1. IT Governance Steering Committee December 2, 2010

2. Meeting Objectives  Introductions  Review overall IT Governance structure  Review and revise roles and responsibilities of Steering Committee and subcommittees  Discuss expectations and critical success factors 2

3. Components of IT Governance  Effective governance is critical to the cohesive management of enterprise information technology.  IT governance is needed to monitor and adjust strategies, establish annual priorities, lead efforts to change culture and practice in concert with technology change, and to support continuous exploration of new developments in technology.  Organizes who has decision making rights and coordination responsibility.  As illustrated on the following page, there are three major components to IT Governance for the campus:  IT Governance Steering Committee  Committees on Research, Education and Business Applications and IT Architecture and Support  Technology/application specific advisory groups 3

4. Components of IT Governance Steering Committee Committee on Research Technology Advisory Groups (e.g., Informatics) Committee on Education Technology Advisory Groups (e.g., Classroom & Online Learning) Committee on Business Technology Advisory Groups (e.g., Financial) Project Committees (TBD) Committee on IT Architecture and Support Advisory Groups (e.g., Identity Mgmt) Project Committees (e.g., Telemedicine) 4 GovernanceAdvisory Align IT with Institutional Priorities Coordinate IT & Process Change Input Evaluate and recommend IT strategies

5. Core IT Governance Committees – Proposed Roles  IT governance will be carried out by five standing committees. Proposed responsibilities of each committee are introduced below and on the next page. 5 IT Governance Steering Committee (ITGSC) Chaired by Clay Johnston Meets monthly Focus on all significant areas of information technology; Guide and advise senior-level IT decision-making for UCSF; Recommend annual investment priorities, policies and changes to IT services to Senior Executives (Jeff Bluestone and John Plotts); With sub-committees, solicit and prioritize project proposals for new innovations or uses of technology; Identify points of integration and potential collision between the subcommittees. Committee on Research Technology (CRT) Chaired by Tom Ferrin Meets monthly Develop and align vision and strategy for research technology with faculty interests; Focus on technology related to research, (e.g. cyber infrastructure, informatics, data and curation, etc); Identify emerging needs or potential research applications of new technology that are shared across UCSF; Form advisory groups, as needed; Evaluate input and advice received from IT advisory groups; Recommend priorities for investment to the ITGSC;

6. Proposed Roles (con’t) Committee on Educational Technology (CET) Chaired by Joseph Castro Meets monthly Focus on technology related to teaching, and learning; Develop and align educational technology vision and strategy with effective pedagogy, faculty interests and student expectations; Monitor and recommend strategies to sustain the technology in classroom and non- classroom based learning spaces; Advise on changes to technologies or services that impact teaching, learning and research; Form advisory groups, as needed; Evaluate input and advice received from IT advisory groups (e.g., Student Support, Classroom and online learning); Recommend annual technology investment priorities to the ITGSC; Sponsor initiatives to expand the use of technology in education. Committee on Administrative Technology (CAT) Chaired by Anja Paardekooper Meets monthly Focus on technology related to administrative services, campus operations and the effective use of data to support decision-making; Develop a consolidated vision and strategy for enterprise administrative applications; Recommend policy changes that impact the use of administrative technologies to the ITGSC. Identify emerging needs or potential administrative applications of new technology that are shared across UCSF; Form advisory groups, as needed; Evaluate input and advice received from IT advisory groups (e.g., HR, Finance, Research Admin, Student, Data Warehouse, Portals and CMS, Projects); Recommend priorities for investment to the ITGSC; Sponsor initiatives to improve administrative efficiency and effectiveness through the use of technology. 6

7. Proposed Roles (con’t) Committee on IT Architecture and Support (CAS) Chaired by Opinder Bawa Meets monthly Focus on technology related to underlying IT architecture, support, security and policy; Develop a vision and strategy for IT architecture and support; Evaluate and recommend changes to IT policies. Monitor the balance of central and local responsibilities for technology; Sponsor initiatives to improve efficiency, effectiveness and security of the UCSF IT architecture; Form advisory groups; Evaluate input and advice received from IT advisory groups (e.g., Identity Management, Security and IT Policies, Telemedicine & Mobile, IT Funding/recharge, IT Projects, OE Workgroups, etc); Recommend priorities for investment and identify opportunities for collaboration for campus IT to the ITGSC; Advisory Groups Specific advisory groups have been suggested to support each of the subcommittees (CRT, CET, CAT and CAS); The role of each committee will be to confirm the chair, membership of the group, and to clarify and set expectations for their roles and responsibilities. 7

8. Issues to Address  Adopt a new funding model for shared IT services;  Mobile Health initiative;  Comprehensive business and clinical data warehouse;  Open-access policy;  Overseeing OE IT initiatives;  Others? 8

9. Critical Success Factors  How can we collectively ensure the success of IT Governance?  How should we communicate with the other committees? With leaders?  How much do we react vs. create?  How do set our agenda?  What are your expectations for the types of issues and decisions that will be discussed by the TSC?  Do we need a strategic plan at our level?  What are expectations for individual contribution and participation of the Steering Committee members? 9

10. Discussion Questions  What are the criteria we will use to determine if a technology is “significant” and therefore should be under the portfolio of the IT Steering Committee?  Are there explicit roles that are not in the scope of decision- making for the Steering Committee?  Should IT Governance committees consider allocating annual innovation grants to faculty and staff to explore new technologies or new applications of educational, research and administrative technologies?  Should IT Governance committees (in particular research and education) sponsor a bi-annual series of faculty demonstrations of uses of educational technologies? 10

11. Next Steps  Monthly meeting schedule  Convene Committees on Research, Education, Business and IT Architecture and Support;  Specific charge to them?  Establish website and communications strategy for overall IT Governance;  Next meeting January (date TBD). 11