university of georgia long-term it master plan

Facilitating Conversations

for the University of Georgiafor the University of Georgia

Long-term Information Technology Master Plan

2

August 1, 2012

From the Vice President for Information Technology

One of the things that I will be grateful for throughout my tenure as the Vice President for Information Technology at the University of Georgia is the work of dozens of students, faculty, and staff during the 2010–2011 IT master planning process that resulted in this Long-term Information Technology Master Plan. I am especially grateful to my predecessor, Dr. Barbara A. White, for her

tireless leadership throughout this process. I have reviewed the fruits of these efforts and I do not believe you will find a better plan for Information Technology at any institution of higher education. Throughout my tenure at the University of Georgia, my job will be to lead the efforts to operationalize the principles, goals, and aspirations of this plan and to turn them into an agenda for action for organizations across the University of Georgia; and then to regularly convene conversations that assess the effectiveness of those programs and update them when appropriate. The plan that follows provides a strong foundation for advancing the effective delivery and use of Information Technology at the University of Georgia for years to come.

A plan such as this is best understood within the context of the leadership style and approach to community engagement undertaken by those IT leaders who are directing the implementation of the plan. It is customary that this context be communicated in an introductory letter such as this one. I recently was asked to write an opinion piece on the subject of IT leadership and governance in higher education. That piece, I believe, articulates my approach to IT leadership, and the style in which I (and those organizations reporting to me) shall engage the community as we work together towards the goals articulated in this plan. Therefore, I have included it here as an introduction.

Timothy M. ChesterVice President for Information TechnologyUniversity of Georgia

A plan such as this is best understood

within the context of the leadership style and approach to community engagement undertaken by those IT leaders who are directing the implementation of the plan.”

Timothy M. Chester, VPIT UGA

3

Don’t Dictate, FacilitateAs IT professionals, we are just starting to come to terms with what the internet has truly wrought. For the better part of 10 years, we viewed the internet age as a shift from a bricks-and-mortar world to an online, digital world. CIOs and their IT organizations expected to be at the forefront of the resulting transformation of higher education. We were wrong.

Instead, we find ourselves in an environment that is fast evolving from one based on one-to-many relationships to one based on many-to-many relationships, powered by social networking sites, consumer and cloud technologies, and mobile devices. In this brave new world, we CIOs have a lot less authority and control than we expected. Indeed, some question whether our organizations should continue to exist in their present form—and they’re right. If we are to be of value to our institutions, we must change the way we organize our services, the way we exercise leadership, and the way we engage those outside IT.

Thanks to social networking tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia—facilitated by the widespread availability of wireless connectivity and the mass adoption of mobile devices—individuals today are constantly connected to one another and can share ideas from anywhere, anytime. This is disrupting traditional structures of power and authority with breathtaking speed and efficiency. Consider the fall of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the failure of SOPA/PIPA in Congress, and the faculty rebellion against the publishing giant Elsevier. Each of these episodes is an example of how individuals, who tend to have little power in one-to-many relationships, can band together to level the playing field against entrenched powers.

Traditional IT organizations are not exempt from this trend toward decentralization. The many-to-many world has made it far easier for students, faculty, and staff to obtain basic IT services without ever going near the IT organization. This raises a host of new questions: Why should our institutions continue to provide e-mail accounts to students when they can bring their own? Is there even a need for computer labs when students bring their own devices? Why do we need learning management systems in an era of Facebook, Google Docs, and Dropbox? And here’s a question that is coming: Why should we build expensive data centers when Amazon, Google, and Microsoft can provide cloud computing services that eliminate high, upfront costs and replace them with lower, variable costs that scale?

Even as the world shifts under our feet, however, tremendous opportunities are opening up for CIOs, IT leaders, and their organizations—if we are willing to think differently, and if we are willing to move to a leadership model that is more in sync with the new many-to-many reality.

Most of our IT organizations began as traditional computing centers, with services available on demand for a price. With the advent of the internet, network- and information-security concerns came to the fore, prompting us to centralize parts of the IT environment as a way to preserve order and protect critical resources. Two severe recessions in the past decade led us to centralize services in a bid to increase efficiency and reduce costs. While fully compatible with the needs of a one-to-many world, our continued emphasis on centralization led Walt Mossberg, technology columnist for the Wall Street Journal, to proclaim in 2007 that the central IT organization in higher education was the “most regressive and poisonous force in technology today.”

Thanks to social networking tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia... individuals today are constantly connected to one another and can share ideas from anywhere, anytime.

Central to a master

planning process is a clear understanding

of the institutional drivers, strategic priorities, and

culture of the environment in which these entities

will operate.

4

If you find yourself missing out on important

conversations about the effective use of IT, it’s

probably because you are seen more as a barrier to innovation than a

supporter.

Don’t Dictate, Facilitate (cont.)

