2015 IT Governance Planning Summit - Home - AITS...IT Governance Planning Summit Wrap Up Report 1...

2015 IT Governance Planning Summit Wrap Up Report

May 15, 2015 Version 1

University of Illinois

E-mail: [email protected]

IT Governance Planning Summit Wrap Up Report

Content

1 Breakout Session One: IT Governance ............................................................................... 1

1.1 Group Breakout One ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Engaging the Right Governance Representatives and Key Stakeholders ................ 1

1.1.2 Identifying and Eliminating Barriers to Collaboration ............................................. 2

1.1.3 Assessing the Governance Process and Defining the Role of Governance ............. 2

2 Breakout Session Two: IT Strategic Planning ................................................................... 3

2.1 Group Breakout Two ....................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Realignment of Governance Structure and Focus ................................................... 3

2.1.2 Identifying Effective and Meaningful Metrics and Measurements ......................... 3

2.1.3 Exploring the Role of IT and ITG in Strategic Priorities ............................................ 4

3 Actions: IT Governance Planning Summit ......................................................................... 5

3.1 Feedback Avenues and Next Steps .................................................................................. 5

3.2 Further Analysis of Feedback .......................................................................................... 5

3.3 Additional Reporting ....................................................................................................... 5

4 IT Governance Planning Summit Evaluation ..................................................................... 5

5 IT Governance Planning Summit Overview ....................................................................... 6

5.1 Attendees and Format ..................................................................................................... 6

5.2 Breakout Session Details ................................................................................................. 6

5.2.1 General Session ....................................................................................................... 6

5.2.2 Morning Panel Session: IT Governance at the University of Illinois ........................ 6

5.2.3 Morning Discussion Session: IT Governance at the University of Illinois ................ 7

5.2.4 Afternoon Panel Session: IT Strategic Planning at the University of Illinois ........... 7

5.2.5 Afternoon Discussion Session: IT Strategic Planning at the University of Illinois ... 8

5.3 Discussion Session Timeline ............................................................................................ 8

5.4 Facilitator and Scribe Role ............................................................................................... 8


6 Verbatim Scribe Sheets ............................................................................................................ 9

6.1 Appendix I – Categorized by Theme ................................................................................ 9

6.1.1 Morning Breakout ................................................................................................... 9

6.1.2 Afternoon Breakout ............................................................................................... 10

6.2 Appendix II – Categorized by Question ......................................................................... 12

6.2.1 Morning Breakout ................................................................................................. 12

6.2.2 Afternoon Breakout ............................................................................................... 28


1

The 2015 IT Governance Planning Summit brought together academic, technical and business leaders from across the

University of Illinois. Invited participants took part in sessions throughout the day that identified strategic IT areas of

focus and gave an opportunity to provide feedback to create more effective IT governance processes. This report

provides an overview of the summit, the product of that collaboration, and next steps.

1 Breakout Session One: IT Governance Participants broke out into small groups to discuss the university’s IT governance processes and identify the most

successful elements or initiatives for their group or campus. Further discussion included lessons learned and what

priorities the ITG processes are not addressing.

The following questions were provided to participants to focus the breakout discussions:

1.1 Group Breakout One

1. What have been the most successful elements or initiatives of IT governance for your group and/or campus?

2. What are your lessons learned from the process over the past two years?

3. What priorities are the ITG processes not addressing?

The following is a summary of the high-level themes that resulted from participant discussion in the first breakout

session.

1.1.1 Engaging the Right Governance Representatives and Key Stakeholders

Revisit the process of evaluating ITG committee membership to ensure inclusive representation university-wide.

Continuously brainstorm ideas to increase active participation in the governance process by faculty, staff and

students from all areas of the university.

Investigate opportunities to incent and retain student, faculty and IT Pro representation.

Improve identification of and outreach to key stakeholders that are critical to the overall discussion, but not part

of the committee structure.

In regards to this theme, some comments included:

Governance needs to extend beyond the center as most IT spend isn’t centralized.

Staff sharing between IT shops and unit-level administration to identify needs and priorities.

Increase input from faculty and university leadership to bring in multiple perspectives.

Solicit input from staff and managers that utilize the systems.

Allow students that are interested to self-nominate and then be vetted by the committees.

Understanding of different cultures (Engineering v. Business) will improve with communication and help reduce

risk.

Continue to evaluate that the right people are in on the discussions.

Seek opportunities to improve student engagement in the governance structure.

Consider shift in perception from IT lens to service lens.

The world is an “information-aware” entity. How should we collaborate with IT to create an environment of

integration of student and faculty engagement?


2

1.1.2 Identifying and Eliminating Barriers to Collaboration

Improve transparency of the committees, subcommittees, and workgroups to the user community to encourage

continued engagement and open dialogue.

Promote opportunities for user feedback and engagement to improve understanding of governance activities.

Establish educational and professional development opportunities to increase IT governance aptitude and

willingness to participate across campus boundaries.

Continued evaluation of opportunities to combine technologies and services, both internally and externally, to

improve the user experience and reduce expenses.


Shared governance: How can we save money by doing things together? Add value through ITG by identifying what makes the most impact for campuses to maintain labor productivity. Improve cross-campus collaboration to identify best practices. Communication and action should be balanced. Improve engagement of existing committee members. Identify and promote incentives to collaborate across campus boundaries. Are we adequately training for governance? Should we have cross campus governance committees or representatives from the campuses – beyond UI IT LT?

1.1.3 Assessing the Governance Process and Defining the Role of Governance

Assess and communicate the impact of the role of IT Governance at the campus level.

Identify solutions to address the complexity in governance structures and processes to minimize delays in

accomplishing goals and priorities.

Improve communication regarding the impact and responsibility of the groups as well as the processes for

decisions, funding, resources, and implementation of the recommendations made from the governance

structures.

Emphasizing the roles and outreach expectations of ITG members to keep their constituents informed and

communication avenues open.


What can we do as practitioners to help faculty and staff do their jobs? Identify and minimize processes that create duplication of work. Governance structure is too complex. Improve committee participation to improve timeframe to complete actions/tasks. The assignment of tasks

should not default to the committee’s Chair. Value propositions – risk is o.k. where knowledge from one side is met with check from IT side. Governance

makes this possible and safe. What are the roles and what is the authority? These should be clear and should be “charged” to the team. Is it just about collaboration or is it about priorities? Success: Research Computing Cluster. This came through Research ITG sub-committee and is now being

implemented. Recurring theme: Tension between helping people/ faculty get things accomplished and defending compliance.


3

2 Breakout Session Two: IT Strategic Planning Participants broke out into small groups to discuss how IT Governance can best support the IT Strategic Plans and

Campus Strategic Plans. The discussion focused on identifying the strategic priorities and the role of IT and IT

Governance in accomplishing these priorities. Participants also discussed the current ITG charges and charters relative to

the campus planning processes to determine if the governance processes are operating as designed, need to refocus in

any areas and, if so, what steps are needed for change.

The following questions were provided to participants to focus the breakout discussions:

2.1 Group Breakout Two

1. What are the strategic priorities for your organization? How does IT help you accomplish these priorities? What

role does ITG play in accomplishing these organizational and IT goals?

2. Re-examine the ITG charge/charter relative to the campus planning process. Are we operating as designed? Is

there a need to refocus in any areas? What steps are needed for change?

3. How do we measure the success of ITG initiatives that support the strategic plan?

The following is a summary of the high-level themes that resulted from participant discussion in the second breakout

session.

2.1.1 Realignment of Governance Structure and Focus

Reevaluate committee composition and size to shorten turnaround time on decision-making process.

Compare governance structures at peer institutions to identify best practices and avoid common mistakes.

Increase awareness of university funding models into governance conversations.

Improve adaptability of structure and focus to quickly adjust as university and state leadership, and budgets,

fluctuate.


Need to align some of the committees to shorten turnaround on items that may need to go to InfoSec then research as an example

Need better awareness of university funding models within governance. Historical underfunding of IT cannot be fixed by having governance alone. Funding availability typically encourages participation; how can we still be effective when funding is cut? InfoSec committee is large, mainly IT staff. Is this the right size and composition? We are missing an opportunity to learn from other institutions.

2.1.2 Identifying Effective and Meaningful Metrics and Measurements

Compile information on ITG successes and evaluate to develop future models to follow.

Define quantifiable measures at the project proposal level to help map process to strategic goals of the

university.

Identify effective metrics that measure not only the project performance, but also the impact on service

levels/satisfaction for the end user.


4

Establish benchmark evaluation tools to help identify opportunities for shared services and economies of scale

at the onset of a project or initiative.

Utilize cross-campus and peer university evaluation when defining assessment criteria.


Campus cluster should be used as a model of success.

Include IT early in analysis of a project, not after it’s already started and problems identified.

Solicit feedback when the project is complete to determine if the goal(s) were actually accomplished.

It’s easier to measure when the data is available.

Define the success criteria before starting, so we can realize the finish line when it’s crossed.

Consider centralizing these metrics:

Evaluate cost of data breaches to support decisions.

Measure duplicated services on campus and track improvements.

Utilize economies of scale when a clearly demonstrated reduction in cost is identified.

Focus on process, outcome-oriented metrics.

Initiatives need to define their outcomes and measurable deliverables.

Calculate the return on investment.

Need to consider customer needs when identifying metrics.

Lack of time often leads to quick review instead of thorough analysis.

2.1.3 Exploring the Role of IT and ITG in Strategic Priorities

Improve cohesiveness between governance committees and ITPC.

Better define how individual governance committees and their membership support or relate to the university’s

strategic priorities.

Increase discussions about the challenges IT governance members experience with competing unit/campus

priorities and IT strategic plans, and identify strategies that empower them to accomplish both.

Develop a consistent message from the IT governance groups that will encourage units to find value in ITG

involvement during the strategic planning process.


Campus strategic plans often developed in parallel to unit plans, which can impact alignment. Identify ways to incent local IT managers/professionals to make decisions that are globally optimized and align

with strategic priorities. Improve understanding that shared services does not equal shared priorities. Governance needs to set direction/strategy because the governance participants, particularly faculty, are more

persistent than specific leaders (President, Chancellor, CIOs). Evaluate whether governance groups need to play a bigger role in funding decision. Improve process to inject governance input in the project prioritization processes.


