EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tulane University’s Technology Services faced an extraordinary challenge to re-establish connectivity and communications following hurricane Katrina. Dedicated staff coordinated their efforts from disparate locations and under enormous personal stress to meet the needs of faculty, students and staff over the fall of 2005 and through the remainder of the academic year. Now, Technology Services is reaching to establish an ongoing level of service excellence that will build upon the demonstrated success of this collective effort. With the recognition that technology must provide value and enable institutional goals, Technology Services is launching “Avenues to Renewal” a strategic technology planning initiative grounded in a shared understanding among members of the Tulane community regarding how technology can and should support the University mission. Avenues to Renewal defines a process for continual improvement based on measures of success; a mission and vision to guide the delivery of technology solutions and services; strategic goals for Technology Services and action items to align the strategic use of technology with institutional goals, including those in the Renewal Plan; and a decision-making framework to determine which technology projects should be resourced using a transparent, institution-wide approach. This strategic plan has two purposes: 1) it serves as a statement from Technology Services leaders that focuses on supporting the use of information technologies as tools that should transform university activities and the student experience, and 2) it provides a procedure to assess new project and service requests from the university community. The value of information technologies should be centered on their ability to offer improvement or enhancement to business processes, to teaching, learning, and research activities, and to provide access to knowledge and information resources. Clarifying and specifying this value must be clear to determine a return on investment in technology and can be the foundation on which technologies are deployed to meet the needs of faculty, students, and staff. Initiating a broad-based planning mechanism to insure that technology resources enable and support institutional goals and to allocate resources toward priority needs requires a phased in approach to accommodate the realities of fiscal year budget timelines and multi-year commitments. The planning process described in the document has been designed as a cyclical one that may be implemented in the least disruptive manner. This document describes the results of phase one in which the following strategic goals were identified:

Strategic Goal 1: Demonstrate service excellence via continuous improvement and benchmarking Strategic Goal 2: Build virtual and physical communities to support enhanced communication, collaboration, and camaraderie Strategic Goal 3: Deliver integrated, user-centered processes Strategic Goal 4: Enhance learning in and out of the classroom Strategic Goal 5: Enhance the research enterprise Strategic Goal 6: Support recruiting and retention of faculty, staff and students

Phase two (Technology Self-assessments) and phase three (Technology Services Review) are discussed as ongoing activities necessary to inform tactical and operations decision-making. Phase four (Resource Allocation) is presented as a series of procedures guided by the Strategic Technology Plan Working Group and the Senior Executive Steering Committee.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 PLANNING PROCESS OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 3 MISSION ............................................................................................................................................... 5 VISION................................................................................................................................................... 5 PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................................ 5 STRATEGIC GOALS ......................................................................................................................... 6 NEXT STEPS:

TACTICAL PLANNING AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS OVERVIEW...... 10 PROGRESS TO DATE ..................................................................................................................... 11 APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................................... 13 APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX D ...................................................................................................................................... 25 APPENDIX E ...................................................................................................................................... 27

3

INTRODUCTION

Tulane University’s Technology Services faced an extraordinary challenge to re-establish connectivity and communications following hurricane Katrina. Dedicated staff coordinated their efforts from disparate locations and under enormous personal stress to meet the needs of faculty, students and staff over the fall of 2005 and through the remainder of the academic year. Now, Technology Services is reaching to establish an ongoing level of service excellence that will build upon the demonstrated success of this collective effort. With the recognition that technology must provide value and enable institutional goals, Technology Services is launching “Avenues to Renewal” a strategic technology planning initiative grounded in a shared understanding within the Tulane community regarding how technology can and should support the University mission. As such, Avenues to Renewal defines a process for continual improvement based on measures of success; a mission and vision to guide the delivery of technology solutions and services; strategic goals for Technology Services and action items to align the strategic use of technology with institutional goals, including those in the Renewal Plan; and a decision-making framework to determine which technology projects should be resourced using a transparent, institution-wide approach. Strategic planning for Technology Services began in 2005 when Tulane University’s Office of Strategic Planning, External Affairs conducted a series of interviews with selected campus stakeholders. By August 2005, data collection and analysis was complete when university operations were catastrophically interrupted. A full summary of findings from February through August 2005 is available in appendix A. Strategic technology planning was resumed in February 2006, under new Technology Services leadership, using a planning process facilitated by JM Associates. A summary list of individuals who participated over the February 2006 – June 2006 planning period is provided in appendix B. The scope of Avenues to Renewal is a three to five year period. Although technology changes rapidly, institutions require more time to establish new processes and are required to balance a complex of perspectives. Furthermore, over the seven years that EDUCAUSE has assessed the top ten IT concerns among participating CIO’s, concern over IT funding has ranked at either the first or the second top concern. For Tulane University, we can expect that financial constraints will remain as a critical external driver due to the events of 2005 and the university’s relationship to the city of New Orleans, and therefore have the potential to inhibit strategic planning. This strategic plan can be used to help manage these conditions by identying and prioritizing technology projects that will best support Tulane’s goals of teaching, learning, research and public service, and support the goals of the Renewal plan. Tulane has much strength on which it can build and Avenues to Renewal is aimed at reinforcing those strengths. PLANNING PROCESS OVERVIEW

This document describes the results of strategic planning activities completed in phase one. Initiating a broad-based planning mechanism to insure that technology resources enable and support institutional goals and to allocate resources toward priority needs requires a phased in approach to accommodate the realities of fiscal year budgeting timelines and multi-year commitments. The Technology Self-assessments (phase two) and Technology Services Review (phase three) are critical to accurately prioritizing projects and function to inform the executive committee of available staff skills and FTEs that can be assigned to a new project and/or that are assigned to a continuing project and to ongoing services. The tactical planning activities defined in these phases must be accomplished in tandem with the need to keep current services and operations fully functioning and will occur in an ongoing and iterative fashion to inform each cycle of resource allocation. Underutilized services that can be retired, service quality levels, and new services required by changing user expectations can also be identified during these phases and enable tactical decision-making regarding how strategic goals are achieved.

4

See appendix C for the full technology self-assessment tool. Phase four occurs when executive officers begin FY 08 budget planning to address university needs.

PHASE 1: Strategic Technology Planning COMPLETED Purpose: To identify strategic goals (SG) on which future university projects can be assessed. PHASE 2: Technology Self Assessment for Tactical Planning ONGOING Purpose: To assess baseline functional and management readiness to accomplish projects that align with strategic goals.

