1. 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

2. 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

3. 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]

4. 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”?

5. 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

6. 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!”

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

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. Shared Governance & IT

12. 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…”

13. 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

14. 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!]

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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”

21. 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.

22. 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

23. Tool-6: Loop-Out Planning – Context Model

24. Tool-6: Context Model Example

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

26. 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

27. Example of Actual Use – Detailed

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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

32. Resource

33. Questions?