- Must we have a single hierarchy under a CIO, or will a small number of units be able to do the job - and work together - without a boss?
- If we don't go with a unified hierarchy, what should we do about cross-cutting concerns like security, asset management, budgeting, purchasing, and planning?
- On whether to have a CIO:
- Con:
- Putting all our managerial eggs in one basket is dangerous. I would argue that it is unlikely that we could find somebody with the wide range of managerial, technical, planning, and budgetary skills needed to do the job well.
- It adds executive redundancy.
- Primary tasks for a CIO are to resolve disputes and to make tough decisions. IT unit managers should be able to make tough choices, and the VPAA to settle disputes. If not, we'd have more serious problems than a CIO can solve.
- A small number of IT managers, each responsible for a unit with clearly defined responsibilities, should be able to function well without the problems inherent in our existing IT structure, with its large number of IT units with overlapping, and often nonsensical, sets of responsibilities.
- Having a CIO report to the President removes the focus of IT from Academic Affairs, where I think it belongs in a university.
- Good CIOs are expensive.
- PAC has been resistant to the idea.
- Pro:
- IT would have a single point of accountability: a decider, as W would say.
- Those who work on cross-cutting concerns could live in the CIO's office.
- If a CIO were a member of PAC, IT would have a voice at the highest level of University decision-making.
- As I said at the meetings, I lean toward the anti-CIO side, but I can see the advantages of having one. I think they are outweighed by the disadvantages, but my mind could be changed by convincing arguments.
- On where to house cross-cutting concerns without a CIO:
- Security is a special case. The security staff should have a direct line to the President, like the auditor does.
- Four possibilities for the others (asset management, budgeting, purchasing, planning, etc.): they could live in either
- one of the IT units we create, with the responsibility to serve all the units;
- the VPAA's office;
- a separate IT unit, called something like "IT administrative services;" or
- a combination. (Just because they are all cross-cutting doesn't mean that they all necessarily should be treated the same.)
An aside: I'll post more about the meetings and some ideas people have shared, but I wanted to get these questions up first.
3 comments:
I am not necessarily advocating the need for a CIO, but I do have comments on many of the pros and cons. Maybe some of these responses will prompt others to come up with more pros and cons to the CIO idea.
Question: Must we have a single hierarchy under a CIO, or will a small number of units be able to do the job - and work together - without a boss?
Comment: Dr. Lloyd mentioned at Tuesday's meeting that while the TCC has its merits, it has not produced many results. Can we in good faith expect a similar grouping of unit heads to "do the job" without direction? Also, making decisions by committee does not fall in line with the strategic plan's desire for a single point of accountability.
Con: Putting all our managerial eggs in one basket is dangerous. I would argue that it is unlikely that we could find somebody with the wide range of managerial, technical, planning, and budgetary skills needed to do the job well.
Comment: I would argue that a number of positions on campus were difficult to fill because of the skill sets required. By "unlikely that we could find somebody," does somebody == somebody currently working on campus? If so, then yes it might be difficult to find somebody with the range of skills. If not, I do not think this is a concern.
Con: Primary tasks for a CIO are to resolve disputes and to make tough decisions. IT unit managers should be able to make tough choices, and the VPAA to settle disputes. If not, we'd have more serious problems than a CIO can solve.
Comment: The VPAA might not have the technical knowledge to correctly settle disputes among IT units. A CIO would be expected to be familiar enough with the IT world to understand the scope of disputes and provide better resolution.
Con: A small number of IT managers, each responsible for a unit with clearly defined responsibilities, should be able to function well without the problems inherent in our existing IT structure, with its large number of IT units with overlapping, and often nonsensical, sets of responsibilities.
Comment: With no model yet proposed, the notion that each IT unit will have clearly defined non-overlapping responsibilities is hard to imagine. Discussion so far has blurred the line between the proposed donut hole and donut ring, and I have no doubt that the line will continue to be blurred as the model becomes more concrete. Even under a new structure, we will probably see a number of the same problems inherent in the current structure.
Con: Good CIOs are expensive.
Comment: Good Presidents, VPs, and Deans are also expensive. They either produce results to justify their expense or they become replaced. As an aside, it would be necessary to have means by which to compare the results against our current status. We would need to assess our current structure before we can use it as any basis for future results.
Con: PAC has been resistant to the idea.
Comment: Empowering another unit head within the PAC lessens power of the other members. I would expect them to be resistant. They may have more valid reasons to being resistant, but without more information I can see little validity in this point.
Pro: IT would have a single point of accountability: a decider, as W would say.
Comment: This is certainly what we have heard come down the line over and over again. If there is one thing I have taken from Dr. Sethna's return to campus, it is the desire to have a single point of accountability.
Pro: If a CIO were a member of PAC, IT would have a voice at the highest level of University decision-making.
Comment: This certainly sounds like a good way to improve the decision-making process and help alleviate the timelines associated with getting approval through the chain.
On where to house cross-cutting concerns without a CIO: Security is a special case. The security staff should have a direct line to the President, like the auditor does.
Comment: As with the VPAA, the President might not have the technical knowledge to correctly handle security issues. It seems appropriate for the security staff to have a direct line to an upper level, but a CIO should be better prepared to make IT security-based decisions than the President. A CIO might also be more readily available in the event of immediate threats.
I'm curious as to the definition (purely in regards to UWG's IT reorganization) or perhaps scope, of 'asset management'.
Why not have a CIO?
Why do we have a President? How well do you think a committee could run this University? Could a committee run Facilities? How well do you think a committee could raise a child?
Committee's succeed only in that they allow for efficient blame-distribution when things go bad, and easy kudos-leeching when things go well. The truth is, committees succeed due to the efforts of prominent, competent individuals who compel the committee to act - most members contribute nothing, or less than nothing. Unfortunately, you can't count on having any of those competent members in any given committee...
I have no doubt that a CIO position at UWG would be very difficult to fill. That doesn't change the fact that we will require a single, competent office which will govern IT implementation to satisfy the needs of the university. Those needs might well be specified or influenced by a well-informed committee.
It is clear that we must have solid, competent governance of infrastructure, and there is no way in the world a committee can provide that.
Post a Comment