From John Wilson –
This could be a chance to put the “I” in CIO in a meaningful way. To do so, we need to address real Information issues, not just technology and transaction systems issues. These might include, in increasing order of complexity and scope:
Addressing the real overlaps on information providing among DAPS, UIS, PSOS, HR, FRS, etc. (essentially an expansion of the Sander memo idea to where there is duplication and confusion as distinguished from ignorance).
Addressing the real information needs of the management of the institution and what to do about them. DAPS began a series of interviews with deans and other administrators but it kind of got side-tracked by events.
Addressing the lack of a university sense of what is required to have an effective information environment for management, process improvement (e.g., determining the key factors in student success by discipline), etc.
Comments from original posting…
Chris Janton – Re: Future Information Environment
I am not convinced that the complexity and scope order is correct.
I would classify the information/data provided here at the University as the most complex, yet the most limited in scope.
I would classify addressing the information needs of the institution as limited in scope, with the complexity masked by a limited vocabulary that can be used by the customers to describe the products that they need.
How does the third item differ in any substantive way from the first two? It just reads like the executive summary.
The office functions might be broken down into this form
Data sources – originators of data
Data flows – how the data gets to the “collectors”
Information sources – Reporting
Information flows
Analysis and Planning
It is not clear, but I suspect we should not be analyzing data, we should be analyzing information.