IT Strategic Alignment: The Core of Strategic Planning (242321337)

8/11/2019 IT Strategic Alignment: The Core of Strategic Planning (242321337)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/it-strategic-alignment-the-core-of-strategic-planning-242321337 1/135

Information Technology

Strategic Alignment Integration Meeting

December 3, 2013

How we got here

N$8*$#O$

8</R$'*

7'*/O$*$# J-88"9: -9Q>EO>$SE$9* >#-558</R$'* *$-#> T/<=U8</'$>> *$-#V E>$<F'E>*/#$< $I8$<"$9'$*$-#W

X/)$#O$+>*$# #-8T"*B ->>$*>V Y9-9'"-5V>*<E'*E<$ -9Q

<$>8/9>"O"5"($>

Z$'$#O$*$8>

Strategic Alignment 3



Project Objectives

!

We embarked on a comprehensive review of the organization thathas not been done in recent memory

! We called the review and the work that will come out of it“Information Technology Strategic Alignment”

! The review was multi-faceted

–

Map the overall IT system

– Analyze key processes and identifying bottlenecks

–

Map assets and finances

–

Map organization structure to the system

– Assess the team's skills and capabilities

–

Document business customer and end-user experience –

External Peer Review

! This comprehensive review will feed into the strategic plan andsupport organizational alignment

4Strategic Alignment



Project Launch

System Mapping



Team Members

6

! Deepika Chalemela

! David Cruz

! Jason Hardy

!

Todd Milligan

! James Payne

! Terrill Richardson

! Shaun Tate

System Mapping Team Report

Team Purpose

C</)"Q$ @3V333] B":B^5$)$5 N+>*$# J-88"9:

[Q$9(\+ =$+ >*-=$B/5Q$<>

L//= -* *B$ /<:-9"M-(/9 B/5">('-55+

[Q$9(\+ - \$T <$'/##$9Q-(/9>

[Q$9(\+ #$#O$<> \/< ->>$>>#$9* *$-#>

_/'E> /9 O$>* $0/<* ^ ,3` <":B* <-*B$< *B-9 8$<\$'*

System Mapping Team Report 7



Methodology

!

Define outputs

– Services

– Products

!

Identify customers and users

!

Define inputs!

Identify suppliers

– Vendors

– Users

– Business Units

–

UT System

!

Define key processes

!

Perform “lite” analysis of processes

!"#$%&'() $%)

+$,-.()

!"#$%&'() $%)

+$,-.()




9Strategic Alignment



Conclusions and Implications

!

Almost all IT services touch almost every

customer

!

Cross-functional group invaluable

!

Critical of ourselves

– Rated our process pretty low

– Opportunities for improvement

!

Much IT exists outside of IT

!

Leadership commitment required




Recommendations for Next Steps

! Provide DNA to break-out groups

–

Process Analysis

–

Customer & User Requirements

–

IT Asset and Finance Mapping

–

Organizational Structure & Responsibility Mapping

– IT Benchmarking

! Disseminate information up and down

! Include distributed IT

!

Develop our organizational business acumen! Reach out to business unit heads to hear what they need to tell us




Benchmarking Team Report



Team Members

13

! Deepika Chalemela

! Terrill Richardson

! Barry Salas

!

Bob Samson

! Gregory Dey

! Charlie Templeton

! Pete Smith

!

Jaclyn West

Benchmarking Team Report



Team Purpose

! Identify the institutions (organizations or other highereducation institutions) that will be benchmarked for best

practices in IT

!

Identify the information to collect as part of thebenchmarking process

! Collect and analyze the benchmarking data

14Benchmarking Team Report



Methodology

! Interviews and content analysis

! Industry best practices




DATA SUMMARY

Benchmarking



Benchmarking Team Report 17

Benchmarking Research



Institutions Benchmarked

! University of Maryland

– Approximately 37,000 students (undergrad and grad)

– 250-300 staff in OIT

– State university

! University of Georgia

– Approximately 35,000 students (undergrad and grad)

– 225 staff in OIT

– State university




Institutions Benchmarked

! Tulane

– 13,500 students (undergrad and grad)

– Private university

– 130 staff in OIT

! Essilor USA

– Global company in 54 countries

–

100 manufacturing units in US

– Leading manufacturer of corrective lenses

!

Bizknowlogy – Big Data Social Network Analysis Firm





Interview Protocol

! Questions focused on the following areas:

– Context (history, challenges, key initiatives, etc.)

– Current state (competitive edge, areas for improvement, etc.)

– Organizational infrastructure (current organizational structure

and how well it enables or disables)

– Strategic orientation (connection to strategy, etc.)

– Big bets (what changes had the greatest impact, etc.)

– Measurement (how success is measured)




Benchmarking Results



!"#"$%&"'"(! *"++(&(,-(!

! Most organizations were

hierarchical

!

Each institution re-organized

!

There is a gap in skills needed

to meet new technology needs

!

Training was not accounted for

in formal budgets

! Standards were not kept across

the institution and customerswere generally unhappy with IT

! Infrastructure was lacking

! Institutions dealt with the skill

gaps differently (retraining vs.

moving people out)


Context: Similarities/Differences




Context: Key Findings

! High level findings regarding Context

– First few years in new roles were focused on remediating the

organization

– Focus first on:

•

Communication with stakeholders

•

Getting the right people in the right roles

•

Fixing the operational issues quickly

• Establishing and publishing standards




Current State: Similarities/Differences

!"#"$%&"'"(! *"++(&(,-(!

! Current areas of focus:

- Infrastructure

-

Innovation

-

Business Intelligence

- Customer/stakeholder

communication and

collaboration

- Integration of core systems

-

Security- Staffing needs and training

- Educational tools and spaces

! Centralized vs. distributed IT

model

!