In a many-to-many world, efficiency and innovation no longer correlate to centralized authority and control. Today, we need to think less about being the sole drivers of innovation on campus and focus instead on creating an environment that facilitates the innovation of others. Where we can support students and faculty in the rapid adoption of consumer technologies and cloud-based services, we should do so—even when these services conflict with our own offerings. A paring of services in our IT portfolios is in order, and correlates strongly with our need to reduce complexity and cost. The only areas that should be immune are our central administrative systems and network infrastructure, where the need for enhanced connectivity and collaboration, better analytics and the protection of sensitive information predominate. As we transition from service providers to service enablers, we also need to rethink the notion of leadership. It was only about 15 years ago that computing service directors became CIOs and vice presidents, as campus leaders recognized the need for strategic leadership in IT. In today’s many-to-many world, leadership becomes less about making decisions and controlling access to scarce resources and much more about credibly convening important conversations about the effective use of technology on campus. This is an often-overlooked change. Every institution has thought leaders who engage others about the transformative potential of technology, but these thought leaders are not exclusively CIOs. In fact, IT’s traditional notions of authority and control often lead others to exclude the organization from these conversations until the last possible minute, for fear that it will make innovation more difficult. If you find yourself missing out on important conversations about the effective use of IT, it’s probably because you are seen more as a barrier to innovation than a supporter. This brings me to my final point: The most important word in the phrase “credibly convening important conversations” is credibly. In the one-to-many world, credibility was based on reporting lines and formal policy. In a many-to-many world, credibility is created and maintained, not in sweeping fashion, but through constant interactions, each and every time the IT organization engages end users or delivers services. How our campus constituents perceive the strength, quality, and reliability of our services—and our commitment to do what we say we will do—has never been more important. All of us know administrators on campus with well-deserved reputations for running organizations that deliver inferior services who never shy away from telling us how to run our own organizations. Don’t be that person. In a many-to-many world, if you find yourself faced with resistance to key initiatives, realize that it is probably tied to your credibility—or lack thereof—on campus. If, as CIOs, we are truly to transform ourselves into on-campus facilitators, we can succeed only if we, too, bring something to the table: solid reputations for quality and for doing exactly what we say we will do. – From Campus Technology Magazine, May 2012

Central to a master

planning process is a clear understanding

of the institutional drivers, strategic priorities, and

culture of the environment in which these entities

will operate.

5

Introduction

This Long-term UGA Information Technology Master Plan is based on the premise that only through regular processes of assessment, planning, and community engagement can

the University most effectively align, invest, manage, and sustain strategic IT assets across the entire University. The aspirations embodied in this document are the outcome of such a process that occurred from 2010–2011; and these aspirations shall be regularly assessed, revised, and updated on an annual basis moving forward.

This Long-term UGA Information Technology Master Plan is based on several key assumptions that reflect both best practices and research on the key drivers that correlate highly with the effective delivery and use of technology resources within a large, complex, decentralized public university such as the University of Georgia. Studies such as those by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) reflect the need for clear articulation and embodiment of these assumptions in leadership, planning, and day-to-day operations, both at the central level of the University as well as the decentralized units that are on the front lines supporting students, faculty, and staff with the use of technology resources. These assumptions are:

■■ That decision-making processes regarding strategic technology resources reflect and are aligned with the governance structures and culture common to the institution at large. This includes executive decision teams such as the President’s Cabinet and the University Council, chartered decision-making teams whose authority is based on either policy or on formal delegations of authority, and standing or ad hoc established advisory boards, councils, and other groups.

■■ That a role, scope, and level of authority is recognized for the institution’s Vice President for Information Technology as the individual designated as accountable for leadership and communication of institution’s enterprise IT environment, strategic visioning, policy and planning.

■■ That technology strategy, plans, and operations are aligned with the institution’s strategic mission, standards, policies, goals, and priorities.

■■ That communication is consistently based on collaboration, engagement, and transparency at all levels of the University.

■■ That accommodation is made for acceptable levels of tolerance for risk and failure, particularly when it comes to initiatives that are focused on innovation or that involve changes to established practices.

Central to a master planning process is a clear understanding of the institutional drivers, strategic priorities, and culture of the environment in which these entities will operate. At the University of Georgia, this is embodied in the mission and strategic vision of the University.

The Mission Statement of the University of Georgia begins as follows:

The University of Georgia, a land-grant and sea-grant university with statewide commitments and responsibilities, is the state’s oldest, most comprehensive, and most diversified institution of higher education. Its motto, “to teach, to serve, and to inquire into the nature of things,” reflects the University’s integral and unique role in the conservation and enhancement of the state’s and nation’s intellectual, cultural, and environmental heritage.

6

The Strategic Vision and Direction for the University of Georgia, as outlined in the University 2020 Strategic Plan, begins as follows:

The students, faculty, and staff of the University of Georgia will build and strengthen the university in the next decade to serve Georgia and Georgians in new, exciting, and vitally important ways—while maintaining the traditional strengths and strong, student-centered values of the university.

The aspirations embodied in the Long-term UGA Information Technology Master Plan as aligned with the seven strategic directions flowing from the University 2020 Strategic Plan.

■■ Building on Excellence in Undergraduate Education

■■ Enhancing Graduate and Professional Programs

■■ Investing in Proven and Emerging Areas of Research

Excellence

■■ Serving the Citizens of the State of Georgia and Beyond

■■ Improving Faculty Recognition, Retention, and

Development

■■ Improving and Maintaining Facilities and Infrastructure

■■ Improving Stewardship of Natural Resources and Advancing

Campus Sustainability

Strategic Directions for Information TechnologyThe concept of master planning is about imagining the future while understanding the past. It depends on a clear articulation of strategic organizational leadership, priority-setting, and appropriate resourcing of those priorities. Based on campus-wide master planning efforts—and flowing from the University vision and strategic directions discussed above—the long-term vision and aspirations for information technology at the University of Georgia are as follows:

Strategic Direction 1: Information Technology Leadership. In keeping with the innovative spirit of the University of Georgia, and reflective of the institution’s governance and leadership structures, technology should be an enabler that assists the University in achieving its strategic goals and priorities in an innovative, efficient, and effective manner that preserves the transparency and engagement of the extended University community.

Strategic Direction 2: Academic and Instructional Computing. Because teaching, learning, and research are inseparable from the effective delivery and use of information technology, support for these activities must be at the heart of the information technology strategy and mission.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The concept of master planning is about

imagining the future while understanding

the past. It depends on a clear articulation of

strategic organizational leadership, priority-

setting, and appropriate resourcing

of those priorities.

