Tags » Area Directors Notes

 
 
 

Area 51 notes, Dec. 20, 2012

January 15, 2013 by
Categories: Midd Blogosphere

Present: Chris, Doreen, Carol, Mike, Mary, Terry

In advance of meeting, Chris distributed the latest version of the Data Classification Policy for review.  The policy describes various types of data classification (e.g. sensitive) and how they should be handled, but does not discuss policy enforcement.  The Data Classification Taskforce may suggest names of people to serve as “data stewards” within functional areas, but it will be up to the FA to appoint the data steward.

Some suggestions from the ADs were to:

  • provide training for data stewards, possibly in conjunction with the Training & Education and Security Teams
  • provide training for new employees
  • edit the policy to reflect current thinking about how we write policies, e.g., lay out the “why this is important” up front and recast the preamble in plainer language.
  • create a timeline listing activities and who will be responsible for these activities

Next Steps:

  • Data Classification Taskforce should begin conversations within their areas
  • Have this discussion added to the LEADS agenda (possibly February 18th)
  • Mike would like to present this to President’s Staff, possibly at their March 2013 meeting

Chris also announced that the PCI Policy (Policy for Accepting Credit Card and eCommerce Payments) has been approved by Patrick Norton and has been posted to the Controller’s website.  An early January email from Patrick to all staff explaining this policy will be sent out.

A brief discussion was held regarding the eNewsletter and how we communicate to the college community.  Should this discussion be to move this to the Communications Taskforce?  Since their current charge is to evaluate internal communications, this could be something to consider in a subsequent phase, either with this group or a new one focusing on external communications.

We made good progress on finalizing Education and Training Team membership.  We still need to have a few conversations with staff before announcing, but stay tuned.

Mike asked the ADs to think about how we can improve our project prioritization practices. An AD meeting in January will be dedicated to this topic.  Specifically:

  • how do LIS priorities fit with College priorities
  • how do ad hoc projects get integrated into existing planned commitments?
  • how do we keep focused on high-level (e.g. data classification, information literacy, SLAs, etc.) issues and make reviewing projects habitual?

Thanks for reading,

Terry & Doreen

Tags: , , , ,
Comments Off

Area 51 Notes, Dec. 13, 2012

January 8, 2013 by
Categories: Midd Blogosphere

Present:  Mike Roy, Chris Norris, Carol Peddie, Mary Backus, Terry Simpkins and Doreen Bernier

Mike provided a summary of his CLIR-CIO meeting in Washington DC.  Some of the topics discussed were:

  • MISO survey
  • Digital scholarship
  • On-line education
  • Classroom design
  • Quiet zones in the library
  • Security
  • Organizational structure
  • Collection development issues

The Dec. 20th optional all-LIS staff meeting has been canceled.  Happy holidays

Chris led a discussion about next steps regarding our policy review (aka, Policy Summit). We looked at some of Gartner’s recommendations for policy management. After reviewing notes from the Policy Summit meeting and survey results, the following topics stood out:

  • Data ownership, privacy, classification
  • Education and awareness
  • Technology enablers (ie. tools)
  • Governance and enforcement

A consolidated list of next steps was generated:

  • Inventory all LIS policies and policies that affect LIS
    • What do we have? What’s missing? What’s no longer needed?
    • Where are the policies? When were they last updated? Who is responsible for each policy?
    • Does the policy work? Would it work if it was enforced? How to deal with exceptions?
    • Is it an LIS policy or a College policy (or other, such as a guideline, practice, or procedure)?
  • Determine institutional temperature of policy
    • Who should be leading this effort? Who should be involved?
    • Relationship to the data classification taskforce work?
    • What should the priorities be (i.e., currency, legal)?
    • What is the institutional philosophy around policies (e.g., comprehensive, prescribed? simple, broadly worded?

Chris reported that the final draft of the Data Classification Policy (created by the Data Classification Taskforce) has been completed. A review of this draft will be added to next week’s AD agenda for further discussion.

