• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
IT and U: Discussion with LSU Transition Advisory Team
 

IT and U: Discussion with LSU Transition Advisory Team

on

  • 1,387 views

Presentation at the April 29, 2013 meeting of the Technology Task Force.

Presentation at the April 29, 2013 meeting of the Technology Task Force.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,387
Views on SlideShare
280
Embed Views
1,107

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

1 Embed 1,107

http://sites01.lsu.edu 1107

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Drupal – Open source content management systemCoupa – Financial applicationsEloqua – marketing info system (owned by Oracle)
  • The most widely accepted representation atkins diagramCross cutting institutional pieces
  • SURVEY QUESTION:

IT and U: Discussion with LSU Transition Advisory Team IT and U: Discussion with LSU Transition Advisory Team Presentation Transcript

  • IT and UDiscussion withLouisiana State UniversityTransition Advisory TeamApril 29, 2013Jerrold M. GrochowSome materials © 2012,2013 Jerrold M. Grochow LLC
  • Topics for discussion• What I was told you are interested in:– What does the future of IT look like?– On-line learning (MOOCs, etc.) and policyimplications– Involvement of IT in research– Where do you need to go next?– How will organizational culture be impacted?2
  • Drivers of the discussion3• Building toward ―LSU2015‖• Becoming globally competitive• Cost savings
  • 4IT is everywhere!• IT is in…– Research equipment from electron microscopes to telescopes,from local controls to remote controls– Data analysis from Shakespeare‘s sonnets to protein folding toresource development– Teaching, via simulations and multimedia tools– Academic administration from class lists to grade lists tograduation lists– Operations from security to air conditioning to maintenance– Financial management from grant applications to paychecks tothe Treasurer‘s report
  • EDUCAUSE “Top 10 Issues for 2011”1. Funding IT2. Administrative/ERP/Information Systems3. Teaching and Learning with Technology4. Security5. Mobile Technologies6. Agility/Adaptability/Responsiveness7. Governance, Portfolio/Project Management8. Infrastructure/Cyberinfrastructure9. Disaster Recovery / Business Continuity10. Strategic Planning5
  • EDUCAUSE “Top 10 Issues for 2012”1. Updating IT staff skills and roles2. Supporting consumerization of IT3. Institution-wide cloud strategy4. Improving the institutions operational efficiency5. Integrating IT into decision-making6. Using analytics to support critical institutional outcomes7. Funding information technology strategically8. Transforming the institutions business9. Supporting the research mission10.IT governance6
  • 2012-2011 Comparison1. Updating IT staff skills and roles2. Supporting consumerization of IT3. Institution-wide cloud strategy4. Improving the institutionsoperational efficiency5. Integrating IT into decision-making6. Using analytics to support criticalinstitutional outcomes7. Funding information technologystrategically8. Transforming the institutionsbusiness9. Supporting the research mission10.IT governance1. Funding IT (including multi-year)2. Administrative/ERP systems3. Teaching and learning withtechnology4. Security5. Mobile technologies6. Agility/adaptability/responsiveness7. Governance, portfolio/projectmanagement8. Infrastructure/cyberinfrastructure9. Disaster recovery / businesscontinuity10. Strategic planning (ITs role in aswell as for IT)72012 2011
  • More emphasis on institutional concerns• Improving the institutions operational efficiency• Integrating IT into decision-making• Using analytics to support critical institutional outcomes• Transforming the institutions business• Supporting the research mission IT is integrated into everything the university does andwants to be part of the discussion!8
  • SO WHERE DOES THISBRING US?9
  • Our topics for today (subject to change)• ERP implementation (a case study)• MOOCs• IT in support of research• ―Big Data‖ and analytics• Moving to ―The Cloud‖• Reducing costs of IT• Strategic planning for IT10
  • ERP IMPLEMENTATION:A CASE STUDY11
  • Reengineering at MIT: “A Journey”12Community input is crucialReengineering set to begin;teams, consultant namedNovember 22, 1993
  • 1993!• This was 20 years ago.• ―Reengineering‖ was thenew thing…• A lot has changed since then, but we canstill learn from what happened.13
