it's evolution @ uc-berkeley 2010-looking to the future€¦ · this requires a shift in the...

IT's Evolution @ UC-Berkeley

2010-Looking to the Future

Draft Report from the IT Futures Working Group Convened by CIO Shel Waggener on June 16,17 & 18, 2010

IT Futures Group Claremont Hotel

June 16-18, 2010

of 26

Overview In response to the recent Operational Excellence initiative recommendation that Berkeley consider redesigning the IT organization and service delivery, a group of senior IT professionals was convened on June 16, 17 and 18 to explore the following areas.

1. Identify the trends that will influence the future design of any IT organization at UC Berkeley. Considerable time was spent analyzing what technologies are most likely to dominate in the next five years or more.

2. The group also drafted a desired future state for IT at Berkeley to serve as a shared vision guiding this work. This was by no means intended to be the definitive vision instead it was to serve one perspective on what the future could look like.

3. Another focus involved creating a model describing where technology services and solutions might reside if current responsibilities were distributed to achieve increased scalability. There was also considerable work done on balancing the need for agility and an appreciation for uniqueness at the local level.

4. The next phase of work was to create different designs for how IT could be better organized at UC Berkeley.

5. The final topic was outlining the challenges and strategies for bringing to fruition any new model for how IT could achieve a greater degree of efficiency and effectiveness.

The notes from the 2-1/2 day session, below, do not capture the richness of the exploration nor do they fully reflect the constructive and productive nature of this session. However, these summaries do offer both those who attended and others some insight on the topics covered, the exchanges that took place, and some of the points where agreement emerged.

1. Identifying the trends in technology The first session was spent discussing how IT consumption has changed over the last five years and identifying expectations about how it will to continue change as we look ahead five years. The group identified future technology trends and their potential impact on how IT is likely to be delivered at UCB. The group was asked a series of questions about the trends they believed were likely to influence UC-Berkeley’s future and below are the summary notes that were collected. a. What are the most important forces likely to shape IT @ Berkeley, and what are their implications?


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

Key forces likely to shape IT @ Berkeley o Funding and increased expectations in regard to value delivered o Ubiquity and mobilization of increasingly large data (big data!)

Where you need it When you need it How you need it Cloud/apps

o Democratization of technology o Removal of traditional barriers

Globalization Virtual education/research cross-everything collaboration

What are the implications of the forces identified above o IT will have an Increased role as a solution provider

more like a “guide on the side” than a “sage on the stage” o There will be a greater need for agility o IT will need to experiment more readily and fail faster so we can find better

ways to do things more quickly o There will be a major shift in the skill sets needed

More analysis, more integration, more communication, less coding and running of infrastructure

o There will be a more distributed choice of environments (e.g., phones, PDAs, iPads, etc.) and this will require a different framework for delivery

o Increased need for management of institutional risk o Given the globalization of education that is taking place, how will higher

education and Berkeley in particular engage internationally?

b. How is the IT world shifting? Compare 2005 2010 2015

Trends

o People are making their own choices today, IT doesn’t decide all the time

what services to provide. This requires a shift in the delivery model.

o End of location, as we know it. Everyone is moving away from the desktop,

it’s more about mobility: Where is the data? From “web focus” to “content

focus”

o Shift in focus from locking down the desktop to security and privacy

management.


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

o IT workforce is moving from being solution providers to being technology

agnostics, more analysis focused.

IT may become more of a consulting organization

Differences o Increased influence exercised by the consumer o Increased commoditization of technology o Desktop/server focus changes to data focus o Content management moves to endpoints o Increase need for adaptability in IT workforce

c. Identify the technology trends:

What technologies are going to become more prominent?

What technologies are going to be less relevant?