Chris has contacted Donna McDurfee, who sends out yearly update notifications on handbook policies, to request a spreadsheet containing an inventory of the current policies as a starting point.

Discussion touched the issue of which policies (vs., for example, guidelines or procedures) to prioritize.  There was at least some sentiment to focus on policies with an element of enforcement to them (as opposed to, for example, something like the library gift policy that mainly provides guidance to staff as well as donors).

A second round of Policy Summit discussions will continue during the January Optional All-Staff meeting on January 17th.

The ADs discussed whether the LIS Strategic Directions need to be updated.  It has been several years since the last revision. Sentiment varied as to whether we have the time, and whether it is worth the effort, to engage in this now.

Thanks for reading,
Terry & Doreen

Tags: , , , ,
Comments Off

Area 51 notes, Dec. 13, 2013

December 20, 2012 by
Categories: Midd Blogosphere

Present:  Mike Roy, Chris Norris, Carol Peddie, Mary Backus, Terry Simpkins and Doreen Bernier

Mike provided a summary of his CLIR-CIO meeting in Washington DC.  Some of the topics discussed were:

  • MISO survey
  • Digital scholarship
  • On-line education
  • Classroom design
  • Quiet zones in the library
  • Security
  • Organizational structure
  • Collection development issues

The Dec. 20th optional all-LIS staff meeting has been canceled.  Happy holidays

Chris led a discussion about next steps regarding our policy review (aka, Policy Summit). We looked at some of Gartner’s recommendations for policy management. After reviewing notes from the Policy Summit meeting and survey results, the following topics stood out:

  • Data ownership, privacy, classification
  • Education and awareness
  • Technology enablers (ie. tools)
  • Governance and enforcement

A consolidated list of next steps was generated:

  • Inventory all LIS policies and policies that affect LIS
    • What do we have? What’s missing? What’s no longer needed? – Chris has contacted Donna McDurfee, who sends out yearly update notifications on handbook policies, to request a spreadsheet containing an inventory of the current policies as a starting point.
    • Where are the policies? When were they last updated? Who is responsible for each policy?
    • Does the policy work? Would it work if it was enforced? How to deal with exceptions?
    • Is it an LIS policy or a College policy (or other, such as a guideline, practice, or procedure)?
  • Determine institutional temperature of policy creation
    • Who should be leading this effort? Who should be involved?
    • Relationship to the data classification taskforce work?
    • What should the priorities be (i.e., currency, legal)?
    • What is the institutional philosophy around policies (e.g., comprehensive, prescribed? simple, broadly worded?

Chris reported that the latest draft of the Data Classification Policy (created by the Data Classification Taskforce) has been completed. A review of this draft will be added to next week’s AD agenda for further discussion.

Our discussion touched the issue of which policies (versus, for example, guidelines or procedures) to prioritize/focus.  There was at least some sentiment to focus on policies with an element of enforcement to them (as opposed to, for example, something like the library gift policy that mainly provides guidance to staff as well as donors).

A second round of Policy Summit discussions will continue during the January optional all-staff meeting on January 17th.

The ADs discussed whether the LIS Strategic Directions need to be updated (please… hold your applause).  It has been several years since the last revision.  Sentiment varied as to whether we have the time, and whether it is worth the effort, to engage in this now.  We will continue to poke at this.

Thanks for reading,
Terry & Doreen

Tags: , , , , ,
Comments Off

Area 51 notes, Dec. 6, 2012

December 13, 2012 by
Categories: Midd Blogosphere

Present: Present: Mike, Mary, Carol, Terry, Chris, Doreen
Security team members: Nate, Ian, David, Travis, Rick

The Security Team joined us with an update on recent activities, including:

  • roll out of a computer-based training program for College Advancement; Human Resources will be next;
  • revamp of the “roadshow” project from last year, focusing more on computer-based training and less about privacy;
  • web-based SASS survey; writing policy for the Data Classification Taskforce; developing security questionnaires for vendors;
  • hard disk encryption roll out;

Looking forward, the team would like to begin working on:

  • mobile device security management;
  • secure communication solutions.

