The Pennsylvania State University IT Assessment Executive Summary Final Summary of Recommendations June 16, 2011 Goldstein & Associates, LLC
The Pennsylvania State University
IT Assessment Executive Summary
Final Summary of Recommendations June 16, 2011
Goldstein & Associates, LLC
Contents
Section Page
Introduction 3
Summary Recommendations 6
Strategic Context 10
IT Snapshot 12
IT Service Improvements 18
IT Governance 28
Attachment A – IT Snapshot Methodology and Glossary 35
Attachment B – IT Snapshot Data Charts 40
Attachment C – Discussion of IT Improvement Opportunities 59
Attachment D – Proposed IT Governance Committee Charges 81
2
Introduction
3
Introduction
This report is the culmination of a University-wide assessment of information technology that has its origins in goal 6 of the University strategic plan.
The IT Assessment has three broad goals:
To quantify and understand the University’s current level of investment in technology.
To recommend changes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of IT services with particular focus on optimizing the balance between distributed and common services.
To recommend changes to IT governance (planning, prioritization, assessment and decision-making) to improve the University’s collective ability to manage its investment in technology.
The IT Assessment is a University-led, consultant facilitated project.
An Executive Committee of administrative and academic leaders were the recipients of the consultant’s recommendations.
An Advisory Committee of IT leaders from colleges, campuses, administrative and academic leaders helped interpret the analysis and develop the recommendations.
A project work team from ITS and the Controller’s office helped design and execute the data collection and analytical work of the project.
The project consultant facilitated the analysis, provided independent, objective judgment and formulated the recommendations contained in this report. To the extent possible, the consensus support of the Advisory was sought for each recommendation.
4
Introduction
The IT assessment included extensive interviews with budget executives and IT leaders from
campuses, colleges, academic and administrative units.
Data was collected from all areas of the University to quantify IT related personnel activities,
non-personnel IT expenditures and IT service offerings. A detailed description of the data
collection effort and a glossary of terms is included as an attachment to this report.
The Advisory Committee had extensive discussion of the data collection findings and met
several times to provide input to the design of revised governance processes.
Informational briefings were held to review project progress and findings with the ITLC, the
IAS and AIS Steering Committees, the ITS leadership team and the ITS staff.
5
Summary Recommendations
6
Summary Recommendations
Information technology is a sizeable investment and a strategic asset. To maximize its
effectiveness in a time of growing demand, constrained resources, and rapid technological
change requires consistent, proactive management.
Penn State has and will continue to require distributed and central IT organizations and
common and unique services. However, the current alignment of IT services and IT
organizations is not optimal.
To improve the effectiveness of technology and better balance common and distributed IT
services, the University should:
Deploy a common email and calendaring solution for faculty and staff.
Create a new University service to meet the shared needs for long-term data storage and
archiving.
Expand ITS’ server co-location and virtualization services in a manner that is cost
competitive with units providing the service on their own. Commit first to increasing the
utilization of this service for administrative applications that require high availability and
redundancy.
Extend the ITS computer lab management service to all campuses and colleges and begin
to develop a similar solution to manage administrative desktops.
7
Summary Recommendations
To improve the effectiveness of technology and achieve more optimal balance of common and
distributed IT services, the University should (continued):
Reduce the cost of software purchases by extending the use of shared, server based
software licenses instead of licensing software for every individual computer.
Implement a common help desk system and knowledge base to improve the productivity
of IT staff and the quality of user support services.
Make wireless networking at University Park a common service to achieve greater
network coverage and a more consistent experience for faculty, students and staff as they
move about the campus.
To oversee the implementation of these changes and provide on-going, proactive management
of IT at Penn State, the University should implement a revised IT governance model. Key
aspects include:
Designate the Provost, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business and the Vice Provost
and Chief Information Officer as the final decision-makers for IT.
Appoint an IT Board comprised of representative deans, chancellors, vice presidents and
senior IT leaders to approve strategic directions, approve IT policies, designate common IT
services and prioritize the most significant IT investments.
Empower the IT Board to oversee the development of a strategic IT plan for Penn State.
8
Summary Recommendations To oversee the implementation of these changes and provide on-going, proactive
management of IT at Penn State, the University should implement a revised IT governance
model (continued).
Appoint domain specific governance committees comprised of faculty, staff and IT
providers to identify emerging needs, recommend annual work priorities, recommend
standards, and sponsor university-wide improvement initiatives.
Appoint University-wide coordinating committees for IT architecture, security and
services to recommend standards, develop solutions and monitor the effectiveness of
the IT environment.
Establish the ITLC and the ITLC Board as a sounding board for major ITS decisions and
a coordinating body to foster collaboration among all IT units.
The planning and governance frameworks should be used to establish long-range
plans for several strategic issues.
The University should modernize its enterprise information systems and associated
business processes.
More extensive research computing services delivered by ITS and distributed IT groups
should be created in alignment with the University’s research growth and the
recommendations of the Cyber-science task force.
Additional capabilities should be developed by ITS and distributed IT groups to support
anticipated growth in the use of instructional technology as course content becomes more
digital and interactive.
9
Context
10
Strategic Context Technology is critical to multiple University strategies.
Growth in on-line learning programs depends on increasingly sophisticated technology to market, develop, deliver and support on-line programs
Global expansion and collaboration requires technologies that enable the University to deliver its intellectual assets and expertise seamlessly to faculty, students, and staff anywhere they learn and work.
Research relies on computing capacity to perform complex calculations at incredible speeds, tools that collect, organize and visualize data in ways that promote understanding and infrastructure that enables researchers to organize and share their work products.
Effective teaching and learning is increasingly enabled by technology in all disciplines. Simulations, interactive content, e-books and mobile devices are becoming integrated components of learning inside and outside the traditional classroom.
IT at Penn State has evolved without an overall blueprint to drive its effectiveness.
It is appropriate and necessary for Penn State to have both distributed and central IT groups. However, their activities must be well-coordinated to preserve a unique focus for each, leverage on-going technology change, and ensure common solutions continue to meet the institution’s need.
Today, PSU’s IT units have areas of overlapping capabilities and services, priorities for investment are difficult to set and align with institutional goals, and there are too few mechanisms to manage the quality of technology services.
Achieving a better balance of distributed and common services will save money, create additional capacity to invest in strategic technologies, and enable distributed IT units to focus on the unique needs of the faculty, students and staff they support.
Improving IT governance will provide the mechanisms necessary to allocate resources effectively, set priorities that are aligned with strategic goals, and foster accountability.
11
IT Snapshot
12
IT Snapshot Penn State invests nearly $250 million annually in personnel and non-personnel expenditures to
provide and support information technology. There are more than 1,600 FTE providing IT support distributed across more than 52 organizations.
There is an opportunity to direct more IT support towards strategic and unique IT services.
Significant effort is required to sustain the foundational technologies of the University. Support for administrative applications (441 FTE), user support (388 FTE,), and networks, servers and desktop hardware support (356 FTE) consume the majority of staff time.
Comparatively fewer resources are providing direct support to research computing (67 FTE) and academic technology (133 FTE).
