it@illinois: a resource use initiative academic senate april 27, 2009

IT@ILLINOIS:A Resource Use Initiative

Academic Senate

April 27, 2009

Discussion Plan

• Why the Provost launched IT@Illinois

• What we have learned so far

• What we hope to accomplish

• What we propose to do next

2

Why We Started

Symptoms of an emerging problem:

• Unsustainable pattern of growth in support functions

• Highly bureaucratic “feel” to overall environment

• Overall feeling of scarcity despite high spending ratio for IT

• Inability to explain where the money goes

What We Know So Far

1. IT resources are disconnected.

Support Organizations

• AITS (system-scope administrative IT)

• CITES (campus-scope)• College-scope IT units

– ATLAS – OIM– Etc

• Department-scope IT staff• Center staff

IT Staff Highly Distributed

AITSAITS

CITESCITES

NCSANCSA

LASLAS

EngEng

ACEACE

EdEd

2. IT staff are all over the org chart.

6

3. Current “design logic” has both strengths and weaknesses

Strengths

• Agility at department level• Customization-friendly• Quick to innovate• Technically diverse• Responsive to faculty• Local control of spending• Autonomous IT staff can

optimize for unit

Weaknesses• Lack of agility as a campus• Duplication-prone• Slow to spread innovation• Technically fragmented• Not responsive to strategy• No overall control/oversight• Autonomous IT staff can

weaken overall fabric

More strengths

Fewer tradeoffs

What We Hope For

Personalized, responsive IT support for all students, faculty, and staff

More strengths

Fewer tradeoffs

What We Hope For

What We Hope For

Personalized, responsive IT support for all students, faculty, and staff

Unit Executive Officers able to make autonomous decisions about their programs

More strengths

Fewer tradeoffs

What We Hope For

Personalized, responsive IT support for all students, faculty, and staff

Campus leadership able to act with agility to find resources for emerging needs

Unit Executive Officers able to make autonomous decisions about their programs

More strengths

Fewer tradeoffs

What We Hope For

Personalized, responsive IT support for all students, faculty, and staff

Campus leadership able to act with agility to find resources for emerging needs

Unit Executive Officers able to make autonomous decisions about their programs

IT staff able to contribute much more fully

More strengths

Fewer tradeoffs

What We Hope For

Personalized, responsive IT support for all students, faculty, and staff

Campus leadership able to act with agility to find resources for emerging needs

Unit Executive Officers able to make autonomous decisions about their programs

IT staff able to contribute much more fully

More strengths

Fewer tradeoffs

What We Need

More strengths

Fewer tradeoffs

New “Design Logic” fo

r

IT@Illinois

What Happens Next

• Work underway around issues surfaced by IT professionals

• Data center strategy• E-learning strategy• Campus cyberinfrastructure review

• Active search for faculty participants

• Active solicitation of input from stakeholders, including nonparticipants in design process

Process: Everything in the open, participation unrestricted

• Phase I: conceptualization– Symposium & 5 workshops– 70+ White Papers, 5 Concepts, online debate– Panel review of Concepts as a preliminary

solution set• Phase 2: new participants fill in solution set;

develop implementation plans to test solution viability; conduct pilots if possible

• Phase 3: more new participants evaluate, negotiate, plan transitions

IT@ILLINOIS:A Resource use initiative

Academic Senate

April 27, 2009