Published on

1 Comment
  • Find coupons for your hosting. Get a promo deal before you purchase hosting http://www.scriptcoupons.com/Vps.net/
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Dark Ages & IT Fiefdoms (pre-2004): Every College & Admin Division had their own IT tribe Enlightenment (2004-2005): Two Colleges, One Admin Division, & Library willing to test new IT management models Reflection Creating a New Future for IT@CSUEB (2006): Centrally-coordinated/locally-directed Transition Plan (2006) Service Level Agreements Living the New Model (2007-Present): IT Staff Values, Alignment & IT@CSUEB Strategic Plan Win-win Outcomes Lessons Learned
  • Next Provost Council meeting, delighted dean shares success story with other deans And, a second dean wants “in” CIO and second dean revise (tweak) the MOU 3 months later (1 st Quarterly Review) the dean and CIO are delighted with results Library plus one administrative division become frustrated with local IT management performance VP and University Librarian ask CIO for assistance CIO, Librarian, and VP revise (tweak) the MOU 3 months later (1 st Quarterly Review) the Librarian, VP, and CIO are delighted with results News of these successes spreads quickly; Reactions are mixed (some fear the potential loss of local control, while others welcome the opportunity to shift responsibility to the CIO)
  • IT management approach counter-productive Duplication of systems, hardware, software, services and efforts within colleges and admin units Fragmentation of services with consequent inequities in security, capacity, quality of service and end-user experience Loss of resources that could have been used for opportunity investments
  • President, CIO, VPs, Provost & Deans reached consensus on expanding this hybrid model to the remaining admin divisions and colleges
  • These values provide a framework for effectively working together and meeting the needs of the university community. They are ideals toward which we continue to strive in our daily efforts.
  • Key Indicators : Number of critical events per managed object. Percentage of technology costs accounted for in life-cycle replacement budgets. Total cost of ownership (TCO). Challenges : Recovery from several years of resource constraints. History of uncoordinated (ad hoc) funding and procurement decisions. Actions : Coordinate university-wide infrastructure service levels, standards, architectures, consolidation, and budget planning.
  • Key Indicators : Delivery cost per service. Percentage of faculty using each service. Faculty satisfaction. Challenges : Cottage industry culture. Communications, feedback, & consultation. 24x7 support. Actions : Smart classrooms as infrastructure. Blackboard performance enhancement. Instructional design assistance for technology integration. Self-service & self-help.
  • Key Indicators : Percentage of key administrative processes online. Percentage of key student services online. Percentage of students using online services. Student satisfaction. Challenges : 24x7 support. Actions : Access to PCs & network. Audit administrative processes and student services for online access. Redesign website for student audiences. Design for self-service & self-help.
  • Web Services – 2 levels…utilizing particular skill set more efficiently, and by grouping services can serve broader population (peaks and valleys of this type of work). Accessibility, knowledge sharing. Lot of quantifiable wins, also lot of small “personal” wins – computer from HR to UA (treating as infrastructure and 1 unit, cross-collaboration), all being serviced by same mgmt, bigger picture view
  • Centrally-Coordinated/Locally-Directed:

    1. 1. Centrally-Coordinated/Locally-Directed: An Innovative IT Management Model for Decentralized Institutions John Charles Chief Information Officer California State University, East Bay Educause Western Regional Conference April 1, 2008
    2. 2. <ul><li>Copyright John Charles, 2008. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Cal State East Bay <ul><li>Public/regional university </li></ul><ul><li>3 campuses </li></ul><ul><li>14,000 students </li></ul><ul><li>26 computer labs </li></ul><ul><li>3,500 desktop & laptop computers </li></ul><ul><li>215 servers </li></ul><ul><li>120 IT staff </li></ul><ul><li>IT budget $15M </li></ul>
    4. 4. Pathway to Transformation <ul><li>Dark Ages & IT Fiefdoms (pre-2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Enlightenment (2004-2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Reflection </li></ul><ul><li>Creating a New Future for IT@CSUEB (2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Transition Plan (2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Service Level Agreements </li></ul><ul><li>Living the New Model (2007-Present) </li></ul>
    5. 5. Dark Ages & IT Fiefdoms
    6. 6. Dark Ages & IT Fiefdoms (pre-2004) <ul><li>Twelve decentralized IT tribes </li></ul><ul><li>One central IT tribe – camped out within Academic Affairs </li></ul><ul><li>Uncoordinated (ad hoc) IT funding and budget allocations </li></ul><ul><li>No culture of accountability </li></ul>
    7. 7. Enlightenment
    8. 8. Enlightenment (2004) <ul><li>Crisis occurred in one college – suddenly without an IT director </li></ul><ul><li>Panicked dean called CIO for help </li></ul><ul><li>CIO and dean drafted a MOU to test a radically different IT support model for the college </li></ul><ul><li>3 months later (1 st Quarterly Review) the dean and CIO were delighted with results </li></ul>