Across all colleges, 53% of staff effort is allocated to the installation and support of desktop hardware, software, networks, servers, troubleshooting and support. Comparatively less effort is available for consulting with faculty, supporting courseware and learning management systems (14%), or providing direct support to research grants (12%).
Across all campuses, 62% of staff effort is allocated to the installation and support of desktop hardware, software, networks, servers, troubleshooting and support. to the installation and support of desktop hardware, software.
Estimated Personnel Costs (salary and benefits) $129,360,000
Non Personnel Expenditures $119,013,799
Total Expenditures (FY10) $248,373,799
13
IT Effort By Area and Function
55.6
0.0
20.1 45.0
0.6
231.5 78.3
18.0
53.7
56.2
166.2
25.4
53.6 81.6 24.1
22.8
0.5
2.2 38.1
0.7
16.2
6.6 9.6
14.5
2.4
154.0
40.9 44.9 70.4
60.6
154.6
15.6 11.3 25.9 16.1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Academic Support Units Administrative Support
Units
Campuses Colleges Penn State Hershey -
Hospital
Other (224)
Support (371)
Security (49)
Research Computing (64)
Infrastructure (351)
Applications (438)
Academic Technology (121)
14
IT Snapshot
IT units in colleges and campuses vary significantly in scale. Variability is a by-product of
differences in mission, differing levels of adoption of ITS services, and management decisions
regarding the resources invested in technology.
Campus IT groups range in size from 4 to 19 FTE with an average size of 7.
College IT groups rang from 8 to 50 FTE, with an average of 22.
Some IT groups further sub-divide within a college or administrative division into smaller,
departmental IT groups.
The overall structure for IT leaves some organizations sized below an optimal and efficient
scale. It requires staff to be broad generalists sustaining many fragmented duties. It also
makes it difficult to harness and redeploy productivity gains that accrue from improving a
service as they are fragmented across many FTE.
Ratio Colleges Campuses Academic and Admin Support
High Avg. Low High Avg. Low High Avg. Low
Faculty, Student and
Staff per IT FTE
479 182 62 603 244 127 NA NA NA
IT Expenditures as
% of Total
Expenditures
9.5% 5.3% 2.9% 10.3% 6.0% 2.9% 20.0% 7.9% 1.1%
Student Credit
Hours Per IT FTE*
13,001 5,442 963 14,078 6,683 1,705 NA NA NA
15
IT Snapshot
The opportunity to optimize the alignment of services also exists among academic and
administrative support units (see chart on following page).
Excluding ITS, University Park academic and administrative support units had 448 FTE
devoted to IT support in FY10. These FTE resided in 15 different budget exec areas many of
which further sub-divide into smaller IT groups attached to particular departments.
Application support is among the largest categories of activity with 184 FTE outside of ITS
devoted to designing, developing and maintaining databases, custom and commercial
administrative applications, web sites and reports. Providing user support to the staffs
working in academic and administrative organizations requires an additional 96 FTE.
These application and support activities complement and in some cases overlap with ITS
services.
The data also reveals areas that warrant investment in efficiency and productivity improvements
because they consume a significant portion of the total IT effort.
Activity Total FTE
Troubleshoot issues 149.3
Maintain servers 129.0
Maintain desktops 88.6
Answer user question 87.0
Design, develop and support web sites 85.0
Develop custom administrative applications 76.4 16
Application and User Support FTE
2.1
5.1
35.7
23.0
1.3
26.8
11.7
18.5
0.8
49.2
0.4
1.3
2.8
5.2
0.7
0.6
21.3
17.1
0.2
7.6
7.1
4.7
1.2
25.7
1.1
1.1
4.4
2.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Global Programs
Graduate School
World Campus/Outreach
Research
Schreyer's Honors College
Undergraduate Education
University Libraries
Development and Alumni Relations
Educational Equity
Finance and Business
Intercollegiate Athletics
Office of the President
Student Affairs
University Relations
Aca
dem
ic S
uport
Adm
in S
upport
User Support Application Development and Maintenance
ITS FTE
Applications – 125.8
User support – 99.5
17
Priority Improvement
Opportunities
18
Improvement Opportunities
In consultation with the Advisory Committee, seven opportunities to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of IT services were identified.
Opportunities were identified based on their potential to reduce costs, create significant
productivity gains that would enable IT staff members to focus on higher priorities, reduce
risk, and improve support for a strategic University objective.
Other factors considered included the degree of technical and organizational readiness to
implement the changes required and the importance of a proposed change to realizing future
opportunities to improve IT services.
These opportunities are a starting point. Long-term, the University needs to build on these
changes to address a strategic technology agenda that includes the modernization of its
administrative systems, a comprehensive data center strategy and enhanced support for
teaching and research. However, these opportunities are an important foundation for
collaboration and represent significant opportunities to enhance highly utilized IT services.
The table on the following page identifies the seven opportunities and briefly establishes the
rationale for change. On the following pages, a set of criteria are introduced that have been
used to evaluate the potential of each opportunity. A detailed discussion of each opportunity
can be found in Attachment C.
19
Improvement Opportunities
20
Opportunity Adopt a single
solution for
faculty and
staff email.
Shared
solution for
data archiving
Expand
support for
virtualization
and co-
location
Expand client
management
for labs,
classrooms
and desktop
computers.
Expand
software
license
management.
Shared service
desk software
Wireless as
common
good.
Rationale Reduces
expenditures
to maintain
separate
solutions.
Demonstrates
will to
collaborate.
More
economical
and feasible to
create
University-
wide.
Important to
research
compliance.
Leverage
economies of
scale and
expertise.
Reduce risk
for systems
requiring high
availability and
security.
Significant
productivity
gains.
Improved
energy
utilization.
Reduced cost
to license
software for
labs and
individual
computers.
Improved
productivity
for 200 FTE
providing
support.
Better
service.
Close gaps in
wireless
coverage at
UP
Provide
consistent
user
experience.
Improvement Opportunities – Analytical
Framework
Criteria Rating Description
Cost Savings/Cost
Avoidance
Recurring savings or cost avoidance of
approximately $250,000 or less.
Recurring savings or cost avoidance of $250,000
to $1,000,000.
Recurring savings or cost avoidance over $1
million.
Productivity Small gains in individual productivity.
Large gains in productivity that enable portions of
time to be focused on higher priorities.
Substantial gains in productivity that enable
positions to be focused on higher priorities.
Risk Risk is managed more efficiently.
Risk is reduced.
Required to protect a strategic asset or
compliance with mandatory regulations 21
Improvement Opportunities – Summary
Assessment
Opportunity Cost Savings Cost
Avoidance
Improved
Productivity
Reduced Risk
Email/ Calendar
Storage/Archivi
ng
NA
Virtualization/c
o-location
Client
management
labs and
desktops
License
management
NA NA
Service desk NA NA
Wireless NA
22
Implementation Considerations
23
These opportunities were selected because the Advisory Committee assessed
there to be a high degree of readiness at the University. However, each will present
its own challenges as changes are implemented. It will be important to keep the
users and providers of these services well informed of how their service
experience will be impacted by the proposed changes.
The table on the following page presents a preliminary assessment of some of the
cultural and organizational implementation challenges that lie ahead. The ITLC
should work with ITS leadership to create strategies to manage these challenges.
