Issues and Recommendations White Paper

Presented to Jim Davis, Associate Vice Chancellor, Information Technology

Prepared by the UCLA Campus Computing Cooperative For discussion on July 20, 2000

Executive Summary

This report serves to summarize and integrate the Campus Computing Cooperative’s (CCC) work efforts and recommendations on key initiatives to UCLA’s information technology executive leadership.

The CCC began in October 1997 as a “grass-roots” organization, with its primary goal being to exchange information leading to improved coordination and services in support of a decentralized information technology environment at UCLA. Its members are the IT directors from the four divisions of the College, the professional schools, UNEX, and ATS.

Through this report, the CCC seeks to continue its participation in presenting a set of recommendations to maintain and improve a decentralized and strongly cooperative campus computing environment.  Following a summary of CCC activities, four major issues with corresponding recommendations are presented.  The issue areas are:

1.     A human resource strategy for the recruitment, retention and career development for information technology professionals.

2.     A framework and implementation strategy for vendor relations including hardware acquisition and software licensing.

3.     The Organization of Computing at UCLA.

4.     A framework and implementation strategy for creating a secure, robust and evolving information technology infrastructure at UCLA.

 

Campus Computer Cooperative

Mission: The Campus Computing Cooperative (CCC) is a joint venture of the information technology directors and coordinators from each school and college division, UNEX, and Academic Technology Services.  All share the common goal of fostering mutually beneficial collaboration, consultation, distribution of information, assistance and support among the major school and divisional computing facilities at UCLA.

A fundamental aim of the CCC is to represent and advance the technological and computing interests of the faculty, staff, and students whom the CCC members serve. In addition to promoting technical coordination between local units, the CCC seeks to leverage its substantial access to technical expertise, close working relationship with university faculty, and many years of collective experience at UCLA, to provide timely advice and analysis to UCLA policy planners.

History: Since October 1997, the CCC has met monthly to provide analysis and input on a number of information technology topics and current issues facing the UCLA campus. During this time, the CCC has provided representation to both the Information Technology Planning Group (ITPG) and the Academic Information Technology Board (AITB) and on many topic specific committees. (A complete list of the membership and a history of CCC activities can be found at  www.humnet.ucla.edu/ccc/CCCmiss.htm).  Within these capacities the CCC has influenced and participated in the work efforts leading to:

 

·      Selection of an IT Officer for the campus

·      Creation of a security coordinator position for the campus

·      Mass email policy development

·      Proposal for expansion of software licensing

·      Y2K preparation and coordination

·      Participation and recommendations for Procurement 2000

·      Participation in a work group leading to recommendations for an information technology human resource and training strategy

·      Formation and membership in the Communications Technology Advisory Group (CTAG)

·      Consolidation of and responsibility for UCLA directory functions within Communication Technology Services (CTS)

While several of these work efforts are in process or have been completed, others require further development and definition. To that end the CCC has integrated and consolidated several discussions over the last two years into the following list of issues and recommendations.

Issues and Recommendations

Issue 1:  A human resource strategy for the recruitment, retention and career development of information technology professionals.

Vision:  UCLA is a place where IT staff are excited about coming to work and feel that they are active collaborators with the faculty and administration in the development of teaching, research, and public service.  IT staff are viewed as valuable participants in projects and support functions in virtually every aspect of University operations.  They feel that their input, judgement and contributions to the University are valued and respected by the community.   IT staff have a broad understanding of technological goals from a University and departmental level. 

Issues:  As a result of the rapid expansion of the technological sector of the economy, the recruitment and retention of IT personnel on campus at non-competitive salaries has become a major problem.  At this time at least 10% of the IT position at UCLA are posted as vacant; some departments have reported as many as 30% vacant positions.  Some departments have simply stopped posting jobs, essentially having given up recruiting.  Others rely on outside contractors. While many outstanding and talented IT professionals have elected to continue working at UCLA, it is imperative that we do more to retain these valuable employees and figure out ways of attracting new talent.  Exit interviews with IT staff reveal that many leave because of poor management and working conditions, as well as for compensation reasons.  Staff development opportunities in both technical and managerial areas are needed to increase the overall competencies along both fronts.  The sense of isolation, which exists among so many IT staff and units, needs to be replaced by a greater sense of the whole.  Career paths for IT staff, both within their current departments, and at other parts of the university, must be identified.

Recommendations:

A.   UCLA should simplify the process for getting approval for and posting open positions in IT and in revising existing positions.  We should also eliminate or simplify the “classification” of positions by Human Resources.  Many of our groups have experienced great frustration in trying to create and reclassify positions in order to retain and recruit IT personnel.  The current procedures are simply too lengthy to be responsive to the immediate needs of our units.  We strongly suggest that streamlined procedures such as those created at Duke University or proposed for UC Merced be studied for possible adoption at UCLA.  Salary should be what matters, not title codes.  A more flexible system must be developed.

