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