I'm not trying to knock anybody by suggesting that we'd need a national search for a CIO.
A CIO would be a new position for UWG, with responsibilities that no current position has. The job of a CIO is different from that of a CTO or a UTO. I want PAC to understand the implications of that.
Besides, a national search wouldn't preclude having a local person selected for the position. I'd expect that some UWG people would apply.
As for the audit being against one person, I don't buy it. It found plenty of blame to go around.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I thought in this reorg process we were going to work with what and who we have. You say in open meetings "we don't have the money to hire a CIO for a six figure salary". You are looking for a CIO with "lack of baggage", but then you say "a national search wouldn't preclude having a local person selected for the position." UWG people have baggage, so that would exclude them from being selected for the position. People hired from the outside can bring their own set of baggage as well. It might not be UWG baggage, but it can be baggage from another organization.
As for the audit being against one person, I don't buy it. It found plenty of blame to go around.
I believe that the comment to which you are referring is stating that blame for UWG receiving the negative audit is being placed on Mike Russell rather than the audit itself being against him. I don't know whether that statement is true or not, but that's how I interpreted the comment.
When you take a look at the 0.6 version of the plan, it's easy to see that Mike Russell has the most to lose with this reorganization. He currently oversees both infrastructure and user services on a pretty large scale. With 0.6, the best he can do is have half of his responsibilities taken away.
And while you say that campus personnel won't be precluded from a CIO search, the impression I've gotten from attending the open meetings is that you don't feel that we have anyone on campus qualified to fill that position. That's not very assuring to a person who already oversees the majority of IT at UWG.
Ok, let's assume that everything is running very well and everybody is happy. We still failed the last IT audit. How? Because IT management by and large is poor. No direction, no cohesion and certainly no communication. And, yes, I'm referring to each individual IT department head. Several of the techies who post here on the blog give the impression that everything is wonderful here at UWG and it's simply not the case. If it is I want to work for your department but I find it hard to believe that we're changing the entire structure just because there are a few things wrong. From my own personal experience of having to deal with childish, immature, irresponsible management, I couldn't be more ready for change. And I know for a fact that I'm not alone in that desire.
Management is certainly the main reason we have problems in IT right now. Think about it. If management had successfully communicated with each other over the years we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. They only have themselves to blame for their downfall. You all want to give more power to those who have failed us and that is a very dangerous idea. They've had their chance. There are other managers and IT individuals here on campus who are very good at what they do and should be given every opportunity to succeed where others have failed.
Quote: "I'm not trying to knock anybody by suggesting that we'd need a national search for a CIO."
It's not the suggestion of needing a national search for a CIO that implies you are trying to knock someone on campus. I think most people would expect that job to be posted on a wide scale.
It's the numerous times in open meetings that you have made a point to say that we have no one on campus who could fill that position. You have cited that as a disadvantage to creating a CIO position several times.
Above anonymous posters:
I'm sure Mike appreciates all the support here, but have you asked him if (hypothetically) he were given the chance to be CIO, would he even take it?
Also, you people bashing your managers!?!?! Really, if it's that bad, go away and get a job somewhere else! Granted, I have my moments with management, but all together, I really enjoy my job here, and that includes the management. If someone was so worthless that they didn't have the skills to get a job somewhere else, they should really think if maybe they're part of the current problem.
GET A LIFE ANON POSTERS!
Post a Comment