5

3 Actions: IT Governance Planning Summit

3.1 Feedback Avenues and Next Steps

All feedback provided at the IT Governance Planning Summit was provided directly to the campus CIOs for review.

Avenues for incorporation of this feedback into the campus strategic plan and governance committees will be identified

as well as further discussion on what and where needs exist, and how the priority of future areas of interest should be

addressed.

3.2 Further Analysis of Feedback

The feedback provided at the IT Governance Summit will continue to be reviewed and additional avenues for

incorporation of this feedback will be identified. In the coming months, this feedback, as well as any additional input,

will be provided to the University IT Governance groups to evaluate.

3.3 Additional Reporting

Continued follow-up will occur in the form of follow-up communication and planning of future face-to-face events to

focus on an extension of these conversations, priorities and initiatives identified.

4 IT Governance Planning Summit Evaluation Participants were asked to rank the following questions in reference to the Summit:

On a scale of 1 – 5, with 5 being the best, how would you rate the overall use of your time at the 2015 IT Governance

Planning Summit? RANK: 3.98

On a scale of 1 – 5, with 5 being the best, how would you rate the opportunity for collaboration at the 2015 IT

Governance Planning Summit? RANK: 4.32

On a scale of 1 – 5, with 5 being the best, how would you rate the opportunity to influence prioritization and decision

making at the 2015 IT Governance Planning Summit? RANK: 3.28

If another IT Governance Planning event was held next year, would you attend? RANK: From the submitted evaluations,

94% of the respondents answered Yes.


6

5 IT Governance Planning Summit Overview The IT Governance Planning Summit brought together academic, technical and business leaders from across the

University of Illinois. Invited participants took part in sessions throughout the day that identified strategic IT areas of

focus and gave an opportunity to provide feedback to create more effective IT governance processes.

5.1 Attendees and Format

Chosen to represent academic and administrative departments across campus, there were 126 registered participants at

the IT Governance Planning Summit. It was held on March 10, 2015 from 10am to 4pm at Student Center East (SCE) at

the University of Illinois Chicago. Attendees were split into breakout sessions for discussion which occurred at 11:40am

and 2:40pm. Each discussion group had a maximum of eight participants, which included a mix of both governance

committee members and other representatives, bringing in various viewpoints and information important to the success

of this Summit.

5.2 Breakout Session Details

5.2.1 General Session

In the morning opening session, participants had the opportunity to learn more about current university IT governance

structures and the correlation between IT governance and campus strategic plan execution. This presentation also

included information about the top IT issues in 2015 and the universal challenges and changes facing the university, as

well as the latest efforts to enhance collaboration across the IT organizations at each campus. Participants were

provided with the follow-up initiatives from the 2013 planning event and a preview of the day’s format and expected

outcomes.

5.2.2 Morning Panel Session: IT Governance at the University of Illinois

Panelists in the morning session were asked to consider the current IT governance processes and explore successes,

lessons learned, and opportunities for improved collaboration and effectiveness.

Invited panelists included:

- Saul Weiner, Vice Provost for Planning and Programs | Chair – ITGC Education | UIC

- Phil Reiter, Executive Director of IT, College of Pharmacy | Chair – ITGC Infrastructure and Security Committee | UIC

- Vickie Cook, Director, Center for Online Learning, Research and Service | Academic Technology Committee | UIS

- Nancy O’Brien, Professor, Social Sciences, Health, and Education Library | Chair – Illinois ITG Administration

Committee | UIUC

- Roy Campbell, Professor, Engineering/Computer Science | Chair, Senate Executive Committee | UIUC

- Kristin Cordova, Director for Information Governance | Chair – Advancement Information Council | UIF/UIAA

- Gloria Keeley, Assistant Vice President for Administrative Services | Chair – ITPC Finance Subcommittee | UA

- Michael Hites (Moderator), Senior Associate Vice President for AITS & CIO


7

To aide discussion and generate ideas, panelists were asked the following questions:

Successes: Describe the successes your committee and/or campus has experienced with ITG.

Process: Describe the most effective practices you perceive being utilized in ITG. Describe the ITG process

lessons learned.

Collaboration: Describe opportunities for further collaboration with ITG at the college, campus, and

university levels.

Next Steps: What do we need to be doing with ITG in the future as the processes continue to evolve?

5.2.3 Morning Discussion Session: IT Governance at the University of Illinois

Participants broke out into small discussion groups to continue exploration of current governance processes, lessons

learned, and areas benefitting from additional attention. The discussion focused on how to make the current and

evolving governance processes more effective. Breakout groups were asked to: (1) provide input regarding the most

successful elements or initiatives of IT Governance for their group and/or campus, (2) discuss lessons learned from the

process over the past two years, and (3) identify gaps in priorities the ITG processes should be addressing.

5.2.4 Afternoon Panel Session: IT Strategic Planning at the University of Illinois

Panelists in the afternoon session were asked to discuss current IT strategic planning efforts across the University.

Invited panelists included:

- Cynthia Herrera Lindstrom, Executive Director, ACCC, and Chief Information Officer | UIC

- Mark Henderson, Chief Information Officer | UIUC

- Michael Hites, Senior Associate Vice President for AITS and Chief Information Officer | UA

- Andrea Ballinger, Vice President and Chief Information Officer | UIAA

- Ilir Zenku, Assistant Vice President, Information Technology | Health Affairs

- Kelly Block (Moderator), Assistant Vice President for Portfolio and Process Management, AITS

To aide discussion and generate ideas, panelists were asked questions including:

1. Current State: Provide an overview of the state of campus IT strategic plan implementation. What have been

the successes and challenges?

2. IT Governance Relationship: What is the relationship between IT Governance and IT strategic plan

implementation at your campus?

3. Value: How is ITG of the most value to the campuses?

4. Improvement: Now that ITG is fully operational and has a few to several years of experience, how are we

operating versus the original charges to the governance groups?

5. Measuring Success: How do we make sure that initiatives selected via the governance processes are executed

successfully?


8

5.2.5 Afternoon Discussion Session: IT Strategic Planning at the University of Illinois

Participants broke out into small groups to discuss how IT Governance can best support the IT Strategic Plan and

Campus Strategic Plan and provide the most value to the campus and how we go about measuring the success of ITG

initiatives. Participants were invited to re-examine the ITG charge/charter to discuss if we are operating as designed,

need to refocus in any areas and what steps are needed for change. The discussion focused on how to ensure that IT

Governance is supporting the execution of the IT strategic plans in support of the mission strategies and needs of the

University.

5.3 Discussion Session Timeline

Each of the breakout sessions was facilitated using the following timeline:

Participants go to their designated room

00:00 – 00:05 Facilitator introduction and overview of initiative. A scribe is assigned to each table.

00:06 – 00:35 Tables discuss the questions on the scribe sheet – groups may also use the flip boards as supplemental

documentation.

00:36 – 00:40 Tables summarize the main points and repetitive key issues

Participants move to their next agenda item

5.4 Facilitator and Scribe Role

The role of the facilitator was to create an atmosphere where everyone could express their thoughts and feelings, and

listen to and learn from the different perspectives offered by each participant. Facilitators were also responsible for

helping to clarify discussion goals and ensure the group was on task with the exercises. For each breakout discussion

group, facilitator(s) were assigned in advance to help kick-off the group discussion.

The role of the scribe was to capture and record the proceedings of the breakout sessions to assure the group can

accomplish their goals. The individual documented what was discussed during the breakout sessions and helped the

group create lists of important points. Scribes were also responsible for summarizing the issues from time to time to

ensure they are documented correctly as well as document all issues, ideas, solutions, and resolutions provided by the

workgroups.


9

6 Verbatim Scribe Sheets

6.1 Appendix I – Categorized by Theme

The following are some of the verbatim answers categorized by theme from the discussion groups to the questions on

the scribe sheets. They have been edited minimally for grammar, readability, anonymity and summarized in Sections I

and II.

6.1.1 Morning Breakout

1.1.1 Engaging the Right Governance Representatives and Key Stakeholders

Majority of IT spend isn’t in Central IT. Governance needs to extend beyond the center.

Collaborating by embedding IT staff with unit-level administration to identify needs and priorities. Needs input from faculty/leadership Must get input from staff and managers who will use systems Allow students that are interested to self-nominate and then be vetted by the committees. ITS listens and stimulates faculty through expert knowledge of IT and follow up. Failures to understand different cultures (Engineering v. Business) is a risk as much as failure to communicate. Discussion on administrative and functional teams and ensuring the right people are on the discussions Improve student engagement in the governance structure to get their input. Students are a stakeholder and need to be included. Cannot continue to look through IT lens. Need to consider customer impact and begin to look through service

lens.

Faculty led provides a different perspective

The world is an “information-aware” entity. How should we collaborate with IT to create an environment of

integration of student and faculty engagement?

Do we have support from the organization and stakeholders?

1.1.2 Identifying and Eliminating Barriers to Collaboration

Shared governance: How can we save money by doing things together? Can add value through ITG by identifying what makes most impact for campuses to maintain labor productivity. Should we work together across campuses for looking at best practices Willingness to come to the table and collaborate Communication important – balanced with action Consistent involvement and engagement of committee members Individual colleges do their own things More engagement of committee members is needed Hospital and ACCC brought together to collaborate and build process Still difficult to collaborate across campus boundaries Are we training for governance Need to create an incentive structure that promotes collaboration. Should we have cross campus governance committees or representatives from the campuses – beyond UI LT? How can you share IT resources (people)?

Success=exchange of information between central units and departments.

Expand communication to lower levels.


10

1.1.3 Assessing the Governance Process and Defining the Role of Governance

Committee collaboration is effective, but acting on those action items can take a very long time. The Chair is usually tasked with all action items, which prevents work from getting done.

Value propositions – risk is o.k. where knowledge from one side is met with check from IT side. Governance makes this possible and safe.