Implementation Considerations
24
Opportunity Implementation Considerations
Email/Calendar Highly personal application used by many. Will be an initial fear of loss of
choice of preferred software as well as transition issues such as synching
with multiple computers and devices.
Storage/Archiving New service, so resistance should be low. Will be important to clarify that
this does not limit choice of short-term storage for scientific data.
Virtualization and
co-location
Primarily impacts distributed IT staff. Will require service level agreements
and metrics to build confidence in common service.
Client
management
Potentially broad impact on distributed IT staff, students and faculty. While
there should be no loss of capability experienced by users of labs and
classrooms, this will need to be well communicated.
License
management
Will impact faculty and staff used to having all software resident on their
hard drives. Will require communications and some training.
Service desk Primarily impacts distributed IT staff. Will require service level agreements
and metrics to build confidence in common service.
Wireless Primarily impacts distributed IT staff. Will require service level agreements
and metrics to build confidence in common service and clarify locally
maintained control over wireless provisioning. Also, clear guidelines for
sharing costs need to be established.
Improvement Opportunities – Next Steps
Working in concert with the ITLC, ITS should refine the investment requirements
and implementation plans for the seven areas.
The newly formed senior governance board (see next section) should review the
final cost benefit analyses and prioritize the implementation of the first seven. For
the Board’s consideration, the following initial priorities are recommended:
Begin by extending the CLM service to all campuses.
Second, begin deployment of the common email and calendar solution.
Extend the CLM service to additional colleges and pilot a companion service for
administrative desktops.
Expand the license management program.
Expand co-location and virtualization capabilities and consolidate administrative
applications into ITS run data centers.
Continue work on the design of a University-wide data archiving and storage
solution.
25
Beyond the Initial Opportunities
26
Once the implementation of the initial opportunities is underway, the University
should build on this foundation for collaboration and the new mechanisms for
planning created by the governance framework (see next section) to address
several strategic technology issues.
The IT assessment was not intended to establish a long-range IT plan for Penn
State. That work must follow this project. However, the resource analysis and
qualitative interviews conducted for the Assessment confirmed the importance of
resolving several strategic issues. They are described briefly below.
The University needs to establish a strategy to modernize its enterprise
administrative systems (IBIS, ISIS) and expand its portfolio to include solutions
for human resources and comprehensive research administration. The strategy
must set priorities and timelines for systems replacement and should establish a
preference for package applications or developed open source solutions. The
strategy should seek to leverage recent developments in hosted applications to
manage the cost of implementation and facilitate standardization of business
processes.
Beyond the Initial Opportunities
27
Priorities for expanding technology support for research and teaching should be developed.
The IT Assessment confirmed that the University has an opportunity to increase its
investment in direct support for the use of technology in teaching and research as it changes
its approach to providing common IT services. Long-term, the University must weigh
additional investments that must be made in academic and research technologies to support
institutional strategies to increase their utilization in order to support institutional growth. As
services expand, IT governance groups must be engaged in planning the optimal organizational
placement of responsibility for these services.
IT Governance
28
Goals
Penn State requires an improved IT governance structure to proactively manage its
technology services and resources.
Engaged governance structures and processes are required to implement the outcomes of
the IT Assessment and make optimizing the University’s investment in IT a continuous
process.
Engaged governance is also critical to building greater trust and stronger connections
among the various IT units.
Revised IT governance will direct IT planning, coordinate distributed and central IT services,
identify project priorities and measure the effectiveness of IT at Penn State. Governance will:
Align IT priorities and investments with institutional strategies and objectives.
Maximize the benefits the University realizes from its total investment in technology.
Create clear decision paths for setting priorities, coordinating IT services and approving
policies and standards.
Promote accountability by incorporating structured planning, linking IT decisions to
resource allocation decisions, empowering leaders to implement decisions and assessing
results.
Engage both IT and non-IT leaders from campuses, colleges and support units in decision-
making.
Be transparent and consistent. 29
Goals
30
IT governance is not an attempt to centralize decision-making or eliminate the
authority of distributed IT groups.
An important role of IT governance is to specify and legitimize the need for
distributed decision-making to maintain agility and support innovation.
Governance committees can’t possibly be sufficiently engaged to make all IT
decisions. Operational decision-making and many small to moderate sized
investment decisions will continue to be made by ITS, IT leaders, and their
budget executives.
The foundational priorities of IT governance are planning and coordination. In
order to maintain an effective service portfolio and optimize the use of our IT
resources, distributed IT groups and ITS need to more aware of each other’s
priorities and directions. The same is true among IT groups.
Governance groups will be focused on recommending goals and strategies
and prioritizing the most substantial investments that will have the broadest
impact on Penn State.
Where decisions have been made to adopt a common service, IT governance
will serve as a mechanism to create accountability for both the effective use
and provisioning of the service.
Principles
To maximize governance’s effectiveness Penn State should:
Focus IT governance on the University’s total IT investments and service portfolio, not
only ITS’.
Create a representative, executive level IT governance group comprised of senior
academic, administrative and IT leaders invested in understanding the complexities of IT
issues and decisions.
Charge governance structure with planning what needs to be done, prioritizing how to
do it and assessing the effectiveness of strategies and services.
Engage faculty, students and staff to determine the needs technology must meet and to
evaluate its performance.
Leverage the IT Leadership Council (ITLC) to bring together the University’s IT
community to share best practices, seek expertise and input to improve solutions, and
foster communication among IT units.
Empower the Vice Provost and CIO to facilitate the governance processes in a manner
that is transparent, consistent and efficient.
31
Key Actions
To improve IT governance, Penn State should adopt the model depicted on the following page.
Actions required to create the revised governance structures and processes include:
Designate the Provost, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business and the Vice Provost
and Chief Information Officer as the final decision-makers for IT.
Appoint an IT Board comprised of representative deans, chancellors, vice presidents and
senior IT leaders to approve strategic directions, approve IT policies, designate common IT
services and prioritize the most significant IT investments.
Empower the IT Board to oversee the development of a strategic IT plan for Penn State.
Appoint domain specific governance committees comprised of faculty, staff and IT
providers to identify emerging needs, recommend annual work priorities, recommend
standards, and sponsor university-wide improvement initiatives.
Appoint University-wide coordinating committees for IT architecture, security and
services to recommend standards, develop solutions and monitor the effectiveness of the
IT environment.
Establish the ITLC and the ITLC Board as a sounding board for major ITS decisions and a
coordinating body to foster collaboration among all IT units.
32
Proposed IT Governance Model
33
IT Board
Rese
arch
Ente
rprise
System
s
Instru
ctional
Tech
nolo
gy
Information Security
IT Architecture
IT Services
IT Governance In Practice
34
The IT Board will recommend long-range goals, endorse proposed IT strategies, recommend investment priorities, and sponsor the implementation of institutional policies and common services.
The IT Board will make recommendations to the Provost, Vice Provost for Information Technology and the Senior Vice President for Business and Finance.
The Board will invest sufficient time to understand the University’s technology issues and opportunities.
The Board will provide guidance to other governance committee’s to help them set annual work plans and priorities for the systems and services within their scope (e.g., enterprise systems, research computing, etc.).
