Departmental Computing Coordinators Leverage Resources Copyright 1991 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 14, Number 1, Spring 1991. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its dateappear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu DEPARTMENTAL COMPUTING COORDINATORS LEVERAGE RESOURCES by Jerry Sanders ************************************************************************ Jerry Sanders has been at Loyola University Chicago for ten years. For the last six of those, he has been Director of Information Center Services. His office is responsible for end-user computing, office systems planning, and decision support applications. He is also a partner in Information Design Associates, a computer consulting company. ************************************************************************ ABSTRACT: This article describes the Departmental Computing Coordinators (DCC) program implemented at Loyola University Chicago to manage and support computing activities at the department level. The basis of the program is a standard position accountability included in job descriptions of departmental employees who hold computing responsibilities. Over the last decade, a major topic for information systems professionals has been our effort to empower our clients, the end-user community, to use computing resources effectively. Concurrently, computing tools have become better: faster, more powerful, and easier to use. This seems to be progress. But how will computing policies, standards, and procedures fare in an environment where microcomputers as powerful as last decade's mainframes occupy desktops? How will our efforts to manage data be affected? Will our empowered clients and decentralized computing activities threaten or enhance the integrity of our information resources? The new capabilities offer new opportunities, and computing support organizations have to reconsider their methods to take advantage of them. This article describes how we at Loyola University Chicago are doing that by means of a program called Departmental Computing Coordinators (DCC), which has been in effect over the last year. Evolution of the DCC program Loyola University Chicago is a private, Jesuit, coeducational university with an enrollment of about 16,000 in its ten schools and colleges. There are five campuses in the Chicago area and one in Rome, Italy. The computing environment is centrally administered by the Information Technologies (IT) division, which has set standards for microcomputer hardware and software. Besides our IBM mainframe computers, there are several DEC, Hewlett-Packard, and AT&T minis, and about 3,000 microcomputers--primarily IBM or IBM-compatibles, with about 200 Apples. The central computing organization includes an Information Center Services unit responsible for end-user computing, office systems planning, and decision support applications. To date, a high level of centralization and standardization at Loyola has produced a good information technology track record: user satisfaction and IT credibility are relatively high. Our central organization has maintained communications with users through various committees as well as by establishing key contacts in each user department. In 1985, the key users representing the largest, or most computer intensive, departments (considered "superusers") were invited to join the IT-sponsored Superuser Group. This group is a voluntary collaboration between Information Center staff and superusers. Coordination of the group was turned over to users after the first year, and central staff members continue to attend bi-monthly meetings. The computing environment at Loyola--and probably at many similar institutions around the country--has undergone quite a bit of change in the last couple of years and is characterized by the following statements: * There has been an increase in important systems operating on departmental microcomputers. * There is an increasing demand by the institution to see return on computing investments, i.e., how a department has improved its services or cut costs. * There is a desire to optimize the use of our expensive computing resources by taking advantage of computer-literate users, of which there are now many. * Desktop computing capabilities will continue to increase, become less expensive, and be available to a larger user audience. In addition to the above conditions, there are increasing requirements for specialized software. Loyola has met what the University had identified as a strategic level of workstation deployment, and the tools are in place to meet the need for basic automation--word processing, spreadsheets, data management. Departments are now requesting software for specialized applications, unique to the function of the department, in order to maximize the use of their computing equipment. The evaluation, selection, and use of this software requires intimate knowledge of the business and needs of the department. Finally, there is need for administration of new areas, primarily local area networks (LANs) and data administration. Loyola has fifty LANs installed, connecting about 1,200 workstations. In previous years, IT was responsible for LAN administration for departments. As LAN installations increased, this became impractical. Certain tasks needed to be assumed by the department. As for data administration, IT has been engaged in a data administration planning project over the last three years. Of course, an important objective of data administration is to manage data to avoid redundancy and improve the integrity of data. Presently, however, there are over 150 end-user managed databases in departments. Most of these were developed with IT; nonetheless, it can be difficult to maintain management control over these. It was apparent to IT that our end-user support methods needed to be upgraded to respond to the above conditions. It was also clear that user departments possessed a wealth of computing talent and capability. These two factors inspired us to create an end-user support program that would maximize available staff resources to satisfy a pressing need. The objective of the program is to promote and harness the talents of end users, while maintaining the integrity of centralized systems. A key assumption of the program is that successful computing is a partnership between the central computing support organization and the client department. The DCC program essentially documents and makes formal the partnership roles. DCC program defined A Departmental Computing Coordinator is: 1) an employee of an IT client department who has computing responsibilities included in his or her job description, as well as 2) the name