July 2000
Volume 16
Number 4
Reorganizing IT For the Future
Dagrun Bennett, Franklin College
In the summer of 1999 the Computing Services department at Franklin College
started a reorganization that has greatly improved our ability to provide
service to the college community. The job functions are clearly defined, we have
better cross training, providing better backup for each other, team interaction
has been strengthened, and collaborative problem solving has become our way of
dealing with issues that come up. There were several reasons for us to start
this process: we needed to create a web administrator position; we had
confidence in our ability to reorganize; and we needed to prevent staff burnout.
First of all, there was a rather urgent need. There has been a rapidly increasing emphasis on the use of the web for internal communication, recruitment and course development, but there was no one on campus whose job description included responsibility for the Franklin College web site. The network administrator was spending almost half his time on web maintenance simply because somebody had to do it. There was a Web Advisory Group overseeing development, but the result was uneven and disjointed, and even though we had attempted to develop standards for design and timeliness of information, nobody was making sure these standards were implemented consistently. Nobody was happy with our web site, least of all Computing Services, and nobody disputed the need to improve it, but it became clear that the administration did not fully understand the implications of continuing to ignore it. Without full-time attention nothing would improve, and, as we all know, standing still is the same as falling very far behind. At the spring meeting the Board of Trustees decided that, for financial reasons, the web master position, which was in the strategic plan, would be put on hold for another year and maybe longer. After a short period of disbelief and dismay Computing Services decided that something had to be done.
Secondly, we felt confident that we had the skills to do something substantive. In 1996 the Leadership program at Franklin College received a grant from the Lilly Endowment to change the campus culture from a Aknowing@ to a Alearning@ organization.
Most of the staff in Computing Services had participated by this time in pilot teams, and cross-functional committees and workgroups, and had been trained in collaborative problem solving and consensus decision making. There were trained facilitators available to work with any group that felt that this would help their process, and Computing Services had already used a facilitator to help us develop a mission statement for the department.
Developing a mission statement sounds simple enough, but it forced us to really examine what we really meant by Acustomer service@ and what each one of us was willing to commit to. With our new-found skills and a very able facilitator we were able to confront differences that we had tried to ignore in the past. Everyone was very pleased with the result B both the mission statement and the changes in internal relationships that began to happen.
The third reason for us to implement change was that since IT jobs are high stress jobs, some of the staff were beginning to approach the burn-out stage. We needed to provide a growth path that would re-energize them. Taking a look at job descriptions was a necessary step on that path.
Getting started
We started in late June with a half-day-facilitated retreat to discuss job
descriptions. The changes happen very fast in IT, and jobs must grow and change
to meet new needs, but it often happens in a haphazard way. There had been a
consistent effort over the years to assign new tasks logically and to upgrade
job descriptions to reflect reality, nevertheless every position had personal
preferences and history that did not contribute to the department=s
ability to provide efficient service.
The staff as it was
Computing Services had a staff of nine, including me. We had a network
manager, who also served as web master; a hardware technician/network
administrative support person who was responsible for desktop hardware and
backup for the network manager, and who also supported graphics and email; an
administrative systems analyst who was responsible for the administrative
information system; an administrative analyst/user support person who had
primary responsibility for auxiliary systems, such as the Physical Plant
software and help desk software, and provided backup for the administrative
systems analyst; a user application support person responsible for desktop
software as well as ResNet and supervision of student workers; a Teaching and
Learning Center (TLC) support technician supporting all of the computing needs
in the library; a department secretary; and a training coordinator (a part-time
new position), created to develop a training curriculum for all staff and
conduct workshops in productivity software.
In addition we had a number of student employees who proctored the labs and some who were members of the SWAT (Student With Access to Technology) team and helped other students network their own computers in the dorms.
The first thing we did was to list all the tasks that are B or should be B performed by Computing Services, without regard to the staff member who performed them. We then started to group them logically B a difficult task, because in reality it is not possible to separate tasks from the people who have performed them for a long time and have invested much of themselves in doing it well.
A half-day was not nearly enough time to complete this, so we agreed to continue the process in weekly meetings that would be moderated by the same facilitator who had worked with us before.
What actually happened next was that I left for two weeks with my daughter who had just had a baby. I=m not at all sure if anything else got done during my absence, because there surely was an awful lot of talking and horse-trading. When I returned, I found a steady stream of people coming into my office to tell me about all the ideas they had come up with, and who would do what and how it would all fit together. The excitement was palpable, and we were well on our way to solving some very thorny problems.
By the time we had worked our way through it all, everybody had given up something and gained something else, and every position had well designed, focused job responsibilities. In most cases people gave away what they did not want and got something they liked, and two people had completely new jobs. Everybody had a real sense of ownership B these were not changes imposed from above, they were negotiated within the group and accepted by everyone.