PHASE 3: IN PROGRESS: Technology Services Review Tactical Planning ONGOING Purpose: To define unit-wide service levels and delivery responsibilities required to accomplish projects aligned with strategic goals.

PHASE 4: Resource Allocation Process Launch Oct 2006 Purpose: To implement a university-wide process for prioritizing Technology Services projects that is aligned with Tulane’s mission goals and driven by budget-based resource allocation decisions.

1 2 3

4

5

MISSION

Technology Services will help the Tulane community use technology to achieve goals outlined in the institutional Strategic and Renewal Plans. Technology Services will do this by providing excellent service that will be measured via annual benchmarking using comparable data and against aspirational peer organizations; by delivering technology solutions that are secure, dependable, and sustainable yet flexible and responsive; and by effectively communicating to the campus stakeholders the availability of current technologies and the potential of new, emerging technologies. Technology Services will provide solutions to faculty, students, staff, and alumni that strengthen creative approaches to teaching, learning, research, and public service; improve administrative operations; and enhance regional and national visibility. VISION

The following vision represents the outcome of Avenues to Renewal and is essential to guiding mission-critical priorities through 2010. See appendix D for a summary of scenarios regarding how technology can serve Tulane University based on visioning sessions with members of the Tulane community

Tulane University’s Technology Services is in the 75th percentile on the following benchmarks when ranked against peer institutions: • Quality of service delivery • Transformative uses of information technology to meet communication needs and

productivity goals • Effectiveness of technology solutions in supporting university business processes • Ubiquitous use of technology to support teaching, learning, and research

PRINCIPLES

The following principles for guiding strategic planning have been distilled from the work to date and were used to guide the development of the Avenues to Renewal planning process.

• Technology Services must employ a proactive approach rather than reactive approach to service • Members of the Tulane community expect to gain value for money spent on information

technology solutions • Information technology solutions must balance business/administrative and academic needs in a

complementary manner • Information technology solutions must be collaboratively defined across a decentralized campus • Major enterprise implementations must be based on input from a broad base of end-users or

stakeholders • Students have high expectations for information technology’s role as a communication and

learning resource • Where feasible and cost effective, centralized technology services should strive to provide

customized solutions that support Tulane’s distinct needs • Technology Services staffing is finite and not likely to expand significantly due to external conditions • Information technology decision-making must be driven by stakeholder needs • Information technologies should provide transformative solutions rather then merely substitute

one technology for another • Technology Services must use benchmarking to measure progress over time • Strategic technology planning is an ongoing process for guiding and prioritizing tactical actions • Executive sponsorship is key to campus change efforts

6

STRATEGIC GOALS

Strategic Goals (SGs) for Technology Services describe technology directions that enable or support strategic goals of the institution and its units. SGs are not specific projects but rather describe broad end results. The strategic goals below establish the long-term, multi-year focus for the Technology Services organization necessary to realizing our vision. They are based on Tulane’s Strategic and Renewal Plans and are informed by the concerns and needs discovered in discussions with a diverse group of people from across the university. The order of the SGs below does not imply a priority. Each goal includes a brief explanation and action items to achieve the goal. Strategic Goal 1: Demonstrate service excellence via continuous improvement and benchmarking This strategic goal supports our vision of a quality of service level that places Tulane in the 75th percentile in relation to our peer institutions. Action Items 1.1. Select peers against which Technology Services can benchmark its performance 1.2. Identify the desired characteristics of service-excellence that will characterize Tulane’s Technology

Services 1.3. Assess current workload capacity of Technology Services to determine a baseline for progress on

benchmarks. 1.4. Select indicators to show progress toward improvement and achievement 1.5. Establish a mechanism to guide ongoing planning activities to support decentralized technology

services by defining standards, policies, and shared priorities that result in balanced and coordinated improvements across the university.

1.6. Implement a resource allocation process to manage university demand for IT services by prioritizing

technology projects, goals, and servicees in collaboration with all university stakeholders. Strategic Goal 2: Build virtual and physical communities to support enhanced communication, collaboration, and camaraderie This strategic goal supports our vision of providing transformative uses of information technology to meet the communication needs of our community. All segments of the community interviewed indicated a desire to interact and collaborate with others at the University to achieve common goals efficiently, with immediacy when warranted, and to share information. This desire was driven, in part, by the recognition of the critical importance of distributed communication post-Katrina; changes in the way research opportunities are identified and research activities are pursued; an understanding of how the current generation of students communicate, interact and learn; and a need to attract and retain faculty, staff and students by making connections and building relationships.

7

Communication can be one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many and be among community members and/or the institution. Connections are made among people based on such things as common social, academic, business, geographical needs or interests. Campus spaces should be designed to enable collaboration and services should be provided to enable easy access to technology tools and resources for capturing, storing, publishing, and distributing information content. Pursuing this strategic goal will support Tulane’s in engaging all stakeholders, including prospective and current students, faculty and potential faculty, staff, alumni, and local, regional and global communities. Action Items 2.1. Identify collaborative technologies already in use by members of the campus community and define

implementation objectives for university-wide deployment, support, and access.

2.2. Ensure anytime, anywhere interaction that effectively complements face-to-face meeting and interaction.

Strategic Goal 3: Deliver integrated, user-centered processes This strategic goal supports our vision to provide transformative uses of information technology to meet productivity goals and effective technology solutions to support business processes. Those interviewed for this plan indicated that Tulane’s current administrative processes are not user friendly or well coordinated. Paper forms are often routed manually around the institution for approval and processing. Departments frequently store duplicate information for tracking or verification purposes. Status and summary reports are generated by hand from a variety of sources and shadow systems. Tulane is not unique among its peers. Many academic and administrative processes have evolved over time, tweaked here and there to accommodate new policies or directions. Too often, new technology has been bolted on to old practices only to result in awkward complexities that fail to deliver the value technology can offer. Reengineering and streamlining processes will allow Tulane to support changes to processes that will achieve significant effectiveness, efficiency or customer service improvements and free faculty, staff and students to pursue and support mission-related activities. In addition, while much data exists in a multitude of systems throughout the University, it is not easily accessed to make strategic decisions or guide operational activities. More and better information-based decisions can be made when up-to-date information, drawn from a variety of sources, can be integrated to provide people, including administrators, academic leaders, faculty, managers and staff, with snapshots of the current status of activities and the means to do trending or projections. Action Items 3.1. Identify and prioritize administrative processes that should be reengineered for enhanced integration

and user-centered delivery using middleware technologies to build a service oriented architecture (SOA).

