15
Milking the Model: Getting the most out of integration and centralisation Janice Rickards Pro Vice Chancellor, Information Services Geoffrey Dengate Director, Information Services (ICTS)
Milking the Model:Getting the most out of integration and centralisation
Janice RickardsPro Vice Chancellor, Information Services
Geoffrey DengateDirector, Information Services (ICTS)
2Information Services
Establishment and size
3Information Services
Vice Chancellorand President
Pro Vice Chancellor
(Arts, Educationand Law)
Pro Vice Chancellor and
Dean(Business)
Pro Vice Chancellor
(Health)
Pro Vice Chancellor
(Science andTechnology)
DeputyVice Chancellor
(Research)
Deputy Vice Chancellor
(Academic)
Pro Vice Chancellor
(CommunityPartnerships)
Pro Vice Chancellor
(International)
Pro Vice Chancellor
(Administration)
Pro Vice Chancellor
(Information Services)
Organisational structure
4Information Services
Convergence and full centralisation
1997
Convergence and part centralisation
1988
Realignment/integration and
full centralisation
2002
Now over 500 staff and an annual operating budget of A$36M
Information Services - evolution
5Information Services
Pro Vice Chancellor
Flexible Learning and Access
Services
Information and Communication
Technology Services
Learning Services
Library and Learning
Environment Services
Planning and Development
Services
• Business Systems Support = Competency-based model
• Discipline based teams of Faculty Librarians, Educational Designers and a Shared Resources Team
• Integrated teams for information literacy training and learning support
• InfoServices • Project and portfolio management services for whole Division
Information Services – current structure
6Information Services
Maximum alignment with strategy and optimal, cost effective services
Centralised Model
Planning and
GovernanceFramework
FundingFramework
PolicyFramework
What helps this model work?
7Information Services
Planning Framework
ins review amended.igx
University Plans
Service Roadmaps INS Operational Plan
Service Group Operational Plans
Team Plans
Individual KPIs
Performance Measures Outcomes
Client Feedback
8Information Services
Committee/Program Board Chairperson Membership
Information Services Advisory Committee
PVC (Information Services) INS Directors, Academic Community - 1 from each Group, 2 External members, 1 Undergraduate and 1 Postgraduate student
Supporting Research DVC (Research) Nominees from INS, Academic / Research Community, Office of Research
Supporting Learning & Teaching DVC (Academic) Nominees from INS, Academic Community, Academic Registrar
Supporting University Business PVC (University Administration) Nominees from INS, UA and Postgraduate
Enterprise Systems PVC (Information Services) Nominees from INS, UA and Academic Community
Underlying Infrastructure PVC (Information Services) INS Executive. Academic and UA to be represented at key Project Board level
Governance Framework
9Information Services
CoreSLA
CapitalPlan
Maintenance Plan
School SLAs
Service Charges
Funding Framework
$ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $
10Information Services
University-wide policies covering:• Adoption of a core SLA, identification of core
funded services and charged-for services• Enterprise approach and SOE policy• Common use spaces and facilities,
managed by Information Services, including learning centres on all campuses
Policy and Standards Framework
11Information Services
The Information Services model has also been enhanced by:
Other Factors
• development of a values-based culture• adoption of ITIL across the whole Division• Innovation Grant Scheme• Reward and Recognition Schemes
12Information Services
• Focus is on enterprise, University-wide systems and maximum integration
• Easier to align significant resources and infrastructure with the University’s strategic priorities
• Facilitates delivery of higher quality services• Cost effectiveness through economies of scale and
standardisation• Leverages convergence between content and
technology, ICT and library etc.
Advantages of the model
13Information Services
• One-size doesn’t always fit all• Centralised model requires more work on client
relationships• Need to ensure local innovation is not stifled
Disadvantages
14Information Services
• Fine tuning the model
• Further evolution as institutional priorities change
e.g., to a hybrid model
• Intra-university collaboration
• Inter-university collaboration
– Joint service delivery
– Act as Application Service Provider
• Adjustment to support emerging Federations, VOs
Where to from here?