    9. 9. Enlightenment (2005-2006) <ul><li>After dean shares success story, another dean wanted “in” </li></ul><ul><li>Library plus one administrative division frustrated with local IT management situation </li></ul><ul><li>News of these successes spreads quickly </li></ul>
    10. 10. Reflection
    11. 11. Reflection <ul><li>Our old IT management approach had become counterproductive </li></ul><ul><li>We could no longer afford to waste our resources on duplication and fragmentation </li></ul><ul><li>But, we could not embrace a centralization model that would not be agile and responsive enough to adapt to an ever-changing IT landscape and the needs of all colleges/units </li></ul>
    12. 12. Reflection <ul><li>Successes with a hybrid model – the best of both worlds, centralization and decentralization </li></ul><ul><li>Critical success factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Operational excellence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Helpful/supportive relationships </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open-minded, receptive collaboration </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Creating a New Future for IT@CSUEB: “Centrally-coordinated, locally-directed”
    14. 14. Creating a New Future <ul><li>“ Centrally-coordinated” is facilitated by: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All assigned to same unit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All have direct access university resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All supervised by professional IT managers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Centrally funding IT infrastructures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Semi-annual in-progress-reviews </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Creating a New Future <ul><li>“ Locally-directed” is accomplished by: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborating with Deans & VPs to create local IT plans </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintaining distributed locations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Affirming local authority to establish the work priorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Including Deans & VPs in recruitment and performance review processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enabling Deans & VPs to purchase higher levels of support services </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Creating a New Future <ul><li>University & Unit-Level “Wins” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinating, aligning, and managing IT investments efficiently and effectively </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establishing the requisite dual accountabilities for the new IT@CSUEB collaboration to be successful </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Deans & VPs – Establishing Priorities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>IT Management Team – Delivering Results </li></ul></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Transition Plan
    18. 18. Transition Plan: Governance <ul><li>CIO appointed to Cabinet and Provost’s Council </li></ul><ul><li>University IT advisory committee shifted its focus to strategic planning and policy advice </li></ul><ul><li>Use of steering committees for major initiatives </li></ul>
    19. 19. Transition Plan: Action List <ul><li>Communication & consultation </li></ul><ul><li>Service level agreements (SLAs) </li></ul><ul><li>Needs-assessments & skills-inventories </li></ul><ul><li>Transition agreements & budget model </li></ul>
    20. 20. Transition Plan: Resources <ul><li>Reallocation and realignment of IT resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Revise legacy service delivery structures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consolidate central and local systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus support on standard products and services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Align priorities for growth with university goals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Channel more resources towards strategic needs by streamlining the routine </li></ul>
    21. 21. Transition Plan: Staff <ul><li>Consolidate IT staffs in a manner that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is forward-looking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Considers interests of individual staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clearly communicates and documents changes in reporting relationships and job descriptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maximizes the use of reassignments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes reevaluation of compensation levels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complies with all provisions of applicable collective bargaining agreements </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. Transition Plan: Budget <ul><li>Formal IT budget allocations typically did not exist </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Actual IT expenditures for the previous year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Planned IT expenditures for the current year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Needs-based adjustments proposed for the next year </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Goal: Budget neutral </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transfer base budget allocations and responsibility for associated expenses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Goal: Centrally-fund recurring IT expenses </li></ul>
