Campus Readiness Monthly Update January 25, 2017 Campus Readiness Steps In order to achieve the Campus Readiness goal in FY17 we will follow the steps below to gather and work together to create the appropriate tools. 2 3 Goal Overview Interview Data Gathering Meet with SLT Program Subgroup to provide an understanding of the Campus Readiness Goals and Steps Interview Program Leadership, OCM Leads, Key Program Personnel including key stakeholders and Support Services Review campus readiness current state templates, processes, and best practices Developed interview questions Scheduled interviews with program leadership Scheduled interviews with program team members Conducted 13/19 HUIT interviews
Review program websites Gather program deliverables Review program deliverables and site content Analyze data and identify key themes and gaps Draft Campus Readiness Assessment Report FY17 Activities Approach 1 Met with SLT Program Management Subgroup Gained Agreement on Goals and Steps Developed School Profiles Conducted Additional Meetings Q2 Q3 4 5 Recommendations Develop campus readiness recommendations including templates and
processes Analyze data and identify key themes and gaps Develop recommendations Deliver final Campus Readiness Assessment Report 6 Prioritization Socialize and prioritize the recommendations with the SLT Program Subgroup Socialize deliverables and findings Prioritize recommendations Present findings and recommendations to SLT Delivery Execute upon the prioritized recommendations create templates and processes to be included in the playbook
Q4 Construct Playbook deliverables Socialize with programs and strategic initiatives Share with PM COP 2 Campus Readiness Assessment Interviewee List & Progress Group 1 Interviews (9): Program and Strategic Initiative Leaders Group 2 Interviews (10): Program and Strategic Initiative Team Members Jason Snyder Carolyn Brzezinski Jason Shaffner Catie Smith Tim Vaverchak Acacia Matheson Erica Bradshaw Stephanie Gumble Michael Milligan Karen Pemstein
Katie Kilroy Susan Delellis Ann Lurie Patty Hatch Mitch Rogers Jane Hill Kristin Sullivan Gretchen Grozier Group 1 Interviews (3): School Representatives it fi / d e n e Id d t e le Y t du o N che S Juliana Diluca 6 Completed 7 Completed 0 Completed 3 Campus Readiness: Key Topic Areas The interviews and subsequent reports will focus on the following key topics areas within Campus Readiness which are directly aligned to the Campus Readiness Goal and
Objective. Sustaining Readiness Developing commitment Stakeholders supporting change Ensuring success Outreach Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder engagement activities Governance structure Sustaining Readiness Operational Readiness Service model Steady state user support Communication/ training support resources Workforce Transition Policy changes Process changes Job role changes Color Key: Objective 1: School Readiness Objective 2: Operational Readiness Objective 3: Sustaining Readiness Operational Readiness Outreach 6 Key Topic Areas Communication for Campus Readiness Workforce Transition Training Communication Communication channels Communication strategy
Communication plan Training Training material development Training delivery Training customization 4 Campus Readiness Executive Summary Topic Area Key Finding Program Feedback Program Director needs to serve as the evangelists for the program and share the story/ case for change with passion. They need to engage the community in as many ways as possible. Outreach Best to leverage existing meetings instead of creating new stakeholder meetings, but programs lack an understanding of the meetings that exist for reaching stakeholders across campus. Communicatio n Programs are participating in opportunistic and ad hoc communications because there is often a lack of a strategic communication strategy and supporting plan. Training When instructor led training has been used on some of the strategic initiatives and programs it wasnt heavily utilized by stakeholders therefore many programs have relied on self-service training (i.e., quick reference cards, online training videos, etc.). Workforce Transition We dont diagnose how users will experience the new system/ tool/process in a way that they can describe the impacts to users and their roles. Operational Readiness
