Using IT Governance to Make Hard Decisions EDUCAUSE 2011 Cindy Wells, Lynn Johnson & Vlad Wielbut

Using IT Governance to Make Hard Decisions

EDUCAUSE 2011Cindy Wells, Lynn Johnson & Vlad Wielbut

Agenda

1990-2010: The Way We Were

IT Governance @ U-M

Collaboration Tools: Our First Big Step

Q&A

1990-2010: The Way We Were

Vlad WielbutDirector of Informatics and Computing ServicesSchool of Public Health

The Great Centrifuge

The Great Centrifuge

• From mainframe to PCs• IT shifts from center to units• Central IT provider unable to

deliver cutting-edge technology quickly

• Units move toward self-sufficiency

The Trap of Self-sufficiency

• Units, even small ones, do everything internally

• It is inefficient• It is difficult to get out of• Some things are incompatible

with the rest of the campus

The Server Invasion

• Standard for the 1990’s and beyond: “Have a problem? Get a server!”

• Proliferation of sub-standard “server rooms”

• May work fine for a while, but this is high-risk

The Improvising

• How do we get out of the trap of self-sufficiency?

• Not enough manpower or know-how in units do everything

• Smaller units band together to try and share resources – with limited success

• IT Commons is formed – campus-wide venue for all units; lots of discussions, not a lot of action

The Plunge

• Getting “commodity” services out of units

• “Low-hanging fruits”: file storage, web services, network, data centers, HPC

• More challenging: end-user computing, network “to-the-jack”, lecture capture

• Will the ability to innovate remain within units?

• Will the savings be re-invested in unit IT?

IT Governance @ U-M

Cindy WellsDeputy Chief Information OfficerMedical School

Transforming IT – Mission Focused Investments

Shared Infrastructure

Unit ProductsAnd Services

Shared Productsand Services

NextGen Michigan

Rationalize IT Across CampusITS Campus

Alignment and Culture GovernanceOrganizationalStructure

UNIVERSITYINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY

COUNCIL

University IT Executive Committee

AdministrationInformation & Infrastructure Assurance

Deans, Faculty & Students

Information & Technology Services

Unit IT Steering Committee

Medical Ctr. Information Technology

Patient Care

Teaching & Learning

Knowledge

Research

Faculty Driven Governance

Patient Care


COUNCIL





Teaching & Learning

Knowledge

Research



Faculty Chair

Additional Faculty Members

Service differentiation occurs in the Mission Services layer and

should be built on a common IT foundation.

Service Provider Type Key

Shared within College/ School

Local ITShared across Colleges/ Schools

ITS External

Mission Services

Information Services

CollaborationServices

IT OperationsManagementServices

InfrastructureServices

Network / Telecom Data Centers Desktop Support

Warehouses& Data Marts

Security Reporting / BI Engines

Library / Research Mgmt

Application Server SW

Content Mgmt

Document Sharing Social Networking

Dashboards

Reports

Analytics

E-mail / Calendaring

Blogs/Wikis / Communities

IM / Web / Video Conf.

Research Collaboration

Portal / Search

Monitoring

Teaching / Learning

Streaming Video

Relational DB

HPC

Statistical Analysis

Help DeskStorage

Research Practice & Service

Software License Mgmt

Data Access

Web Server SWProvisioning

11872 1311 21 5896 119 12 9212 42 3

130 32 7233 47 7 251 140 2683 132 13 333 25 0

141 26 5113 44 7 62 01 221 10 19 52 11 1

133 33 7283 52 2 141 17 5224 63 7 131 18 8

8311 14 1188 48 0 223 82 2688 15 0 122 22 1

7916 020 1 7211 03 1325 74 0 450 04 2

394 97 19213 218 0 15520 214 2977 718 2 914 23 2

Workflow

23 31 0

565 315 0

Administration Services

Administration23081 931 18

Note: These counts represent the cumulative number of services delivered by all providers across the university.

© Accenture LLP 2010 All rights Reserved.

Accenture Higher Education IT Capability Framework

2010 State of IT at UM: Fragmented & Inefficient

IT Service VisionThe IT vision is to increase use of shared providers to manage

reusable, extensible services and allow Unit IT to focus on mission-aligned services.

2010 IT Service Model To-Be IT Service Model Vision

Central Services

Uni

t Ser

vice

s Uni

t Ser

vice

s

Shared Service

Uni

t Ser

vice

s

Uni

t Ser

vice

s

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

Service

Serv

ice

UNIQUE(Services used

by one unit)

COMMUNITY(Services used by

segment of common users)

TOLL(Services used by most units)

PUBLICGOOD

(Services used by all units)

Innovation Path

Serv

ice R

eti

rem

ent

Path

© 2010 Accenture LLP All rights reserved.

Reuse

Reuse

Reuse

IT Rationalization Collaborative Learning Environment

• Sakai 3 Development CIRRUS Project (Computing and

Information Resources for Research as a Utility Service) • HPC shared cluster and data centers

MiChart• EPIC electronic medical record

Google NextGen Collaborative Environment

Major Strategic Sponsored Initiatives

Collaboration Tools:Our first big step

Lynn Johnson, PhDProfessor & Asst. Dean for Informatics and InnovationSchool of Dentistry

http://nextgen.umich.edu/collaboration/selection.php

IT Council Charge

1. To provide the U-M community a contemporary, tailorable, extensible, secure, and continually improving personal productivity and group collaboration environment that reduces as many barriers as possible to collaboration in carrying out our academic mission anytime, anyplace, and with anyone in the world having Internet access. The focus of this environment should be to serve the direct academic mission of the university, but if it can also serve the administrative functions that serve this mission, all the better.

2. To provide this environment in the most cost-effective way possible consistent with the above goals.

Process

Vendor Demonstrations

http://nextgen.umich.edu/collaboration/session-video.php

Google Video

Microsoft Video

IT Provider Feedback Session

Image courtesy of lynjohns under a Creative Commons license: BY

Image courtesy of blueoxen under a Creative Commons license: BY-SA

All things considered, which suite better enables collaboration for your

constituents?

What concerns you the most about each of the suites?

What opportunities or new possibilities would be provided by each of the collaborative

suites?

Campus Survey

http://nextgen.umich.edu/collaboration/Collaboration_Tools_Campus_Survey_Results.pdf

I am confident that the university could establish processes & a contract with this vendor that would

protect my privacy & information.

I am confident this vendor would provide reliable services.

I am confident that if this vendor was selected, I could collaborate effectively.

Process

Costs/Savings

$12

$10

$8

$6

$4

$2

$0

($2)

($4)

($6)

Mill

ions

GoogleMicrosoftHybrid

YR1 YR8 YR9 YR10YR5 YR6 YR7YR2 YR3 YR4

Decision-Making Process

Recommendations

http://nextgen.umich.edu/collaboration/U-M_Collaboration_Suite_Recommendation.pdf

IT Governance @ U-M


COUNCIL





Patient Care

Teaching & Learning

Knowledge

Research



Questions?

Documents

Using IT Governance to Make Hard Decisions EDUCAUSE 2011 Cindy Wells, Lynn Johnson & Vlad Wielbut