Some customers viewed the IT

organization the way they

wanted to be viewed, and

others did not




Current State: Key Findings

! Key findings regarding Current State

– Most organizations:

• Recognize that stakeholder collaboration is essential for success

• Believe the IT organization for the future should be more focused on

innovation/strategy and have a reliable infrastructure

• Continue to focus on training their people




Infrastructure: Similarities/Differences

!"#"$%&"'"(! *"++(&(,-(!

! All academic institutions have

some level of distributed IT,

which necessitates collaboration

! Academic institution CIOs report

to either the President or the

Provost




Infrastructure: Key Findings

! Key findings regarding Organizational Infrastructure

– Distributed IT is part of an academic infrastructure model (not

likely to change) and ultimately this needs to be reflected in both

the structure and governance of an academic IT

–

There is no recommended best practice in this area




Orientation: Similarities/Differences

!"#"$%&"'"(! *"++(&(,-(!

! Need for a technology-outsourcing plan

! Cloud services

!

Social media

! Data centralization and access

!

Move to virtualization

! Mobility

! Drivers for outsourcing are different

! Degree of focus on the future varied




Orientation: Key Findings

! Key findings regarding Strategic Orientation

– Focus on future trends and developments is critical (cloud, etc.)

– While all recognize the key focus areas, few plan and allocate

sufficient resources

–

Focus areas should drive where and how resources are

leveraged




Big Bets: Similarities/Differences

!"#"$%&"'"(! *"++(&(,-(!

! Change management

! Governance

!

Service delivery and

collaboration

! Standards

! Training

! Project Management




Big Bets: Key Findings

! Key findings regarding Big Bets

– Most institutions have a governance committee that determines

what the key priorities are and how to fund them

– Re-focusing to build a community based, partnering environment

is critical

– Change management is essential for success




Measurement: Similarities/Differences

!"#"$%&"'"(! *"++(&(,-(!

! Most measure time and

complaints that are escalated in

regards to issue resolution

!

Most do not have a robust

measurement system

! Some institutions measure time

and cost in regards to project

success

!

Some institutions survey

regularly, some do not




Measurement: Key Findings

! Key findings regarding Measurement

– While all institutions acknowledge the importance of

measurement, no one is really doing this well



Other Benchmarking Information

Educause

Gartner






! Educause

– There were increases in central IT funding as a percentage of

the institutional budget from 2010 to 2011

– IT staff compensation was budgeted to increase for 72% of

institutions

– 10% increase of at least one cloud service between 2011-12

•

Email was the most commonly outsourced service.

• There is also movement toward outsourcing Learning Management

Systems solutions

–

The use of Service Level agreements is increasing





! Gartner

– More than 50% of education shared-service organizations that

provide cloud services by 2015 will discontinue or downscale

them by 2017

–

By 2015, more than 50% of interactions with students will takeplace via a smartphone or tablet

– By 2016, more than 50% of legacy education applications will be

replaced with enterprise commercial off-the-shelf solutions



Note: In the survey respondents identified their top three issues (not in any order). These priorities are ordered based on

the percentage of respondents that included the issue in their top three.

Top 10 CIO Strategies 2013Please indicate the top three priorities that you expect to focus on in 2013

Improving IT management and governance 1

Delivering Business Solutions 2

Improving IT organization and workforce 3Enhancing customer service and experience 4

Implementing mobility solutions 5

Improving IT network and communications 6

Improving data management 7

Developing or managing a flexible infrastructure 8

Consolidating IT operations and resources 9Implementing cloud based solutions 10


Gartner: 2013 Top 10 CIO Strategic Priorities



Note: In the survey respondents identified their top three issues (not in any order). These priorities are ordered based on

the percentage of respondents that included the issue in their top three.

Top Ten CIO Technology PrioritiesPlease indicate your top three priorities for 2013-2016

Business Intelligence (BI) applications (inc. analytics, data mining) 1

IT management technologies (Program, Project management, governance, change management) 2

Mobile devices (hardware, Smartphones, etc.) 3

Collaboration technologies (e.g. Workflow management, team collaboration) 4

Legacy application modernization, upgrade or replacement 5

Networking, Voice and Data Communications (including VoIP) 6

Security technologies (access control, authentication, etc.) 7

Enterprise Resource applications (Finance, HR, etc.) 8

Mobile customer applications (externally facing apps) 9

Customer relationship management applications (CRM) 10


Gartner: 2013-2016 Top 10 CIO Technology Priorities




! IT services and policies should be customer focused

! Communication and collaboration with customers is vital

! IT exists to support the mission of the University

!

Balance efforts between maintaining current servicesand preparing for future needs

! “Choice of software isn’t what will make or break theinstitution, the people will” - Charlie McMahon, Tulane

!

We need to measure our success and tie our measuresto the goals of the institution





! Formalize collaboration and governance

! Define, publish, and adhere to policies and standards

! Establish a mobile strategy

!

Reshape the way we do analytics and data management ! Enhance social media presence

! Take advantage of new cloud services

! Ensure staffing meets academic and business needs




Questions




Customer/User

Experience Report



Team Members

43Customer Experience Team Report

+.-/! 0&./1 !/230&./1 !/&4(5 !/230&./1

! Crystal Livingston

! Joe Gilstrap

!

Jared Beaty

!

Eric Bolsterli

!

David Leong

! Deena Oden

! Zinna Butcher

! Elizabeth Pachas

! Dennis Ignatenko

! David Leong

!

Bobby Jones

!

Hans Gatterdam

!

