On the TCC's comments

Thoughts on the post about services and standards to preserve, and of those to jettison or improve:

• Comments on the comments:
  
  
• "Shouldn't the users who receive support be the ones to answer what services should be preserved and which should be improved?"
• Good point. Yes, their answers are essential. The value of IT is in the support it provides to the teaching, research, and service missions of the University. That being said, I had a captive audience of smart people who have thought about this a lot, and I want to get their input. I'll get more input from other groups, too.
  
  

• "Sure, all the IT departments want to maintain autonomy. That is what got us into trouble in the first place. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians."
• Going back to my response to the first comment, the value is in the service we provide. Decentralized organizations and centralized organizations can both work well, given the right circumstances. We need to define an effective organizational structure for our particular set of circumstances.
  
  

• Most items seemed reasonable. Many do point up the need to define what we mean by good, quick, secure, etc.
  

• Not surprisingly, the lists overlap:
  
• Support is good, support needs to be better.
  
• Training is a strength, we need to do better with training.
  

• There are possible tensions between some items:

• Flexibility vs. consistency.
• Standardization vs. customization.
• Autonomy vs. coordination.
  

• Most issues are things we've discussed in the TCC, but one hadn't come up: workload. I was glad to see it, because it's talked about often sub rosa but rarely openly.

• I'll be interested to see how these lists compare to ones from other groups of stakeholders.