  • Why re-engineer?• In short, because of the need to cut costs!―MIT, along with the other great research universities ofthe nation, has been faced with the real prospect ofdeclining revenues from federally sponsored research…At the same time we have seen a marked increase in thecompetition for available research dollars and lesswillingness by federal sponsors to reimburse for indirectcosts…‖[Faculty Newsletter May/June 1995]14
  • The faculty asked good questions…• Goal of re-engineering: ―to provide the best possibleservices to faculty and students as efficiently aspossible‖ (Tech Talk, May 1, 1995)– But what is ―best‖ in this context and who is to say?– How are the intended efficiencies to be attained?– At what costs,and to whom?– How are the results to be measured?• How can we measure whether or not increasing ―efficiency‖ compromisesacademic excellence?– Can the quality teaching and research programs we are knownfor survive the present frenzy of cost-cutting?– Which programs can we afford to lose?» [Faculty Newsletter May/June 1995]15
  • What did the administration say…―Many faculty have criticized the business orientation ofreengineering, arguing that it is an inappropriate matchfor an educational and research enterprise. Yet many ofMIT‘s administrative processes operate very much liketheir corporate counterparts…‖[Faculty Newsletter May/June 1995]16
  • 18 months into BPR…17―President Charles M. Vest will talk aboutthe budget- administrative re-engineeringas an opportunity to maintain MIT‘sleadership, and [address] the fear of losingwhat is perceived as ‗good‘ about MIT aswe re-engineer and the Corporation‘s[Board of Trustees] strong support formoving forward…‖
  • And, new systems were required…"Theres no question that almost all major researchuniversities are adopting new, comprehensive fiscalmanagement systems -- and any system, no matter howgood, is going to require some difficult cultural changesfrom its users. I know that the process of adapting anddeploying SAP hasnt been easy, yet agreeing on asingle central system was necessary. Many of ourdecentralized systems in departments, labs and centerswere facing technical obsolescence. Without acentralized effort, we would now be undergoing dozensof uncoordinated upgrading projects.‖[Vice President for Finance in Tech Talk, June 1998]18
  • A short history of ERP at MIT191993: Re-engineeringwith joint IS1996: SAPbecomes―system ofrecord‖(central use)1998: SAProll out todepartments;DataWarehouseimplemented1999: Neworg (FSS)created tomaintainSAP2000: Payrollstudy teamrecommendsSAP2001: MajorSAP upgrade2002-3: SAPBenefits/HRmodulesimplemented2003: PayrollBPR started;FSS mergedwith IS tobecome IS&T2006: SAPPayrollimplemented2009: SAPPayrollenhancementprojectcontinuesJerry Grochow appointedVP for IS&T
  • SAPIndependentLaboratorySAPRolesSecurityDatabaseDataWarehouseLegacy Systems(GL feeds)Benefits ProvidersExternalFinancialInstitutionsEDI(POs, Invoices,Benefits Enrollment)FI - Financial Accounting• General Ledger• Accounts Payable• Accounts Receivable• Funds Management• Master data, Auths• Fixed Assets Depreciation• Real Estate Mgmt• Travel (MIT developed)• Cashier System (MITdeveloped)CO – Controlling• Cost Center Accounting• General funds• Internal OrderAccounting• Gift funded, incl.Endowment• Project Systems• Sponsored Research• Capital Software Proj• Product Costing• Cost Distributions• Overheads• Settlements• Distributions/Allocations• CO Plans (Deptbudgets)PCA - Profit Ctr Account.• Reporting Hierarchies &AuthorizationsMIT SAP Applications and Major Integration PointsMM - Material Management• Purchasing• Receiving• Goods Movement• Release Strategies• Inventory Management• Barcoding• Logistics InvoiceVerification• E-commerce• ECAT II• Internal ProvidersPM – Plant Maintenance• Repair & PM Work Orders• PM Plans & Task Lists• EquipmentPP - Production Planning• Long Term Planning• MRP• Process OrdersQM - Quality Management• Master InspectionCharacteristics• Inspection Plans• Inspection Lots• Statistical Process ControlSD - Sales and Distribution• Sponsored BillingHR - Human Resources• Personnel Management &Administration• Organizational Mgmt.• Benefits Administration• Training and Events MgmtPY – Payroll• Pension Payroll• Employee & StudentPayroll• Time Entry/Evaluation• Payroll Processing• FI Posting• Salary DistributionEHS - Environment,Health & Safety• Space Registration (WorkAreas)• Incident Accident Log –Inspections & CorrectiveActionsCA – Cross Application• Workflow• EDI / ALE• Document Mgt &Archivelink• Imaging, Archiving• Classification System• Release Strategies• Order master dataSAPWEB Self ServiceBudgetingSystemIndependentLaboratory SAPResearchAdministrationSystemSAP ITS• Parking Pass• Time Approv• TuitionAssistance• Benefits• Directory• Training• JV• Req• UPI• Repair• Env.Health• Time Entry• Dir DepositSAP-WEBOAS
