IT and Strategy

Against a backdrop of reduced funding (for the University and for their IT organisations consequentially), the widespread availability of cloud computing services (SaaS) and the need to examine what is actually core to the service offering, perhaps the moment is opportunely right to consider IT and strategy.

There have been a number of recent blog posts and events that have helped frame my thoughts and I mention these below. The work Joe Nicholls and I did on “Core and Chore” is also relevant and a couple of links to the IWMW09 and EUNIS09 events where we presented our thoughts are provided as well.

Brian Kelly has presented widely on the implications of Web 2.0 to institutions and his talk and post on What If Web 2.0 Really Does Change Everything? provides us with some food for thought on the areas and issues that need to be considered and possibly addressed. His post was the catalyst for a lot of what follows, as were posts from Martin Weller, Andy Powell and Chris Sexton.

The recent Eduserv Symposium 2010: The Mobile University was influential to my thinking in more ways than the obvious one (as a previous post alluded to) and led to Open Source as a Shared Service – a subject I’ll return to later – and my belief that Mobile Working, as foreshadowed in the latest Horizon 2010 Report, is the most important issue of the year ahead. Have a look at the videos and slides from the event, particularly Chris Sexton‘s presentation on The role of a University Computing Service in an increasingly mobile world, or: “We don’t support that…”.

Get behind the “business language” and see if some of what is described in Six Mandates for IT Innovation does not have some meaning and relevance to us in IT Service departments as we move forward. And for our leaders (our CIOs) then they should heed What Chief Executives Really Want.

1. Top of my strategic agenda for change is the federalising of web content and services. This is enabling infrastructure that prepares your content and services for wider availability and improved access; for wider use by students and to enable greater collaborative learning. The Horizon Report (already mentioned above) highlights the likelihood of Open Content being a major future trend, we’ve had the CLEX and The Edgeless University reports and quite recently I came across The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age. The messages from all of these should be considered and reflected upon in the context of your institution. No web-service, no content, should go out the door into production without it being shibbolised.
2. The workstation desktop is overdue for review. What is the desktop image? Does everyone need one? (I don’t.) Is there not scope for a hybrid approach that locks down desktops to key administrative areas and desks and open access areas and then delivers applications via thin-client elsewhere. That way we could deliver a corporate “experience” to a wider community of users than our existing Windows based desktop image does. It would enable Mac and Linux users to share in the experience as well as allow researchers (with admin access to their workstations) to have more freedom over their desktop. It would also have a wider reach (indeed web connection would be the pre-requisite) and mean that roaming profiles might not be necessary. Link that to making the desktop image itself skinnier and you might result in a process improvement that would be universally appreciated.
3. Collaboration software in the enterprise is essential. It doesn’t really matter what it is – ning, jive, connections, sharepoint. Make sure it’s not just behind the firewall though – we do as much collaboration outside the university as we do inside and indeed a hosted solution might be the most effective solution from a licensing and service offering point of view … and try and get it shibbolised, please!
4. I’ve already referred to SaaS offerings and that’s where we must do some long and hard thinking. Running Google Apps or Live@edu is no longer innovative. It’s becoming common place. Can you make an argument for retaining email in-house? Is it a differentiating application from which your institution gains business benefit – or do we just want it to work. Go one stage further -  is it essential to keep supporting the Microsoft suite on all desktop platforms – maybe the imaged workstations – but is it really necessary for students? Office Apps in the cloud would appear a real candidate for out-sourcing as would Google Apps, and one surprisingly (see how the arguments have changed) that hits the transferable skills case for students who will be able to go on using Google Apps or Microsoft Apps in the cloud – with their own filestore (note there as an even more compelling and cost-saving argument here) – after they’ve left us and taken up work somewhere else. Indeed it could be argued that this is the relevant experience we should be giving our under-graduate students now, rather than the bloated desktop application (particularly in its latest incarnation which is so different from its predecessors).
5. Linked to this is the idea (raised in my blog post) that Open Source could be a Shared Service and could be the thing that re-engages developers in our departments with coding and with this the possibility of providing a new purpose and reason for collaboration. Imagine it. One site specialise in writing the middleware, another site specialises in device drivers and APIs, another produces apps for different platforms or for cross-platform delivery. This is the moment when we (University IT departments) could take back some of the ground we’ve ceded to the large software corporations. What makes this so appealing? Consumer electronics and personally owned computing devices …
6. The world has changed so rapidly in the last 12 months. Even the CEO now wants an iPhone rather than a BlackBerry. With V4.0 software around the corner, the iPhone moves to a position where corporates may be willing to embrace it. And when the iPad becomes commonplace … What this means is that we, as IT Services organisations, must adapt and adopt a scenario where we don’t own the devices. We need to be able to co-habit with social applications on personal devices. Do I really need to carry my iPhone and a BlackBerry around with me – one for life (which I’ve paid for) and one for work. I think not. The challenge is to have a tiered approach to service delivery. Be right up front and say that AppX can’t be made available on anything less than a DeviceY, which has USB dongle Z provided. If you’re up front and explain the reasons why X can’t be made available – the user should be able to understand if they can see Apps A, B and C being delivered the way they would want them to be. What I’m saying here is that the service offering cannot be offered as “this is what you’ve got, this is what we support”, we must be more flexible and must be able to move rapidly with the user’s requirements and the devices they own.
7. The question  “what kind of IT Service?” also has to be considered. I think the really differentiating feature of the future service offering is the advice and guidance – the education – that we provide. So it’s “engagement, enablement and EDUCATION” – I think the Service Department of the future (not just IT) needs to get much more into this piece – preparing the user for the “brave new world” that they’re possibly stumbling into, iPhone in hand. In this way they (the Service Departments) may be able to envision processes operating across silos and thus return real operational value to the user who is really only interested in completing tasks, not who their service provider is.
8. Finally the question of lag must be considered. The speed which budgetary cuts will be imposed will be faster than our ability to respond to them, UNLESS we’ve done some prioritisation and have some strategies in place. What are the drivers – cost-cutting or technology co-habitation? Can they be combined in some way. What utility computing do we provide? Can this be implemented quickly by outsourcing it quickly (as many others in the UK and US have done), thus gaining some breathing space to do some “value-generating work”. These are all important questions and a lot more “what if … ?” scenarios have to be worked-up and plans prepared for the inevitable budget-cuts there are to come. Otherwise there will be pain.

