IT dialogue notes

Information Technology Services dialogue notes 3.18.19

Assumptions

• Budget will continue to constrain (tech needs)
• Tech changing fast; we already are behind
• Expectations for ubiquitous, easy access; without access we are nothing
• Consumption going up but investment going down
• Creative change needed- we are not proactive
• IT not just a utility; tech is changing how we teach
• Major cultural change is needed
  • Technology as enabling, not a cost center;
  • We need not just stuff, also people
  • Need to think more enterprise wide
• Propose a capital project re IT?
• Technology literacy needs to increase among all stakeholders
  • We have assumed we will organically grow our literacy, but can’t assume this any longer
• Solving central infrastructure at cost of departments is not sustainable
• Infrastructure as a theme for strategic plan – strongly support
• More legislation and regulation all the time, e.g. to get access to data
• Many unfunded mandates, e.g. accessibility requirements
• Current $ consumed just to be compliant – erodes everything else
• Leg may be more open to consideration of higher ed
  • Not a balanced portfolio: utilities, critical enabler, strategic assets
• Tech drives innovation in research and education
• Can’t put new roof on a bad foundation
• Budget challenges not unique to technology

Mission

• Generic; nothing new
• Enhancing life
• Med school expands mission
• Nothing about meeting needs of WA state – engagement with community
• Tomorrow’s land-grant university
• Bring community and public back
• $ has moved us away from our mission
• Nation and world great but closer communities important
• Should provide a litmus test

Values

• “Empathy” is missing
• “Inclusion” – diversity not strong enough
• “Access”
• Education for entire state not just university community
• Parallel to National Public Broadcasting discussion rural (where need is)/urban (where $ is)
• “Agility” not here
• “leadership”
• Can we assess their priority and progress? Maybe not necessary; Also, many don’t compete with one another. Which do and which don’t?
• Have to decide what to get a “C” in
  • Choices: Fast, Better, cheap
• There are values within the values
• “Sincerity”= commitment to action
• What exists v what is a choice (e.g. divisive v inclusive)
• A lot of wasted words
• There needs to be accountability to the values

Drive to 25

• Audacious v aspirational v achievable
• Primary focus on NIH, NSF leave out a lot of important parts of the university
• This is impossible not aspirational
• Seems like WSU is a farm team – people jump to the bigger leagues
• Feeling of limitlessness – instead of constraint
  • Anything they can envision is do-able (top universities have this feel)
• We will maintain accessibility
• Existing examples are vague; get more specific: For example, we have enabled XX billions for the state of Washington.
• Student centered: Student enrolled, included, retained, graduated
• Core themes and goals
• Seamless access to technology and student success
  • Can spend a lot of time just on this
• Need to have full agency on the goals we set
  • g. diversity: a good goal but needs measures, controllable underneath those. For example, we can measure ability to be responsive
• Key business activities can take more advantage of opportunities
• Enterprise agility; compatibility and integration
• Accountability and transparency
• Athletes not a focus; a part of success; has to shift with rest of U
• Academics and athletics will be better integrated, not as competitive

Other