  • Systems on a Page (Vers. 0.1)
  • What did it cost? How much will it save?―Core Team estimated that redesigning all of the recommendedprocesses might reduce administrative costs by approximately $43million gross [20% of studied costs]…[beginning in FY1999][Faculty Newsletter May/June 1995]• Expected investment: $40-43 million [1993-1998]• $28M spent by end of FY1996– $14M SAP implementation– $6-7M consultants (CSC Index) for process redesign– $6-7M layoff costs (expected 600+ layoffs)– $2-3M training of existing personnel• Raised overhead rates ―temporarily‖ by 6.5% (to 58.5%) to partiallycover this– F&A rose as high as 68% after 2008 and is now 56%22
  • So what is happening in higher ed now?• Movement away from ―big bang‖ ERP projects– Too costly, too risky• Movement toward Enterprise Architectureapproach– Integration of components– Standard APIs– ―Best of breed‖– Open source / ―community source‖ / ―cloud source‖• Kuali Foundation, including Indiana University, Maryland,Arizona State, University of Arizona, Carnegie Mellon,Cornell, Yale, Berkeley, Purdue, UNC, University of SouthernCalifornia
  • Potentially very large savings24
  • The “New” ModelWorkdaySales-forceConcurPeopleSoftCOEUSFinancialSystem―ON-CAMPUS‖ClearCommerceInternet―INTHE CLOUD‖[Names are examples]
  • “Integration with the cloud” is becoming aproduct category26[Names are examples]
  • Future State Vision (Vers. 0.1)Service Integration LayerDataSecurity ServicesServicesData & Business Integration LayerAdministrative ServicesERP ServicesAcademic ServicesStudent InformationServicesApplicationsUser InterfacesAuthenticationServicesAuthorizationServicesLearning Services Research ServicesApplicant PortalGrantManagementPayrollFinance BudgetHR PurchasingApplicants Students Alumni FacultyStaffCore ServicesList Management ServicesContent ManagementServicesE-Commerce ServicesDirectory & DemographicServicesIdentity ServicesEMail and MessagingServicesExternal IntegrationServicesArchival ServicesCollaboration ServicesMapping and LocationServicesExtended CommunityFacilitiesMedicalPresidentsOfficeEH & S Admissions Student AlumniLibraryContentManagementLearningManagementTechnologyLicensingStudent PortalStand Alone GUIInterfaceStand Alone WebInterfaceAlumni PortalExtended CommunityPortal(s)Faculty PortalStaff PortalResourceDevelopmentFinanceDataHRDataFacilitiesDataGrantsDataMedicalDataStudentDataLearningDataResearchDataLibraryDataDataWarehouse
  • Put the “Critical Success Factors”in place…• ―Compelling vision‖• Strong executive leadership• Well defined scope• Commitment of staff– Time from people already doing their jobs - at all managementlevels• Commitment of funding– No matter how you do it, it won‘t be cheap• Comprehensive project and change management28
  • MASSIVELY OPEN ON-LINECOURSES (MOOCs)29
  • A short course in MOOCs (1)• Massively (100K+ students per course)• Open (available to all, mostly free)• Online (over the Internet)• Course (not just materials)• ―A MOOC is a catalyst for [gaining]knowledge.‖[David Cormier, first to use the term ―MOOC‖ in 2008]30
  • A short course in MOOCs (2)• Registrations 30,000-100,000+ per course• 10% overall completion rate– BUT, 45% completion for students who actuallysubmit the first assignment– At Coursera, 70% completion rate for students in the$50 ―Signature Track‖ program» Chronicle of Higher Education, 4/8/201331
  • A short course in MOOCs (3)• Growing field working with universities:– edX, Coursera (for profit), Udacity (for profit), NovoEd(for profit), others…• Growing field without universities:– Khan Academy, Peer2Peer University, ALISON (forprofit), Udemy (for profit), others…• Growing field providing technology:– edX, Google, Desire2Learn, Class2Go (merged withedX), others32
  • Implications for higher ed (1)Contentcreation (andcertification ofcourses)TeachingLearning(includingassessment)Socializationof knowledge(integratingspecificknowledgeinto a largercontext)Credentialingof students33Separation of function:How does the role of thefaculty change?
