ITAC MEETING MINUTES
June 16, 2011
Attendees: Robert Michaud, Dr. Marc Hoit, Hank Cox, Vass Johnson, Daren Baughman, Darryl McGraw, Gloria McNeill, Niahm Darcy
Absent: Michael Reilly
Wake County: Lib Wanner, Debbie Moore
The meeting began at 9:05 a.m.
Lib Wanner welcomed everyone to the meeting and ensured that all members had received the proper documentation. Lib then indicated that Steve Kim needed to resign from the group due to work schedule conflicts and the Board of Commissioners appointed a new member in early June, Ubani Asiegbu, who will be joining the group when meetings resume in September.
Lib then reviewed the discussion topics for the presentation on the FY 12 IS Department Budget Meeting which included an overview of the IS Department functions. Lib reviewed the areas of responsibility for the department and indicated that not all IT related work is centralized. She indicated that IT staff members were located in the Sheriff’s Office, Register of Deeds Office, Libraries, General Services Administration and Geographic Information Services Division and explained why those business units had their own staffs and how the IS Department worked with them. She then reviewed the FY 11 IS Department organizational chart and explained how the IS Business Plan has changed from a technology oriented plan to more of a business and funding related plan over the last several years.
Lib then reviewed the FY 12 budget request made by the department to the County Manager and the results of the request that were included in the County Manager’s Recommended Budget. She explained the reduction target for FY 12, how the reductions were made and how staffing has changed in the department over the last two years. Lib also reviewed the impacts the staffing reductions had on the services provided.
The discussion then moved to how the world of technology has changed over the last few years and the impacts of social media, cell phones, tablets, and creative offerings by vendors has limited the control that IT can have in the organization. Lib indicated that this required a re-examination of the role of both IT and the business units in the organization as it related to advancing the use of technology.
Lib reviewed with the group her thoughts on the role of IT in the organization, with the focus being on providing fundamental services. She then reviewed her thoughts on the role of the business units with an emphasis on partnership with IT. She asked for feedback on her thoughts, particularly on the partnership role of the business units. All agreed that this was an appropriate role, but could be difficult. Vass Johnson indicated that he thought it depended on the personality and interest level of people in the business units and partnership could be successful where the people involved were willing to partner and were interested in technology. Marc said they had been working hard on this for a few years and that including the business units in IT governance was important as well as putting the focus on business improvements through technology. Robert indicated that business unit involvement was successful in his organization because it was required by top management. He indicated that having top management hold business unit managers responsible for how they used technology made a big difference in their level of involvement and interest. Daren indicated that having the business units responsible for cost savings as well as what was spent on technology was key in involvement. He said budgetary accountability was important.
Lib then discussed the various ways vendors were offering services in additional to the traditional licensing and maintenance model. Examples included subscription services and outsourcing the technical and/or application environment. Lib then recapped the discussion held at the May meeting regarding ERP management options and asked for additional input from the group on the concept. She indicated that her take aways from the May meeting were: be sure the vendor is viable, be sure the disaster recovery plan offered is proven, have a back out plan, have a good service level agreement and contract, and understand that implications not only on the staff involved with the system but the entire IS staff as this is a trend in the industry. The group then added comments related to understanding the strategic direction of the organization and how outsourcing plays into that direction, risk mitigation, short term and long term perspectives and not to do something in the short term that would constrain the organization in the long term. It was also noted to be sure there was a clear understanding of all of the linkages that systems had to other systems and they were accounted for in the arrangement.
Lib proceeded to discuss the cost of IT services and the notion of charging some or all costs back to business units. She asked for input from the group on their experience with charge backs. Vass indicated that his organization had tried that and then had moved back to centralizing the costs in IT. Marc suggested that rather than do a charge back, let each business unit know how much is allocated to them and have them work with IT in prioritizing the work to be done to fit the allocation. Daren indicated that when the business units are fully responsible for the costs it affects their behaviors. The group then briefly discussed the pro’s and con’s of centralized funding versus decentralized funding.
Lib concluded the presentation with a discussion of her interest in pursuing desktop virtualization and complimented Darryl McGraw for his work in this area and also her intention of leveraging more of the County’s investment in Microsoft products over the next two years.
Lib closed the meeting by thanking everyone for their input and reminding them that the next meeting would be in September, 2011. Lib indicated that another staff member will conduct the meeting as she will be at her annual professional association conference.
Meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m.