Melissa Ferguson

! David Cruz

! John Patton

! John Connolly

! Radha Padmasolala

!

Jared Beaty

!

Eric Bolsterli

!

*Anna Mroch (Survey Consultant)



Team Purpose

! Identify key customers and suppliers, or groups ofcustomers and suppliers, in the campus IT system to

better understand their experience of IT Services

! Collect and analyze their experience of IT (baseline)




SURVEY

Customer Experience



Methodology

! Discussed timeframe for gathering customer/userexperience

– Very compressed

– Large set of customers/users

!

Decided key customer/user groups were:

– Faculty, students, and staff

! Best methodology for timeframe and large user

community:

–

Focus groups

– Surveys


Survey Results

47

!-=$ - .5/>$< L//=

Customer Experience Team Report



High Level “Takeaways” from Survey

! Survey was more positive than anticipated

! A disconnect between importance and satisfaction among

faculty was identified

!

Learned that laptops are currently the most widely used! There is perceived benefit in spending more time both

designing and receiving feedback with follow-up surveys

! An opportunity exists for more robust survey functionality

! Big theme is that faculty do not feel that IT engages them

in a discussion around technology




FOCUS GROUPS

Customer Experience



Focus Group Methodology


! Focus group interviews

– Standardized open-ended questions to minimize variability

– Informal conversational questions to explore unanticipated

responses

!

11 focus groups conducted over 2.5 weeks

– 98 people attended one hour sessions

– Focus groups were scheduled as affinity groups (Deans, Chairs,

etc.)

• 55 staff, 36 faculty, and 7 students attended

• 52 women and 46 men



Focus Group Demographics


!

13 from Academic

Analytics and Enrollment

!

13 from Student Affairs

!

11 from Science

!

10 from Engineering

!

10 from Liberal Arts

!

7 from Education and

Health Sciences

!

7 from Business

!

4 from Architecture

!

4 from Nursing

!

4 from Social Work

!

4 from SUPA

!

3 from Honors College

!

3 from the Library

!

2 department or affiliation

unknown

!

1 from Facilities

!

1 from Human Resources

!

1 from OIT



Focus Group Focal Points


1. Is the broad use of technology perceived as helpful or ahindrance to productivity?

2. How well are specific systems or services that touch

customers doing and why?

3. Critical issues for the future



General Use of Technology


! Perception of helping and hindering

! Overall, focus group respondents use all types of

technology

– Tablets, laptops, printers, desktops, etc.



General Use of Technology


! Key challenges to utilizing technology at UTA include:

– Encryption, which has caused many problems and is perceived

very negatively

– System failures (particularly at heavy use times)

–

Less than prompt assistance from IT

– Sense that all customers are treated as if they have the same

needs (when in fact they do not)

– IT does not communicate changes or problems well to campus

(people are surprised)

–

There is no integration between systems and software

! Take away: Users are sophisticated with their use of

technology and expect technology to “work” for them



HOW SPECIFIC SYSTEMS AREPERCEIVED BY USERS AND WHY

Report Card

Report Card

56

6 7 8

9 7 :

9 7 8

9 7 8

; 7 <

; 7 <

; 7 <

; 7 =

; 7 =

; 7 >

; 7 >

; 7 >

; 7 ?

; 7 6

; 7 9

; 7 9

; 7 ;

; 7 :

; 7 8

; 7 8

: 7 >

8 7 8

3a3

Da3

Ka3

2a3

?a3

3

K@

@3

b@

D33

_

Z

.

A

&

&): c<-Q$


Including Write-In Systems

Report Card Averages

57

9 7 :

9 7 8

; 7 @

; 7 <

; 7 <

; 7 <

; 7 <

; 7 >

; 7 >

; 7 ;

; 7 :

; 7 8

; 7 8

: 7 9

: 7 9

: 7 8

: 7 8

8 7 ?

8 7 8

3a3

Da3

Ka3

2a3

?a3

3

D

K

2

?

@

d

b

,

e

D3

_

Z

.

A

&

&): c<-Q$


Dean’s Focus Group (Including Write-Ins)



Focus Group Summary Report Card

! Least used IT System or Service was Astra (n=21)

! Most used IT System or Service was Outlook and

MyMav (n=84)

!

Given the most “A”s as a service or system was Outlook(n=36)

! Given the most “F”s as a service or system wasDiscoverer (n=5)

! The systems or services used the most received the

highest grade




Report Card – “Whys”

! Wifi:

– Received a wide range of grades from customers

– Low grades were given for wireless dead zones

! Support for Classrooms:

– Wide range of scores

– Low grades were given for lack of support from staff in

classroom support (“too busy ”) and the need to get to the

classroom early to make sure things work properly

– After hours staffing would be beneficial





! VPN (off-campus):

– Wide range of scores – many said it worked well

– Low grades have to do with not being able to access VPN, so

many faculty have to do a “workaround”

!

SharePoint: – Relatively new product; very few scores given

– Received generally low grades; most users felt that they were

not given adequate training on the product and there was a lack

of communication in rolling it out

!

Mentis & Define:

– Received generally low grades; most users felt they do not know

how to use these products





! ImageNow:

– Low grades were given for difficulty caused by encryption rollout,

for not being compatible with other systems, and access issues

! Discoverer:

–

Low grades were generally due to its inaccessibility, slowness, andsusceptibility to crashes

! Desktop Support:

– Given divergent grades

– The main reason for low grades was the lack of skill and number of

IT staff available to offer assistance (particularly for Mac support)

! Astra:

– Lowest grades; least understood technology




Critical Issues for the Future

! Fix all of the operational issues so that we can focus oninnovation/Tier One

! There is a need for supercomputers – an ability to get to

Big Data

!