  • Implications for higher ed (2)• ―Are online teaching innovations, such as MOOCs,heralding a change in the business landscape that posesa threat to their existing models of provision of degreecourses?‖• ―MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher Education,‖Li Yuan and Stephen Powell (UK JISC CETIS)• Role of entrepreneurs (and venture capitalists)• Profit-making organizations vs. non-profits34
  • Things to think about: Intended audience• Current students• New students with similar characteristics• Students with different characteristics(different/under-served populations)• Third world35
  • Things to think about: Economics• Cost of developing a MOOC course is high($200-400K per course)• No currently viable revenue source• Partnering with a platform provider will bekey– edX spending $60M (already has 60+ staff)– Millions in venture capital committed36
  • Things to think about: Organization• New post within the university– MIT: Director of Digital Learning– Stanford: Vice Provost for Online Learning• New organization– ―…the theory of disruptive innovation suggests thatthere is a strong argument for establishing anautonomous business unit in order to make anappropriate response to these potentially disruptiveinnovations.‖ [―MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for HigherEducation‖]• E.g. EdX37
  • Things to think about: Change!• How will classes change?– ―Inverted classroom‖• What is the role of the faculty?– ―Sage on the stage‖– ―Guide on the side‖• What is the role of the residentialuniversity?– Teaching/learning vs. educating38
  • IT IN SUPPORT OFRESEARCH39
  • What is IT in support of research?• High Performance Computing (HPC)– Compute cycles, lots of them!• Data, data analysis tools (includingvisualization and data ―curation‖)• Virtual organization for distributedcommunities of researchers– Collaboration tools• Learning and workforce development» [NSF Cyberinfrastructure Vision, 2007]40
  • NSF Report on Cyberinfrastructure[“Atkins Report” 2003]
  • Pillars of campus cyberinfrastructure• High Performance Computing and Communications– Identify needs, issues, opportunities in advanced computing,networking and enhanced support facilities• Data Life Cycle– Examine issues connected with data handling, storage, retrieval,partnerships, collaborations, campus library• Virtual Communities– Social and technical issues surrounding evolving distributedcommunities and the use of software and systems to keep themconnected• Funding Agencies– Enhance cyberinfrastructure partnerships between federalagencies and higher education institutions42
  • 43
  • 44
  • Central IT Services for Research[EDUCAUSE Core Data Survey 2011]0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Services to other institutionsCyberinfrastructureHPC and relatedSupport for grantsContent supportCommunity-buildingR&E network accessHP networkStorage & hostingData managementVideoconferencingDRMABA LABA otherAAInstitutional type averages[The break in the bar represents the overall average for higher education]
  • Current model at many universities…• Individual investigator control– ―Local optimization‖ maximizes research value• Customization, queuing policy, software licensing• Financial model– Capital investment when funding ample; very low cost whenfunding scarce– ―Hidden costs‖– renovation, power, cooling• Efficiency– Rarely have professional staff– Rarely recover benefits of shared experience46
  • Hypothetical “extreme” shared model• Large, centrally managed facility locatednear inexpensive power source• Designed and managed by professionalstaff implementing best practices• Bill for computer usage47
  • Observation: “one size doesn’t fit all”• Perhaps some extreme model might be an excellentsolution for a large fraction of people who use computerresources (smaller fraction of the actual cycles used oncampus)• Others would require a more specialized solution– High data throughput needs to localized equipment– Specialized architectures and systems– Research optimization– Interactive computing and visualization48
  • OC11MIT’s complex needs demanded acomprehensive and strategic approachMITHPCCBatesW91Operational now (~ 1yr)Move Admin racks to MarkleyHouse small # of HPC racksOperational in 2009Renovate existing buildingHouse 70 - 80 HPC racksNo earlier than 2011+Build energy-efficient facilityHouse 150+ HPC racksIncrease capacity over timeDLCsLimited Small HPCStart-up HPCsHouse small HPC racks[As of 9/2008]49
  • 50So where does this bring us?• Shifting from 20th century model of research(individual contributor) to 21st century model(multi-university collaboration) means movingaway from dependence on (and acceptance of)individual researchers individually providingcomputing, communications, and collaborationsupport to institutional level support.• It does not imply central control. It does notimply ―one size fits all.‖• But it does imply coordination and organization.