In many cases, operational readiness was not considered early enough in the lifecycle of the project leading to project resources transitioning off without a backfill. Sustaining Readiness The main form of gathering user feedback is through outreach meetings and demonstrations. We are hesitant to ask for user feedback as we assume feedback will be received through support channels. 5 School Profiles Creation Timeline This timeline outlines the steps taken since our initial development of the Campus Readiness School Profiles. Strategic Program Subgroup Created Original Draft 1 December 8, 2016 2 Met with Catie Smith to align on profile similarities and differences December 18, 2016 Feedback from Mike Milligan/ Phone Program 3 January 11, 2017 4 Feedback from ATS (formerly FSS) Managers January 18, 2017 Meet with Catie Smith to continue school profile alignment January 30, 2017 5 6
School Profiles Final Version March 1, 2017 HUIT PM Community of Practice Meeting February 15, 2017 7 6 Our Needs and Next Steps What We Need From You Identify School Representatives (i.e., LIMs) to be a part of the interviews Schools perspective on how HUIT does Campus Readiness Creating a full Campus Readiness story Feedback on the interview process Campus Readiness Next Steps Complete interviews Continue reviewing data and deliverables Develop Campus Readiness Assessment Report Upcoming Strategic Program Meetings February: Develop Playbook Structure March: Review Change Readiness Assessment Report & Prioritize Recommendations April: Review Initial Sections of Playbook May: Recommendations and Playbook Update June: Review Final Playbook & Tools/ Templates July: Launch Awareness Program & Training 7 Appendix 8 Campus Readiness Assessment Detailed Executive Summary Area Program Feedback Findings (Risks and Enablers) Program Director needs to serve as the evangelists for the program and tell the story with passion.
They need to engage the community in as many ways as possible. Project Team needs to support the mission and vision, understand the user benefits, impacts and elevator speech. The Campus Readiness Assessment should do more than provide templates and tools. Projects need help with how we do change management and solving some of the big problems. Campus Readiness Templates will only provide guidance that can be interpreted different by every team and will not create a standard. Programs are not successful at outlining the user benefits and business impact. When we do outline the benefits we dont incorporate the voice of the user into that. The case for change is not always well defined for each program. The Program Director role is viewed as a technical role as opposed to a role that is connecting the dots on the program and exhibiting overall program management. How do we get more evangelists for the program? They can determine the whats in it for me and be able to communicate in a way that people understand. They [program director] have to do the sell all the time. If we do something with change management I hope its not just templates and tools. Some of the stuff should help us make a call on whether the change impact is low or high and help to determine the headcount needed to support it. The headcount should be added to ITCRB and someone hires the person and helps to determine what is good change management. Leave a lot to chance by publishing guidelines and expecting project to interpret the guidelines. I want some feedback on the [communication] templates. I want a framework for campus readiness. Need to formalize our efforts and approach around change management. need a change management community of practice. Not enough cross program coordination in timing or communication or engagement. 9 Campus Readiness Assessment Detailed Executive Summary Area Outreach Findings (Risks and Enablers) Schools often gravitated towards a committee approach for engaging with the program and making decisions. Best to leverage existing meetings instead of creating new stakeholder meetings, but programs lack an understanding of the meetings that exist for reaching stakeholders. When creating new stakeholder meetings town halls and lunch and learns were the most effective in reaching large audience groups. Programs have been successful in identifying a resource within the school to serve as the face of the program and they are supported by various program resources for demonstrations and content development. Engagement models vary based on the level of engagement, support and need to drive momentum. Programs teams leverage Local Implementation Managers, working groups and engagement councils for meeting their stakeholder engagement needs. Many of the governance boards included technical resources in the schools as opposed to business process owners.