Enterprise system integration1 demands huge resources in time, money, and skill. Emerging technologies are often unstable and non-standardized and legacy system migrations are clumsy and

1 This term refers to the core business functions of university operations, including, but not limited to: Financial: budgeting, accounts receivable/payable; Student services: housing, advising; Facilities: capital projects, scheduling, renovations, repair and maintenance; Human resources: recruitment, hiring, payroll; Student enrollment: registration, degree audit, financial aid.

8

carry a high risks of breaking what already works reasonably well (though too often legacy systems are such because they are no longer supported, endangering them to obsolesces). Ensuring that systems are scalable, modular, and customizable - to enable rapid responses to changes in external regulatory agencies and internal university policies - further increases their complexity. In addition, university-wide processes must inter-operate with departmental and unit-based needs that may require more detailed, granular, or customized processes. Consequently, multiple tactics will be necessary to achieve increased integration and incremental enhancements will be most feasible. Enterprise systems will be optimized over time by establishing a service-oriented architecture that provide:

• Single sign-on to critical systems to provide end users with a single secure ID and password to access a multitude of systems

• Security and privacy controls to insure compliance, confidentiality and identity safeguards • Directory services to authenticate and authorize Tulane affiliates to enable end users to

access appropriate systems based on institutional role and affiliation • Web-services for data delivery and application interface to integrate technology solutions

that simplify access to information 3.2. Develop and modify an information-based architecture to meet decision making needs from an

institutional perspective by identifying critical data sets for institutional data warehousing. .

By establishing an institutional data warehouse to support reporting and analysis, university administrators can create customized “dashboards” that indicate the status of information being monitored. For example, the facilities manager might see a yellow warning indicator if repair requests are taking longer than two days to complete. She could click on the indicator to “drill down” and get a better understanding of the specifics. A dean could monitor class capacity during registration by viewing bar charts reflecting available and registered seats and make adjustments accordingly.

Strategic Goal 4: Enhance learning in and out of the classroom The strategic goal supports or vision of using technology to support teaching and learning. Many members of the Tulane community clearly indicated the expectation that ways of learning will undergo radical changes in the next few years. The overwhelming availability of information and growing simplicity of communication will allow students to acquire and demonstrate knowledge using a range of cognitive learning styles. This is coupled with students who have a new set of expectations resulting from their exposure to technology-rich K-12 learning environments. In addition, scholars adept in the use of technology for research and comfortable with tools common to their own academic studies will come to expect its availability in their classrooms. In addition, Tulane’s Renewal Plan outlines new academic directions, including new structures, programs, requirements, and learning models that will both motivate and required changes in the way learning occurs. Teaching and learning can now be enhanced by access to a vast and comprehensive digital library offering electronic journals, ebooks, multimedia, images, and extensive global sources of information. This content can be incorporated seamlessly into course management software and other teaching tools for immediate access in the technology-enhanced classroom. Library-based Learning Commons allow students to integrate information resources into their learning by offering powerful computing resources,

9

24/7 computing assistance, and vast amounts of online and printed information in one facility. Students can work together in the Learning Commons because the facility is equipped to allow collaboration among groups of all sizes. These creative uses of technology will allow for additional learning experiences in the classroom and entirely different modes of interaction, collaboration and interaction outside the classroom. Instructional technology solutions in place can be leveraged and new solutions can be introduced to customize learning approaches and varied modes of learning Action Items 4.1. Enable access to state-of-the-art course management system and interactive technologies to extend

learning classroom beyond the classroom 4.2. Enable students to practice “folio- thinking” - the ability to document their learning effort, to share

evidence of their learning with others for feedback, to create (or fulfill) evidence-based standards of performance, and to reflect on learning processes - as a distinctive element of public service learning.

4.3. Pilot and assess emerging technologies to insure that technology enriched approaches to teaching

and learning can be sustained, scaled, and demonstrate educational value. Strategic Goal 5: Enhance the research enterprise This strategic goal supports the enhanced use of technology for research. Research is core to Tulane’s mission, directly supporting the discovery process, attracting faculty and students, and providing an important source of income. Tulane's investment in support of research and scientific computing will enhance researchers' ability to collaborate on projects with other universities and national laboratories. This will allow Principle Invetigators and students to leverage large state-wide and national initiatives in their own projects. High bandwidth network connections will also provide Tulane researchers with access to worldwide shared resources that may otherwise be unavailable, such as computational grids, remote instrumentation (i.e. electron microscopes), large shared data sets and remote visualization. Research is also enhanced by reliable and easy access to the digital library from on or off campus. Researchers can access published information and data sources that can be tailored to their research interests and manipulated to meet their needs. Collaboration in research is enhanced through online tools that allow sharing of preprints, compiled data, conference papers, and other sources of “grey” literature. Digitized archive collections allow researchers at the university and around the world to study the university’s rich holdings of unique and valuable items. Action Items 5.1. Leverage communication technologies to link faculty research agendas, faculty collaborators, and

funding sources 5.2. Seek economies of scale to achieve a coordinated approach to supporting technology used for

research 5.3. Implement a grants management portal to assist researchers in financial reporting and budget

analysis. 5.4. Actively participate in regional and national initiatives that support research and scientific computing

10

Strategic Goal 6: Support recruiting and retention of faculty, staff and students While not specifically related to our vision for Technology Services, helping to recruit the best and the brightest faculty, staff, and students through transformative uses of technology is key to sustaining Tulane’s excellence. During conversations with the community, it became clear that the post-Katrina world and general trends in higher education have created challenges and opportunities for Tulane. Concerns about the future of the institution and changes in academic programs have created challenges for attracting new students and retaining current ones. All of these issues are driving Tulane’s need to attract and keep faculty and staff who are the best fit for a changing institution. Institutional changes are also creating the need for Tulane to change how it recruits and retains students who will be successful in its environment. Recruiting and retention will be enhanced by 24/7 access to Tulane's information technology and resources from anywhere in the world. If a Tulane scholar is conducting research, giving a presentation, preparing for or taking a class, they can be confident that the resources of the university are within reach from wherever they might be working. Prospective students, faculty and staff can view Tulane’s wealth of research resources, better enabling them to make an informed decision about coming to Tulane. Action Items 6.1. Implement a student relationship management system to help the institution track and manage a

student’s interaction with the University from her first contact through her first day on campus. 6.2. Conduct virtual job fairs around the country and the world to enhance staff hiring, greatly expanding

the pool of available candidates.

