VP for Research partners with UIT for IT assessment

With more than a dozen units that have a diversity of functions and personalized IT models, Vice President for Research Andrew Weyrich, Ph.D., last year decided his office could use an outside perspective about technology.

So he turned to UIT for an IT assessment.

IT Product Manager Kevon Balls from University Support Services and Project Manager Emily Rushton from the Project Management Office recently completed the six-month review that provided an overview of the Office of the Vice President of Research’s (VPR) current technology state and its desired future state, and identified gaps and challenges between the two.

Weyrich said he requested the assessment because the organization’s research administration units aren’t always cohesive with one another or other research systems across the university.

“It's good to have an objective, unbiased review — to take a look at ourselves — and receive guidance on how we can be more integrated with the university,” he said.

The VPR, which handles research infrastructure, policies, and compliance at the U, oversees more than 10 divisions, including the Center for Technology & Venture Commercialization, Conflict of Interest, Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee, Institutional Review Board, Office of Sponsored Projects, Radiation Safety, Research Development Office, Research Education, Research Integrity & Compliance, and Research Operations & Communications.

The process

To start, Balls and Rushton created a standardized list of questions to ask each unit, then they added supplemental questions based on each area’s business operations or particular circumstance. Among the areas they evaluated: software, integrations, network and infrastructure, IT spend, IT personnel, desktop support, document management, and IT disaster recovery.

“Early on, we created a checklist of all the various aspects that needed to be evaluated — everything from infrastructure, clear through software and some of the finances,” Balls said.

“We added a couple of questions after initial interviews, but we had a pretty thorough checklist to begin with.”

Then they interviewed Weyrich, assistant and associate vice presidents, and the executive director or director for each organization, as well as key personnel when possible, to ensure they had an accurate representation of each area.

The process, Weyrich said, was interactive.

“They got a lot of community input from our unit directors. They also talked to me multiple times. They would try to get my input, giving me a little bit of feedback from what the units were saying. It was conversational, which I thought was great.”

Those discussions, as well as data that Balls and Rushton had collected, provided the foundation for individual reports for each unit and the overall IT assessment for the VPR.

Their analysis, Rushton said, focused on identifying the gaps and challenges between the current state of technology and the desired future state, and making recommendations based on best practices and industry standards. While Balls and Rushton evaluated all the areas they asked about, Balls said some carried more weight than others.

“For example, while disaster recovery was important, it wasn't the most pressing item in our evaluation,” he said. “But we spent a lot of time on network, infrastructure, software, and technology support models to make sure we understood what each unit was doing and what we believed was a better approach.”

After writing up their initial findings, Balls and Rushton met again with the directors to share their observations, something a traditional consulting firm typically wouldn’t do. Those conversations helped them ensure that they captured an accurate representation of each unit’s technology models. Rushton said she believes the directors appreciated the opportunity to provide additional feedback.

“Overall, I think we did a good job of establishing trusted relationships with all of the VPR’s business units,” she said. “I feel like that was a win.”

Weyrich agreed.

“Emily and Kevon did a really nice job of making sure that everybody was heard and that everyone had a voice,” he said. “They also did a really great job of communicating with me.”

Rushton said working with Balls, who has institutional knowledge about the university’s research enterprise, was instrumental in creating and executing the assessment.

“He is intimately familiar with some of the history behind these units, the decisions they've made, the software they’ve purchased, and why,” she said. “So that was really invaluable.”

Balls and Rushton shared their overall findings with the VPR in March. Weyrich said he appreciated that the assessment focused on the big picture — better integrating with the university and its partners.

“I really liked the One U thinking on this,” Weyrich said. “As we think about increasing efficiencies, decreasing redundancies, and possibly transitioning to research suites, it impacts multiple units — not just ours. So I like that people have the common goal of what's best for our group and the university going forward.”

Deputy Chief Information Officer Ken Pink, who assigned the IT assessment to Balls and Rushton, said he was impressed with their approach, collaboration with the VPR, and final report.

“Kevon and Emily did a fantastic job,” he said. “Their assessment, and the resulting recommendations, gives the VPR expert guidance and flexibility as his organization updates and consolidates IT support models.”

Already, the VPR organization is starting to implement some items for fiscal year 2021 based on UIT’s findings.

“We're looking at IT governance within our VPR units so we're more integrated. … We're also assessing research administration suites, or vendor technologies that could handle all of our units,” Weyrich said. “Our intent is to engage UIT again to help us in those assessments.”

 

Node 4 Search