Stakeholder engagement is bigger than any technical challenge at Harvard. Make sure the schools feel like they are being heard. We had the teams assigned to the schools and they met regularly. Should have leveraged an existing meeting. Ended up with committees at some of the schools but thats just how it happened. Schools identified the strategies that worked well for them. We have to bring the information to them [stakeholders] as much as possible. Challenge is always stakeholder identification. Harvard is decentralized. Make sure hitting all the audiences is a challenge no matter where you are. Outreach piece gets set aside. 10 Campus Readiness Assessment Detailed Executive Summary Area Communication Findings (Risks and Enablers) Communication templates are most effective for the school where they can leverage a base of information and customize it to their needs. Business practice and policy messages best served coming from someone internal to school to ensure the message is read. HPAC communications always viewed as very professional. Communication resources are not normally assigned to HUIT Programs. Communications and engagement role has fallen on to other program resources. Programs are participating in opportunistic and ad hoc communications because there is often a lack of a strategic communication strategy and supporting plan. HPAC/ HUIT Communications cannot do business engagement and communications. They should not be the face of the program to the schools. Need to know meetings taking place and how to get on agenda. How can I find out about conversations taking place. Developed a standard set of templates and those templates were available throughout the project. Met with core stakeholders to customize the templates. No role within the program that did communication or engagement, that was a 1/3 of someones job. She [HPAC] got the schools to come up with communications plan. All the things we sent out were very professional. The message was related to business practice and policy so it would logically comes from the [business owner]. Most effective when we are able to tailor the message and micro segment. Need to be careful about over generalizing broad swaths of the community. No strategic communication plans. Opportunistic. Very ad hoc. Always more communicate and outreach that we can be doing. You can never communicate too much.
11 Campus Readiness Assessment Detailed Executive Summary Area Training Findings (Risks and Enablers) When instructor led training has been used on some of the strategic initiatives and programs it wasnt heavily utilized by stakeholders. Many of the programs have relied on self-service training materials for users including quick reference cards, job aids, online training modules, training videos, in context help, etc. Center for Workplace Development training is viewed as too generic for large program use. When instructor led training is used it lacks the whats in it for me, the business impact, and user benefits to make that connection for end users. There are no measurements of success around instructor led training or any of the self-service training materials. Back-office training seemed to receive more investment from the programs as it was always instructor led or on-the-job training. Has a trainer on staff. People ask for but nobody goes to it. Everyone wants to have it available and you invest in it but the use of it is low. CWD [training] tends to be generic and people hated it. Hard balance to put together training material that is appropriate for all the schools. People felt the training was too generic. Had to be somewhat generic so it was for all the schools. Dont measure the success of training. Designed self-service so it doesnt have to be trained. Provided a quick reference with anatomy of the page to give them an overview. Direct training with Service Desk to help them understand the tools. 12 Campus Readiness Assessment Detailed Executive Summary Area Workforce Transition Findings (Risks and Enablers) The programs resulted in changes to the systems and tools but not business process changes. When business process changes were evident, it is the schools responsibility to outline the changes, develop any training materials and ensure the audiences affected by the change understand the change. Schools seem to avoid business process changes whenever possible. Programs dont diagnose how stakeholders will experience the new system/ tool/process in a way that they can describe the impacts to users and their roles. Didnt identify any process, policy or job role changes. The expectation was that the school would do it. Not sure what the schools did around the roles that were no longer needed. Processes changed but not dramatically.