7

Strategic Direction 3: Administrative Information Systems. The University of Georgia will provide centrally coordinated data access, work flows, and business processes that enable core, dependent, and independent administrative systems to support the mission, priorities, and decision-making of the University in a secure, modern, cost-effective, user-friendly, and sustainable manner.

Strategic Direction 4: Research and High Performance Computing. The University will provide, support, and maintain a research-computing environment that provides the necessary infrastructure to create the context for innovation within the research community.

Strategic Direction 5: Information Security and Risk Management. A University-wide information security program engenders a culture of responsible stewardship of personal and sensitive information and ensures appropriate management of risk to the University’s information and technology assets.

Strategic Direction 6: Alignment, Standardization, and Consolidation of Services. Core information technology services are delivered at the least risk and cost, while assuring the highest availability and quality.

Strategic Direction 7: Facilities. The University aspires to be recognized as a leader in maximizing the efficient and effective use of space while meeting the requirements for a secure and integrated IT environment that fosters an open, collaborative, and unifying learning and research culture.

Strategic Direction 8: Financial Planning and Fiscal Management. Leadership in information technology for students, faculty, and staff will be sustained through continued maintenance and advancement of information technology infrastructure and services that are supported with sound fiscal planning and sustainable resource allocations.

Strategic Direction 9: Student Technology Fee Investment and Management. The University’s student technology fee will support programs and context necessary to support the highest levels of innovation and creativity for the direct benefit of students and their overall educational experience.

Strategic Direction 10: Information Technology Workforce Management and Succession Planning. The University of Georgia will attract, hire, and develop a competent and innovative information technology workforce to maintain, adapt, and implement technologies and systems in support of the mission and strategic priorities of teaching, research, and public service and outreach.

Technology should be an enabler that assists the University in achieving its strategic goals and priorities.

8

Collaborative information technology decision-making is necessary in setting enterprise-level direction and in establishing standards and policy, ‘best practices,’ and procedures to ensure that the organization’s strategic goals and priorities are met, and should be aligned with the

existing culture and decision-making structures present in the institution.

Vision

In keeping with the innovative spirit of the University of Georgia, and reflective of the institution’s governance and leadership structures, technology should be an enabler that assists the University in achieving its strategic goals and priorities in an innovative, efficient and effective manner that preserves the transparency and engagement of the extended University community.

Goals and Aspirations

1. Information Technology is a strategic asset that is fundamental to the University’s ability to accomplish its mission and goals. It enables access to the knowledge base and resources of the institution through effective and efficient use of limited resources, in concert with the existing governance structures of the institution.

a) Evaluate University vision, mission, drivers, and strategic priorities in order to identify parameters critical to the effective delivery and use of it services while recognizing a central and decentralized environment, culture, and adaptability to change management by the University community.

b) Identify criteria for the selection and investment of technologies as the University’s strategic priorities change while recognizing that these technologies are a strategic asset of the institution and must be recognized and supported as critical, ongoing investments of the institution.

Strategic

Direction 1:

Information

Technology

Leadership

9

2. Collaboration, transparency, and engagement among and between the broader campus communities are fundamental to successful change management and decision-making inherent in enterprise-level, technology-driven environments and services based on carefully designed and maintained processes, procedures, and communications strategies.

a) Define and implement improved processes focused on long-term planning, funding, management, sustainability, and support of information technology as a strategic asset recognizing the dependency by the University on IT in support of the strategic priorities of the institution.

3. Information Technology planning, management, implementation, and accountability must be guided by a clear set of policies, procedures, standards, and best practices that promote an environment that supports innovation, is efficient and effective, and minimizes risk.

a) Establish a strategy for community engagement that focuses on regular campus-wide communications and sharing of information using a variety of delivery strategies available to the University community.

4. Transparent coordination of project planning, selection, implementation, and utilization is essential for engaging stakeholders in the effective management of services, decision-making, and standards and policy development at enterprise and college/division levels.

a) Develop implementation procedures, standards, policies, and procedures for capacity planning and long-term investment, and provision of performance metrics resulting in greater efficiency in use of IT resources.

b) Develop transparent project management and communication processes to assure trust, collaboration, cooperation, and engagement of the broader University campus community.

5. Selection and investment of resources in support of enterprise-level IT initiatives and projects will evolve as the University’s strategic priorities change, new technologies emerge, and requirements are identified by the user community.

6. Establish an “R&D” component to facilitate fundraising and development in support of the exploration of new technologies, systems, applications, and services in concert with the changing strategic priorities.

Just as writing was, for centuries, the technology that enabled the transmission of education, so digital technology now grounds access to the expression, storage, and transmission of learning. Letters, as well as numbers, images, sounds, video, and other data, are conveyed

as electronic bits, and contemporary literacy entails a combination of abilities to manipulate these bits competently.

Academic and Instructional Computing at UGA recognizes the myriad efforts that, at every level, permeate the University’s instructional mission with the benefits of digital technology—from enhanced synchronous and asynchronous communication to data visualization and high-definition classroom projection; from lecture-capture to virtual classrooms/laboratories and virtual office hours; from student response systems to the eLearning Commons; and from a shared composition and portfolio environment to electronic books, open content, and beyond.

Strategic

Direction 2:

Academic

and

Instructional

Computing

10

Vision

Because teaching, learning, and research are inseparable from the effective delivery and use of information technology, support for these activities must be at the heart of the information technology strategy and mission.


1. Excellence in teaching and learning demands innovation in the use and support of evolving technologies at the classroom level and throughout the University.

a) Assessment and evaluation of the current use of technologies at UGA

b) Benchmarking studies of peer and aspirational institutions’ use of instructional technologies.

c) Identification of feature gaps in current technology implementation.

d) Investment in state-of-the-art learning systems and instructional technologies.

e) Increased support for exploration of new technologies for teaching and learning.

f) Increased support for faculty development for pedagogically innovative use of technology.

