Two items: CIO and Version 0.6
CIO or no- I met with Dr. Sethna this afternoon and laid out the possibilities we've discussed in the meetings and on this blog about having:
- a CIO,
- a non-CIO head of IT, or
- two unit heads.
- Dr. Sethna asked lots of questions, even suggesting other possible solutions. It's obvious he's thought about this.
- He will talk to people on PAC , think about the pros and cons, and make a decision.
Version 0.6 of the IT organization plan- Infrastructure Services
- Systems administration
- Directory services management
- Multi-user application administration
- Networking
- Telecommunications
- User Services
- Faculty and staff support
- Localized faculty/staff tech support teams
- Service management administration
- Service desk administration
- IT asset and change management administration
- Service level agreement administration
- User account administration
- Information Security Services
- ISO (reporting to a VP, but with a direct reporting line to the President)
- Security specialist(s)
Notes:- Changes from version 0.5:
- Responsibility for directory services shifted to the sys admin group in infrastructure services. Several of you pointed out that this makes sense.
- Faculty/staff support is in one group, with teams whose primary duties will be to serve logically and geographically related units.
- Again, several posters observed that we need to preserve good localized service. This change should lessen the fears of some users that they will lose their excellent support, while still offering opportunities to improve service for all users.
- Security's place in the plan is clearer.
- All positions whose primary duties are in IT are part of the reorganization.
- There are a very few power users whose positions are classified as IT, but whose primary duties are in information analysis, instructional design or support, etc.
- These power users would not become part of the IT organizational structure. Their duties must be clarified, and their job classifications changed to fit those duties.
- By "very few," I mean 3 or 4 at most.
- Implementation planning is in its early stages, but will progress rapidly in the next few weeks.
- Implementation will begin in January, but will be phased in as feasible.
- It can't happen overnight, as several people have written, but we will move as quickly as we can without compromising service, efficiency, accountability, or security.
- I gave Dr. Sethna a "mid-term" report on the plan. He asked tough questions, and then gave his thumbs up.
18 comments:
Question:
You stated "All positions whose primary duties are in IT are part of the reorganization."
Does this include Computer Science's staff, their servers, active directory, user account management, DNS, DHCP, and classrooms/labs be moved to this new structure, the same as all other groups will be moved?
Dear Colleagues,
Thus far, I have stayed out of the blog business because I know time consuming it is. However, I will make an exception to respond to some issues that have been raised. I realize that the proposed IT re-organizational issues are worrisome. Let me try to address what I perceive as the top three major sources of concern:
1. Why do this? And, why is Dr. Lloyd leading this effort?
2. What will happen to service levels?
3. Will I lose my job? (Or, will my colleague and friend do so?)
Let me respond to these as best I can - in brief:
1. Why do this? And, why is Dr. Lloyd leading this effort?
UWG has had a history of great audit ratings. During my 13+ years here, I don't recollect many that were not at or close to the top of the scale. The most notable exception in all these years was the IT audit, in which we received a very low rating, at or close to the bottom of the scale. Clearly, this is unacceptable. Incidentally, bad audit ratings are not regarded by the Chancellor or Board as a mere blip or slap on the wrist. A bad audit rating is pursued assiduously - and the institution is evaluated and re-evaluated every year until it has addressed all the problems. So, we must address the issues raised.
Two major points were raised in the audit -- one related to organization; the second related to budget management. Both of these need to be addressed. While the organizational issues are being addressed, we must also address the budget management aspect of the findings. For example, each division can order hardware and software without concern for review of maintenance requirements, or long term costs considerations, or even efficiencies from cross unit or department pooling.
Based on the best recommendations received, I charged Dr. Will Lloyd to be the Single Point of Accountability (SPA) to address the audit findings and issues -- though we did not use that phrase at the time he was so charged, that's what he is. We have addressed almost every finding - with one exception - the appropriate organization to insure efficiency and effectiveness of the IT operation.
UWG's history of frugality and need for funds in a variety of non-administrative areas causes us to hesitate to create another Vice President with all its attendant costs.