By realigning jobs and tasks we had created a position for a full-time web administrator without adding a full-time employee, at the cost of increasing the part-time training coordinator from 20 to 30 hours per week and making better use of student employees.
The proposal we sent to the Cabinet included a complete plan for the transition period. The administration happily approved the proposal, and we started implementing the changes in September.
Implementation
These changes could not have taken place without extensive training for
several members of the staff. Although on-the-job training is valuable, it was
obvious that it would not be adequate; we had neither the resources nor the time
for it. Extensive outside training was possible because the College had received
a grant to prepare for technological change. The focus of the grant was end user
and IT staff development. We mapped out a 6-month transition period and
evaluated training options. No sooner did we begin sending people to outside
training than we were met with more challenges. Two key positions were vacated;
not because of the reorganization, but because of other offers too good to turn
down. Although at the time this appeared to be a problem, it turned out to give
us the opportunity to further fine-tune the reorganization process. For example,
instead of splitting network responsibilities between infrastructure and
administrative functions, we combined these duties. All desktop hardware support
became one position. User support, including desktop software administration,
was blended with the duties of the administrative analyst who also provided user
support on administrative software.
The result of the reorganization is that we ended up with a web administrator; desktop hardware support; an administrative systems analyst; a desktop software administrator; a TLC support technician; a network administrator; a help-desk support/secretary, and a training coordinator (30 hours).
Training
Five positions were targeted for extensive training. The type of training
included desktop productivity software for the departmental secretary who took
all levels of classes in Microsoft Office products. This position now provides
front-line problem resolution as calls come in to the help desk.
The new web administrator, who in his former position as network manager had spent much of his time maintaining the web, was able to build on the knowledge he already had by enrolling in a web administrator certification program including both in-class and self-study courses. The courses covered Internet Business Fundamentals, JavaScript and CGI Perl. The Desktop Hardware Support person received training and certification from Compaq, allowing us to become a service site for desktop hardware. The Network Administrator enrolled in Microsoft Certified System Engineer track classes. This program not only provided in-depth knowledge of an NT-networked environment, but also added the basics of infrastructure, connectivity and the network backbone.
The technical support person for the Teaching and Learning Center took a class in NT core technologies, and now provides backup for the network administrator.
Spreading the training out over the six-month transition period gave time for everyone to learn a new task and then put it to practical use by applying the newly acquired skills on the job before proceeding to the next step.
What we learned
Computing Services is now a much more efficient organization. This is in
part the result of streamlining job functions so that each staff member is able
to focus on core responsibilities.
One of the best parts of this is that the jobs were negotiated and designed to provide a growth path for every staff member, and those who felt they were growing stale have had an opportunity to learn something new and rekindle the kind of enthusiasm that is necessary in a demanding environment.
It would not have been possible to accomplish this reorganization without the change in campus culture that is the result of the work done by the Leadership Program. A Alearning@ organization involves all its members in decision making and change. We used all the techniques we had learned, and have become a stronger team by working through some very difficult issues.
We believe that the process we employed is the most important part of the project, because the reorganization will be an ongoing undertaking as we strive to keep everyone focused and productive. The collaborative problem solving techniques are helping us resolve other issues as they come up, and everyone is comfortable with full interaction and participation in tackling major projects.
We have learned that by working in a collaborative setting, we are together stronger and smarter than any one individual. We have learned that disagreeing, rather than being a bad thing, gives us the opportunity to weigh all facts before we create the solution best suited for any situation. We have learned to communicate effectively with each other, and not be afraid to express our ideas or concerns.
Finally, it is also fair to say that what Computing Services did has reinforced the change towards a different campus culture. By accepting our proposal the administration acknowledged the value of our initiative and invited other groups to be pro-active in finding workable solutions to difficult problems.
Dagrun Bennett is Director of Computing Services at Franklin College, Franklin, Indiana
The Edutech Report is a monthly publication of Magna Publications
The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by Magna Publications www.magnapubs.com, 2718 Dryden Drive, Madison, WI 53704; 800-433-0499. President:William Haight whaight@magnapubs.com; Publisher: David Burns dburns@magnapubs.com; Managing internal editor: Rob Kelly robkelly@magnapubs.com. Content provided by contributing editors Linda Fleit lfleit@edutech-int.com and Thomas Warger twarger@edutech-int.com. Subscription Customer Service custserv@magnapubs.com. Copyright 2004. All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for specific clients is granted by Magna Publications for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that 50 cents per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 09123. Phone: 978-750-8400; www.copyright.com. For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. One-year subscriptions: $199. Discounts available for multiple subscriptions.