2. No matter their location, faculty, staff, and students need access to contemporary technology.a) Assessment and where necessary improvement of student, faculty, and staff access to technology at the Athens campus,

extended campuses, and study-abroad locations.

3. Training faculty, staff, and students on the best use of new technologies is essential. a) Increased training opportunities for faculty, staff, and students in a number of formats, including traditional face-to-face,

but also online, on-demand materials.

4. Distance Education should be an integral part of the instructional mission of the institution at every level. a) Increased support and funding for planning, development, and implementation of distance education programs.

No matter their location, faculty, staff, and students need access to contemporary technology.

Strategic

Direction 3:

Administrative

Information

Systems

Information systems in higher education can be divided into two categories: Academic Systems and Administrative Systems.

11

5. The strategic development of distance education must include a focus on the use and support of necessary technologies. a) Establish processes for identifying, testing, funding, and implementing the most appropriate technologies for distance

programs.

6. University students on campus, across Georgia, and across the globe have a critical need for the institutional development of distance and hybrid education opportunities.

a) Establish processes for planning, developing, implementing, and supporting new and enhanced distance learning technologies.

b) Increase support for faculty development in distance education.

c) Increase support for students enrolled in distance education programs.

7. The institution is not enough; faculty must actively engage the use of instructional technologies in support of the University’s mission.

a) Increased opportunities to engage faculty in identifying, testing, and implementing new uses of technology.

8. The 21st Century requires advanced integrative programs, such as curriculum mapping, to support interdisciplinary learning, education tracking, accreditation, and research.

a) Reports on advanced integrative programs from the Committee on Academic and Instructional Technologies (CAIT).

An Information System is a combination of people, hardware, software, network, and data resources that process (store, retrieve, transform, report, or analyze) data and information for a specific purpose.

Information systems in higher education can be divided into two categories: Academic Systems and Administrative Systems.

Academic Systems directly support the instruction, research, and public service and outreach activities of the University. Administrative Systems provide the integration of business processes and information technology to accomplish specific university business services and operational objectives including business practices and processes that guide the decision-making in the academy. ECAR (EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research) findings (Vol. 4, 2002) suggest that these systems and processes determine how institutional resources are allocated: faculty and staff interact with an institution’s core business activities, student needs for information and services are addressed, and decision-makers interact with information to formulate policies.

12

Vision

The University of Georgia will provide centrally coordinated data access, work flows, and business processes that enable core, dependent, and independent administrative systems to support the mission, priorities, and decision-making of the University in a secure, modern, cost-effective, user-friendly, and sustainable manner.


1. To meet decision-making requirements and ensure business continuity, single authoritative sources must be defined for all enterprise data that must be easily, but securely, accessed for the core, dependent, and independent information systems.

a) Data integration strategy and plan must be developed, to include: formal definitions and guidelines; comprehensive inventory of institutional data, source and position responsibility; official definitions of data management roles and job descriptions; new policies supporting assignment of people to these positions; and implement process for institutional data quality audit.

2. Application solutions must be designed and implemented to use only authoritative data. Best higher education practices and business process improvements will guide the selection and implementation of administrative systems and applications.

a) Existing and future administrative system applications must function based on a set of generally accepted standards reflecting industry standards and ‘best practices’, and university requirements; identify and define a process for how application systems can access authoritative data sources; and identify and define considerations related to software life cycle components.

3. Financial and human resources must be planned for and provided to implement, maintain, and sustain administrative systems.

a) Planning for administrative systems must be a ‘structured’ process including submission of concept proposal and business case based on standard format and required elements to address systems that meet the “Administrative System” definition.

4. Campus-wide coordination and oversight is required to evaluate, prioritize, and authorize administrative systems.a) University-wide administrative system processes must be established to: evaluate, prioritize, authorize, and continually

assess administrative systems; and b) resources and tools must be established that allow for the evaluation of existing systems and identification of process improvements.

13

The exponential speed with which data are generated, processed, stored, exchanged, and analyzed has resulted in a qualitative change in how research institutions produce and manage knowledge. As a result, cyberinfrastucture now includes grids of computational centers;

comprehensive libraries of digital objects; multidisciplinary, well-curated collections of scientific data; thousands of on-line instruments and vast sensor arrays; and convenient software toolkits for resource discovery, modeling, and interactive visualization. Research computing has expanded to include collaboration with physically distributed teams of people using campus-specific, regional, national, and international resources. Although funding agencies expect institutions to provide significant core cyberinfrastructure for their research communities, the boundaries of any single institution’s research computing and high performance infrastructure have expanded to include regional, national, and international as well as campus-specific resources. The application of computational tools across all disciplines of research and scholarship requires access to local as well as distributed computing infrastructure.

Vision

The University will provide, support, and maintain a research-computing environment that provides the necessary infrastructure to create the context for innovation within the research community.


1. Effective cyberinfrastructure strategically places institutions to achieve identified ‘next tier’ planning and positioning in the competitive research arena enabled by research computing and high performance computing.

a) Research computing requires a long-term plan, not only for infrastructure lifecycle maintenance, but also for growth, to meet the ever-increasing needs by researchers across a number of disciplines for digital information processing and storage. The necessary growth should recognize that researchers will have a variety of storage and data access needs that will require a multi-tiered approach and sophisticated data management platforms.

Strategic

Direction 4:

Research

and High

Performance

Computing

The application of computational

tools across all disciplines of research

and scholarship requires access to local as well as distributed computing

infrastructure.

Planning for continuity of operations during unforeseen loss or catastrophic events and for returning to normal conditions after disruptions is a part of the University’s enterprise-level approach to security and risk management.