of the "accountability" that describes those responsibilities. A job description at Loyola contains one or more accountabilities. Each accountability listed describes a particular job responsibility and includes a percentage of time that needs to be spent to fulfill that responsibility, as well as a rating that measures the impact of that responsibility on the institution. The DCC responsibilities were set up as accountabilities, rather than as independent job descriptions, to accommodate different percentages of time required to fulfill the DCC responsibilities, according to department size and level of automation. In small departments the DCC responsibilities can be fulfilled using a small percentage of one staff member's time, while large departments might require that a full-time staff member be dedicated as a DCC. The same flexibility is required for rating the impact of the DCC responsibility. For example, a DCC who is responsible for workstations serving a patient-monitoring function in the hospital will receive a higher rating for impact than a DCC who is responsible for word processing workstations. Distribution of responsibilities The DCC job description accountability has three possible components: liaison, local area network administrator, and departmental data administrator. All DCCs have the responsibility to be a liaison between IT and the DCC's department. This entails serving as the communication link between IT and the department, i.e., communicating IT policies, standards, and procedures to department staff, and communicating client needs to IT. The liaison also serves as the first contact for his or her department's computing questions. The job description includes the liaison component under the DCC accountability in all cases. A DCC is a LAN administrator when the client department operates a LAN. In this case, the DCC assumes the responsibility for planning, set-up and installation assistance, support for day-to-day operations, and training requirements coordination. A DCC is a departmental data administrator when the department locally maintains electronic data owned by the institution. The DCC assumes the responsibility for data planning, documentation of data management systems according to IT standards, data backup and recovery, and staff training requirements coordination. DCCs are local extensions of IT support personnel, although this does not imply a reporting line to IT. IT's role is to provide DCCs with the tools to perform computing support functions, and to serve as the DCC's backup and technical support resource. Surveys of our clients' requirements have shown that the need for better communication between IT and clients is the highest priority. The DCC program addresses fulfilling this need as the prime objective. IT must ensure that DCCs are kept in the mainstream of computing information and activity. This is achieved via IT-sponsored meetings and special events (lunches, guest speakers, etc.), newsletters, electronic mail forums, special training sessions and, most important, special attention to the needs of DCCs. DCC appointments and compensation IT presently handles most of the computing functions that have been described as emerging responsibilities of DCCs, and in many cases will continue to do so. The need for a DCC arises when departmentally directed computing becomes an operating requirement. We use the following guidelines to decide when DCC functions should be instituted: * Liaison--As mentioned, all DCCs have at least liaison responsibilities. This role is recommended when a department's computing requirements are best met by identifying a key, local user. This recommendation is typically made by consensus of the department head and IT. * LAN Administrator--This DCC function is required if the department has a LAN. (For every LAN installed at Loyola, at least one individual must be designated network administrator.) * Data Administrator--This DCC function is required if the department does what Loyola defines as "local data administration," i.e., locally maintains mission-critical electronic data. The DCC role might also be recommended if the volume of data maintained locally is large, even though the data are not considered to be mission-critical. If this is unclear, the Manager of Data Administration in the IT organization recommends whether this component of DCC is necessary. After IT and a department head have concluded that a DCC is needed, the department head has the DCC accountability included in a revision of the job description of the employee selected to serve as DCC. The revised job description is submitted to the division head and then to the compensation department to review for possible regrading of the position. Inclusion of the division head in the review process is necessary to ensure consistency in the description of DCCs within a division. Consistency across divisions is achieved via meetings between IT and the division heads. An employee cannot expect automatic additional compensation by becoming a DCC, i.e., having a revised job description submitted to the compensation department for regrading. Compensation is determined on an individual case basis using the criteria applied to all other job descriptions. However, in most cases, the DCC role is a new and very real requirement for present conditions, and inclusion of that role elevates the job description such that additional compensation is warranted. When the DCC program was originally proposed to the Loyola's Computing Steering Committee, comprising the University's vice presidents, it was projected that the maximum fiscal impact of the DCC program would be in the form of a 5 percent increase in the pay of about seventy new DCCs. The DCC candidate's average salary was approximately $27,000, so the annual cost of the program was projected to be in the neighborhood of $95,000. This cost was presented to the committee as a rough maximum. The committee approved the proposal based on IT's recommendation and perceived expected benefits. Win-win expectations At the 1990 CAUSE National Conference, Wayne Donald of Virginia Tech said that "distributed activities must revolve around a point of central coordination to ensure support for overall institutional goals." Our DCC program incorporates this idea; our computing organization retains central coordination. By identifying and distributing the appropriate support tasks to DCCs, IT resources may be concentrated on central coordination. Services provided by the DCCs are immediate, familiar, and specific to the business of the client department. Services provided by IT are of a more global nature, and address the computing and communications infrastructure, university