The Board will be guided by analyses and recommendations developed by ITS leadership, ITLC working groups and other standing IT governance committees.
Governance committees for research, enterprise systems and instructional technology will recommend annual project priorities for common systems and services within their domain.
These domain specific governance committees will work with ITS to prioritize the use of existing resources to meet annual goals.
The committees will recommend new projects to the ITS leadership or the IT Board (depending on scale) to meet new need that are beyond the capacity of existing resources.
Committees will seek out opportunities to create new common services in areas where needs converge across the University.
IT Governance in Practice
35
The information security, IT architecture and IT services committees will focus on policies, standards and services that enable Penn State’s technology.
Committees will include both IT and non-IT leaders and will be co-led by an ITS senior staff member and a distributed IT leader.
The work of these committees will inform the development of policies and the adoption of technology standards.
The services committee will advise ITS and other providers of common IT services on the establishment and management of service levels and the selection of technologies integral to IT service management. The services committee will also recommend priorities to enhance services for which IT leaders play the equivalent role of functional leaders such as e-mail, storage and server hosting and virtualization.
For very significant decisions or changes, the committees will structure interactions with the ITLC to gain broader input from the Penn State IT community prior to making a final recommendation to ITS leadership.
Policy recommendations, recommendations to establish new common services, proposals to change how services are funded or projects that require substantial new investments that emerge from these committees will be reviewed by the IT Board.
Proposed Roles of IT Governance Committees
Group Membership Responsibility
Executive
Oversight
Provost, Senior VP F&B,
CIO
• Approve major investments, IT policies and multi-year IT plans
IT Board Academic and
Administrative VPs,
Deans, Chancellors and
faculty representatives,
ITLC representatives,
CIO and Deputy CIO
• Commission strategic planning
• Recommend multi-year IT goals and strategies
• Assess risks and commission the development of mitigation
strategies
• Approve and oversee the implementation of policy
• Approve prioritization of large projects
• Approve common services and recommend funding
mechanisms
• Review annual progress towards strategic goals
IT Leadership
Council (ITLC)
Campus and College IT
directors, ITS leaders
• Evaluate the performance of IT services
• Sponsor ad-hoc communities of interest around IT topics
• Assist with the development of IT policies, standards and best
practices
ITLC Board Elected by ITLC, CIO
(ex-officio)and Deputy
CIO (ex-officio)*
• Provide input to decisions impacting technology or services
that need to be made quickly or don’t require the input of all
of ITLC
• Recommend ITLC members to serve on segment specific
committees
• Commission ad-hoc communities to undertake special projects
and analyses 36
*Requires amending ITLC by-laws.
Proposed Roles of IT Governance Committees
Group Membership Responsibility
Faculty and Student
Advisory Committees
Faculty and Students • Provide input to long range goals and
strategies
• Advise on the development of policy
• Serve as a sounding board for any
significant changes to services or service
levels
• Assist with communications
Domain specific committees
(enterprise systems,
research computing,
instructional technology,
information security,
technical architecture, IT
services)
Faculty, administrative leaders,
ITS staff, campus and college
IT leaders (see individual
charges for details)
• Establish annual project priorities
• Recommend major projects and
investments
• Develop policies, recommend standards
and best practices
• Sponsor major projects
• Establish data definitions, standards
Ad-hoc Communities Appointed based on interest
and expertise by the Office of
the Vice Provost in
consultation with ITLC, faculty
and student advisory
committees.
• Provide input on future directions.
• Consider issues at the request of ITLC or
the Vice Provost.
• Research emerging needs or new
technologies.
• Share successful practices. 37
Attachment A
Description of the IT Snapshot Analysis and Glossary of Terms
38
Data Collection Method
Data was collected from all budget areas of the University. The only excluded entity is the Pennsylvania College of Technology.
Data was self-reported by individuals with knowledge of the IT operations and expenditures in each budget area.
Data collection was coordinated by liaisons selected by the budget executive.
Liaisons sub-divided their areas as necessary to facilitate data collection.
Expenditure and staffing data is a snapshot as of the end of FY09-10.
Staffing data was provided for any staff member that spends a quarter or more of their time managing technology or providing technology support.
Data collection was not limited only to those staff in job family 11.
The allocation of staff time by activity was captured in increments of .1 full time equivalents (FTE).
39
Glossary
Organizational Terms
Colleges – all University Park Colleges, Dickinson School of Law and the
College of Medicine
Campuses – all Commonwealth campuses and Great Valley
Academic Support Units – include ITS, Library, Global Programs,
Graduate School, World Campus, Research, Schreyer Honors College,
Undergraduate Education
Administrative Support Units – include Development and Alumni
Relations, Educational Equity, Student Affairs, Finance and Business,
Intercollegiate Athletics, Office of the President, and University Relations
40
Glossary
Activity Categories Academic Technology – includes consulting with faculty, supporting courseware and supporting
learning management systems
Applications – includes design, development and support of databases, web sites, reports and custom applications. Also includes operations and support of clinical management systems and custom and commercial administrative software packages. Finally, it includes support for communication and collaboration tools. This category excludes applications and databases directly in support of research projects.
Infrastructure – includes support for classroom technology, desktop and laptop computers, servers and portable media equipment. Also includes the provision and support of voice services,
wired and wireless networks. Research Computing – includes direct support provided to research grants. Activities include
support to develop custom research applications and the support for hardware and software dedicated to one or more research grants.
Security – includes provisioning access, responding to security breaches, scanning systems and security related training.
Support – includes training, troubleshooting and responding to questions from end users. Also includes researching emerging technologies and needs as well as providing user support for clinical systems and university-wide applications (e.g., IBIS).
Management – includes time spent managing IT staff, obtaining professional development, managing IT budgets, project management and IT leadership and strategy.
41
Glossary
Other Terms
FTE – full time equivalent staff
NPE – non-personnel expenditure - expenditures for technologies and
services excluding personnel salaries and benefits
Budget transfers – internal reallocation of funds from one University
budget to another as payment for services.
42
Attachment B
Select Data Charts from IT Snapshot
43
Total Technology Expenditures
Estimated Personnel Costs*
(salary and benefits)
$129,360,000
Non Personnel Expenditures $119,013,799
Total Expenditures** $248,373,799
44
*Assumes an average cost per FTE of $80,000
** Includes expenditures from auxiliary funds, restricted funds and internal budget transfers
Non-Personnel Expenditures by Area
45
Area
Total NPE Including Transfers and
Research Related Expenditures*
Academic Support Units $47,960,007
Penn State Hershey Clinical
Enterprise $27,705,741
Colleges $17,022,191
Administrative Support
Units $14,278,067
Campuses $12,047,793
Total $119,013,799
*FY09-10
Non-Personnel Expenditures (less budget transfers)
by Type
Break-down of Other
*Expenditures
Less Budget
Transfers
Depreciation $9,493,215
Services/contract labor $4,424,663
Networking and Telecom
Equipment $3,231,609
Access/Network
Connectivity $1,425,976
Hardware $1,406,162
Software $1,106,961
Other $900,000
Broadcast services/media $529,954
IT Operations and Supplies $233,890
Renovations/Facilities $207,415
Grad Assts $173,046
Course Development $158,150
Non IT Related $152,188
Video Equipt $57,500
Category
*Expenditures Less
Budget Transfers
Hardware $32,552,932
Software $26,445,395
Other Expenditures $23,500,730
Services $15,168,726
Research Expenditures $11,532,569
Initiatives $8,519,206
Total $117,719,557
46 *FY09-10
IT Effort (FTE)
133
441
356
67
50
388
178
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Academic Technology
Applications
Infrastructure
Research Computing
Security
Support
Management
Includes finance, management,
HR, communications and
professional development.