    23. 23. Transition Plan: Final Steps <ul><li>Finalized organizational and service delivery structures </li></ul><ul><li>Adjusted SLAs to final funding levels </li></ul><ul><li>Finalized position description changes and staffing reassignments </li></ul><ul><li>Coordinated staffing and funding reallocations </li></ul><ul><li>Achieved “go-live” for the new IT services division -- July 1, 2007 </li></ul>
    24. 24. Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
    25. 25. Service Level Agreements <ul><li>Core IT Infrastructure, Systems & Services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Network & Telecommunications Infrastructures SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Telephone Systems & Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NetID Identity Management Infrastructure SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Desktop Computing Infrastructure SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Email Infrastructure, Systems & Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web Hosting Infrastructure, Systems & Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Server Infrastructure, Systems & Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data Storage & Backup/Recovery Infrastructure SLA </li></ul></ul>
    26. 26. Service Level Agreements <ul><li>Academic Technology & Classroom Services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online & Hybrid Instruction Support Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Media-Enhanced Instruction & Tech Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning Management System Infrastructure & Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Smart” Classroom Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Computing Labs & Technology-Enhanced Learning Spaces SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning Commons SLA </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. Service Level Agreements <ul><li>Administrative Information Systems & Services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Student, Human Resources, & Finance Systems SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data Warehouse & Reporting Systems SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data Administration & Information Security SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery & Business Continuity Program SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project Management Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Helpdesk Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Training & Consulting Services SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Response Commitments SLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IT Planning, Assessment, & Prioritization SLA </li></ul></ul>
    28. 28. Desktop Computing Infrastructure SLA <ul><li>Responsibility </li></ul><ul><li>CIO provides lifecycle management and support for faculty/staff computers and office productivity software </li></ul><ul><li>Deans and VPs identify (and annually revalidate) computers to be included </li></ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul><ul><li>1 computer per full-time faculty/staff, plus 1 for every 3 part-time faculty/staff </li></ul><ul><li>Operating system support limited to currently-shipping version plus one generation back </li></ul><ul><li>Remote management for updates, patches, and automated backups </li></ul>Services Supported Purchase/ Install/Refresh Warranty Funding Baseline computer Hardware; op sys; office s/w Yes (4-year refresh) Yes (4-year) Central Above baseline computer Hardware; op sys; office s/w Yes (4-year refresh) Yes (4-year) Chargeback for portion above baseline Software site licenses Appendix C Yes Yes Central
    29. 29. Server Infrastructure SLA <ul><li>Responsibility </li></ul><ul><li>CIO provides lifecycle management for servers that support core instructional and administrative services </li></ul><ul><li>Deans and VPs identify (and annually revalidate) servers to be included, as well as BCP information </li></ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Located with data center </li></ul><ul><li>Consolidated when supporting commodity application systems (email, web, file, print, etc) </li></ul>Services Supported Purchase/ Install/Refresh Warranty Funding Enterprise & departmental servers Scalable clusters; Solaris; Linux; Windows Yes (4-year refresh) Yes (4-year support) Central Computing lab servers Solaris; Linux; Windows: Apple Yes (4-year refresh) Yes (4-year support) Central Specialized servers Non-standard (with training) Yes Yes Chargeback
