Computing Services Planning, Downsizing, and Organization at the University of Alberta Copyright 1993 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 16, Number 3, Fall 1993. 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 date appear,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 COMPUTING SERVICES PLANNING, DOWNSIZING, AND ORGANIZATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA by Monica Beltrametti ABSTRACT: In a six-month period, the Computing and Network Services (CNS) department at the University of Alberta formulated a strategic plan and at the same time downsized and reorganized to meet financial constraints and to react to changing technology, especially distributed computing. This article describes the process used to accomplish the changes and how that process provided a smooth transition to a new department that is able to react to new technology trends and user requirements. Substantial changes in the computing organization and facilities at the University of Alberta during the past months havetheir origin in the evolution of computing and the local economy over the past two decades. In the seventies and early eighties, the University of Alberta benefited from state-of-the-art computing facilities that attracted many researchers and students to Edmonton. This was a time of economic boom for the oil industry in Alberta that saw many beneficiaries, including the universities in the province. The capital and operating funds for computing at the University were generous, with capital funds peaking at $8 million a year in 1982 (see Figure 1). The computing services organization had 170 employees. People still remember the excellent mainframe services provided at that time. Computing equipment, both hardware and software, was regularly purchased soon after new products were available on the market, giving researchers and administrators the necessary tools to be competitive with the top universities in North America (see Appendix A). Figure 1: Retrospective of CNS Capital and Operating Funds (millions of dollars) [FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION] Unfortunately, these good times changed abruptly in the eighties. The economy went into recession. Computing funds quickly shrank, reducing capital outlays by a factor of eight. At the same time, workstations became affordable and started spreading rapidly on campus. The computing services organization found itself crippled by reduced funding; mainframes and tools aged; a stifling atmosphere set in. Lack of funds became the reason for not reacting to the technology revolution in workstations and distributed computing. This left new owners of workstation equipment without support and guidance to ensure connectivity and interoperability. In summary, the computing scenario at the University of Alberta in the late eighties and early nineties was made up of a computing services organization with reduced funds, as large a staff as ever, aging mainframes, no distributed computing support, clients longing for change, and no planning in place. The University decided to try to improve campus computing support toward the end of 1990, even though the level of funding that had been available in the past was not to be obtained again. This led to a series of events. In late 1990, the new vice president of student and academic services started collecting computing requirements from users under the auspices of the University Computing Advisory Group (UCAG). This led to UCAG task force reports in May 1991 for networking, instructional, research, and administrative computing. An important document, Maintaining Excellence and Accessibility in an Environment of Budgetary Restraint, was issued in February 1991 by the University president. Financial changes required for the University were described in this report. The computing department was asked to transfer salary funds to capital funds, at a rate of $200,000 a year for five years, which would result in the department having an additional $1 million a year for capital allocations. A new director for the computing services department (this author), at the time called University Computing Systems, was hired at this stage, in April of 1991, with the mandate to carry out all necessary changes to improve computing support on campus. It was clear that in an environment where information technology is evolving rapidly, and where financial constraints require focusing of resources, good planning was and would continue to be mandatory. PLANNING EXPECTATIONS Strategic planning has to address the expectations of users, senior University administration, and computing and network services staff. Many expectations had been described in the documents mentioned above, but it did not take long to notice that other equally important expectations had not been documented anywhere. For example, the staff of the computing department felt that communication with senior University administration had been poor for many years. Whether this was justified or not was irrelevant; what counted for planning purposes was the perception. To be able to carry out a plan, mutual respect between the department and other parties had to be established. The biggest challenge before initiating the strategic planning process was to understand all expectations, synthesize the requests, and ensure that the planning process addressed them all. The major expectations could finally be divided into four categories. The following is a summary of these expectations coming from users, senior University administration, and staff. Technology issues. From a technology point of view, the campus wanted support for distributed computing. This meant high-bandwidth networks, services to help clients with the management of their own computing equipment, and the establishment of guidelines for purchasing equipment to ensure adequate support and interoperability. Requests were also made to increase computing capacity for both researchers and administrators, to integrate and modernize administrative applications, and to provide enhanced support for instructional computing (instructional labs and computer-assisted instruction tools). Communication with clients. Communication between the department and clients had to be improved. There was a clear demand to provide technical assistance through a single point of contact between the department and the users. As well, communication between the department and senior University administration had to be improved. Departmental organization. The message from the University president was clear on the need for departmental downsizing. The expectation was also voiced that the department reorganize to better amalgamate the two main groups supporting academic and administrative computing that had been