ITANA Meeting Minutes - 06 January 2011

---------------
Attending
Jim Phelps, University of Wisconsin-Madison (chair)
Jason Conley, University of Kentucky
Scott Fullerton, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Karen Hanson, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jim Leous, Penn State
Piet Niederhausen, Georgetown University
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
Ann West, Internet2
Ann Kitalong-Will, Internet2 (scribe)

---------------
Action Items

(AI) - All - review UW-Madison’s Draft Maturity Model and submit any comments or suggestions to Jim: https://wiki.doit.wisc.edu/confluence/display/ARCH/Strategic+Planning+Maturity+Model

(AI) - All - please comment on the Enterprise Workflow Survey questions; feedback is desired on the grids questions in particular: https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/itana/Workflow+survey+questions

---------------
ITANA Member Interests Survey

Jim sent a survey to the list to gather information about member interests to focus on for 2011. Those who have not yet responded,
please do so. The survey can be filled in here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dF9NYkFST1lLLVZiYVJiWU96VzV5V1E6MQ

Everyone is encouraged push any ideas you'd like to discuss on ITANA calls; one of the goals of this peer group is to leverage the knowledge we have in the group.

---------------
UW-Madison Strategic Planning Maturity Model

Jim has posted a draft version of UW-Madison’s Strategic Planning Maturity Model, and welcomes any comments/feedback: https://wiki.doit.wisc.edu/confluence/display/ARCH/Strategic+Planning+Maturity+Model

Jim will be presenting the model to InCommon, to address the question of how UW-Madison executed their strategy, and what it means to actually be mature in the realm of strategic planning. Feedback request:

  • General input
  • What are the things that help you become more mature?
  • What are the things that are holding you back?
  • If you could take 2 steps forward in one of these realms, what would they be?

Overview: The maturity model defines 5 stages of maturity, and develops metrics to reflect strategic plan development, execution, and impact.

The group discussed the draft model, raising the following points:

DEVELOPMENT SECTION:

  • It could be communicated more explicitly that this is not just planning that occurs in IT. While IT may be accomplishing steps toward maturity within our own departments, we may still be in a very reactive mode outside of our groups. It may be helpful to re-emphasize this by providing some non-IT examples.
  • The model is helpful in that it covers a multitude of plans and reflects how these plans get coordinated across campuses.
  • It’s helpful that the document leads with the enterprise maturity framework to provide the context in which the planning takes place.
  • “Standardized” (Stage 3) really does precede “Adaptive” (Stage 5): an organization can’t be an adaptive one without first having a standardized planning method. Adaptive, in this sense, doesn’t necessarily equal agile.

EXECUTION SECTION:

  • In the “Development” section, different scales of planning arecovered, and there may be value in discussing that these differentplanning scales take place at different execution scales: One person'sexecution is another person's strategic planning. It may be useful toinclude something in this model that talks about how well you're able to coordinate execution at different scales.

IMPACTS SECTION:

  • It’s important to understand that you won't have metrics unless you first have a framework in place for gathering the metrics. The impact of a project can’t be measured until it's actually defined as a project. This concept is linked to project portfolio management; an organization needs to be executing on a certain level before they are really able to be measuring.
  • It should be acknowledged that applying this model has some real costs. It may save resources in some areas, but redistributing those resources to be able to apply this kind of model is not easy. It's not just a question of people collaborating, there are costs and resources that need to be in place to manage it.
  • Is it necessary and/or cost-effective to be a "5" on everything? Or, would achieving a "3" be where an organization would get the most cost-benefit? How adaptive does an organization need to be to be cost-effective; and how much are they willing to spend to get there?

(AI) - All - review UW-Madison’s Draft Maturity Model and submit any comments or suggestions to Jim.

---------------
Topics of Interest List

  • Planning F2F meeting - we are working with Educause to try to organize a pre-conference seminar. The seminar would be a day-long session the day before the conference; a regular constituent group discussion session would take place during the regular conference.

(AI) - All - please comment on the Enterprise Workflow Survey questions; feedback is desired on the grids questions in particular.

  • S2S discussion - still out there; may revisit in March
  • Enterprise Portals Survey - it was suggested that the group should develop some documents (papers, presentations, etc.) reporting/assessing the results.

---------------
Other Business

Jim is going to re-visit the time for the call as most people who cannot make the calls have several time conflicts; he will work with SteveO and AnnKW before changing it.

---------------
Next Call – Thursday, January 20, 2011
2 p.m. EDT / 1 p.m. CDT / Noon MDT / 11 a.m. PDT

  • No labels