Committee on Information Technology
October 18, 2010
- Susan Borwick
- Ken Hoglund
- Allin Cottrell
- Brandon Turner
- David John
- Gordon McCray
- Susan Smith representing Lynn Sutton
- Pat Moran
- Perry Patterson representing Jacque Fetrow
- Rick Matthews
Jon Christman—ITEC and ITPC
Meeting started at 4:00
Item 1: Minutes of the September 20th meeting
Introduced by Susan Borwick.
Susan Borwick inquired if anyone had changes to last meeting’s minutes and seeing no opposition determined through common consent the minutes from the last CIT were approved.
Item 2: IT Governance
Introduced by Susan Borwick
Susan Borwick allowed Rick Matthews to introduce IT Governance. In February 2008 Paul Heinrichs, Tim Snyder, and Rick Matthews approached interim CIO Mike Spano and volunteered to help IS decide what to work on with priorities. Rick Matthews discovered this was in IS’s strategic plan of a year and a half earlier. Thus, the ISPC (Information Systems Partnership Council [currently ITechnologyPC]) was created. Last fall a cabinet level group, Information Technology Executive Committee (ITEC), was formed and after the SPITI committee’s report last spring the Future Technologies Group (FTG) was recommended and created as a coordination of Instructional Technology Group (ITG), Z. Smith Reynolds Library (ZSR), Teaching and Learning Center (TLC), and Information Systems (IS). Rick Matthews introduced John Borwick as the Associate Director of Continual Service Improvement. ITEC was interested in IT Governance so they turned to John Borwick and when he came back to them they rearticulated their questions and that process turned into this presentation.
John Borwick gave the presentation, which was originally presented to ITEC in April and reflects the situation at that date.
Governance: Risk e.g. PCI compliance, credit cards
Strategy: This would be the ideal state; I don’t know how to get there
Architecture: How Wake Forest will make ideal state happen
Capability Planning: What do we need to be good at in order to get to the ideal state
Strategy “we want robots”
Governance “that’s not a good use of university money”
Providers – Supply – Architecture and Capability Planning
Consumers – Demand—Governance and Strategy
- Academic: teaching, learning, scholarship (CIT)
- Administrative: support administrative units of university (ITPC)
- E.g. decide an IT security officer is necessary and he or she should report to Legal and HR, not IS
Susan Smith inquired if ITPC was still prioritizing a list of IS items, and John Borwick replied ITPC no longer strives for an ordered list, but assures that each quarter’s IS portfolio is aligned with university needs. Now IS brings macro level projects for review and ITPC makes the decision. Rick Matthews added: A team of people are meeting with ITPC and capturing overall importance in areas and between areas and going to ITPC to see if the IS is doing this correctly. The Portfolio Management Office of IS (PMO) is the face of this interface.
Susan Borwick suggested revising the CIT membership to include a member of ITPC, adding that future discussion would be necessary to identify how this person would be selected. Rick Matthews commented on looking over the process for representation of ITPC on CIT, CIT on ITPC, and ITEC? Susan Borwick asked Jon Christman if it works well that CIT, ITEC, and ITPC all have one person on all the committees and Jon Christman answered it is important to go back to the beginning and look at each committee’s representation especially if they become University Committees e.g. CIT was originally designed for undergraduates. John Borwick commented that communication is critical even if it is asynchronous e.g. FYIs. John Borwick noted that ITEC is not a steam valve; it is only involved on issues that span the whole University. Susan Borwick commented that this makes it easier for CIT to be a University committee.
John Borwick stated ITEC advises the Provost.
Jon Christman inquired about the advising nature of the FTG and Rick Matthews responded the FTG has no authority—it is to coordinate departments on campus offering information technology and it will be effective in that it adds value and is respected by those departments represented. Allin Cottrell wondered if suppliers committees are internal to IS and John Borwick responded that the idea is ITGs, TLC, IS, and ZSR all provide IT services so the FTG is a good place to have discussions like: 1. IS wants Wordpress training, does anyone else want to go? 2. Wake Forest will need _____ does anyone want to get good at it?
John Borwick stated Academic IT Suppliers Committee is the riskiest because it is not currently in place.
John Borwick stated if FTG thinks something is cool it will contact CIT and CIT will say either 1. Yes this should happen before____ or 2. Yes, but these other things should happen first. This design has a lot of groups but the idea is that they will increase communication and increase the rate at which things get done.
Susan Smith brought up the issue of communication and wondered if it should be more widely disseminated. Allin Cottrell noted that having minutes on the web is a good idea. [NOTE: CIT minutes are now on the public CIT website.]
Gordon McCray introduced the question of how durable the committee composition will be over time and how much churn is there and should there be. John Borwick answered that the chairs of the committees should meet to decide the answers to these questions and to decide whether information should be private/committee/inter-committee/university/or public.
Gordon McCray suggested turnover should be high to increase representation but identified he does not have research. Gordon McCray stated ITEC’s positions are through roles whereas CIT’s positions are representative and can churn more. Rick Matthews stated that having CIT be annual positions and ITEC as more than 1 year positions is a disadvantage to the academic side, and a solution could be to have two members with staggered starting and stopping times. Susan Borwick added this procedure is used for student representation on CIT.
Perry Patterson suggested a non-survey method of forum with a focus to influence questions.
Susan Borwick stated the CIT does report to the College faculty and inquired if reports should also go to the Schools of Business, School of Law, School of Medicine, and add these parameters to the bylaws. Gordon McCray noted that CIT currently reports to the Schools of Business on its own volition. Rick Matthews recommended figuring out what is CIT’s sustainable model for being on ITEC and ITPC. Rick Matthews noted the CIT bylaws don’t detail what the group spends 90% of its work on and what is 90% of its worth. Rick Matthews included this facet is not a part of the CIT’s official duties and responsibilities, and ITEC invited CIT to revisit this. Susan Smith inquired where are the duties and responsibilities and Rick Matthews answered on last meeting’s minutes, on the CIT website, and in the Faculty Handbook.
Item 3: Google
Introduced by Susan Borwick
Susan Borwick invited Rick Matthews to report updates with regards to Google.
Rick Matthews stated Google is desired by many faculty. If Wake Forest doesn’t go to Google the University will upgrade its exchange server for $300,000-$350,000. Rick Matthews added at a recent EDUCAUSE event the CIO of Brown said his university avoided $750,000-$1,000,000 per year by going Google. Rick Matthews further added if Wake Forest switches the University will save a nontrivial fraction of that. Rick Matthews identified 4 possible phases with go/no go milestones as seen on the handout.
Susan Borwick inquired how public can John Borwick’s presentation slides be and Rick Matthews said he will ask ITEC on Thursday.
John Track will make a Sakai site for CIT. [NOTE: It is now available to all CIT members for use as a working site. The CIT website will be the public site for finished work.]
Next meeting November 15th, 4 pm, Dean’s Suite, 8th Floor, ZSR.
End: 5:06 pm
Last fall meeting November 29th, Dean’s Suite 8th Floor, ZSR.
Submitted by John Track, Wake Forest CIO Fellow