I was recently invited down to Penn State World Campus to discuss Delhi’s move toward Agile for the enterprise. Here is the audio and the slides to click through (sorry no bell included to tell you when to turn the page).

This was the first run for a upcoming NERCOMP presentation, so it’s a bit rough…

“No Five Year Plan, No Advisory Board: How do I still Have a Job”
[Slides] | [Part 1 Audio] | [Part 2]

I was recently involved with a Campus Technology Magazine article looking at the first year on the job for a new CIO. Considering my original idea behind this blog, “…learning from the seasoned CIO, discovering their issues and sharing ideas: perhaps the experiences related here will help some future first-time CIO,” I realize how delinquent I have been in posting the various issues encountered through my first year.

Therefore in upcoming posts I will look back at the last year–my first year–highlighting the issues I faced coming into the organization, my responses (good and bad), and some of the outcomes. Hopefully to, as I mentioned when first starting up this forum, learn from the seasoned CIO, discover their issues and share ideas: with the hope that the experiences related here will help some future first-time CIO.

Welcome to Campus

My first experience at my new position was captured in my second post. Within the post I discussed the value of documentation as a tool to help those new to an organization orient themselves, learn current business processes (and the reasons behind them) and in departmental planning. I think the motivation for this original post was due to the lack of documentation I discovered upon my hire. Much of what was available were emails (many without much context), PowerPoint Presentations (again lacking context) and various drafts, proposals, plans, updates, etc. (again, without context). It was impossible to map these documents to the current operations and assess if any of the plans, proposals or updates had led to new or modified policies or practices.

In addition, the personal stories conveyed by the staff were honest, yet biased due to individual perceptions or quite simply ignorance of specific details. Everyone had a different understanding of not only the policy, but the reason(s) behind it. It appeared that there was always some political or personal force (rarely a technical driver) behind every decision and resulting operation. I don’t know if this ambiguity arose due to conflict-it’s better not to write it down in order to avoid a paper trail-or created it-because it’s not written down the interpretation is up to the individual. What ever the cause, the result was, in the best cases, staff just did what they were told without any real understanding for the practices and no real appreciation for why these were important. At worst, staff contrived, sometimes elaborate, conspiracy theories to explain various policies, which of course led to mistrust throughout the department.

Whatever the case, upon my arrival, there was no substantial information provided to me to 1) assess the department and how it functioned: services, systems, policies, operations, staffing, roles and responsibilities of the staff, etc. 2) understand any long term plans/initiatives, goals/objectives/vision, issues, etc. 3) evaluate the department’s success/failures, role within the campus, etc. 4) even determine my own role. In fact in personal interviews with the staff, I asked, “What role should the CIO fill? (answers ranged from PR-guy to hands-on operations to fill departmental voids).

And the ambiguity was apparent to my supervisor as well, as expressed in the priorities set forth upon my arrival:

• Provide leadership and prioritization for the CIS managers and their staffs.
• Learn current priorities and how the day-to-day activities are implemented.
• Adjust task assignments and workload of individual staff members.
• Make structural changes as appropriate.
• Review of current technology, technology Development of Technology Master Plan including networking, wireless technology, mainframe etc.
• Development of processes to manage technology for both the day-to-day operations and project implementation.

The above, to me, focus on operational assessment and analysis, such as, how are we prioritizing projects/tasks, and, review what the department is doing and define a plan for those services/systems. It seemed apparent both the staff and administration was looking for direction. But first we had to agree on what the department did (scope of services), how we did it (systems and practices) and who was involved (roles and responsibilities). You need a starting point to build direction from.

We’re Not Doing Anything for a Year

I don’t think I made any one happy when I said that I was not going to undertake any significant changes for a year. Many folks (both in the administration and on the staff) expected “leadership” and “action.” With a new CIO in place (the campus’ first) operations could be managed to better meet campus needs and deliver services, cheaper and faster, while the organizational structure could be adjusted providing efficiency, reducing redundancy, and lowering costs, etc. etc. etc. And of course, everyone (top-down) had their own vision and ideas for how the department should be handled, from the benign: “we’re running perfect, we just need to educate the campus,” and, “we’re just too busy and really need more staff;” to the malicious, “that group or person is interfering and needs to be put in their place” and, “we need to make the campus suffer so they will appreciate us and comply.”