We also discussed:

  • team membership, specifically how new members from other areas in LIS provide a good, less technical, perspective on the issues — especially training issues that might need to be covered;
  • potential implications of how the data ownership policies under consideration by College administration will impact privacy recommendations made by the team;
  • the idea of holding security workshops, possibly in conjunction with the Education and Training Team, focusing on:
    • cyber security; privacy;
    • eCommerce;
    • safe home network setup;
    • setting up wifi encryption at home;
    • the idea of holding security workshops at future LIS in-service days for staff (LIS and College-wide);
    • videotaping roadshows to use as web tutorials.

Lastly, we talked a bit about the team charge and scope, specifically:

  • whether the team should be involved in the physical security of data centers on campus;
  • hardening computers before distribution;
  • resources outside of LIS that may be able to assist with certain projects.

We then talked about the LIS holiday party, which will be 12/18, 4-6pm. Location almost finalized, but not quite so stay tuned.

We reviewed the Dec. calendar:

  • Tim Spears will join us for the 12/19 all-staff meeting;
  • January and February AD retreats will focus on budgets.

We discussed outcomes and next steps from the recent Policy Summit. Chris Norris will organize planning policy strategies, and review compliance and enforcement issues. We’ll hold another open meeting to discuss next steps on this.

Finally, we continued the discussion about LIS website maintenance and refreshing options in the post-Web Team environment. Dan Frostman will serve as a point person for website content managers, and for communicating with the Communications office on website issues. The ADs would like to see an annual content managers gathering to review content manager responsibilities and expectations. The first of such meetings will be scheduled for January.

Thanks for reading,

Doreen and Terry

Tags: , , ,
Comments Off

Area 51 notes, Dec. 5, 2012

December 6, 2012 by
Categories: Midd Blogosphere

Present: Carol, Mike, Terry, Chris
Guests: Dan, Richard, Barbara, Matt (web team); Joseph (space team)

1) We met with the Web Team to thank them for their work before disbanding the team, and to discuss how we can best use the LIS Content Managers program to maintain the LIS web site.

  • One person (tentatively Dan Frostman) will be designated to be responsible for report to Communications on a quarterly basis as that group takes more responsibility for oversight of the College’s web presence;
  • We will have regular LIS content managers meetings or communications to remind staff of their responsibilities in this area, and to help them with training and/or tools.

2) We met with Joseph Watson from the Space Team to review their recommendations for repurposing the space now occupied by the information desk.

  • remove current desk;
  • spread current practical functions (e.g. outgoing mail, staplers, etc.) to periphery;
  • install some sort of electronic information kiosk;
  • put something aesthetically pleasing (e.g. tree, fountain, reproduction of Michelangelo’s David – just kidding about that last bit) where the desk is now;
  • involve a designer in the redesign process, who in turn will involve stakeholders (e.g. students);
  • goal is for work to take place between summer school and fall term of 2014 (10th year anniversary of building);
  • design/selection of centerpiece might involve Committee on Art in Public Spaces;
  • could conceivably separate design of the functional areas from the design of the more decorative portions.

Agenda for Dec. 12

  • Security Team Visit (10:00)
  • Review calendar
  • LIS holiday party
  • Policy summit next steps
  • LIS website next steps
  • The Williams:Wesleyan:Wellesley:Brandeis:Amherst:Middlebury (henceforth W3BAM) group is meeting at Williams on February 25th.  Who should attend? We want to have three groups:
    1. sys admins/network admins (from the last meeting)
    2. digital humanities types
    3. CIOs

Thanks for reading

Terry

 

Tags: , , ,
Comments Off

Area 51 notes, Oct. 11, 2012

October 23, 2012 by
Categories: Midd Blogosphere

 

Present:  Mike Roy, Mary Backus, Terry Simpkins, Chris Norris, and Doreen Bernier.  Special guest: Joseph Watson.