Its [the new process] more intuitive than the previous process. No one wanted to talk about change management. People wanted to talk about training but not change management. In many cases thats because the business process did not change and the tool did. When there is work to be done need to allocate the people piece pay attention to organization design and structure. 13 Campus Readiness Assessment Detailed Executive Summary Area Operational Readiness Findings (Risks and Enablers) In many cases, programs felt that operational readiness was not considered early enough in the lifecycle of the project leading to project resources transitioning off the project without a backfill. Operational structure needs to be developed early and communicated to schools so that the expectations are clear. The programs are resulting in new services to help support new program offerings. In most cases, the program FTE resources are remaining in place to support the new offerings. Internal help desk and support services created in advance of a full transition to operations seemed to helped some programs make the transition to operational support. As a lessons learned some of the newer programs teams have created specific Operations Managers within their team structure to focus on operations and support early in the project lifecycle. Our biggest aha was there was more work to be done. More enhancements in the operational model than we thought we would have. We had less resources to take care of it. Program directors need to plan early so they understand work that is going to end better than we do now. Revisit the staffing model often and re-examine new factors that will influence what that looks like. Be in close communication with resource partner. Keep human resources and finance informed and looped into the project. Very formal training and has become more informal since [resources] left. 14 Campus Readiness Assessment Detailed Executive Summary Area Sustaining Readiness Findings (Risks and Enablers) The programs measures of success are very technical such as replacing system, tickets received, transactions in the new system, decommissioning old systems, number of conversions, and conversion error rate. Cost savings is a key performance indicator for many of the programs and strategic initiatives. The main form of gathering user feedback is through stakeholder outreach meetings and demonstrations. Not many programs measure their success based on customer satisfaction utilizing end user feedback. We are hesitant to ask for user feedback as we assume feedback will be received through support
channels. We also believe that silence from users is an indication that the transition/ implementation went well. We measure success by number of conversions and dollars. Target was to save money. Had people available at Here to Help stations. Here to Help was HUIT not many people came to those. Most people showed up with general HUIT questions and not program specific. Readiness assessment didnt take place. Had a lot of goals at the beginning but didnt get to them all based on the timeline. Feedback throughout the life of the project is tough. Tend to hyper focus on the launch and then we leave it. Dont have an understanding of the end result of adoption or satisfaction. Feedback was gathered from users via questions during meetings. Adoption statistics come from tickets. Query ServiceNow about tickets. 15 School Profiles 16 School Profile The School Profiles are for Program and Project Teams to use to engage with the schools. They include information that may be helpful in successfully engaging with the schools and rolling out a strategic a project/ program. The profiles includes key school leaders, governance groups, engagement rules and communication and training information. The information on the profiles were gathered from feedback from HUITs Strategic Initiatives including what they have found to be successful or identified as lessons learned. The school profiles will be updated on a regular schedule to be announced leveraging information from lessons learned on key programs and projects. If you have any questions about the content, please reach out to Tiffany Shorter ([email protected]). 17 Central Administration (CADM) Governance Groups Key School Members Maureen Forrester (Univ Controller) Amanda McDonnell (FAD - Finance) Sarah Axelrod (OSP) Anne Margulies (Univ CIO) Katie Lapp (EVP) Drew Faust (President) Peggy Newal (OPP) Judy Singer (Faculty Development)