What are the roles and what is the authority? These should be clear and should be “charged” to the team. Is it just about collaboration or is it about priorities? Success: Research Computing Cluster. This came through Research ITG sub-committee and is now being

implemented. Recurring theme: Tension between helping people/ faculty get things accomplished and defending compliance. Noted that Chairs meet at UIUC to report on items. How do we think about processes rather than just implementation Onboarding of new members. Governance hasn’t kept up with changes in technology. Difficult to formulate a vision due to different teaching

needs of different departments.

6.1.2 Afternoon Breakout

2.1.1 Realignment of Governance Structure and Focus

Need to align some of the committees to shorten turnaround on items that may need to go to InfoSec then research as an example

InfoSec committee is large, mainly IT staff. Is this the right size and composition? Need better awareness of university funding models within governance. Historical underfunding of IT cannot be fixed by having governance alone. Funding availability encourages participation What’s missing is relative information from other institutions and a discovery function where research on other

institutions is brought into the governance group. The job today isn’t necessarily the job tomorrow.

Not all sub-committee discussions align with campus funding priorities.

Do we need to restructure ITG so that we can move faster and be more responsive?

2.1.2 Identifying Effective and Meaningful Metrics and Measurements

Campus cluster example can be used as a model of success

IT must be included in the analysis of the problem, not called in after project is started.

Solicit feedback after the outcome to see if the goal has been accomplished

Until we know what we have, we can’t know how to measure the success.

Need to do a better job of defining the success criteria before we start. What do we call the finish line when we

cross it?

How do we centralize these metrics:

Examine the cost of data breaches so we can support our decisions.

Measure duplicated services on campus and see how it improves.

When economies of scale clearly demonstrate reduced costs, it’s an easy choice.

Focus on process, outcome-oriented metrics.

Initiatives need to define their outcomes and measurable deliverables.


11

What was the return on investment?

Need to determine the value that IT brings to the students, teaching, and research.

Centralized job description? Would that provide an economy of scale?

Need to measure against customer needs/wants and not IT measure.

Define measures at the project proposal level.

Perception of our status is important and the measure is often a corporation metrics like peer review.

We don’t have the time, so if we look back and see that we did something well, that’s success. Spending more

time on strategic planning is critical.

Anything worth doing is worth measuring.

Can add value through ITG by identifying what makes most impact for campuses to maintain labor productivity. ITL activities - inventory, how to use these, training, new faculty orientation. Has to be purposeful in saying that we need to be decommissioning things and actively look at services and

scalability. Requires that we have to know what exists first. What are units doing that’s a duplication of efforts that could be scalable?

2.1.3 Exploring the Role of IT and ITG in Strategic Priorities

I’ve worked for two years on a campus IT strategic plan. Lots of faculty input and support, but campus general strategic plan was done in parallel, so the two strategic plans are not harmonized.

Incentives for local IT managers/professionals to make decisions that are globally optimized and align with strategic priorities

Leadership matters Shared services does not equal shared priorities Aligning the IT strategic plan with the campus strategic plan Governance needs to set direction/strategy because the governance participants, particularly faculty, are more

persistent than specific leaders (President, Chancellor, CIO) Growth opportunities are on the strategic side Do governance groups need to control funding? Do all governance group members know their role and understand how the process aligns with the university’s

priorities? Opportunities to provide input on project prioritization processes and how governance enhances the decision

making process


12

6.2 Appendix II – Categorized by Question

The following are the verbatim answers from the discussion groups to the questions on the scribe sheets. They have

been edited minimally for grammar, readability, anonymity and organized by breakout session and question.

6.2.1 Morning Breakout

What have been the most successful elements or initiatives of IT governance for your group and/or campus?

IT security policies approved and implemented Infrastructure and security; security policies to a campus level Calendaring and email identified as top priority issues. Close to MS office 365 as system; room scheduling

system/released new version/close to improving 17GC/UIC personal high performance computer cluster built Education committee: subcommittees formed and implemented Business systems process: TEM Disability resource business improvement project >HPCC Increased collaboration, communication and transparency Basic principles for teaching with technology website DRES BPI InfraSec IT policies - campus approval and guidelines successful Office 365 Access to AITS resources and integrations HPCC - funding to implement: Now how to sustain? ITL activities - inventory, how to use these, training, new faculty orientation Governance process - hard to keep up with innovation Collaboration Grad college > big data > access to data to manage students Ad hoc successes—go find your customers—use bowling as a way to meet people and find out what they really

need Wireless upgrade in Urbana Making sure the right things are getting done because we can’t do everything—too many good ideas

Are we doing the right thing? Is there someone to maintain it? Best bang for the buck depends on the perspective (good v. perfect)

Tie in between AITS management and campus strategies/ alignment with student/faculty needs Awareness. Focused complaints, redirect to process to give formal input to system reflection Considering needs of faculty, students Body exists to which to provide input, yet do what they want instead of what they ask for. ACCC culture change to get input or provide information to ITGC Position/philosophy document Hire touch enhancements—common problems Getting the message to ITPC that there are “user groups” whose needs should be addressed Better communication among administrative people Information flow and knowledge Acknowledgement of concerns Security policy: understanding of process flow


13

Collaboration IT security program—initiatives HPC Cluster Awareness Structure Acquaintance Socializing strategic value of IT

Aligning with mission Providing a body who can represent and prioritize common/shared needs Focus on faculty and students Strategic plans

Guidance Awareness

Who to talk to Where to start Framework for alignment

Faculty leadership Focus on engagement with faculty, driving actions based on faculty needs

Communications Creates community Collaboration opportunities

Governance outcomes Policy creation Prioritization Resource allocation

Collaboration Relationship building Inclusion of colleges and units Use of technology for communication and collaboration Tangible outcomes based on scope and purposes Seamless transition of leadership Sharing of opportunities and challenges Understanding business of units Appreciation of the newness of ITG Collaborate to remove silos of different subcommittee Understanding of initiatives of different committees Bringing faculty into IT Onboarding of new members Feedback toward communication goals, opportunities, and challenges Multi-disciplinary problem solving IT governance board Collaboration Communication X-ITG performance Visibility Collaborations X-ITG participation Relationships


14

Awareness Identify common opportunities, goals, challenges Multidisciplinary problem solving and perspectives and understandings Collaboration Inclusive (all colleges) Maturity brought actual activities, form taking Leadership transition, onboarding Feedback from all colleges Maturity level mix Briefing faculty with IT Visibility to process and initiative ITPC reactive group (How, when) ITGC proactive group (what) Forming governance within the institute out of that inventory of software/hardware Metadata standards consolidation? Starting to gel and focus on tangible, legitimate activities Gradual transition of leadership Collaboration [illegible] to hear of issues and opportunities throughout campus, extremely valuable UIC InfraSec group: more collaboration across campus units Communication Collaboration within other units (helped me since I was new to the university) People between colleges Opportunities The governance group is young Bringing together faculty with the IT committee ITGC admin is new—we have walked through figuring out a role – widen the involvement of users Bringing faculty together with IT Information and intro to IT- onboarding More involvement from departments- less central Group (IT Governance) becoming focused Transition of leadership Business collaborating with departments Identifying common goals and opportunities and challenges Governance is young so the understanding of what the committee does is an accomplishment Identification of a single solution for multiple units—department perspective Transparency on larger projects, reduced duplication of efforts via communication Right stakeholders at table. Included stakeholders in process that aren’t “typical” stakeholders. Example bring

accessibility to IT needs Quick wins on contribution with governance groups Stakeholder involvement beyond IT, example faculty and researches buy-in and support of projects. Shared

team building/effort Develop strategic plans-collaborative platform getting the word out quicker Transparency Funding, for gaps— put up to provost via governance Governance support for funds HPC IT Planning Collaboration


15

Use of data—more efficient using data Security policy—campus level IT security of [ ] Cost benefit initiatives—further teaching and learning Center for teaching and learning. Student centered learning Overall campus view HP Computer Cluster Shared governance from users Where needs are met with equal understanding on the IT side. Governance has helped regardless of tech

expertise More trust from the user with/to IT Communication. Understanding the ITPC process. Understand what it takes to do a project Transparency. Both on what is coming and what should or will not continue Good tactical perspective Data center shared service Strategic plan (UIC) High performance computing cluster (UIC) Seen setting services and showing up others. More communication (UIS) Collaboration

Data analysis- adjust services in library to become more efficient. Creation and approval of security policies in UIC. Starting implementation How do you measure success? Find key indicators to measure—pass audits

Getting larger campus view How do you keep things going when budgets get tight HPC- successful but limited scope Wireless in UIC or UIUC

Reduce redundancy Campus level Most- formation of the committee- brought together many people to talk into the conversations especially

students with disabilities Procurement Classroom design Mindful of students with various disabilities

Faculty learning about central IT groups (CITES, AITS) Meeting together with different timetables

Grad vs undergrad- but not a versus but subcommittee level bring informal with others on campus

Governance is difficult Bring people and aligning them together for a common goal when they are:

Or are not common process Or been forbidden to be part of actual IT process- i.e. forbidden to be on REACH

Deans protective of time and focus strictly on college/unit needs There is a culture of this in certain areas and they starting to change culture The concept of governance has brought together for awareness and policy Has governance helped moved things along or blown it down Has university wide best practices been investigated Communication has been the best outcome. Great place to find out what others are doing Good representation from colleges and IT and online organization and media center Make communication into processes that groups are going though


16

Research subcommittee—fought for and got a computing cluster built with collaboration from units and provost office fund and acknowledge

Admin: Problems with Hire Touch. Try to improve the process InfraSec Com: Ask for things and something else is funded Microsoft license for campus Bring IT security policies into a wire brought forward and in the process of being implemented and were

approved and are now adopted campus security policies How do we communicate with faculty? Educating a service? Data can be driven by good surveys We do all kinds of things around responses. Not actions. We should be able to collect action not just thoughts Marketing – here is what can be done/putting value on “what does this mean to you.” Some units don’t know what each of us do – internal and external. Involving more individuals and collaboration There are a lot of good starts and plans (e.g. Service Catalog)

Lessons learned: how do we get more people involved and engaged. Research computing cluster from UIC ITG Communication improvements, better collaboration across departments +1 Information technology help as bridge builders Added structure is a successful outcome, so we can now push questions to governance groups as they arise High performance computing cluster (UIC) Surveys on what people need for research and other committees The cycle of governance review is good with biennial system reviews and biennial campus reviews Networking More collaborators as observer NCSA looks more to campus to collaborate

NCSA able to also provide more support/direction to campus Not as isolated anymore

Willingness to come to table Familiarity built up, team up with others solving same problems Help progression by forced/scheduled collaborations Communication and networking UIC security policies Identify priorities (network at UIC) Updated research compute cluster (UIC) Intro of best practices Get participation from all areas of stakeholders (UIC Security Policy) Overall increased collaboration and communication across colleges at UIC since governance began gestating at

UIC. From an observer, not a governance participant. A newer person has seen increased collaboration between NCSA and UIUC, less isolation. Looking to identify

partnerships. The willingness to come to the table is new and refreshing. Recognition of the common problems. There are still

pockets that don’t want to collaborate. We know each other much better. Now seek folks who’ve solved the problem already. Goals are improving

services. Planned meetings and events help us move forward together – structured events really help. The UIC security policy development has been an enormous win at UIC.