Technologies trending up in importance o Mobile computing/extension of the desktop o Web OS (smaller mobile devices – e.g. MIT projectors around their necks) o Greater need for security/privacy o Virtualized IT/cloud services (Google docs, etc.) o Robust backend o Wireless everywhere o Lower technical threshold for app development (Jscript, Ruby, CMS, Drupal,

Plone)

Technologies trending down in importance o Desktop as the focus of work- Desktop PCs, thick client becoming less

relevant for many o OS – disappearance of distinctions between OS o Office productivity suite o Access Control o Proxy servers o Physical files/media o Texting/keyboarding

d. Another group was asked what are the technologies that are likely to become more dominant in the future? Which technologies will continue to exist? Which will become obsolete?

Increasingly dominant technologies


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

o Virtualization/ (servers, thin client) o Mobile devices/tablet/remote access o Cloud sourcing o Terminal/thin client o Competency centers/tighter partnerships between IT/customers o Security/Identity management (encryption, policy, risk) o Enterprise management o Centralized tools

Technologies Likely to be Continuing o Solid network/infrastructure o Data Center o Centralization of core business systems o Printers o File servers o Collaborative tools o Consolidation of specialized software o Community source development, less proprietary development o Increased requirement of interoperability

Technologies Likely to become obsolete o Landline/voice o Fax o Green screen/txt terminal/“Fat” desktops o Batch files o Custom software development o Fully staffed IT teams at departmental level

A Synthesis of the Trends Was Presented in the Diagram Depicted Below (D-1) Increasing reliance on cloud and mobile computing will bring about an end of location as a limiting force and there will greater ubiquity of data and services. The role of IT will transform to consulting and integrating from a technology-agnostic perspective. IT will be a partner in solving business problems – a “guide on the side.” The dissolution of boundaries both physical and technical and the increasing variety of available solutions will require a counterbalancing extension of governance regarding standards and a vigilant protection of privacy.


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

Reflections on the Trends Exercise from the CIO Shel Waggener

Ubiquity of data/content/access

Return to client server; devices are all clients, apps are being delivered as client server apps (e.g. iPhone, Droid)

Location independence is becoming more prevalent; end of location as a limiting factor

Limitations are built into our world – e.g., TeleBears

Entity maps are getting very complex

Hyper personalization – challenge of integrating 50K personalized devices/experiences

The number of solution options is growing

Hyper personalization – challenge of integrating 50K personalized devices/experiences

Speed of provisioning – woven throughout – the provisioning and de-provisioning of solutions is happening much more quickly, our current delivery model is not equipped to handle this


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

We have to assert new definitions of privacy, healthcare plays a different role in this

2. Sketching out a desired future state for IT at Berkeley Based on the trends identified above, the group was asked to develop a draft vision statement capturing their collective expectations about the future of IT service delivery. What is the emerging role IT may be fulfilling in the future? Vision Statement The following draft statement represents the version six of the various iterations. The group agreed this is only a draft and it still needs additional work. UC Berkeley draft IT Vision Information Technology professionals at UC Berkeley are trusted contributors, working in concert with our partners to provide or integrate cost effective solutions for our community. We seek to deliver reliable technology and consultation that will represent extraordinary value to the campus. We do this in direct support of the university mission of research, teaching and service. “We are a guide on the side and not the sage on the stage.”

Proposed Mission Statement:

IT is committed to ensuring UC-Berkeley has the technology services and solutions that will advance the teaching, learning, research and service at the heart of this great University.


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

3. Creating a Model Describing Where Technology Services and Solutions might Reside

The focus on day two shifted from analyzing the trends likely to influence IT to analyzing how IT services may evolve and where they should reside in the future. The group was asked to sketch out where services should reside based on specific criteria they would generate. The timeframe provided suggested this evolution would occur between 2010 and 2012. The group was also asked to explore options re:

o Common good model and funding o Reducing costs for current services o How UC-Berkeley could continue to foster innovation

a. By 2012, where should IT services live?