Sara Malconian (Strategic Procurement) Meredith Weenick (Campus Services) Marika Reuling (Drews Chief of Staff) Amy Nostrand (FAD Finance Asst VP) Alexander Antell (Allied) John Jurus (CIO Health Services) Tom Hollister (Univ CFO) Paul Andrew (HPAC VP) Garry Cuneo (HPPM) John Paul (Budget) Craig McCurley (Treasury) Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) FAD is helpful for driving policy development More formal and business like Important to include Allied groups Alexander Antell runs Allied Forum Special attention given to Presidents and Provost office (Ellen Hart, Manager Admin is a good contact) Partnering with CADM when rolling out. They help to co-own the roll out. Can help guide in setting priorities Communication Tom Hollister FAD Newsletter HUIT Newsletter Clearly state business benefit Use HPAC client funded communication offices to help spread the word Department administrators are extremely important, can carry message locally Websites for programs and product teams FAD eNews Research Administration System Executive Committee Financial Administration System Executive Committee ATAB FAD Org Toms direct reports SLT HAAC Harvard Phone Engagement Council IT Stakeholders Allied Forum Sponsored Administration Leadership Council (SALC)
HR Systems Executive Committee Disbursement Advisory Board Financial Managers Forum APPI Committee IT Department Julie Broad (Alumni Affairs & Development AAD) Mike Landino/ Jason Shaffner (HUIT) Ben Gaucherin (Info Sec Director) Jason Snyder (CTO) Alexander Antell (Allied) John Jurus, CIO Health Services Most use HUIT except HUHS HUPD Training FAD No formal training group except URATT for sponsored Center for Workplace Development (CWD) provides training to many of the schools Hosts Community of Practice Events PM COP, Agile COP IT Academy 18 Chan School of Public Health (SPH) Governance Groups Key School Members Taso Markatos (CIO) Deane Eastwood (Deputy CIO) Ken Wenger (Ops Dir) Mike Kan (Admin Dean) Frank Urso (Sponsored) Joann Wilson-Singleton (Registrar) Vincent W James (Admissions Dir) Katherine Hope (CFO) Vickie Johnson (Controller/Assistant Dean of Finance) Assistant Directors of Finance (ADF) Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed)
Concerned about physical distance from HUIT Taso likes to include Deana in most things Have a number of existing regular meetings with HUIT (Quarterly account, bi-weekly Helpdesk operations, etc.) Like informal style High touch They have a unique way of approaching most everything Fair and easy to work with; Appreciates an honest, open and straight forward approach Important to recognize resource constraints; Manage multiple programs thoughtfully Big users of Telepresence and video Help desk currently under transition to HUIT Important to get to them early in project mode for buy in and support early and often (may go against the project because didnt include early enough) Communication Local via CIO IT Department Taso and Deane Alec Garcia Rangel (Project Mgr) Dan Parlin (Support Manager) Use HUIT for Network, Helpdesk, ITSM Have their own IT resources that support their systems Training Very robust sponsored training program Eileen Nielson 19 Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Governance Groups Key School Members Leslie Kirwan (Admin Dean) Mary Ann Bradley (Dean Admin Ops) Katherine Gates (Planning and Admin) Michael (Mike) D Smith (Dean of FAS) Mike Burke (Registrar) Allen Aloise (Dean GSAS) James Cuff (Dean Research Computing)
Jay Herlihy (Finance Dean) Bev Beatty (Ad Dean Social Jay M Harris (Dean Undergrad Ed) Science) Sheila Thimba (Finance Dean) Russ Porter (Ad Dean Science) Rakesh Khurana (Dean of College) Tim Bowman (Exec AD Dean) Pat Fitzgerald (Dean Sponsored) Mathilda Van Es (Ad Dean Arts) Henry Leitner (DCE) Mike Lichten (Assoc Dean Physical Resources) Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) Relationship comes first Outside ideas less trusted or not trusted at all Not formal in communicating, but requires a lot of education and hand holding Very distributed, diverse (org setup means matrixed comms and complexity for rollout) Academic calendar very important Consensus building is important across groups Many faculty with unique needs, special treatment Important to educate on who to contact, when (avoid the HUIT black hole) Sensitive to financial changes (cost/rate models) Sometimes slow to embrace new technologies and self service Policies are different from other schools Viewed as the leader in things that can change (other schools follow suit to what FAS is doing) Communication Training
Want white glove communication and process Need communication targeted to local perspective Partnership with Department Administrators is extremely important (Dept Admin meetings and announcements) Use standing meetings whenever possible to message in-person Mary Ann Bradleys department key in staff communications Engage early and often for key stakeholders Email is the least effective channel with faculty and some students Academic calendar very important- check timing CITPC College IT Committee TLR Teaching Learning Research ASAG Admin PRB IT Project Review Board ? Of Faculty Meeting of Faculty and Dean Smith periodically to approve policy changes Department Admin Quarterly Meetings IT Stakeholder Forum Harvard Phone Engagement Council Research Administration Council (RAS Council) Procurement Council IT Department Uses HUIT for IT Has own IT for Research Admission and Financial Aid have own IT (2-4 people)
