Mirwais (Mir) Qader, CIO Achieving Success for Technology Refresh Investment through Shared Governance ABSTRACT: In this session, you will learn how a shared governance structure, using interest-based problem-solving, can be effectively leveraged to guide the decision-making process for managing millions of dollars of technology assets. You will learn how conflict can be managed while raising awareness and commitment from both management and end users, which in turn helps out IT. OUTCOMES: Understand how to work a major policy through the institution using governance. Raise awareness of IT needs in the institution. Minimize risks and understand the impact of decisions. Mirwais (Mir) Qader, CIO October 27, 2016

Madison College – At a Glance Chartered 1912, enrolling 63 students District servicing ~12 counties (5 core) 4,414 square miles 750,000 population 225 municipalities, 40 school districts District Valuation: ~$70 Billion College: 40,000+ students; 10,000 FTEs 9 locations 170 programs, 60 career and technical degrees, 3 college transfers, 5 2-year technical diplomas, 19 apprenticeships, 70 certificates, plus basic skills and customized trainings College Budget: ~$156 million (operating), ~$25 million (capital) 2010 Referendum: ~$135 million expansion

Why are we talking about this issue? The Problem! Refresh funds had been depleted due to some new construction projects. [Shifting Resources] College viewed technology as a “Back-Office” thing that just needed IT to keep it going. [“Your Problem, Not Mine”] College staff were wondering why they were not getting new equipment. [Complaints] 2015, added over 100 A/V rooms with no additional budget or support staff to manage and maintain these assets. [Planning] Infrastructure (Back-End) was an after-thought (many times buried in “Projects”). [Who Cares! As Long as it Works!] Aging assets – 7/8 year old devices were common. [Risk]

What’s the Point? Are we working collaboratively in our organizations or are we in competition with each other? What’s better? Why aren’t we better at it? How can we get better? Do we truly know how to be “Collaborative”?

Reasons to Refresh – why we should care. (security) Risk (availability) Support (savings) Costs Productivity (speed) Refresh Productivity: Newer tools/devices are more efficient (faster – 2 or more times) and more capable than older ones. The College can provide its services more effectively, people waste less time, etc. Risk: Older technologies are prone to more issues – breaking, security, etc. Support: The longer we keep older technology, the more support/upkeep they need (“Break-Fix”), which translates into staffing and costs (that aren’t necessary that visible/obvious). Costs: College has a need to invest in ~$2 million + ~$3 million in refresh per year on front + back-end devices (respectively). Most of focus is here, i.e., postpone payments

Visible: procurement is just the tip of the iceberg! Costs/Purchases Support/Break-Fix Availability/Downtime Routine Maintenance Risk: Security (Data Loss) Risk: Compatibility Productivity & Performance issues Gartner: “80% of IT costs occur after purchase!”

Historical “Front-End” Refresh Budget College was well funded – had ability to raise property tax levy to generate revenue Construction

Broader issues Reactive culture – fighting fires (typical practice/the norm) “Get it done IT! Not my [functional] problem!” Conflict (& competition): us vs. them Lack of ownership and sense of community (Team) Lack of “Business” savviness e.g., planning cross-functionally Everyone trying to do their job as best as possible (Silos) IT under threat of cuts: budget, staffing, outsourcing Lack of policy & project governance Bottom line…not a great environment / culture

The Transformation (End Result) Established a Refresh Policy for both Front-End and Back-End Committed $2 million per year for Front-End; $3 million per year for Back-End; also set 3-5 year rotating schedule for assets Established trust across the entire College – HUGE win for IT! “We want to learn more about how the ‘Well-Oiled Machine’ of IT governs!” Educated college about what it takes to manage IT (the life- cycle) through a big ticket issue that they understood and cared about Led to broader understanding of other “Infrastructure Refresh Needs” e.g., Facilities – Roof, Air Handlers, etc. Led to broader Board capital budgeting policy on maintaining ALL Assets of the College to an appropriate level