ITS: 126
Clinical enterprise: 56
Colleges: 48
Admin support:78
Other Academic Support:109
47
IT Effort by Area and Function
48
55.6 0.0
20.1 45.0
0.6
231.5 78.3
18.0 53.7
56.2
166.2
25.4
53.6 81.6 24.1
22.8
0.5
2.2 38.1
0.7
16.2
6.6 9.6
14.5
2.4
154.0
40.9 44.9 70.4
60.6
154.6
15.6 11.3 25.9 16.1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Academic Support Units Administrative Support
Units
Campuses Colleges Penn State Hershey -
Clinical Enterprise
Other (224)
Support (371)
Security (49)
Research Computing (64)
Infrastructure (351)
Applications (438)
Academic Technology (121)
IT Effort By Function and Area
49
55.6
231.5 166.2
22.8 16.2
154.0
154.6
0.0
78.3
25.4
0.5
6.6
40.9
15.6
20.1
18.0
53.6
2.2
9.6 44.9
11.3 45.0 53.7 81.6
38.1
14.5
70.4
25.9
0.6
56.2 24.1
0.7 2.4
60.6
16.1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Academic
Technology
(121)
Applications
(438)
Infrastructure
(351)
Research
Computing
(64)
Security (49) Support (371) Other (224)
Penn State Hershey - Clinical Enterprise
Colleges
Campuses
Administrative Support Units
Academic Support Units
31.0% 37.4%
33.6%
69.0% 62.6%
66.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Consult with faculty Support courseware Support learning management
systems
Division of Effort - Academic Technology Total FTE - 132.6
ITS Effort
50
FTE – Academic Technology
51
Area/Activity ITS
Academic
Support
Without/ITS
Administrative
Support Units Campuses University
Park Colleges
Penn State
Hershey -
College of
Medicine
Penn State
Hershey –
Clinical
Enterprise Total - ALL
Consult with faculty 15.080 5.560 0.000 8.950 17.906 0.800 0.300 48.696
Support
courseware 13.490 2.860 0.000 6.550 12.707 0.300 0.200 36.107
Support learning
management
systems 12.250 6.330 0.000 4.540 12.952 0.300 0.100 36.472
Other- academic 0.400 9.020 0.000 0.400 1.500 0.000 0.000 11.320
Subtotal -
Academic
Technology 41.220 23.770 0.000 20.540 45.065 1.400 0.600 132.595
30.1%
17.1%
31.0%
16.0%
1.1%
11.9%
21.3%
62.1%
69.9%
82.9%
69.0%
84.0%
98.9%
88.1%
78.7%
37.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Design, develop
and support
databases
Design, develop
and support
websites
Develop custom
applications
[exclude
instruction and
research]
Develop custom
reports and
queries
Support area
specific clinical
management
systems
Support area
specific
communication
and
collaboration
tools
Support area
specific package
administrative
applications
Support
centralized
administrative
applications
within IBIS, ISIS,
eLion etc.
Division of Effort - Applications Total FTE – 440.7
Total: 45.6
ITS: 13.7
Academic support: 13.6
Admin support: 5.7
UP colleges: 5.4
Total: 84.9 FTE 52
FTE - Applications
53
Area/Activity ITS
Academic Support
Without/ITS
Administrative
Support Units Campuses University Park
Colleges
Penn State
Hershey - College
of Medicine
Penn State
Hershey –
Clinical
Enterprise Total - ALL
Design, develop and support databases 13.710 13.570 5.705 2.260 5.646 0.510 4.200 45.601
Design, develop and support websites 14.500 23.305 13.935 9.240 20.955 1.550 1.500 84.985
Develop custom applications [exclude instruction and research] 23.720 20.480 20.480 1.151 6.200 0.100 4.300 76.431
Develop custom reports and queries 7.540 12.290 10.790 1.060 4.280 0.100 11.200 47.260
Support area specific clinical management systems 0.200 0.050 0.390 0.070 0.471 0.660 16.000 17.841
Support area specific communication and collaboration tools 2.640 1.570 5.730 1.821 4.666 1.800 3.900 22.127
Support area specific package administrative applications 13.320 12.610 16.885 1.621 4.526 0.310 13.400 62.672
Support centralized administrative applications within IBIS, ISIS, eLion etc. 50.160 21.815 4.410 0.737 1.799 0.100 1.700 80.721
Other - Application 3.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.100
Subtotal - Applications 125.790 108.790 78.325 17.960 48.543 5.130 56.200 440.738
4.6% 13.3%
49.6%
3.7%
53.4% 44.0%
95.4% 86.7%
50.4%
96.3%
46.6% 56.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Maintain
classroom
technology
Maintain
desktops, laptops
and PDA's
Maintain Servers Support portable
multi-media
equipment
Support voice
service
Support wired
and wireless
network
connectivity
Division of Effort within IT - Infrastructure
Total FTE – 355.9
Total FTE 88.6 Total FTE: 129
ITS: 64
Acad support: 18.6
UP Colleges: 18.2
Admin support: 9.9
Commonwealth campuses 8.3
Total FTE: 63.7
ITS: 28
UP colleges: 8
Clinical Enterprise: 7.8
Campuses: 7.5
54
FTE - Infrastructure
55
Area/Activity ITS
Academic
Support
Without/ITS
Administrative
Support Units Campuses University
Park Colleges
Penn State
Hershey -
College of
Medicine
Penn State
Hershey –
Clinical
Enterprise Total - ALL
Maintain classroom technology 1.150 2.470 0.140 12.680 7.269 0.700 0.400 24.809
Maintain desktops, laptops and PDA's 11.785 13.660 9.600 15.830 32.252 2.600 2.900 88.627
Maintain Servers 63.990 18.640 9.940 8.320 18.607 2.800 6.300 128.997
Support portable multi-media equipment 0.510 1.790 1.160 4.545 4.168 0.700 0.800 13.673
Support voice service 16.600 1.480 0.440 4.031 0.552 2.100 5.900 31.103
Support wired and wireless network connectivity 28.060 6.090 4.090 7.830 8.274 1.600 7.800 63.744
Other - Infrastructure 8.500 -3.900 0.000 0.000 0.350 0.000 0.000 4.950
Subtotal - Infrastructure 130.595 40.230 25.370 53.236 71.472 10.500 24.100 355.903
4.8% 0.1%
9.3%
95.2% 99.9%
90.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Direct support for research grants -
develop research computing applications
Direct support for research grants -
hardware, IT equipment
Support research computing - general
Division of Effort - Research Computing
Total FTE - 66.9
56
FTE – Research Computing
57
Area/Activity ITS
Academic
Support
Without/ITS
Administrative
Support Units Campuses
University
Park
Colleges
Penn State
Hershey -
College of
Medicine
Penn State
Hershey –
Clinical
Enterprise Total - ALL
Direct support for research grants - develop research computing applications 1.200 3.000 0.300 0.110 11.491 8.500 0.300 24.901
Direct support for research grants - hardware, IT equipment 0.010 10.550 0.000 0.802 6.015 1.470 0.000 18.847
Support research computing - general 1.900 6.120 0.150 1.303 9.499 1.100 0.400 20.472
Other research 2.200 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.300 0.000 0.000 2.700
Subtotal - Research Computing 5.310 19.870 0.450 2.215 27.305 11.070 0.700 66.920
9.2%