    30. 30. “ Smart” Classroom Services SLA <ul><li>Responsibility </li></ul><ul><li>CIO provides lifecycle management for “smart” classrooms </li></ul><ul><li>Deans identify (and annually revalidate) “smart” classroom conversion and upgrade priorities </li></ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul><ul><li>100% of classrooms with seating for 10 or more students </li></ul><ul><li>Equipped with projector, screen, laptop, DVD/VHS, and wired/wireless </li></ul><ul><li>4-year refresh cycle for electronic equipment </li></ul>Services Supported Metrics Funding “ Smart” classroom conversions/upgrades Priorities approved by deans 20 new & 20 refreshed per yr Central Presentation centers & video conferencing Basic plus sound, web & video conferencing Scheduled 2 days in advance Central Delivery, pickup, & checkout services Basic plus cameras & other media devices 7:30am-10:30pm weekdays Central
    31. 31. Response SLA <ul><li>Responsibility </li></ul><ul><li>CIO provides timely and professional response to problems </li></ul><ul><li>CIO distributes timely communications about problems and response/resolution information to the campus community </li></ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Problems classified by severity level </li></ul><ul><li>Selected staff designated for on-call response </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple communications media used for distribution of status information </li></ul>Severity Level Description Business-Hrs Response After-Hrs Response Resolution Goal Show Stopper Outage with significant business impact Immediate (within 5 mins) On-call (within 1 hr) Within 2 hrs Classroom Down “ Smart” classroom failure during a live class session Immediate (within 5 mins) On-call (within 15 mins) Within 30 mins Major Outage impacting business productivity Immediate (within 5 mins) On-call (within 1 hr) Within 4 hrs Minor All other problems Within 1 hr Next business day Within 1 business day
    32. 32. Project Management SLA <ul><li>Responsibility </li></ul><ul><li>CIO provides professional project development management support services </li></ul><ul><li>VP/Dean-level executive sponsors approve functional specifications and funding plans, and designate business process owners </li></ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Project management functions performed in accordance with industry best practices </li></ul><ul><li>Projects involving major procurements must comply with CSU policies and guidelines governing formal documentation requirements, feasibility studies, methodology, etc </li></ul>Services Supported Metrics Funding Business process redesign Workflow analysis Project defined Central Project development Scope, functional specifications, and work effort & cost estimates Project defined Central Project planning Implementation, training, & communication plans Project defined Project funded Project management Manage project team activities & deliverables; manage risk On time & within budget Project funded Impact analysis Academic value added &/or ROI Project defined Project funded
    33. 33. Living the New Model (2007-Present)
    34. 34. IT Staff Values <ul><li>Within the IT Services Division, we share a common set of values as we work to accomplish our mission of supporting the academic, administrative, and co-curricular functions of Cal State East Bay. </li></ul><ul><li>We value our technology services role in the mission of the university. </li></ul><ul><li>We value exceptional customer service. </li></ul><ul><li>We value operational excellence. </li></ul><ul><li>We value helpful and supportive relationships. </li></ul><ul><li>We value a collaborative work environment and refuse to let each other fail. </li></ul><ul><li>We value professional development and accountability. </li></ul><ul><li>We value a healthy and fun work environment. </li></ul>
    35. 35. Technology Coordination <ul><li>Technology Leadership & Coordination ( TLC ) groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinate IT functions that have both centralized and distributed components </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish standard operating procedures, workflows, and best practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitate sharing of information about IT services, projects, issues, and solutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plan IT professional development activities </li></ul></ul>
    36. 36. New Support Center for Faculty <ul><li>Online & Hybrid Support Center provides coordination and support for online and hybrid (blended) instruction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One-stop support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for faculty teaching online </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resource center for deans, department chairs, and program directors </li></ul></ul>
    37. 37. Seven Mandates
    38. 38. IT@CSUEB Strategic Plan <ul><li>A solid foundation of IT infrastructure and sound fiscal planning; </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate academic & instructional technology resources and support for faculty; </li></ul><ul><li>Anywhere/anytime access to services and support for student success and engagement in campus life; and </li></ul><ul><li>The cyber-facilities required to meet the needs of specific internal and external audiences. </li></ul><ul><li>Aligns with University mandates </li></ul>
    39. 39. Win-Win Outcomes (so far…)
