IT Governance Review

Presentation to SAAG – January 11th, 2011

Purpose of the Review

• The objective of the review was to recommend the appropriate IT governance and structure that would: Assume responsibility for developing and

implementing an institutional strategic information technology plan

Coordinate the efforts of many different units engaged in information technology activities which impact on Memorial’s strategic objectives

Assume accountability for the use of funds related to the development and implementation of the plan

Request for Proposals

• Issued in December 2008• Submissions reviewed by Steering

Committee• Shortlist developed and presentations made

to Steering Committee & reps from Information Management Committee & Digital Campus Committee

• KPMG selected to conduct the review

The Review Process

• Reviewed current IT structure, resources & processes to assess their impact on service delivery

• Interviews with Memorial stakeholders• Interviews with other Canadian universities• Presented a number of governance model

options• IMC has seen two presentations and

influenced final structure• Presented to SEC in June, 2010

The Current IT Governance Model

KPMG Findings

Business and Institutional Alignment – IT decisions are addressed independently at many levels within Memorial (i.e. institution, individual units) without an overall unifying framework.

Service Delivery Management – The current fractured Service Delivery model has resulted in a duplication of resources and infrastructure and has impeded integration and the propagation of leading practices.

KPMG Findings - continued

Performance Management – There is a lack of defined performance metrics for IT at Memorial.

Investment Management – It is difficult to demonstrate that investments in IT are adding value. The fragmented investment decisions favor local optimization, often at the expense of strategic benefits to the University.

KPMG Conclusion

The review of Memorial’s IT decision-making framework revealed that roles, responsibilities, and authority for IT decision-making appear to be:

• informal• without any clear structural linkages for

institutional level prioritization, alignment, transparency, and optimizing institutional investments in IT.

In Comparison to Other Canadian Universities….

• Memorial has more decentralized IT resources• Memorial has a higher ratio of IT staff positions to

students

IT Staff per 1,000 Student FTEs

-

4.00

8.00

12.00

16.00

20.00

Memorial Victoria Guelph SimonFraser

Ottawa York

`

The Proposed Model

Detailed Implementation Plan Developed

Highlights:

Adopt the proposed structure Hire an Executive IT leader Change readiness assessment Develop an IT strategic planning process Define IT investment framework Clarify mandate of central IT and

responsibility for overlapped services

Implementation Plan - continued

Migrate services once decisions are made Develop service level agreements Define key performance indicators Improve IT management processes

Where to From Here?

• Additional detail through the complete final report available at www.mun.ca/imc

• Provide any feedback to Steering Committee by January 31st bgorman@mun.ca

• Proposal to go back to SEC for consideration