Using IT Governance to Make
Hard Decisions
EDUCAUSE 2011
Cindy Wells, Lynn Johnson & Vlad Wielbut
Agenda
1990-2010: The Way We Were
IT Governance @ U-M
Collaboration Tools: Our First Big Step
Q&A
Vlad Wielbut
Director of Informatics and Computing Services
School of Public Health
1990-2010:
THE WAY WE WERE
The Great Centrifuge
The Great Centrifuge
• From mainframe to PCs
• IT shifts from center to units
• Central IT provider unable to deliver
cutting-edge technology quickly
• Units move toward self-sufficiency
The Trap of Self-sufficiency
• Units, even small ones, do everything
internally
• It is inefficient
• It is difficult to get out of
• Some things are incompatible with the
rest of the campus
The Server Invasion
• Standard for the 1990’s and beyond:
“Have a problem? Get a server!”
• Proliferation of sub-standard “server
rooms”
• May work fine for a while, but this is
high-risk
The Improvising
• How do we get out of the trap of selfsufficiency?
• Not enough manpower or know-how in
units do everything
• Smaller units band together to try and
share resources – with limited success
• IT Commons is formed – campus-wide
venue for all units; lots of discussions,
not a lot of action
The Plunge
• Getting “commodity” services out of units
• “Low-hanging fruits”: file storage, web
services, network, data centers, HPC
• More challenging: end-user computing,
network “to-the-jack”, lecture capture
• Will the ability to innovate remain within
units?
• Will the savings be re-invested in unit IT?
Cindy Wells
Deputy Chief Information Officer
Medical School
IT GOVERNANCE @ U-M
Transforming IT – Mission
Focused Investments
NextGen Michigan
Unit Products
And Services
Shared Products
and Services
Shared Infrastructure
ITS
Organizational
Structure
Rationalize IT Across Campus
Alignment and Culture
Campus
Governance
University IT Executive
Committee
Information & Technology
Services
Unit IT Steering Committee
Medical Ctr. Information
Technology
Teaching & Learning
Knowledge
UNIVERSITY
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
COUNCIL
Deans, Faculty & Students
Information & Infrastructure
Assurance
Research
Patient Care
Administration
Faculty Driven Governance
University IT Executive Committee
Information & Technology Services
Unit IT Steering Committee
Medical Ctr. Information Technology
Teaching & Learning
Knowledge
UNIVERSITY
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
COUNCIL
Deans, Faculty & Students
Information & Infrastructure Assurance
Research
Patient Care
Administration
Faculty Chair
Additional Faculty Members
2010 State of IT at UM: Fragmented &
Inefficient
Service differentiation occurs in the Mission Services layer and
should be built on a common IT foundation.
Accenture Higher Education IT Capability Framework
Mission
Services
Teaching / Learning
Research
Administration
31 81 9 230 18
Services
E-mail / Calendaring
7
4
3
3
2
IT Operations
Management
Services
Infrastructure
Services
4 23 7
3
4 11 7
Administration
Research
Collaboration
2 0 3 13 7
Document Sharing
6
Content Mgmt
Workflow
1
3
Portal / Search
Collaboration
Services
0
2
3
5 28 2
Provisioning
8
8
4 18 0
3
1
2 14 5
Blogs/Wikis /
Communities
3
3 13 7
3 56 0
4 11 1 83 1
Monitoring
20 16 0 79 1
Network / Telecom
18 13 2 92 0
IM / Web / Video
2 3 Conf.
13 68 13
Social
0 1Networking
1 2 19
3
4
4
9 39 1
1
8
7
1 68 0
Software License Mgmt
4
5
7 32 0
Storage
18 7
5
3
2
0
6
7 97 2
1
2
1
2
3
1 14 5
8 22 2
8
1
155 2
1 13 8
4
0
0 45 2
Help Desk
3
4
2 91 2
Service Provider Type Key
ITS
Shared within
College/ School
Shared across
Colleges/ Schools
Local IT
© Accenture LLP 2010 All rights Reserved.
External
1
Reporting / BI Engines
Desktop Support
14 20 2
5
Warehouses
&
Marts1
2 Data
2 12
2
Relational DB
3 11 0 72 1
1
Data Access
HPC
2
2 33 0
Dashboards
Statistical Analysis
Web Server SW
5
Reports
Analytics
Information
Services
6 22 7
Data Centers
7
Library / Research
0 1 Mgmt
14 25 2
Streaming
Video
Application Server SW
Security
15 5
Practice & Service
2 12 4 92 3
9 96 11 58 12
11 72 13 118 21
Note: These counts represent the cumulative number of
services delivered by all providers across the university.
IT Service Vision
The IT vision is to increase use of shared providers to manage reusable,
extensible services and allow Unit IT to focus on mission-aligned
services.
UNIQUE
Unit Services
(Services used
by one unit)
COMMUNITY
(Services used by
segment of
common users)
Service
Service
TOLL
(Services used
by most units)
Service
Central Services
PUBLIC
GOOD
(Services used
by all units)
Reuse
Reuse
Reuse
© 2010 Accenture LLP All rights reserved.