Mary Ann Bradley good funnel point for all IT Dianne Stronach (HUIT assigned to FAS) Gretchen Gringo (Aurora Director) Expect a lot of training for staff They have their Own training team Stephanie Nasson leads it 20 Graduate School of Design (GSD) Governance Groups Key School Members Sean Conlon (Registrar) Steve Ervin (CIO) Patricia Roberts (Exec Dean) Mark Goble (CFO) Anne Matthew (Research Admin Director) N/A Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) Provide minimal IT services to students more of a walk in nobel Very small IT organization/ user population Very fair and practical approach to working with HUIT Self sufficient in many ways IT Department Todd Belton (Dev) Steve Ervin (CIO) Hal Gould (User Services) Has a Local Help Desk Communication Informal in Communication style Training N/A 21 Graduate School of Education (GSE)
Governance Groups Key School Members Jack Jennings (Exec Dean) Gayle Merrithew (Registrar) Eric Hultmark (Associate Dean Finance) Helen Page (Research Admin Dean) Jane Eaton (Dir. Financial Admin) Bob Phillos Dir Facilities N/A Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) Pretty easy and work well with central solutions Pro-Microsoft they all have Surfaces Dont handout agenda: informal communication in meetings They appreciate early planning They have a lot of old infrastructure (cabling, switches planning for upgrades) Eric Hultmark key player in the university on many of the executive committees on projects. Early adopters or in early on projects Communication Uses HUIT for IT Has own IT for Research Admission and Financial Aid have own IT (2-4 people) IT Department Robert Oatman (CIO) Peggy Callinan (Research & IT) Ken Ho (DBA) Greg Fuccillo (Arch and Apps) Kenneth Ng Priya Vetrimani (Systems Engineer) Patricia C. White (Local Help Desk) Training N/A
22 Harvard Business School Governance Groups Key School Members Angela Crispi (Admin Dean) Ellen Mahoney (Chief HR) Brian Kenny (CMO) Rick Melnick (Fin Dean) Eileen Sullivan (Controller) Senior Leadership Meeting Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) Service Focused Salesforce! Advanced Architecture Models Not interested in centralized services Bring formal agenda to meetings Well resourced around programs and projects IT group very technical in nature Rick Melnick is a key contact within the school and sits on many committees Usually an early adopter or want to be in on decision making Communication Formal plans Formal tone Best to deliver adaptable content, prefers to manage own communications Very well resourced around projects will communicate well at leadership level and down into the organization IT Department Steve Gallagher (CIO) Chris Pringle (Systems & Service)
Dave Aznavoorian (Data) Arnold Paul (CTO) Jim Mulvey (Systems Admin) Susan Scannell (Director Business Operations) Jeff Lee (Assoc. Director Enterprise Systems) Own IT group and do not use central IT services Training N/A 23 Harvard Divinity School (HDS) Governance Groups Key School Members Dan Hawkins (CIO) Patricia Byrne (Ad Dean) Annie Russell (Registrar) Kristen Anderson (CFO) N/A Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) Go through Dan for all things IT Very fair to deal with, work well with HUIT Small school, knows their community and faculty very well IT Department Dan Hawkins Sue Worst (IT) Ralph DeFlorio (Facilities) HUIT serves as their IT organization Communication Local , via IT CIO Small close knit community Style/ tone is less formal Email works well Strong communication function Training
N/A 24 Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Governance Groups Key School Members Don Oppenheimer (CIO) John Haigh (Executive Dean) Laura Recklet (Registrar Kristin Sullivan (IT) Nancy Guisinger (Controller) Matthew Alper (Research Admin Dean) N/A Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) They like to have a named point of contact for everything Often a target for attach due to speakers Best practices mean something Sometime short on resources so can be overwhelmed with multiple HUIT projects at the same time Embraces telepresence, desktop video and big supporters of WebEx Appreciates lots of information and education Early adopters on everything IT Department Steven Duncan Michael Humphrys Ty J Smith (CISO) Kristin Sullivan Small IT Organization Has a Local Help Desk Communication Training