Refresh Policy How did we do it? Front-End Back-End IT Shared Governance Council

Shared Governance & IT

IBPS: Interest-Based Problem Solving Establish an issue statement that we all agree to… Provide background on why it’s a problem & important… Separate positions from interests and log them… (KEY!) “Loop-Out” with stakeholders to include their voice… Identify data that supports our premise… Establish objective criteria to evaluate options… Define options and alternatives… Pick the best possible outcome… Various other “Ground Rules” are also applied: Separate people from problem Be soft on people, hard on issue No criticism, all ideas are noted and evaluated Build relationships Focus on interests, not positions Generate many/multiple options – the other “side” is our best resource for options Separate option generation from evaluation No rank in the room No attribution No sidebar conversations Get to information via: - asking questions - listening Be present and engaged Know how to ask “Why” Paraphrase Use more “I” than “You” statements Warn, don’t threaten “What would happen if…” “Yes, and …<alternatives> techniques vs. “No, but…”

Accelerated Interest-Based Problem Solving Approach What is the issue? Who will be affected by our decision? What is the “BATNA” - Default What is the history/how did the issue become a problem? What are the interests? What are our options/solutions? (Brainstorming) What data do we need/who will provide it? What objective criteria will we use to evaluate options? Discuss/thumb proposed solution (is it better than BATNA?) Implementation & Experience How will we communicate to stakeholders? When will we check back on this issue? Team determines this date and procedure Pre-work (small representative team of 4-6 members) Meeting #2 (All) Team clusters interests Meeting #1 (All) Team creates proposals * More complex issues may require more than 1 meeting of interests and options © Madison College 2014

Tool-1: Consensus Definition I believe I understand your point of view; I believe you understand my point of view; Whether or not this is my preferred solution, I will support it (will not undermine it) because it was arrived at in a fair and open process and is the best possible option at this time. [This is NOT 100% Unanimous Agreement!]

Tool-2: Interests vs. Positions Hopes, Needs, Worries, Concerns Are Solutions Answer primarily the “Why” (with some supporting “What”) Answer the question of “What” and “How” Personal Issues Usually Actions Rooted/Based in Values “Beginning with the End in Mind” Must Have Open Mind; not Pre-Defined Idea of Solutions Many Interests can be “Clustered” into Themes

Key Interests & Objective Criteria Consistency Sustainable Transparency Flexible Based on legitimate needs Inclusive of entire College Student needs first Minimize operations costs Currency to market Timely Central management Driven by forecasts/plans Mitigate risk Investments need to be affordable. Manageable with current resources. Meet student and program/ functional needs. In line with industry standards and best practices. Refresh program is flexible over time (flex up/down). Ensure we are in compliance to legal requirements and obligations. Ensure that security and other risks are mitigated.

Tool-3: “Thumbing” – What it Means Thumb Up Agreement – interests/concerns addressed Thumb Sideways Neutral – can live with decision Thumb Down Opposed – key interests/concerns have NOT been addressed; must clearly explain these & why weren’t interests met

Tool-4: Issue Statement What is required to implement/manage a Refresh Policy for maintaining current technology to support students, faculty and staff? Can a standard cyclical investment of Refresh be defined to ensure the College can provide its services and maintain its operations? Policy is needed to get management attention to maintain an appropriate life-cycle for technology at the College and ensure there is sufficient funding support. Due to the pace of change, operations level should determine details (e.g., refresh time period) based on environmental factors (e.g., changing technology standards, prices, etc.) and needs of the College.

Tool-5: Used Data – Costs of Refresh Procurement TCO = Total Cost of Ownership = Total cost of technology, installation services (one time; upfront), support services (on-going) over the life (e.g., 4-5 years) of the technology. Support Source: lenovo.com

Tool-5: Showed What Was Going On Normally didn’t happen! Break-Fix was the plan from June – January/February. Planning was fluid up until March/April timeframe when we knew how much would be available and whether we could do a “Refresh” or primarily focus on Break-Fix (repairs). Result of “Transparency”

Tool-5: “Back-End” Annual Costs Back-end infrastructure includes such things as: WAN, LAN, Wireless, Data Center, Routers, Switches, Firewall, Closet Equipment feeding Classrooms, TelePresence, Telephones, Servers, Disk Storage, Uninterruptible Power Supplies, etc. WAN = Wide Area Network LAN = Local Area Network No longer buried (hidden) in project costs.