I also heard quite a few magic pills that, if implemented, would solve all our problems. Everything from technology solutions (e.g. strict standards, decentralization, out-sourcing, and others) to various methodologies (e.g. more campus committees/less campus committees, PMI, ITIL, and others). And quite honestly I had my own bias a background that influenced, not only my perception of the department, but how I felt we could address the various issues.

What I would do, rather then apply a pre-defined solution - a template, a program - is develop a one year plan to evaluate the department and its role on campus in an attempt to understand what was actually being done and how those service came to be. Perhaps one or more of the above ideas was correct, everything was running perfectly and all the department needed was advocacy, or maybe it was going to be something harder and we did have some negative elements within the staff who needed be confronted. In the end, I had hoped, we would at least have a shared document, developed through collaboration, transparency and honesty, that could serve as a starting point in defining the future direction of the department. And, after a year, even if I was fired for not providing enough “leadership,” that artifact would live on as evidence for future decision-making and planning. Something I wish would have been available to me.

I’ll share that next.

I was recently asked by our Provost for a “universal term” that included everything: cell phones, ipods, gameboys, pagers, etc. The plan was to include a statement in the universal course syllabus prohibiting the use of [insert universal term here] in class.

I responded with a question: “Would laptop computers be allowed in the class?”

I can not think of any functionality available in a personal-electronic-mobile-hand-held-device that is also not available on a laptop.

• music: iPod/mp3 player/iPhone = iTunes, Helix, Windows Media Player, Real Player, web pages, Quicktime, etc.
• phone calls: cell phone/Blackberry = Skype, Yahoo voice, Viatalk, etc.
• texting: PDA/cell phones/iPhone/Blackberries = e-mail, IM, chat, discussion forms, blogs, etc.
• movies: DVD players/iPods/iPhones = Windows Media Player, Quicktime, RealMedia, YouTube, BlipTV, etc.
• games: DS/Gameboy/PSP = online games (MMORPG), computer games (CD/DVD), etc.

So what is it that our polices are tying to manage: devices or disruptions?

I believe we are actually trying to eliminate disruptions; that cell phone call in the middle of class, a student talking on the phone, music playing so loud we can just hear the base pumping from the earphones, etc. Yet these are all disruptions independent of technology. We wouldn’t tolerate someone outside the class to yell to a friend inside the class “Pat, hey Pat, are you in there, Pat come here” (analogous to a a ringing phone - in fact that is my ring tone), we would probably also stop two students from talking during class (analogous to a phone conversation), we would also probably stop a student from singing, tapping their feet or humming if it became disruptive as well.

And what about legitimate uses of technology in the classroom (beyond ADA issues):

• A student with a laptop could be IMing a friend or typing, diligently taking notes.
• A student could be shopping online or researching a topic under discussion (anyone hear of Google Jockey’s?).

At the same time I was asked to come up with a catch-all term, the campus was implementing an Emergency Notification System, NY-Alert. With NY-Alert, in the event of an emergency, the campus can send out a message that is transmitted to phones as voice and/or as text. So while we were ready to deploy a notification system that relied on communication with the students through their personal-electronic-mobile-hand-held-device we were also telling them that these devices would not be allowed in class. Let’s just hope nothing ever happened during classes!?!? Does this make us liable for any damage or injuries?

Considering that the issue is really disruptions, not the devices, and that policies are already in place for disruptions perhaps a policy like: “All personal-electronic-mobile-hand-held-devices must be turned off during class” could be changed to, “No disruptive behavior will be tolerated within the class.”

Based on this, students can leave their phones on, we keep open our channel of communication, we avoid the issues of liability, and faculty have options should a student’s phone go off in class.

A recent discussion on the EDUCASUE CIO listserv touched on a topic that seems to be a theme in many discussions, articles and presentations of late within IT circles. Deepak Mathew at Rice University, asked, “How [do you] determine what degree to pursue. MS in MIS or an MBA? I guess it depends on one’s needs/the company’s needs and dependent on other variables. Which has more value?”