NEXT STEPS: TACTICAL PLANNING AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS OVERVIEW

An institution must provide resources for two overall technology areas: projects and ongoing services. Services encompasses daily, ongoing operational, user support, and managerial activities required to maintain the current technology environment and infrastructure for the end user community. Projects fall into two scopes, Major and Minor, depending on their characteristics. Major projects take significant time to complete, and have large impacts. Minor projects are smaller in scope and should be completed within a 90-day timeframe. Specific characteristics that distinguish major and minor projects are discussed in appendix E. Three types of projects require funding. A mandatory project derives from governance changes and has one or more of the following characteristics:

• Required because of a new or changed federal or state law or requirement • Required because of a new or changed institutional policy • Required to create or maintain a stable technology environment and infrastructure

An executive project is one required by senior management. A continued project is one that was previously approved and funded during a previous year’s planning process Stakeholder and executive committees play significant roles in all phases of the tactical planning processes for Major and Minor projects by determining institutional priorities for funding allocations or reallocations. By nature, some projects are funded outside of a prioritization process. Once resources are

11

allocated to mandatory, executive, and ongoing projects, remaining resources can be allocated to optional projects that have been prioritized using weighted institutional criteria. Demand almost always outweighs resources when it comes to institutional technology priorities and it is likely that project and service requests will be advanced from all members of the university community. Tactical planning for resourcing projects requires a mechanism for identifying, submitting, prioritizing, approving, funding, and allocating resources for all technology projects while accounting for the resourcing of ongoing services. Identifying Projects and Services The Strategic Technology Planning Working Group will have responsibility for identifying, reviewing, and prioritizing project requests that will then be forwarded on an annual basis for funding and resource allocation. The Strategic Technology Planning Working Group will have the following responsibilities:

1. Develop a common format for proposed projects and services that identifies the business or academic need met by each project, the goals of the project, the functionality and process implications of the project, the associated workflow, suggested timeline, hardware/software needs, service and staff resources needed, and alternate delivery approaches.

2. Create a weighted scoring system for evaluating projects according to how well they further the mission of the institution as identified in the Renewal Plan and the strategic goals of the university and Technology Services, their scope and complexity, efficiency and productivity, and impact on end user, security, compliance, financial resources, etc.

3. Build a recommended portfolio of projects based on the comparative scores Approving Requests for Funding and Resource Allocation An Executive Steering Committee consisting of the responsible Senior Officers will be asked to make final approval and funding decisions on project allocations. The Executive Steering Committee will have three key responsibilities:

1. Insure there are sufficient resources to fund ongoing projects 2. Generate Executive projects for the annual tactical technology planning process 3. Integrate and coordinate annual tactical technology planning with institutional planning

and budget processes 4. Prioritize optional projects

The process also provides the opportunity for the President and Cabinet to agree on what will not be done. Projects not making the cut are deferred to the following year when the process starts over again, No new projects are added once the current year’s list of projects is finalized, and there are no expectations after the list is approved.

PROGRESS TO DATE

To date the following matrix has been completed to demonstrate current resource allocations within Technology Service

Tulane University

Technology Services Resource Allocation for ...(Resources Req'd for Projects)

Fiscal Year …

(Updated August 6, 2003)