This is why we are examining alternative ways to address the findings and why Dr. Lloyd is in charge.
2. What will happen to service levels?
There will need to be performance metrics and assessment measures in place to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of any new system. Unfortunately, while we have some metrics today, we do have not enough of these to be able to do a rigorous comparison of performance before any change occurs. For example, in the main, we lack consistent records of time taken to address problems in a variety of areas. Nonetheless, we cannot postpone or suspend all future plans until we have several years of data on the status quo.
We will develop and use performance metrics and assessment measures in the future. We *will* monitor service levels and strive for continuous improvement.
3. Will I lose my job? (Or, will my colleague and friend do so?)
When an organization consolidates various disparate functions into one, efficiencies do naturally arise. If each department or group of departments has its own personnel dedicated to a particular service, the organization will usually save costs by consolidation. This usually occurs because, instead of say, 10 people servicing the needs of the organization, each in his or her individual area, we now have a central task force of 7 or 8 people who can do the same task - and maintain reasonably the same service levels (or in fact improve on them). So, there is a dollar savings associated with such a change.
I have made it clear that this is *not* what we intend to do. No one will be laid off as a result of this reorganization. This decision means that we will not see any savings on the day that such reorganization takes place - so, the typical savings scenario that I described in the preceding paragraph will not occur. We choose humane considerations over efficiency. However, when someone resigns, retires, or wins the lottery -- and leaves UWG, we will not need to replace that person because of the efficiencies inherent in the reorganization. In this way, savings will occur, but not with the speed at which they might say in a "business" reorganization. No reorganization is perfect. Perhaps we will find flaws and will need to tweak the structure later on. We will not hesitate to do so, of course, but we do need to move reasonably soon - we are now on a clock rather than a calendar.
Concluding thoughts:
Now that I have raised and responded to what I perceive to be the major questions at hand, let me add that I endorse the plan and the process. This is not to say that it is perfect; no plan or process is. I encourage colleagues to work with Dr. Lloyd to improve and enhance what has been proposed. Such conversations are welcome. However, we do need to move ahead, so I am requesting all to devote their energies to making the plan work.
I trust that some of these questions have been answered and some concerns been alleviated by my comments. Certainly, there will be disagreement and push-back. While these comments are not "off the table," I regret that time constraints will not permit me to be a regular visitor to the blog. Rather, I will come to one of the future open meetings to address questions. In the interim, please do address questions to Dr. Lloyd - he has single-point accountability!
Thanks,
Beheruz
Quote: He will talk to people on PAC, think about the pros and cons, and make a decision.
Reading Dr. Sethna’s post the decision has been made.
Dr. Sethna has committed to the plan going forward and no objections to it by the techies need to be taken into account. price_h: you don’t have to be sold, only the president has to be sold.
Yes, the decision has been made to reorganize but input from everyone is still needed, wanted and encouraged. Just because they have decided to go ahead with something doesn't mean they have completely decided on how to go about it. The way I see it you can either complain about everything and and offer nothing useful or try to help facilitate the process as a productive member of the IT community. It's like voting. If you don't vote then you shouldn't complain about those in office.
From my perspective, the organizational plan presented shows a broad technical structure, but I don't exactly understand how the main problems of auditability and budget management that are trying to be addressed will be resolved any better by this new structure. I personally would like to see a division of IT created that is responsible for budgeting, accountability/reporting, project management, and strategic planning. Not that this division is to be solely responsible for the above; but they act as a coordinator, PR and auditor to the other IT entities and to the University for those functions.
Quote from 10/15:
"It's like voting. If you don't vote then you shouldn't complain about those in office."
Reply:
In this, we do not have anything similar to the electoral college to prohibit any group from having excessive influence in the decision.
Those that face each day's challenges in IT should be more involved so the best plan is devised for our campus AND our people. One person not intimately aware of UWG's "behind the scenes" challenges has been solely charged with the reorganization.
I have very much respect for Dr. Lloyd, but this feels like a stampede to integrate most of the existing IT into a new organization. What studies are there? What comparisons have there been? How are we sure what must not be duplicated, and what is prudent to duplicate?
