IT Governance

1. IT Governance Committee on Education Technology January 13, 2011

2. Meeting Agenda • Provide brief update on Steering Committee Meeting • Revised IT Governance structure • Decision-making process • Three immediate actions (MyResearch, Funding Model, and Data Access) • Confirm membership of CET; • Review status of inventory of projects and applications for Educational Technology; • Begin discussion of vision and priorities for CET.

3. Revised IT Governance Chart • Refer to handout with revised organization chart

4. Decision Process Flow Committees Technology and Architecture Research January Feb/March April May Review inventory, previous plans, and develop overall vision Identify and submit priorities Develop Application/ Project Inventory Education Clinical Identify decisions requiring SC input (for 2012 budget cycle) Steering Committee Review Business

5. Scope of Steering Committee Decision-Making - DRAFT • Focus on all significant areas of information technology: • Requires investment over $100,000 (hardware, software and labor); • Requires integration outside a specific unit (research, education, clinical and/or business); • Impacts underlying information architecture and/or requires change in architecture; • Requires change in IT policy; • Requires change in overall workflow and/or business process flow; • Requires development of new IT skill set in ITS.

6. Proposal Submittal Form • Agenda Topic: • Nature of presentation: • Information • Discussion • Decision • Situation: Where are we now? • Target: What do we want to achieve? • Proposal: How will we get there?

7. Membership of CET • Are the correct constituents represented on our committee? • Should anyone else be added to the committee?

8. Inventory • See handout

9. Vision and Priorities • What is the status of implementation of the ESAC plan developed in June 2008? • Can we use the ESAC plan as a starting point for the CET statement of vision and priorities? • What additional information is needed?

10. Next Steps • Complete inventory of applications (in-house versus vendor) and projects (current and future); • Committee members review ESAC Plan in preparation for vision and priorities discussion at next meeting; • Meeting schedule – targeting 2nd Thursday of month.

11. Appendix

12. IT Funding Model Nature of presentation (check one): _ Information _Discussion XDecision Situation: UCSF needs a new IT funding model to ensure successful and smooth operation of core IT infrastructure and services. The current situation is inconsistent, not auditable, unfair, and results in sub-standard services to a large number of faculty, staff, and students. Target: Develop a funding model that is: • Sustainable • Easy to understand and to implement • Fair and equitable • Legal and auditable Proposal: • Charge a campus-wide workgroup with developing a proposal and presenting it to the Steering Committee within six to nine months • The funding model can be built upon the current $35 data network charge and should address services such as data network, voice/phone, email, helpdesk, desktop support, IT procurement, IT security, etc.

13. Data Access Policy Nature of presentation (check one): _ Information _ Discussion X Decision Situation: As we embark on a comprehensive data warehouse initiative, we need to update UCSF’s data access policy in order to remove unnecessary obstacles to data access and in order to encourage faculty, staff, and students to responsibly use university data. The current practice makes data access very difficult and discourages usage. As a result, access processes are expensive, too long, and inconsistent, and data are not used as widely and effectively as possible. Target: A revised data access policy that: • Is entirely consistent with law (e.g., HIPAA, FERPA) and other UC policies, while not over-interpreting their reach. • Provides authorized users efficient, ready access to data. For example, UCSF staff who have a legitimate need to access financial data should be able to access all UCSF financial data (not just their own departmental data). • Sets campus-wide standards for data sharing that replace unit controls. • Clearly states the user’s responsibility to protect data. Proposal: • Charge the Security & IT Policies subcommittee with developing a revised access policy and presenting it to the Steering Committee within three months

14. Research Data & Tools (IDR/MyResearch) Nature of presentation (check one): _ Information _ Discussion X Decision Situation: IDR and MyResearch are currently the recommended database and toolset environments for UCSF researchers who need to use clinical data. These systems are new and are currently only used by a small percentage of the campus research community. In order to reach a larger number of users we need to find out how to enhance the systems and how to govern their future. Time is of essence due to the imminent implementation of APEX/EPIC and the departure of Michael Kamerick who was the Director responsible for the development of these systems. Target: UCSF researchers need a database of clinical data and tools that are: • Populated with all required data elements from APEX and other clinical systems • Populated with researchers’ specific data when necessary • Easy to use • Secure • Properly funded Proposal: • Charge the Research committee with developing a plan and presenting it to the Steering Committee within three months