IT Groups >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Projects

Academic

Technology

Support

Services

Data Center

& Data

Operations

Health

Sciences

Center

Network

Operations

Security Software

Applicatio

n Services

Telecom G&A Total FTE by

Project or

Project Type

Projects Outside Prioritization Process

Operational 4.50 1.50 2 3 11.00

User Support 13.00 2.00 2 0.25 17.25

Management 1.50 1.00 0.5 0.75 3.75

Mandatory 0.00

CPS ePortfolio 1.00 1.00

CPS Info System 1.00 1.00

Security Regulatory Compliance 0.5 0.50

Executive 0.00

Exchange conversion 2.00 2.00

Learning Commons 1.50 1.50

Disaster Recovery 0.00

Current Projects 0.00

Major or Strategic Projects 0.00

CMS 3- Yr Plan 1.00 1.00

Faculty orientation & projects 0.75 0.75

Podcasting Pilot 0.50 0.50

Digital Asset Management 0.75 0.75

Enterprise Security Analyzer 0.25 0.25

Enterprise Vulnerability Scanning 0.25 0.25

HLA Patient TYPING Database 1.00 1.00

Enhancements to Student Services 1.00 1.00

Effort Report System 0.00

Matrix Student System 0.00

Reporting Administration 0.00

Payroll/HR Self Service 0.00

Workflow 0.00

Imaging 0.00

Sallie Mae Implementation 0.00

Identify Management 0.00

LONI 0.00

Implementation of New Prefix (Telecom) 3 3.00

Modular Dorms (Telecom) 1 1.00

Relocate Medical Arts (Telecom) 1 1.00

Alert Line Conversion (Telecom) 0.25 0.25

Install switch 1555 Poydras (Telecom) 0.25 0.25

Strategic/WorkloadCap Planning (G&A) 0.25 0.25

Reclassification Project (G&A) 0.5 0.50

Minor Projects 0.00

Traffic, DPS site 0.10 0.10

Family Med Application 0.10 0.10

Shakespeare 0.30 0.30

SLA Annual Rpt 0.50 0.50

Security Awareness 0.25 0.25

Dicoverer conversion to Jreports 1.50 1.50

Changes to Parking Services 0.50 0.50

Changes to TMA Reporting 0.25 0.25

Changes to Grants Tracking 0.25 0.25

Changes to Faculty Database 0.25 0.25

FTE Employed 24.00 7 1 7 4 43.00

FTE Currently Allocated by Group 28.50 9.25 1.00 10.00 4.75 53.50

Available FTE -4.50 -2.25 0.00 -3.00 -0.75 -10.50

13

APPENDIX A Situation Audit – Technology Services An Executive Summary of Interviews with Deans, Academic Vice Presidents, Administrative Vice Presidents/Directors and other users re: Technology Services strategic plan This report summarizes 26 meetings conducted from February through August 2005 with the deans, the director of Tulane’s Primate Center, academic vice presidents, key technology users, student leaders, and administrative/operations vice presidents and directors. The meetings were held individually, and in some cases included not only the head of the unit, but staff members as well. A complete listing of all meeting participants is attached. The meetings were conducted by Rhonda Coignet, Executive Director of Strategic Planning, Adam Krob, Director of End User Support Services, and Linda Orth Wright, Director of Instructional Technology Overall, the academic and administrative users interviewed have mixed feelings toward information technology at Tulane. On the one hand, while most seem to appreciate the inherent difficulties in providing technology to such a large and diverse community of users, they are frustrated by the lack of a coherent strategy for providing technology that meets their particular needs. In general, they appreciate the level of technical support provided, but want a more proactive approach to solving IT problems rather than the current reactive approach. Users appreciate that IT is expensive, but feel they are not getting value for their limited IT dollars, particularly in the context of Tulane’s allocated costs financial model. The attached meeting summaries include a number of areas of concern among the users interviewed. The most frequently mentioned areas are listed below, in no particular order after Communication. A consistently mentioned area of concern and frustration was Communication, or the lack thereof, between technology services and the user community. The communication breakdown exists on many levels, from end users not knowing what services are available to the community, to key technology support staff within the individual schools and colleges being unaware of plans for major changes and upgrades to the network infrastructure, and everywhere in between. The users interviewed consistently noted the lack of a forum for discussing technology needs on the business/administrative side of the house, and the lack of a system for prioritizing projects and determining how administrative or academic technology priorities will be met. IT decisions are made in isolation, without input from the community or user involvement. As a result, users feel the only option they have to meet their IT needs is to implement their own shadow systems, which ultimately drains staffing and financial resources, and duplicates efforts. Individual colleges, schools, and departments have taken the initiative to implement their own systems, depriving Technology Services of valuable opportunities to assist in the planning, implementation, and ultimate support of the systems. The Student Information System is a particular source of constant worry and frustration. Some deans feel they were not consulted in the selection, planning, or implementation of the new Matrix system. As a result, they believe the new system will meet only the needs of the registrar. No information has been released regarding the new system’s capabilities, and end-user concerns and needs have not been taken into account in designing the system. The constantly shifting implementation date is of much concern, particularly in those areas where day-to-day functionality will be directly affected by continued delays. The deans are concerned that Tulane’s technology is falling short of student expectations, particularly in the limited use of instructional technology by faculty as well as the shortage of technology-enabled classrooms across the university. These concerns range from the high-tech needs of the School of Medicine, where electronic student and faculty evaluations are becoming the norm in medical education, to the needs of the School of Social Work for electronic classroom capabilities at the most basic levels. The deans noted that students continually express their preference for utilizing the Blackboard course management system, while faculty make limited use of instructional technology beyond transparencies, and PowerPoint, and under-utilize the services of the ILC. Architecture noted

14

that students are leaving Tulane because technology does not meet their needs or expectations, while the Business School observed that their students are mainly satisfied with the technology resources available in the Freeman School. One dean observed more faculty are being hired with higher levels of computer needs and expectations, and Tulane’s information technology will have to accommodate those increased levels if the university wants to continue to attract competitive faculty. Tulane will also have to adjust traditional pedagogical approaches to meet the needs of today’s more technologically savvy student. TU website and email/webmail systems were also mentioned as problem areas. Although maintenance of the website does not fall under Technology Services’ purview, the perception is that TS is responsible for its failings and shortcomings. Specifically, the website was described as outdated, not user-friendly, hard to navigate, and non-responsive to the needs of our students. A number of deans are frustrated that they are forced to hire outside consultants to design and maintain their individual websites, a service they believe they are paying for through the allocated costs model. On the other hand, TS is responsible for the university’s email system, which was most frequently described during the interviews as unreliable, slow, and unresponsive. Staffing resources are another area of concern, in as much as IT staffing levels seem very thin compared with the workload and as compared to peer institutions. The deans and department heads recognize this problem and have filled the void by hiring their own technology staff. The tacit message is that deans and department heads do not perceive that Technology Services is taking initiative to fulfill their needs, in part or in whole. …. General Perceptions: What’s Working The users interviewed also had good things to say about information technology at Tulane. Many of those interviewed, though not all, noted that technical support is responsive, if somewhat reactive, to user-reported problems. The availability of staff training on basic office systems such as the MS Office Suite is adequate, though a few deans wished their staff would take advantage of the Center for Workforce Effectiveness. Wish-List A number of those interviewed expressed a need for standardized Central IT policies and procedures, especially regarding security, email addresses, backup procedures, etc. While a few observed that moving to one platform and one computer vendor (e.g., Dell PCs), would create economies of scale across the university, they also acknowledged the resistance such a policy would provoke. Overwhelmingly, however, what those interviewed most frequently said they wanted is to be included in IT decisions that directly affect the functioning of their particular operating unit. Whether it is the design of the new electronic payroll action form, new policies regarding access to secure information about students or alumni, the relocation of computer labs used heavily by a particular group of students, or just being informed of changes to the network or in IT policies, communication and collaboration were the two common threads running throughout all 26 meetings. These key stakeholders feel that they are not included in decisions, reflected in both action (new systems, new policies) and inaction (unmet needs) that affect their units. The decentralized budget structure of the university underscores and empowers these key stakeholders to act independently of Technology Services. These actions can either be unilateral or cooperative. Engaging the stakeholders in on-going dialogue and a well-conceived project intake and management process is critical to increasing levels of satisfaction.

15

APPENDIX B Stakeholder Input

Activities March – June 2006 • Collect stakeholder input via Technology Leadership Group, Working Group, Deans’ Groups and

Executive Steering Committee • Review and analyze Tulane’s Renewal Plan, Ten Year Institutional Plan, and Focus Group output • Factor in knowledge of peer institutions • Create narratives based on scenarios to inform mission and vision • Draft straw man • Verify straw man with stakeholder groups Senior Leadership Scott Cowen, President Yvette Jones, Chief Operating Office Anthony Lorino, Chief Financial Officer Technology Leadership Group Tim Deeves, Director, Network Operations, Technology Services Tom Gerace, Director, Business School Information Services, School of Business Ray Jean, Director, Computing Services, School of Law Ann, Kovalchick Executive Director, Academic Technology, Technology Services Fran Mather, Assoc Dean for Academic Information Services, School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine Rick McGinity, Director, Operating Systems and Database Services, Technology Services Tim Riley, Manager, Data Systems and Security, Health Sciences Center, Technology Services Leo Tran, Security Officer, Technology Services Pat Wilks Simoneaux, Director, Telecommunications & Administration, Uptown, Technology Services Mary Walsh, Director, Software Application Services, Technology Services Jerry Wilson, Director, Telecommunications, Downtown, School of Medicine Working Group Kevin Bailey, Assistant VP for Student Affairs Elizabeth Boone, Professor, Dept of Art, LAS Rhonda Coignet, Executive Director, Strategic Planning, Office of External Affairs Ricardo Cortez, Assoc Prof., Dept of Mathematics, LAS, University Senate IT Committee Jed Diem, Professor, Dept of Mathematics, LAS Rob Hailey, VP Student Affairs Doug Harrell, VP For Finance and Controller, VP Finance Anne Houston Reference Librarian, Howard Tilton Memorial Library Ann Kovalchick, Executive Director, Academic Technology, Technology Services Earl Retif, University Registrar, Registrar Tony Vanky, Student, School of Architecture, University Senate IT Committee

