Abstract

This paper reflects on the fate of IT strategies at universities in several countries, based on the author’s personal experience. It examines the purpose, nature, form, process and context of the development of IT Strategies, at universities in Australia, Hong Kong and the UK. It considers the following aspects of the whole process:

the forces which led to the decision to create IT strategies at these very different universities;

the processes and resources which were employed to create them;

their content in the context of their purpose;

the form which their content has taken;

the manner in which they have subsequently been (or not been) used.

Finally, it considers the value of these efforts in the light of their fate.

In broad terms, it concludes that political factors almost always overshadow the technical or "logical" issues, and that these need to be taken fully into account when deciding the nature of the IT Strategy, the resources and methods to employ in their creation, and the size of intellectual capital to invest. It finds that they can be of immense value, but that IT staff should have no illusions about their potential fate, and should not be overly concerned if they appear to end up gathering dust on bookshelves.

The Context

Decisions to develop IT Strategies are not made in a vacuum. They are taken for a variety of reasons, which can have a great bearing upon their form and their fate. It is worth exploring some of these reasons.

Universities in the UK and Australia (though less so in Hong Kong, and certainly less so in the USA) seem typically to have an equivocal attitude to strategic planning in general. They are accustomed to relying on their (not inconsiderable) wit to make sound long-term decisions. The notion of formal strategic planning smacks of managerialism. It is often seen as a fad, which will have its day but then disappear. There is some validity to much of this, since universities have survived enormous social, political and economic upheavals, for which some credit must be accorded to their traditional forms of governance and planning (largely based on the ability to analyse situations, reduce issues to first principles, and engage in in-depth and informed debate).

However, against this backdrop it is evident that universities world-wide are dependent on public funding to an unprecedented extent, and the pressures to be seen to be accountable cannot be withstood. The march of public accountability is inexorable. And we can perhaps all think of examples of waste of public monies within our universities, so this trend may not be without good cause.

IT Strategies, then, are sometimes conceived within the context of grudging lip-service to national requirements (the UK Joint Information Systems Committee requires that all universities possess an IT Strategy). On the other hand, some "enlightened" university managements recognise the value of a certain degree of planning, especially when large sums of money are involved, long-term investments are required, or decisions must be made in fields with which they feel ill-informed (or all three!).

As many IT Director can attest (and did in a recent I survey conducted in the UK), IT Strategies can be most valuable tools for gaining high-level understanding and support, as well as for raising the consciousness of broader strategic and academic issues among IT staff. Even if they don’t enable the unknown to be controlled, at least they usually lead to its being much better recognised and understood.

At the end of the day, it is very hard to argue against a device which will enable you to utilise expensive or scarce resources more wisely, to demonstrate careful stewardship of substantial assets, to ensure that the profile of IT is raised among top management, to gain the understanding and support of the academic community, and to bring IT services more into alignment with the mission and academic priorities of the university.

Of course, more prosaic goals sometimes provide the context for the development of IT Strategies. I have been involved as external consultant in two cases where the (not altogether so) hidden agenda was to oust or sideline the incumbent IT Director. Equally, they can also be used as tools for justifying unpopular decisions, as a means of avoiding responsibility for certain outcomes, or for curbing the (perceived) excesses of the IT centre or of academics. They are even sometimes the battleground on which struggles between standardisation or centralisation and departmental autonomy are played out.

Another dimension to the context within which IT Strategies are developed is that of the timeframe to plan for. In business, most Strategic Plans cover the nest 5 or more years. In IT, it is virtually impossible to have any degree of certainty about technological developments over that length of time – for instance, only 5 years ago, the Web was hardly known. It has been well-said that most of the things we predict will happen in 2 years will take much longer, while those that we predict will happen in 5 years will happen much sooner.

The Content

Before getting deeper into strategic planning, a definition may be in order. The OED defines a strategy as: "A plan for successful action based on the rationality and interdependence of the moves of the opposing parties". Translated into the context of the organisational/business world, this becomes (after Viljoen): "A Strategy is a blueprint of all the important actions taken in response to both internal and external stimuli to enable an organisation to achieve its specific objectives."

