- [Leos] Let us put a person in charge of IT at UWG and let us evolve an IT structure by fine tuning what works and fixing that which does not... There already is a director of ITS on campus. For once, let us let him do his job.
- [Me] The current structure doesn't make the director of ITS a CIO. We could change that, of course, but being a CIO isn't part of the current job description.
- [Leos] "Simply leave the distributed IT support units where they are to continue providing localized services but have the heads of those units directly report to the director of ITS (or to a user services department head to oversee all the distributed service units who reports to the director of ITS). "
- [Me] That, of course, would also be a radical change that also has great potential to "introduce as many new problems as it may fix."
Also, most of the services provided by the distributed units are generic rather than localized. One advantage of changing to a functional structure would be that, by reducing the duplication of effort involved in providing those generic services, we could have the potential to offer new services. - [Leos] "Let us put a person in charge of IT at UWG and let us evolve an IT structure by fine tuning what works and fixing that which does not."
- [Me] A CIO has advantages and disadvantages. So that we can stop rehashing the arguments, I'll ask Dr. Sethna as soon as he recovers from the BOR visit what he prefers. I'll draw up a list of the pros and cons before then and post them so that we're sure that I present a balanced list.
I want to examine Rob's comments from a few days ago, but I'm out of time, so I'll try to get to them later this weekend.
2 comments:
“The current structure doesn't make the director of ITS a CIO. We could change that, of course, but being a CIO isn't part of the current job description."
Perhaps, but with the exception of being part of PAC, there would be no new or different responsibilities added to his job description as a result of having the distributed units report to him and making him the guy in charge. Central IT already supports student labs, individual desktop PCs, print servers and file servers. By adding the various units, the quantity of people reporting to the director would increase but the types of IT functions reporting to the director would remain the same. I am not a stickler for titles. All that would be needed here is to alter a bit the director’s interaction with the administration and the unit IT directors. What have we got to lose?
“That, of course, would also be a radical change that also has great potential to ‘introduce as many new problems as it may fix.’ Also, most of the services provided by the distributed units are generic rather than localized. One advantage of changing to a functional structure would be that, by reducing the duplication of effort involved in providing those generic services, we could have the potential to offer new services.”
How is a reporting structure change that does not alter the placement of primary support personnel a radical change? (I am referring to desktop and computer lab support.) Service people will continue to interact with their familiar constituents and the folks being serviced will be comfortable with dealing with “their guy” as Rob put it. Your reference to duplication of effort in this case would imply that some units are overstaffed. If that is the case, that can be dealt with by shifting some people among the units (preferably voluntarily) and creating new services, whatever those may be. Also, to clarify, I don’t mean that these units would be independent. The distribution of service personnel in current academic units would be maintained to provide localized and familiar presence – just like cops on a beat are housed in precincts rather than being dispatched at random to locations all over town from a central police station. The service personnel can be called upon to service other units if some situation demands it, like changing out all the computer labs in Arts and Sciences in a couple of days instead of weeks. Note that I had already stated that distributed servers should be centralized so those generic services would not be locally duplicated.
Hospitals "eliminated duplication of services." I have copied a quote directly from a Hospital Network document:
To avoid financial losses due to shrinking reimbursements and rising costs as well as improving quality of care and avoid duplication of services, hospitals may consolidate certain services at one hospital. However, patients may need to travel further if those services are no longer offered at their local hospital.
I am very aware that an expectant mother must travel at least 35 miles in labor because of this duplication of services avoidance.
You tell me, has it helped the patients that need these services if they are not near the hospital that provides their needed service?
Elimination of all duplication. It is not always in the best interest of the user of the services.
Post a Comment