16

Dean’s Group Nicholas J. Altiero, School of Science and Engineering George L. Bernstein, School of Liberal Arts Pierre Buekens, School of Public Health Cynthia Cherry, Student Affairs Angelo S. DeNisi. School of Business Luann Dozier, Development Reed Kroloff, School of Architecture Laura Levy, Research James MacLaren, Newcomb-Tulane College Ronald E. Marks, School of Social Work Richard A. Marksbury. School of Continuing Studies Lawrence Ponoroff, Law School Lance Query. Library Paul K. Whelton, School of Medicine Scientific Computing Tom Bishop Don Gaver Rene Solmon Center for Public Service Vincent Ilustre, Director, Center for Public Service Ana Lopez, Senior Associate Provost Digital Collaboration Andy Corrigan, Associate Dean for Collections David Dressing, Manuscripts Curator, Latin American Library Kathe Lawton, Asst Director, Middle American Research Institute Bill Meneray, Asst. Dean for Special Collections Kate Montgomery, Digital Services Librarian Bruce Raeburn, Curator, Hogan Jazz Archive

Individual meetings Andre Lackner, Director, Primate Center Richard Whiteside, VP Enrollment Management

17

APPENDIX C

Technology Evaluation: June 28, 2006

(a) Instructions for Completing the Technology Evaluation This evaluation document offers discussion questions for the management of the central IT department to stimulate a dialog on the current state of IT at the institution. The goal is to focus on qualitative vs. quantitative discussions. The assessment should be completed as a team activity including all IT managers and should be completed over a series of sessions. Answers should be scribed by a third party then approved after each session by all participants. Questions can be answered in an informal manner that addresses not only the current state but also the reasons and logic behind the answers. Participants should skip questions that may need further review or information, returning to them when the information is available. Additional questions may be added along the way if discussing them will add value to the evaluation. During the process, the participants should maintain a “Parking Lot” of ideas that are out of the scope of the discussion but that should be addressed in a different forum. The group should also keep a running list of potential projects that would improve IT performance and services. The outcome of this process should be an evaluation reflecting IT management’s beliefs about department functionality and ideas on how the department can improve performance and services. Participants should keep in mind that IT management sometimes believes that the institution:

• Does not value or support the high level of services and support the IT department wants to deliver;

• Does not act on IT department recommendations; • Does not enforce IT policies; and/or • Does not provide sufficient funding to achieve its objectives and goals.

This evaluation should be completed regardless of the perceived institutional support; instead, managers should assume that institutional support would be in place when discussing the questions. Note that the majority of this document is based on the Self Assessment for Campus Technology Services document created by Linda H. Fleit in conjunction with CAUSE (now part of EDUCAUSE) in 1994. The original document has been updated for today’s information technology environment.

18

Section 1.02 Section 1: Planning and Project Management

(a) Strategic and Long-Range Planning

Is there a multi-year strategic technology plan in place for the entire institution? If yes, was it drawn from institutional goals and objectives, even if those objectives are not fully

articulated? Was the planning process a participative and collaborative one? Is the plan updated on a regular basis, such as once a year? Is the plan written in non-technical language with goals and objectives that are meaningful to a

broad base of campus people? Is there a multi-year telecommunications plan in place for the entire institution?

(b) Operational Planning

Is there a one-year tactical (operational) plan in place? If yes, is it tied to a budget? Is tactical planning done annually? Is tactical planning tied to the institutional budgeting and planning processes? Are quarterly and/or annual reports done showing actual accomplishments and expenditures

compared with what was planned?

(c) Disaster Recovery Planning

Is there a written disaster recovery plan in place? Has it been actually tested? Does it include decentralized and desktop systems as well as the operations center? Does it include the telecommunications network?

(d) Project Chartering

Are there formal project charters for all major projects? Have representatives from all affected functional and technology areas participated in creating

these charters? Do the charters specify executive and project sponsors; a project leader; end results; milestones;

deliverables, estimated budgets; staffing required; risks; etc.? Do sponsors and leaders use the charter throughout a project’s life to ensure project success?

(e) Project Planning and Reporting

Are there formal project plans for all major projects? Have representatives from all affected functional and technical areas participated in creating

these project plans? Do the project plans specify tasks; responsible parties; and due dates? Are project plans actually used by project leaders to manage throughout the life of the project? Are project plans updated on a regular basis based on changes throughout the project? Are project statuses, based on the project plan, communicated to the sponsors, project team and

users on a regular basis throughout the project?

19

Section 1.03 Section 2: Policies and Procedures

(a) Customer Service

Does the department have a consistent, well-communicated customer service philosophy? Is the customer service philosophy promoted and well understood throughout the department and

by the institution? If users had to pay for the department’s services with real money, would they?

(b) Service Level Agreements (SLAs)

Are there written SLAs between the department and users? Do they cover all major services provided by the department? Have these SLAs resulted from a negotiating process involving the users? Do these SLAs take into account current resource levels? Are these agreements updated annually and whenever a major change in resources occurs that

may affect service levels? Are the agreements measured and reported to users and IT management?

(c) Priority Setting

Is the priority-setting process for department objectives well-understood? Is there a different priority setting process for major and minor projects? Is it controlled by the users and accountable to senior management and administration? How is the process bypassed for mandatory and/or emergency work without creating a crisis? Is everyone clear on how new technology initiatives are justified?

(d) Standards

Are there hardware, software and procedural standards that both the IT staff and users follow? Are there quality control and formal turnover procedures for moving programs / changes into

production? Are programs always written the same way, using reusable code and libraries whenever

possible? Are there choices within the standards for users so that they can retain some local control? Is ethical computing widely promoted to the institution by department staff?