We talked at length about the next round staffing needs.  The ADs will work with managers to identify and/or clarify staffing needs within their areas, and the ADs will address the topic at the next retreat, scheduled for early Nov.  We will also have another open staff meeting just prior to the retreat to give staff another avenue for input.

The College-wide goals document has been simplified.  ADs wll review for accuracy and correct.  Doreen will share the version of the document with the ADs.  Once vetted to confirm that all stakeholders agree to the goals, the list will be shared broadly.

On a related topic, the quarterly goal updates, normally due Oct. 1, are pushed to Nov. 1.

After discussion, we agreed that the project directory in Roadmap is too labor intensive to keep up to date, so it will be discontinued. Mike is asking each director to provide him with a list of what projects have been recently been completed, what are we working on and what is on the horizon.  Mike will prepare a summary to ADs to share with workgroups.

We reviewed items from the quarterly update, focusing on staff morale issues (““How we do our work”) – see:  http://sites.middlebury.edu/lis/files/2012/09/lis-quarterlyupdate-summer2012.pdf.  It appears we are making good progress!  We will add two items from this discussion to future updates:  governance and reviewing management training with workgroup leaders.

Joseph joined the meeting for a discussion and review of the list of space requests to send to Facilities Services.

Chris talked about a new assessment tool: Gartner’s ITscore.  From Gartner: “Gartner’s ITScore is a tool that quantifies the maturity of both the IT organization as a provider and the enterprise as a consumer of information technology. Enterprise and IT leaders can use ITScore to identify and remedy constraints on their ability to leverage IT.

Roles (ie. assessment questionnaire areas)

  • Enterprise Perspective
  • Application Organization
  • Business Intelligence and Performance Management
  • Business Process Management
  • CIO Perspective
  • Enterprise Architecture
  • Infrastructure and Operations
  • IT Sourcing and IT Vendor Management
  • Program and Portfolio Management
  • Security and Risk Management

For more information, there is a video at: http://my.gartner.com/html/itscore/itscore-video.html

Thanks for reading,
Terry and Doreen

 

Tags: , , , ,
Comments Off

AD Meeting Notes, month of September

October 3, 2012 by
Categories: Midd Blogosphere

Special quadruple-size bonus issue to catch up, since I’ve again gotten behind with these… Most recent notes at the top.  TS

————–
Sept. 27, 2012
Present: Mike Roy, Carol Peddie, Mary Backus, Terry Simpkins, Chris Norris, Shel Sax and Doreen Bernier

We talked about the membership of the Education and Training Team.  Terry will consult with the possible new members.

Mary led a discussion about the SLA response time recommendations.  After reviewing these recommendations with workgroup leaders, we will extend the recommended response times so that they are consistent across LIS.

Mike shared a list of potential topics for the optional all-LIS meetings.  We will share LIS staff for suggestions.

Shel gave an informative but bleak presentation on the Future of Higher Education.

Thanks for reading,
Terry & Doreen

————–
Sept. 20, 2012
Present: Mary, Carol, Terry, Mike, Chris
Absent: Doreen

We agreed to have a semester start-up debriefing at the October managers meeting.

We will have a DiSC conversation in October for all-staff.  The assessments will go out in advance and the meeting will focus on results; no one will need to retake the assessment who has already taken it recently (e.g., for management training)

In looking more at the 306 goals that departments across campus have compiled, we reviewed those which might have a large impact on LIS and assigned each area director to follow-up with certain College offices where we need more information.  The point is to obtain more information on these goals and work to provide feedback on the goal viability from our point of view. This could involve stopping projects already in motion to work on new ones, or delaying new ones until we have capacity.

