Chancellor's Study Group: Information Technology
The Implementation Team has completed its first draft of recommendations and is meeting with shared governance groups to report findings and recommendations. The full report is available to download as well as a summary list of the recommendations. The original report that laid out the optional models and their pro’s and con’s can be viewed here, as well as supporting documents and articles below.
The first draft of recommendations was posted to this site on Nov. 18, 2015. Following feedback from constituents, the draft was revised and re-posted Dec. 7. The study group is scheduled to present the recommendations to the Leadership Council on Wednesday, Dec. 9.
Charge from the Chancellor:
- Design: Using the models presented by the study group, design an optimal organization.
- Vet: Vet the design among constituents and governance groups.
- Develop: Develop a final recommendation, incorporating responses where appropriate.
- Present: Present the final recommendation for approval and implementation.
Study Group Members:
- Anne Milkovich, CIO, email@example.com
- Brandon Heise, Reeve Union, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Brenda Peterson, Student Senate, email@example.com
- Jakob Iversen, business faculty, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Karl Loewenstein, Faculty Senate, email@example.com
- Mike Watkins, Academic Senate, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Ricky Johnson, University Council, email@example.com
- Victor Alatorre, Information Technology, firstname.lastname@example.org
Articles and Supporting Documents
- Chester, 2010. Assessing IT Organizations
- Davis, 2008. Centralized and Decentralized IT
- Educause, 1995. Restructuring IT Organization
- Fulton, 2002. Organizational Structures (presentation)
- Lantry, 2001. Bringing IT Back to Central (presentation)
- Maas, 2004. UW-Milwaukee Culture Shift
- Maas, 2009. UW-Milwaukee Enhanced Service Layers
- Miller, 2002. Organizing Information Professionals
- UW-Milwaukee. Portfolio of IT Service Layers
- Voloudakis, 2010. Balancing Centralized Efficiencies with Localized Need