Tag Archives: Future

PPM as change agents

Hina Taank
Programme and Projects Officer
Brunel University

 

Gartner Program and Portfolio Summit 2017 – Guest Keynote

Hina Taank was funded to attend this event as a 2017 UCISA bursary winner

This blog post refers to my personal views and the learning that I experienced from attending the Program and Portfolio Summit 2017.

I will be blogging on specific Summit sessions such as this one, but information on some of the other keynotes and events can be found here.

How PPM professionals need to embrace the digital

I really liked Jonathan MacDonald’s vibrant entrance on stage. Founder of the Thought Expansion Network, he delivered his talk with immense energy and the music captured the audience’s attention and thoughts immediately. He was able to relay that PPM professionals need to embrace the digital changes and how we think and react will determine our future. He stated that ‘Success is response dependent, not size dependent’.

Jonathan provided examples of wireless in households, message apps and the e-commerce sales making huge shifts in growth, changing how we do business. We must all accept the changes as change agents, otherwise we will fail.

Jonathan worked on an analogy of a big oil tanker and a speed boat both needing to be fuelled, navigated and translated. In my opinion, we need to take responsibility and manage the relationships involving how senior stakeholders handle certainty versus uncertainty. The term ‘fuelled’ was used in the analogy. I think that regardless of the size of the business, they still need to continue to exist and be ‘navigated’, that is providing leadership and direction to the workforce whilst taking risks.  Finally, the term ‘translated’ was used, and in my view, this could be ways of communication so that the ‘oil tanker or boat’ does not crash or stray.  Typically, in business the same would be keeping the stakeholders informed and providing them with choices.

Jonathan is an extremely effective speaker who ended his talk with a statement about ‘Risk Of Inaction’.

In my view, this had two meanings: a) we must do something as not doing anything is no longer an option and b) the initial caps of each word forms ROI which means, Return On Investment, therefore activity in business is important for gain profits.

Full details on the presentation contents or how to contact the analysts can be obtained from Gartner, Inc directly.

Disclaimer:

Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

PPM in the digital age at Gartner’s Program and Portfolio Management Summit


Hina Taank
Programme and Projects Officer
Brunel University

 

Gartner Program and Portfolio Management Summit 2017 – Setting the scene

Hina Taank was funded to attend this event as a 2017 UCISA bursary winner

This blog post refers to my personal views and the learning that I experienced from attending the Program and Portfolio Management Summit 2017. The conference was titled ‘Driving Innovation at the Speed of Business’ and the agenda primarily focused on ‘Results-driven [Project Portfolio Management] PPM: Leading Change and Delivering Value in the Digital Age’. The attendees were from all business sectors both nationally and globally. I was surprised by the scale and the 106 sessions that were offered. These were based around four theme tracks: ‘Transformation Gets Real’, ‘Agile Business Impacts’, ‘The Changing Program & Portfolio Management Ecosystem’ and ‘Empowering People’, together with vendor run or assisted sessions. Throughout the event, I shared information with the community on #GartnerPPM, @UCISA, @bruneluni, @HinaTaank  and @UCISA_PCMG

I am grateful to Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) having successfully won and was awarded a bursary through their bursary scheme to attend the event. I am also grateful to Brunel University London and the Information Services for allowing me the time to attend the conference.

I had always wanted to attend a Gartner event as it is one of the world’s leading research and advisory companies. The event allowed me to learn about the trends around the Program Portfolio Management (PPM) space, together with lots of tips and actions on how I can make a difference in my job.  I am therefore grateful to Gartner for organising this event for like-minded people to learn and network.

 

 

 

 

 

I will be blogging on specific sessions, but some of the useful events outside the keynotes and workshops were as follows:

Orientation session for first-time attendees: how to get the most out of your conference attendance

Andrea White started the event for first timers to a Gartner event and briefed the group on how to make the most of the two days. Help was available via a helpdesk, appointments could be made to meet Gartner Analysts and the most useful was the Gartner Events Navigator. The Navigator app was widely used as it provided real-time information on all the sessions, (even those cancelled or replaced), session attendees, speakers and exhibitors. It also provided an area with personal agenda, notes and highlighted the exclusive sessions primarily for C-suit attendees.

Networking lunch

Over lunch, I really enjoyed networking with people with similar issues and problems, nationally and globally. It almost felt like a speed meeting.

Evening networking reception hosted by the showcase suppliers

The evening reception was hosted by the showcase suppliers and they did a grand job by providing a variety of food and drinks. I was treated to some lovely vegetarian food by one of the vendors. Importantly, it allowed me to further network and speak with the showcase suppliers and the attendees at the event. The key exhibitors were CA technologies, Changepoint, Clarizen, Microsoft and Planview.

Closing remarks

A really good and informative wrap round summary of the two days was provided by Donna Fitzgerald. She mentioned all the key messages that were addressed at the conference.  The artwork during many sessions by Axelle Vanquaille was absolutely fabulous, as she visually captured what the speakers relayed, for example, in the keynote ‘Trusting the Ensemble’ by the British conductor and music director, Charles Hazelwood. (This will be covered further in a future blog).

 

 

 

 

 

(Image by Axelle Vanquaille)

My two days sailed by. The Gartner team did an excellent job in the planning and running of this event, allowing all attendees to take away some action points.  Gartner provided a ‘save the date for 2018’  for the next event which I have added to my diary.   A truly valuable and thought-provoking event and one that I would not like to miss in the future.

Full details on presentation contents or how to contact the analysts can be obtained from Gartner, Inc directly.