(e) Security

Are the IT facilities secure? Is data security taken seriously? Are there (consistent) data security and data ownership policies in place and used? Does the security function include procedures for department staff as well as guidelines for users

to use for decentralized data and equipment? Are there (consistent) watchdog procedures to make sure unauthorized access (data, network,

etc.) is recorded and followed up on? Are there acceptable use policies in place for all types of users? Are there policies in place for access to institutional systems and data from off campus and/or

when data is taken off campus on portable computing devices? Are there policies in place for working with law enforcement? Are there solutions in place to minimize spam and viruses?

20

(f) Problem Tracking

Is there a problem recording, tracking, and resolution system in place? For what service does this tracking exist?

Is it clear to the users whom to call for help for any service? Is this clear for 24x7 help support? Is there an emergency user notification process in place for things like machine and network

outages? How are after hour service or support requests tracked and followed up on?

(g) Inventories

Are inventories kept of all computing resources, including desktop and laptop computers, printers, and peripherals?

Is there an ongoing plan to replace obsolete or inadequate (centralized and decentralized) technologies with current technologies (including hardware and software)?

Section 1.04 Section 3: User Support and Services

(a) User Access

Are all services and facilities provided by the department easy to access, and easy to obtain assistance for?

Are facilities in convenient and safe locations? Would a new user know where to go to get involved with computing? Is there user documentation for all service areas in the department? Is it well written and kept

accurate through periodic updates? Is it easily available to users? Do users understand the impact of the technology work they do (e.g., running large jobs)? Do users in functional areas understand their business processes so they can partner with IT in

development of and changes to technology solutions that support their processes?

(b) Monitoring and Planning

Are there formal ways of measuring of major services such as mainframe and server usage and performance, network usage and performance, telecommunication systems usage and performance, programming hours, help desk requests and resolution, etc.?

Are these measurements used as a basis to adjust current capabilities, capacities and/or performance?

Are these measurements used as a basis to improve future capabilities, capacities and/or performance?

Are these measurements made known to users on a regular basis? Is there an ongoing approach for identifying and acquiring hardware and software to support the

institution’s long-range needs and overall changes in technology directions from driven outside the institution?

(c) Research and Development

Is there a “research and development” function within the department to assure that technical innovations and recent developments are identified and evaluated?

How are emerging technologies evaluated? How are IT staff and the institution made aware of these technologies?

21

(d) Staff Background and Experience

Do all staff members have required technical expertise in current and emerging technologies? Do all staff members who work directly with users understand the users’ functional environments,

including goals and objectives? Do staff members who interact with users have appropriate interpersonal communications skills,

both oral and written?

(e) Staff Training

Are there formal staff training / education / professional development programs? Are there budgets for these programs? Are programs reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they are up-to-date and serving genuine staff

needs? Are they geared toward the higher education environment? Are program goals and accomplishments integrated into annual staff evaluations? Are the skills and talents of the staff well matched with user service needs, as opposed to the

department’s perception of service needs being shaped by the staff’s current strengths and capabilities?

Are staff members cross-trained so that service areas are not vulnerable to someone’s absence?

(f) Staff Attitude

Do staff members see themselves as productive work partners with their users? Do they have high self-esteem without being arrogant or unapproachable? Is morale in the department good? Does the staff feel well-rewarded for its efforts? Is everyone in the department clear on what is expected from them and are measurements

clearly defined and communicated?

(g) Staff Turnover

Is the turnover rate among the IT staff at a high enough level to regularly bring in fresh ideas but low enough so that it is not disruptive?

Are open positions filled relatively quickly? Are compensation strategies (taking into account benefits and intangibles) competitive, or at least

reasonable?

(h) Student Employees

Does the department make use of student workers in every case where feasible? Are the students encouraged to see themselves as staff members, with corresponding rights and

responsibilities, especially concerning data security, reliability of performance, and attitude? Do students tend to stay with the department throughout their academic careers? After

graduation?

22

Section 1.05 Section 4: Products and Services

(a) Direction

Is the department’s philosophy supportive of self-sufficiency for users? Are there tools, such as a report writer, software, and a query capability available to promote user

access?

(b) Architecture

Is the IT architecture sufficiently flexible to promote user computing and control? Are data definitions consistent and understood by all those creating and having access to data? Are centralized and decentralized systems coordinated and/or integrated to avoid duplication of

data and ensure efficient processes for users and to leverage capabilities of technology?

(c) Applications Development

Are there formal ways of / philosophies for / policies for determining which applications should be supported by purchased, which should be developed in-house, and which should be a combination of the two?

Do the users participate in these decisions?

(d) Delivery

Are projects always completed on time? Are deadlines always met? Are budgets always adhered to? Do the recipients always perceive the deliverables as valuable? Does the department always fulfill its service level commitments?

(e) User Training

Is there a training strategy for users? Does it make the best use of a variety of resources, including self-paced instruction, classroom

training, one-on-one assistance, online training and videos?

(f) Backlog

Is the backlog of service requests, especially for applications programming changes and enhancements, at a reasonable level?

Is it short enough so as not to build up a “hidden” demand or guilt on the part of users in asking for something?

(g) Outreach

Does the department have a customer outreach function? Are users regularly canvassed to determine how the department can be helpful to them?

23

Section 1.06 Section 5: Organization and External Relationships

(a) Organization

Are the institution’s information technology services organized in such a way as to promote both economies of scale and to effectively respond to user needs?

Has the institution achieved the right balance of centralization and decentralization so that the entire community is being well served in the most effective and cost-efficient ways?

Is there sufficient coordination among related service areas (e.g., decentralized technology departments, central IT, etc.) so that the institution can be assured that everyone is moving in the same direction?

Do staff from central IT and decentralized IT departments work together, look to each other for support, share ideas and approaches, etc.? Are there regular meetings among these groups?

(b) Advisory Committees

Is there a technology advisory committee comprising high-level faculty and administrators that advises on broad policy and prioritization matters?

Do members regularly attend meetings? Are appropriate people part of the committee? Does this group meet several times a year? Does it understand its charge and work accordingly? Is the group effective?

(c) Users Groups

Are there user groups that discuss operational matters and help prioritize work and assist with resource allocations?

Do members regularly attend meetings? Are appropriate people part of the committee? Does this group meet several times a year? Is the group effective? Does it understand its charge and work accordingly?

(d) External Support

Are there resources on campus, in addition to the central IT, which also support user needs? Are there library staff members, decentralized IT groups, department-based “power users”, or

application-specific (such as research computing) users groups from which users can get help or advice?

