IT Governance/Oversight: Engagement & Decision-making

1. C&C Executive Council discussion topic 27 March 2007 revised 11 June 2007 teg IT Governance/Oversight:Engagement & Decision-making

2. Agenda • Needed changes in C&C focus • Key challenges and tensions • Efficiency vs. effectiveness • “Collaboration continuum” tradeoffs • “Solution diversity” tradeoffs • Customer segments & technology affinity • Project/Engagement checklist • Define/Decide steps and Idea sources • Decision criteria • “Interested parties” in IT decisions • Engagement opportunities • Success indicators

3. Premises • Collaboration is key to our continuing relevance • Need to be customer-driven and transparent • Need more focus on individual effectiveness • While still providing great infrastructure • While still eliminating central/dept'l duplication • While still resisting “undesirable” diversity • We have a 3D problem space: • DIVERSITY: how much solution diversity is desirable? • DISCUSSION: how much collaboration is desirable? • DECISION-MAKING: who decides what and how? • Success metric: frequency & quality of engagement

4. 3D Balancing Act • Diversity of solutions: • Standards vs. needs of different constituencies • Cost efficiency vs. customer productivity • Discussion/Collaboration: • Agility and responsiveness vs. extensive engagement • Cost efficiency vs. customer happiness • Successful engagements must find sweet spot on collaboration continuum • Decision-making: • Agility and responsiveness vs. orderly process • Everyone wants to be at the table vs. paralysis • Political, economic, social, and technical factors

5. How much solution diversity?(Cost & Productivity Drivers)‏ • Unit cost is largely driven by scale (or lack of it)‏ • Standard solutions drive scale • Standard solutions are easier to support • Standard solutions enhance collaboration Q: So what's the problem? A: “Standards vary” --especially in our academic culture of autonomy and decentralization • e.g. Do you really want to ban Macs at UW? • cf. application bloatware vs. diverse requirements • Political realities may trump cost or other issues

6. Efficiency vs. Effectiveness • Efficiency focuses on reducing costs • Effectiveness focuses on increasing results • Goal: reduce cost and increase user productivity • Reduce duplication, but allow custom solutions • Move up the “commodity IT” food-chain • Can increased “diversity” costs be offset by savings? • Balance standard (O-S-F-A) solutions against personal productivity needs • ME: “UW can't afford to let a thousand flowers bloom” • RJ: “UW can't afford to not give PIs the tools they want”

7. The Solution Diversity Continuum Technology Level Constituency Individuals (ME curve)‏ Applications Research Groups (RJ curve)‏ Departments Infrastructure Institution “A few standards” “A thousand Flowers” How much Diversity?

8. The Collaboration Continuum • Extremes: • “always ask the customer” --> participatory paralysis • “what customer?” --> bureaucratic insularity • Both extremes lead to bad outcomes. • Collaboration: not just a means to an end...but also need to avoid “participatory paralysis” • Ideal level of customer engagement depends on: • Which constituency (sector and instance) • Level of the stack (infrastructure vs. applications)‏ • Tactical vs. strategic issues

9. Engagement Level Examples • Infrastructure level: • Tactical: gravel mix in roads; type of fiber connector • Strategic: viaduct future; network admission control • Application level: • Tactical: tourist slogan; default email addr settings • Strategic: new state travel svc; use of Exchange

10. Engagement Level Continuum Technology Level Strategic Issues Constituency Individuals Applications Research Groups Tactical Issues Departments Infrastructure Institution Decision Paralysis Bureaucratic Insularity Level of Interaction/Collaboration

11. Standard UW Constituencies • The “university of a thousand years” • Departments (admin, academic, clinical)‏ • Research Groups • Individuals • Deans & Administrators (policy makers)‏ • Faculty • Staff (admin, teaching, research, technical)‏ • Students • Patients • Consortia and external partnerships • NB: middle name of every academic unit is “autonomous and proud of it”

12. Constituency by Technology Affinity • Desktop: Microsoft, Apple, “Other” • Smartphone: Blackberry, Microsoft, Apple, “Other” • Servers: Linux, Microsoft, “Other” • Personality types: Purists and Pragmatists • Technology strategy comfort zone: • Buy COTS products from big company • Buy COTS products from little company • Use open source wherever possible • DIY by choice rather than necessity

13. Project/Engagement Checklist • Who would want to know about this initiative? • Do key constituencies feel welcome to participate? • Who should help shape the engagement strategy? • Have all the relevant decision factors been clearly communicated? • Has an appropriate progress reporting plan been designed and implemented? • Will the solution be used via mobile devices and international travelers? If so, will it work well?

14. Product/Service Decision Phases • Based on IT Strategic Directions... • Environmental scan; needs assessment • Brainstorming • Preliminary concept review • Scoping and evaluation • Final “Concept Commit” • Prioritization • Resource Allocation • “Execute Commit” • Then: Development/Operation/Retirement • Portfolio management of multiple products/svcs

15. Brainstorming: sources of ideas • UW customers/partners • Via explicit engagement • Via customer support staff • C&C team members (via roadmaps) • C&C leadership (via EC, SDT, cac-services) • What others are doing (outside UW) • Now... how to decide which ideas to implement?

16. Decision Elements --Take 1 • Effectiveness: Meeting needs of target audience • Efficiency: Total cost of ownership (TCO)‏ • Alignment with strategic directions: business, technical, political/financial • Funding options and flexibility • Scalability (if needed)‏ • Diagnosability and complexity (user & sys staff)‏ • Adaptability to changing needs • Expected lifetime and degree of lock-in

17. Decision Elements --Take 2 • Functionality • Effectiveness for target audience • Alignment with business directions • Technology • Scalability, diagnosability, adaptability, arch. align. • Culture (political environment)‏ • Relationships (vendor, donor, institution, PI)‏ • Cost • Efficiency: Total cost of ownership (TCO)‏ • Expected lifetime and degree of lock-in

18. IT Interest Groups • President and Provost • Advisory committees (UTAC, ATAC, IMAC)‏ • Faculty Council on Educational Technology • Board of Deans • Campus Computing Directors • Resource Sharing group • Central UW units/heads • Groups within OVP for C&C • UW Relations • Alumni Association • Olympia: DIS, ISB, legislators, governor

19. Engagement Opportunities • TAC and TAC chairs meetings • Coordinated events (Tech Talks, CompSupt Mtg)‏ • Wikis, Email lists (TechSupport, CompDirs, *TACs)‏ • Vendor meetings • Working groups/Focus groups • Project web sites, Blogs, RSS feeds • Surveys (Catalyst and email)‏ • Joint projects (C&C/OIM + Dept'l staff)‏ • Our folks engaging with campus folks

20. Success Indicators • Partnerships among UW units are flourishing • Frequent, high-quality engagements with campus • Principle of less surprise (transparency) evident • People who lose out think the process was fair • UW resources are aligned with strategic IT needs • Partnerships with vendors are reinvigorated • Constituent satisfaction with UW's IT is growing • UW's reputation for IT best practices is growing • UW PI's reputation for tech leadership is growing • C&C is doing less development & more integration

21. Final Success Indicator • Everyone can easily map efforts/decisions to our mission, paraphrased as: • Deliver reliable and responsive services to support UW's business (discovery) needs. • Provide technology leadership. • Foster partnerships. • Just to compare... Cisco's IT dept mission: • Support the business needs • Drive productivity improvement • Foster innovation • Showcase technology • Ultimate test: are Good Things happening?