Information Technology Alignment, Strategy & Governance, and Efficiency CSG Winter 2011

Why is Alignment so Important?

FY10 Expenditures

- Unresponsive - Little Accountability - Inflexible + Single Enterprise + Single Enterprise + Efficient + Common Support + Unit Focus + Unit Focus + Effective + Effective + Responsive + Responsive -Redundancy - Redundancy - Costly - Lacking Standardization Principles Mission Specific or Strategic Importance to Local Unit Unique High Touch, High Interaction Little Cross-Unit Use Emerging, Immature Technologies Innovation Examples: Computer Desktop Support Web Development & Content Management Academic Application Development & Support Research Application Development & Support Integrated Technology Services Continuum Distributed Integrated Services Continuum Accountable to Both Accountable to BothNimble Good Value Best Practices Transparency Transparency Principles Institutional Vision & Mission Alignment Institutional Mission Criticality Strategic Leadership Opportunity Interoperability Common Need Institutional Economy-of-Scale Value Technology Maturity Institutional Risk Examples: Core

Role of Governance IT Planning Governance Groups: Serve as the voice of our customers Provide input on services and service levels. Provide priority and sequencing advice. Help lead and socialize directions and solutions.

Role of Governance IT Planning Governance Groups: Senate Committee Information Technology (Faculty) Deans and Chancellors (Academic Leadership) Academic Technology Advisory Committee (Associate/Assistant Deans) Collegiate & Coordinate Campus IT Directors (Distributed IT Leaders – Academic Units) Enterprise Planning Group (Distributed IT Leaders – Administrative Units) University-Wide Technology-Specific work groups (Techies)

Role of Consultation Senate Committee EPGATAC ITLA

IT Strategic Planning Goal "Identify and invest in technology projects that are transformative and provide competitive advantage, while maintaining the critical technology infrastructure necessary to support the institution."

IT Strategic Planning Rolling 6-Year Plan Rolling 2-Year Plan Quarterly Work-Plans

IT Strategic Planning Process Goals and Principles Process Goals: Manage an IT investment portfolio consistent with the institution’s goals and aligned to its strategies. Provide University Leaders with the right information to make major IT investments. Invest the right resources at the right time. Manage a well coordinated long-term technology plan that is financially sustainable.

Project Selection Criteria Project Type Project Value Project Readiness Project Financing

Project Selection Criteria Two Types: –Strategic (Academic, Research & Service Unit Projects) –Infrastructure (Maintaining the Base)

Project Selection Criteria Strategic Projects (Examples): Constituent Relationship Management (CRM) Faculty Activity Reporting and Expertise Business Intelligence / Academic Analytics U of M Google Apps Strategic Sourcing (Purchasing) Research Cyberinfrastructure Grad School Student Planner Infrastructure Projects (Examples): Data Center Modernization Program Server Virtualization & Consolidation Wireless Upgrade Identity Management ERP Upgrade (also continued compliance and maintenance)

Project Selection Criteria Projects in a fiscal year slot meet the following criteria: –Definition - we know what needs to be done. –Functional Ownership - a champion who has business decision responsibilities. –Business Case - an understanding of demand, business need, and investment return. –Finance Plan - a refined understanding of total costs and an associated plausible plan for funding them.

Project Selection Criteria Projects in planning and development meet the following criteria: –Definition - although not fully understood, a group is actively ‘working’ on defining the requirements for this idea/need and developing the business case. –Functional Ownership - there is a good sense of who would champion this effort and have non-technical decision responsibilities. –Finance Plan - Preliminary sense of cost may be known - but is unrefined. Funding is not known.

Project Selection Criteria Strategic Match: The extent to which the initiative aligns with the Institution's strategies/objectives. Impact on Institutional Measures of Success: The extent to which the initiative affects the Institution's performance measures. Competitive Impact and Advantage: The extent to which the initiative creates understood comparative advantage. Interdisciplinary Synergy / Leveragability: The extent to which the initiative can be used as a relationship building catalyst or can be leveraged across organizational boundaries. Demand or Need for Project / Program / Initiative: The consequences of not executing the initiative now. Financial Impact, Efficiency, Revenue, Cost, Productivity: The initiative's expected quantifiable outcome. Value

Organizational Readiness: The extent to which the technical and the functional organizations are poised to deliver and use the system. Technical Readiness: The extent to which the technology meets the functional need. Architecture Fit: The extent to which the initiative's technology can be connected to - and is interoperable with - existing components and/or systems. Definition: The extent to which the initiative's deliverables are described and understood. Element of confidence in the planned approach and its likeliness to change. Infrastructure Leveragability: The extent to which the initiative takes advantage of systems and services that exist today - or are already in place. Risk Project Selection Criteria

Benchmark / Comparable Information: Over time / Parts to the whole / Peers / Industry Standards (1) Improvement Categories (2) Cost Categories (3) Start-up & over 5 years (4a) Per impacted group (4b) University overall (5) Net impact (6) Benchmarks Project Selection VOI

Discussion Questions Are our CIOs positioned to lead the discussions around these ideas? Are CIOs empowered to lead these institutional IT activities? What can CIOs do to affect a strategically aligned IT management function?