The University is completing a strategic plan following on the completion of unit level plans last year. Although still in draft form, two of its goals that I want to focus on today relate to using technology to expand access and opportunities, and controlling costs and generating additional efficiencies.
ITS is in a unique position to propose recommendations for both. Our reach and services apply to all parts of the University. Improving access and efficiencies through new or service consolidation can reduce costs for the University as a whole or allow other resource savings at local levels which can be invested locally.
Developing recommendations requires a bottom up approach, and so I'm asking for your comments and ideas on what we should do. What services can be stopped by offering alternative ways to provide the same capability at lowered costs? Where can we reduce power/cooling consumption by eliminating equipment or using more efficient equipment? How do we provide more staff time locally by offering an equivalent central service?
I'll be back over the next few weeks asking similar questions about other goals in this Plan, but for now, look forward to your views on these two.
ITS is in a unique position to propose recommendations for both. Our reach and services apply to all parts of the University. Improving access and efficiencies through new or service consolidation can reduce costs for the University as a whole or allow other resource savings at local levels which can be invested locally.
Developing recommendations requires a bottom up approach, and so I'm asking for your comments and ideas on what we should do. What services can be stopped by offering alternative ways to provide the same capability at lowered costs? Where can we reduce power/cooling consumption by eliminating equipment or using more efficient equipment? How do we provide more staff time locally by offering an equivalent central service?
I'll be back over the next few weeks asking similar questions about other goals in this Plan, but for now, look forward to your views on these two.
Lately, I suppose caused by the current economic climate, I've been asked this question often. The ? is always replaced by one of our services, like email, or ANGEL, or the intercampus backbone. The question isn't referring to a service rate but rather the cost for us to provide this as a service to the University.
The honest answer is usually, "I don't know". ITS has a good track of how we spend money but it's typically been accounted for at a unit level, not at a service level. We have many services that cut across unit lines and all our services involve a labor component that hasn't been tracked in this manner.
That's now starting to change. A cost of services approach is underway that will better align cost and services. Doing this isn't easy and will require a lot of work but the end result will be worth the time invested.
We'll be able to better answer senior management questions. We'll be able to better compare our costs to other CIC institutional service costs; if they can provide a service less expensively than we can then we may be able to learn ways from them to reduce our costs. We'll be able to have more informed discussions with colleges and campuses who run services similar to ours.
The current economic climate provides us an opportunity to set priorities on where we spend funds and the cost of services project will help provide more accurate assessment of those costs. If you have an opportunity to help with this, please do.
The honest answer is usually, "I don't know". ITS has a good track of how we spend money but it's typically been accounted for at a unit level, not at a service level. We have many services that cut across unit lines and all our services involve a labor component that hasn't been tracked in this manner.
That's now starting to change. A cost of services approach is underway that will better align cost and services. Doing this isn't easy and will require a lot of work but the end result will be worth the time invested.
We'll be able to better answer senior management questions. We'll be able to better compare our costs to other CIC institutional service costs; if they can provide a service less expensively than we can then we may be able to learn ways from them to reduce our costs. We'll be able to have more informed discussions with colleges and campuses who run services similar to ours.
The current economic climate provides us an opportunity to set priorities on where we spend funds and the cost of services project will help provide more accurate assessment of those costs. If you have an opportunity to help with this, please do.
Maybe it's the pressure of this time of the year - end of semester, a shortened work month, the rush for Holiday preparation - or maybe it's that everyone is running full speed all the time, but there certainly have been a lot of angry notes and email recently. Some days working through my inbox it seems like I've been dropped into a den of hungry dogs, after having a gallon of beef gravy poured over me. I bet you feel the same.
Email is a lousy communications tool. It lacks any sense of emotion so of course we project our own on to it and never stop to consider we might just be wrong. There are always two filters at work. One is the author's and one is the reader's, and often they are not synch'd.
The next time you're upset by something you received, or something you heard in a meeting, rather than react quickly, why not talk to the other person, and ask in a neutral fashion for more understanding. It can go a long way toward reducing conflict and building better relations.
Email is a lousy communications tool. It lacks any sense of emotion so of course we project our own on to it and never stop to consider we might just be wrong. There are always two filters at work. One is the author's and one is the reader's, and often they are not synch'd.
The next time you're upset by something you received, or something you heard in a meeting, rather than react quickly, why not talk to the other person, and ask in a neutral fashion for more understanding. It can go a long way toward reducing conflict and building better relations.
Last week ITS launched a new speaker series that we're calling "What's On Your Mind". The intent of these sessions is to provide IT staff the opportunity to listen to a variety of speakers in leadership positions across the University talk about the things important to them. Our first speaker was President Spanier. Upcoming speakers include Dean Chris Brady of the Schreyer's Honor College in December and Jim Broadhurst, Chair of the Board of Trustees in January. There are other speakers planned for February, April and May.