This provides a level for IT within colleges/units to improve their processes – high quality.


17

A process and program that encourage higher quality/adoption of best practices. Identification of networking as top infrastructure priority on UIC campus. Research committee drove development of a modern, shared computing cluster at UIC.

Willingness to come to the table and collaborate Outreach Catalog of services/best practices Regular meetings help us to make progress Networking both people and infrastructure UIC security policy/plan Priority identification Rob: process has provided another layer of conversation Gave example of need to upgrade capability for shared spaces Working together caused people to work together and choose a single system Actual implementation of faculty led governance Role of faculty has created opportunity for increased interaction with faculty Active role of faculty has been beneficial Gives / adds legitimacy to the process Different perspective Provides momentum Being on IT governance has provided a tie-in to faculty senate and increased contact with faculty Means for IT to reach out to faculty - to get their input and support Existence provides a means to let faculty and others know that items are being worked on. Interaction leads to better understanding of real needs and desires of faculty in terms of using limited IT

resources Not sure that faculty even know about governance Even though faculty are consumers, they can influence decisions Another "counter" is the faculty participation gives "cover" for our efforts How do we/can we get faculty to be more involved.

What are your lessons learned from the process over the past two years?

Nimble Governance hasn’t kept up with changes in technology. Difficult to formulate a vision due to different teaching

needs of different departments. Incentive structure Funding: how do we deal with it when we don’t get funding for something? Incentive structure has not been figured out/not conducive to good governance Our goals are at odds with other units Not matching initiatives with strategic plan Lack of incentive structure/common goals Chicago, Springfield and Urbana don’t have the same clients Lesson: lack of common incentives Unit level projects get brought to InfraSec: infrastructure and security Decisions—data—strategy Elements—increased collaboration, communication, transparency Funding—how do we deal with the funding or funds approved Matching to strategy Keep up with technology/agility


18

Not enough urgency/feedback to reach deliverables Example - IAM requirements - 4 years and nothing yet

Not priorities at the higher levels Need a centralized/advertised service catalog, rather than duplicating services

Must be managed/maintained Communicate new services Who provides the services/SLA’s

Agility v. planning No feedback loop on decisions/projects made by governance group Disconnect between the governance committees who make priorities and those who control the money Working groups accomplish more than large committees. Redirect complaints to initiate change. Communication important—balanced with action Scope creep—prioritize. At what point do you discard items on wish list Project management—is something worthwhile to put in PM Standards around both prioritization and PM It’s complex—better governance takes more time It is possible to bring local concerns

Usually are more general to a group for discussion and solutions Redirect complaints to project initiatives Rules of order Small working groups accomplish more than large committees Opinions/needs can vary greatly IT can work! Distribution of resources—questionable

Not always being vetted by government Figuring out how to move past complaining Smaller groups more effective Takes more time

Importance of communication in and out Importance of knowing where we are, what we have Culture of “do everything”

Even if two users Defining “success” and how ITG contributes-not obvious Role of government over all IT

Campuses still working on this issue Development of common frameworks that could be useful across campuses

Not every project should be done IT Governance too slow—only get one thing done Focus and duplication of work ITG can open up lines of communication ITG 3D and complex- understanding impact Not nimble ITG moving target Taking advantage of what is already there Delays cause colleges to do own thing Use right structure for need Similarity within ITGC groups Not reusing models used at other universities


19

Maturity level Consistent involvement and engagement of committee members Isolated due to complexity Prioritization based on resources Getting department heads involved Lack of doc for processes and inventories Discussions being made based on input Chair delegating tasks Management of urgent requests Some complex issues take long (duration) needs more active PM Similarities in IT governance campuses helped solve problems Models of other state universities with medical center Not every project should be approved (route to later or graveyard) Takes long (Urbana ITG) Focus lacking Unclear communication 3D structures (3D glasses for VPHA) Good/small ideas go to bottom Individual colleges do their thing Consistent involvement of venues needed Non participants cannot understand How many attend meetings – IT, customer to reference-> department head involved to pick customer rep. Input gatherings Committee chair needs to complete the WHAT@ ITG walk by from leadership Opened lines of communication amongst surveys Governance too complex IT council smaller groups better for communication Consistent involvement, engagement We feel isolated. Only people in the group are in the know and they can’t even understand Complex ROI IT governance takes too long InfraSec: request department/college heads to designate someone to the committee Get Department Heads involved College: need to document everything (processes, inventories) Committee collaboration is effective but acting on those action items can take a very long time. The chair is

usually tasked with all action items, which prevents work from getting done Great to see the review of large ITPC projects in the governance groups Chair needs to delegate actions (echo) urgent projects needs to be managed Very complex- hard to figure out how to navigate the governance process ITGC—what. ITPC—how Moves too slow – lack of focus Still too IT heavy Does not measure successes well Need to apply more focus Lines of communication are opened Very complex, difficult to navigate how to get something accomplished


20

Apply the right governance structure for the right need Not reusing existing governance structures of other universities More engagement of committee members is needed Priority criteria is not clearly articulated If Department Heads are involved, you get better memberships Lack of documentation from previous people sets the college back as they recreate previous reasons for why

things were done Chair should delegate for some of its work of the IT Governance committee Need a way to manage urgent requests Staying on topic, better meeting management. Example extended topics should be managed and addressed in

additional meetings to keep progress and involvement Lacking a definition of governance. We have charters with bullets but not a good definition Committee balance between directing and operations. Chair is critical for balance effort Governance doesn’t always include all aspects of IT, tends to be focused on central IT and not unit IT Expand governance activities beyond governance to let people know we exist Define governance/direct-measure-redirect Applies well to central/cities. Lacks influence on distributed IT. How to expand to all units? Message to “whole campus” Student access Student recognition and participation

Students incentive participation Project review Measurable Communicate plans High performance cluster High performance Cloud Incentivizing student involvement Automation—what do you do with it Best practices Will be more value driven Individualize experience—we have to change. Senate is more involved Location-less IT Growth opportunities are on the strategic side How to not be reactive but leading IT intersects with outside entities that are dictating changes in policy- i.e. research - governance needs to be

more a part of this Create research gate (Facebook for research) for researchers. Shared digital space Become a service broker not necessarily a provider Values propositions—building a sound box where risk is ok where knowledge from one side is met with check

from IT side. Governance makes this possible and safe. Value propositions—now focus on cost and benefit wrong value proposition- how is benefit measured Collaboration between IT Governance groups is lacking. Commitment is good but not talking well about

decisions Communication plans are needed Need measurable deliverables with a review of projects afterward Students are a stakeholder and need to be included

Need to make sure students are committed and available


21

How to incentivize student involvement Recognize their involvement Need to reach out

HCPC positive but limited stakeholders were impacted There is a learning curve—roles and expectations for the governance group Governance should not be a generalized “bitch” session. We should have a higher level of discussion.

That is a leadership/meeting facilitation is crucial that the meeting comes away with timeline, goals, action items

We want things to be productive Make sure the representation comes from all areas

One of the best decisions President Hogan was to bring all CIOs under one person (ECIO) huge impetus among units to work together

Hospital and ACCC brought together to collaborate and build process Impetus to work together went away instantly

Why: didn’t want to and never wanted to Hospital does not participate in any UIC governance and has no impetus to work with campus. Faculty

collaboration is painful at best. Major failure on our part- they have their own practices now. The only way to implement some of these policies, some things need to be centralized. That is a huge culture change. Still not there in the balance of being nimble and having broader discussion to get a better price, etc. There is a lot of work that is unnecessary. Projects are done, but there is nothing being measured in the

performance measurement side. If we’re not going to measure, what’s the point? We need to plan to measure from beginning.

Improving efficiency with dwindling resources. We don’t have the time, so if we look back and see that we did some things well, that’s a success. Spending more time on strategic planning is critical. Some questions to ask, “why is this coming to this team” or “should it be at a different level or team.”

Right now everything is so siloed and we are perpetuating silos that already exist. Ensure we are meeting the business need to the IT solution and focus on making the most impact with the time

we have with the stakeholders. What are the roles and what is the authority. These should be clear and should be “charged” to the team. Is it

just about collaboration or is it about priorities? AT UIUC we realized there was no correlation between the strategic groups and the operational teams or they

created sub teams of IT council to take what the ITG is talking about to match with implementation plans for those areas.

Noted at UIC that the IT implementers sit actively on the ITG Committees for that reason so that the collaboration happens

Implementers need to be involved earlier so that they understand the needs and can communicate the scale of the project.

Also has to have a view of “is this for the campus or for the University.” In the charter, there is nothing noting it’s an “administrative body” so it’s a voice but the buck stops at UI board

and campus leadership where the committee comes in with their recommendation and voice. It’s so important to gather input but there is a lack of communication and lack of participation. Gave the example of research computing cluster as a success. Came through Research ITG sub committee and is

now being implemented. There are things that have a good start, but then there is no “owner” that keep it going. Has to be purposeful in saying that we need to be decommissioning things and actively look at services and

scalability.