What services should reside at the edge, or locally? The following were mentioned as possible candidates for residing locally.

o Home technology purchases local support o PDA/Mobile device selection and support o Student technology support o Application selection and implementation for domain specific or specialized

areas o Business process analysis and requirements development o Research computing and application development including game or

simulation development o Desktop support and management, including training, service desk, etc.

though this could be a blended service o Faculty device selection could be a blended service o Desktop software support could be a blended service

What services are likely to be blended or part of a shared service model? o Specialized applications development o Desktop support and printing – install, break, fix o Research computing o Instructional technology o Business analysis

Process design management Project management


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

o Application authorization/controls

What service should reside at the Campus level? The following services were all mentioned as possible candidates for residing at the campus. o Identity management o Security o Networking o Sourcing/procurement/licensing o Infrastructure

Storage Applications hosting Data center Servers/system administration Backups

o Helpdesk/desktop support o Collaborative technologies/communication

Email/calendar Wiki/CMS

o ECM o Business systems

HRMS/PR/BI/Student timekeeping Apps development in support of the business

o Instructional Technology A/V Learning spaces Web/pod casting

o Library Cataloguing/proxy

What services should be sourced Above the Campus by 2012? The following services were mentioned as candidates for taking advantage of their commoditization and could be delivered beyond the campus level.

o Strong agreement Email/calendar/collaboration Web hosting design Enterprise business apps

o Some Agreement Storage Data center


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

Teaching and learning (library, ETS) o Differences of perspective on:

Voice Wireless HPC Sourced development tools

b. Where was there disagreement about service placement? Why? 1

Some services may reside at different levels depending on what the specific needs

are, including: o Desktop support (some could be Local-L, some may be Blended-B, some

could be done at Campus-C) o Applications development (Individual, Local, Blended, Campus) (I,L,B,C) o Large data center (C, Above Campus) o Storage/BU (C,A) o Device choice (I,L,B,C) o Enterprise business apps (C,A) o HPC (L,B,C,A) o Research computing (L,B)

Why? o Desktop

Campus: device standardization, patch management, security, imaging

Local: user/people, configuration, customization Individual: device choice

o Application development Campus: standardized tools, community best practices, ERP, source

repository, integration/customization of outsource Above: multi-institutional, consortium, low uniqueness, common

solutions, business applications Campus/above: agility, teaching, research, discipline specific Blend/local: integration/ customization

o Infrastructure Above: commoditized services, low customization Campus: business need, security, locality, customization

o High Performance Computing (HPC) Above: commodity, funding opportunities (NERSC)

1 I=Individual, B=Blended, C=Campus, A=Above the campus


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

Campus: scale, shared Local: control, dedicated resources, uniqueness

4. A Potential Model for Service Location The group was asked to create different designs for how IT could be better organized at UC Berkeley. This discussion started with an exploration of what should influence the future organizational design for IT at Berkeley. a. What criteria should influence service location? The group generated the criteria that should influence where services reside. Participants discussed how the need for specialization and unique knowledge would drive placement toward the local level. On the other hand, scalability and maturity would mean the service could be done at the campus level or above.

Some comments on how the model represented in Fig x might be altered:


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

The model needs to take into consideration leveraging and costs

Problem specific needs will drive it down; solution specific drives it up

Criteria to consider when ‘locating’ a service: “High touch”, “price per unit”, “leverage”, “functional agility.

Functional agility could be used to justify doing many things locally despite higher cost.

Need a means – governance, budget or coordination -- to push services towards scale.

From current state to desired future state -- highlights from the conversation:

This needs to be about institutional decisions about where things land; we need to fundamentally change the way we deliver services in the future.

Scalability and agility do not help us get to “leverage”, e.g. “Our Unit”

One tool, not necessarily a very effective one, is organizational design

Just because something is at the low end of the spectrum/local does not mean that it will actually cost more to deliver.

The promise of the SOA architecture is that you can solve this from the center and still maintain local functional agility.

If it’s high touch and it involves technology, it’s going to be a higher per unit cost…period.

There is lot of cost information here and don’t see anything about service--it has to be there!