I was disappointed with the relatively small number of people who turned out to listen to Dr. Spanier. We invited all IT staff from across the University so the potential audience was more than 1,000, yet we had approximately 150 in the live audience. That's not even a third of the ITS staff!
Curious to learn why people chose not to attend, I've asked several for their reasons which fall into these categories:
- the time was inconvenient.
- I knew I could watch it later in streaming video, and had a deadline to meet, or couldn't get away from my job.
- I didn't expect to learn anything new or that would help in my role.
The session with Dr. Spanier was selected to meet his schedule which started at 3:30 and ended about 4:40. Most people in shared ride pools or who have requirements they must meet immediately following work should have been able to attend.
The second reason is understandable. We're required to keep systems and support functions operating which means not everyone can be excused for this sort of activity. We recorded the session so these people and people who couldn't travel to UP could have an opportunity to view the President in this setting. I just can't imagine this accounts for 85% of IT staff not attending.
The third reason is particularly troublesome. Increasingly we hear from university leaders and from our community that we don't know how to portray the value that IT provides Penn State. We're told that we often use our values, rather than the values of our user base, in talking about our plans and our services.
The purpose in creating this speaker series is to allow all of us in IT to hear what's on the mind of a range of executives, faculty, and staff. The more we understand the challenges and opportunities these people are focused upon, the more we should be able to create improved services, and the better we should be able to show the value these services provide to our constituency.
Perhaps we didn't make the intent of this series clear enough, or we didn't advertise enough, or maybe people need explicit permission to attend? What I do know is that most of us are serious about doing all we can to make Penn State better. Part of achieving that goal is our understanding the issues facing those in leadership positions. I hope you use this series as an opportunity to learn more about how we can do just that.
I was disappointed with the relatively small number of people who turned out to listen to Dr. Spanier. We invited all IT staff from across the University so the potential audience was more than 1,000, yet we had approximately 150 in the live audience. That's not even a third of the ITS staff!
Curious to learn why people chose not to attend, I've asked several for their reasons which fall into these categories:
- the time was inconvenient.
- I knew I could watch it later in streaming video, and had a deadline to meet, or couldn't get away from my job.
- I didn't expect to learn anything new or that would help in my role.
The session with Dr. Spanier was selected to meet his schedule which started at 3:30 and ended about 4:40. Most people in shared ride pools or who have requirements they must meet immediately following work should have been able to attend.
The second reason is understandable. We're required to keep systems and support functions operating which means not everyone can be excused for this sort of activity. We recorded the session so these people and people who couldn't travel to UP could have an opportunity to view the President in this setting. I just can't imagine this accounts for 85% of IT staff not attending.
The third reason is particularly troublesome. Increasingly we hear from university leaders and from our community that we don't know how to portray the value that IT provides Penn State. We're told that we often use our values, rather than the values of our user base, in talking about our plans and our services.
The purpose in creating this speaker series is to allow all of us in IT to hear what's on the mind of a range of executives, faculty, and staff. The more we understand the challenges and opportunities these people are focused upon, the more we should be able to create improved services, and the better we should be able to show the value these services provide to our constituency.
Perhaps we didn't make the intent of this series clear enough, or we didn't advertise enough, or maybe people need explicit permission to attend? What I do know is that most of us are serious about doing all we can to make Penn State better. Part of achieving that goal is our understanding the issues facing those in leadership positions. I hope you use this series as an opportunity to learn more about how we can do just that.
Over the past six years our Marketing and Communications group has become a vital part of ITS. A common theme I hear from colleagues around the country is the difficulty of communications. Our constituency is large and multi-faceted. It's easy to separate into groups of faculty, students, researchers and staff. The reality though is that each of these groups is very diverse and often overlapping.
Trying to craft messages and promotional material that reach everyone is difficult, as is conveying often complex issues to members of the media, yet as the services we provide become more pervasive it's critical that we find effective ways to communicate. Our MaC group has met this challenge and continues to look for innovative methods to be even more effective in communicating to our community.
I think most of you know that Robin Anderson has announced plans to leave Penn State next Spring. She will explore new territory and devote time to her growing photography interest.
This is wonderful for Robin but both a challenge and opportunity for ITS.
The opening for the position of Director, Marketing and Communications, has been posted for internal applicants and also advertised in national higher educ. job announcement sites. A search committee has been formed and is awaiting applications.
As was done with recent job openings at this level, the search committee will narrow the candidate pool to a very few who will then be asked to participate in multiple interview sessions with various ITS staff and an open public forum.
We expect the process to be concluded and a new Director announced by the end of the first quarter, 2009.
