Computer Services Planning, Downsizing, and Re-organization at the University of Alberta

|-------------------------------------|
|  Paper presented at CAUSE92         |
|  December 1-4, 1992, Dallas, Texas  |
|-------------------------------------|


COMPUTING SERVICES PLANNING, DOWNSIZING, AND RE-ORGANIZATION
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA


Dr. Monica Beltrametti
Director, Computing and Network Services
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada


ABSTRACT

In a six month period, Computing and Network Services formulated a 
strategic plan and at the same time downsized and re-organized to meet 
financial constraints and to react to changing technology, especially 
distributed computing. Since then, the department has picked up momentum 
to implement some large campus-wide projects.

The circumstances that led to the metamorphosis of our organization seem 
to be common to many institutions. We describe the process used to 
accomplish the changes and how it provided a smooth transition to a new 
department that is able to react to new technology trends and user 
requirements.


COMPUTING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA

Substantial changes in the computing organization and facilities at the 
University of Alberta during the past months have their 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 
benefitted 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 purchas-ed 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.


Figure 1: Retrospective of CNS Capital and Operating Funds (millions of 
dollars). [MISSING FROM TEXT FILE]


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 became old; 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, Dr. Lois Stanford, 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 
University President Paul Davenport. 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, at the time called 
University Computing Systems, was hired at this stage. I started working 
in April 1991 with the mandate to carry out all necessary changes to 
improve computing support on campus. It was clear that in the current 
environ-ment, where information technology is evolving rapidly, and 
where financial constraints require focusing of resources, that good 
planning was and will 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 expecta-tions, 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 re-organize to better amalgamate the two main groups 
supporting academic and administrative computing that had not been 
adequately 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 old computing services structure 
(1991). [MISSING FROM TEXT FILE]


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 down-sizing were severe--
the first $200,000 to be transferred from salary to capital had to be 
complete by April 1991 (the very month I took on the job of director). 
Fortunately, we agreed with the President 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 are 
unionized. Within the five job categories we have, 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 diffi-cult to implement; the department does not have many 
generalists, so expensive cross-training would have to be organized for 
major job re-assignments 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

When trying to define the strategic planning process during the spring 
of 1991, I worked with three inherited associate directors. We had to 
decide 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 form-ulate 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 re-organize 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 appointed, even before re-organization.

--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

Aerating a Stifling Atmosphere
During the past 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 
pro-active involvement from every staff member in the planning process 
was expected. A positive, can-do attitude had to be developed.

--Maximizing Winners/Minimizing Losers

We set the goal of asking ourselves throughout the planning and re-
organization 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 integral whole--but we 
decided the risk was worth taking.

--Staff Input

The bottom-up planning process was carried out as follows. In May 1991, 
an on-line 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 three associate directors and myself.

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 
appointments. 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 which we 
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 (UCAG) 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

The top-down planning processes started at the end of September 1991. I 
had appointed the new management team in July. It was with this team 
that the strategic planning process was to be carried out.

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 experience in strategic 
planning and the information technology industry.

Phase I of the facilitated planning involved the University President, 
Vice-Presidents, and myself. 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 decided on 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

A 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. 

It was clear to us that Networking Computers and People on Campus and 
Beyond 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

--Technology

The strategic plan focused our attention on implementing the strategies 
defined therein. The largest projects we have started implementing are:

  *  Fibre 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 the initial phase of a 100 megabits per second 
FDDI fibre optic backbone network for the campus. The main backbone 
length will be six kilometres. 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 is to be completed in December 
1992, and will connect the Computing Centre with the Central Academic 
Building. This route will provide a good test bed for FDDI technology on 
the campus, as it will connect a variety of Ethernet and Token Ring LANs 
and several microcomputer laboratories.

  *  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 that is currently kept on 
campus. Subsequent phases will define a new technology direction, see 
the acquisition of a new technology platform, and result in formulation 
of a campus information systems plan. 

  *  Distributed Services
A new type of service is being launched, aimed at supporting users and 
their equipment at their locations. Service representatives from our 
organization, dedicated to meeting the needs of specific departments, 
will be 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 re-
organization. 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 
re-organized as CNS--Computing and Network Services--in January 1992 
(see Figure 3). The re-organization process was straightforward and 
smooth. An indication of improved morale was the immediate 
transliteration of CNS as "central nervous system."

Figure 3: The main groups in the new CNS organization.
[MISSING FROM TEXT FILE]


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 A for the mandates of the new groups).

--Communication with Clients

We have a much stronger focus on our clients now. We are creating 
advisory committees in such areas as networking, research computing, 
numerically-intensive computing, and technology standards. Some of the 
committees have already proven very useful. The network committee, for 
example, was a very good sounding board while preparing the FDDI 
backbone plan.

Another important initiative is the establishment and facilitation of 
user groups by the department. Relevant information from the user groups 
will be brought back to the management team and will be used to improve 
services.

A new Help Desk and User Support Centre are providing a consistent 
interface between clients and Computing and Network Services; they will 
also provide insights on user requirements. Distributed services will 
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 will see 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 that we will have to resolve in the near 
future.


Figure 4: Projected CNS Capital and Operating Funds (millions of 
dollars). [MISSING FROM TEXT FILE]


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, but it is now time to develop a 
technology plan to guide us, for example, in identifying a new 
technology platform for information systems, and in deciding which 
information technology standards to recommend to the campus. We have 
just 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, 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, will involve almost all groups. For 
this reason, we are establishing task forces and project leaders that 
will 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, re-organizing and downsizing was to 
break up an intricate prob-lem 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 man-aging 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 paper will 
likewise help other organizations in their planning and re-organization 
efforts.


-- Appendix A -- 

ORGANIZATION OF COMPUTING AND NETWORK SERVICES

--Director's Office
  Director - Dr. Monica Beltrametti

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
  Manager - Ruth Simpson

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
  Manager - Keith Switzer

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
  Manager - Wally Affolder

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
  Manager - Grant Crawford

This group helps clients in planning the integration of cooperative 
computing solutions to support their research, instructional, learning, 
computer laboratory, 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 centre 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 licences and volume purchase agreements.

--System Software
  Manager - Ian Simpson

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, 
e-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
  Manager - Jorge R. Beristain

This 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. Central Operations 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.