Speed to provisioning! Is a very big deal! Governance is really the place where incentives come into play.

We need architectural governance, we need data governance.

We will need to fight against the tendency to get very complex, bureaucratic. b. What aspects on the local/edge chart need to be done locally? What moves up in what timeframe? Does a regional or cluster approach help aggregate demand and broaden expertise?

Knowing the client and problem realm – “solution broker”, needs to be kept

relatively local or at a shared service center.

Could be clustered by function

Comments/questions: o Tier 1/TIer 2 resolution o Instructional designers are not instructional technologists o Would it save any money to organize this way?


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

c. As we move to a common good model what is common good or common service and why?

Scale and existence of common need

Something that enables core mission and is aligned to support core strategies.

An area or service where we want to incentivize convergence.

Day-to-day processes where increased efficiency and productivity would be of greatest benefit to both efficiency and effectiveness.

Categories – networking, email/calendaring, collaboration tools, bSpace

Other areas – financial systems, HR, all of admin, GA classrooms vs. departmental

Comments: o Philosophically what should we be doing, things in common aren’t

necessarily good, some think that common services = centrally provided, e.g. electricity

o Consider adopting the term, ”Commons”

d. If campus or “above” provides the technology/service does that mean it is a common good? What are the funding implications?

Typically common good services are intended to be consumed and provided at a broad level

Just because a service is provided by campus or above does NOT make it a common good service

Regardless of where something is provided it should be eligible to participate in the common good funding model.

Comments/questions: o Does this then become a “Benevolent monopoly” o Lots of discussion trying to get to a good definition of “common good”,

Google search pops up the December 2009 report from Berkeley about common good titled ”Approaches to funding Common Good IT services: Findings from discussions with five public universities” which cites and quotes “Mara Hancock and Shel Waggener, “A Path Toward Sustainable Funding for Common Goods,” UC Berkeley, May 10, 2000”.

o Caveat: if too much is in the model, then you have a disincentive to innovation

o Fundamentally there are shared services and customized services (smaller user population) some of which would move up into the common good

o Other factors: symmetric utilization, incentivizing/disincentivizing participation needs exploration, scalability


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

e. If IT moves in the direction mapped out, what has to change to reduce costs for current levels or service?

Service management tools need to be consolidated

Communication – eliminate duplication

Training and redeployment of IT staff

Develop and promote standards – SW/HW, process f. How might the model re: “where services reside” influence the design of an IT organization?

Influencers: o Center/campus = center of excellence, not specifically IST but any group

providing services o Design for reuse/design with reuse (directional principle) o Governance to oversee resource allocation o Communication on what offerings are available o Interim steps to design o Principles we’re driving to o Need to clearly define customers o Need to roll down as opposed to roll up

Research/Teaching/Administration/Student -- moving toward a notion of verticals and matrixed accountability, clustering

List of areas currently represented on the CTC which pushes up and there is a need to possibly push down:

o Admin o T&L o Student o COE o Library o Professional Schools o Research o Physical and Biological Sciences o IST o AH + SS

Summary Comments on Where Services Might Reside

We may want to have a design that explicitly fosters serendipity so ideas and innovations can move across the University more readily.

We want a model where people have the opportunity to learn from one another and interact much more regularly and broadly then the current model allows.


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

In IST, we were organized in the past by vertical silos, around our constituents, basically saying that we do not support the line of business approach.

g. Exploring Different Organizational Designs for IT Shel Waggener shared a sketch of a possible framing for technology service delivery and sourcing and implications for updating the Berkeley IT organization:

Discussion of the model

Reduction in costs by $12-15m means we need to optimize with each technology design, build, sourcing, and support.

The campus needs to clarify who has decision rights, input rights at each layer in the model above will be key.

Understanding what technology should live in which layer(s) is key.

Business analyst/solutions brokers will be necessary.

Placement of shared solution designers be necessary in the space between region and local, ETS instructional designers might live there

Local affinities get their requirements from the Regionals…there would still be local units and they would be grouped into regional clusters so you could aggregate demand as well as supply (skill sets).

