Information Technology Leadership
- ...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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- The CIO should be active in establishing external
partnerships, seeking extramural funding and endowments for
IT-related activities, and for promoting our
accomplishments.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
-
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?
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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:
- Oversee an annual IT review of departments not
unlike the yearly budget process review.
- Approval of IT projects with extended multiyear
costs exceeding $xxxx.
- Establish University IT standards
- Recognize, evaluate and implement new
technologies.
- Apply funding to deploy special IT projects across
campus
- Develop IT training curriculum from the various
Continuing Education/Church Street, CIT and academic courses
and workshops for faculty, staff and students.
- Develop an IT infrastructure that supports
off-campus students,alumni, faculty and staff.
- Work with academic departments to integrate IT into
their coursework.
- Pursue outside IT funding or ventures with
government or private sector sources.
- The IT Council will be made up of the key campus
stakeholders in information technology:
- Director of CIT, or directors of CIT units
- Dean of Libraries
- Dean of Continuing Education
- Associate Deans for Colleges with major IT efforts (EMBA,
A&S,
- Business Medicine)
- VP for Administration or designee
- VP for Student Affairs or designee
- 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:
- The CIO's IT Service Council (Directors of IT
service units)
- The Faculty Senate Technology Subcommittee
- The Administrative Systems Priorities Committee
- The IT Executive Council (or similar)
III. IT Coherence
1) To what extent should UVM adopt standard IT solutions?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- be established on a participatory basis driven primarily by
the needs of the people employing and supporting the
technology;
- allow for special needs not met by the standard supported
solutions;
- allow for authorized, publicized exploration and
advancement of standards on a periodic basis;
- be supported while identified as a current standard and for
an appropriate period after being superseded.
2) How do we gain the benefits of standardization without
unduly stifling creativity, deterring useful exploration or interfere
with getting specialized jobs done?
- 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".
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Make the standard standard and manage the unique.
3) By what process do we select standards? Support them?
Encourage their use?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- A basic IT capability including a support commitment should be
provided as part of our infrastructure.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- In the case of the central administrative systems the basic
hardware support should include all central systems, all the way
out to the maintenance of the basic desktop environment, i.e. the
telephone model. Further, software and configuration support at
the end user should be a strong collaboration between central and
local support personnel, with the overall goal of minimizing
employee time spent on tasks for which they haven't been
trained.
- The support infrastructure for the academic community should
largely parallel this model, but should place more emphasis on
local (within departments or other small units) personnel to
provide the first line of hardware and software support. One of
the most important aspects of such academic support is that it
should always foster individual growth and exploration in both the
faculty and student populations, with emphasis on providing on
site training as part of the support.
- 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.
- a monthly fee per unit which would be centrally subsidized.
The fee would cover everything from hardware maintenance to
training.
- One unit manages public labs.
- One unit manages classroom technology.
- One unit deploys the standard desktop.
a.) What parts of IT should be treated as infrastructure?
- The "virtual plant" of IT, applications software, network
software, library access methods, and so on, should be
standardized to the extent that a particular set of
applications can be used ubiquitously to perform the basic
tasks expected of a UVM employee in a particular position. The
"computer as a telephone" model is very attractive from the
standpoint of deploying standardized services, hardware,
software, and training.
b.) What kind of IT support should UVMers be entitled to?
- Training and support of "standard" IT components, whether
hard or soft, should be distributed broadly, but coordinated
centrally.
c.) How should it be provided?
- The "tech web" model developed in "Doing IT" is a sound
choice
How do we move ahead?
- the academic IT division should foster technology
application and development by fostering and supporting
collaborative teams made of interested educators,
technologists, and students.
- 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.
- 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".