14

2. Support for intra-state growth and collaboration via state, regional, and national agencies, consortia, and cooperators such as the Georgia Research Alliance, SURAgrid (Southern University Research Association), and Georgia Cyberinfrastructure Alliance is critical.

a) Researchers need access to, and support from, IT professionals who are familiar with research computing, High Performance Computing, storage and information lifecycle management; emphasis needs to be placed on increasing the number of professionals with the requisite knowledge.

3. Institutional support in providing the requisite cyberinfrastructure to support cutting-edge research, innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurial efforts is essential in enabling institution to be competitive for research funding.

a) Research computing requirements are necessary for the hard and the social sciences. As such, there is a need to: 1) Expand the applicability of research computing to all research disciplines through education and development requiring review of IT needs across disciplines (particularly the new medical school, public health, and proposed engineering programs) in order to capture disciplines we are currently missing; 2) Eliminate barriers to collaborative and interdisciplinary research by providing an environment for shared data; 3) Provide a mechanism for education and communication among users regarding best practices in data management and high performance computing; and 4) Develop a culture in which support for cyberinfrastructure is included on extramural funding proposals.

15

Strategic

Direction 5:

Information

Security

and Risk

Management

The University of Georgia’s strategy for information security and risk management is to establish a comprehensive program that ensures the appropriate management and mitigation of information security and privacy risks, compliance with state and federal requirements, and

assurance of service availability.

The comprehensive program approach encompasses standards, policies, and best practices for information security within the University; the provisioning of awareness and/or educational programs; and the monitoring and reporting of performance against security and risk management criteria. In addition, planning for continuity of operations during unforeseen loss or catastrophic events and for returning to normal conditions after disruptions is a part of the University’s enterprise-level approach to security and risk management.

Vision

A University-wide information security program engenders a culture of responsible stewardship of personal and sensitive information and ensures appropriate management of risk to the University’s information and technology assets.


1. The value of information as an institutional resource is increased through its widespread and appropriate use, whereas its value is diminished through misuse, misinterpretation, or unnecessary restrictions on its access.

a) Establish policy elements that reinforce appropriate use of institutional information and provide clear definition of roles.

2. All members of the University community, regardless of role or position, have a responsibility to protect sensitive and critical information, and as such, must be aware of their role and responsibilities.

a) Expand role-based security awareness and training program to equip students and employees to address security risks effectively.

3. The University has a responsibility to plan for and address reasonably foreseeable risks to institutional information and information assets.

a) Develop standardized incident response capabilities in order to rapidly detect incidents, minimize loss and destruction, mitigate exploited weaknesses, and restore computing services.

b) Establish a University-wide information backup strategy for critical data that will provide secured, accessible, off-site copies for recovery in the event of system failure or disaster.

4. An enterprise approach to information technology and data management is foundational to the long-term protection of information assets.

a) Establish routine risk and vulnerability assessment of systems that store or process sensitive or critical data.

5. The University must plan for the eventuality of a disaster or other event that causes a loss and/or extended outage of services supported through information technology infrastructure, production services, systems, and applications.

a) The establishment of verifiable and attainable standard criteria for trusted systems is a must for institutions handling sensitive and critical data.

16

Questions of how IT services and automated business solutions can be provided via organizational alignment, standardization, service consolidation, and/or shared service modes of delivery are increasingly becoming topics of conversation by higher education leadership.

‘Drivers’ include the ability to plan and achieve general cost containment, to avoid resource duplication, and to assure effective scalable technology, infrastructure, and data management.

In terms of standardization, provision of IT services becomes more complex, difficult, and expensive when based on a platform of heterogeneous devices that also add to the effort of managing expectations, changes, integration, upgrades, and business continuity. By planning and applying policies that reflect IT standardization, the infrastructure can be simplified and significant advantages in cost, service quality, and agility gained. Examples to consider include: datacenter hosting; web hosting; file and print service; database architecture and management services; helpdesk; and network support.

Moving toward service consolidation and/or centralization, or in some cases a shared service optimization model, reflects a progression involving many variables that depend on the political climate, type of service, types of organizations and/or units that are in place, etc. The institution will need to evaluate several variables, including the scale of the user community consuming a particular service (i.e., infrastructure and/or system co-location, system or application hosting, and/or purchased services).

Vision

Core information technology services are delivered at the least risk and cost, while assuring the highest availability and quality.


1. Mainstream technologies are becoming more of a utility and need to be planned at the institutional level with the requisite standardization and policies, integration, lifecycle management, and staffing levels supported by investment strategy and appropriate sustainable funding models.

a) Develop a long-term plan that moves the institution towards an approach to mainstream commodity technologies based on standardization, service consolidation, and/or shared services.

2. Standardization, integration, and consolidation of technology and methods for achieving this goal are critical to maintaining a scalable and supportable core infrastructure (voice, video, data networks, and storage), which delivers consistency of performance, ROI, economies of scale, and value-added service opportunities.

a) Identify scalability and support requirements in order to assure reliable and consistent quality of service.

3. Adopting and/or deploying technologies that have reached a point in their lifecycle where an opportunity exists to create efficiencies through standardization and centralization is essential to long-term sustainability.

a) Establish a plan for lifecycle management required for any standardization, service consolidation, or shared service as part of the overall long-term investment strategy and enterprise plan.

4. Provisioning and management for state, regional, national, and global access requires standardization of infrastructure in addition to synchronous and asynchronous timelines, focus on research infrastructure compatibility, and facilitation of administrative systems and applications in support of business processes.

a) Evaluate state, regional, national, and global access requirements to inform ‘levels’ and/or options for standardization, service consolidation, and/or shared services as part of any model or approach.

