IT Governance Review
Presentation to SAAG – January 11th, 2011
Purpose of the Review
• The objective of the review was to recommend the
appropriate IT governance and structure that would:
 Assume responsibility for developing and
implementing an institutional strategic information
technology plan
 Coordinate the efforts of many different units engaged
in information technology activities which impact on
Memorial’s strategic objectives
 Assume accountability for the use of funds related to
the development and implementation of the plan
Request for Proposals
• Issued in December 2008
• Submissions reviewed by Steering
Committee
• Shortlist developed and presentations made
to Steering Committee & reps from
Information Management Committee & Digital
Campus Committee
• KPMG selected to conduct the review
The Review Process
• Reviewed current IT structure, resources &
processes to assess their impact on service
delivery
• Interviews with Memorial stakeholders
• Interviews with other Canadian universities
• Presented a number of governance model
options
• IMC has seen two presentations and
influenced final structure
• Presented to SEC in June, 2010
The Current IT Governance
Model
KPMG Findings
Business and Institutional Alignment – IT
decisions are addressed independently at
many levels within Memorial (i.e. institution,
individual units) without an overall unifying
framework.
Service Delivery Management – The
current fractured Service Delivery model has
resulted in a duplication of resources and
infrastructure and has impeded integration
and the propagation of leading practices.
KPMG Findings - continued
Performance Management – There is a
lack of defined performance metrics for IT at
Memorial.
Investment Management – It is difficult to
demonstrate that investments in IT are
adding value. The fragmented investment
decisions favor local optimization, often at
the expense of strategic benefits to the
University.
KPMG Conclusion
The review of Memorial’s IT decision-making
framework revealed that roles,
responsibilities, and authority for IT
decision-making appear to be:
• informal
• without any clear structural linkages for
institutional level prioritization, alignment,
transparency, and optimizing institutional
investments in IT.
In Comparison to Other
Canadian Universities….
• Memorial has more decentralized IT resources
• Memorial has a higher ratio of IT staff positions to
students
IT Staff per 1,000 Student FTEs
20.00
16.00
12.00
8.00
`
4.00
Memorial
Victoria
Guelph
Simon
Fraser
Ottawa
York
The Proposed Model
Detailed Implementation Plan
Developed
Highlights:






Adopt the proposed structure
Hire an Executive IT leader
Change readiness assessment
Develop an IT strategic planning process
Define IT investment framework
Clarify mandate of central IT and
responsibility for overlapped services
Implementation Plan continued




Migrate services once decisions are made
Develop service level agreements
Define key performance indicators
Improve IT management processes
Where to From Here?
• Additional detail through the
complete final report available at
www.mun.ca/imc
• Provide any feedback to Steering
Committee by January 31st
[email protected]
• Proposal to go back to SEC for
consideration