Supply of the solutions at any layer could be purchased, developed, internally sourced from UC or externally sourced from third party provider.

Requires service level management for all shared services and priorities.


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

A broader exploration then took place as the group created other organizational models. Other possible Organizational Designs that would enable the direction outlined so far <insert patrick’s spider diagram and Karen IT OrgDesign columns/boxes drawing>

There was a presentation on an organic distributed computing IT approach that became known as the “tree diagram” for reasons you can easily see. This approach would build in dual reporting lines all the way down to the Unit level. Hence, there would be a matrix built across IT creating the necessary linkages. What is the basis for creating regional centers or clusters? What is the purpose/benefit/cons of having this level?

This level would help aggregate a minimum demand for services (financial, collaboration, communication, CMS, instructional, student services, business services)

This would also aggregate the demand for set of solutions so every request was seen as one off.


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

Pros – reduces duplication of resources, aggregates knowledge and skill, promotes use of standards, eliminates shadow systems

Cons/challenges – agile lifecycle needed (as needs and technologies change) may not be supported by location within cluster; loss of direct control at the unit level

5. Challenges and strategies for bringing to fruition any new model for IT The workgroups identified the strategic, political, and cultural issues related to leading and implementing this change process. a. What are the strategic, political and cultural issues that will need to be addressed as we move to a new model?

Strategic Issues

o Reduce cost


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

o Funding model o Set up IT to succeed o Improvement re: Governance o Enabling others through technology o Transparency o Full-costing

Political Issues o Credibility of IT o Control of resources o Difficult to make the hard choices o Lack of process fro global thinking o Lack of incentive o Entrenched interests o Lack of alignment of key players/power brokers o Haves and have-nots o Is there the institutional will to drive common goods model? o Alliances o Recharge = audit model

Cultural Issues o Fear of change o Austerity o Dearth (of what) o Ownership o Optimizing locally o Independence/autonomy o Reputation o Loose federation

Issues that cut across the strategic-political-cultural o Organizational effectiveness o Local vs. commons

Cultural/Political o Hard choices o Cynicism toward change o Distrust of the center

Strategic/Political o Governance o Common good o Resource reallocation o Whose strategy is it, anyway


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

It is easier to come up with a strategic solution for IT could be organized to optimize the use of resources. It is the recognition that, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast every single time!” that makes this initiative more challenging. Berkeley IT has been organized this way a very long time…culture is the way we do things.

IT has to be focused and more involved. We have to change things simultaneously. We can’t wait for functional owners to decide how they want to move and then structure IT.

IT is where our bread and butter is. IT is good at delivering, we have an opportunity now to lead the change for campus.

b. Strategies for communication and engagement needed to support the change process.

Strategies for engagement

Identify all categories of stakeholders

Assess their concerns

Be open and honest about what plays and what does not, where there is room for contribution and where there is not

Paint a picture: share a VISION!! What is the desired end state that will resonate with many?

Strategies for communicating out

Identify audience(s) – faculty, IT staff, administrators and refine communications accordingly

Framing is very important

Involve OE PO

Surface dissent early, show progress, enable bi-directional communication, be consistent in prioritizing communications efforts

Mechanisms – two tracks (traditional and “dissent management and response”

High touch, traditional (town halls, local surveys, etc.)

Identify supporters and dissenters early; leverage the former to move the latter

Strategies for addressing the political concerns

Identify key political constituencies, especially contrarians

Create or customize messages for different types of constituencies: o Those with fewer resources/higher need o Those who fear loss of control o Those whose main fear is unreliable service levels o Those whose main fear is, “expanding the bureaucracy” o Etc.