Strategic

Direction 6:

Alignment,

Standardization,

and

Consolidation

of Services

17

Facilities and space utilization supporting the information technology infrastructure and services across the University, residential, statewide and globally, are complex, distributed, and variable. The plan for the design, sustainability, and upgrades

for IT facilities and space management is characterized by the physical and logical requirements for space resources and utilization, while also providing requirements for use in University facilities planning.

Components include:

■■ Campus/Distributed Data Centers

■■ Infrastructure/Physical Environment

■■ Decentralized, Distributed Server Rooms

■■ Remote Technology Staffing

■■ Technology/Support Staff Workspace

■■ Academic Classroom Facilities/Technology Management

Vision

The University aspires to be recognized as a leader in maximizing the efficient and effective use of space while meeting the requirements for a secure and integrated IT environment that fosters an open, collaborative, and unifying learning and research culture.

Strategic

Direction 7:

Facilities

By planning and applying policies that reflect IT standardization, the infrastructure can be simplified and significant advantages in cost, service quality, and agility gained.

18


1. Support for the increasing prevalence of IT-mediated instruction, research, and administration through both physically and logically secure, central facilities and specialized sites throughout the primary and extended campuses is central to a 21st century research-extensive university.

a) Standards for environmentally friendly and energy-efficient space management are developed for categories of space (e.g., classrooms, labs, server rooms, offices, data centers).

b) Local server rooms are evaluated against cost efficiency and security standards to assure effective space management in concert with other space usage and efficiency, and where warranted, moved to a common data center.

2. Planning and providing for secure and efficient IT facilities and space requires regular, planned input from the IT and physical plant communities to help determine and establish facility requirements, standards, and capacities necessary to meet the University’s mission and strategic priorities.

a) Develop a process to allow information technology to annually forecast space and infrastructure demands to be used as input to the University’s Physical Plant and Architectural Office’s tactical and strategic planning processes.

3. Incorporation of environmentally-sensitive and energy-efficient systems into all data centers, IT labs, classrooms, research areas, and server-room environments enables the leveraging of technological innovations by incorporating technology as part of the spatial solutions.

a) Performance measurements that effectively indicate improvement in the efficiency and reduction in risk, capacity, and cost of IT facilities across UGA will include key baseline metrics, annual improvement goals, and annualized, reported, and actionable performance-to-goal measurements.

4. Evaluation and adoption of secure external, alternative solutions, where appropriate, to facilitate the reduction and impact of IT space needs at both primary and extended campus sites is essential.

a) Common solutions to manage physical access to all spaces requiring identified and approved levels of security are pinpointed, deployed, and supported as part of the facility planning and operation for the University.

b) Physical access control data must be validated against authoritative ID management data sources.

5. Requirements for modern, integrated, accessible, and reliable Infrastructure, including IT facilities, are core components to the mission and strategic priorities in support of teaching, research, and public service and outreach. Renovated space and/or new buildings require facilities, infrastructure, and space for supporting comprehensive coverage through multiple technologies (e.g., telephony closets, server rooms, wireless capabilities, Internet access, audiovisual/video conferencing, etc.).

a) Data center space is evaluated for capacity and efficiency and external resources are examined as part of a ‘core capacity management strategy’ and are based on industry ‘tier-level guidelines’.

6. The technology lifecycle—which includes capacity, risk, sustaining costs, and capital—must be rigorously measured, reported, and compared to the value of delivered services in order to assure that IT investment is always understood in the context of customer service benefits and value.

a) Data center, network, and physical IT office space and capacity requirements are managed as an outcome of business process demand for that particular resource set.

19

The University of Georgia continues to provide its faculty, staff, and students with contemporary information technology tools for teaching and learning, research, public service, university business, and creative activity through its annual

budgeting and fiscal planning processes. Although successful in providing reliable access to essential tools and connectivity through multiple revenue streams, the higher education IT community continues to be challenged in forging relationships with hardware vendors, in sustaining broad software licensing agreements, and in leveraging networks, support, and personnel. Examples of proactive efforts include: institutional incentives for cost-effective consolidated services, provision of up-front capital requirements needed to deliver long-term cost savings/risk reductions, and implementation of industry standards and best practices.

Vision

Leadership in information technology for students, faculty, and staff will be sustained through continued maintenance and advancement of information technology infrastructure and services that are supported with sound fiscal planning and sustainable resource allocations.


1. Sound fiscal planning and sustainable funding are cornerstones to building on past efforts while addressing the challenges of the future.

a) Execute periodic assessments of the funding shortfalls versus peers/aspirants and industry standards by defining the service offerings, making the comparisons, and increasing base budgets in a pattern that closes the gaps over a five-year horizon.

2. Decisions regarding Base funding, at the consolidated and distributed unit levels, must take into account peer, aspirant, and industry standard IT funding levels for comparable service offerings. Investments beyond Base funding will be business-case driven, based upon adding value to, or increasing the effectiveness of, instruction, research, or public service.

a) New services will be prioritized based on established business case requirements and evaluation criteria agreed to by senior executives.

3. Adherence to industry standards for lifecycle asset management will need to drive a fully funded, rolling, five-year investment strategy that delivers sustainable IT budgets at both central computing and distributed unit levels.

a) Based on industry requirements, adherence to industry standards for lifecycle asset management of the University’s core production systems, networks, telephony infrastructure, and digital support services aspire to be achieved by FY16.

b) Based on industry requirements for decentralized higher education environments, standards and policies should be developed to aspire to adherence to industry standards for lifecycle asset management at the distributed units by FY16.

4. Leveraging the diverse set of IT assets and funding streams of the University—across all units, locations, and expenditure types—is essential to maximizing scarce resources.

Strategic

Direction 8:

Financial

Planning

and Fiscal

Management

20

a) Conduct a thorough analysis of university IT spending and associated funding sources to develop a plan for consolidation and redistribution of IT service delivery as guided by industry standards.

