1 / 15

IT Governance

IT Governance. Committee on Business Technology January 18, 2011. Meeting Agenda. Provide brief update on Steering Committee Meeting Revised IT Governance structure Decision-making process Three immediate actions ( MyResearch , Funding Model, and Data Access) Confirm membership of CBT

urbain
Télécharger la présentation

IT Governance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IT Governance Committee on Business Technology January 18, 2011

  2. Meeting Agenda • Provide brief update on Steering Committee Meeting • Revised IT Governance structure • Decision-making process • Three immediate actions (MyResearch, Funding Model, and Data Access) • Confirm membership of CBT • Review status of inventory of projects /applications for Business Technology • Begin discussion of vision and priorities for CBT

  3. Revised IT Governance Chart • Refer to handout with revised organization chart

  4. Decision Process Flow Committees Technology and Architecture Research January Feb/March April May Review inventory, previous plans, and develop overall vision Identify and submit priorities Develop Application and Project Inventory Education Clinical Identify decisions requiring SC input (for 2012 budget cycle) Steering Committee Review Business

  5. Scope of Steering Committee Decision-Making: DRAFT • Focus on all significant areas of information technology: • Requires investment over $100,000 (hardware, software and labor) • Requires integration outside a specific unit (research, education, clinical and/or business) • Impacts underlying information architecture and/or requires change in architecture • Requires change in IT policy • Requires change in overall workflow and/or business process flow • Requires development of new IT skill set in ITS

  6. Proposal Submittal Form • Agenda Topic: • Nature of presentation: • Information • Discussion • Decision • Situation: Where are we now? • Target: What do we want to achieve? • Proposal: How will we get there?

  7. Membership of CBT • Are the correct constituents represented on our Committee? • Should anyone else be added to the Committee? • Any initial thoughts on what subCommittees should be formed?

  8. Inventory and Roadmap • See handouts

  9. UCSF Administrative Systems Improvement Roadmap (as of May 2010) Completed Ongoing Planned 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CY Vacation Leave Accounting Procure to Pay Journals Financial Domain Psoft Major Upgrade Budgeting Application Asset Mgmt Committee on Human Research (CHR) Effort Reporting ( ERS) Proposal Express Research Administration RAS Pre Award RAS Strategic Plan RAS: Award Management, Billing and A/R Advance Ph 3 Advance Ph 2 Advance Ph 1 PPS Positive Time Personnel Systems Timekeeping System HRMS PETS Magical PAF Machine Single Sign-On Phase 2 Single Sign-On Phase 1 Cross Domain Foundational BI Data Warehouse Portal

  10. Vision and Priorities • What are the necessary inputs to developing a vision for administrative /business technologies? • Any previous documents that should be referenced as a starting point?

  11. Next Steps • Complete inventory of applications (in-house, vendor, open-source) and projects (current and future) • Website under development • Will include links to previous governance websites • Listserve established: • ITGOV-BUSINESS@LISTSRV.UCSF.EDU (Committee on Business Technology only) • Next meeting: February 15, 2011, 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. Parnassus Campus: M-1296

  12. Appendix

  13. IT Funding Model Nature of presentation (check one): _ Information _Discussion XDecision Situation: UCSF needs a new IT funding model to ensure successful and smooth operation of core IT infrastructure and services. The current situation is inconsistent, not auditable, unfair, and results in sub-standard services to a large number of faculty, staff, and students. Target: Develop a funding model that is: • Sustainable • Easy to understand and to implement • Fair and equitable • Legal and auditable Proposal: • Charge a campus-wide workgroup with developing a proposal and presenting it to the Steering Committee within six to nine months • The funding model can be built upon the current $35 data network charge and should address services such as data network, voice/phone, email, helpdesk, desktop support, IT procurement, IT security, etc.

  14. Data Access Policy Nature of presentation (check one): _ Information _ Discussion X Decision Situation: As we embark on a comprehensive data warehouse initiative, we need to update UCSF’s data access policy in order to remove unnecessary obstacles to data access, and in order to encourage faculty, staff, and students to responsibly use university data. The current practice makes data access very difficult and discourages usage. As a result, access processes are expensive, too long, and inconsistent, and data are not used as widely and effectively as possible. Target: A revised data access policy that: • Is entirely consistent with law (e.g., HIPAA, FERPA) and other UC policies, while not over-interpreting their reach • Provides authorized users efficient, ready access to data. For example, UCSF staff who have a legitimate need to access financial data should be able to access all UCSF financial data (not just their own departmental data). • Sets campus-wide standards for data sharing that replace unit controls • Clearly states the user’s responsibility to protect data Proposal: • Charge the Security & IT Policies Subcommittee with developing a revised access policy and presenting it to the Steering Committee within three months

  15. Research Data & Tools (IDR/MyResearch) Nature of presentation (check one): _ Information _ Discussion X Decision Situation: IDR and MyResearch are currently the recommended database and toolset environments for UCSF researchers who need to use clinical data. These systems are new and are currently only used by a small percentage of the campus research community. In order to reach a larger number of users, we need to find out how to enhance the systems and how to govern their future. Time is of the essence due to the imminent implementation of APEX/EPIC, and the departure of Michael Kamerick who was the Director responsible for the development of these systems. Target: UCSF researchers need a database of clinical data and tools that are: • Populated with all required data elements from APEX and other clinical systems • Populated with researchers’ specific data when necessary • Easy to use • Secure • Properly funded Proposal: • Charge the Research Committee with developing a plan and presenting it to the Steering Committee within three months

More Related