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

Emphasize transparency, provide a forum to share and address fears while describing benefits

Develop some real case studies, create early wins

ID early adopters and advocates and make them part of the change management network

Strategies for addressing the cultural concerns

Clear and simple vision statement, statement of benefits

Comprehensive, multidirectional communications strategy

Create powerful guiding coalitions

Design must include clear SLA and accountability

Transparency of feedback and responses

c. Strategies for advancing this change initiative

Need to develop change management leadership skills for IT

Money is a catalyst/lever

Better IT is our goal

Stop talking about Bain as driver of change, make this initiative our own

Sell to IT community o Bigger impact o What they need/want o Clear responsibilities o Performance metrics

Honesty

Clear milestones and objectives both short and long term

Communicate what not to do

Leverage shared leadership

Good communication strategy o All levels of the organization o Over-communicate in multiple forums o Multiple doors for input o Engage formal and informal leaders all down the chain to communicate o IT PR team to listen, educate, engage

Closing Comments from Shel Waggener It is very hard to go from the big picture of what you know to be the right future, to

the specific actions and designs. We have to find a way to design an organization for a couple of years from now, not what we know today.


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

We need to make things simple, but we get sucked into the complexity, and “complexity kills”.

Does IT get to control all of the business decisions? No We all have a tendency to focus on the “mass dissent” (observations on the charts).

The substance of the dissent is not where we should spend our time, we need to focus on identifying and working with the influencers.

There was good work on further refining the thinking on the commons model. You all provided invaluable amount of input and ideas over the last 3 days,

everyone’s engagement was very much appreciated. Going forward, the IT Futures Group will be used as a sounding board periodically.

There was great diversity and perspective in the room. It is going to take a village; we needed a lot more time than just 2 1/2 days.

Thanks to all for your participation.


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

Appendix A – Shel’s non-negotiables 1) A common good funding model will exist.

a. We need to define what a common good is b. We need to have clear guidance, incentives, disincentives, etc around

participation rights within a common good c. Should have clear lifecycle and support evolution

2) Common Goods can’t kill Innovation.

a. Innovation is the lifeblood of the campus b. Need a way to segment stable large environments and support smaller

innovation c. Innovations must be shared, reused, scaled to common use d. Innovation should be incentives where differentiation matters, and

minimized where it doesn’t

3) Reduce campus costs for IT a. For current services, must reduce spend by a minimum of $12M b. Cost per unit of IT must be measured and fully costed c. For common good identified services, cost per unit must go down

4) We cannot do everything

a. Must identify what services have to be provided locally, regionally, campus wide, system wide, or consortium

b. We need to support consortium and software as a service approaches. 5) IT must report to IT

a. Staff should get guidance and managerial oversight from IT managers The right people don't need to be managed. The moment you feel the need to tightly manage someone, you've made a hiring mistake. The right people don't think they have a job: They have responsibilities. The right people do what they say they will do, which means being really careful about what they say they will do. It's key in difficult times. In difficult environments our results are our responsibility. People who take credit in good times and blame external forces in bad times do not deserve to lead.

Most Importantly – I don’t have solutions already designed nor does the Cabinet. Things are not preordained. We need your help and input and we must change.


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

Appendix B – discussion with Al Pisano Comments from Al Pisano

Comments by Al: o I consider myself a user of all these services, I’m a plain old professor

(POP), 25% of my time still doing research, 24 grad students, post docs, an engineer, and various visiting scholars

o Faculty head for the PO, not a very large office, me and a few helpers, and then everything else is coming from you, groups like you, not coming from Al, or a few friends, or folks from Stanford,

o I have no tolerance for micro management - either doing it or having it done to me

o Today is the design phase deadline for the self-nominations - Monday he’s hoping to have the list

o We all know this is where the right answers are going to come from o It’s a big effort…car metaphor, 1936 MG renovation, rolling renovation, if

10% of the parts are frozen, it’s not going to work, “I’m an oil and incentive kind of guy”, not a hammer

o Summarizing the 7 groups -- all set up and designed to have functional expertise paired with faculty

o Why org guy, he just restructured his group o Why Mark the procurement guy o Paul Gray – can help coach Al if he needs to talk with the VP o In addition to the 7 groups, there are two members at large, Gibor and