To be done properly, a strategic plan must take all the elements of this definition into account. First it must determine the objectives to be pursued (which in turn will be derived from the mission or distinctive purpose of the organisation); then identify internal and external stimuli to take into account (often via a SWOT analysis); then determine the actions to be taken and their relative importance; and finally establish these as a blueprint – an integrated set of ordered policies and actions.

It should be noted that a strategy is a means of moving from one scenario (the current) to a desired alternative (the future) scenario. This ipso facto requires identifying these two scenarios first – ie a serious and objective analysis of the current state of affairs, together with a perceptive understanding of what is possible (based on the capabilities of new or impending technologies, as well as the capability of the organisation to take full advantage of them). It requires an understanding not only of technology (current and likely future), but also of the political, social, economic and organisational characteristics of the institution which will enable it to move from the current to the desired future state of affairs.

IT Strategies will often contain some general statements of desired goals, rather like "motherhood" and "apple pie" (ie goals which are universally desired, and therefore perhaps may be seen as so obvious as to be facile and fatuous). There is nothing wrong in thus "stating the obvious", as long as that is not all it states, since it sets the scene and context for more specific objectives. Furthermore, what may be obvious to some people may not be to others. It is essential, however, that the Strategy goes well beyond such statements. It might almost be said that if no objectives are stated which provoke disagreement or even controversy, then they have not gone far enough. Although one of the objectives of a Strategy is to achieve a common understanding and direction, this can never be achieved without assessing and rejecting alternatives, and people may well need to be persuaded to accept others’ points of view. Indeed, it could be argued that this is one of the most important outcomes of the whole process.

It should also be noted that objectives cannot be set without there being a reasonable probability of being able to achieve them – starting from where you are now, and with the resources likely to be at your disposal. This question of the necessary resources is probably the most crucial of the whole process. There is no point in setting objectives which are clearly beyond your reach: there may be value in setting objectives which stretch your capabilities, but if set too far out this will only lead to disappointment and disillusionment.

Of course, one of the principal purposes of developing a Strategy is to achieve institutional commitment at the highest level to providing the necessary (usually additional) resources. So these must be clearly identified and the rationale for their provision well made.

Another important feature of the ideal IT Strategy is the clarification of and agreement to the setting of priorities to be observed in resource utilisation. This usually takes the form of the priorities with which human resources are to be expended. This is often the most contentious area, since one of the principal reasons for having IT Strategies developed is to address the disagreement, or even disbelief, within the institution regarding how the resources available to the computing centre should be deployed. There is frequently a significant underestimation of the effort required to maintain basic infrastructure items such as the network; a well-presented IT Strategy can both enlighten the academic community as to the true cost of running many basic IT services, and allay the fears of the computing centre that its human resources are about to be "stripped".

It is as important for the computing service as it is for the institution as a whole that it has its priorities set correctly. This can be one major reason why periodic revisions to the IT Strategy are necessary – not just because technology changes, but because there needs to be repeated public airing that the changing requirements are being tracked by changing priorities within the computing centre.

Just as the formal setting of priorities is a vital component of IT Strategies, is the clear identification of responsibilities. In a centralised university, this is not such a problem (most things fall to the computing centre); but in a devolved one (like the highly devolved universities of Oxford and Western Australia) this is a crucial element, since as much will depend on the actions at departmental level as on those of the computing centre. Of course, resources should follow responsibility – be that to the centre or to the departments.

The Strategy must also include a realistic timetable, with periodic milestones to mark progress. The longer the timeframe or horizon of the Strategy, the more must milestones be incorporated; these will enable a degree of "fine tuning" of the Strategy as it progresses. These milestones or interim objectives (as well as all the final objectives) must be capable of measurement, both to determine when/if they have been reached, but also to review progress towards them. It has been said that "if it’s not measurable then its not manageable". The Strategy must contain sufficient handles (including clear objectives and milestones, as well as priorities, assignment of responsibilities and resources) to enable the process to be "managed".