28.8% 22.2%
13.1%
90.8%
71.2% 77.8%
86.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Provisioning Access [e.g. ASRs] Respond to security breaches Scan vulnerabilities Training
Division of Effort - Security
Total FTE: 49.7
Total FTE: 18.5
ITS: 4.1
UP colleges: 5.1
Campuses 3.6
Total FTE: 13.9
UP Colleges: 3.9
Campuses: 2.1
Total FTE 10.5
58
FTE - Security
59
Area/Activity ITS
Academic
Support
Without/ITS
Administrativ
e Support
Units Campuses University
Park Colleges
Penn State
Hershey -
College of
Medicine
Penn State
Hershey –
Clinical
Enterprise Total - ALL
Provisioning Access [e.g. ASRs] 0.970 1.365 1.665 1.760 1.733 1.200 1.800 10.493
Respond to security breaches 4.025 1.605 1.450 2.220 4.014 0.350 0.300 13.964
Scan vulnerabilities 4.095 2.295 2.690 3.850 5.402 0.050 0.100 18.482
Training 0.830 1.020 0.840 1.730 1.708 0.000 0.200 6.328
Other- security 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500
Subtotal - Security 9.920 6.285 6.645 10.060 12.857 1.600 2.400 49.767
25.9%
41.9%
0.0%
47.2%
15.5% 22.2%
74.1%
58.1%
100.0%
52.8%
84.5% 77.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Answer user
questions
Research emerging
technologies and
needs
Support clinical
management systems
Support University-
wide applications
[e.g., ISIS, IBIS. eLion]
Train end users Troubleshoot end
user issues
Division of Effort - Support
Total FTE: 388.1
Total FTE: 149.3 Total FTE 87
ITS: 22.5
Academic support: 14
Admin support: 9.7
Campuses: 10.6
Colleges: 14.6
Clinical Enterprise: 12.1
Total FTE: 37.7
ITS: 17.8
Academic support: 4.0
Admin support: 3.0
Clinical Enterprise: 3.6
Total FTE 48.5
60
FTE- Support
61
Area/Activity ITS
Academic
Support
Without/ITS
Administrative
Support Units Campuses University
Park Colleges
Penn State
Hershey -
College of
Medicine
Penn State
Hershey –
Clinical
Enterprise Total - ALL
Answer user questions 22.570 14.080 9.740 11.210 15.285 2.000 12.100 86.985
Research emerging technologies and needs 20.320 8.540 3.850 5.870 8.512 0.650 0.800 48.542
Support clinical management systems 0.150 0.880 0.110 0.447 0.000 10.800 12.387
Support University-wide applications [e.g., ISIS, IBIS. eLion] 17.815 4.010 3.020 4.510 4.081 0.700 3.600 37.736
Train end users 5.560 6.410 9.135 4.830 6.512 0.450 2.900 35.797
Troubleshoot end user issues 33.210 21.360 14.250 18.350 25.591 6.200 30.400 149.361
Other - support 5.550 8.080 0.250 0.700 2.720 0.000 0.000 17.300
Subtotal - Support 105.025 62.630 41.125 45.580 63.148 10.000 60.600 388.108
Attachment C
Detailed Discussion of Improvement Opportunities
62
Email/Calendaring
Context • 56% of budget areas use the ITS calendar solution
and 62% use the ITS email solution for at least some
of their faculty and staff
• 40% of budget units operate multiple solutions for
calendar and email – Approximately 30 discrete, non-
ITS solutions are operated..
• Approximately 22 FTE support email and calendaring
solutions University wide*.
Proposal • Deploy a single email and calendaring solution for
faculty and staff.
• Continue to support individuals’ choice of “client” on
their devices to read email and maintain calendars
(e.g., Outlook, iCal).
*All data as of FY10. Source: IT Assessment data collection. 63
Email/Calendar
Investments $4.3 million investment over five+ years. Includes $1.5 million in
one-time funding and $625,000 in recurring annual funding.
Anticipated
benefits
Cost Savings
Cost Avoidance
Productivity
Reduced risk
Internal
Benchmarks
• Excluding Hershey, there are approximately 15 units running
independent installations of Exchange for 5,100 users.
• F&B estimated a total cost of ownership of $55 per mailbox per
year (excluding staff time) to run Exchange for its users.
• An estimated 15 additional units are running open source or
other forms of email with limited annual cost.
• Small scale, open source implementations are estimated to cost
$10,000 every four years to refresh hardware.
64
Email/Calendar
Category Explanation of Benefits
Cost Savings Retire legacy Exchange solutions in 13 units – estimated savings $55 per user@5100
users - $280,000
Retire legacy open source and small email applications – estimated savings of $2,500
per year per implementation@15 implementations -$38,000.
Cost Avoidance Repurposing of email servers as legacy systems are retired may delay or eliminate
some future purchases.
Productivity Significant new capabilities provided to faculty, students and staff.
Significant potential to limit the time required to schedule meetings and events.
2 to 3 ITS FTE can be redeployed to support the common solution at full
implementation.
Retiring local email solutions could free the equivalent up 1 to 2 FTE of productivity
across local IT staff, assuming a 10% savings across 19 FTE.
Reduced risk Single email solution improves compliance with record retention policies and
significantly reduces the effort to comply with e-discovery requests.
65
Long-term Storage, Archiving &
Management
Context • Data storage and archiving is currently a highly distributed service.
In fact, 78% of budget executive areas manage some type of storage
service on their own.
• 52% of budget areas use an ITS service for part of their storage
requirements.
• 60% of areas operate multiple types of storage services to meet
different needs.
• There is no service to support the long-term data preservation and
management required as part of research data management plans.
Proposal • Design and deploy a common solution for long-term data storage,
archiving and management.
• Designate preferred paths that link options for near-term and
medium term storage to the long-term archive.
• Develop preferred solutions and guidelines for locally attached
storage.
66
Long-term Storage, Archiving &
Management
Investments Benchmarks suggest to expect an initial investment of at least
$500,000 with significant recurring requirements to expand
storage and deliver data management services.
Anticipated benefits Cost Savings NA
Cost Avoidance
Productivity
Reduced risk
Benchmarks • Initial estimates suggest that each research intensive college
would spend at least $100,000 to address long-term archiving
acting on their own. This estimates does not include
providing services to curate the data.
67
Long-term Storage, Archiving & Management
Category Explanation of Benefits
Cost Savings As a new service, no new cost savings would be created.