5. Diverse enterprise revenue-funding models and non-traditional funding sources (i.e., other than state allocations) are critical components incorporated into the overall financing strategy.

a) Explore non-traditional funding sources and strategies (e.g., mandatory Student Technology Fee; university indirect costs for research computing; debt financing; vendor financing; University System of Georgia special projects funding; corporate/vendor partnerships; regional partners/SURA, Georgia Research Alliance; UGARF (University of Georgia Research Foundation); private donations/fundraising; etc.) in order to leverage funding sources and deliverables.

6. Sustainable and ongoing funding is essential in the annual budgeting process for both the “safety net” of unplanned emergencies and the “futuring of IT,” in order to protect the University and forecast the higher education IT curve.

a) For contingency funding and “Research & Development” expenses, comparative industry standard percentage of IT dollars will need to be included as part of the annual central computing organization budget allocation.

b) Develop fiscal strategy that is central to long-term ‘strategic IT assets’, while recognizing that fiscal planning is needed for sustainable funding for enterprise-level disaster recovery, and business continuity measures, as guided by industry-standard physical redundancy.

c) Develop timely procurement, flexible financing, and diverse mechanisms that build reserves (depreciation) across fiscal years to effectively implement IT financial requirements that recognize the enterprise and inherent strategic IT assets.

Support for the UGA Technology Fee has increased dramatically since FY00, primarily due to changes in: a) innovative technology use in support of Teaching and Learning; b) state-of-the-art student access to technology; and c) providing assistance to students to enable computer

literacy. In order to support the University of Georgia student body, both residential and non-residential, the more than $8.5M in Technology Fee expenditures in FY11 is fundamental to the delivery of IT at UGA.

Core IT infrastructure and services are funded by the mandatory technology fee for both the consolidated and distributed units at the University. In addition to the core infrastructure, systems, and services, next-generation student services also rely, and will continue to rely, on the use of the technology fee. The need for the continuance of this mandatory fee will not diminish in the future. In fact, requirements to support technology use in the teaching and learning environment are projected to grow. In a 21st century learning environment, at a higher education, research-extensive institution, the use of technology is critical. Without the student-supported investment derived from the technology fee, the student learning experience will be hindered.

Strategic

Direction 9:

Student

Technology Fee

Investment and

Management

A multi-level, broadly represented advisory process, which includes student and faculty representatives at each and every level, is essential in the comprehensive and enterprise-level distribution of student fees.

21

Vision

The University’s student technology fee will support programs and context necessary to support the highest levels of innovation and creativity for the direct benefit of students and their overall educational experience.


1. The expected and primary outcome of these types of allocations is the enhancement of teaching and learning through access to technology, support for use of technology, and cultivation of digital literacy.

a) STF revenues should complement institutionally funded technology expenditures and leverage partnerships between and among academic units, campuses, and administrative units, or with external funding opportunities. STF funds should not become considered the sole source of funding for any single project or initiative.

b) STF resources will be focused on the benefit to all students through inclusion of the diverse set of student cohorts (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, professional, extended campuses, international, distance education, and special needs/508 compliance).

2. A multi-level, broadly represented advisory process, which includes student and faculty representatives at each and every level, is essential in the comprehensive and enterprise-level distribution of student fees. Transparency and accountability of decision-making is required for responsible stewardship of Student Technology Fee financial resources.

a) Reports on uses of Student Technology Fees should be made openly available to the UGA community and other stakeholders.

b) Development of the means for knowing and understanding the behaviors of its users (students, faculty, and staff) is important to the design and delivery of new and meaningful instructional developments, student services, and student life offerings.

3. The Student Technology Fee provides a direct benefit to students through allocations to units, support for student-centered institutional infrastructure, and support for teaching innovation.

a) Adjustments to college/school base allocations and non-academic unit base allocations shall be assessed for effectiveness and need at intervals of no less than every three years.

b) When possible, Institutional Infrastructure as a percentage of annual budgeted expenditures should not exceed 40%, and Learning Technology Grants in support of teaching innovation should be targeted at 5% of annual budgeted expenditures.

4. The allocation of STF funds should evolve with the systems operating today that blend academic and administrative student support functionalities.

22

As critical core systems continue to age at the University of Georgia (UGA), it becomes a challenge to identify, recruit, and hire experienced people from the marketplace who are skilled and sufficiently knowledgeable to maintain and adapt technology as required to

meet the mission of the University and support the business and administrative systems. Because of the first-hand knowledge that is often unique to these aging systems, it may not be practical or possible to hire internal or external people who can effectively maintain and/or adapt these systems on a short-term need. An effective succession management strategy for critical and core systems and infrastructure will overcome four risks:

■■ vacancy risk in critical positions,

■■ readiness risk among designated successors,

■■ transition risk as new leaders and critical staff move into roles, and

■■ portfolio risk, to avoid poor deployment of leaders and staff across critical and core systems and infrastructure in the organization.

It is imperative, therefore, that UGA establish a succession management strategy to ensure that these systems are fully supported until they can be systematically replaced with modern, web-based systems and state-of-the-art technologies. As part of this succession management strategy, hiring external replacements within a more competitive market-driven, just-in-time process will be essential.

Vision

The University of Georgia will attract, hire, and develop a competent and innovative information technology workforce to maintain, adapt, and implement technologies and systems in support of the mission and strategic priorities of teaching, research, and public service and outreach.


1. Higher education markets, including peer and aspirant offerings, serve as drivers for developing a competitive IT workforce that is positioned to attract, develop, and retain the very best IT technical and professional staff.

a) Implement strategies to attract and hire a highly qualified information technology workforce.