Locally communicated by IT Leadership Best to supply content that can be adapted Maintains own IT website Small communication team, does not support internal communications often N/A 25 Harvard Law School (HLS) Governance Groups Key School Members Pratike Patel (CIO) Francis McCrossan (Adminstrative Dean) Matt Gruber (CFO) N/A Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) Technical understanding Pratike likes to dive deep into technology Users centrally managed Prefers directness and proactive communication about good and bad Treats relationship with HUIT in very business to business/ transactional way Community expectations of service are high Dont like to share data Pratike is a straight shooter likes to be given the bad news up front Important to discuss the details and put things in writing for collective understanding Sensitive to financial changes in rate models or billing IT Department Tammie Lombardo (IT Services) James Pinkerton (Helpdesk) John Arciprete (Director Facilities & Ops)
Own IT and dont use any central services Communication Achieving Pratikes sign off is critical Putting things in writing is important Training N/A 26 Harvard Medical School (HMS) Governance Groups Key School Members Rainer Fuchs (CIO) Gina Vild (Communications Assoc Dean) Christine Tower (Executive Admin to CIO/ Rainer) Rachel Cahoon (Sponsored) Lisa Muto (Administrative Dean) David Smallwood (Director Financial Planning) Carolyn Plyburn (Manager Finance and Admin) HMS Research Open Forum Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) Suffering from cost problems Systems are in need of updates Strong costs are swamping Leadership turning over. No Ad Dean, Rainer retiring, CHRO and CPO potentially leaving Have to communicate directly with the departments no central way to communicate Big users of telepresence and Webex hard to get Longwood Medical Area folks across the river for face to face meetings Usually the last adopters except for research where they will be early adopters Big drivers and a big voice when supportive
IT Department Jason Obedzinsik (Client Services) Aun Em (Service Desk) Paul Williams (Infrastructure) Lynda Libby (Business Ops) They have their own Help Desk Communication Have to communicate directly with the departments no central way to communicate Has internal communication resource under Gina Vilds team Need to treat on-guad and affiliates differently different message, different impact They have intranet that is used by many Local voice/ messenger does not respond as well to folks across the river Complex community identifies strongly with other outside academics/ message not as academic driven at times Many researchers, labs, etc. Training HMS staff Have distributed client engagement in the field called CSRs 27 Harvard School of Dental Medicine (HSDM) Governance Groups Key School Members Charles Frizell (Adminstrative Dean) N/A Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) Outsources most (but not all) of IT to HMS They have a clinical component with HIPAA data Relies heavily on Medical school for IT and other services Not well resourced hard to get the attention for IT projects Very small in size Grouped with HMS often
IT Department Scott Jason (Apps Director) Outsources most (but not all) of IT to HMS Communication Mostly leverage HMS but do own some local communications Wants more identity, separate from HMS when needed Training N/A 28 Radcliffe Institute Governance Groups Key School Members Add Nisha Mongia (Exec Dean) Ann Renauer (CFO) Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) Former home of President Faust Dont use them as early pilots Have a large amount of Fellows that come in and out during the year (service transition) Small in size Gets back to President Faust easily IT Department Courtney CIO Jennifer Piazza (Building Ops Mgr) HUIT is their IT Communication
Small Local voices best but very few will agree to carry admin messages Nishas staff meetings are a primary means of communication Training Add 29 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) Governance Groups Key School Members Tim Bowman (Ad Dean) James Waldo (CTO) Rebecca Loose (HUIT Liaison) Gina Scribner (Academic Appointments) Chip Auscavitch (CFO) Pamela Baker-Webber (Research Officer) Area administrator???? Area Admin Forums Tim Bowman Staff Meeting Engagement Rules (things you must know to succeed) Not strong Microsoft fans Waldo centric strategies are good Lots of FAS overlap Lots of complexity due to FAS overlap Not good at communicating across school Tends to escalate to the AD Dean High growth school IT group in transition Close ties to research computing (James Cuff)
Changes structures and hierarchy often do a lot of reorganizations SEAS Faculty and students covered usually via FAS, but SEAS has individual identity and likes to be acknowledged as such. Lots of dual roles. Communication Small communication team mostly focused externally but will advise Monthly newsletter is a good communication channel Engage SEAS IT early before wider communications Local communication Paul Karoff is Communication Manager in Deans office very good to work with and can help get messages across Area Managers are important for faculty communication; Also Tim Bowman Staff mtgs IT Department Paul Karoff (Communications) Don Claflin (Facilities Mgr) Jason Ortega (Admin Coordinator) HUIT Desktop Support Local SEAS IT Folks Training N/A 30