(e) User Expectations

Are the expectations of the users realistic, given the institution’s information technology funding, and their own perceptions of what their investment (e.g., education and training, participation in planning and setting priorities, providing specifications, review and evaluation of deliverables) needs to be?

(f) User Satisfaction

Are user perceptions about the quality and quantity of IT services favorable? If the IT department were in a competitive situation, would it retain its customer base? Are users generally willing to abide by the guidelines and standards set by the IT department?

24

Are user satisfaction surveys conducted on a regular basis? Do users hold the department’s staff members with whom they work in great esteem?

(g) Communications

Are there both formal (e.g., regular meetings, newsletters, email, intranet, open door hours) and informal ways of communicating with users on campus?

Does everyone in the department use them? Are they effective? Are issues and updates communicated effectively among management in the central IT

department? With all staff in the central IT department? Are quarterly and/or annual status reports done showing operational and project costs, usage

levels, the status of requests, and accomplishments in comparison to the annual tactical plan and/or other benchmarks?

(h) Credibility

Does the department have credibility on campus? Are staff members’ opinions sought and valued? Is the department a regular participant in other planning activities, such as building construction

or renovation, capital campaign planning, enrollment management, etc.?

Section 1.07 Section 6: Funding

(a) User Awareness

Are all users aware of the cost of IT and telecommunications? Is there a mechanism (e.g., a charge-out system) that encourages users to make use of

technology services in an efficient manner? If there is no charge-out, do users have to justify their requests for services in some way to the

people to whom they report? Do users make educated requests by appreciating and understanding fully the costs (e.g.,

dollars, time, etc.) and consequences (e.g., adjustment of their and other’s deadlines) of their requests?

(b) Staff Awareness

Are information technology staff members aware of technology costs? Is the staff encouraged to find alternative, creative and less costly ways of providing and

supporting the same (or better) service levels?

(c) Capital Budgeting

Is there a capital budgeting process for information technology to minimize unexpected costs and to provide for orderly growth?

Is there a replacement, or depreciation, factor built in?

25

APPENDIX D

A technology vision for AVENUES to RENEWAL

The Tulane University Office of Technology Services is moving forward to offer advanced services and better user support. During the early strategic planning process professionals from across the university envisioned campus life three or so years ahead. As a result of initial university community input, we offer here ideas for a forward-looking vision. Imagine technology that brings us humanly closer together… POTENTIAL PROFESSOR • Not ready to apply for a job at Tulane, she completes a questionnaire about future interests for teaching,

speaking on campus or collaboratively teaching and researching. Technology and human touches keep her connected until she is hired a few years later.

PROSPECTIVE STUDENT • Through blogging, he learns about Tulane’s unique community service program. He bonds with a first-

year Tulane student who just completed a service project. Their relation grows from virtual communication until the prospect is accepted for admission.

FUTURE RESEARCHER • He discovers a Tulane website for researchers to share portfolios, research articles, conference

presentations, etc. He gets an e-mail from a Tulane bio-med engineer in his same field with an invitation to access a protected website. They make plans to meet at next month’s conference and he eventually joins the team for the large NIH grant!

NEW STUDENT • Before orientation her residence hall room is complete — having met a roommate online, picked a room,

furniture preferences and layout. They even ordered supplies from local stores — ready for their arrival. • She received a simple and accurate tuition bill and paid it online. • At orientation, she gets a handheld device called the TU Third Hand – preconfigured with software,

documents, etc. She has registered for classes, received a confirmed schedule and pre-ordered books, got her first e-mail from her adviser, met some classmates through the facebook, perused her courses’ syllabi and readings for the semester; and generated a calendar with due dates for each class merged with the university deadlines (drop/add etc.) and vacations.

NEW EMPLOYEE • He completes a self-paced new employee orientation on the computer. • He clicks a link to chat live with an HR representative via computer. • On the way to lunch with new colleagues, he clicks “Lunch” on his monitor — his phones switch to pre-

noted settings for forwarding or voicemail. His away status is noted on the department bulletin. VETERAN INSTRUCTOR • After fifteen years on campus he is ready to convert from using overheads and start using ProPoint3000.

At a tech support center, he gets a tablet computer which can help with real-time demographics of his

26

classes, view student e-portfolios and their scores and access resources, library databases, seminars and training for faculty.

• He tries the new device in class and enjoys the tools like classroom electronic voting… now the silent majority can be heard.

• He takes advantage of live-video conferencing with other similar classes in other universities for discussion and coordinated projects.

THE TESTED INVESTIGATOR • She enters the ResearchZOOM site, collaborative area. After inputting her areas of expertise and research

interests, she gets several phone calls: (1) from the media interested in her research (2) she gets invited to speak at a non-academic conference, and (3) she gets a call from a researcher at the University of North America to collaborate.

• She appreciates the integrated, advanced computational sciences and other technology resources that make it easier and productive to be a researcher at Tulane.

RETIRED FACULTY • He feels connected by guest lecturing through the Internet. He presented artifacts of Argentina from that

country in the midst of his vacation there. The local museum let his use a private room and borrow the exhibit pieces. A satellite feed does the rest.

27

APPENDIX E Project Definitions A major project is: Derived from a Strategic Technology Plan or operational planning usually done by technology providers (lifecycle replacement, application software, infrastructure upgrades, infraservices, technology skill set refreshment, etc.) has one or more of the following characteristics:

• Has a substantial impact, whether directly or indirectly, on information technology providers and/or the user community

• Requires sponsorship from cross-organizational units and leaders • Is generally complex • Has integration impacts • Creates or substantially changes one or more processes. • Requires resource allocations not already planned (funding, one time and/or ongoing,

temporary staffing, etc.) • Involves the implementation of one or more major new technologies • Requires agreement on, and/or approval of, the end results before planning begins • Requires committed cross-organizational team member participation and time • Requires prioritization because of high level of expense, impact, and/or resources required • Has a definite beginning and end (i.e., not ongoing support) • Funding may come from adjusting resource allocation from other sources and/or projects

(minor, non-technology, etc.) A minor project is: Derived from functional or technical operations (e.g., change an FIS report, change a feed to WebCT, added a field to the online directory, etc.), fits into one or more of the following categories:

• Is an enhancement to an existing function(s) • Has a “quick win” value • Adds value using minimal resources • Requires no additional institutional funding (i.e., can be funded from departmental, divisional,

etc. resources) • Project funding cover all project costs (hardware, software, staff, consulting, etc.) • Can be completed in 90 days or less • Does not generate a recurring cost that is not already budgeted