His question, essentially, what does it take to become a CIO, is actually just the beginning of the debate. Once you have the job, what role does the CIO play within the organization? And considering the role of technology, can the CIO role be a path to a position as CEO (i.e. campus President)?

The issue Deepack raises, I believe, has less to do with what degree(s) one should pursue, than what experience one needs to not only acquire a position as CIO, but also serve the institution well. I wonder if his motivation for asking is due to the diversity of experience found in the backgrounds of the CIO’s employed throughout the world’s colleges and universities. What experience (if we can consider education as part of one’s experience) would be most valuable; academic, technical or business? Should one achieve a broad (and thus perhaps shallow) understanding of the issues related to IT management, or should one focus on a specific (and perhaps narrow) skill set?

This was echoed, again on the EDUCAUSE CIO listserv, by Dennis Huff, AVP Information Systems at Houston Baptist University:

With all the rapid advances in technology, do you find, like me, it is much more difficult to maintain a technical bent as CIO? I find I cannot spend time trying to get down to the detail that those who work for me are purposed to do. I spend my time visioning and managing resources to get the job done.

Quite honestly I have found the various career paths of many in IT management, odd: English professors, Ornithology professors, procurement officers, institutional researchers, even attorneys. I guess, if the role of IT is to support teaching and learning, who better than a professor to provide leadership? If IT is a cost center at your institution, perhaps someone from purchasing provides the best management. IR? Legal?

Obviously no one would expect every academic institution to operate the same. Clearly each has differing missions, offering a wide range of programs, all with diverse faculty, staff and student bodies. In addition, even those institutions with similarities may be at very different places with regard to their IT services. Some organizations may need technical development while others may need more fiscal management, and still others, alignment with the academic vision; or, a technologist, MBA or faculty member, respectively.

I don’t think there is a specific path that can guarantee a CIO position at a specific campus. Consider my own! My first position was as a Medical Illustrator–what’s that got to do with IT? Well not many in Graphic Arts still use pen and ink on velum, in fact by the time I was in high school we where using computers for graphic design, illustration, CAD, photography, etc. As a Medical Illustrator at UCLA, the graphic representation of anatomical features with traditional artistic techniques had long ago been replaced by Computer Generated Images (the other CGI): techniques such as image processing, modeling, visualization and simulations. So while my title was not one normally associated with IT, I spent much more time writing (software) than drawing (pictures). In fact, while my working title was Senior Medical Illustrator, my payroll classification was Senior Programmer Analyst.

In my case, the advancement to CIO was, I feel, only possible through the efforts of my superiors who empowered me with more responsibility as I proved worthy (hopefully that was the reason), from Programmer to Senior Programmer, to Project Manager, to Department Manager, to IT Director, to CIO. Each role carried broader responsibilities, such as; scheduling, planning, budgeting, personnel,
hiring, etc. My business/operational training came as my projects and roles within those projects grew, reflecting the vision in “From Cradle to CIO: Growing IT Leaders.”

My bias leads me to believe technical proficiency is the most important quality needed in order to be a successful CIO; after all its a technical field. Yet, if I am honest, in my year as a CIO I’ve spent more time on non-technical issues: financial (annual operational budgets, project/initiatives), political (IT Governance and Project Management), operations (scope of services, service level agreements) and administrative (re-organization, hiring, re-classifications).

Considering this, is it reasonable to expect that a single person will, not only have the breadth of experience needed, but the expertise in each field as well? So perhaps CIO’s are really like football players. Each CIO has a specialty (technical, business, administrative, academic) just like an individual football player (quarterback, lineman, kicker, receiver). And just like in the NFL where players move around and join different franchises based on the specific needs of those teams, CIO’s are recruited based on the specific needs of the institution.

Perhaps this is why, according to CIO Magazine’s “2007 State of the CIO” survey, the average tenure of CIO’s is only five years: just as the business-oriented CIO gets the IT department financially sound, someone decides “we need to be more innovative” and they find themselves a new CIO with a technical background.

All of the above clearly shows that despite the many discussions in technology circles regarding how to get a seat at the boardroom table, because the skill set needed to run IT is broader than any one person can be expected to posses, the most important qualities for a successful CIO–and thus the answers to the questions posed at the beginning of this post–are openness, transparency and collaboration.