Train our staff and faculty how to gain the most from

the technology

! Consider a “vetting process” (like negotiated rulemaking)

before IT issues new policy or systems

!

Figure out a way to meet the needs of differentstakeholder groups




Additional Key Themes

! Most focus groups said that OIT must “bless” their use oftechnology (makes IT a compliance organization)

! IT is “dictating to campus” vs. as partners with campus

! Users feel that OIT does not “trust” them – OIT keeps the

“permission”

! OIT is not adequately staffed and does not necessarilyhave the correct background/experience





! Since everything IT is considered to be part of OIT, weneed to understand ALL the talents and skills in IT and

believe that we are all on the same team

! We must be in sync with each other so that we look like

we are on the same team! There is a lot of ambiguity between groups and people –

defining roles and authority would help us

! There is a substantial population of faculty and staff that

don’t believe change will occur and that if it does it will

not be positive for them

! We have all learned a great deal about our colleaguesand the campus perception of IT through this process





! Suggest we regularly check user/customer experience –we need to determine when we might want to check the

“pulse” of IT on campus again

! It will be important to send the results of the survey and

focus groups back to the campus

! Suggest we use the data from the customer/userexperience to continuously improve IT




Asset Mapping Team ReportDecember 3, 2013



Team Members

68

! Mary Deane

! Brandon Gunnip

! Jason Hardy

!

Robyn Keller-Baugh! Brad Samek

! Betty Scammell

! Mike Ten Eyck

Asset Mapping Team Report



Team Purpose

69

! The purpose of this team is to trace and map the assets(human and capital) and the financial transactions

between UT System and UTA in order to understand

where and how they appropriately support business

requirements




History of the ARDC

70

1971 – UTA builds two

data centers (academic

and administrative in

Davis Hall – 6200 sq ft

70’s 00’s 10’s

2003 – OIT consolidates

management of data centers

2004 – UTA rents

space in ARDC

2005 – Move from

Davis Hall to ARDC

2006 – UTA

purchases ARDC;

share SIS for UTA,

UTD, and UTT begins

""""

2009 – UT Dallas and

Tyler go live with TEXIS;

System begins shared

HCM/FMS project

2006 – System

purchases ARDC

from UTA

2011 – UT Dallas goes

live with HCM/FMS/

eProcurement

2014 – Expected

production of

HCM/FMS in all

eight schools




Methodology

! The team conducted its work by carefully examiningexisting sources of data, including:

– OIT organization charts

– The UT Data Center floor plan

–

Budget and other financial data for the UT Share agreement

71 Asset Mapping Team Report



Data Collected and Analyzed

! Two main transactions between UTA and UT Systemwere identified:

– Operation and maintenance of the UT Data Center (ARDC)

– Support of UT Share projects (HR Finance/TEXSIS)

!

The Data Center floor plan was examined

– Hosting agreements were reviewed

• Cost per square foot for occupying space

•

Salaries included in the cost per square foot

•

Annual operating costs





! OIT personnel were reviewed and broken down as apercentage of time worked for UTA/UT Share/UT Data

Center (ARDC)

– Apportioned salary information based on the percentages

–

Identified the reimbursement strategy from UT System

– Drew conclusions based on comparison of current state to

reimbursement strategy

! Software and hardware assets, purchases, and

maintenance were also reviewed





! Audit the usage of square footage in the ARDC

! Conduct a review of direct expenses with accounting

! Conduct an independent review of the cost included in

running the ARDC to determine if indirect overhead

should be included

! Separate the UTA and UT Share budget structure

! Review the UT Share budget to determine the %

allocation of FTEs

!

Further involve UTA in the UT Share budget preparation




Process Team ReportDecember 3, 2013



Team Members

76

! Doris Gammenthaler

! Sue Gandluru

! Scott Hudson

!

Nikki Knight! Alisa Millard

! Todd Milligan

! Carla Monk

Process Team Report



Team Purpose

77

! The purpose of this team is to:

– Analyze key IT business processes

– Evaluate the overall effectiveness of key processes

– Identify and prioritize the greatest points of leverage for

improving processes

Process Team Report



Methodology

! Step 1: Map the process at a basic level

– Identify major transformation steps and decisions

• No sub-processes

! Step 2: Identify variances

–

Process variation is any deviation from a quality standard,

malfunction, a delay, a foul-up, breakdown, or unplanned event

that has a negative impact on the desired outcome

– Describe the variance specifically

– Identify where in the process it occurs (process step or decision

point)

78Process Team Report



Methodology

! Step 3: Analyze the variances

– What contributes to the variance?

• Quality of the input?

• Technical system incapacity?

•

Human system incapacity?

• Handoffs within the process or to another process?

– Assess the severity of the impact of the variance on the process

•

3 = High impact (causes work stoppage, lots of rework, willcompromise the solution)

•

2 = Medium impact (causes major slowing, some rework, affectsquality of solution)

• 1 = Low impact (some slowing to the process, possible rework,

negligible affect on solution quality)




Methodology

! Step 4: Volume and flow analysis

– Randomly sample incidents/requests/events that pass through

the process

– Examine process performance for

•

Throughput

•

Cycle time

•

Resolution by time




Methodology

! Step 5: Evaluate process efficacy for the followingdimensions

– Process effectiveness

• Level of solution

–

Process timeliness

• Cycle time

– Process efficiency

• Leanness

– Compute a “health” score for the process as a fraction of the

total possible, e.g. 5/12

! Step 6: Identify directions for process improvement




Processes Analyzed

! Incident Management

! Request Fulfillment

! Event Management

!

Problem Management! Change Management

! Project Management

82

! Access Management

! Application Purchase

! Application Development

!