Service Retirement Path
Unit Services
Unit Services
To-Be IT Service Model Vision
Shared
Service
Service
Unit Services
2010 IT Service Model
Major Strategic Sponsored
Initiatives
 IT Rationalization
 Collaborative Learning Environment
• Sakai 3 Development
 CIRRUS Project (Computing and
Information Resources for Research as a
Utility Service)
• HPC shared cluster and data centers
 MiChart
• EPIC electronic medical record
 Google NextGen Collaborative
Environment
http://nextgen.umich.edu/collaboration/selection.php
Lynn Johnson, PhD
Professor & Asst. Dean for Informatics and Innovation
School of Dentistry
COLLABORATION TOOLS:
OUR FIRST BIG STEP
IT Council Charge
1. To provide the U-M community a contemporary,
tailorable, extensible, secure, and continually improving
personal productivity and group collaboration
environment that reduces as many barriers as possible
to collaboration in carrying out our academic mission
anytime, anyplace, and with anyone in the world having
Internet access. The focus of this environment
should be to serve the direct academic mission of
the university, but if it can also serve the
administrative functions that serve this mission, all
the better.
2. To provide this environment in the most cost-effective
way possible consistent with the above goals.
Process
June -
Requirements sent to vendors
July
NDA vendor briefings
August -
Accenture business case development
Sept - Oct
Vendor demonstrations
Oct
IT provider feedback session
Oct
Campus wide survey
Oct
Business Engagement Ctr & Office of Devel.
feedback
June-Oct
Faculty collaboration use research
Nov
LSA student gov. engagement and resolution
Nov
Start negotiation process
Vendor Demonstrations
http://nextgen.umich.edu/collaboration/session-video.php
Google Video
Microsoft Video
IT Provider Feedback Session
Image courtesy of blueoxen under a Creative Commons license: BY-SA
Image courtesy of lynjohns under a Creative Commons license: BY
All things considered, which suite better enables
collaboration for your constituents?
Both
Google
Microsoft
What concerns you the most about each of the suites?
User Adoption
Support/Administration
Storage
Privacy/Security/Compliance
Open Standards
Interoperability
Integration
Innovation
Implementation/Training
Customization
Cost
Company Strategy
Support/Administration
Storage
Privacy/Security/Compliance
Offline Access
Interoperability
Integration
Implementation/Training
Features/Functionality
Company Strategy
User Adoption
Support/Administration
Storage
Privacy/Security/Compliance
Implementation/Training
Cost
Choosing One Solution
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Both
Google
Microsoft
What opportunities or new possibilities would be
provided by each of the collaborative suites?
User Adoption
Support/Administration
Strategic Partnership
Storage
Privacy/Security/Compliance
Offline Access
Integration
Implementation
Features/Functionality
Enhance Collaboration
Cost Savings
Common Calendaring
User Adoption
Strategic Partnership
Open Standards
Interoperability
Integration
Innovation
Features/Functionality
Enhance Collaboration
Cost Savings
Common Calendaring
Support/Administration
Storage
Interoperability
Enhance Collaboration
Cost Savings
Common Calendaring
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Campus Survey
http://nextgen.umich.edu/collaboration/Collaboration_Tools_Campus_Survey_Results.pdf
I am confident that the university could establish processes & a
contract with this vendor that would protect my privacy &
information.
I am confident this vendor would provide
reliable services.
I am confident that if this vendor was
selected, I could collaborate effectively.
Process
June -
Requirements sent to vendors
July
NDA vendor briefings
August -
Accenture business case development
Sept - Oct
Vendor demonstrations
Oct
IT provider feedback session
Oct
Campus wide survey
Oct
Business Engagement Ctr & Office of Devel.
feedback
June-Oct
Faculty collaboration use research
Nov
LSA student gov. engagement and resolution
Nov
Start negotiation process
Costs/Savings
$12
$10
Google
Microsoft
Hybrid
$8
Millions
$6
$4
$2
$0
($2)
($4)
($6)
YR1
YR2
YR3
YR4
YR5
YR6
YR7
YR8
YR9 YR10
Decision-Making Process
Mission
Domains
Constituency
Students
Faculty
Staff
Alumni
Leadership
Teaching &
Learning
Research
Patient
Care
Knowledge
Curation &
Dissemination
Administration
Recommendations
Vote Recommendation
8-1
Select one cloud collaboration suite.
8-1
Contract with Google
9-0
Single instance of on-premise Exchange
9-0
Extend Microsoft site license.
http://nextgen.umich.edu/collaboration/U-M_Collaboration_Suite_Recommendation.pdf
IT Governance @ U-M
University IT Executive Committee
Information & Technology Services
Unit IT Steering Committee
Medical Ctr. Information Technology
Teaching & Learning
Knowledge
UNIVERSITY
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
COUNCIL
Deans, Faculty & Students
Information & Infrastructure Assurance
Research
Patient Care
Administration
Questions?