As part of my own pollution of the Internet, in part perpetuated through the exponential growth of blogging, SUNY Delhi’s Computer Information Systems has launched its own blog, “As Much by Writing.” Although just out of the gate, we have already been fortunate to receive some kind words from those in Higher Education. Micheal Feldstein, who provided the motivation for this site, was kind enough to announce the CIS effort.

Considering e-literate’s following, Delh’s blog was picked up by EDUCUASE and a few others. Comments included:

“…it was great to see SUNY Delhi using blogging software to post updates about IT developments for their user community.”
- Computer World Magazine

“I love this IT department”
- Janet Clarey, Brandon Hall Research

“Don’t you wish every IT department worked this way?”
- Michael Feldstein, e-Literate

“The IT department at SUNY Delhi has come up with a nice idea: Staff members have built a group blog that aims to put the department in close contact with the campus community.”
- The Wired Campus, The Chronicle of Hired Education

Applications/Systems Developer

The State University of New York, College of Technology at Delhi is seeking an Applications/Systems Developer. This position will be a vital member of SUNY Delhi’s Central Systems Team of programmer analysts, database administrators and system administrators that provides service for, support of, and modifications to enterprise applications and systems, as well as run and automate operational tasks.

Responsibilities:

This position consists of three areas of responsibilities that will require flexibility, thoroughness and teamwork: Applications Development, Systems Analyst and Systems Architecture.

Applications Development: Initially, the position will focus on Applications Development, supporting the Office of Alumni Affairs (College Advancement) though development and administration of SCT/Sungard’s Banner Advancement Module. This consists of:

• Developing and running SQR SQL, PL/SQL, and VMS scripts against Oracle/Banner for gathering and reporting alumni data, exporting query results to files, transferring or processing data for various departments;
• Troubleshooting scripts, applications which includes diagnosing data/reporting issues, communicating with the Alumni Office, other end-users and the SUNY Delhi Service Center about project status and recording/assigning issues, incidents and requests appropriately.
• Define current business rules and operations for CIS, related to the Alumni Affairs Office.
• Index current scripts/programs and procedures for data collection, retrieval, reporting and management.

Systems Analyst: The position will also serve as a Systems Analyst for the assessment and migration of SCT/Sungard Banner and Oracle to Redhat Linux. Specific responsibilities include:

• Working with CIS Central Systems, Delhi staff and SUNY System, identify and implement an overall migration strategy for Oracle/Banner from OpenVMS to Linux platform.
• Serve as a mentor and resource for CIS Central Systems Staff in Linux training.
• Re-factor various legacy Banner scripts/programs and reporting utilities from OpenVMS to Linux environment, ensuring continuity of service, while improving maintainability, functionality, usability and performance.
• Ensure organizational and operational continuity between current Alumni Association business processes and procedures future services.
• Working with CIS Central Systems, Delhi staff and SUNY System, upgrade of Oracle and Banner to Oracle 10g and Banner 8.

Systems Architecture: The position will work with departmental staff to identify, develop and deploy various applications and systems needs to meet both SUNY Delhi and SCT/Sungard’s goal of a Service Oriented Architecture, This will include:

• Helping to define an overall information and systems architecture for SUNY Delhi services.
• Extending the integration/interoperability capabilities of SUNY Delhi’s service implementations though a centralized data hub.
• Implementing a SUNY Delhi portal (uPortal/Luminis)
• Develop/deploy a variety of web and enterprise services
• Assessing proposed technology projects as they relate to web services integration and recommending appropriate action.
• Managing complex integration projects using cross-departmental staff and resources.
• As needed, writing specifications for programmers to ensure integration and interoperability of systems.

This person will serve as QA resource as needed by providing testing for in-house applications. He/she should be capable of handling/organizing multiple tasks simultaneously. This person will be responsible for documentation through a wiki-base knowledge-base and issue-tracking systems. The successful candidate must be able to work under pressure as part of a team in an integrated software development and operations/production environment.

