ITGovernanceProposal

ConsultationReportandRecommendations
ReporttotheInformationServicesCommittee(ISC)
January2007
1.Background
OverthecourseoftheFall2006semesteraconsultationteamengagedkeygroupsand
committeesabouttheITGovernanceProposalthatwasreviewedbyISC.Thegroup
consistedof:

MichaelRidley,ChiefInformationOfficer
VickiHodgkinson,UniversitySecretary(representativeofthePresidents
ExecutiveCouncil)
PeterConlon,AssistantDean,StudentAffairs,OVC(representativeofthe
InformationServicesCommittee)
DaveWilson,ManagerofInformationSystems,OfficeofOpenLearning
(representativeoftheInformationServicesCommittee)

Inordertoinvolveasmanyfaculty,studentsandstaffaspossible,aninvitationto
participateintheconsultationswasdistributedwidely.Arisingfromthis,meetingswere
heldwiththefollowinggroups:
LibraryCouncil
CCSManagementCommittee
OfficeofOpenLearning
TeachingSupportServices
SenateCommitteeonUniversityPlanning(SCUP)
ITStudentAdvisoryCommittee(ITSAC)
CMEDeansCouncil
Senate
ITSpecialInterestGroup(ITSIG)
Eachgroupwasprovided,inadvance,withtheITGovernanceProposalandwasgiven
ashortintroductorypresentation.Notallconsultationgroupmemberswereableto
attendeachsession.However,ataminimum,twomembersattendedeachconsultation.
Inadditiontotheseinpersondiscussions,theProposalwasdistributedtoVPACand
VPATforcommentandfeedback.ItwasalsopostedonthewebsitesoftheCIOand
ISC.
2.GeneralObservations
Theconsultationprocessallowedforinputfromawidevarietyofgroupswith
significantlydifferentinterests,responsibilitiesandobligations.Giventhisdiversityitwas
ITGovernanceProposalConsultationReportandRecommendations

page1

gratifyingtoreceiveverypositivereactiontotheideaofmoreeffectiveITgovernance
andtotheproposalinparticular.
3.SpecificCommentsandFeedback
Thefollowingcommentsarenotattributedtoanyparticulargrouporindividual.

manygroupsexpressedconcerninitiallythatthisdecisionmakingprocesswould
createabureaucracythatwillbeabarriertotimelyaction.Ineachcasewhere
thisarosetheconsultationgroupwasabletoexplainanddemonstratethatthis
wasnottheintentoftheprocessnorwasithowitwouldoperateinpractice.
Groupswerereassuredbutthisdoesspeaktoaneedtoaugmentthedescription
oftheprocesstoreflectthis.

theconsultationswithSenate(SCUPandthefullSenatemembership)
highlightedthespecialuseofthewordgovernanceinauniversitysetting.To
avoidconfusionwiththeoverarchingprocessofuniversitygovernanceitwas
recommendedthattheITgovernanceprocessbereferredtoastheITDecision
MakingFramework.

theimportanceofopen,transparentandinteractivecommunicationandfeedback
processeswasraisedbymanygroups.Theseprocessesneedtobeconducedin
atimelymannerandclearlydefinedtoensurethatgroupsconsultedareawareof
decisionsandtherationaleforthosedecisions.Similarly,itwasnotedthat
informationinterchangearoundITissueswasakeybenefitfromthedecision
makingframework.

theproposedITPortfolioManagementOffice(PMO)wasthefocusofmanyof
thediscussions.Groupsrequestedmoreinformationaboutitsroleandmandate.
Thisadditionalinformationwasreceivedverypositively.ThePMOwasseenasa
keyvehicletosupportawareness,communicationandcommunitybuilding.It
wouldprovideaforumfortheuniversitytoseekcommonsolutionsandtoactasa
guidethroughtheITdecisionmakingprocess.SilosaroundITsupportand
decisionmakingwereidentifiedasbothcommonandproblematic.

atbothSCUPandSenatetheissueofITinsupportofresearchwasraised.It
wasnotclearfromtheproposalthatthisapplicationofITwouldbeadequately
consideredinthemodel. Basedonthisfeedback,theframeworkneedstomore
fullyarticulatethisroletakingintoaccountsomeuniquecharacteristicsofIT
relatedtotheresearchenvironment(e.g.theroleoffundingagenciesand
collaborativeinitiativeswithotheruniversities).

achallengingcommentfromonegroupwasforaworkingdefinitionof
informationtechnology.WhatisIT?Whattypesofthingsorservicesare
includedunderthisproposalandwhatwouldbeexcluded?GiventhenatureofIT
anditsexpansionintonewareasthisisprovingtobeanimportantbutdifficult
issue.However,itwillneedtoclarifiedtoensurethedecisionmakinggroupare
clearabouttheirmandatesandaccountabilities.

ITGovernanceProposalConsultationReportandRecommendations

page2

somegroupsaskedabouthowthisprocesswillbeapprovedandbywhom.Since
thisisaUniversityoperationalpolicyitwillultimatelybeapprovedbythe
President.

4.ConclusionandRecommendations
BasedonthefeedbackreceiveditisapparentthattheITGovernanceProposalwas
widelyencouragedandaccepted.Asaresult,whilesomemodificationsand
clarificationsarerequired,itisrecommendedthattheITdecisionmakingframework
definedintheproposalbeoperationalized.
Thefollowingtwoareasrequiredspecificactions:
1. Aworkingdefinitionofinformationtechnologywillbearticulatedasthe
committeemandatesareformalized.Whenthedecisionmakingframeworkisfully
enabletheExecutiveITSubcommitteeofthePresidentsExecutiveCommittee
(PEC)willbeaskedtoreviewthisdefinitionandclarifyasneeded.
2. TheprocessforITdecisionmakinginvolvingtheresearchenterpriseneedstobe
moreclearlyarticulated.Themandatesandmembershipsofthekeycommittees
(e.g.ISC,architectureandinfrastructure)willbedraftedtoensurethevoicesof
allaspectsofITinvolved(e.g.academic,administrative,researchandservice).
InordertosustainthemomentumtowardstheimplementationoftheITdecisionmaking
framework,itisrecommendedthattheexistingconsultationteamcontinueandthatit
focusitseffortsonthefollowingnextsteps:

preparetheITdecisionmakingframeworkasaUniversitypolicytobereviewed
byPECandapprovedbythePresident
createmandatesandmembershipsforthefollowingnewcommittees:
1. theExecutiveITSubcommitteeofthePresidentsExecutiveCommittee
(articulatingITprinciplesandapprovingITinvestments)
2. theITArchitectureCommittee(definingtechnicalstandardsand
technologychoices)
3. theITInfrastructureCommittee(definingcampuswide,sharedITservices,
centrallycoordinated)
clarifyandreasserttherolesofISC,ITSIG,VPACandotherswhoareidentified
askeyparticipantsinthedecisionmakingframework.
defineandestablishtheITPortfolioManagementOffice.

TheoverarchingobjectiveistohavethenewITdecisionmakingframeworkeffectiveby
April2007.

ITGovernanceProposalConsultationReportandRecommendations

page3