B.    Develop an IT staff training program consisting of CIO seminars to help mangers improve their abilities, IT Staff Seminars, and an IT professional development program.

C.    Develop a series of IT conferences and retreats to provide a sense of community and common purpose as to UCLA's IT direction.

D.   In many units IT office space should be upgraded as soon as possible.  IT personnel have routinely been crowded into space that would never have been considered for other professionals on campus.  Space increases have not kept up with the expansion of IT activities on this campus.   Poor working environments are a hindrance to recruitment and retention.

E.    Compensation remains inadequate.  UCOP and the legislature should continue to be urged to allocate more funding for IT professionals.

F.    Extend faculty housing program and housing loans to IT managers and staff.  We lose most of our senior staff at the point at which they attempt to secure housing.

G.   Offer sabbatical-type leaves for long-term IT professionals.

  Issue 2: A framework and implementation strategy for vendor relations, hardware acquisition, and software licensing.

Vision:  UCLA has a coordinated approach toward the technology companies so that the benefits of purchasing, technology adoption, and technology use are substantially leveraged and result in a greatly improved user experience. Vendor relations are significantly improved so that UCLA leverages advanced technology resources.  A closer relationship exists between the Purchasing Department and the UCLA IT community so that purchase orders are rapidly filled and the technological choices of the departments are respected.  The payment system of the University is streamlined so that vendors are quickly paid for purchases, which also cuts costs to departments. Software licensing is coordinated at a central level in a manner that is responsive to the needs of distributed units, and in such a way that the use of "boot-leg" software is less appealing.  Students, faculty, and staff go to a university sponsored web site and simply download and install necessary software to their computers. University support contracts are in place to help systems people and departmental groups resolve problems and issues.   

Issue:  Communications between UCLA Purchasing and those submitting IT purchase requests is sometimes strained, with one appearing strictly bureaucratic and the other cavalier.  IT professionals want to make decisions based on technological criteria, and in a very fast moving environment, these are changing all the time.  Purchasing agents are charged to get the best price possible for the University as long as the product meets the functional needs.  However, computer equipment differs significantly based on the components used, the underlying logic used to implement the technology, and the operating system requirements.  These all impact serviceability, and translate into significant support costs.  A total cost of ownership perspective needs to be considered, not just purchase price when making decisions. 

A second major issue area is the lack of coordination across UCLA with the various vendors.  Rather than being able to leverage our strength, we deal with vendors individually.  This is true for both hardware and software. 

Recommendations:

A.   Build a model for a more extensive Software Central program, including a coordinating function across the campus technical community and closer working relationship with UCLA Purchasing to improve the time to turn around software agreements.  Increase fiscal support and develop a fiscal model to improve this service.

B.    Develop a partnership relationship with UCLA Purchasing which includes a dedicated person in the purchasing area to coordinate all technology purchases.  Such a person would also help leverage economies of scale, help formulate clearer guidelines, promote understanding of constraints for purchasing, and participate in a technical advisory group comprised of IT professionals from different computing groups on this campus that should be formed to advise purchasing as issues arise  (e.g., selecting appropriate vendors for bids and making judgements on sole source justifications when it comes to computing and networking equipment).

C.    Purchase decisions include a total cost of ownership criterion, i.e., take into account not only the list price but also factors such as the length of warranty, service support from and campus experience with a particular vendor, availability of parts, software and hardware compatibility issues, software driver availability, frequency and reliability of updates, etc.

D.   Capitalize on UCLA's aggregate purchasing volume and UCLA's institutional prestige to  obtain optimal vendor commitments to pricing discounts, service provisions, training offerings, and support services.

E.    Ensure that vendors’ relative strengths and weaknesses are fully assessed on a continuing basis, that those assessments are broadly shared across departments, and that failures of vendors to perform according to their commitments will have institution-wide visibility and consequences.

F.    More aggressively pursue strategic alliances and partnerships with IT industry leaders towards establishment of R&D joint-ventures, utilize UCLA distributed units as beta sites for emerging technologies, and establish first-in deployment of production level technologies and facilitate the positive publicity that can be garnered from such activities.

G.   Move accounts payable to a system where we can pay bills and resolve payments to vendors with a true 30-day net.  If one unit should be in dispute with a vendor and withhold payment, this should not prevent purchases from and payments to the same vendor made by other units.

H.   Improve Inventory Management so that there are schedules of equipment that will result in obsolete equipment automatically dropping off the inventory ledgers after life expectancy ends.

I.      Develop alternate means for evaluating vendor bids for computer and networking equipment as the current system of simple pricing and/or cost per quality point has not resulted in satisfactory outcomes.  This kind of hardware doesn’t match the commodity model used by purchasing in other areas of procurement.

