- The IT audit two years ago found a "lack of a functional governance structure" that will "continue to hinder the growth of Information Technology" at UWG."
- The audit noted that this repeated the finding from the audit of 1997.
- We responded by
- maintaining our existing IT units;
- adding the position of UTO to improve communication and coordination among those units;
- creating the TCC to provide a forum for that communication and coordination;
- shifting the focus of the TPC from day-to-day IT affairs to more strategic issues.
- Despite improved communication and coordination, these changes have not proven enough to solve our problems.
- We are therefore in great danger of receiving yet another significant negative finding when we are audited again next year.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
IT reorg: a solution in search of a problem?
A smart techie said to me after yesterday's open meeting that many people see the proposed IT reorganization plan as a "solution in search of a problem," so let me state the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Everyone just needs to accept the fact that this is going to be done the proposed way whether it is the RIGHT thing to do for UWG or not. Dissatisfied and unhappy employees will search for more satisfying positions elsewhere - somewhere that does embrace the personal environment that UWG expresses, but evidently does not embrace.
It was mentioned in a comment October 2 that this will echo years into the future. I can not see anything positive that can come from the proposed changes when it is clearly a danger that very knowledgeable, talented people will leave the university.
Many other sensible approaches have been suggested as other options, ways for the units to work together under a single Organizational structure. I keep hearing "but we're not that big". One fact is that size doesn't always matter, but satisfaction most definitely matters.
Colleges were NOT satisfied when there was one unit. This caused the formation of the local groups so that the colleges could have a more personal relationship with their support personnel.
Creating a structure that works for every college and satisfies the directives of the audit should be what is sought. However, it is clear that this is not the intentions of this reorganization.
To succinctly restate the audit finding:
“There is no one in charge of IT at UWG”
As an attempt to address this finding and continue to have no one in charge of IT, the UTO position was invented. After two years of this failed experiment a decision is made to find another solution. This solution is a radical one. It is to totally dismantle the current IT organization and to replace it with two separate IT organizations each headed by a different manager thus, again, ensuring that no one is in charge of IT at UWG.
Aside from not truly addressing the major audit finding, the biggest problem with the proposed 0.5 plan is that it is not presented as a rational solution that aims to solve specific problems. I have not seen a process leading up to Plan 0.5 that first identified problems to be addressed followed an examination of the current structure to determine where alterations could be applied to resolve those problems. Instead a plan is presented that totally destroys the current structure and replaces it with a new one with total disregard for those things that work well and may break as a result of the reorganization.
The buzzword of the day is “interdisciplinary”. Academic programs are built around the concept and government agencies offer an increasing number of grant programs to foster interdisciplinary research efforts. At least in part, the current IT structure has an interdisciplinary component where certain people perform both user services and infrastructure services functions. Plan 0.5 abolishes these efforts resulting in reduced effectiveness of the staff and, perhaps, higher costs in the future if these personnel have to be replicated in both of the proposed IT units. It is ironic that the director of ITS is implementing steps to break down interdepartmental barriers (perhaps to the discomfiture of some) to increase ITS effectiveness while Plan 0.5 proposes to erect them higher.
Let us try a bold experiment. 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. I am certain that building a new structure from scratch will almost certainly introduce as many new problems as it may fix. There already is a director of ITS on campus. For once, let us let him do his job. 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). Combine all the localized helpdesks into one that then routes the calls to the appropriate units. Centralize, where practical, all of the distributed servers, DNS, etc. The director should continue to interact with the deans to ensure that all of the academic needs are being met and also be part of PAC to ensure that he is cognizant of all the political pressures to which IT must react.
Over the last 10 years the structure that was in place had the effect of making the director of ITS as powerless as possible to effect any change. Indeed, when he proposed consolidating some server services that were distributed among the various IT units across campus to improve efficiency and security and to reduce unnecessary replication of resources, he was vilified as an empire builder. It was the hard line stance of the distributed units at the time that was, in my opinion, a prime factor in the negative audit finding at issue. I find it ironic that the proposal by the director of ITS that caused all of the distributed units to rail against him at the time is now being proposed in this reorganization as a necessary step to reduce redundancy and improve efficiency.
There seems to be this fear that a single IT structure headed by one person will somehow lead to the downfall academic computing. From what I can see, most universities are doing quite well with such a structure. I hear allusions to IT setting forth policies that are arbitrary, capricious and not in the best interest of academia and thus IT must be firmly placed under the VPAA. I have yet to hear any specific examples where this is true. I also hear and read the assertion that there is no person in the world that can do the job of managing all of IT. That unit heads should be able to work out any differences themselves. As was pointed out at the open meeting, by that logic we should not have any need for most of the upper administration. It seems that we are in fear of something that is not a demonstrated fact and after 10 some years of failing to effectively run IT on campus without anyone in charge, we should actually give it a try. It’s not like doing so is irreversible and a path to certain ruin.
"lack of a functional governance structure"
What does the governance of IT have to do with the execution of the same? I do not recall the governance of IT being mentioned in your functional restructuring of IT. In fact, you specify that only technical decisions will be made by any personnel within the IT groups.
Governance, surely, goes well beyond the technical, and is naturally strategic and political. I believe the audit's complaint is valid - and has nothing at all to do with your restructuring plan.
We could easily create an excellent "IT governance" at UWG, and remove the segregation which exists between central ITS and the rest, without this radical change.
You can not justify this change simply by pointing at the audit, or referring to vague anecdotes of poor performance. You can justify the need for a change based on those things, but you must justify this specific change by directly and clearly demonstrating how this model is better.
Your argument should be compelling. I have yet to witness anything written or said on your part which tells us how changing to a functional division model will help. And I have yet to hear how this will address IT Governance.
Your restructuring of IT is entirely focussed on the technicians. You are proposing an extremely damaging and disruptive change to groups which are vital to the institution's business continuity. Clearly stated, explicit challenges to your model are not being answered.
You have to convince us that this is going to work. Understand that we are the only people who can make this reorganization a success. Trust me, the people in IT at UWG who will grab an oar and pull far outweigh those who will not - but that will only happen if you get those people on your side.
You need to start responding directly to challenges. You need to be open to alternatives to your ideas which are at least as radically different as your idea is from the status quo. You need to 'sell' this idea to us in a very different way than you would sell it to Sethna and Hynes. Remember, at all times, that your audience knows more about IT at UWG than you do. When we are alarmed by what you propose, so should you be.
Post a Comment