Administrative Systems Master Plan

In the final approval step, in its March 2012 meeting, the Strategic Information Technology Advisory Board (SITAB) endorsed the Administrative System Master Plan presented by the BSC.

For minutes from the March SITAB meeting, you may go to the IT governance site:

http://www.utexas.edu/cio/itgovernance/download.php?url=accountability_board/notes&file=03-06-2012+mtg+notes.pdf

For the full text of the Administrative Systems Master Plan, you may go to the IT governance site:

http://www.utexas.edu/cio/itgovernance/download.php?url=business_services/files&file=Administrative+System+Master+Plan+-+FINAL+-+March+6+2012.pdf

**

Filed under: Home | Comments Off

On December 16, 2011, the Overall Strategy work group presented a formal draft of the Administrative Systems Master Plan to the Business Services Committee (BSC).  (See the previous post for a high-level look at the themes and recommendations in the draft.)  The BSC will be reviewing and/or editing the draft and taking the plan forward through the IT governance committee structure. 

A big thanks to everyone who participated on the various workgroups in producing this draft!

Filed under: Home | Comments Off

The Overall Strategy workgroup (WG1), after weeks of discussions, debate, synthesis and general mash-up of the recommendations submitted by the work groups, recently presented a first set of Themes and Recommendations to the BSC.  A hearty and lively discussion ensued!

Here is a brief look at the Themes (remembering that they are still subject to change):

Support data-driven decision making

Improve reporting tools and processes to support the use of data in decision making at both the strategic and operational levels.

Improve the user experience

Improve user experience, including the design of user interfaces, customer service, and business processes.  Expand the focus to include all constituents.

Modernize the IT infrastructure

Modernize the IT infrastructure to mitigate the risk of our aging technology tool set and provide the base for offering new mission-oriented services.  This includes adoption of a comprehensive and enterprise-level architecture.

Strengthen and professionalize processes, workforce, and culture

Change the administrative organization and processes to improve flexibility, efficient use of resources, and decision making.

Taken as a whole, the recommendations point toward:

-          Changing the management of our IT systems to better align with the University’s priorities and support the entire University community,

-          Changing our organization, culture, and governance to support better decision-making, better use of specialization, and a high-performance culture that is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and

-          Changing our technologies to reduce the risk of relying on obsolete technologies that may become unsupported, better support integration, and improve technical capabilities.

Filed under: Home | Comments Off

The Overall Strategy workgroup met recently to review the recommendations presented by the workgroups at “Summit #2” held on October 3^rd.  Some themes are beginning to emerge and this is where the Strategy workgroup really starts to turn the corner for the home stretch.  One idea that came up was that there are a variety of tensions and dualities being raised by the recommendations.  In short, we have decisions to make between the end points of a variety of continuums (or ‘continua’ for the purists among us):

• Build                                      vs.          Buy
• Individual judgment           vs.          Governance
• Too much specificity          vs.          Not enough specificity
• Focus                                    vs.          Flexibility
• Train                                      vs.          Hire

In addition to providing immediate feedback to the workgroups on how they can modify their recommendations, some further areas where the Strategy workgroup will try to reach clarity are:

• the level of governance being requested
• the level of specificity of recommendations
• the sustainment implications of recommendations
• how the different recommendations fit together
• work force and cultural implications 

And the work goes on.

Filed under: Home | Comments Off

Overall Strategy (WG1)

Completed and reviewed the benchmarking information, the ‘Key Findings’ are up on the wiki.  A sub-committee on the team worked with Deloitte on a rough AMP Outline and pieces will be discussed at the next Summit (number 2).  We will continue working to review draft recommendations with workgroups and expect this to continue over the next month. We will start spending time on writing in sections to the final document.  This will be very iterative for our pieces and with workgroups too.

Technology Stack (WG2)

Conducted SME conversation re: business rule engines and BPM; Created 6 recommendations for summit #2.

Application Layer Developer Tools (WG3)

WG1 agreed that there is no expectation from WG3 for next Monday’s Summit #2; It was also agreed that drafting the WG3 report can be delayed; WG3 will wait until WG5 report comes out and then add to it if necessary.

Application Layer Infrastructure Systems (WG4)

Worked on recommendations for upcoming summit #2.

Standards and Best Practices (WG5)

Worked on recommendations for upcoming summit #2.

Growth and Sustainment (WG6)

Review template content for summit #2; Reconciled  WG5 and WG6 application project lifecycle overlap.

Customer Service Standards (WG7)

Service provider questionnaire and end user survey analysis complete, recommendations created; Reviewed benchmarking survey with University of Oregon.

Reporting Strategy (WG8)

Restructure draft proposal into WG1 template; Prioritized Recommendations.

Filed under: Home | Comments Off

The Technology Stack workgroup held a community feedback session on Sept. 15.  The group presented on a variety of topics in the scope of the workgroup, including Enterprise Architecture/platform, Integration, Legacy systems, Programming languages, Databases, and Batch.