Issue 3: The Organization of Computing at UCLA

Vision:  The CCC believes that UCLA’s distributed computing structure provides a healthy diversity of ideas and technical structures that effectively foster creativity and innovation.  In our opinion, the current state of computing at UCLA is strong, and has been vastly improved in recent years due to the degree of cooperation, consultation, and collaboration that has emerged between central and distributed groups. At UCLA, an amiable and coordinated structure has emerged of its own accord, and has demonstrated that much can be accomplished when widely diverse units work together on a basis of respect and equality.

Issues: There will always be a tension between the inclination to run autonomous IT organizations and the inclination to consolidate into a centralized organization.  But the traditional categories of  ‘centralized’ and ‘decentralized’ have become less and less helpful over time.  UCLA comprises a collection of computing groups, some larger, some smaller, some administrative, and some academic, each doing its best to serve the university effectively.  UCLA is a place where computing talent is widely distributed throughout numerous units around the campus.  The most proficient expert in any given computing specialty might be employed by any of a large number of technical units at UCLA.  We believe this diversity helps make UCLA strong and should be encouraged.  It simply reflects the rapidly developing nature of computing technology, and the large variation of technical needs found at this campus.  In our opinion, the broad distribution of resources and talent at UCLA encourages rather than hinders cooperation, and cultivates strength and creativity.   Thus it is strongly desirable for campus computing groups of all varieties to resist falling into either extreme “centralized” or “decentralized” camps; rather it is essential they all come together as equals to discuss problems, formulate policy, and craft a first rate vision for computing at UCLA.

Recommendations: 

A.   That it be recognized and accepted that sound computing policy will only emerge through broad and inclusive discussions with numerous dispersed groups on campus.  The emphasis should be on the facilitation of discussion, cooperation, and the implementation of innovative ideas, not on the setting of policy from above or on the control of activities.

B.    That all groups formed to deal with technology issues and policy on this campus invite broad participation from members of distributed computing groups.  In the same vein, groups like the CCC itself should continue to reach out to work with other computing units on campus.  We suggest that conferences and events be organized to increase the degree of understanding and contact between members of different technical groups on campus.

C.    That there be more open discussion about the allocation of computing resources on campus.   

D.   That the university take advantage of the distributed groups’ ability to rapidly test and implement new technologies and to provide considerable expertise in particular areas.  The university should routinely contract with distributed groups to serve as test sites for new technology, and to offer services to the university in areas in which the distributed groups are particularly skilled. 

E.    That centralization be regarded as a method of more efficiently delivering certain services.  Past history suggests, however, that successful central initiatives emerge from a broad consensus among peers, rather than from being imposed from above.  Useful services might involve:

·      greater purchasing power through economies of scale

·      access to hardware and software beyond the scope of distributed units

·      provision of expertise and advice in specialized areas

·      the operation of campus wide resources such as the backbone

·      the facilitation of discussion among all campus groups

·      underwriting of experiments with new technology

·      increased levels of technical support at lower cost by sharing tech support contracts and common ownership of expensive spare components

·      facilitating design and implementation of security infrastructure by coordinating intrusion detection and firewall policies

 

F.    That a system be designed to enable help desks across the university to rapidly communicate with one another and share expertise.

G.   That information is developed that clarifies to all members of the university which group should be approached for various technological needs.

Issue 4: A framework and implementation strategy for creating a secure, robust and evolving information technology infrastructure at UCLA.

Vision:  The University will make effective use of IT by focusing, in addition to technical issues, on underlying planning, process, and procedural issues.  Campus IT strategy groups will put together a 9-12 month technical plan.  This plan will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis in order to represent a shared vision of academics,  IT professionals, and university administration/business people.  The technical plan will lead to definition of a core set of processes and procedures needed to enhance the overall computing environment at UCLA.  Additional processes and procedures will be established within academic, administrative, and central units.  These local processes and procedures will be subjected to peer review by other units.  Similarly, implementation of standards, tools, and support infrastructures will have both campus-wide and local scopes and will be reexamined on a regular basis.

Issues: In a distributed IT environment, the development and maintenance of a shared, campus-wide IT vision is difficult.  Finding mechanisms that promote such a vision should be one of the charges of all IT groups on campus.

Recommendation:

A.   Maintain and support the existing IT strategy groups.

B.    Establish a Technology Architecture Group to track strategic technologies and their standardization, interoperability, etc.  Establish working groups on key issues such as software distribution, storage management, fault management, etc.  All these groups would publish “white papers” for the campus IT community.

C.    Provide time, off-campus conference facilities, and support to help IT directors engage in collaborative planning efforts.

D.   Catalog best technology practices found in commercial and educational environments.

E.    Provide support from both central and local organizations for specific projects such as campus directory efforts, campus authentication efforts, campus security efforts, instructional technology, and the like.

F.    Involve those people who actually do the work and implement projects and software development in the planning and review of those projects.

G.   Coordinate policy issues among legal, technical, security and other groups.