  • BIG DATA & ANALYTICS51
  • The Rise of “Big Data” (Davenport)• What is it?– Too big (petabytes), too unstructured or too diverse(mashups) to be analyzed by conventional means– Internet/social media• Where does it come from?– Genomics, voice and video, sensors– Continuous flow of data• What is to be done with it?– Structure, filter, count and classify, then analyze– Build models but modify based on analysis of movingdata52
  • What is “Big Data”?• Volume– Terabytes to petabytesto exabytes• Velocity– Generation speed• Variety– Structured, unstructured• Value• Variability• Veracity (quality)53
  • What is “analytics”?• Value-focused data analysis– Predictive modeling, optimization – not just statistics• Leading to data-driven decision-making• A component of ―business intelligence‖– Collection, management, reporting, analytics• Characterized by research and experimentation54
  • What is “analytics”?• EDUCAUSE definition:– Analytics is the use of data, statisticalanalysis, and explanatory and predictive modelsto gain insights and act on complex issues.• In academic research from astronomy togenomics and physics to zoology!• Holy Grail in business: ―Dynamic real-timebusiness optimization‖55
  • Where does analytics provide value?• Analytics has been part of academicresearch for a long time, leading to newinsights and other discoveries.• The value of analytics in business is interms of ―understanding‖ theorganization, the business, and thecustomers– Also important to universities!56
  • Where does analytics provide value?• Improve outcomes of research or academics[Learning Analytics; Research Analytics]– Goal: Improve outcomes of research or teaching• Improved operations [Operational Analytics]– Goal: Reduce costs• Grow the existing business [Product Analytics]– Goal: Increase revenues• Innovation– Goal: Create new businesses or sources of revenue57
  • Providing value through analytics(heard at the ECAR Symposium 2012)• Budgeting and financial planning (reducingexpenses)• Transforming the curriculum• Developing personally optimizededucation and advising• Providing measures and metrics withvalidity across institutions• Using analytics for resource allocation [??]58
  • Critical Success Factors for business analytics• Focus on analytics that have value to thebusiness• Pressing business need• Choosing the right first problem• Clearly defined objectives• Availability of data / data quality• Executive leadership/sponsorship• Committed, knowledgeable people• Communication/education59
  • Critical “un-success” factors• Attempting to do everything at once• Investing excessive resources on analytics that have minimalimpact on the business.• Choosing the wrong problem, not understanding the problemsufficiently, using the wrong analytical technique• Focusing excessively on one dimension of analytical capability(e.g. too much technology)• Automating decision-based applications without carefullymonitoring outcomes and external conditions...‖[Tom Davenport, Competing on Analytics, p. 129]60
  • Other issues• Change management– Introducing analytics isn‘t so different fromintroducing other new management processes• Assessment– of implementation (how will you know when youare an ―analytic organization‖?)– assessment of value of analytic program vs.goals• Future technology challenges– HPC, cloud, anywhere-anytime analysis– Unstructured data,―big data‖61
  • MOVING TO “THE CLOUD”62
  • WHY SHOULD I CARE?• Much of IT is moving to the cloud• The rules are different in the cloud• Moving to the cloud opens new risks to your institution• New skills are needed to manage IT in the cloud• By and large, the central IT organization isn‘t controlling themove• You can‘t ignore it!… but ―knowledge is power‖ and you can take action!63
  • The cloud represents the next in a series ofmajor shifts in the way computing resourcesare provided64
  • Brief History lesson: Computing ModelsCOMPUTEDATASTORAGEINPUT /OUTPUT65