I wrote the original of this post on 21st May 2010 for an internal blog, but hope in its slightly different form that it might be of interest more widely. So, a few things to consider as you face an uncertain future; as you prepare to provide an IT Strategy that underpins the strategic vision of your institution. Are you prepared for change? Is now the time to be brave and innovate? I hope so.

Now step forward …

My colleagues Graham and Chris have posted blog posts on the UCISA Directors Forum event that took place last Week in Manchester. I’ve been a bit busy recently so my posting is just a tad delayed. I thought I’d just throw a few thoughts, ideas and some quotes from Adrian Gilpin‘s presentation, in addition to those already presented by Chris and Graham – it’s interesting how we all have different quotes. Make of them what you will. To those of us who were present, I think we all learnt something and will be that much more strengthened in our leadership than we were before.

Step forward rather than step back when challenged. Here the message is one that instead of being accepting and stepping back when confronted (or even rebutted) – take the step forward and challenge. This may be the opportunity that you’ve been waiting for. Resources will only follow those that step forward and challenge, not those who step back and accept.

Language is a barrier to communication. Here the message is one that we should all heed carefully. We all know about jargon and acronyms and how they can cause switch-off in the listener, but actually the message is more than that – we’re charged with being responsible for ensuring the listener receives the message in language they can understand.

The leader needs to change hugely will and belief, otherwise all you’ll get is compliance. The message here is one that will and belief relating to emotional intelligence are forces for change, if others believe they will follow. Compliance will not lead to transformational change.

“I have been stringing and re-stringing my instrument but the song I came to sing remains unsung” (Rabindranath Tagore). This quote is about restlessness and I find it quite emotive and troubling. So many possible interpretations.

Be the change you want to see. Heard this before, but it’s worth repeating – lesson for all who aspire to leadership.

The leader as a pathfinder – inviting others to leave their comfort zone. Speaks for itself – you don’t become a leader by just doing the daily drudge.

“I want … ” makes an audience lose the power to live. Never thought of it that way, but it’s so true – links back to the compliance thread. Yet so many “inspirational speakers” are actually ranting and are full of their own self-importance. That’s not the message here.

The leader captures the head – story-telling, the heart – energy (emotional intelligence) and the gut – drive. It’s a whole body experience, it’s been said that an academic believes their body is the vehicle to carry their brain around – ’nuff said. Story-telling is soemthing we all should engage in, as that leads to vision, purpose and direction. Our energy comes from feelings (belief) rather than anything else. However it’s drive that gets things done and that often only comes from instinct.