Service Validation &Testing

! Release & Deploy

Process Team Report



Process Relationship Map




Analysis Examples: Mapping


87

!"#$"

%&#'(

)*+,- /#((

0-(1 2-34

)*+,- /#((

5"*-$

6+,'"+$',7

!+89#$-

51-$#:+,3 ;#((3

5!! 5,</#((

2'3;+=-$>

?-$'@> "*- '33A- 2-"-$&',- "*-

3-$=-$ B

B C--D "+

-3;#(#"-E

/#(( 3-$=-$ )$'&#$>F

2GBFB11(';#:+,

!A11+$"

/+,:,A- "+ 9+$4

"*- %=-,"

2'3;+=-$>

%3;#(#"- "+

6#,#7-&-,"E

G$',7 ', +"*-$

BD&',3E H+$4 "+ $-3+(A:+, %,D

C+ C+

H+$4 "*- %=-,"

G$',7 ', +"*-$

BD&',3E

C+

I-3

I-3I-3

I-3

C+

Event Management

P1

D1 D2

D3

P2 P3 P4

P5

P6 P7D4

Process Team Report



Analysis Examples: Variance Analysis




Analysis Examples: Variance Analysis

DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE(OR CLUSTER OF VARIANCES)

WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO THIS VARIANCE?WHAT IS THE SEVERITY OFIMPACT ON THE PROCESS?

Work on fulfillment is not tracked

! Quality of input

-

No documentation

!

Technical system

-

Fulfillment faster than ticket creation

!

Human system-

Resistance to change/processes

- Not following proper procedures

- Lack of resources

! Handoffs

- Work within a ticket is not tracked

2

Routed to wrong N-Level

Requests are improperly routed

! Quality of input

-

Not asking the right questions to routeproperly

!

Technical system

- Categories not defined

- People (teams) not defined (in ITSM)

2




Analysis Examples: Flow and Volume

90

Source = ITSM | My Mav Incidents

DATE TOTAL INCIDENTS# OF INCIDENTS

RESOLVED 0-1 DAY

# OF INCIDENTSRESOLVED BEYOND

0-1 DAY

% OF INCIDENTSRESOLVED 0-1 DAY

2/4/13 18 14 4 78

2/14/13 15 13 2 87

2/20/13 18 14 4 78

3/19/13 10 8 2 80

TOTAL 61 49 12 80

Process Team Report



Analysis Examples: Flow and Volume

91

Total of all incidents sampled

TYPE TOTAL INCIDENTS# OF INCIDENTS

RESOLVED 0-1 DAY

# OF INCIDENTSRESOLVED BEYOND

0-1 DAY

% OF INCIDENTSRESOLVED 0-1 DAY

Web 35 26 9 74

My Mav 61 49 12 80

Desktop 85 57 28 67

Network 46 40 6 87

Communications 122 106 16 87

TOTAL 349 278 71 79.7

Process Team Report



Analysis Examples: Process Efficacy

92

! Process Efficacy – Project Management

– Timeliness = Conformance to project due date = 1

–

Effectiveness = 3 (eventually we get there)

– Efficiency = 2, perhaps less for non-PMO projects

–

Total = 6/12

Process Team Report



Analysis Examples: Process Efficacy

93

! Directions for Process Improvement

– Flexible PM methodology – need ability to scale the process

–

Clear definition of roles and responsibilities

– Clear definitions of terms

–

Strengthen up front process steps – scope, stakeholders,requirements, and measurable objectives

– Strengthen communication of progress and change to user

– Formalize key steps, e.g. testing, WBS, staffing, corrective

actions, proper handoffs

Process Team Report

C l d l




! OIT processes are effective 90+% of the time; they aretimely and efficient 80% of the time or less

! The front end of our processes (and our organization)

has shortcomings in the following areas:

–

Understanding the customer’s business process (why)

– Gathering requirements (what)

– Getting the right people in the room (who)

–

Having the right conversation (what)


C l i d I li i




! IT’s structure does not formally promote cross-functionalproblem-solving and decision-making

! No shared ownership and accountability on cross-

functional projects

!

Our processes and systems lack cross-functional

support in the following areas:

– Project Management

– Application purchase

–

Software architecture – Systems architecture, including network infrastructure


C l i d I li i




! No formal upstream-downstream mapping of systemsand services

– No mechanism for centralizing and categorizing software or

hardware

!

Process handoffs are not clear, firm, or formal! Escalation criteria and paths are often poorly defined

! Our processes and organization are not flexible or

adaptable

–

To balance the need for structure with the need forresponsiveness

– To be scalable and maintainable


C l i d I li ti




! IT is missing or lacking the following:

– Soft skills

– Technical skills both wide and deep

• Database Administrator

•

Business Analyst

• Systems Architect

• Software Architect

•

Cross-functional training

– Project Management skills for all team members


R d ti f N t St




! Charter other teams to do specific process improvementbased on this work

! Processes with variances

– Request fulfillment

–

Incident management

– Event management

– Application purchase and development

– Project management


R d ti f N t St




! Processes not used throughout IT

– Application purchase and development

! Process needing the most change

– Project management

•

Scalable

• Knowledge of PM basics throughout




Organization Structure

Team Report

T P



Team Purpose

Organization Structure Team Report 101

! Determine how goods and services are provisioned by the organization forconsumption by users and customers

! Determine how work is carried out at an organizational level

!

Determine whether current functional structure allows OIT to best meet the

business objectives of the university

!

Determine what if any areas of the organization are not present or needstrengthening

Team Members



Team Members

102

! Bryan Maupin

! Tammy Montgomery

! Erin Morgan

!