The least disruptive plan should be devised, with many IT personnel helping draw the blueprints that will mold this into the best IT group for everyone involved.
Great care should be taken to avoid undue influence from any group or individual.
It was mentioned in this blog that ISPs place all their servers in one location under the administration of a select few. Servers are actually placed in several locations in the event of something happening to one location. Decentralized end user support is a good idea. Anything concentrated in only one location is only inviting problems.
We CAN receive a very good audit without destroying what we have that is already working great!
If the current structure is working great, as you say, then why did we receive a poor audit? It would seem to me that the lack of communication at the management level, lack of consistency and lack of effective governance are pretty glaring issues that must be addressed and rectified. Sure, things may work well at the end-user level in some areas but I can assure you that is not the case campus-wide. Also keep in mind that the more organized we are at the top the more effective we'll be in the field.
Finally, with all of the feedback Dr. Lloyd has received from those on campus who have been willing to speak up, he's more than aware of the inner workings of IT here on campus. Not to mention he's been here a very long time AND he's worked in the private sector in IT.
For anyone to say that everyone here on campus in IT has more knowledge in IT than Dr. Lloyd (as a previous poster mentioned) is just laughable. It smacks of arrogance.
"If the current structure is working great, as you say, then why did we receive a poor audit?"
For the umpteenth time: lack of governance has nothing to do with structure. The purpose of the current restructuring has nothing to do with addressing that deficiency found by the audit.
For anyone to say that everyone here on campus in IT has more knowledge in IT than Dr. Lloyd (as a previous poster mentioned) is just laughable. It smacks of arrogance.
The actual quote was:
Remember, at all times, that your audience knows more about IT at UWG than you do.
He was referring to the inner workings of IT at UWG, not IT as a whole.
Also, I don't think feedback and anecdotal evidence over the past couple of months is sufficient for claiming one has more than enough awareness of the inner workings of IT here especially when none of that evidence has been published. We've just been told it exists.
I would imagine that I could provide positive feedback and positive anecdotes to counter the negative, and, hopefully, all I would need to do is say that I have the evidence without making it public.
I would also imagine that I could go to an institution that received a glowing audit full of praise and still be able to find people who will provide negative feedback and anecdotes.
What's strange is that the negative audit was received over two years ago, yet this restructuring effort has only come to light in the past couple of months seemingly out of nowhere.
We as a university have had two years to do something, yet we get blindsided by a restructuring decision that's to go into effect within five months of the initial announcement.
Quote:
For anyone to say that everyone here on campus in IT has more knowledge in IT than Dr. Lloyd (as a previous poster mentioned) is just laughable. It smacks of arrogance.
WHERE was it said that anyone in IT knows more? It was said that the ones in IT are more FAMILIAR with our particular problems!!!
The actual quote was:
Remember, at all times, that your audience knows more about IT at UWG than you do.
He was referring to the inner workings of IT at UWG, not IT as a whole.
I went back and read that and you are right. I was wrong in that quote and I apologize but I still think it's wrong to assume that. And I also believe that you cannot put an IT person in charge of an IT reorganization (or even a committee of IT people), especially one that has so many problems that need to be fixed. You can and should get their input and that's exactly what is happening.
There are a myriad of reasons as to why it has taken this long to get to this point and it's useless to dwell on them.
Restructuring any unit in any organization is a major undertaking and should not be left in the hands of one person however knowledgeable he or she might be. It takes a lot of time and effort, and the powers that be at this University have decided to get an implementation plan ready by Jan, since we might have another audit pretty soon. Seems to me that we might end up having one big mess on our hands and another bad IT audit.
There are a myriad of reasons as to why it has taken this long to get to this point and it's useless to dwell on them.
I don't think you can dwell on reasons that haven't been presented.
It would be nice to hear why we've gone into scramble mode to get this into place by January when we've been aware of the audit results for over two years.