Then a few one-liners

We’re all leaders … the blockers are all around us.

This is my truth, what is yours?

I’m not interested in your truth, I’m interested in the consequences of your truth

The leader doesn’t change the “truth” but changes the way they “feel” about their truth.

Work through these and you get to the “Star Wars moment” – do you believe in the force, or the force of belief.

Beyond the IT Service

Pleased to able to use this blog to present the thoughts of a colleague, Stuart Brown from Oxford Brookes University, who’s been working with other UCISA Director colleagues on our Leadership agenda. We’ve just held our second Directors’ Forum and it was intended that we distributed this paper for comment at the meeting but we were so busy being challenged that the time never materialised. So with Stuart’s full permission here are his personal thoughts – comments are welcomed.

====

This paper attempts to summarise the distinctive features of a new relationship between the information systems and technology operation (IT) and its host organisation. Industry commentators suggest that this change in the position and role of IT is significant across all industry sectors and worldwide. But here our focus is UK Higher Education, which we suppose to be subject to the same trend.

The impetus for this document has been the UCISA Directors’ Forum, which has exposed some of this new thinking within the sector. The Directors’ Forum is primarily concerned with the implications of these changes for senior IT management. But it has also recognised that many, possibly all IT staff in Higher Education will probably be impacted. To explore this further, initial discussions have been held with the UCISA Staff Development Group (SDG). One conclusion has been that all staff need to understand their place in the big picture. And if the big picture is changing, we need to know what it looks like if staff are to re-orientate themselves successfully.

This document may be regarded as a sketch of the big picture. In its present form it is doubtless incomplete and may be inaccurate. But it is a starting point. Its is intended that it should be refined and developed with reference to the Directors’ Forum so as to become a guide for future activities, including those of the SDG.

Game Change: How is the Role of IT Changing?
IT is moving from a service provider role to that of a full partner in the development and delivery of university strategy .

This does not mean that service delivery is unimportant – quite the opposite. IT must have a demonstrable record of good quality service delivery to attract the trust and confidence that underpin greater influence.

Rather than act as a supplier for sponsors drawn from other parts of the organisation, IT must pro-actively sponsor change including changes that impact other parts of the organisation. This may be seen as a change from a “what do you want IT to do?” to a “you must do this” approach.

This role is risky and requires leadership of high quality. Rapid technology change and poor understanding of IT by non-IT management compound the challenge.

The extent and pace of these changes varies from one organisation to another, even within the same sector. Only time will tell if this is a general historic shift or localised effect confined to certain organisations.

Relationship with Senior Management

1) Procedural
IT needs to operate IT strategy and governance processes that not only allow it to exert its own influence, but draw together all parts of the organisation in a strategic partnership. These processes must interlock with wider corporate strategy (strategic alignment). The objective is to utilise IT to the greatest effect for the benefit of the organisation. These processes require the active participation of senior management.

2) Structural
Senior IT roles must participate fully and influentially in the strategic processes of the organisation. This is often seen as a requirement that the IT Director must report directly to the Chief Executive as well as being a member of the Board of Directors. This is both problematic and contraversial as IT does not have this political position in many organisations, including many in Higher Education.

Capabilities Required by IT
In order to fulfil this role as a proactive business change agent, a number of capabilities become important. Some of these are somewhat removed from the capabilities which may be traditionally valued in IT. The extent to which these newly prominent capabilities displace as opposed to supplement established skills and expertise is a moot point.

Influencing and Communication
IT tends to cultivate a detailed and technical perspective, which is not appreciated by other professions and disciplines. It is important that IT is able to present itself in a way which accords with the perspective of the rest of the organisation.

Professional Service Delivery
As mentioned above, the delivery of well regarded services is essential and this requires high quality professional management (ref. ITIL).

Business Engagement: IT must exploit and develop its understanding and influence on the organisation through disciplines such as Business Systems Analysis and Business Process Review.

Sourcing and Procurement
IT systems and services may be delivered through an increasingly diverse range of options, many of which are essentially outsourced. Expertise in procuring and managing these solutions is increasingly important and may operate at a number of levels from a single system or part of a system right up to the delivery of an entire IT service.

Project Management
As the sourcing of solutions becomes more diverse, the role of IT increasingly needs to embrace the overall management of projects involving out-sourced suppliers. In some cases, the internal IT organisation may have relatively little traditional technical input.