databases, hardware and software standards, and volume purchase agreements. Successful computing projects require an analysis that is both institution-wide (integrated databases, telecommunications, network compatibility, data administration) and local (the function of the department). The central IT organization is more qualified to address the former matters, while the DCC is more qualified to address the latter. Projects will be partnerships. Other benefits we expect to achieve by giving users defined roles as computing resources are: * The optimization of IT support through key department contacts * The immediate availability of first-line computing support to a department * The synchronization of local computing planning with institution- wide, long-range computing plans * The creation of departmental computing standards to be maintained locally * The improvement of communications between the central IT organization and end users Potential obstacles Overall, the DCC program has been well received thus far. Although serious obstacles have not been encountered, several questions were raised at the inception of the program, and are reconsidered from time to time: * The More Work question--"Why do we have to make this a formal program, and go through the trouble of regrading jobs?" The response is that we have gone as far as we can go informally, and the need for DCCs has increased greatly. The Superuser Group has assumed many responsibilities voluntarily; however, there is no guarantee that all qualified users will always be willing to take on additional tasks which, when they are not an official part of their job descriptions, cannot be compensated. Without a formal recognition of responsibilities and appropriate compensation, we will continue to rely on great cooperation and good luck. * The Not Manageable question--"We have over 250 departments! Where are you going to hold meetings?" The response is that although it is possible for the number of DCCs to grow to the extent that monthly meetings become unwieldy, IT can manage communications with the DCCs through technology (electronic and voice mail), newsletters, and small meetings which IT can repeat as needed. * The How to Evaluate Positions question--"What do we do when one Secretary Grade II has the DCC accountability and another Secretary Grade II does not?" The response, from our compensation department, is that this is not without precedent. For instance, one secretary might monitor a budget of one million dollars while another secretary does not monitor budgets at all. The difference in percentage of time spent and in impact will be graded accordingly. * The Who Will Be the Gatekeeper question--"Who will decide which department needs a DCC and who shall be the DCC? Won't this have implications, such as a facultymember asking for a reduced teaching load because he or she is the department's DCC?" This question is not yet entirely resolved. The resolution in the case of staff is that the department head asks the head of his or her division to institute a DCC. This request includes a recommendation by IT. However, because faculty do not use graded job descriptions, special arrangements for compensation are required for faculty DCCs. Other than compensation issues, faculty DCCs serve the same function and participate in the same activities as staff DCCs. Progress to date We are optimistic about the development of and response to the program so far. Support for the DCC program has been received from many sources: * The IT organization sees the program as a means to support our mission: "To provide the leadership and expertise to design, implement, support, and manage information technologies to foster the teaching, research, and health care mission of Loyola University Chicago." * The personnel and compensation departments like the program because it helps to establish job grading standards to use for the increasing number of positions which include computing responsibilities. * Superusers like the program because it provides a means to have their responsibilities included in their job description so they can be acknowledged and paid for performing those responsibilities. We have seen an evolution of key department users from their roles as superusers into the more formal DCC roles; the Superuser Group continues to be important because it generates candidates for the DCC program. * Department heads who are acquainted with the program generally support it. Most feel that it gives them greater influence in their department's computing operations. * The program has received the sanction of the Information Systems Steering Committee, which is made up of division heads, although the committee is expecting a more formal resolution of the "gatekeeper" question concerning faculty DCCs. The Departmental Computing Coordinator program has been quite successful in meeting the primary objective of improving communications between IT and its clients. The departmental computing support responsibilities of IT and client department staff have been better defined, and this contributes toward the optimal use of computing talent within the institution. Although it is difficult to measure cost benefits of the DCC program, we have determined that the annual rate of increase in the cost of end-user computing support has actually decreased. As the program increases in scope and matures, it is expected that additional savings will be realized as support services are coordinated and redundancy in those services is eliminated. Conclusion In the past, Loyola's centralized approach to information technology management was quite successful. However, technology has changed, and implicit in the DCC program is the recognition that Loyola's mission, and therefore the IT mission, can be better served by reassigning responsibilities for some areas of end-user computing previously controlled by IT. We believe that the program will encourage creative application of computing technology to specific department business problems, and free IT resources to concentrate on the enhancement of the information technology infrastructure. There is a certain amount of risk involved when reassigning responsibilities. The DCC program is a cooperative effort between IT and our users, based on mutual trust and respect, and, ultimately, mutual goals. The maturity of the Loyola IT organization and user community has created confidence that any failures will be outweighed by the overall achievements of the program. This has so far been the case, and we are optimistic that this success will continue as the DCC program expands and matures. ************************************************************************