Cost Avoidance The economies of scale for hardware and the ability to share expertise to curate
data make a shared solution much less expensive than each area investing on their
own.
Absent a University initiative, research intensive colleges anticipate spending
$500,000 to $1,000,000 collectively in the next year to meet current needs for
research data archiving.
Productivity Small gains in productivity will be realized through centrally managed storage
infrastructure.
Reduced risk Without a solution, Penn State risks the loss of important research data and the
potential of being out of compliance with sponsor requirements.
68
Expanded Support for Virtualization and Co-
location
Context • Approximately 50% of budget exec areas use an ITS
service for at least some of their co-location and
virtualization support.
• Nearly 60% of budget exec areas use multiple sources of
services (ITS, one or more parts of their organization, third
parties).
• 129 FTE are devoted to activities related to maintaining
servers
• 32 of 52 reporting areas provide virtualization services.
Proposal • Expand the current capacity to offer colocation and
virtualization services as a University service.
• Adjust cost models to offer more competitive pricing.
• Begin by consolidating servers within ITS and other
administrative areas requiring high availability locally.
69
Expanded Support for Virtualization and Co-
location
Investments Initial investment of $160,000 to renew capacity, reduce the cost
to PSU units and provide geographic redundancy.
Anticipated benefits Cost Savings
Cost Avoidance
Productivity
Reduced risk
Benchmarks • Unit level efforts to virtualize servers vary. Admissions
estimates that it has an annual cost of $25,000 (including 8%
of an FTE)
• F&B estimates that its six major divisions spent
approximately $175,000 in one year for disaster recovery
planning
70
Expanded Support for Virtualization and Co-
location
Category Explanation of Benefits
Cost Savings Small annual savings will be created by avoiding duplicate purchases of hardware and
software to support server virtualization.
Assuming 13 major academic and administrative support units spend at least
$25,000 per year on such purchases, the annual savings could exceed $250,000.
Additional savings from improved power utilization by consolidating data centers is
not included in this estimate.
Cost Avoidance Virtualization and co-location will enable budget executive areas to retire servers,
back-up power supplies and other hardware associated with maintaining small data
centers/server rooms.
Productivity Could free up 5% to 10% of an FTE in each budget executive area maintaining there
own server rooms or small data centers. Across all of Penn State, this could free up
the equivalent of six to twelve FTE to be redeployed to other priorities – 10%
savings across 129 FTE engaged in managing servers.
Reduced risk Critical administrative systems would be consolidated in fewer, high availability data
centers with appropriate redundancy.
71
Support: Expanded Client Management
Context • Supporting end users occupies over 200 IT staff FTE across PSU.
• Supporting classroom technology occupies 21 FTE outside of
ITS.
• 37 of 52 budget areas use TEM (“Big Fix”) to manage the
desktops in labs or classrooms. TEM makes It more efficient to
distribute software, troubleshoot and manage the power
utilization of computers.
• Many but not all campuses utilize an ITS service (CLM) to
manage computer labs. Adoption of the ITS service is lower
among UP colleges.
• Areas that have adopted the CLM service, have realized
significant reductions in support workloads that can be
redeployed other priorities.
Proposal • Extend the ITS managed lab service (CLM) to all labs and
classrooms.
• Pilot and then adopt a similar centrally managed service for
administrative staff computers.
72
Support: Extend Client Management
Investments TBD
Anticipated benefits Cost Savings
Cost Avoidance
Productivity
Reduced risk
Benchmarks Units that have deployed CLM have experienced significant gains
in productivity.
• Altoona – reduced staff working on labs by 50% 4 to 2 FTE
• Harrisburg – re-deployed 2FTE to higher priorities
• Chemistry and Biology and Molecular Biology – reduced time
required to build machines by 50%
• OPP estimates that the use of TEM in conjunction with the
CLM service has generated $500,000 in annual savings from
reduced power consumption.
73
Support: Extend Client Management
Category Explanation of Benefits
Cost Savings OPP estimates the University could realize an additional $150,000 in annual savings
from improved power management.
Cost Avoidance Significant productivity gains enable IT units to take on additional workload without
adding as many additional staff.
Productivity Assuming CLM serves half of the current labs and that adoption creates a 50%
increase in productivity, the equivalent of 5.5 FTE of staff savings could be created
by completing the deployment to all labs.
If a similar service is made available for administrative desktops, significant
productivity increases could be generated for the 200 FTE engaged in support.
Reduced risk A centrally managed service such as CLM would reduce vulnerability from out of
date spam and anti-virus software or incorrect security settings.
74
Support: License Management
Context •The University spends approximately $27
million in general funds annually for academic,
clinical, general productivity and business
software.
•A portion of this expenditure is for software
licensed to individual computers that is used
infrequently.
Proposal •Extend the use of server based software
licenses by adding additional software products
and increasing the number of budget exec areas
participating in the program.
75
Support: License Management
Investments TBD
Anticipated benefits Cost Savings
Cost Avoidance NA
Productivity
Reduced risk NA
Benchmarks •Delivering popular packages such as the Adobe suite via a
server reduces the cost of the software by 50% or more.
76
Support: License Management
Category Explanation of Benefits
Cost Savings Historical reductions in software costs have been significant. More analysis is
required to quantify the magnitude of the opportunity, but additional substantial
savings should be possible by increasing the use of server based software licenses
for labs and desktop computers.
Cost Avoidance There is no future cost avoidance associated with this initiative.
Productivity More standard software versions in use should simplify support.
Reduced risk There is no risk reduction associates with this initiative.
77
Support: Shared Service Desk System
Context • Supporting end users occupies over 200 IT
staff FTE across PSU.
• 25 of 52 budget units maintain one or more
call centers to handle IT service requests
and questions.
• Handoffs of issues between support
organizations are inefficient.
• Support organizations lack a mechanism to
share best practices.
Proposal • Deploy a common ticketing system and
knowledge base that can be accessed or
used by all IT support organizations at Penn
State. 78
Support: Shared Service Desk System
Investments TBD
Anticipated benefits Cost Savings NA
Cost Avoidance
Productivity
Reduced risk NA
Exemplars of Benefits •Efficiency and service improvements for problems that engage
more than one IT organization to resolve.
•Better coordination, more consistent quality and practice
among IT support staff.
•Better data and analytical capacity to spot issues and trends in
problems.
79
Support: Shared Service Desk System
Category Explanation of Benefits
Cost Savings There are no immediate cost savings associated with this initiative.
Cost Avoidance The availability of a common service desk solution would enable some IT units to
retire or avoid implementing there own ticketing systems. While exact data is not
available, the annual cost of these smaller help desk systems is not believed to be
large.
Productivity An improved knowledge base and integrated ticketing system will have meaningful
impact on IT staff members’ productivity. Even a 10% improvement in productivity
spread over 200 FTE providing support would create 20 FTE of staff savings that
could be redeployed to higher priorities.
Reduced risk There is no risk reduction associates with this initiative.
80
Wireless as a Common Good
Context • 64 FTE including 28 FTE within ITS support
wired and wireless networks.
• Approximately 33 units provide and manage
their own wireless networks.