22

Requires that we have to know what exists first. What are units doing that’s a duplication of efforts that could be scalable?

There are not enough people asking the right questions, specifically about redundant systems from a systems side.

It is also important to know the true business needs for that system and identify the unique needs that need to be met.

How willing are units to be honest about not being able to scale to a large scale and can’t support it. How do we get to a model where our expertise can be shared across units?

Good example of AITS project managers being rotated across different projects. Prevents burn out and gives exposure to other areas.

Loan people to the project to help educate those that need background in the business. It should be okay to say that there’s not an “IT solution” but might be a business process change or a change to

how work is done. If you don’t address problems early, you can’t make a solution. Why don’t we have some of the committees be “audience focused:”

Personal, Education, Fundraising: Audience focused, then take to others and distribute into these audience focused teams and make more cross-functional.

Noted that chairs meet at UIUC to report on items. Seems to be a split between functional and audience focused I don’t think that you have to dissolve any, but have them more distributed and more participation among the

groups. She has some of her individuals on different committees and they talk at their staff meetings about discussions. In terms of time, things shouldn’t have to “go back to another committee’ as it just stalls us. Need to better understand offerings of “architecture” vs. offerings of “service.” Discussion on audiences and functional teams and ensuring the right people are on the discussions. Eliminate

the silos we’re perpetuating. How to measure things better and track our progresses. We need to improve student engagement in the governance structure to get their input Allow students that are interested to self-nominate and then be vetted by the committees. Change of leadership has a huge impact on the process Governance needs to set direction/strategy because the governance participants, particularly faculty, are more

persistent than specific leaders (President, Chancellor, CIO) Aligning the IT strategic plan with the campus strategic plan Where is the IT balance between software and infrastructure, too much focus on one or the other We create but we don't sustain (HPC at UIC is having troubles) Shared services does not equal shared priorities Don't ignore the support structure necessary for governance structures to support the organization and

communication Changing how we operate – sustain connections Recognize/discipline to engage governance rather than just do Align incentives for IT professionals and units UIUC strategic plan created in parallel with campus strategic plan vs. as a product Long seeded mistrust of each level, campus, group, etc. Institutional memory hard to overcome and history rewrites What is the need of today? Business models with need to change also Leadership matters Do governance groups conflict, overlap in unproductive ways?


23

Very difficult to maintain contact with folks we meet at governance events and incorporate into everyday work life.

How do we take local ideas and see if a solution is already available instead of building a local solution? Incentives for local IT managers/professionals to make decisions that are globally optimized and align with

strategic priorities. I’ve worked for two years on a campus IT strategic plan. Lots of faculty input and support. But campus general

strategic plan was done in parallel, so the two strategic plans are not harmonized. It’s still way too difficult to collaborate across the campus boundaries. Deep, historical mistrust. This is a

social/cultural/political barrier that prevents us from taking advantage of economies of scale. Institutional memory is so long-term and takes a lot of effort. A 10-day outage give years ago affects adoption

decisions today (no unplanned outages in past four years) Difficult to satisfy competing needs/requirements from different stakeholders. The old stories get passed on to the new folks – this can inhibit potential collaboration. Silos are hard to break down because of lack of incentives to collaborate. If we have multiple computing clusters we need process to ask “why?” and break the solos. This frees up

resources for new opportunities Key personnel (champions, leadership) are needed to break these silos. Are parallel governance structures (UIC, UIUC, UIS, UA, UIF/AA) stepping on each other? Yes, there is

duplication. Many things e.g. Network are fundamentally local. E.g. Building a campus NOC – leverage exciting NOC at NCSA.

Local division of governance was necessary first step. How do we think about processes rather than just implementation (getting it done)? Alignment with vision and priorities and plans. Still difficult to collaborate across campus boundaries. Institutional memory takes so long to change/overcome Leadership matters (vision) What are ways to harmonize governance across campuses? Governance is over the central IT units, not over the edge IT support

Faculty have brought issues and investigation often finds the root cause is located at the unit IT group Faculty aren’t clear on demarcation of service support between edge and central Ideal: call the service desk and the problem, where ever it's supported, is addressed

There is a tendency to quickly ID and select a quick solution that doesn't integrate with our other systems How to address

Get central involved? Better standards on integration Don't reinvent the wheel - know who/where to call to see if the issue is already being addressed

somewhere else Be prepared / cognizant of "taking things to scale" Get away from “turf”

What are your lessons learned from the process over the past two years?

Different goals and incentives Do we look at strategic plans of the university and match how goals are being addressed by ITGC

proposals/initiatives? How to deal with funding Tension between agility and planning Process assumes a timeline we cannot afford


24

Agreement about what we want Current structure encourages short-term gains and long-term shortcomings CRM funding: aligning with priorities Local solutions to problems demonstrate need for greater solution How do we turn unit/local projects into broader campus level successes? Agility v. planning Incentives to consolidation More collaboration across campuses regarding available services Purchases that can be scaled for more than original purpose, but no way of knowing who might need. (Result in

enterprise licenses, discounts, etc.) Moving faster How is ACCC strategic plan founded? Need more communication Relative priorities between governance groups: network upgrade v. Banner upgrade How can we execute both large and small projects efficiently? How can we help systems developed locally be deployed and supported enterprise-wide? How do we ease impact from end users to governance groups? Short on student input. How to focus IT on university mission Infrastructure needs - funding Relative priorities between governance groups (e.g. network not compared w/ TEM, Banner) Duplication between AITS and CITES (ACCC?) Web-related services (marketing and communication especially for online) Funding model Predictive analytics for starting broadly Cloud Procurement Metrics

How to measure success or failure of IT Governance actions Auditing, reporting, data analytics to provide feedback into IT Governance, affect changes

Feedback gathering Beyond current constituencies—delve into business offices, line managers, etc.

Describing value of IT services IT Governance can describe why funding is needed to provide services plus the results/outcomes

Campus wide/university wide Policy creation is not clearly delineated, defined Collaboration Processes Communication/awareness of activities at other campuses

Resource allocation for IT Governance Decisions/recommendations without funding = “guidance counselor”

Work faster Broader input Data digitization (archives) Information sharing Too siloed Transition to execution

From what to how/when Less complex


25

Clear communication Clarity to our constituents Transition to execution Standards to procedures Understanding of the structure in the context of the ITPC structure

Is it redundant? Is it tangible? Does anyone other than us understand us?

Data archival (digitization) A good forum to share what is happening on each campus Silos Integrating overarching strategies Bulk software/license needs. Need to bring into governance. Research focus on all research needs. Is “Big Data” being addressed? Are we measuring efforts correctly? Are we addressing the student’s needs or just faculty/research? Data governance? Bulk software across university Research data (outside of medical) Need more student input. Is it only faculty/staff? Student governance group? Data Governance? Intensive data processing—at reasonable cost Cross functional team Professional development ILTW = executive level Relate to students Executive level commitment Interaction and communication Value is added to research teaching Micro value is recognized not as much macro value Resources have to be aligned to make this happen Next summit should have panelists that are not from ITG, but rather the users How do you get governance out of the committees?

Senate Individual colleges

What is the value proposition that IT brings to the student, teaching and resource – not just cost/benefit measured

Library at UIC is doing this—some money Let faculty try technology in a safe place

CIO in Urbana is freeing up some funds for ITG to do projects Intensive data processing

Hard to do cheaply and well Automation could help What do you do with NSF data after research completed? How to do things correctly? How do we stay up on best practices and new things—education program

Could be cross campus based


26

Need to incentivize for time to teach and to learn Avoid stagnation Exchange staff/skills around campus Professional development

Need to relate to students/customers better Better communication across groups Stakeholders should contain: students, parents, outside community, business

Local tax bodies Accountability

Measures of success Transparency with parents- what is the value of what they pay What is relationship between university and wider community

Be more agile with policies and services Should we work together across campuses for looking at best practices Common processes and accountability from IT at the university system. Central accountability for IT Cost distribution to define all costs associated with IT, both technical and manpower costs.

Common definitions Common databases that interact with each other Common data sharing Standard definition and process

Analytics is a big push to have data to make decisions Discussions around analytics and what we have to make decisions I am not going to sell you a phone. I am going to sell you an experience! What about sustainability and maintenance

And upgrades End of life

Total life cycle of the product The balance of focus between hardware, software, data, network Using data to predict and promote student success Information going in to the LMS needs to be accurate and clean (true for many systems) Sun setting components of IT when they are past their useful life Mining and analyzing data to inform good decisions Managing different systems with similar data (EDW, DARS, Banner) Long term archiving of data Resource alignment (IT resources are not necessarily interchangeable) How do we work between campuses Resource inventory Parking lot The difference between CTO CIO roles Need to educate people on governance processes, and what it means to be part of governance. UIC Admin subcommittee – i.e. admissions systems. Still a mismatch between priorities from business to what

gets addressed at the committee Preconceived structures or assumptions may negate gov. Proper stakeholder representation? Effective mechanisms for prioritization, or use of gov. Are there alternatives to getting on gov radar? Willingness to change business processes.


27

Measurement of accomplishment or progress. Governance itself is currently siloed. How can the independent governance structures share more effectively? How do we get people to innovate? We could improve the knowledge of governance as a discipline so we do it

better. Within colleges, critical need for admissions management, but ITGC administrative committee did not prioritize

that. Pre-existing structures (ITPC) may have diluted prioritization process within administration. Perhaps stakeholders at the table are not the correct people.

Perhaps one area for improvement: how to prioritize effectively and fairly. If a need doesn’t bubble up as a priority, what are a unit’s alternatives to address critical needs? We also need improved ability to adapt our workflows to best leverage the systems we DO have in place (e.g.