Technology Stack presentation slides 

Following the presentation, the was a vigorous Q&A session that highlighted a number of questions:

• Why hasn’t HTTP been mentioned as an integration protocol?
  • HTTP protocol was included in the “text protocol” of the ESB solution.  This is more of a point to point protocol whereas an ESB solution would be more combinatorial.
• Is the ESB is basically authentication and authorization?
  • No. The core reason is to avoid the problem of combinatorial connections and to impose some workflow.
• What about mobile strategies?  These were not mentioned in the presentation, but surely we have to be considering this.
  • Mobile devices are not really any different than any other user interface from a technology stack perspective.  There is a separate work group that is focusing on the various UIs and a strategy moving forward.  It’s an implementation detail of the UI layer(s), CSS plus HTML5.
• With the recommendation of “Best of Breed”, won’t this push the institution towards the purchase of a commercial product that is already integrated (PeopleSoft, for example)?
  • PeopleSoft does not offer solutions for every application need we have, so integration with other software would still be a necessity.  From our benchmarking interviews, even within PeopleSoft, there are integration issues between modules.  Also, other institutions have taken to “re-skinning” the vendor packages to make for a more friendly user experience.
• Will there still be the development of tools to assist developers on campus or will it essentially be a developer free-for-all and an environment that requires developers to wear multiple hats (such as system administrator)?
  • In the “build” environment, we still envision a place for common tools to increase efficiency and productivity of developers.  However, in the “best of breeds” environment, there isa possibility that business offices will choose to implement solutions that are outside of the standard technology stack.  In that event, they will need the IT skills to implement it themselves or at additional cost.  There will likely be an increased need for specialized IT skills on campus.  We believe though that we can gain an efficiency of scale by maintaining centralized system administration and scaling via virtual machines.
• Any of these solutions implies a fairly significant cost.  In this world of dwindling resources, is this being addressed?
  • Yes, Work group 0 is dealing with this issue. 
• Has there been thought given to moving to a JVM platform for Python/PyPE?
  • Indirectly, yes.  However, this is a much lower level discussion that we have not dived into yet for the purposes of our recommendation.
• How should people start to think about current development efforts?
  • We don’t really have an answer to that.  If time and resources allow, consider developing in Python so that you are already positioning yourself in an object-oriented environment.
• Where does the directive to move off SAG products stand right now?
  • We are currently in a legal dispute with SAG.  No decision will be made until after that is resolved.
• Have you ever seen applications driven by business rules work?
  • Business Process Management Software could possibly help us tie processes across departments together better. 
• What’s the ROI for changing platforms?
  • ROI is not really a significant driver for changing our technology stack. There is no evidence that any University has ever saved money either short term or long term through these types of changes so we should not expect to either.  There are other reasons to change such as the ability to move forward and flexibility to reallocate resources and avoid vendor lock-in.
• What kind of coordination is happening with UT system, if any?
  • We are involving individual developers from UT System in some of the work groups and they are getting all of the information that UT Austin developers are.  They, like all individuals who develop on the mainframe using SAG products, will be impacted by any change we make. They are leaving our systems to transition to an installation of PeopleSoft so their user involvement in decisions we make on our business applications is not necessary at this point in the process.

Additionally, all the questions and comments have been noted and are entering into the ongoing discussions of the workgroups.  

We thank everyone for their attendance and engagement in this session.

Filed under: Home | Comments Off

Overall Strategy (WG1)

Working on assigning further pieces out after the workgroup Summit; may update milestones.

Technology Stack (WG2)

Programming language and database recommendations next week; BPM group met, Deloitte to provide SME, completed final Natural migration reference call.

Standards and Best Practices (WG5)

In progress reviewing UT community benchmarking; in progress drafting preliminary recommendations.

Growth and Sustainment (WG6)

Reconciled  WG5 and WG6 application project lifecycle overlap.

Customer Service Standards (WG7)

End user customer satisfaction survey finalized, 260 responses received; customer service provider surveys received.

Reporting Strategy (WG8)

Finished first draft  of recommendations and submitted to WG1.

Filed under: Home | Comments Off

A Technology Stack community discussion, facilitated by a panel from the Technology Stack workgroup, will be held on September 15th at 9am in Avaya (ACES).

You are asked to submit questions ahead of time to the panel (using the comments section below this post), regarding the following agenda:

• Enterprise architecture / platform
• Integration
• Legacy systems
• Programming languages
• Databases
• Batch

Your input ahead of time will be valuable in focusing the panel discussion.  Thank you.

Filed under: Home | 2 Comments »

Overall Strategy (WG1)

Revising scope of Organization recommendation

Technology Stack (WG2)

Legacy subgroup held customer reference calls with two vendors’ customers; Batch and Integration recommendations accepted by Work Group

Standards and Best Practices (WG5)

Continued UT benchmarking, will be done by next meeting; will begin non-UT benchmarking, tool nearly finalized

Growth and Sustainment (WG6)

Subgroups meeting and making progress; start of new semester / fiscal year impacting availability to work on ASMP

Customer Service Standards (WG7)

User survey questions finalized

Reporting Strategy (WG8)

Reviewed benchmarking, survey and forum results ; prepared rough draft of report

Filed under: Home | Comments Off

Overall Strategy (WG1)

Benchmarking sub-group met and determined report structure, on target for deadline; continuing to work on the organization recommendation; benchmarking and outline sub-groups to continue work

Technology Stack (WG2)

Enterprise architecture to-be and target have been completed and published; shared legacy systems findings with WG-0

Application Developer Tools (WG3)

Did not meet this week, but planning to begin research into industry trends and toolsets, particularly in areas that are not part of UT’s suite, and to continue with analysis of UT’s current situation, strengths and weaknesses

Application Layer Infrastructure Systems (WG4)

In the process of conducting benchmarking calls with peer institutions; each subgroup will be documenting current state of the systems, and selecting the group of stakeholders from whom to get feedback regarding core  needs, unmet needs, guiding principles, etc.

Standards and Best Practices (WG5)

Began benchmarking UT community; began benchmarking questions for non-UT entities

Growth and Sustainment (WG6)

Coordinated handling of staffing with WG-1; selected framework for assessment of existing infrastructure

Customer Service Standards (WG7)

Began benchmarking UT community; began process for benchmarking non-UT entities

Reporting Strategy (WG8)

Participated in benchmarking calls with other universities; reviewed results from survey and forum

Filed under: Home | Comments Off