve IT projects faced with delayed pay backs or costly upstarts.
     
  6. Director of Information Technology, reporting directly to the newProvost. The Provost will be the chief budget person... This position should involve a full-time assignment for information technology, and not be simply an oversight position, as Tom Tritton occupied.... 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.
  7. A CIO should have a close and collaborative relationship with the Provost and VP for Administration. This position should exist at the senior executive level with the VP for Administration, if elevated to it's former level of responsibility, along side the Provost. The CIO would respond to and accept guidance from a council of University citizens, such as ITEC, and would be accountable to the President and Board of Trustees. This should be a position without tenure.
     
  8. The primary responsibility of the CIO should be to offer options to the Provost, President, and Board. To understand their expectations and determine the resources required to meet those expectations. To ensure the resources are allocated and that they are distributed to the units who will build IT. This will require that the person in this role must have direct access to the venues where the most basic funding decisions are made. And to *all* the arenas in the institution where IT development and deployment takes place. It also means this person can not be responsible for "managing" the CIT division as that is a full time job already.
     
  9. A CIO would be ultimately responsible for building a successful organizational structure. I think such a position should be accountable to the entire campus. Depending on the organizational structure UVM develops, the reporting relationship could be to the President as an Executive Assistant or a Vice-Provost, VP for IT.
     
  10. 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. This leader would have line authority over and accountability for all organizations currently dedicated to providing IT services.
     
  11. The CIO will play a role in all major IT planning and purchasing decisions, would approve IT standards and practices, and would be the key long-term IT planner for the institution. With guidance from the ITEC, the CIO will establish the "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.

1) What should the span of control and accountability be for the IT leader?

  1. Within the administration, the CIO would represent the budgetary and long-term investment in IT (as well as the return for that investment) to President, Provost, Vice-President(s), and Trustees. Issues relating to IT on campus would be delegated to the CIO rather than handled ad hoc by many different top level administrators. Further, the CIO would participate actively in the budget discussions/decisions for other campus units that seek funding for IT-related activities.
     
  2. The CIO should be active in establishing external partnerships, seeking extramural funding and endowments for IT-related activities, and for promoting our accomplishments.
     
  3. The CIO should take a strong leadership position with regard to the academic community. This should include drawing together our dispersed IT activities into an active, identifiable intellectual center, with a sense of collaboration, progress, and excitement in order to stimulate creativity in the application of IT to our missions of teaching and research.
     
  4. the CIO should act as chair of the IT Council, drawing upon the collective wisdom and strength of the Council members, while helping them to reach strong consensus positions regarding the coordinated function of IT within their areas.
     
  5. the CIO must be in a senior management position reporting to the President. The CIO would lead an advisory 'University IT Committee' of key high-level IT college and department leaders to work on campus IT issues and review policies and procedures, but ultimate decision making responsibility must belong to the CIO.

2) To whom should the IT leader report?

  1. The IT Leader will be a senior executive reporting at a high level within the organization. The specific reporting line should be left at the discretion of the President, recognizing that reorganization of the senior administration may occur in the near future.
     
  2. 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.
  3.  

    President

    Provost

    V. Provost for Admin.

    V. Provost for Academic Affairs

    V. Provost for Information

    There would be no VP for Administration rather she would be a Vice Provost for Administration. The Vice Provost for IT would work closely with the other Vice-Provost, the Provost and the President to facilitate the use of information in the success of the "learning community"

3) What type of line authority should the IT leader have?

  1. The IT Leader will provide a focal point for the articulation of the value and potential for information technology for the university. Working with the IT Council, the IT Leader 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.
     
  2. This leader would have line authority over and accountability for all organizations currently dedicated to providing IT services.

4) What should the budget authority be?

  1. IT budgeting would 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.
     
  2.  The CIO's job is to work with upper administration, the advisory group, and others around campus to establish the list of competing needs for IT dollars. A set of criteria should be developed and applied to each need, creating an ordered list of priorities. The CIO, however, is the final determinant of how dollars are spent, and should not necessarily be locked into a quanitative prioritization model.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. Budgeting for IT must be identifiable wherever possible. This would include 1) An overall central budget (consisting of annual and one-time funds) that would cover the activities of Administrative and Academic IT; 2) The IT programs within the Libraries and Continuing Education (not the entire budgets of these latter two organizations); 3) The central contribution for IT-related functions in the distributed colleges and divisions (also only a portion of their total budgets, and not including any special or matching funds redirected for local IT projects).
     
