Response to blog

I've gotten several comments on and off-line reactions to my postings.

• "Under 'IT Units' do the headings represent who each IT unit reports to or who they support?"
  
  The headings represent who the units report to. Some units support more than one division.
  
  
• "I'm a low/mid level IT worker on campus. Should I be worried about my job?"
  
  The purpose of this reorganization is to develop an organizational structure that lets us do our jobs more effectively. It is not to get rid of people.
  
  
• "Isn't LRC part of ITS, and not separate?"
  
  Yes, LRC is part of ITS, and yes, because of the nature of what it does, LRC also has to work semi-independently. The Information Security Officer role works in a similar way.
  
• "Why isn't Distance Ed listed as an IT group?"
  
  Distance Ed isn't an IT group. It is closely related to, strongly affected by, and a driving force of, campus IT, but it isn't part of the IT structure.
  
  
• "Why aren't the various student computer labs around campus more compatible?"
  
  They should be.
  
  This is just one example of a broader truth: our current organizational structure gets in the way of making IT work effectively. The IT units have gotten better at working with each other over the past year and a half, but we often have to fight against the organizational chart to make that happen.
  
  
• "Are there any sacred IT cows that won't be touched?"
  
  Not that I'm aware of. We'll treat every cow with respect, but none are sacred.
  
  
• "If this is only the third most boring blog, what in the world are the two most boring ones?"
  
  2. My blog about my personal life.
  1. W's blog about what he's reading.
  

First meetings

Monday, 8/27: Deans' meeting

• The deans brought up two major concerns. The colleges
• have invested in IT and don't want to lose their investment;
• are worried that the quality of service will go down.
  
  
• Those are legitimate concerns. My response is that we have to look at the services delivered rather than at the current structures that provide those services. We must define:
  
• what we want from IT,
  
• what we can afford, and
  
• how best to get as much of what we want as we can.

Tuesday, 8/28: PAC meeting

• I presented two handouts (which are posted at the bottom of this entry):
• A mind map showing the kinds of IT services offered at UWG.
  
• The layout of the map is intentionally not related to current or proposed organizational structures. It depicts what, not who or how.
  
• A list of our IT units, showing each unit that acts somewhat independently.
  
  
• The handouts illustrate that there is no simple mapping between our IT services and the units that provide them. This is in itself neither good or bad, but it definitely calls for examination.
  
  
• We talked abut how the IT units were set up in response to the perceived tactical needs of the day, without much strategic thinking about who should do what and how we would be accountable.
  
  
• We also talked about how the current structures make it difficult to make decisions, to balance competing interests, and to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the choices we do make.
  
  
• It is the success we've had over the last year and a half in addressing the more immediate issues exposed by the IT audit that lets us confront these organizational problems now.
  
  
• Dr. Sethna stressed that one early outcome of the reorganization must be a clear accounting of what we spend on IT.

---

The mind map:

---

IT Units:

Academic Affairs

• A&S Technical Support
• COE Educational Technology Services
• RCOB Technology Support
• Information Technology Services
• Learning Resources Center
• Information Security Officer
• Library Systems Services
• Newnan Center IT support

Business & Finance

• Business Information Technology Services

Student Services

• Student Information Services
• UWGGeek Squad

President’s Office

• University Technology Officer

Project inception

Two years ago, UWG had an IT audit that made some recommendations to improve our performance. We've had success in addressing the most pressing problems cited in the audit, but we need to do more.

Our current organizational structure is a considerable obstacle to progress:

• We are hindered by multiple, overlapping points of accountability and responsibility.
• We are well-off in some areas, but deficient in others.
• The quality of user service is very uneven across campus.
• The possibilities for budgeting and planning are restricted.
• It is difficult to tell where we succeed, and where we fall short.
  

So, Dr. Sethna charged me to develop and present a plan to reorganize our IT structures to reflect the need to handle operations and enterprise systems on the one hand, and user services on the other.

Consistent with the concept of a single point of accountability, I will have the responsibility to develop an implementation plan as well. I am to develop the implementation plan this semester, and put it into place in January.

As I work on this, I'll consult with users, administrators, and IT colleagues. The key, obviously, will be to develop a strategy that will make things better, and I count on your help to make that happen.

I hope this blog will keep UWG up to date with what I'm doing, and give you a chance to offer your reactions, comments, and suggestions. If you don't want to post your thoughts publicly, just send me an email at wlloyd@westga.edu.