inadequately merged in 1988, resulting in inefficiency and duplication of work (Figure 2). As well, it was felt that the department's organizational structure had too many layers of management--improved communication and efficiency required a flatter organization. Figure 2: The primary divisions in the former computing services structure (1991) [FIGURE 2 NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION] Another expectation was that the department change the character of its support. As opposed to being belated followers of technology trends, clients and administration wanted the department to be a participatory leader, guiding the campus in formulating technology directions and in the use of information technology. There was also the request to turn the department from a provider of implementations (e.g., programming assistance for researchers) to a provider of infrastructures, such as servers to distribute application products, networks, standards of data storage and retrieval, and so on. Funding. It was expected that we would follow the presidential recommendation of transferring salary funds into capital and that we would implement all technological and other changes without asking for financial support beyond the usual annual capital and operating allocations. The message was clear that we had to be creative in financing the computing operation, as more funds could not be anticipated. PLANNING CONSTRAINTS Before starting the strategic planning process, it was also important to understand the constraints under which planning had to be carried out. Financial constraints related to departmental downsizing were severe--the first $200,000 to be transferred from salary to capital had to be complete by April 1991 (the very month the new director took over). Fortunately, the president agreed to defer the transfer of $400,000 to April 1992, but even so lay-offs had to be identified soon as we had to find money for severance pay. Another difficulty in downsizing was the fact that most of the staff were unionized. Within the five existing job categories, only the most junior people, those hired last, could be laid off. This was a problem, as the department was already aging. The union agreements also made vertical cuts difficult to implement; the department did not have many generalists, so expensive cross-training would have to be organized for major job reassignments to occur. Finally, the fact that the department had lost credibility imposed another constraint: we had to show quick results and relevance to clients. PLANNING STRATEGIES Working with three inherited associate directors, the director began to define the strategic planning process, beginning with deciding which problem to attack first. The common wisdom is that organizational structure follows strategy: one builds an organization to carry out a strategic plan. Unfortunately, though, because of the time constraints imposed, we could not afford to formulate a strategic plan first and then worry about organizational structure and lay-offs. Time was also of the essence in that departmental morale had been low for a long time. Staff were well aware that they were not providing the level of computing support of the past. When the news spread that staff had to be laid off, morale deteriorated even further. We therefore decided on the following planning strategies, which called for concurrent and staged approaches to planning and reorganizing. Cutting quickly to provide stability. As a top priority, we decided to settle the downsizing issue, trying to overshoot the presidential recommendation for the coming year so as to provide stability for as long a period as possible. Even though we had to rush at this, careful thought had to be applied to ensure minimal negative impact to the department and to ensure that the people involved were treated as humanely as possible. While downsizing, we had to avoid laying off junior staff which would result in a top-heavy organization. Managing the department. Strategic planning processes are usually formulated with the management team to ensure that managers, charged with carrying out the plan, feel ownership in relation to it. Since we had to reorganize and flatten the organization, it became clear that more managers besides the three associate directors needed to report to the director and thus be involved in the planning process. To start the planning process, a new management team had to be appointed, even before reorganization. Buying into the plan. As communication had been poor between the department and other campus constituencies (and also inside the department), it was essential that the planning process involve senior administration, critical clients, and as many staff members as possible. Aerating a stifling atmosphere. During the previous few years, both management and staff had been waiting for somebody to come in and fix all the problems. It had to be made clear that one person alone could not carry out the entire job and that proactive involvement from every staff member in the planning process was expected. Everyone had to develop a positive, can-do attitude. Maximizing winners/minimizing losers. We set the goal of asking ourselves throughout the planning and reorganization period who the losers and winners would be as a result of changes in the department. We aimed at maximizing the number of winners. Limiting the period of pain. No matter how well change is managed, it is connected with uncertainties and pain, which are often carried home to families after work. We wanted to confine the pain to a six-month period. Building confidence with early results. To regain credibility for the computing services department, we knew we had to plan in such a way as to achieve early and visible results. Communication with our constituencies about all our steps was essential. PLANNING PROCESS Strategic plans are usually carried out from the top down: the management team agrees on high-level goals and strategies, and from these the staff later develop tactical and operational plans. This type of planning process, however, is too long to achieve early results and may, because of its initial managerial focus, prevent staff from providing input to the direction of the department. We therefore decided on a simultaneous bottom-up/top-down approach to the planning process. There were some risks associated with this--at the end of the process, for example, the plan had to be a consistent and integrated whole--but we decided the risk was worth taking. Seeking wide participation in the planning process was our approach to total quality management. Staff input The bottom-up planning process was carried out as follows. In May 1991, an online discussion forum was opened for the staff. This provided a way for staff to