It must also contain the degree of detail to enable this process to be carried out, but sufficiently broad brush to ensure that basic principles are not lost in the detail.

The Process

The exact process for developing an IT Strategy will depend to a very large extent on local politics, policies and practices, organisational structure and culture. However, there are certain essential elements which must be taken into account.

The most important of these is to incorporate substantial consultation. In some universities, the process is left very largely to the IT Director – indeed, the recent UK survey referred to above revealed that in 93% of cases the Director was substantially or totally responsible. Yet most understood the need for consultation – 65% undertook substantial or total consultation with the university community. Often this takes the form of responses to a draft strategy document, which is a much more productive method than endeavouring to get a heterogeneous body of people (in committee or not) to fashion a reasonable document ab initio – after all, a camel is a horse designed by a committee!

It is important, of course, before the above two steps (drafting + consultation) are undertaken, to ensure that proper institutional endorsement has been given to the process – whether by the appropriate committee, or by the vice-chancellor or similar. This endorsement will also need to take into account (and approve) the scope for the study, the resources necessary to bring it to an effective conclusion, and the timetable to be observed.

The actual drafting (followed later, of course, by adaptation or redrafting) is often the simplest part of the whole process (akin to the coding part of a programming project). The need for formal commissioning and the key consultation activity are essential components of the vital political underpinning of the study. Other key aspects include having a champion (or godfather) to ensure the stability and credibility of the whole process, and achieving formal adoption (and promulgation) of the finished product. The champion may well be the chairman of the IT Committee, or even the vice-chancellor. On other occasions, the role might be a more shadowy one, undertaken by someone who prefers to pull the strings behind the scenes.

It is frequently wise to set up a Steering Committee to guide the whole process, especially if the vice-chancellor selects and appoints the chair (and is seen to be doing so!). This group might be a very useful means of working out how it is to be promulgated, and (if you come from that sort of university) policed. This is especially helpful if the prime "movers and shakers" from key departments are represented. On the other hand, membership must be chosen quite carefully. I have never personally been in favour of the practice adopted at one university of appointing a "devil’s advocate" to these sorts of committee, with the ostensible aim of keeping everyone (ie the IT Director!) honest.

Promulgation is best served by employing some or all of the following practices:

- Publish the IT Strategy in printed form (a respectable-looking tome, designed to attract respect);

- ensure every head of department and IT staff member gets a copy;

- Ensure it has a readable and captivating Executive summary (2 pages at most – that being the limit of time that many senior academics feel able to give to this process);

- Ensure it has plenty of relevant graphics (to attract the casual browser);

- Publish it on the Web (on your intranet);

- Refer to it often in committees, expenditure proposals, etc;

- Publish an annual review of progress.

The resources consumed in the process of developing an IT Strategy can vary enormously. Inevitably, a considerable portion of the time of the IT Director in necessary throughout the process. Depending on the degree of formalism, a significant amount of the time of committee members, mostly academics, can also be consumed (often unfruitfully), especially if the drafting process is not delegated to 1 or 2 people. Another consumer of resources can be the task (usually assigned to members of the computing centre) of collecting data on current IT capabilities, performance and usage – but that does have a value beyond the IT Strategy itself which usually makes it worth while. Incidentally, I stress the high degree of involvement of the IT Director, not because he has a monopoly on IT knowledge, nor because he needs to "defend his patch", but because he will be the most senior IT professional in the institution, and certainly the person that knows best whether raw ideas can be turned into practice or not. Academics (especially computer science ones) are good at coming up with radical ideas for the introduction or application of new technologies, but they sometimes need "bringing down to earth" in relation to what is actually practicable in the university setting.

The Outcome

Apart from the document itself (and a great sense of relief that it’s over!), there are several possible outcomes that could be sought – depending, of course, on the rationale for the process in the first place.