Banner). Provide alternatives for solving IT challenges. IT folks could use training on building business cases effectively. IT folks need to know where to submit these and how to address [illegible] points if a full solution is provided

How do other units work around What tactical fixes can we do or sustain in the meantime How to sell interim/tactical solutions to non-IT leadership Helping IT folk to do business process re-engineering

Measuring the impacts/outcomes of the governance processes. Are we training for governance? Linkage between operational issues and committee deliberations Issue of centralization - we seem to have been all over the place

Faculty and students are decentralizing themselves - i.e. Google docs People were already using other tools - such as Box or DropBox - but we chose Box

How to support all the technologies users want to bring in? Prior location allowed users to use whatever device they wanted All secure information was kept inside a vault Create minimum standards for BYOD to be able to participate in infrastructure Address related policy issues

How / who within IT governance should address these issues UIC has a home ITG committee for this UIUC doesn't have a specific committee - two possible committees Would like to get rid of logons and passwords The TIER initiative may help with this

Figure out how to get true faculty input Start at colleges and have ideas percolate upward Have someone from IT governance facilitate meetings at college level.


28

6.2.2 Afternoon Breakout

What are the strategic priorities for your organization? How does IT help you accomplish these priorities? What role does ITG play in accomplishing these organizational and IT goals?

Goals equal student yield and retention IT supports this through automation, eliminating unnecessary work Campus-wide CRM project Collaborating by embedding IT staff with unit-level administration to identify needs and priorities Needs input from faculty/leadership Use IT to save “just a few hours” of work hours. Looking at LAS, this adds up to huge dollars Staff believe that automation will eliminate their jobs If IT drives the project and staff have option whether to adopt, this may result in low adoption Has a need for inventory system/processes; there must be other departments with same need? How to identify

shared needs Must get input from staff who will use system and their managers. Colleges want to ID at-risk students before they self-identify or fail – how to address this common need Competing priorities at college level vs. campus makes it hard to get department needs prioritized in campus

governance Governance can help by brokering shared resources and needs It is hard to “scale out” departmental needs to campus even though many have same needs/gaps Bonding spreadsheets to Banner is missing an opportunity. An API would be a good opportunity to streamline

and advance features at scale Yield/retention Advisors Records management Balance btw information requested from provider and amount that end-user must provide ITS and center for research, teach, and service partnership for deploying Lync to replace

Collaborate—ITS provides service, faculty provide more informed questions and requests to help provide service governance

Challenge—how to ensure accessibility online without hindering teaching Successes come from areas where faculty goals and IT goals align to create “push” model ITS listens and stimulates faculty through expert knowledge of IT and follow up Vet Med learned from Lync project to put an operation deployment team in place for new college wide IT

projects (e.g. RightFax) Failures to understand different cultures (engineering vs business) is risk as much as failure to communicate Need common definitions shared among campuses and committees 3M had shared lexicon led to better rate of success Don’t have to repeatedly define terms/services University of Minnesota governance site makes their processes and initiatives easy to understand ITGC makes it easier to understand her group’s role in the big picture ITGC helps train/retain IT talent ITGC—gaps in representation point to areas to identify new stakeholders ITS gains lots of trust/credibility with professors by teaching online using same tools Global campus as learning environment—showed us stakeholders involvement, communications, and

transparency are required for success Disconnect btw roles—once goals are defined, who does the work to make it happen? Have transition/deployment plan—have resources available


29

How responsive/effective is ITG? Sometimes department priorities are different than governance, timeline/resources are skewed/unavailable as a result

Be able to quickly react to needs and change Beginning at integration of ITPC and ITGC UIC/more alignment ITPC resources help accomplish things Cross functional ITPC helps prioritize across areas to evaluate [illegible] Resource scarcity to accomplish initiatives/finance/personal resources IT adapts to delays best as possible ITPC is a mature process, *campus committee move forward on producing tangible results Better (UIC) cross-committee work Faculty participation of faculty and IT Pros and users in committees leads to more productive feedback—

administrators perspective Start my research project, all 3 campuses – overall good collaboration, lack of knowledge of business process of

IT staff is being addressed Governance is helping IT better understand business (UIC) Be sure to bring in users early Security policy is helping validate things that should have been done a long time ago Learning to listen, do not be too quick to solve Helping UIS to leverage best practices or define policies relevant to their campus regarding security Urbana priorities:

Increase enrollment, how to decrease cost, how do we brand ourselves as more appealing? IT: online classes are a large percentage Reduce duplication Increase accessibility services What is a commodity or service? i.e. what is important/unique to the college?

UIC priorities: Priority: digitizing records and processes i.e. not much duplication of databases Custom application – trying to meet specific needs but don’t have an in-house developer ITG: has had to eliminate some worries i.e. backups bought services from ACCC

U. Library Priorities: changing landscape back to electronic resources Taking advantage of Data Center Shared Services get to infrastructure discussion and move those

services so they can work on more innovative and relevant services Research data service came out of governance

Registration: providing services to depts. have administration IT (AITS) Swanlund (?) shared services which one should manage campus/university some CITES services shared services w/ the provost priorities too trying to help provide campus services and be nimble and provide it with efficiency provide economies of scale with providing a service in varied time slots

Staffing and retention of IT staff Do you need system administrators? Network administrators? Centralized job description? Would that provide an economy of scale? i.e. research programmers Generating new revenues

More students More public engagement professional programs


30

Clinical-revenue dentistry clinics IT reporting. Back end systems

Impact and excellence Recognition Benefit people of Illinois and the world IT helps create pathways

Make sure IT lines up with the business need of the college when strategic goals are unspecified and unspecific ITG role – helps us identify common needs are met in a common way

make sure IT delivers on time and as promised How—by making sure IT is investment not a cost center enable the business of the university SDE, platform management GRC Policy overhaul - NIST req. alignment ties into: ITIC; configure urgent; contact urgent outreach (creative) Awareness Risk management

VM Threat

Event management 2 FA Data classification How to communicate better w/ students and faculty. Improve understanding of what services are provided Strategic planning process so long with constant resistance. Security/infrastructure policies need to set standards. Align with campus processes. Borrow rather than invest

standards/policies Cultivate technology use in teaching. Move system admin duties to central IT. Disaster recovery procedures. ITG helps w/ project management and security policy and funding definition.

Governance can do better job of negotiating with vendors for good services and process. Can standard services meet needs of individual departments? ITG participation can help influence it so they do. Compliance is desirable, but sometimes it is at the expense of ease-of-use and struggles to change business

process. Online learning – access improvement - address time conflicts, unclear enrollments. Imaging – decrease storage

and increase access. Marketing, help desk, priority, communication student/faculty, storage, funding, research, hyper vision, faculty

buy-in, road blocks Teaming of music students w/ CS student Workshops on new technology (students/faculty) Helping customers conduct business efficiently

Business managers, AFOs College and department

Ensure financial compliance Not clear that is does always help: Banner, iBuy, TEM, iCS Not sure role of ITG/ITPC process for selecting projects

Keeps changing; research economic impact Just now establishing governance, driven by security since we cross all groups


31

Policy framework and trying to business processes Set standards for things like change control Multiple levels we see this

researchers, units, campuses IT Governance and central IT

Can gain efficiency (centralize) Reduce risks (high risk) data, policies being followed

Give up local control Agility

Move system administration to central IT Focus on academic and research technology (arts and tech) predict in the field and lead students to it.

Collaborate on creative and innovative projects with other units Storage Data recovery/disaster recovery plan Training/education of staff and faculty Data analytics/metrics Automation Communication PM Policy Funding Alignment (breath campus and college) ITG provides context. What IT prior think are important does not always agree w/ faculty Strategic priorities for “group”: marketing – what we do, how we can help Students – communicating w/ students Research – how can improve service to research NCSA – continually re-developing strategic plans. Just now establishing IT governance.

They stand alone, separate from the campus. Would like to borrow more than re-invent. Art, architecture and technology unifying, want to move servers to central and re-apply tech to how we teach. All student and faculty need to use tech more. (40 TB internally!) Sees IT governance as PMO and wasting policies, funding. Governance can help reduce risk by defining standards IT governance as an enabler; enabling people with data. Conducting business efficiently while ensuring compliances. Recurring theme tension between helping people/ faculty get things accomplished and defending compliance. Discovering methods for teaching better - create an experience test is effective and differentiates our units in

market. online blended/f2f good teaching competitive departments

What is IT – roles slowly changing faculty are content experts

Dumb smart goal Best possible leaving environment Bring back to f2f


32

Frequentation of market Research Funding, graphs, compliance, enabling our staff Data warehousing (SharePoint, GF), digitization and meta data Auditing, compliance, software, supporting software development Security, maintenance Pushing advancement of technology (exchange, sec policy) and standardization Offering of central sources: Exchange, storage, SharePoint, VMs Increase foreign and non-resident enrollment. Increase graduation rates. Governance vs. leadership –

Innovation – top down; governance – bottom up where money is from-sent—different need – bring up top How do provide, 4K-8K, 120/fps

Touch table before – advance then knowledge Big data – visualize, explore, find patterns Genomes/protein represent Get inspired

Teaching and learning - encouraged to bring research opportunities High resolution wages

Wireless information on display 21st century decision/infrastructure Capability Range of quality Undergrad resources not there What level of organization?

lab computer science department college

Leadership vs. governance? top down – innovation, what’s needed bottom up – how to acquire lower cost

Everything is video these days – skype/YouTube need to provide better tech than they have at home or else why come here? Yet, we have whiteboards

Goal - get students ahead of the technology so that they are prepared Lots of big data. Want students to explore it. Look for patents within it. Want to manipulate. But, not easy to do

on a campus network. Example, how to represent the interest of IPV6. Do we have these capabilities today? Need to bring undergrads into the research environment. UIC building technologies now. Procurement issues - grant w/ amazon but still have to have credit card to secure. Educational goals - teach students at the bleeding edge of technology to learn the value of what’s possible

Issue - IT is often less than what is offered commercially. Not uniformly offered: research-yes; lab-no With the limitations of campus IT (as compared to google or amazon), often have to be creative. How does ITG play? The ITC can balance the 3 sides of the triangle. Should be reaching for the financial but

balance w/ cost and access. Not competitive w/ undergrads b/c targeting unintentional population since they pay tuition need to provide

the BEST undergrad facilities/classrooms. This is a big NEED. ITG can help with looking @ solutions.