  • Computing Models: Mainframe EraCOMPUTEDATASTORAGEINPUT /OUTPUTMainframe: everything done in the machine, in one place, users came to it.66
  • Computing Models: The “Cloud” EraUser connected via a complex networkto multiple computers (servers) viaall sorts of devicesCOMPUTEDATASTORAGECOMPUTEDATASTORAGEInternet67
  • Types of cloud services:“XaaS” (“X as a service”)• Infrastructure (IaaS)• Like buying bare bones hardware• Platform (PaaS)• Adds pre-configured operating system and othersoftware as defined by the services• Software (SaaS)• Buying access to specific software (e.g.SalesForce, WorkDay, financial systems, learningmanagement systems – anything!)68
  • Types of clouds…• Public Cloud– Generic; open to all• Private Cloud– Created by or for a single institution• ―Community Cloud‖– Features specific to a community• Hybrid/Extension Cloud– Using public or community cloud to provide additional capacity toa private cloud69
  • Moving to the (public) cloud: what’sdifferent?• From ―owning resources‖ to ―deploying services‖• From ―technical management‖ to ―contract management‖• From ―managing IT‖ to ―managing cloud providers‖• From ―capital costs‖ to ―operational costs‖• From ―planned usage‖ to ―on-demand‖…. although not totally…70
  • Key issues related to cloud computing• Vendor• Network dependency• Data• Costs• Contracts71
  • Key issues related to cloud computing• Vendor:– Vendor dependency: ―I don‘t have the programs‖ ―I don‘t havethe data‖ – they are all with the vendor…– Termination of service: not every service will survive– Vendor immaturity: many cloud vendors are new – do they knowwhat they are doing? Who will survive?• So what happens if the worst happens?– Best to move with the pack and rely on ―the crowd‖ for vetting(that‘s what Internet2 NET+ Services is all about)– Remember that you‘re still better off than doing it yourself.72
  • Key issues related to cloud computing• Network dependency:– Reliability of service:• So what happens if the internet connection goesdown?– Best to have multiple connections to the Internet(most schools do).– Internet2 is establishing multiple direct connectionswith certain cloud vendors for reliability.73
  • Key issues related to cloud computing• Data:– Data security / privacy: how do I know that my data are safe?– Retention / use: what happens to my data when I don‘t need itany more, or even when I do?– Data location / backups: where are my data? Are their backups?• So what happens when data is breached, misused, orlost?– Contractual provisions can help (but not eliminate) the problems74
  • Key issues related to cloud computing• Costs:– Capital vs. operating costs: ―our budget model is based oncomputers as capital costs‖ ―operating costs are easier tobudget‖– Cost reimbursement: will research grants reimburse cloudcosts?– Local computing vs. cloud computing ―total cost of ownership‖(―TCO‖): is moving to the cloud really a good deal financially?• So am I saving money or not?– Establishing true TCO for local computing is very difficult(multiple budget pots, hidden subsidies, etc.)– Reimbursement is on the cusp of change.75
  • Key issues related to cloud computing• Contracts:– Negotiating: will vendors ―give‖ on standard provisions?– Institutional liability: ―I can‘t agree to any institutions liability foractions of students and staff‖– Institutional vs. individual control of services: who actually signsup for the service?– Managing contractual commitments / negotiations / regulatorycompliance: contracts are complex!• So how do I ensure good contracting?– The community is coming together to help: CSG, Internet2 NET+– Hold fast to your needs and sign the ―common‖ contract76
  • What’s a campus to do? Start now!Create a campus strategy for internal &external cloud services.Create a ―cloud first‖ culture by partneringwith legal and procurement teams.Restructure internal processes and policieswith cloud in mind.Develop positions that focus on CloudProduct Management: Create new orreposition existing positions to get started.