Minimum Qualifications

• Advanced programming skills in C and Perl.
• Advanced knowledge of relational technology and skills in developing and using PL/SQL, SQR to perform queries on Oracle/Banner. Knowledge of Oracle ODBC.
• Familiarity with SCT/Sungard Banner, Self Service Banner.
• Familiarity with the deployment and administration of various portal technologies.
• Demonstrated ability to use Unix or Linux and OpenVMS.
• Demonstrated experience using full-term software development lifecycle, bug reporting systems and documentation tools.
• Experience with any PL/SQL development environment (IDE) such as Toad or PL/SQL Developer.
• Previous experience with a systems or platform migration; including strategic planning, deployment and outcomes assessment.
• Knowledge of Agile development practices. Advanced analytical skills for defining business requirements through use cases for software applications and systems; ability to write effective business requirement specifications. Advanced design skills for development of solutions for software applications and systems, consistent with business requirements; ability to write effective technical specifications; knowledge of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID).
• Ability to effectively express ideas, opportunities and concerns verbally and in writing; ability to listen and communicate effectively with others (peers, superiors, customers, etc.), one-on-one and in groups. Ability to provide effective feedback. Ability to mentor departmental programmers and peers. Excellent interpersonal skills for working with clients, colleagues, and team members. Willingness to learn and apply new technologies quickly. Maintain technical currency by reviewing trade communications and enrolling in appropriate training, conferences, etc.
• Associates Degree in Computer Science or related field from an accredited institution plus two years of equivalent experience in Higher Education.

Preferred Qualifications:

• Advanced knowledge of relational technology and skills in developing and using SQL, PL/SQL, SQR to perform queries on database platforms such as MySQL, Oracle or Microsoft SQL Server. Advanced skills with the use of various enterprise applications, Oracle, SQL Server and MySQL, (ODBC, and JDBC );
• Advanced programming skills in at least 3 major programming languages, including Java, D/HTML, PHP, C, Perl. Advanced skills in developing platform independent object oriented and client server applications in Java; expert level skills using J2EE implementations such as Tomcat with JavaServer Pages (JSPs) and Java Servlets; Extensive skills in developing, managing, and deploying web-based technologies such as HTML, JavaScript, PHP, AJAX and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).
• Knowledge of a variety of systems and services including authentication/authorization, identity management, directory services, account provisioning, portal management (LDAP, MS Active Directory).
• Advanced skills in developing standards-based inter-application communication using SOAP or other XML-based web services (WS*) technologies;
• Advanced skills in portal deployment and administration including portlet development and integration (JSR-168, HTML/XHTML/CSS/XML/XSLT)
• Expert knowledge of SCT/Sungard Banner, Self Service Banner, Banner Alumni Module, SCT/Sungard Luminis (uPortal)
• Demonstrated ability to use of and development on, at least two of the following operating system platforms: Windows, Linux, Solaris and OpenVMS.
• Demonstrated experience using full-term software development lifecycle, including the use of a revision control system such as Subversion, CVS, RCS or Microsoft Visual SourceSafe, bug reporting systems such as Jira and documentation tools such as Confluence.
• Ability to use and extend an integrated development environment (IDE) such as Eclipse and associated tool sets for use in Java development.
• Previous experience with a systems or platform migration; including strategic planning, deployment and outcomes assessment.
• Bachelors Degree in Computer Science or related field from an accredited institution plus for years of equivalent experience in Higher Education.

Salary/Rank/Obligation:

United University Professions, SL-4 (budget title – Sr. Programmer/Analyst). Salary range: $43,500 - $65,000, based on qualifications.

Application Information:

Based on experience, applicants may be required to take technology specific qualifying exams (e.g. Linux, Perl, SQL, etc.).

Applications will be accepted until September 28, 2007 or until the position is filled.

To apply, please send resume, cover letter and contact information for at least three professional references via email (Microsoft Word or PDF format, please) to:

Bonnie G. Martin, Director of Administrative Services

Email to: giambaew@delhi.edu

SUNY Delhi is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

Dear Colleague,

As you know, EDUCAUSE issued an urgent call to action to our members and partner organizations Friday afternoon in response to the introduction of an amendment by Senator Reid to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act that, in essence, would have required a targeted group of colleges and universities that received the highest numbers of copyright notices to plan for and install technologies that try to block copyright infringement on their campus networks. We know from our October file-sharing workshop and other sources that these technologies have many defects and are not ready for prime time. Worse, the amendment would require the Secretary of Education to use the
copyright notices issued by copyright holders as the measure of who has the most violations, placing the entertainment industry in the driver’s seat of a federal agency for this purpose. Finally, those colleges and universities in violation of the Secretary’s directions could face
loss of Title IV funding, a devastating penalty.