33

Other “non-computer” disciplines could benefit from enhanced technology access. Each level – UA – Campus – Unit

Has different strategic priorities. Should be more common deltas than differences. Cannot be ground up only top down OR needs to go both ways

As levels go up: lead time needed grows exponentially Future activities of org? What are we already doing? Are they substandard? Should we stop? We are terrible

about ‘end of life’ decisions ITG has done little units are SO different (hospital vs. academic unit) ITG plays a role in diluting resources to campus units. (advisory only) no budget authority Mission – discovery and research – teaching – pub service; econ development Future planning backfilling drop in funding from state, how to prioritize remaining funds Dentistry

Clinical – produce revenue; increased revenue Better patient turn-around time; student scheduling Better onboarding/off boarding of employees

College of Media – another goal is raising awareness of the college CITES – alignment; focus on method to aid units achieve their goals Projects are chosen based on unit priority. Example: IAM – governance should hold projects accountable “Your organization” = unit, campus, university Backfilling state funds – tuition, expanded offerings, wider audience Clinical system, it can help with reimbursement revenue Dean determines strategic goals. It helps support/implement. For less well defraud goals, it reports to CFO/Administrative Dean to ensure business needs are met ITG helps us identify common business need that may be better met in a common way. ITG holds ITG orgs to deliverables For units: generating revenue, addressing cuts, getting value out of spending For IT: methods to support units in generating revenue, making impact

IT helps units achieve “success” Societal impact on state, world – units ITG’s role – accountability; setting priorities; identifying needs Plays no role because no one knows what ITG is up to.

Needs there to be more integration Problems of integration within college, let alone with ITG

ITG is considered at every step by UIC IT organization Plays little role, IT links to college plans. Then we either implement or go to Governance to see if someone else

is doing it. IT links back to home unit. Very few people know about ITG outside of people involved. Discussion about better communication between consumer IT, talk to IT providers AITS – IAM, Start myResearch, Mobile Development RIMS – Reduce risk, reduce redundancies

Challenges with keeping data Developing best practices regarding retention Communicate to governance committees

Security – Outreach and awareness; event management UIC Admin Services – Customer service, transparency to campus, deliver more for less OBFS – Budget has changed priorities this year. Not as strategic this year.


34

Priority Big data re: graduate programs. IT help through digitization efforts and acting as enabler. Not sure how

ITG plays a role. Provide data to campus. Need IT for data availability and storage. ITG helps with collaboration and

networking from a people perspective. Teaching and research effort. Need IT to enable effort. ITG need data committee to help. World class education at cost and outreach. IT helps provide infrastructure and collaborate working

with faculty/research. ITG asset in opening doors to big data and services at scale, e.g. email system at campus.

Give time back to faculty and staff. IT – build apps/process and leverage cloud services. ITG – governance process that can be used to fund ways to work with 3rd party service.

Overall ITG must be connected across the structure beyond individual touch points, so it continues to be successful.

Reliable, timely data to assist campus needs Working, reliable systems Teaching, research and service Technology = communication, research, service. Primary and vital. Governance not used by all departments At ACCC, trying to redefine role, be more receptive to learning needs of population (more service oriented) ITG: how can we help? More user centered. Accessibility of tech/accessibility policy for campus.

ITG has governance committee has facilitated development of policy adopted by all three campuses. Mindful of all you

CRPD – what helps us recommit the best students? Teaching & Learning and Research needs of students and faculty. Contribute to student learning. ITG can

streamline communication, prevent duplication of effort. Student input - focus groups – lunch? Online Programs Common Good/Social Science Communications – CRM/Student Experience/Online Conducting Research Info Accessibility – e.g. product reviews Student retention and student success. Data collection and modeling. Clustering. Transition from campus based model when they can come into office to new regional offices and is no longer

the case, so how do we transition from paper based to server online model? Difficult for some front line staff. How do we remain competitive? The number of new programs launched in the last 5 years is huge, so how do

we keep up? There are a lot of needs but the systems we have aren’t agile enough to meet the needs today and in the future.

Enhance employee experiences. Implement strategies to mitigate risk. Future directions for HR systems. Publish metrics and analysis. Looking to redesign some of the systems.

Goals have been set to increase funding so we have to introduce new systems and solutions to support these rising funds and engaging donors.

Scientific research through imputation. This is a science driven IT service. As NCSA looks towards engaging campus, how we better engage with governance is going to be critical.

Example of process that they are moving a lot more processes more from paper based to online. In terms of governance, funding comes into play because is it research and other funding lines.


35

Example - a project was coming to ITPC and ITG was interested in from a faculty perspective, so this interaction helped bring it to UIC and met many needs

The ITG helps get skill sets to the team and bring skill sets that we wouldn’t normally have internally to use for projects.

A good example was the teaching and learning under recommendation that came out of ITG and should provide more leverage to get it done.

The role of governance is very important but being so new (10 months) needs to see more before dividing the role of ITG. Right now things seem slow and not sure how things go through the process. Gave an example of wireless not being in all the buildings. Or getting the answer that “there is no funding” and not understanding the benefit of ITG. How to be aware that the priorities are not the same for all campus and units.

Enhance employee experience Develop and Implement to mitigate risk Effective support and tools for talent acquisition Define future direction for HR systems Establish outreach role Publish metrics and analysis for executive decision ITG allows HR to elevate projects to secure technical resources and, in some cases, money to achieve HR goals. Talk about priorities as you talk about IT Library & Information Science Integral to how we teach and what we teach Distance Learning Faculty research in this area Any impacts of ITG your success? very little sense of faculty ownership of the processes Faculty View: Centralized IT solutions are rarely good for faculty Local solutions when possible Subsidiarity vs. centralization and economies of scale Health Care We have to make health care be more efficient Free puppies care and feeding Goals of the organization determine the structure Competing priorities Our success depends on our work as information Physicians turn to other physicians for guidance on the use of IT Who has the overarching say on IT health care priorities? What is the role of the average faculty voice? VOC How do you reconcile the role of faculty governance and decision making on priorities? The more you centralize the further you are from real support -- faculty comment TEM rollout Did not save anything for us "All IT is local" Some faculty serve on several committees CUPPA

IT systems exist within human systems Align IT development with Human Capital development under missions and goals of the University Human Computer Interface critical in each field of endeavor

Organizational goals not always addressed by existing ITG structure


36

Additional legislation mandates rely on IT to keep the response manageable The ITG committees have taken strategic goals and created actionable tactics (especially at UIC) ITPC is a mechanism for integrating by other systems and adding value to the corporate data and for providing a

platform for collaboration. Supporting accreditation goals require IT to set priorities and allocate resources.

Re-examine the ITG charge/charter relative to the campus planning process. Are we operating as designed? Is there a need to refocus in any areas? What steps are needed for change?

Need to communicate actions resulting from governance Committees are erratic and vary from one committee to another Stakeholders may miss communications, so how do we ensure they get the message? Promote accomplishments and ways to get involved in governance

How to socialize/crowd source identifying needs and sharing solutions - possibly like Yammer Crowdsourcing IT and “like” ideas to set priorities and involve more people She’s on several committees, but is unfamiliar with charters/changes Maybe re-familiarize groups with these documents How could resources/funding be allocated to governance pools Prospect and reactive funding Funding availability encourages participation Confirms improves trust/collaboration between IT and faculty when IT teaches Confirms teaching staff and IT staff who teach have better rapport Incorporate IT into research and teaching grants to create holistic approach—alignment between IT and

teaching ITG—helps force us to look outside of campus for answers (ex- Bluestem) Forces you to make a decision (ideally, but doesn’t always happen) ITG - not everything open to discussion by everyone (e.g.- HIPAA) ID high functioning governance groups and show other groups how to succeed ITG—ID clear deliverables What can IT do for you? Market IT to customers ITG has helped establish positive relationships between IT and rest of campus Campus needs to understand that one IT pro isn’t interchangeable with another necessarily ITG can explain what IT as a whole can provide to campus Sending spreadsheets to Banner is missing an opportunity. An API would be a good opportunity to streamline

and advance features at scale Difficult to find IT resources in market Civil service process makes it difficult Better figure out how to operate within service Stakeholder involvement provides better guidance People in different worlds at the university provides better perspective for IT providers and faculty as well ITG helps/needs better high level awareness of upstream/downstream links in chain IT pros are sometimes too techie and should pay more attention to business process and customers Tendency to push new projects up the priority list and negatively affect more aged approved projects It has been valuable to educate people what many IT resources are working on Sustainability must be considered at the front end of projects Transparency is an overall positive Blend of grassroots and direction from above When processes run efficiently/effectively they are invisible. They are foundational. Would like to find a way to connect with other IT pros with capabilities you need. Design/accessibility examples


37

Communication Tangible outcomes Yammer Need to align some of the committees to shorten turnaround on items that may need to go to InfoSec then

research as an example InfoSec committee is large, mainly IT staff. Is this the right size and composition? Feels like InfoSec is floating outside the governance structure at UIC Students not represented well in any governance structures. UIUC group not created yet, they do not attend

when invited to Chicago. (incentives) Start myResearch - currently have project governance in place Advance Illinois How do these fit with ITPC? What can we do to make it more of a shared IT governance conversation (not just centralized), groups need to

be more collaborative at all levels. More collaboration across groups/campuses when handling problems reports Are we operating as designed? We need to refocus our efforts?

System administrators Network administrators

Governance needs to take the next step into IT operations Can’t cut 30% - how do we do that?

Celebrate distributed IT but not doing web hosting/file share server Not unique but important

But can’t – my Dean /my salary But I want that responsiveness

Common duties - Should be able to shift resources as needed We staff for peaks but you aren’t always at peak In ACCC – provide a portfolio of services so they know what we can do Develop SLAs so units will understand what they will get from us Should we have a cross campus governance committee or reps from the campuses – beyond UI LT? How do we find an implementation of services that make sense? What about – again – a services inventory to let people [?] Central IT Architecture/ plumbing or Software applications/development – do we need to do this

i.e. 3D printing when it becomes a service/commodity when is it specialized to stay in a unit? Disconnect between governance and campus decision-making/investment Funding requests that go beyond existing funding have nowhere to go Need better awareness of university funding models within governance Historical underfunding of IT cannot be fixed by having governance alone Be sure that policy/decision making is separate from implementation Refocus on cost (State of Illinois imperatives) Refocus on efficiencies Refocus on business needs (vs. non-essentials) How we compare with other university?

