Information Technology: Strategic Plan

Notre Dame's Strategic Information Technology Initiatives

1. In October 2001, Hewlett Packard announced that on December 31, 2006 they will discontinue supporting the HP 3000 platform. The HP 3000 is the University's current corporate computing system in support of the administrative applications. Consequently, the University has a limited time to replace and/or migrate all existing information systems to new hosting platforms. The number of systems currently running on the HP is significant, and can be broadly categorized into core and ancillary systems.

The four core systems to be replaced are:

• Student/Faculty Information Systems (e.g., admissions, records, registration).
• Financial Systems (e.g., general ledger, accounts payable, budget).
• Human Resources/Payroll Systems (e.g., appointments, payroll, benefits, position control).
• Development Information System (e.g., alumni relations, fundraising, planned giving).

• Student Housing
• Laundry
• Security Dispatch
• Student Health Services

2. The process of applying technology to provide solutions to needs, can result in various approaches. Enter IT conundrum #1. How to implement "smart" classrooms throughout the campus as requested in a Goal 4 subset?

At the present time there are 68 classrooms where each lectern contains two computers - both a Macintosh and a Windows system. Some classrooms even require a third platform operating the Unix system. This multiple platform allocation in various classrooms results in a number issues:

• Successfully scheduling classrooms to fit requested seats, time, and technology platform become problematic for the registrar
• Faculty need to learn more about the technology in the classrooms.
• Class time may be wasted while trying to get the correct combinations of switches and buttons.
• Classroom support becomes much more complicated.
• While one computer is being used the other is unusable. This resulting in a great waste of capital equipment.
• Benchmarks indicate that more support staff are required for the multi-platform classroom model.
• Benchmarks also indicate that more training and re-training for faculty are required in the multi-platform model

• No dedicated computers residing in the classroom
• Faculty know how to use their laptops
• What the faculty prepare in their office follows them into the classroom, fonts, datasets . . .
• Reduced classroom support required
• Decreased interface complexity required in the classroom
• Classroom costs reduced
• Classroom assignments are simplified for the registrar

Should IT becoming more centralized or more decentralized? The industry has been wrestling with this issue for decades. Centralized IT relies on a governance structure where information management reports up through a single chain of command. Decentralized IT, on the other hand, distributes the management and support of IT through a multitude of functional command chains.

The real IT management trend is a shift towards governance structures that enable the best attributes of centralization and decentralization to be applied based on the requirements of a given function business or academic unit. In other words, IT is moving towards a scenario where centralized IT and decentralized IT can coexist and flourish under a shared governance structure.

IT has been stuck on a centralization-decentralization yo-yo. IT tends to centralize, decentralize and re-centralize again and again in an attempt to fix a more systemic problem ¾ the inadequacy of hierarchical governance structures as a vehicle for managing an information infrastructure. A typical reorganization rearranges blocks on the hierarchy chart, which some people compare to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Petronius Arbiter (AD 60) made this clear when he said "We tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."

There must be a shift from a control-oriented environment towards a collaborative mindset where achieving a common purpose is the overriding goal. This means people must shift from an "I" mentality to a "We" mentality. This collaborative structure must be adaptive and have the capacity to self-organize so that internal and external dynamics do not trigger yet another reorganization. Most of all, management must embrace collaborative forces already at work and enable those forces through an effective information governance structure.

For whatever reasons in support of centralizing certain IT functions, the governance structure must cast its influence over IT-related functions without trying to control the teams performing those functions. This means eliminating the IT hierarchy in favor of a governance structure based on a constitution partnership. Under the constitution, various functional units (i.e. hubs) fulfill clearly defined purposes within their domain. Hubs self-adapt by collaborating, expanding or disbanding in order to more effectively fulfill their stated purpose.

A hybrid approach of centralization and decentralization can flourish under this trend towards collaborative, adaptive governance. As the trend towards coexistence and collaboration gains steam, executives will hopefully see it coming and help enable the deployment of these new and exciting ways of working together.

Therefore, the answer seems to be ¾ IT centralization versus decentralization: the trend towards collaborative governance using a hybrid model. This will allow better IT support for students, faculty, and staff.

4. A common theme in Goal 4, is "to provide leadership in the creative application of information technologies to enhance teaching and learning outcomes - (4.2) working with the Kaneb Center and the Library.

Some possible common goals are:

• Design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of technology for teaching and learning. Through consultation services and programs, of the OIT, Kaneb and Library staff, help individuals and departments explore, integrate, and evaluate the use of instructional technology using:
  • Exploration - Assisting instructors as they explore how technology can be used to meet pedagogical goals and learning objectives.
  • Integration - Helping instructors identify, select, and integrate appropriate technologies for teaching.
  • Coaching - Provide individual coaching to those instructors who want to use University-supported instructional software programs.
  • Design - Assist instructors in their efforts to design and develop new courses that utilize instructional technology
  • Evaluation - Use surveys, observations, student interviews, focus groups and other evaluation tools to asses how instructional technology changes instructor and student roles and influences teaching effectiveness.
  • Discussion - Facilitate discussion of issues related to instruction technology
• Common meeting space in campus libraries, located close to faculty offices
• Create specialized areas within various campus library:
  • Create centers for development and study of digital media.
  • Intermix traditional and digital libraries.
  • Create laboratories for:
  • Learning technology
  • Collaborative technology
  • Imaging technology
  • Technology assessment for research and instruction.
  • Methods for achieving material using digital media
• Encourage work that:
  • Is interdisciplinary.
  • Involves student-faculty-staff collaboration
  • Focuses on new modes of learning and/or research
  • Shares results with the rest of the scholarly community
  • Takes special advantage of unique facilities (create unique facilities) and opportunities for synergy
  • Can share space with others on a non-exclusive use basis

Again, the common theme of collaborative governance rings loud and clear.

Goals and Objectives