Fiona Doyle (incoming chair of the Academic Senate), “coordinating committee”

o Will be making sure that all of these initiatives go forward in a balanced way…

o Basically, had 36 hours to organize his thinking about the how to start and approach the work – just before the OE Leadership meeting at the Field House

o I come from a research community where you pick things that everyone says can’t be done

o Couple of things we can all agree on: No one wants to keep going the way we’re going, status quo

won’t stand Even if dump trucks of money show up loaded with gold

doubloons (and I hope that they don’t), things are still going to change (Mech Engineering ranked 2 and 2 in the country even after the budget cuts)

o Damn satisfying work and I’ve pitched my tent, personal pride


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

o Take everything seriously, but not too seriously, Q&A with Al

Ryan – communications plan, OE email address, what do you see as the process for communicating these efforts as well as the PO?

Right now not fully organized on this right now, office director and assistant office director inbox ballooned from 50 to 900+

Yau-Man – Faculty buy in and how to sell it (empire building)? I share graduate students with Rich, there are a number of key constituents, like therapy, focus the discussion on the future state, keep your eye on the goal

Tom – what do you see as your biggest obstacles? There are two or three, need to get a good plan on a few big areas, we can all be blunt, lots of energy in the beginning, then things get swept under the carpet, cynicism is out there, need to lead by action, lots of plans coming from a lot of directions, we need to get things internalized

Shel – general tendency to agree that the campus needs to go there, but not my unit? Change not in my backyard…everyone is going to have to embrace some form of change somehow, huge diagnostic phase, this whole effort has a high level executive committee – Frank, Al, George, and Bob, “Shel, there is no secret sauce”, no longer efficient to optimize locally modern Italy was formed in 1896 moved from city-state, blood shed in those changes, spinning electrons Z-up, Z-down, no blood shed

Eric – at what point in the process do you see the distinctions between research, instruction, administration? Org simplification is not about student, it depends…not a single answer I can give you on that

Bernie – do you have a budget? Still under discussion, but there will be a budget, sorting that out now, Shel adding, no monies available from future savings, Nathan is issuing commercial paper to seed upfront monies that will be paid back in the future from savings, the Chancellor is not going to open the “secret vault”, Al – he did already and there is nothing there! Al – what’s new, because we have good awareness/support at OP…initial targets are being developed

Mara – working with faculty directly hearing from them about all of their anxiety, when we talk about the results of the change we try to talk about not just the money, but how this might make their lives better, helps get ultimate buy-in…getting people excited and motivated

Steve M. – thanks for taking this effort on, how do you see prioritizing and sorting through the various plans/competing ideas that might float up? Al – coordinating committee, “collisions”, thinking packets, Old stuff I know, but…”dynamite”

Liz – after all of the budget cuts, there’s a sense that people are already working at full capacity, hard to make space for the new work? Two part answer, already efforts underway to reduce the 54 decisions that have been delegated down to


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

the dean’s level, you’re going to see that trend continue, less duplication, second efficiency, reduce the busy work, already taken cuts in your operation, there is a certain elasticity…some temperature taking…looking for hot spots, meta management, would have been nice if we had started working on this when there a little more money around


June 16-18, 2010

of 26

Appendix C - An approach to IT Service Classification (from Shel) An Individual Service: Those IT services or solutions that an individual is free to use and consume from any appropriate source

A Custom Service: Technology purchased, developed and or delivered for an individual or small group of campus community members to provide a specialized solution.

A Shared Service: Technology contracted, purchased, developed or delivered as a service designed to support multiple groups across the campus community.

A Commons Service: Technology broadly available to all campus community members in a generally consistent and symmetric way where the accrued benefit is greater with the largest use possible or conversely measurably detrimental to the campus where use is small or marginal.

it's evolution @ uc-berkeley 2010-looking to the future€¦ · this requires a shift in the...

Documents