• An estimated 4.5 million gross square foot of
University buildings (excludes ARL and
Auxiliaries) lack wireless coverage.
Proposal • Provide wireless as a common good available
consistently across the University.
• Provide flexibility to units to enhance the
capacity of their wireless and have some local
control over network management.
81
Wireless as a Common Good
Investments $1.9 million to provide coverage to areas without wireless today.
Assumes all areas without coverage will require it.
Anticipated benefits Cost Savings NA
Cost Avoidance
Productivity
Reduced risk
Exemplars of Benefits •Estimated $70,000 in annual recurring savings from future
purchases of network controllers.
•Units that have transferred responsibility for wireless to TNS
report minor staff savings that they have allocated to higher
priorities.
•Significant strategic value to providing a consistent wireless
experience to the Penn State community.
82
Wireless as a Common Good
Category Explanation of Benefits
Cost Savings There are no immediate cost savings associated with this initiative.
Cost Avoidance The adoption of standard wireless equipment will create an estimated $70,000 in
recurring future cost savings from the reduced cost of equipment.
Productivity Based on the results of colleges that have participated in the TNS service to manage
wireless, some productivity gains will be realized. Presently UP colleges and
administrative units invest 13 FTE collectively in managing wired and wireless
networks.
Reduced risk Will create more consistent wireless security.
83
Attachment D
Proposed IT Governance Committee Charges
84
IT Board
Membership Meeting Frequency
Standing members: Vice Provost and CIO,
Deputy CIO, Chair of ITLC and Vice Chair of
ITLC, Chair of FACAC, Chair of STAC
Appointed by Provost: 2 College Deans, 3 Vice
Presidents, 2 Chancellors
Quarterly including one extended planning
retreat
Responsibility Decision-Rights
• Sponsor/guide long-range IT planning
• Monitor the effectiveness of IT investments
• Assess risk and commission mitigation
strategies
• Sponsor policy development
• Advise the executive oversight committee
on IT investment priorities
• Maintain an effective balance of distributed
and common IT services
• Approve an annual IT investment portfolio
• Recommend major new investments in
technology
• Approve IT policies (subject to Executive
Oversight Committee review)
• Approve common services and funding
mechanisms (subject to Executive Oversight
Committee review)
85
ITLC Board
Membership Meeting Frequency
Elected by ITLC members
Vice Provost and CIO (ex-officio)
Deputy CIO (ex-officio)*
Monthly
Responsibility Decision-Rights
• Establish ITLC goals and agenda
• Facilitate consistent communication with/among the
broader IT community through the ITLC
• Identify in consultation with the Office of the Vice
Provost issues that require discussion by the ITLC
• Recommend participants in ad-hoc communities of
interest
• Advise the Office of the Vice Provost and the IT
Board on decisions with University-wide impact
• Monitor major changes proposed by instructional
technology, research computing and enterprise
systems committees and brief the ITLC as necessary.
• Appoint ITLC sub-committees
• Appoint ITLC representatives to ad-hoc
communities of interest
• Approve changes to IT policy (subject to IT
board and Executive Oversight concurrence)
• Approve new common services (subject to IT
board and Executive Oversight concurrence)
• Approve changes to IT standards, service
levels and sourcing strategies (with the
concurrence of the Vice Provost and CIO)
86 *Requires change in ITLC by-laws.
Enterprise Systems – Business, HR and Research*
Membership Meeting Frequency
Appointed by the Vice Provost and CIO in
consultation with the Senior Vice Presidents for
Research and Business and Finance
Monthly
Responsibility Decision-Rights
• Recommend strategic direction for enterprise
applications
• Oversee significant IT and business process
change projects
• Align IT investments and projects with functional
unit goals and priorities
• Establish and manage an annual work plan for AIS
and functional area technical resources
• Approve an annual work plan for systems and
process improvement projects
• Approve re-prioritization of existing workload
when new needs arise
• Approve strategies to resolve resource conflicts
between functional and technical units
collaborating on IT projects
• Recommend major initiatives to enhance or
replace existing systems that are too large to
accomplish within the annual work plan
87 *SIS and Data/Analytics committees will have similar responsibilities and decision rights
Research Computing Committee*
88
Membership Meeting Frequency
Appointed by the Vice Provost and CIO and the Vice
Provost for Research
Quarterly
Responsibility Decision-Rights
• Recommend strategic directions for research
computing
• Monitor the implementation of major initiatives to
improve research computing infrastructure and
services
• Identify gaps in research computing capabilities
and services
• Advise research computing organizations on the
design of services and solutions
• Advise ITS, ITLC and the IT board on the optimal
division of research computing support between
common and distributed solutions
• Support efforts to communicate with the research
community
• Recommend projects and investments to improve
research computing infrastructure.
• Recommend annual priorities to improve existing
capabilities.
• Inform the development of policies and standards
that could impact researchers.
• Inform decisions regarding the creation of
common services to support research and
researchers.
* Instructional technology committee will have similar responsibilities and decision rights
Information Security Committee
89
Membership Meeting Frequency
Appointed by the IT Board in consultation with the
Vice Provost and CIO and the Executive Committee
of ITLC.
Quarterly
Responsibility Decision-Rights
• Monitor emerging threats to information security.
• Design policies and practices to mitigate
information security risks at the request of the IT
Board.
• Provide input to the ISO on the development of
enterprise security services and the deployment
of enterprise security technologies.
• Sponsor communications, training and other
events to raise awareness.
• Recommend IT policies, standards and practices.
• Recommend strategies to implement IT policies
and standards adopted by the IT Board.
• Inform decisions regarding the adoption of
security technologies.
• Inform the design of communications, training and
awareness raising campaigns.
IT Services Committee
90
Membership Meeting Frequency
Appointed by the Vice Provost and CIO and the
Executive Committee of ITLC. Includes ITS staff,
campus, college and administrative unit IT leaders.
Monthly
Responsibility Decision-Rights
• Scope of interest includes enterprise technologies,
technology as a service (e.g., storage) and IT
support services.
• Assist with the development of strategies for IT
services.
• Identify emerging needs for new services and new
opportunities to create common services.
• Advise on the establishment or modification of
service levels for common services.
• Provide input to the design of technology and
technology service solutions.
• Provide input to the development of technology
standards.
• Sponsor initiatives that promote collaboration
among colleges, campuses and administrative
units.
• Recommend projects and investments to improve
IT services.
• Recommend the establishment of new common
or distributed services.
• Inform decisions about the design and
implementation of common services.
• Recommend policies, practices and standards that
enable the improvement of IT services.
• Recommend corrective actions to improve
services.
Technical Architecture Committee
91
Membership Meeting Frequency
Appointed by the Vice Provost and CIO and the
Executive Committee of ITLC. Includes ITS staff,
campus, college and administrative unit IT leaders.
Quarterly
Responsibility Decision-Rights
• Provide input to the University’s long-range
technical direction.
• Advise on the adoption of enterprise-wide
technologies and standards.
• Review emerging technologies.
• Recommend technical standards.
• Recommend guidelines that establish boundaries
between enterprise and unit specific technology
adoption decisions.
• Inform decisions regarding the timing and
adoption of new technologies.