Trying to craft messages and promotional material that reach everyone is difficult, as is conveying often complex issues to members of the media, yet as the services we provide become more pervasive it's critical that we find effective ways to communicate. Our MaC group has met this challenge and continues to look for innovative methods to be even more effective in communicating to our community.
I think most of you know that Robin Anderson has announced plans to leave Penn State next Spring. She will explore new territory and devote time to her growing photography interest.
This is wonderful for Robin but both a challenge and opportunity for ITS.
The opening for the position of Director, Marketing and Communications, has been posted for internal applicants and also advertised in national higher educ. job announcement sites. A search committee has been formed and is awaiting applications.
As was done with recent job openings at this level, the search committee will narrow the candidate pool to a very few who will then be asked to participate in multiple interview sessions with various ITS staff and an open public forum.
We expect the process to be concluded and a new Director announced by the end of the first quarter, 2009.
With all the attention on the current economic conditions I've been asked about the ITS budget, specifically if we are vulnerable to serious losses. The most honest answer I can give is probably not.
There is no certainty as we're tied to the macro economic events just as the rest of the University is. Our enrollment is strong, our applications pool is large, and the University's stewardship of funds is very good. Those all reassure me that the bulk of our budget funding will remain intact.
Some have also asked if we might be vulnerable to the same problems that led UW to eliminate scores of central IT positions? If you'd like to read the UW report on what happened there, it can be found at <http://www.washington.edu/uwtech/workgroup.html >.
Like most central IT units we do provide services for which we charge a fee, and we provide products for which we charge. As a percent of our expenses these recovered amounts are about 23%. Our charge-back systems to collect these amounts are stable and well managed.
Much of this income is derived by immediate payments for purchases made at the Computer Store, or through internal direct billing to University budgets. The amount dependent upon manual billing efforts is very small.
Although it looks like uncertainty will continue in the markets, I think we're well positioned to ride out this period as we have past periods of market unrest, and am convinced the best way for us to proceed is to continue to put our energy into doing the best job we can to provide effective and efficient services that support the University's mission.
There is no certainty as we're tied to the macro economic events just as the rest of the University is. Our enrollment is strong, our applications pool is large, and the University's stewardship of funds is very good. Those all reassure me that the bulk of our budget funding will remain intact.
Some have also asked if we might be vulnerable to the same problems that led UW to eliminate scores of central IT positions? If you'd like to read the UW report on what happened there, it can be found at <http://www.washington.edu/uwtech/workgroup.html >.
Like most central IT units we do provide services for which we charge a fee, and we provide products for which we charge. As a percent of our expenses these recovered amounts are about 23%. Our charge-back systems to collect these amounts are stable and well managed.
Much of this income is derived by immediate payments for purchases made at the Computer Store, or through internal direct billing to University budgets. The amount dependent upon manual billing efforts is very small.
Although it looks like uncertainty will continue in the markets, I think we're well positioned to ride out this period as we have past periods of market unrest, and am convinced the best way for us to proceed is to continue to put our energy into doing the best job we can to provide effective and efficient services that support the University's mission.
We often talk about the need to embrace change and there are certainly lots of recent examples of the rapid introduction of technology driven change. Cellphones and cellular modems, portable music and video players, creating and uploading videos, along with nearly ubiquitous laptops and smart phones are just a few examples of changes in the last several years.
It's easy then to think that technology driven change is a new phenomenon and that it is something we've only recently had to learn to handle. But this month I was reminded that's not so. Rapid technology driven change has been around for at least a century.
This month marks the 100th anniversary of Ford's Model T, the first affordable car for the masses and one that quickly changed the American landscape. Industries changed, long used skills suddenly were no longer needed yet new skills were suddenly in demand and in short supply. New infrastructure for servicing and fueling cars had to be created. To get an understanding of the cultural shifts caused by the auto read former Penn Stater Deborah Clarke's book, Driving Woman: Fiction and Automobile Culture in Twentieth-Century America.
Earlier this month at the Central PA Festival of the Arts, I watched the Paragone Ragtime Orchestra perform. This is a small orchestra who has revised the practice of showing silent films while playing the original score for these films. What struck me was how quickly this changed in a very short period of time with the introduction of the "talkies". Through the 20 century teens and twenties there were thousands of musicians who made their living by being part of theatre orchestras, and nearly overnight the market for these orchestras disappeared.
While it may seem of more concern to us when it directly affects us, technology-driven change certainly isn't new. We should recognize this as a natural part of the cycle of discovery and adaptation. The need to continually learn, to remain flexible, and to be willing to adopt new methods, new techniques, new technology is no different now than it was a century ago.