exchange information and ideas and to comment on actions taken by management (which were made public throughout the planning period using weekly electronic staff newsletters). During the same period, six planning task forces were formed within the department, defined and mandated by the director and three associate directors. The internal task forces represented an embryonic formulation of new organizational groups to be used later in the new departmental structure. Each task force had a leader. Three of the task forces were led by the associate directors, while the rest were led by temporary appointees. The task forces were composed of staff from different groups of the old organization--the first attempt to improve staff interaction by mixing people who had never worked together before. The result of the task force work was a planning document called the "working papers," which contained what the staff thought ought to be done to improve computing support on campus. During the internal task force process, the University Computing Advisory Group was kept informed of events. We gave its members opportunity to comment on the working papers in September 1991. UCAG had in the past been presented with a series of faits accomplis. This was the first time that they were made part of the decision-making process. Management, University administration, and user input It was with the new management team, appointed by the director in July, that the strategic planning process was to be carried out. The top-down planning processes started at the end of September 1991. Planning activities crystallized in an intense set of week-long sessions which included senior University administrators, UCAG task force chairs, and departmental management. The sessions were moderated by a professional facilitator with many years of experience in strategic planning and the information technology industry. Phase I of the facilitated planning involved the University president, vice presidents, and the director. Agreement on the mission of the department was the result. Phase II of the process, involving some UCAG members, the vice president of student and academic services, and the department's management team, developed high-level goals and pinpointed areas of information technology of strategic importance to the University. With these strategic areas in mind, in Phase III the management team decidedon the future direction of the department by weighing various options against the available resources. Phases IV and V, also involving the management team, developed a consensus on an action plan to give the strategic options a concrete basis in the activities of the department. Planning synthesis At the end of the bottom-up/top-down planning process, we had material in hand for two plans: a strategic business plan for users and the public at large, and a tactical plan based on the working papers which defined specific tasks to be carried out. We had to make sure that the two plans matched, and some adjustments had to be made. For example, during the strategic planning process, users asked us to become involved in computer-assisted instruction. This area had not been taken into account in the working papers. All adjustments, however, turned out to be straightforward, and in December 1991 UCAG approved our strategic plan. The plan, Networking Computers and People on Campus and Beyond, was published early in 1992 and we are regularly presenting it through talks to various interest groups on campus.[1] It was clear to us that the strategic plan could only be executable and gain credibility if we also had a financial plan to carry it out. A list of expenditures necessary to implement the strategic plan, above recurrent expenditures, was prepared by each manager. Careful administration by the management team had allowed us to save a good deal of money, for example by renegotiating contracts with vendors and consolidating mainframe usage. This, together with the salary-to-capital transfer and the hope that the usual annual capital and operating allocations would not change over the next years, gave us a pleasant surprise. Funds are few, but with careful staging of projects over a four-year period, they presently look sufficient to carry out the most important tasks outlined in the strategic plan. PLANNING OUTCOMES The strategic plan focused our attention on implementing the strategies defined therein. Outcomes of the process are described below in terms of technology, organization, communication with clients, and funding. Technology The largest technology projects we have begun include implementing a fiber-optic backbone network, modernizing administrative applications, establishing workstations for research, and developing distributed services. Fiber-optic backbone network. The planning process made it crystal clear that the biggest expectation among users was progress in developing a modern data communications network on campus. A new high-capacity and high-speed backbone network is essential for the University. It will help address the growing cooperative computing requirements of administrators, instructors, and students. It will allow more desktop systems, LANs, and client/server facilities to be added to the network, and will support the use of networks for sharing complex multimedia files and very large data sets in research, education, and administration. We have started work on a 100 megabits-per-second FDDI fiber- optic backbone network for the campus. The main backbone length will be six kilometers. A detailed backbone plan has been prepared that describes a staged implementation over three years, including expectations and limitations of the network and the backbone topology. The first phase of the project was completed in December 1992, connecting the computing center with the central academic building. This route has provided a good testbed for FDDI technology on the campus, as it connects a variety of Ethernet and Token Ring LANs and several microcomputer laboratories. Phase II of the project will be completed by December 1993. Integration and modernization of administrative applications. We have started a phased project to mount a new technology platform for administrative applications, one that ensures easy data access and manipulation by departments. The first phase involved understanding the current baseline; professionally facilitated sessions with administrative units and faculty gave rise to road maps showing the interrelationships among institutional data currently kept on campus. We have also: * defined a new data management architecture based on client/server distributed computing, * purchased new information systems tools for the campus (ORACLE), and * set up a task force in collaboration with the vice president (finance and