IT Task Force Meeting # 3 Minutes

Date: August 21, 1997 Time: 1-3PM

Recorder: Martha Cafferky

IT Plan Minutes 8/14/97

Attending:

Roger Lawson, David Howell, Joseph Patlak, Geetha Ramanathan, Lauck Parke, Martha Cafferky, Patrick Russell, Mark Fitzsimmons, David Punia

We began the meeting by agreeing to rotate minute taking alphabetically. There was a petition that we start the rotation after Howell, which was ignored.

DISCLAIMER:

These minutes have been filtered through the (pick your color) glasses of the writer.

Were Are We?

The question was posed, "How are we doing according to the work plan?". We are on track so far. There is lots of good discussion on the lists.

Campus Survey

We looked at Carol Gilbert's list of survey questions that came (pretty much) from the last meeting. After much discussion about why, what, and who to survey

We agreed to each contact approx. 7 people to learn more about the problems with IT that people are facing. We will bring this knowledge back to the table and incorporate it into the draft report. The Draft will be presented to the Provost Council, Deans, Directors and Chairs and then through open forums.

Mark suggested that we involve the constituent group, such as those that manage LANS, in the conversation. Roger noted ADVOCATS and UVMLANS as existing listserves. Also noted earlier were the Academic and Administrative one-way lists that have been set up to take the place of Dean/Director/Chairs memos.

After determining our "survey" action plan would be for each of us to talk to others, incorporate, and float we moved on to a very good discussion of the various vision statements and principles.

Vision Statements and Principles

Rebecca Martin's vision is regarded as "hitting it on the head". We need to deal with tensions between vision and resources so that the report does not end up on the shelf. A good discussion followed, with the conversation at least touching on and at times exploring the following ideas:

• Identify the "givens" on this campus, from the perspective of an outsider merging it with our own organizational intelligence.
• The meaning of leadership.
• Centralization vs. Decentralization, acknowledging the innovations that comes from democracy as opposed to anarchy.
• Characteristic of a CIO: Funding allocation methods are crucial to the discussion, an ITEC like committee serving as CIO. The benefit and liabilities of a singular person CIO or a group acting as CIO
• Changing the budgeting for IT at least on the department level.
• Accountability: councils can't be accountable, a person can be.ld
• CIO would institutionalize an IT review.
• An organizational entity that could tolerate changes in leadership. The benefit of the "Great person at the head".
• An IT constitution would quide the CIO and Council.
• The hiring of IT people through CIT, with the department participating in the search committee. Departmental funding of the position.
• Staying away from the "CZAR"/dictator characterization. CIO would be identifiable, "fireable" leadership. Would participate in budget hearings.

Observation:

We seem to be going towards a more centralized model of IT where the bulk of the decisions are made centrally. We need to balance centralization/decentralization and survey the existing models. Joe suggested we survey our peers with a critical eye trying to avoid creating a picture (puzzle) that when completed we see an ear sticking out.

Characterization of the puzzle, flexibility and inclusion, political tension is where you gain the flexibility, how do we structure IT at UVM that allows for flexibility, and policy preservation. The funds might be be authorized by a CIO and her council of advisors possibly requiring matching dollars or cost sharing. The resources would go where they are most needed. Lauck talked about how IT is strong in business because of the petitions, integration and standards through responsible administrators.

Development/ Marketing funds are possible untapped revenue sources.

Martha Cafferky