James Payne! Erwin Robins

! Shaun Tate

Organization Structure Team Report

Methodology

Methodology

103

-ABC3BDEFG BHCIAJKLB MLJ DNJCC AIAOGPHAOQKCRB LM DNC LJSAIKTAPLIAO BDJEHDEJC

P

&Q^f/' Z$'">"/9^J-="9:

P _/<#-5 C</'$>>

P ./9>*$55-(/9 &9-5+>">

104

+LJUAO.JSAIKTAPLI

-NAJD

%F3VLH!HCIAJKLB

P

HL[ N*EQ$9* &''$>>

P

.5->><//# NE88/<*

P

N$<)$< g"<*E-5"M-(/9

+LJUAO 1JLHCBB!HCIAJKLB

P

X$T C<"9*$<&QQ"(/9

P

A/I &885"'-(/9CE<'B->$

P N+>*$# H)$9*

-LIBDCOOAPLI#AWWKIS XG

!CJQKHC



Ad-Hoc Decision-Making

Analysis

Ad-Hoc Decision-Making Analysis:



g yMethodology

106

!

Depicts the organization as a system of informal

communications

!

Indicates that rich networks of informal communications exist

in the organization that supplement and sometimes

circumvent channels of formal authority



g yEnglish Language Institute (ELI) Student Access

P HL[ >*EQ$9*> 9$$Q >$<)"'$> */ >E88/<* *B$"< -'-Q$#"' -'()"($>1

P X$*[Z> */ 5/: /9*/ '/#8E*$<>

P &''$>> */ .-#8E> N/5E(/9> */ 8-+ \/< O"55>

P

J-)[Z "9 /<Q$< */ -''$>> OE"5Q"9:> "9'5EQ"9: Q/<#> -9Q-8-<*#$9*>

2EBKICBB &CYEKJCUCIDB

P

&E*/#-(/9 /\ J+J-) -9Q X$*[Z -''/E9* '<$-(/9 8</'$>>$>P HL[ >*EQ$9* '-8-O"5"*+ */ 8-+ O"55> *B</E:B J+J-)

P .-8-O"5"*+ */ <$8/<* /9 HL[ >*EQ$9*]> OE"5Q"9: -''$>>

'CHNIKHAO &CYEKJCUCIDB

107Insight: When properly empowered any IT team member can improve existing business processes



ELI Student Access

108Insight: IT lacks organizational culture and structures that would allow it to quickly develop, integrate, orinnovate solutions that are low cost but high yield




ELI Student Access

109Insight: Work activity engages centers of expertise, experience, and resources in various functional groups

41 "' Z -".

-OKCID !CJQKHCB

%WWOKHAPLI !CJQKHCB

2EBKICBB-LOOAXLJAPLI

*CB[DLW !CJQKHCB

"IBDJEHPLIAO !CJQKHCB

!CJQKHC *CB[

!DAPBPHAO !CJQKHCB

(IDCJWJKBC"IMLJUAPLI !CJQKHCB

%WWOKHAPLI*CQCOLWUCID

(IDCJWJKBC1JLFEHPLI !CJQKHCB

(IDCJWJKBC 2EBKICBB"IDCOOKSCIHC

(IDCJWJKBC%WWOKHAPLI !CJQKHCB

,CDRLJ[ Z'COCHLUUEIKHAPLIB

!CJQKHCB

,CDRLJ[ !CJQKHCB

'COCHLUUEIKHAPLIB

.\HC LM DNC 41 "' Z-".

(]CHEPQC !EWWLJD

+KIAIHKAOB

VEUAI &CBLEJHCB

#AJ[CPIS Z-LUUEIKHAPLIB

1JLHEJCUCID

&KB[ #AIASCUCID

.WCJAPLIB Z!GBDCUB

.WCJAPLIB

!GBDCUB

1JL^CHD #AIASCUCID.\HC

*"!'&"2/'(* "'

"IDCJIAPLIAO .\HC

(ISOKBN $AISEASC"IBPDEDC

%HAFCUKH %IAOGPHBZ .WCJAPLIB


Classroom Support

P

./9>">*$9* *$'B9/5/:+ -'</>> -55 '5->><//#>

P f-<QT-<$ <$:E5-<5+ <$\<$>B$Q */ /8(#"M$ $->$ /\ E>$

P

.5->><//# >E88/<* *$-# */ ->>">* T"*B *$'B9/5/:+

2EBKICBB &CYEKJCUCIDB

P

;$85-'$ 8</R$'*/<> /\ #E5(85$ )$9Q/<> -9Q >$5$'* - >"9:5$#/Q$5 \/< "9>*<E'*/<> */ 5$-<9 -9Q E>$

P C</)"Q$ N#-<* 8<$>$9*-(/9 *//5> "9 '5->><//#>

P

C</)"Q$ 5$'*E<$ '-8*E<$ -9Q '/9\$<$9'"9: *//5>


110Insight: IT decision-making happens outside the central IT organization, but often requires collaboration withcentral IT for delivery of final service



Classroom Support

111Insight: Work activity often engages distributed IT and external partners for which there are not establishedroutines




Classroom Support

112Insight: Central and Distributed IT often work at a tactical level to deliver technologies rather thancoordinating at strategic levels to deliver service

41 "' Z -".

-OKCID !CJQKHCB

%WWOKHAPLI !CJQKHCB


*CB[DLW !CJQKHCB


!CJQKHC *CB[

!DAPBPHAO !CJQKHCB







!CJQKHCB

,CDRLJ[ !CJQKHCB

'COCHLUUEIKHAPLIB

.\HC LM DNC 41 "' Z-".