Some of these outcomes may include the following:

- A reasonable degree of agreement, consensus, alignment (more than modest, one would hope)

- concerning future directions and priorities for the development and use of IT;

- a better understanding all round about what is important;

- An improved awareness of the role and potential of IT in various aspects of the academic mission;

- Ownership and commitment by top management to the role and value of IT and of the computing service;

-An ongoing commitment to the expenditure of resources in a planned and rationale fashion (eg in accordance with agreed expansion or replacement regimes);

- Justification for a wide range of policies, practices, expenditure, deployment of resources, etc, which enables effective forward planning;

- A better appreciation among the academic community of the work and value of the computing centre, leading to increased credibility for it;

- A better understanding of academic priorities, leading to a closer alignment with and support for them; this is heightened if the IT Strategy is fully integrated into other institutional high-level strategies, including in particular Information Strategies;

- Redirected computing centre and/or IT services generally (let us not think for a minute that it is just the academic community that warrants having its eyes opened!);

- A blueprint for future development, along with measurable goals, yardsticks and milestones;

- Satisfying the funding agencies (low down the list, perhaps, but fairly important!);

- Justification for other, perhaps unpopular or difficult, decisions – relating, for instance, to the management, direction or oversight of the computing centre.

There are several additional intangible outcomes (benefits) of this process. There can be a real sense of accomplishment at having established a framework within which planning can be undertaken with relative ease, at least for a while, with less political interference in IT initiatives. However, it must be recognised that there can also be a false sense of achievement – the IT Strategy should be a stretching exercise for the computing centre, not one which cossets (mind you, I have yet to encounter any which errs on the side of offering an easy life!).

Conclusions

The most tangible outcome (especially if, as I have suggested, you have put some effort into its appearance) is the IT Strategy document. Experience suggests, however, that this is the least of the accomplishments of the process. In many cases it is rarely (directly) referenced, and slavish adherence to it or invoking of it can even be taken as a sign of weakness. It is most certainly not a big stick with which to beat recalcitrant academics or forgetful vice-chancellors!

The most important outcome is the awareness-raising, not the document, and the political factors outweigh the technical. Essentially, it is the process which is the primary outcome, not the document. It is the process which raises awareness, enhances credibility, achieves alignment with institutional goals, and so on. Hence the importance of consultation throughout the process.

There is no doubt that the existence of an IT Strategy does make future decision-making easier – issues have already been aired, there is a real ownership of decisions, and much background has already been covered. On the other hand, it is very difficult to cost-justify the resources consumed in the process – not because there are not clearly identifiable benefits, but because it is not clear if they could have been achieved any other way.

Overall, however, the process is worthwhile. 98% of UK IT Directors responding to the survey said the process was worthwhile; some found it extremely so, as evidenced by the following direct quotes: "absolutely worthwhile", "extremely worthwhile", "very much so" – some saying so because of the benefit to the IT staff in focussing their attention on academic or strategic issues, and others because of the profile-raising it achieved among senior managers. 76% had a "current" IT strategy, which on average was 2.4 years old. It is also instructive to note that only 70% also had an information strategy, and of those that did, 60% said the IT Strategy was (or soon would be) an integral part of it.

Universities (in the UK) are moving inexorably towards doing more strategic planning – creating institutional goals and mission statements, information strategies, and so on. IT Strategies will not disappear or be seen as unimportant in this tide, but will take their place within a properly integrated context. It might also be found that, only then, will IT Strategies be given the proper attention and resourcing that they deserve.

References

Oxford University’s IT Strategy: http://info.ox.ac.uk/itstrat/

University of Western Australia’s IT Strategy: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~alex/uwa-itplan-summary.html

Oxford English Dictionary

Viljoen, John: "Strategic Management", Longman Professional, 1991.

Survey of UK IT Directors (via the UCISA mailing list) between 9 and 15 March 1999 (48 responses received).

Address

Mr T Alex Reid, Director, Oxford University Computing Services, 13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN, UK; alex.reid@oucs.ox.ac.uk; phone +44 1865 273 229; fax +44 1865 273 275.