administration) to investigate whether we can buy new industrial information systems applications running on ORACLE, and to reengineer obsolete administrative processes. Establishment of a farm of workstations for research. We are in the initial stages of setting up a farm of workstations to increase the capacity of numerically intensive computation for research. The farm will allow users to run sequential and parallel code. Distributed services. A new type of service was launched, aimed at supporting users and their equipment at their locations. Service representatives from our organization, dedicated to meeting the needs of specific departments, are our primary means of contact at the faculty level. Organization After we felt comfortable with our strategic plan, we looked seriously at the internal planning task forces as the basis for departmental reorganization. After a few adjustments and lengthy discussions on how to divide software support between the groups, we published a new organizational structure and, with staff input, redistributed people among the new organizational groups. We declared ourselves officially reorganized as CNS--Computing and Network Services--in January 1992 (see Figure 3). The reorganization process was straightforward and smooth. An indication of improved morale was the immediate transliteration of CNS as "central nervous system." Staff started implementing the plan with vigor and enthusiasm--a sign that the changes that were introduced were well accepted. Figure 3: The main groups in the new CNS organization [FIGURE 3 NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION] The working papers are being used by each new group as tactical plans to carry out Networking Computers and People on Campus and Beyond. The new organization is flatter, with only one level of management and one level of supervisors. The mandate of each group follows technology lines (see Appendix B). The University declared financial exigency, which allowed us to lay off three of the twelve employees who were classified as academic staff and who belonged to a less rigid union. It was terrible to see them go, but we were fortunate that these were the only employees we had to lay off to convert salary to capital money. As of today, we have converted $700,000 through a combination of these lay-offs, early retirement, attrition, and converting full-time positions into part- time employment. The staff has been very supportive in this endeavor. Communication with clients We have a much stronger focus on our clients now. We have created advisory committees in such areas as networking, research computing, numerically intensive computing, information systems, instructional labs, and technology standards. The committees have already proven very useful. The network committee, for example, was a very good sounding board while preparing the FDDI backbone network plan. Another important initiative is the establishment and facilitation of user groups by the department. Relevant information from the user groups is being brought back to the management team and is being used to improve services. A new help desk and user support center are providing a consistent interface between clients and Computing and Network Services; they will also provide insights over time on user requirements. Distributed services will also give us a better understanding of information technology requirements at the faculty and departmental levels. Funding With the shrinking of staff and the transfer of salary funds to capital, we have seen a decreasing operating budget and an increasing capital budget. Once central mainframe support and associated revenues decrease further, the operating budget will decrease even more than shown in Figure 4. This is a big concern we have to address in the near future; initial talks with central administration have been encouraging. Figure 4: Projected CNS Capital and Operating Funds (millions of dollars) [FIGURE 4 NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION] A CRITICAL VIEW There are two main parts to a plan: a business plan and a technology plan. Our strategic plan addresses our business functions. It allowed us to get started on some major projects. We are now developing a technology plan. It has already helped to guide us in identifying a new technology platform for information systems, and in deciding which information technology standards to recommend to the campus. We have also identified a new position, manager of technology directions, to facilitate and coordinate the process of formulating a technology plan. Other computing services departments which have recently undergone a planning process, such as Indiana University's, have started with a technology plan. We decided to focus on early results, and have therefore chosen to formulate a technology plan after completing a strategic (business) plan. We are comfortable with the new organizational structure we have created for Computing and Network Services. It has to be noted, however, that due to the intricacy of today's information technology, many projects extend across group lines. Mounting a new technology platform for information systems, for instance, involved almost all groups. For this reason, we have established task forces and project leaders that deal with complex projects. Monthly project review meetings are aimed at coordinating our efforts. So far, we have only started to train our staff in a few areas for the new emphasis on client-centered services. We must take a more aggressive approach in training staff to deal with distributed computing and in training generalists who can provide end-to-end service. Once we had formulated our directions and made clear to staff that we were seeking their active participation, the department gained new momentum. Empowering the staff and pushing down responsibility through the organization is very healthy and is bearing fruitful results. The challenge we had in planning, reorganizing, and downsizing was to break up an intricate problem into smaller pieces. Even though we succeeded in doing this in many cases, sometimes we felt, and particularly the author, that there was an insurmountable wall to climb. We often realized that the wall was put up by processes that discourage the achievement of results. Focusing on managing results, instead of managing processes, has been very useful. It was also very useful to compare what we were doing with changes at computing departments at other universities. We have learned a great deal from plans and articles that were kindly sent to us by colleagues. We hope that this article will likewise help other organizations in their planning and reorganization efforts. ======================================================================== Footnote: 1. This 30-page