  • What’s a campus to do? Start now!Develop a campus identity solution built onopen standards. Join the 500+ campuses inInCommon.org.Support competition for services so there arechoices—but constrained, not unlimitedchoices.Evaluate Internet2 NET+ opportunities.Examine your own portfolios and considerwhich projects could benefit from NET+scale.
  • REDUCING COSTS OF ITSeveral ways of looking at…79
  • How to look at IT expenditures• By service– Network, email, ERP, academic computing, etc.• By department doing the spending (central vs. local)• By institutional activity supported– Administration, teaching, research• By function– Infrastructure, programming, customer support, etc.• By …80
  • How to look at IT expenditures…Operations~40%Maintenance~40%NewServices~20%Definitions:Operations = Performing a function in the course of carrying out or delivering IT services.Maintenance = Upgrading IT services or replacing IT equipment so that current functionality & purpose is maintained.New Services = Introducing IT services that do not exist or upgrading existing services so that new functionality is provided.81
  • Types of Cost Reductions• General spending reductions – reductions that do notrequire process changes– Generates small to moderate cost reductions• Changes to the way we do business – reductions thatresult from changing how we do things– Potential for major cost reductions• Deferred spending – put off spending until a future date– Cost savings in current year, may result in higher cost infuture, not really a savings to institution82
  • How can you reduce costs in IT?• ―Economy of scale‖– Large data centers rather than small• ―Economy of expertise‖– One email system rather than a dozen• ―Economy of source‖– Outsource, off-shore, open source• ―Economy of delivery‖– Self-service83
  • How can you reduce costs in IT?• ―Economy of scale‖– Let Google* do it• ―Economy of expertise‖– Let Google* do it• ―Economy of source‖– Let Google* do it• ―Economy of delivery‖– Let everyone do it![*If not Google, then one of its competitors]84
  • Changing service levels can also reduce costs…• Productivity improvements requiring major capitalinvestment could impact costs and/or service levelsin different ways.ServiceCostSame ServiceDecrease CostCapital InvestmentRequired:* Some** More*** Most********
  • So what to do?• Some of these approaches are easy(easier) for a corporation, but may bedifficult for a university.• Need a realistic assessment of what canbe accomplished– Modified ―Goldilocks approach‖• Some things are easy: DO THEM• Some things are difficult: DON‘T DO THEM• Some things are in the middle: PLAN FOR THEM86
  • INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYSTRATEGIC PLANNINGWhere do you need to go next?87
  • What is strategic planning all about?Determining wherewe want to be in thefutureDetermining wherewe are nowDetermining whatdrives us to thefuture88
  • What drives our approach to IT?• Institutional priorities• Technological change• Desired technology leadership level89
  • 90Focusing on education’sstrategic drivers…Integration of StudentLiving and Education On-line EducationResearch FundingGlobalization /InternationalizationThe Residential CampusOptimization ofFinancial Resources
  • 91Technology areas of focus (2+ years)The Cloud Integrated Communicationsand ComputationIdentity Management Security and PrivacyBig Data Administrativeand eCommerce systems―Consumerization of IT‖(End-user Computing)
  • Where do you want to be onthe “technology leadership” scale?VisionaryLeadingEdge‖Standard‖LaggingLeader-shipTech Area92
  • Technology Leadership Scale (Example)VisionaryLeadingEdge‖Standard‖Lagging93
  • What drives our approach to IT?Institutional Context“StrategicPriorities”fromuniversitystrategic plan“StrategicPriorities”from facultyand studentinput“StrategicPriorities”from peersand emergingtrendsStrategic Areas of FocusAssess currentlevel oftechnologyAssess desiredlevel oftechnologyStrategic ObjectivesOutcomes Value and impact94
  • …all components are linked togetherAdministrativeSystems Strategic Plan“Living the Future”StrategyIT StrategicPrinciplesEducational TechnologyPlanningStudent SystemsStrategic PlanTelephony TransitionEnterpriseArchitectureGuideNetwork and OperationsPlanningResearchCyberInfrastructure95
  • FITS 2011Many of the recommendations in the Flagship IT Strategy 2011exemplify the strategic concerns we have discussed today.
  • Riding the “crest of the wave”…an exciting and challenging place to be!
  • Thank you, and GO TIGERS!Jerrold M. Grochowjerry@jerroldgrochow.com