Quote:
--And I also believe that you cannot put an IT person in charge of an IT reorganization.--
There is more than arrogance shown in some of these latest comments. It proves that there is very little consideration for "techies" on this campus. Comments made in this blog and in meetings show this very clearly.
Many "Techies" are behind the scenes doing many jobs that is necessary to keep IT running at UWG. Not many hunger for attention, they do hunger for a job well done.
Take away the ingredients that makes a job tasteful, and we will definitely lose some very talented people! HOW can that be good for the IT budget? When you chase off someone that is very versatile, it requires more than one person to replace them.
The poor audit was NOT about "techies" doing poor jobs. It was mostly about nobody being in charge of IT.
Take away the ingredients that makes a job tasteful, and we will definitely lose some very talented people! HOW can that be good for the IT budget? When you chase off someone that is very versatile, it requires more than one person to replace them.
Going by Dr. Sethna's post, attrition appears to be a goal. Instead of hiring more than one person to replace someone versatile who has decided to leave, it is very likely that no one will be hired to replace that person, at least until we reach the lower number of desired IT personnel.
Several years ago it was decided that campus was spending too much money on janitoral services and that we should contract it out. The contract service did sloppy work. The buildings were left dirty. The contractors were to clean at night but we had students who complained about the contractors' partying and loud music. Various thefts took place including that of staff members' flowers and radios. Then we went to rotating crews of campus staff. None of us knew who was suppose to be in the building and the quality rotated with the anonymous cleaners. Finally, we went back to having janitoral staff assigned to particular buildings. Most take great pride in their work. We recognize their contributions in making a clean comfortable workplace for us and we try to be accomodating in our demands. They put forth an extra effort when we have public forums, etc. in the building. We get to know them and they are part of the team.
They are supervised through Facilities. We have no input in their merit pay recommendations, etc. Sounds like this is the model.
How much bureaucracy will it take to get a web page edited?
Is the primary motivation for this "plan" to better campus IT?
Let's take a look at one of the changes to the "plan" v 0.6. There are now exceptions to the reorganizations. A very few "power users" whose positions are classified as IT will not be part of the "plan." In the whole of the institution there are only 3 or 4 of these special "power users."
What departments on campus can justify having such IT untouchables? You might think of people who support department specific critical applications such as Chris Huff in the Library or possibly one of the banner experts outside of ITS. Unfortunately, Will doesn't specifically mention who he's referring to, but it's obvious that this concession had Edwin Rudolph in mind. So let's get this straight: divisions can no longer justify having IT people but an academic department can? Specifically the academic department that Will is a part of?
I've never really understood how CS could have ever justified having an IT person (2 if you include Alex). Are you telling me that a CS department doesn't have the expertise in their faculty and upper level students to set up and manage a lab or create and maintain a Website? Is there another academic department on campus with similar graduation numbers that can justify 2 full time IT staff and 13 students on their payroll?
http://www.cs.westga.edu/People/HomePage
So Darth Lloyd doesn't want his reorganization "plan" to directly affect his own department. Is there anything else in the "plan" that seems to be specifically in the best interest of the CS department? The two people that CS has butted heads with, specifically Adel Palpatine, is Dale Driver and Mike Russell, both of who are being, pardon the expression, screwed by this "plan." That's 2 names that Adel can mark off his enemies list. While Mike Russell isn't any Jane Fonda, he has done more for IT on campus than any other single person. Just the new phone system by itself has paid for his salary many times over.
After this "plan" is implemented, we will lose much of our IT talent. Although the IT employees who do stay will work hard to make sure services won't come to a halt, campus IT will be severely crippled. It will be years before IT at UWG will be back up to snuff. My biggest fear is that because there is no way of making an accurate assessment of the success of the plan (a topic I'll delve into at later date), Dr. Lloyd will be able to point at useless matrixes and declare success. It brings to mind President Bush standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner. So much for a single point of accountability.
Why have two weeks gone by with no communication on the progress and status of this reorganization?
We get closer and closer to the January implementation, and I get the feeling that we don't know much more than we did when this was first announced.
Post a Comment