Are there deductions that were missing? Are we keeping up with them? Future grant writing – use teams that write grants that focus IT grants – multiple campus Opportunities for alumni – difficulties to keep up with what could be provided.


38

Interactions – how to achieve in existing infrastructure moving from old system to CRM, foundation and colleges if alumni could own.

Alumni’s vital role in IT governance: Role based email address for graduates. How come they can’t retain their email address just because

graduated? How does alumni play into this? How to leverage the volume of alumni to campus. How to get alumni to feel like they “own” part of IT Governance

What’s missing is relative information from other institutions. Don’t have a “discovery” function where research on other institutions brought into the governance group

Missing connectors not only among campuses but with other institutions Team that writes IT-based proposal Need a continuum so alumni can still talk to grads; grads can still talk to undergrads. Alumni not very well

served. Need to make sure the people serving/stakeholders are actually represented and served

Strategic plan v. campus GP How do the ‘un-sexy’ needs get addressed NEED – feedback loop regarding decisions/property assigned would be beneficial, especially back to campus

groups Need mole teeth for governance Advisory vs governance UIC – Bullet list for UIC “Purpose of the ITGC is 0:”

Too long to be practicable Multiple points not working as designed Governance does not give feedback to central unit operations

Observation: Disconnect between output of governance and funding for their initiative

Inclusion of edge units in governance Consider it include more policy on architecture decisions

How can IT Governance cover everything on a huge list/current charge Disconnect of IT Governance output & campus action/funding Governance across all IT

For commodities Not for directly supporting faculty and students For coordination, policy development, prioritization, etc.

Need to figure out who the ITG audience is and then find common language and engage them. Needs to do better job of reducing redundancy at the beginning of a project by engaging end users sooner. Need to have committee members do a better job of communicating with their colleagues. More partnerships are needed. Need to address speed of delivery and prioritization. Need to address ability to find out what others are doing Need to address resource issues to move from edge to central Communication Market itself Open itself up to more people to know what is going on UIC Admin Services – Why doesn’t ACCC provide these services Look at the IT services out in the units and how much is being spent. Why the evolution to this point? Do we

need to move this back to central support and see economics of scale and efficiencies?


39

Given the current budget problem, how do we “reduce the IT footprint” in certain areas? Reallocation of resources Success is defined by customers

Prioritize cost Include students and faculty – understand if they aren’t engaged Recommend these charters be reviewed on more frequent effort. Perhaps annually or even more frequently. UIC kind of has process in place, but still effort is in motion, still lacking performance measures. How does

governance hand/transition activity. Focus on students and data stewardship committees. ITG needs to be able to discuss strategy in larger context. UIUC operating as designed: some not following annual review of process. However, it is morphing.

Example – IT Council doesn’t function as charter currently describes. How much cross-talk goes on between campuses? Do we need to build on this? CIOs meet weekly. Should Chairs of governance committees meet more frequently? Communication to units about projects and acquisitions. How is this disseminated in a way that will reach end

users? Communication / too many layers / organizational info overload Who determines what is of importance/worthy of reporting and how should it be reported? Communications faculty members – involve in determining communication plan? Cross-talk across campuses – chairs get together? Feedback loop/communications Challenge: report “graveyard” More mechanisms to get student input Agree with thought of giving money to the “firm” to manage. Should look at higher level projects and also get

some follow through from approval to implementation. Funding authority would be key for some initiatives Having some funding and/or resources dedicated to top priorities. Things take so long so if we could be more

agile and prior funding, then things might be [funneled?] faster. Some issues are bigger than ITG, so how does ITG influence those items. There are differences in expectation of what governance is supposed to do. There should be expectations laid

out. In next packet, could we have executive summary of charter vs. the full charters? The new security policy is going to be a big change, but not enough people know enough. How do we make it

palatable? Need more tangible metrics to evaluate success of program. Not a clear linkage of how ITG links to units and ITPC.

Not all ITGs actually followed charges, but discussed and considered important challenges

Questions, principles for the development of new systems.

Need to create an incentive structure that promotes collaboration. Make certain initiatives are sustainable by incorporating that total cost of [illegible] information in proposals. There are heavy incentives to “do it yourself” because the resources exists [illegible] a unit and it takes a lot of

energy to do a collaboration process. How do we measure the success of ITG initiatives that support the strategic plan?

Make campus more aware of ITG initiatives For goal like “student retention” how do we identify which initiatives led to success? Often aligning initiatives with strategic goals happen after the fact. Should happen in the reverse.


40

Can we go back and revise IT strategic plan to align with campus strategic plan (Urbana specific) IT strategic plan (Urbana) is at end of life and needs revision Seamless adoption/transition is a success Put out fewer fires, focus on strategy and enhancements IT needs to be “seen and heard” so that its power/impact is valuable Sustainability of current services Potential for things to get sloppy Which strategic plan? UIC new staff (chancellor/provosts) expected so not strictly holding on to existing plans UIUC – University level, campus level, campus level IT University of Minnesota governance website well done. Use of infographics are nice. Standardized reporting format, business practices SMART goals, actions tied to initiatives Sharpen focus of governance Look at how we are communicating goals to everyone This is the hardest to do:

How do you determine the right audience? How do you get people to buy into sharing information? Until we know what we have, we can’t know how to measure the success

Like SCCM – shared package but also can configure your own Goes back to moving resources

Service desk management – is there a shared service model? We are entertaining this Here to open up but have to show again to the Dean How do we measure that to the Dean? How do we centralize those metrics? Centralized system i.e. a service desk system

If you have a common technology the learning curve is steep Categories of tickets Do a reduction of Help Desk Systems as an example, how many SCCM images central imaging?

Centralized software licensing i.e. Adobe License University pool of hardware? i.e. Dell Machines if not cost savings but times savings Fine Arts is doing some standard machine recommendations for the depts. Metrics Reporting of project status to governance

This is more than requirements gathering and delivering on those requirements What did the initiative accomplish? What changed? Can I use policies and procedures I don’t have to create by myself? I don’t provide as many services now – department uses central services. Use commodity services. I contract

fewer services directly, and use more university service contracts Completion of policies and standards Examine the cost of data breaches so we can support our decisions. Measure duplicated services on campus and see how it improves. Have ITG focus on campus level issues such that units can take advantage. Derivative – ask and listen – I like it, don’t like Did the university succeed with its strategic plan? IT should not be a cost center.

User satisfaction, engagement, loyalty Focus on process, outcome –oriented metrics Shouldn’t be driven by IT but the students we serve, the faculty we serve; survey


41

Shouldn’t be about IT metrics, but university metrics Remove it as a cost center and evaluate university metrics Best practices are needed Metrics faced on the process and the outcome, not the internal gaps If an open market, would a consumer choose your solution?

Acceptance and funding of initiative (it would be interesting to see mapping between campus strategic plan and IG priorities) (measures aligned) (alignment Map) e.g. central logging

Difficult to do. Only a few years in ITG - what ITPC - how/when Missing feedback from decision to fund Funded and recognized Currently no metrics in place Reporting of project progress is a very important step Needs doing/improvement ITPC, CITES project reports Success? Initiatives need to define their outcomes and measureable deliverables Need review after completion Need to make sure we optimize systems after completions – plan this into budgeting. Need to make sure everyone knows all features of a system Objective measure of success (with some subjective) What metrics are useful? What did we do?

What was the return on investment? Tangible outcomes Feedback loop

Success stories for example wireless and UC2B expansion tied back to strategic plans. As goals are developed, need to define measurements from the start so it can be measured. Require/record a

measure(s) of success. Better way to collect and communicate effort in real time. Need to measure against customer needs/wants and not IT measure:

Measuring success Metrics of success

Adoption of services/technologies by faculty and students. How many faculty are using technologies? How do they respond to them? Retention of students Student experience – satisfaction surveys Fully understand problems before finding solutions Define problem first, then explore/identify solutions and measure impact Logs and usage stats Collect and use data Have questions Urbana Funded/implemented Engagement – number of contact points Collect data on measures Define problems and as part of that, articulate what it means to be successful


42

Communication Cross To end users, students and faculty

Need KPI’s from beginning so that we can measure and understand what we need to achieve. Use these to tie back to the strategic plan. To begin, you have to know what the original goals were.

Should circle back to stakeholders of project to better understand the satisfaction? Also include the stakeholders that are affected by the change. If the stakeholders who are stating the problem get a chance to revisit the deliverable. Would give a perspective of how those affected feel.

For new hire. They are getting user impressions of the current system and then when there’s an upgrade. Survey the audience again to see how they feel about the impact of the changes.

Have in mind specific measurements of a project before, during, and after you begin. Have stakeholders involved in progress of project so you can get them informed and path back to a group. Also key is measure of continued success or measurement. As people get more familiar and get over the change, they may feel differently over time so a confined

measurement would be truer to the stakeholder satisfaction. By having stakeholders involved, helps gather additional needs. At the beginning, need clear expectations and going back to see if you met those. There are some things that

aren’t clear to the entire user community, so having those clearly stated is key. Example is my research. Faculty can have a hard time understanding goals. So would that be different if they had involvement or if they had the goals laid out clearly at beginning.

Also look at support models (e.g. help desk tickets) to see if things were successful. Define measures at the project proposal level. Ongoing measurement of success (e.g. annual review based on established metrics)

Measure efficiencies and effectiveness Frequency of use

If people like it, they'll use it: How to measure intangibles? Basic standards of success Accurate and timely pay Student grades accurate and timely for matriculation, graduation Help desks at HC moved from how do I fix it? How do I do X? Get out of the business of simply keeping the lights on ITG

Useful in providing "reason and choice" vs. "accident and force" When economics of scale clearly demonstrate reduced costs it’s an easy choice. Perception of our status is important and the measure is often a corporation metrics like peer review.

2015 IT Governance Planning Summit - Home - AITS...IT Governance Planning Summit Wrap Up Report 1...

Documents

Transcript of 2015 IT Governance Planning Summit - Home - AITS...IT Governance Planning Summit Wrap Up Report 1...