  5. The total IT budget would be the responsibility of the CIO and the IT council. The budget proposal would be reviewed annually as part of the normal budget hearings. Separate IT funding would not normally be granted to individual units without inclusion in the overall IT budget.
     
  6. 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 party to the associated budget hearing serving both as an advocate and "expert witness". Support of the CIO would be critical for units to receive IT funding.
     
  7. 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... 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.
     
  8. the CIO would not seize or centralize existing department IT funds, but perhaps the current IT funding might be frozen and additional general funding given to the CIO to fund campus projects. The CIO would work with the Provost as a management peer to coordinate IT budget allocations. The CIT department would report to the CIO (allowing for some existing central funding) but other departmental IT groups would not directly report to the CIO. All departments and their IT support groups would be subject to yearly IT and budget reviews, major project review and standards set by the CIO office.
     
  9. There is the "basic level of service" kind of IT, and the specialized need or "ground breaking" kind of IT. The basic level of service, or the floor is currently too low. We should centrally build and deploy the basic service. We will charge units an ongoing fee for service, and subsidize this centrally so it winds up being affordable from the client unit's perspective.
     
  10. The group responsible for managing labs and the group responsible for managing classroom technology should respond to requests for new facilities and should have sufficient budget to address many requests. For large new initiatives, the requests would be forwarded through the CIO. Projected costs for new initiatives will always include the cost of implementation, training, and ongoing support.
     
  11. 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... 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. 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 plan 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.
     
  12. The President and Provost make the ultimate budgetary decisions, however the "Vice Provosts" work collaboratively to make decisions that are best for the entire institution. The close working relationship of these 5 people facilitates priority setting, ending the "end runs" and presents a "united front" to the campus.
     
  13. In so far as many of the associated staff are currently funded by separate units, this funding arrangement need not change. 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.

5) What will the extended IT structure be? Advisory councils and committees?

  1. Administrative and Academic computing should be combined and renamed something that reflects the infrastructure support necessary to support these missions. Client services would be broken out into two groups with strong communication. One group would serve the teaching and research missions (Academic Service Centers). The other would support business services (Business Sevice Centers) across all units on campus. I see there being 3 or so academic support service units and 3 or so business support services centers. Each of these centers would be responsible for more than IT support, but would include at least one expert to meet IT needs.
     
  2. The IT Council should be composed of the directors of critical IT functions on campus. The council could be composed, for example, from the Director of Libraries, the Director of Continuing Education, the Director of Administrative IT-Support, and the Director/Dean of Academic IT, as well as the CIO.
     
  3. 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.)
     
  4. The committee would likely consist of both academic and administrative IT leaders or consist of two committees divided along academic and administrative lines. The CIO would have the following responsibilities:
  5. The IT Council will be made up of the key campus stakeholders in information technology:
     

     

  6. 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 would be an ex officio member of the Provost's and Administrative Councils and would receive support and guidance from a variety of organizations:

III. IT Coherence

1) To what extent should UVM adopt standard IT solutions?

  1. Core campus systems should function in an open systems environment based on non-proprietary platforms and open standards, ensuring interoperability with other campus and external information systems.
     
  2. Within administrative IT, standards shall be established that are clear, uniform, and coordinated so that they address the various submissions. Committees and working groups would provide cross-talk between subdivisions to coordinate data structures and access standards. Furthermore, clearly established functional standards for software packages associated with particular jobs, and for the training necessary for employees should be established and enforced.
  3. 90% of what people want to do with IT could be deployed in a standard networked desktop computer and printer. We should have a unit responsible for designing, constructing, deploying, and servicing all the faculty and staff desktop computers. 
  4. standards must be adopted and compliance strongly encouraged. Standards must be open and agreed upon through a collaborative process that considers the needs (and constraints) of academic and administrative units, with an understanding that there are core business and academic functions that can and should be accomplished in a uniform way.
  5. Standards for academic computing should be derived and maintained to closely reflect the ongoing usage patterns of this community, since neither faculty nor students can be easily dictated to regarding their usage preferences. Academic IT should provide strong support for the most common applications, and should provide cost-effective means to purchase appropriate software packages.
     
