My understanding is that:
- They intend to hire an interim person internally, and later do a national search for a permanent person.
- The job announcement and description will be posted soon, perhaps as early as next Monday, with applications accepted for two weeks.
- Jim Sutherland, the VPB&F, is drawing up the job description.
- The VPs will be the search committee.
- Title:
- Those present unanimously backed the title CIO. CIO has an accepted meaning: it's the person who ensures that the organization’s IT investments are aligned with its strategic objectives by mapping IT initiatives to those objectives. A CIO is not the programming manager or chief systems administrator; those duties are delegated to technical managers.
- On the other hand, a CTO, which is what we have now, is the techie-in-chief, responsible for designing and recommending appropriate technology solutions to support the policies and directives developed by the CIO.
- The TCC didn't want the CIO to be a VP for IT, because that sounds like we'd be adding another silo, rather than establishing a position that supports all the divisions. The CIO has "horizontal" responsibilities that cut across the "vertical" structure of the divisions.
- I mentioned the concern that at some institutions the CIO is in charge of IRP, but they pointed out that there are a number of USG schools that have the two separate, including Georgia Southern, Valdosta, and UGA.
- Reporting line
- The TCC also recommends that the position report directly to the President. USG schools mostly have it report to either the President or the Provost, so for UWG reporting to the President makes the most sense. This reaffirms that the job's responsibilities are to the University as a whole, not to any one division.
- Job description:
- The TCC strongly recommends that the job description for this position clearly state what its responsibilities will be for the IT reorganization: will this person be charged with refining and implementing the proposed version 0.6, or with starting from scratch?
- Also, the job description should stress the importance of introducing best practices in IT service management.
7 comments:
>>My understanding is that:
They intend to hire an interim person internally, and later do a national search for a permanent person.<<
Oh this is just a dandy idea! Lets appoint an interim CIO, and then wait around for a year or so, not post the job and then leave the appointee in the position permanently. That is how we got most of the "management" we have now. It is clean and simple, not to mention the cost savings. No need to deal with all those pesky qualifications or credentials.
Now lets see who could we appoint...perhaps someone from the political science department, or maybe the Art department...Come on, someone has a brother-in-law that needs a job!
I'm a huge fan of free speech and I think everyone has a right to be heard, but this is a good example of the degeneration in comments that have begun appearing in this blog.
It is my opinion that flippant comments like this do nothing but erode the credibility of the otherwise constructive criticism that has been presented here since the blog's inception. If those of you who are flaming are intent on continuing to do so, could you either find the courage to post under your name, or come up with a clever handle like 'r30rg-hat3r' so we could more easily distinguish between serious posts and serious rants? Honestly if you don't take this opportunity to be heard seriously then how can you expect administration to do so?
Well said Blake. Course, I can't read your "l33t handles".
Seriously though,
I believe I've heard you (Dr. Lloyd) say, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Dr. Hinds is a Provost in everything but title. But yet here you mention that the intent is for the CIO to report to the President.
If this is truly a "growth" model to take us into the next 5+ years, shouldn't we plan on being a large enough university that we will have a Provost? If so, why not design this position report to Dr. Hinds now?
Brandon and Blake,
It is not so courageous to post your name when you are probably some of the least to be adversely affected by this reorganization. Sure, some may be happier after this, but some could lose what they enjoy most about their job, the reason they come to work in the mornings.
Brandon, I am glad that you are free to pack your bag and move on, but your remark about people being worthless and not having skills was far more than inconsiderate. Those with families and mortgages can't just pick up and go somewhere else. Some have invested very many years at this institution, some may be near retirement and wouldn't have time to build a retirement elsewhere, especially when many IT jobs have been outsourced overseas.
I do fear that I am wasting my time on the possibility that you have concern for others. Your words were cold and impudent.
I have not read what you believe to be "bashing managers" as you've stated in your bitter comment, but some have stated that the audit was more about there not being one single person in charge of IT, and that the ones in charge had childishly argued instead of working together. Some have been astonished by the radical upheaval planned.
I heard that Dr. Lloyd's office becomes busy after five. Those with responsibilities outside of UWG may not have the option of visiting him after hours. I fail to see how slithering into Dr. Lloyd's office after hours is being "constructive" or "taking the opportunity to be heard". An open gathering of information, sharing of ideas, the option of visits during the day for those that can't meet in the evening, (even if one doesn't want their manager or co workers around). Life is not so simple for everyone.
Yes, I am posting anonymously.
While I think the first comment could have been stated in a better way, I wouldn't simply dismiss it as flippant.
You may not approve of a comment's tone, but that doesn't mean the comment is a worthless flame.
I believe allowing anonymous posts makes more people willing to comment.
If you don't like anonymous posts, you can always collapse them and not read them.
Those with responsibilities outside of UWG may not have the option of visiting him after hours. I fail to see how slithering into Dr. Lloyd's office after hours is being "constructive" or "taking the opportunity to be heard". An open gathering of information, sharing of ideas, the option of visits during the day for those that can't meet in the evening, (even if one doesn't want their manager or co workers around). Life is not so simple for everyone.
That's pretty arrogant of you to put down the words of another who is slamming other IT people and then accuse those who meet Dr. Lloyd after hours as "slithering", as if we were lower forms of life than you. Some of us choose to do this because it doesn't interfere with our day to day jobs. And most of us who are doing this are coming with good, solid ideas of how to handle this reorganization. Some of us realize that in an open meeting there may not be an opportunity to speak up about our thoughts on the reorg. There are also times when we have met during the day because it fit better with our schedules. Surely you can be flexible.
So I guess what you are saying is that if you don't have a chance to see Will after hours then the rest of us who do have that ability are snakes? Wonderful conclusion. Will's door is open most of the time and you can go see him during the day if you are so worried about it. Call him or email him.
---"So I guess what you are saying is that if you don't have a chance to see Will after hours then the rest of us who do have that ability are snakes?" ---
Those that do it for their own personal benefit are just that. I have encountered those that the statement fits perfectly.
I know someone who has the displeasure of working with the kind that does more slithering than work, and even had the nerve to complain about ONLY receiving a 7% raise when others received 3%.
If you haven't encountered that kind, then you are SO very lucky. If you are honestly looking to benefit UWG's reorganization and not just yourself, then good for you. Don't pretend there are none that are only looking out for themselves. They don't care who they hurt, so it definitely does cause concern.
It's odd that very hateful remarks have been made, but you were offended by this one. The person that wrote it was most likely not calling everyone sneaky but is painfully aware of that kind, just as I am aware of them.
Post a Comment