Many of you and other EDUCAUSE members, partners, and policy staff orchestrated a blitz of phone calls, faxes, and e-mail since the
call to action to express your strong objections. On Monday, in a cliffhanger, the Reid amendment was dropped in response to this
groundswell of criticism. This is an important victory for EDUCAUSE and the higher education community. We received tremendous political support from our partners in ACE, AAU, NASULGC, and other friends as well as our members. We now face the prospect of additional but much less onerous reporting requirements in the Senate and other potentially stronger requirements in the House.

Thank you for your help in this important campaign, and please convey my thanks to any other officials at your institution who may have communicated with your senators. We will count on your help again as needed!

Best regards,

Mark Luker
Vice President
EDUCAUSE

Colleagues,As you know EDUCAUSE issued an urgent call to action to our members and partner organizations on Friday afternoon in response to the introduction of an amendment by Senator Reid to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act that would have, in essence, required a targeted group of colleges and universities that received the highest numbers of copyright notices to plan for and install technologies that try to block copyright infringement on their campus networks. We know from our October workshop and other sources that these technologies have many defects and are not ready for prime time. Worse, the amendment would require the Secretary of Education to use the copyright notices issued by copyright holders as the measure of who has the most violations, placing the entertainment industry in the driver’s seat of a federal agency for this purpose. Finally, those colleges and universities in violation of the Secretary’s directions could face loss of Title IV funding, a devastating penalty.

Our members, partners, and policy staff have been orchestrating a blitz of phone calls, faxes, and email since the call to action, contacting every Senator and especially their leadership to express our strong objections. This afternoon, in a cliffhanger, the Reid amendment was dropped in response to this groundswell of criticism. This is an important victory for EDUCAUSE and the higher education community. We received tremendous political support from our partners in ACE, AAU, NASULGC, and other friends as well as our members. We now face the prospect of additional, but much less onerous, reporting requirements in the Senate, and other potentially stronger requirements in the House.

Thank you all for your help in this important campaign. We will count on your help again as needed!

Best regards,

Mark Luker
Vice President
EDUCAUSE
Washington, DC 20036

AMENDMENT HARMFUL TO HIGHER EDUCATION

Dear Colleague,

I am writing to ask your help in a matter of urgency to higher education in general and the IT community in particular: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) intends to offer a very harmful amendment, involving illegal file sharing, to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act when the Senate turns to this issue on July 22-23. The amendment:

• Makes the Secretary of Education an agent of the entertainment industry;
• Requires the Secretary to take action using data given to her by the entertainment industry that is terribly inaccurate;
• Requires targeted colleges and universities to plan for implementing a “technical solution” to illegal file sharing that does not yet exist for many campus environments;
• Is aimed only at colleges and universities, and NOT other Internet service providers;
• Ignores the fact that the higher education and entertainment communities are working together to develop a mutually acceptable technological solution to illegal file sharing, a process that should be allowed to continue without interference from the Federal government;
• Ignores the fact that the bill already contains a provision that requires all colleges and universities to submit an annual report to the Secretary of Education providing details of the education and enforcement strategies being used on campus to reducing illegal file-sharing; and
• Is yet another attempt by the Federal government to dictate the day-to-day operations of colleges and universities.

It is important that your institution (CEO, government relations official, and yourself) CALL today, not write, your state’s U.S. senators’ staff members for higher education issues and tell them how much higher education opposes this amendment. Please also call Senator Reid’s office (202-224-3542), Senator Edward Kennedy’s office (202-224-4543), and Senator Michael Enzi’s office (202-224-3424). Thank you for your help.

EDUCAUSE will provide you with further information when it is available, but please do not wait to make your calls.

Best regards,

Mark Luker
Vice President
EDUCAUSE