2. Identifying and developing partnerships and external sources of expertise based on institutional needs are critical for competing for personnel and building the necessary IT workforce.

a) Implement strategies to retain and develop a highly qualified information technology workforce supported by a variety of partners, resources, and opportunities.

3. Recognizing that retention factors for IT professionals reflect industry-wide trends, experiences with innovation, state-of-the-art tools, applications, facilities, and next generation systems and services will be critical incentives in recruiting and hiring staff.

a) Aspire to achieve ‘great places to work in “IT” recognition’ from external review sources and organizations, including provision of professional development and business acumen about the varying missions and strategic priorities of the University.

4. If organizations are to meet the highest levels of commitment, service provision and planning, then core values, clear role and scope statements, and regular feedback are essential.

a) Provide ongoing training to maintain and increase the technical skills and competencies of UGA’s IT workforce, including the identification of high-potential employees who can be developed to become future leaders in the IT field at UGA.

Strategic

Direction 10:

Information

Technology

Workforce

Management

and Succession

Planning

Contributors to the IT Master Plan

University Leadership �Michael F. Adams, president � Jere W. Morehead � Timothy P. Burgess � Thomas S. Landrum

EITS Leadership � Timothy M. Chester � Barbara A. White � Lynn Latimer Wilson � Alan Katz � Greg Topp � David Matthews-Morgan � Shawn Ellis � Ilir Hasko � Brian Rivers �Mike Cheek � Jeff Teasley � Greg Ashley �Mike Dennis � Sharon Burch

CIO Advisory Cabinet � Denise C. Gardner, chair � Alan Katz � Bill Blum �Matt Blankenship � Brian Rivers � Chris Adcock � Dale A. Wetzelberger � Eric McRae � George Veeder � Greg Ashley � Holley W. Schramski � Jessica Kissinger �Mike Dennis � Nelson Hilton � Rick Lanard �William G. Potter

IT Governance Working Group � Barbara A. White � Kris Biesinger � Chris Adcock �Margaret A. Amstutz � Josef M. Broder � Curtis A. Carver � Cynthia G. Coyle � Annette M. Evans � Denise C. Gardner � Shay Davis Little � Libby V. Morris �Marsha O’Connor � Brian Rivers

� Dale A. Wetzelberger �Matthew M. Winston � Steven W. Wrigley

Administrative Systems Advisory Committee

� Holley W. Schramski, chair � Chris Adcock � Greg Ashley � Allan Aycock � John Ayoob �Matt Blankenship � Bill Blum � Sharon Burch �Mike Cheek � Timothy M. Chester � Derek Clark � Chad Cleveland � Cynthia G. Coyle �Mike Dennis � Shefali Dhar � Ilir Hasko � Nelson Hilton � Laura D. Jolly � Alan Katz � Jessica Kissinger � Lisa Lee � Christina J. Miller �William G. Potter � Brian Rivers � Robert A. Scott � Greg Topp � Dale A. Wetzelberger � Kim Woods

Committee for Academic and Instructional Technologies

� Nelson Hilton, chair � Sherry A. Clouser � Shawn Ellis � Jennifer Power � Bill Clayton � Diane W. Bales � Peggy Brickman �Mark H. Ebell � Dr. Patrick Hensel � Janette R. Hill � Naomi J. Norman � Casey O’Donnell � Chi Thai

EITS Facilities Committee � Greg Topp, chair � Committee Members

Research Computing Advisory Committee

� Jessica Kissinger, chair � Thiab Taha � Jim Leebens-Mack �Mary Ann Moran � Paul Schliekelman � Phillip Stancil � Robert J. Vandenberg � Stephen L. Rathbun � L. Stephen Miller

Information Security Committee

� Brian Rivers, chair � Committee Members

Information Technology Management Forum

� Chris Adcock, chair � Committee Members

ITMF Central Backup Subcommittee

� Jeff Teasley, chair �Wayne Crotts � Brad Hunt � David Matthews-Morgan � Jim Metcalf � Jerry NeSmith �Mark Walters �Michael Wiesenberg

ITMF Workforce Management and Succession Planning Working Group

� Alan Katz � Tom Gausvik � Greg Topp � Brad Hunt � Sherry A. Clouser � Duane Ritter � Christine E. Miller � Chris Adcock � Chad Cleveland

Non-Residential/Extended Campuses Think Tank Participants

� Nelson Hilton � Kavita K. Pandit � Beth Woods � Ruth S. Bettandorff � Cheryl Prichard � Bill Blum

� Chris Adcock

Researcher Think Tank Participants

� I. Jonathan Amster �Mark H. Ebell � Travis C. Glenn �Michael J. Hannafin � Gerrit Hoogenboom, � Jessica Kissinger � Eileen Kraemer �William Kretzschmar � David P. Landau � Jim Leebens-Mack � Ynes R. Ortega � Lloyd P. Rieber � Scott A. Shamp � Dr. Barbara L. Schuster � Thiab Taha �William York � Lance Wells � Shaying Zhao � Ying Xu

Student Technology Fee Committee

� Alan Katz, chair � Laura D. Jolly � John Ayoob � Kathy R. Pharr � Josh Delaney � Katie Barlow �Michael Clutter � Janette R. Hill �William Kretzschmar � Charlie Bailey � Greg Ashley � Bob Boehmer � Richard Kerr � Robert M. McMillin � Christina J. Miller � Sherry A. Clouser � Bill Clayton

Financial Planning and Fiscal Management

� Alan Katz � Barbara A. White � Greg Topp �Melody Head Battle

Special acknowledgement to Melody Head Battle, whose dedicated support assisted in making this plan possible.

EnterpriseInformationTechnology

Services

[email protected]

706-542-3106

101 Cedar StreetAthens, GA 30602-1130

university of georgia long-term it master plan

Documents