document is available to members from the CAUSE Exchange Library (CSD0733, $6.00 to cover copying, shipping, and handling). It is also available as an ASCII text file and may be retrieved free by sending e-mail to: search@cause.colorado.edu with the one-line message: get csd0733 access_code where access_code is your personal access code for retrieving electronic documents from CAUSE. If you do not know your access code, send an e-mail message to search@cause.colorado.edu with the one-line message: help access_code ======================================================================== Appendix A: History of Central Computer Systems at the U of A (Appendix A is not available in text-only version.) ************************************************************************ Appendix B: Organization of Computing and Network Services Director's Office The director's office collects knowledge on information technology and disseminates it to the campus. It coordinates planning for the application of new and future technology and proposes financial plans and budgets for the computing and data communications needs of the University. The office manages joint ventures and collaborations with vendors and other institutions to exploit the application of information technology within the University; it determines CNS services and institutes programs to guarantee their quality, and supervises CNS groups and projects. The office also coordinates the exploitation of University information technology resources and coordinates interaction with the University community to understand information technology needs, responding as appropriate to client requests. User Support Services The user support services group acts as an interface between clients and CNS. Through the CNS Help Desk, the group provides problem resolution by using expertise within CNS and on campus. The group is the central repository and dispensary of information about CNS services and information technology knowledge available on campus. It acts as a front-line filter to gain an understanding of technical problems, requirements and concerns of clients. It also organizes courses and seminars, and promotes CNS services. Data Communications and Networks This group plans, installs, and operates the campus network, connections to external networks, and basic data communications applications. It decides on data communications protocols, manages network traffic, determines fault locations, and coordinates repairs. Guiding clients in planning local area networks, the group collaborates with other CNS units in offering complete solutions to users. As requested, the group operates and maintains local area networks on a cost-recovery basis. The group also participates in various provincial and national networking bodies and provides an outlook on the future evolution of data communications and networking. Information Systems The information systems group facilitates the planning, development, and support of computerized applications to meet the diverse information systems requirements of all segments of the University community. It establishes and manages the process for prioritizing projects to be developed within an information systems plan, determines the framework for the development and operation of fully integrated information systems, and provides an infrastructure for clients to develop their applications within this integrated environment. On a contract basis, the group provides a comprehensive set of services to address the development and ongoing support of information systems. The group also advises on the purchase and development of information systems to meet clients' needs and provides an outlook on the future evolution of information systems. Workstations and Distributed Computing This group helps clients in planning the integration of cooperative computing solutions to support their research, instructional, learning, and administrative needs. It advises clients on standard and complete solutions, taking into consideration economies of scale (on request, the group coordinates the installation and maintenance of these facilities on a cost-recovery basis). The group maintains knowledge of the marketplace to identify emerging products as contenders for support and runs a demonstration center for this purpose. It offers services to encourage and support ethical use of computing resources. On demand, the group manages the purchase of, and contracts for, application site licenses and volume purchase agreements. System Software The system software group drives the evolution of central facilities. It supports selected operating systems, related software products, and multi-platform/multi-user application packages, manages purchase and maintenance contracts for such software, plans its evolution, and strives for its optimal use. The group provides the software infrastructure to provide network services, such as backup facilities, electronic mail, and conferencing. It installs software at cost for other computing facilities and contracts as requested to develop software tools of general interest. The group also provides expert consulting and an outlook on future technologies and directions. Central Operations The central operations group manages central computing resources (including central printers, plotters, and mainframes) and does physical planning for their evolution. The group ensures proper physical access to these resources, and coordinates CNS efforts to ensure security of premises and disaster recovery. The central operations group collaborates with the system software group to ensure appropriate system configurations and with the data communications and networks group to ensure network availability. The group also assists with data input, operates optical mark reading services, provides data storage and system backup functions, and provides computer output delivery. Technology Directions This is a staff position reporting to the director. The appointment is for one year, with the mandate to formulate technology directions for the campus in various fields of information technology. ************************************************************************ Monica Beltrametti, until recently, was Director of Computing and Networked Services at the University of Alberta, where she led the planning, downsizing, and reorganization process described in this article. Before joining the University of Alberta, Dr. Beltrametti was Director of Software Development with Myrias Research Corporation, developer of parallel computers. She earned her doctorate in astrophysics from Ludwig Maximilian University. Currently she is Director of Business Relations with the Xerox Corporation in Meylan, France. ************************************************************************