(]CHEPQC !EWWLJD

+KIAIHKAOB

VEUAI &CBLEJHCB


1JLHEJCUCID

&KB[ #AIASCUCID

.WCJAPLIB Z!GBDCUB

.WCJAPLIB

!GBDCUB


*"!'&"2/'(* "'

(FEHAPLIAO'CHNILOLSG

*CWAJDUCIDAO"IBDJEHPLIAO

'CHNILOLSG


Server Virtualization

P .<$-*$ *B$ -O"5"*+ */ $h'"$9*5+ 8</)">"/9V <$'/9Y:E<$<$>/E<'$>V -9Q #-"9*-"9 '/9(9E-5 >$<)"'$ /9 >$<)$<>

P ;$QE'$ 'E>*/#$< '/>*

2EBKICBB &CYEKJCUCID

P f+8$<)">/< >/5E(/9 UgJT-<$W

P f/>* B-<QT-<$

P

N*/<-:$P X$*T/<="9:

P NE88/<* >*<E'*E<$ U/9 *B$ R/O *<-"9"9: -9Q \/<#-5 *<-"9"9:W


113Insight: Resource constraints sometimes require individual teams to develop technologic improvements




114Insight: Emerging business needs require an engine for innovation





115Insight: Decision-making sometimes happens in a silo due to lack of organizational support and process

41 "' Z -".

-OKCID !CJQKHCB

%WWOKHAPLI !CJQKHCB


*CB[DLW !CJQKHCB


!CJQKHC *CB[

!DAPBPHAO !CJQKHCB







!CJQKHCB

,CDRLJ[ !CJQKHCB

'COCHLUUEIKHAPLIB

.\HC LM DNC 41 "' Z-".

(]CHEPQC !EWWLJD

+KIAIHKAOB

VEUAI &CBLEJHCB


1JLHEJCUCID

&KB[ #AIASCUCID

.WCJAPLIB Z!GBDCUB

.WCJAPLIB

!GBDCUB




Formal Process View

Formal Process View Analysis:



Methodology

!

Depicts the organization as a network of regulated flows

through the operational core

!

Consistent with traditional notions of authority and hierarchy

and places emphasis on standardization

117Organization Structure Team Report

Formal Process View:dd



New Printer Addition

118Insight: Delivery of service is highly transactional

*CB[DLW !EWWLJD

,CDRLJ[ !CJQKHCB

!GBDCUB

*CB[DLW !EWWLJD

!CJQKHC *CB[

Formal Process View:N P i Addi i



41 "' Z -".

-OKCID !CJQKHCB

%WWOKHAPLI !CJQKHCB


*CB[DLW !CJQKHCB


!CJQKHC *CB[

!DAPBPHAO !CJQKHCB







!CJQKHCB

,CDRLJ[ !CJQKHCB

'COCHLUUEIKHAPLIB

.\HC LM DNC 41 "' Z-".

(]CHEPQC !EWWLJD

+KIAIHKAOB

VEUAI &CBLEJHCB


1JLHEJCUCID

&KB[ #AIASCUCID

.WCJAPLIB Z!GBDCUB

.WCJAPLIB

!GBDCUB


New Printer Addition

119Insight: Some processes are designed to be highly transactional to limit perceived risk

Formal Process View:B A li i P h



Box Application Purchase

120Insights: We have a formal, proven, effective process that is infrequently used

Formal Process View:B A li ti P h



Box Application Purchase

121Insights: Variations in process implementation often cause teams to be engaged out of sequence or too latein the process

41 "' Z -".

-OKCID !CJQKHCB

%WWOKHAPLI !CJQKHCB

2EBKICBB -LOOAXLJAPLI

*CB[DLW !CJQKHCB


!CJQKHC *CB[

!DAPBPHAO !CJQKHCB

(IDCJWJKBC "IMLJUAPLI!CJQKHCB


(IDCJWJKBC 1JLFEHPLI!CJQKHCB


(IDCJWJKBC %WWOKHAPLI!CJQKHCB


!CJQKHCB

,CDRLJ[ !CJQKHCB

'COCHLUUEIKHAPLIB

.\HC LM DNC 41 "' Z-".

(]CHEPQC !EWWLJD

+KIAIHKAOB

VEUAI &CBLEJHCB


1JLHEJCUCID

&KB[ #AIASCUCID

.WCJAPLIB Z !GBDCUB

.WCJAPLIB

!GBDCUB


*"!'&"2/'(* "'

"IMLJUAPLI !CHEJKDG.\HC

Formal Process View:S t E t



System Event

122Insight: Organization lacks the competency to communicate effectively

Formal Process View:S t E t



System Event

123Insight: Variance in some processes results in redundant and overlapping engagement of various parts ofthe organization

41 "' Z -".

-OKCID !CJQKHCB

%WWOKHAPLI !CJQKHCB


*CB[DLW !CJQKHCB

"IBDJEHPLIAO!CJQKHCB

!CJQKHC *CB[

!DAPBPHAO !CJQKHCB







!CJQKHCB

,CDRLJ[ !CJQKHCB

'COCHLUUEIKHAPLIB

.\HC LM DNC 41 "' Z-".

(]CHEPQC !EWWLJD

+KIAIHKAOB

VEUAI &CBLEJHCB


1JLHEJCUCID

&KB[ #AIASCUCID

.WCJAPLIB Z!GBDCUB

.WCJAPLIB

!GBDCUB

1JL^CHD#AIASCUCID .\HC



Constellation Mapping by

Service

Constellation Analysis: M th d l



Methodology

!

Depicts the organization as a system of work constellations

!

In this view, products and services are produced in clusters

that share disciplinary and decision-making affinity

!