Now that the ITS Strategic Plan is published, we need to consider how best to keep this a living document, measuring progress toward its goals, and modifying the goals as needed over time. Jerry Krawczyk's recent post suggested we do regular updates, a good idea. We are starting to develop ideas on how to do this, and I welcome your thoughts on the best way to do so.
The ITS Strategic Plan covering years 2008-09 through 2012-13 has been submitted to the University Planning Office and is available on the ITS strategic plan wiki at
https://confluence.et-test.psu.edu/display/stratplan/home
This same site now also has information about two Plan activities that will be done in partnership with the University Libraries.
We have tried to make this a collaborative process. Many of our staff attended planning forums or offered comments on the wiki. Members of the senior leadership team met with Campus leaders, members of the faculty, college and campus IT Directors, Outreach and Controllers office representatives and others. A survey of all students, faculty and staff was conducted to gather information on current uses of IT tools and services.
Certainly there will be changes to this written plan over the next five years, but it provides a good framework for more specific tasks. The Plan identifies seven change drivers, five critical challenges, and six strategies to address these. The budget requests, respecting the current economic climate, are reasonable and responsible, reflecting what we believe is needed to help Penn State maintain a position of excellence in higher education.
Thank you to all who contributed to this Plan. Now the fun of crafting specific tasks and implementation begins. I hope you will be as engaged in these efforts as you were with developing the Plan.
https://confluence.et-test.psu.edu/display/stratplan/home
This same site now also has information about two Plan activities that will be done in partnership with the University Libraries.
We have tried to make this a collaborative process. Many of our staff attended planning forums or offered comments on the wiki. Members of the senior leadership team met with Campus leaders, members of the faculty, college and campus IT Directors, Outreach and Controllers office representatives and others. A survey of all students, faculty and staff was conducted to gather information on current uses of IT tools and services.
Certainly there will be changes to this written plan over the next five years, but it provides a good framework for more specific tasks. The Plan identifies seven change drivers, five critical challenges, and six strategies to address these. The budget requests, respecting the current economic climate, are reasonable and responsible, reflecting what we believe is needed to help Penn State maintain a position of excellence in higher education.
Thank you to all who contributed to this Plan. Now the fun of crafting specific tasks and implementation begins. I hope you will be as engaged in these efforts as you were with developing the Plan.
On May 7 and 8, Educause held its annual Policy conference. This was also the last Policy conference. Rather than continue with a dedicated Policy session, policy issues will be added to the agenda of many other Educause seminars and conferences. This is an attempt to provide information to more members and to allow more timely policy updates rather than hold a single event each Spring.
Several of the sessions revolved around the upcoming Presidential election and changes that may occur with a new administration and congress.
Jeff Lehman, Chair of Internet2 Board of Trustees, gave a thought provoking talk on the need to shift our networking perspective to international connectivity. He argues that a number of institutions are creating international campuses or increasing global on-line programs, and as we have had success in creating regional and national networking consortiums, we now need to consider an international one.
During a session on proposed FERPA changes, Francis Moran, a Program Specialist from DoE, was asked about FERPA implications with third party contracts for email. She admitted her office has not considered this and asked that an inquiry be made. Educase submitted this question to DoE, so we expect a response in the next few weeks.
The conference ended with a talk by FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. He followed a session describing the Educause Blueprint for Big Broadband proposal. Commissioner Adelstein praised this proposal and described his reasons for supporting a policy of encouraging true broadband throughout the country.
If you're in the DC area try to visit the Newseum, a new museum devoted to reporting and news gathering. It's a good reminder of the importance of the press, in all forms, for maintaining an open society. The gallery of Pulitzer prize winning photos is an especially powerful exhibit.
Several of the sessions revolved around the upcoming Presidential election and changes that may occur with a new administration and congress.
Jeff Lehman, Chair of Internet2 Board of Trustees, gave a thought provoking talk on the need to shift our networking perspective to international connectivity. He argues that a number of institutions are creating international campuses or increasing global on-line programs, and as we have had success in creating regional and national networking consortiums, we now need to consider an international one.
During a session on proposed FERPA changes, Francis Moran, a Program Specialist from DoE, was asked about FERPA implications with third party contracts for email. She admitted her office has not considered this and asked that an inquiry be made. Educase submitted this question to DoE, so we expect a response in the next few weeks.
The conference ended with a talk by FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. He followed a session describing the Educause Blueprint for Big Broadband proposal. Commissioner Adelstein praised this proposal and described his reasons for supporting a policy of encouraging true broadband throughout the country.
If you're in the DC area try to visit the Newseum, a new museum devoted to reporting and news gathering. It's a good reminder of the importance of the press, in all forms, for maintaining an open society. The gallery of Pulitzer prize winning photos is an especially powerful exhibit.
