The institution should ensure that it is taking a structured and considered approach to its systems architecture to ensure that a co-ordinated set of services can be offered to users now and in the future, while achieving value for money from the institution’s investment.
One of the key management challenges will be to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck between the need to integrate systems across the institution and the need to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the system architecture to meet changing, long-term requirements.
The integration of information systems can offer a number of benefits, both to users (e.g. fewer passwords, more consistent look and feel) and to the institution (e.g. more consistent data, more efficient processing through single sourcing of data). Likewise, taking an integrated approach to the acquisition and maintenance of the institution’s infrastructure can yield considerable benefit (e.g. fewer compatibility problems, potential cost reductions by buying more from smaller number of suppliers, etc.)
However, these benefits may have costs associated with them:
- Tie-in to particular products, technologies or suppliers, making it difficult or expensive to change.
- Inflexibility, making it difficult to replace single elements of infrastructure or single systems without affecting or changing other elements.
- Foregoing a ‘best of breed approach’ (i.e. buying the best of system to address each of the institution’s requirements) and, instead, acquiring all products from a single supplier, regardless of whether they are the best solution or not.
Potentially, there is a new solution to this ‘integration vs. flexibility’ issue – interoperability standards. These standards specify structures and formats that allow data to be shared between systems. A great deal of effort is currently being expended in the definition of these standards. However, it will be some time before it becomes clear whether or not these standards will be widely adopted. Consequently, in the short-term most institutions will continue to rely on traditional means of systems integration – buying technologies that are ‘compatible’ and developing systems that either interface (i.e. transfer data) or integrate (i.e. share data) with each other.
Clearly governors and senior institutional managers will be reliant on senior IT managers to develop appropriate systems architecture. However, it is important that in approving the development of the institution’s architecture, senior managers are aware of the pros and cons associated with each potential course of action. The JISC-funded ‘Guide to Investing in IT Systems and Services’ the complex issues surrounding the acquisition of new information systems and services to nine main criteria, which can inform the dialogue between IT specialists and senior management and governors:
- Functionality
- Robustness and reliability
- Licences, Contracts and IPR
- Integration
- Future direction (including product upgrade and development)
- Internal support
- External support
- Exit strategy
- Cost
Projects
In considering the appropriate management of information systems projects institutions may find it useful to categorise projects in the following way:
- A development project. A project involving non-academic research or development with the objective of investigating a new technology or approach, or conducting research to inform the planning of a pilot or implementation project. Typically this type of project will result in the acquisition of knowledge rather than the development of services.
- A pilot project. A project, usually small-scale, to explore the potential costs, benefits and risks associated with new technologies or systems. The objective of these projects is usually to inform a decision about a larger implementation through production of a prototype and/or a small scale implementation.
- An implementation project. A full-scale implementation with significant resources attached, clearly defined objectives and an agreed timescale. This type of project lends itself to formal project management techniques.
Implementation Projects
61% of institutions who responded to the survey indicated that they took a structured approach to the implementation of new project, while another 23% indicated that they were developing a structured approach.
There are many frameworks which can be applied to implementation projects. The de facto standard for project management in the UK is PRINCE2, developed by the Office of Government Commerce.
Of the survey respondents 84 % indicated that they used PRINCE2 regularly or occasionally for project management. 11% responded that they were unsure if the tool was used, while only 5% indicated that they had decided that PRINCE2 was inappropriate and/or too costly to implement.
PRINCE2 is very comprehensive framework and the overhead of applying the technique to small to medium sized projects can seem large. To address this JISC Infonet have produced an Infokit on ‘Project Management’ which ‘pares down’ PRINCE2 to the bare bones of a framework suitable for managing any project’.
Development and Pilot Projects
The case for applying formal project management techniques to smaller scale development and pilot projects is less persuasive, particularly if these projects are experimental in nature and/or if they are being conducted by academic staff on an ‘ad hoc’ basis. Nevertheless if institutions are to benefit from the investment of time and resources, certain ‘minimum’ level good practice should be applied:
- The objectives of the project should be clear (even if these are only ‘To investigate…..’)
- Any outputs should be compatible with the institution’s technical and information strategies, thereby allowing outputs to be ‘scaled-up’ or findings to be applied to the wider institution.
- The outcomes of the project should be appropriately reported and disseminated. If the ‘lessons learned’ (whether the project has been successful or not) are not reported and disseminated in a ‘blame-free’ environment then the institution will not benefit.
- Services: Service Delivery
In theory all investment in information and IT within an institution should be directed towards the delivery of services to the staff and students within the institution and to other stakeholders (e.g. potential students, partners in collaborations, funding bodies, etc.). Consequently it is clearly important to ensure that the user’s perspective is incorporated into the management and governance processes.
Service Management Frameworks
Service Delivery is the area of information systems activity best supported by management frameworks. One of the most common is the ITIL (IT Infrastructure Library) Framework. ITIL was developed by the UK’s Office of Government Commerce as a framework for IT Service Management, incorporating best practice from the public and private sectors and linked to the British Standards Institution's standard for IT service Management (BS15000).
The ITIL framework contains detailed guidance in a number of areas: Service Delivery, Service Support, Planning, Security Management, ICT Infrastructure Management, Application Management, Software Asset Management, etc.
In the survey conducted as part of this project 16% of institutions indicated that they used ITIL ‘regularly’ while 29% used it ‘occasionally’. 16% indicated that it was not relevant to their requirements or that the cost of implementation was too high, while 40% were not aware of the tool or were unaware if was being used.
The British Standards Institute’s BS15000 kite mark is explained in detail HERE.
Requirements, Expectations and Delivery
The key to any successful approach to service management is matching the requirements of the users with delivered services, within the constraints of available resources. Given that resources are not unlimited it is important that institutions prioritise user requirements and that the user’s expectations are managed, primarily by communicating to them the levels of service that they can expect. Service Definition Statements (a statement of service availability) and Service Level Agreements (a formal agreement between service provider and service recipient) can be useful tools in managing users’ expectations.
68% of survey respondents indicated that they defined and monitored service levels within their institution, while performance against service levels was reported to senior management in 50% of responding institutions.