Clusters tend to be only loosely coupled


Constellation Analysis



41 "' Z -".

-OKCID !CJQKHCB

%WWOKHAPLI !CJQKHCB


*CB[DLW !CJQKHCB


!CJQKHC *CB[

!DAPBPHAO !CJQKHCB







!CJQKHCB

,CDRLJ[ !CJQKHCB

'COCHLUUEIKHAPLIB

.\HC LM DNC 41 "' Z-".

(]CHEPQC !EWWLJD

+KIAIHKAOB

VEUAI &CBLEJHCB


1JLHEJCUCID

&KB[ #AIASCUCID

.WCJAPLIB Z!GBDCUB

.WCJAPLIB

!GBDCUB


y

126

• "IMJABDJEHDEJC

• %WWOKHAPLI !EWWLJD Z

*CQCOLWUCID

• !CHEJKDG

• -LUUEIKHAPLIB

• (IF3/BCJ !EWWLJD

Constellation Analysis Insights



y g

!

Transformation of inputs into service rarely occurs within theformal organization structure

!

Delivery of products and services sometimes over-burdens

certain parts of the organization

!

Integration functionality is missing within the department

!

Structure slows product and service delivery

127

41 "' Z -".

-OKCID !CJQKHCB

%WWOKHAPLI !CJQKHCB


*CB[DLW !CJQKHCB

"IBDJEHPLIAO!CJQKHCB

!CJQKHC *CB[

!DAPBPHAO !CJQKHCB

(IDCJWJKBC"IMLJUAPLI

!CJQKHCB





,CDRLJ[ Z'COCHLUUEIKHAPLI

B !CJQKHCB

,CDRLJ[ !CJQKHCB

'COCHLUUEIKHAPLIB

.\HC LM DNC 41 "' Z-".

(]CHEPQC !EWWLJD

+KIAIHKAOB

VEUAI &CBLEJHCB


1JLHEJCUCID

&KB[ #AIASCUCID

.WCJAPLIB Z!GBDCUB

.WCJAPLIB

!GBDCUB

1JL^CHD#AIASCUCID .\HC

• "IMJABDJEHDEJC

•

%WWOKHAPLI !EWWLJD

Z *CQCOLWUCID

• !CHEJKDG

•

-LUUEIKHAPLIB

•

(IF3/BCJ !EWWLJD





Conclusions About IT Structure



129

!

The current IT structure:

– Does not match how we deliver products and services

– Does not focus on the business objectives of the University

– Does not focus on delivering service; it is focused on doing

technology –

Does not match institutional complexities

– Enables requests by users but not by business units

–

Does not face business units to facilitate understanding of their

requirements and needs

–

Demands highly transactional processes with informal networks

– Does not react agilely to opportunities


Missing Functions of theOrganization

Organization

130

Z-*- 4-<$B/E>$

AE>"9$>> [9*$55":$9'$

AE>"9$>> ;$5-(/9>B"8 J-9-:$#$9*

[99/)-(/9 H9:"9$

;-8"Q &885"'-(/9 Z$)$5/8#$9*

[9*$:<-(/9

.//<Q"9-*$Q H)$9* J-9-:$#$9*



Recommendations

Future Design Requirements

Future Design Requirements

g q

P

./</55-<+ <$SE"<$#$9*1 &5":9 /<:-9"M-(/9-5 -'()"*+ */ OE>"9$>> )-5E$

H9-O5$ *B$ G9")$<>"*+]> -'-Q$#"' -9Q OE>"9$>> /OR$'()$>

P ./</55-<+ <$SE"<$#$9*1 C</)"Q$ >$<)"'$ 5"\$'+'5$ #-9-:$#$9* -> - '/<$ '/#8$*$9'+

Z$5")$< -9Q #-"9*-"9 >$<)"'$> *B-* 'E>*/#$<> )-5E$ #/>*

H9-O5$ '/55-O/<-(/9 T"*B Q">*<"OE*$Q -9Q >/E<'$Q [!

P ./</55-<+ <$SE"<$#$9*1 A/5>*$< /< '<$-*$ >*<E'*E<$> *B-* Q$)$5/8 OE>"9$>><$SE"<$#$9*>V *$'B9"'-5 -9Q Y9-9'"-5 -9-5+>">V [! :/)$<9-9'$V -9Q 8</R$'* #-9-:$#$9*

P

./</55-<+ <$SE"<$#$9*1 _-'$ *B$ 'E>*/#$< "9 T$55^Q$Y9$QV E>-O5$ T-+>

N*<$9:*B$9 *B$ /<:-9"M-(/9-5 \</9* $9Q

P

./</55-<+ <$SE"<$#$9*1 ;$'/9Y:E<$ -> 9$$Q$Q */ O$ <$>8/9>")$ */ 'E>*/#$< -9Q E>$>^\E9'(/9-5 /8$<-(/9>

H9-O5$ 'E>*/#$<^<$>8/9>")$9$>> -9Q /<:-9"M-(/9-5 -:"5"*+

AE0$< '/<$ >$<)"'$> */ 8</#/*$ >*-O"5"*+ -9Q -)-"5-O"5"*+

132

!B$ /<:-9"M-(/9 #E>* O$ Q$>":9$Q */1


Questions?



!

Did anything surprise you?

!

Any content that needs clarification?




General Observations & Themes



!

Need for training that meets the needs of users

!

Standards and policies

!

Need for flexibility

!

Services cross many silos

!

Empower everyone throughout the university to solve theproblems that they can

IT Strategic Alignment: The Core of Strategic Planning (242321337)

Documents

Transcript of IT Strategic Alignment: The Core of Strategic Planning (242321337)