    40. 40. Solid Baseline Infrastructures & Sound Fiscal Planning <ul><li>No structural deficit in ITS base budget </li></ul><ul><li>Funding for 3-yr refresh of lab PCs, 4-yr refresh of faculty/staff PCs, & 4-yr refresh for servers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Left $240k expected PC cost savings ($400 per PC) in college & division budgets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dell won PC contract with $500 savings per PC ($250k total savings) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Completed implementation of office productivity & collaboration software </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Outlook, SharePoint, & IM </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Established server administration standards across the divisions </li></ul><ul><li>Storage increase from 10 TB to 30 TB (might last us another 16 to 18 months) </li></ul>
    41. 41. Solid Baseline Infrastructures & Sound Financial Planning <ul><li>100 of our 220 servers consolidated on 3 VMware servers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>plus elimination of 25 other servers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant reduction in security risks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Power savings from server consolidation: $49.2k per year </li></ul><ul><ul><li>100 servers = (39.1 kw) x (8760 hrs) x ($0.15) = $51.4k per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3 VMware servers = (1.68 kw) x (8760 hrs) x ($0.15) = $2.2k per year </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Air conditioning savings from server consolidation: 127k BTU per hour </li></ul><ul><ul><li>100 servers = (39.1 kw) x (3.4k BTU/kw-hr) = 133k BTU per hour </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3 VMware servers = (1.68 kw) x (3.4k BTU/kw-hr) = 5.7k BTU per hour </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Other systems/services being explored as infrastructure instead of unit-level (e.g., data warehouse, imaging) </li></ul>
    42. 42. Academic Technology & Faculty Support <ul><li>Life-cycle funding for Smart Classroom infrastructure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3yr refresh cycle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>remote monitoring of projector bulb life </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ clicker” response system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>podcasting & streaming (pilot this year) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Blackboard version upgrade & performance enhancement </li></ul><ul><li>Blackboard wikis & blogs </li></ul><ul><li>Consolidation of instructional tech & design support staff expanded our capacity to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support online & hybrid course design & instruction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide assistive tech support services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support emerging technologies </li></ul></ul>
    43. 43. Student Access, Success, & Technology Support <ul><li>3-yr refresh cycle for lab PCs </li></ul><ul><li>Expanded & enhanced wireless infrastructure in Library & Student Union </li></ul><ul><li>Consolidation & standardization of software licenses for computing labs </li></ul><ul><li>Outsourced student email to Google (cost avoidance $75k per year) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mailbox size 6 GB (vis-à-vis 10 MB) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Retaining csueastbay addresses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authenticate using assigned CSUEB NetID </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Self-assessment/audit of online access to key services for students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Moving key services online for 7x24 access </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New prospective student website </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Customize to audience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solicit student input (focus groups) </li></ul></ul>
    44. 44. Enhanced Capacity <ul><li>Consolidation of staff created capacity for new positions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 additional Helpdesk positions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional Web Master position </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Expanded capabilities by combining resources – enables a service-oriented, not person-oriented approach to support delivery </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web Services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Help Desk/User Support </li></ul></ul>
    45. 45. Lessons Learned
    46. 46. Lessons Learned… <ul><li>Standards of support (quality and level) can vary widely , for the (presumably) same service – people-based, rather than service-based. </li></ul><ul><li>Despite extensive discovery, you’ll find problems you didn’t know were there . </li></ul><ul><li>On the flip side, you’ll also achieve “wins” you didn’t know you could achieve . </li></ul><ul><li>Despite pleas from otherwise well-meaning administrators, do not slow down the pace of change – the swifter the better . </li></ul>
    47. 47. Lessons Learned… <ul><li>Do not underestimate the persistence of past practice relationships between individual decentralized IT staff members and supported unit administrators and staff. </li></ul><ul><li>Document new relationships, roles, and responsibilities clearly and concisely – a decision matrix for each division works well. </li></ul><ul><li>Commit to continuous process improvement –refine and restructure for maximum efficiency. </li></ul>
    48. 48. Questions? [email_address]