Tool-5: Explained Risks E.g., for Desktop Computing OPERATIONAL RISK DEFINITION METRIC   Increased Support Costs with Age 5 year old PC costs twice as much as a new one to maintain. 1 in 3 Laptops and Desktops break by their 4th year. 80% of hard drives last 4 years; after 4 years failure rate ~12% per year. Cascading PCs down (reimaging, etc.), can cost ~3 hours of staff time per device, which then has to be repeated again in another 1-1½ years when a replacement is needed. Exception: Very high-end computing device cascading for researchers or power users that are used for 50% or less of their useful life are different than cascading devices that are at 75%-90% of their useful life. Increased Support Staffing Levels with Age After 3 years, support hours for systems approximately doubles each year requiring about double the amount of staff. Security Vulnerability Increases with Age 4 year old PC has 53% more security incidents than a PC in its 1st year. PRODUCTIVITY RISK (ROI) “Moore’s Law”: Increased Processing Power (exponential growth) Newer PCs are 2x more capable as those of 3 years ago. Older PCs can take up to 50% longer to perform some tasks than new PCs. Staying Current with Patch Management IT can deliver patches more effectively and frequently on newer PCs (helps with security issues). Increased Ability for Remote Management IT can manage and fix PC issues remotely, cutting site visits. Increased Power Management New notebooks have, on average, one more hour of battery life than a 2-year old notebook. Market research informational slide

Tool-6: Loop-Out Planning – Context Model

Tool-6: Context Model Example

Tool-7: Policy Development Framework “Why? (limited “What”)

Refresh Policy Context – what we did Shared Governance – IT Council & MC Community Interests Technology Refresh Policy Device Purchase Exception Justification Standard Front-End Device Refresh (prices) Standards Refresh Period (rotation years) Standards Refresh Committee – Operational Charter Technology Services – Yearly Refresh Calendar Budget – Yearly Budgeting Process

Example of Actual Use – Detailed

The Policy Information Technology (IT) is a critical tool for conducting College business. Setup an annual update process with the appropriate staff and funding/budget. Address legitimate business and educational needs of entire college-community. Should stay current with technology in the market. Should follow industry standards and best practices. Should minimize support costs and maximize savings.

The Policy Support refresh of a single primary device per person. Addresses three broad categories of technologies: “Front-end” devices “Back-end” devices “Standard Productivity” software (OS, Browser, Office) Exceptions to policies and standards need to comply with the established “Device Purchase Justification Standard”. Devices that do not go through this Refresh Policy definition will not be supported.

Policy Exceptions Default environment is PC/desktop-based; Macs, Laptops, Mobile devices are exceptions. New employees and their equipment will be funded from department funds. Lost, Damage or Stolen items/devices are not part of the normal Refresh process. Policy extends to the Madison College Foundation, but no other third party entity. Consumables (non standard mice, keyboards, cameras, etc.) are department responsibilities.

Current Industry Standards & Best Practices Device type Refresh after Desktop Computers 4 years (1/4 of inventory-25% per year) Laptop/Notebook Computers 3 years (1/3 of inventory-33% per year) Printers/Copiers/Multi-Function Devices (MFD) As needed; once device starts to break-down Infrastructure, VDI (virtual desktop infrastructure)/Thin Client/Cloud Computers 5-7 years (1/5 of inventory-20% per year) Monitors 6 years if required – less if they fail to meet the defined standards TelePresence, Audio/Visual, Digital Signage 6 years if required – less if they fail to meet the defined standards & depending on vendor support Telephones 6+ years Productivity Software To current version of software implemented as standard and one prior supported revision

Resource

Questions?