Thanks for reading,
Terry

————–
Sept. 13, 2012
Present: Mike, Terry, Carol, Chris, Tim
Absent: Mary, Doreen

Tim Spears joined us as we reviewed a tentative (and incomplete) list of goals from other departments with potential impact on LIS.  We also spent time talking about MIIS, BL, and LS, etc. (not yet in the list of dept. goals) and their potential impact on LIS and how we will get more information about these projects.  We will need to review the goal list to identify projects for which we need more information, projects to dismiss, or projects which we think we can handle with the available resources.  This needs to happen within 3 weeks.

Other points of discussion with Tim:

  • staffing issues, especially in light of how some of the new initiatives under consideration will impact technology and LIS;
  • innovation TF recommendations will go to EAC for approval of “low-hanging fruit”
  • how does the Middlebury community engage the ongoing questions about college costs vs. relevance?  These conversations could also generate more goals and projects involving technology;
  • how do we (LIS/The College/everyone) foster innovation and creativity? LIS often seems to be a combination of utility company and experimentation zone

Following Tim’s departure, we had a brief discussion of the Security Team membership. Chris as sponsor will follow-up.

————–
Sept. 6, 2012
Present: Mary, Carol, Terry, Mike, Chris
Absent: Doreen

Reviewed the directors’ updates and calendar.

Discussed SLA response times

Chris reported a flaw in Java runtime v6 and the recommended path for security reasons is to upgrade to v7. Some of our critical systems do not support the upgrade.  Carol and Chris will investigate more.

The About LIS page needs some updating (MR will do)

Joy & Kellam have sent out a request for information regarding this year’s debriefing on Language School support, still to be scheduled.

Facilities Services has put out their annual call for project requests.  Some that come immediately to mind:

  • data center refurbishing;
  • info desk refurbishing;

We will check with Joseph Watson about any projects remaining from last year.

We began talking about budget requirements for next year and new projects/requests LIS might be looking at.  We should be discussing needs and preliminary thinking with managers, especially viz-a-viz projects/requests involving capital costs that will subsequently roll over into operational costs.  More discussions in early October.

Reviewed topics for various upcoming meetings: managers, directors, open meetings, and all staff meetings:

  • Communications Task Force;
  • Curricular Technology support;
  • Staffing plan;
  • Innovation task forces (James Davis);
  • DiSC workshop (October);
  • Policy summit;
  • Amy McGill from MIIS could talk about current activities on the Left Coast;
  • Review goals from other areas of the College that will or might impact LIS (once shared with us)

We also talked about pulling conversations about our shared values into specific topic discussions, as this may inform why and how we do some of the things we do.  Directors should also talk with managers about what we are doing to incorporate the values into the worklife/workday.

Talked about team assessments: what issues are out there that we need to work on?  What do we expect when we begin inviting teams to Friday directors meetings?

  • Each team needs a clear, agreed upon charge;
  • Membership issues – are the right people on the right teams?  Are there people who want to rotate off?  Should we have terms?
  • Communications/updates;
  • Do we have the right teams? What work wouldn’t happen if a particular team didn’t exist? Can we afford to lose it or not?
  • Should teams be ongoing or project based?

Reviewed the recommendation of the incident tracking (HEAT) system replacement committee.  Carol stressed the need for an application administrator to oversee patches, work with central networking, etc., regardless of the system we choose, whether hosted or not.  We agreed that we need an implementation plan for Web Help Desk, especially looking at what it will take to host locally.  What will that take time away from?  We still have concerns over the matter of hosting/not hosting.  If we can’t support implementing Web Help Desk, we agreed we may need to go back to the drawing board and look for a new system.  We may also need to consider other models for providing support, but that may not work within our culture and expectations of support levels.  This will be considered a critical system, and taking on the hosting locally will involve considerable overhead to support this, overhead which we have not planned the staffing resources for.

Thanks for reading,
Terry

Tags: , , ,
Comments Off