  6. 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.
  7. Configurations that best meet the needs of the client that also meet the basic UVM requirements. UVM desktop requirement might encompass the network protocol, ability to run (well) the standard applications. The Business service centers and the academic service centers would develop these standard capability lists. Special permission and review of non-compliant desktops would be required in MOU format with support needs and solutions negotiated and appropriately funded. Research requiring very different computers to the standard academic configuration might pay for "fee for service" support or hire outside. All computers outside of the standard would pay a tax for this choice.
  8. 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:

2) How do we gain the benefits of standardization without unduly stifling creativity, deterring useful exploration or interfere with getting specialized jobs done?

  1. 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".
     
  2. An IT development center (real or virtual) should exist to examine emerging technologies and evaluate possible applications of new IT. Naturally, much innovation can and does occur beyond a centralized facility, and a model such as used by ITEC to fund innovative IT projects should be applied.
  3. this division (Academic Computing) should be very active in pursuing emerging IT solutions from major external companies to provide timely advice and support for those in the academic community who need/desire to move in those directions. Such collaborations will provide an identifiable means for our applications to evolve, rather than falling further and further behind.
     
  4. Standards need to be set centrally for equipment and for software. I would charge the Director with ultimate responsibility... 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.
  5. Make the standard standard and manage the unique.

3) By what process do we select standards? Support them? Encourage their use?

  1. Opportunities for setting standards in campus communication systems, such as email and calendaring, should be actively pursued. Current solutions from our existing testbed, such as those present in the School of Business and Fletcher Allen Healthcare, should be seriously considered for broader adoption.
  2. The aforementioned development center should provide a testbed for evaluating standards and applications. Further, there should be an identified group of people whose role is to assist in the evaluation of new approaches, applications, and standards. 
  3. The ongoing evaluation of hardware and software standards should be a function supported within the division in close consultation with the administrative offices requiring support.

4) How do we ensure that UVM students, faculty and staff have the necessary IT skills to achieve their goals?

  1. 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.
     
  2. The formal IT training functions within UVM should be centralized and coordinated into an IT curriculum. This would start with collating a central list of course, mini-course, and workshop opportunities within the current CIT, Continuing Education, the Libraries, and various academic units. The need for new and/or supplemental courses should be periodically assessed, and prompt action taken to develop and publicize new courses. The overall goal of such training support would be to provide a broad-based and seamless curriculum, supporting courses with and without academic credit that could be used within our institution and marketed extramurally. Such an IT curriculum could be administered in close collaboration with the current efforts of Continuing Education.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. A basic IT capability including a support commitment should be provided as part of our infrastructure.
     
  5. Academic and Business service centers provide "Just in Time" training and support. Training and Development coordinates Teaching/Research Tracks and Administrative tracks in which participation and achievement would be rewarded. For example and extra .5 % increase in salary upon successful completion. Competency is rewarded, apathy and resistance is not.
     
  6. all our systems, the integrated documentation, online help facilities, and the education we provide must be geared towards consistency and self-guided learning skills.

    a.) How do we reduce the need for specialized IT training?

 

  1. The use of standard software suites for most of what we do could eliminate a huge portion of the training shortfall, provided we properly fund and deliver training to our faculty, staff, and students. "Specialized" training needs will always arise, but they must be examined in the context of what improvements in the quality of teaching , research, or business processes will result.

    b.) How do we make IT education available when needed?

 

  1. We have underutilized the technology that already surrounds us. The answer to IT education is to use IT! Training on new standards, whether hardware or software, should be integrated into the way we do business at UVM... Such training needs to be scheduled as a part of an employee's work, and should carry weight in employee evaluations.

5) How do we support IT infrastructure?

How do we move ahead?

  1. the academic IT division should foster technology application and development by fostering and supporting collaborative teams made of interested educators, technologists, and students.
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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".