Disclaimer:

Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Universal design for learning

Emma Fletcher
Technology Enhanced Learning Advisor
York St John University

EDUCAUSE 2017

Emma Fletcher was funded to attend this event as a 2017 UCISA bursary winner

As a UCISA bursary winner for 2017, I got the opportunity to attend the annual EDUCAUSE conference, this year held in Philadelphia, PA.

The first session of Day 1 of the EDUCAUSE conference was from Dr Michio Kaku, a futurist, theoretical physicist and author. He spoke about his predictions for the future, the digitisation of society and commerce, although he admitted it is hard to predict the future. He suggested that the internet will be everywhere in the future, so we will view it in the same way we view electricity now. We will have the internet in contact lenses, meaning getting online will be as easy as blinking. This will mean we have information easily available to us, so in education memorising facts/figures will be less important with more focus on concepts being taught. He also spoke of lecturers roles becoming more of a mentoring one. Whilst it was thought provoking, some of it was rather science fiction.

Further sessions in Day 1 of the conference covered the key areas of universal design for learning (UDL) and learning management systems (LMS). In ‘A look at how an LMS can help you implement your UDL strategies’, Kenneth Chapman (D2L) and Sandra Connelly (Rochester Institute of Technology) covered the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework  principles and how the LMS can play a role in supporting some of these  They focussed on the issues around accessibility, levelling the playing field so that everyone has equal access to what is being designed, as well as ensuring that this is designed and added up front.

Resources and downloads from the presentation are now available.

 

Bitcoin: trust and technology


 

 

 

 

Ed Stout
Support Services Manager
Leeds Beckett University 

EUNIS 2017

Ed Stout was funded to attend this event as a 2017 UCISA bursary winner

The final keynote session of the EUNIS 2017 conference from Nikolas Guggenberger, RWTÜV Foundation Assistant Professor of IT Law at University of Münster School of Law, took on an interesting look at ‘Trust by technology from a legal perspective’ in the form of a deeper investigation into public Blockchain, the technology behind crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin. Very early in the presentation, Nikolas had us asking ourselves “what causes us to trust something or someone?” which seemed quite an intriguing question as it isn’t one that I had particularly spent time thinking about before. My initial thought was simply that it is something I personally build through experience but is that really an option in the anonymous world of virtual currencies?

Nikolas gave a number of us less educated on the workings of public Blockchain, an insight into what it is and how it functions. Blockchain is a distributed, decentralised database, which particularly came into the public domain since the origin of the most successful crypto-currency, Bitcoin. It uses maths, cryptography and a network of distributed users (PCs) to ensure the authenticity of a transaction that can be verified by the whole community. The members of the community that verify this authenticity can take a small transaction fee for playing their part in the process (this is known as mining).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The huge potential of a public Blockchain is yet to be fully unlocked but the principle in use removes the need to trust third parties such as banks during transactions and instead relies on the trust of the Blockchain itself. The scope of trust by Blockchain was illustrated by Nikolas in the diagram below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nikolas offered us a very interesting insight into the potential of Blockchain and some of the legal considerations from his professional view point. It became evidently clear that there is a huge scope for benefits to be realised beyond that currently using Blockchain and that these could become a standard in our future. I found it a highly interesting keynote and one to investigate further in the coming weeks and months.

This blog post first appeared on http://www.edstout.co.uk/2017/06/27/day-3-reflections/

 

Digital Skills for a New Generation


 

 

 

 

Ed Stout
Support Services Manager
Leeds Beckett University

Day Two EUNIS17

Day two was another great day at EUNIS17.   Following an early morning fear of conference burn out, having been up late writing up my notes from the Wednesday sessions, I took the option not to make the day quite as manic/tiring as my first day. Day two of the conference was opened with three highly interesting keynotes.

Martin Hamilton of Jisc opened his keynote ‘Life on Mars: Digital Skills for a New Generation’  with a look into the future. What careers do we think are going to play a new role in the future and what should we as HE institutions be doing to ensure that we successfully leverage/support these? When we think of our current course offerings, are we considering DNA editors, drone engineers or even asteroid miners? Should we be? Well, quite possibly. We need to ensure that we are “equipping today’s learners for tomorrow’s world,” Martin tells us, and ensure that we support the “digitally disadvantaged to achieve their potential.” These three mentioned careers are already available in our transforming marketplace; are we helping them to achieve their career aspirations?


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, what more does our future world hold for us? Martin felt it important that we not only focus on the future, as there are elements of the present, which we may not be best supporting to enable our students to meet that future. With “every self-respecting billionaire” investing in a space programme, maybe we should take note.  Space X have developed a rocket that would have previously been sent into space at a cost of $100 million, never to return. They’re now making space exploration “affordable” by the launch and safe return of rockets to Earth!! Is this the sort of development of the future that we in higher education should ensure we do not simply overlook?

SpaceX – First-stage landing from THAICOMB mission May 2016.

Could robots actually play a big part in future? In Japan, SoftBank have invested in the development of a humanoid robot they call Pepper. “He” is intended to be able to interpret emotions and effectively respond to questions. As you can see in the below video, emotional robotics may be in their infancy but they will need highly trained professionals to take them on to reach their potential. A gap in the mass HE market maybe?

Pepper the ‘emotional’ robot visits the FT | FT Life.

Martin explained how the technical world is changing the everyday jobs we have been accustomed to. With over 3,000,000 truck drivers in the USA and over 300,000 taxi drivers in the UK, advancements in vehicular automation is very likely to have an impact. It isn’t just Google with their WAYMO project that are investing. Tesla car owners have already driven over 140,000,000 miles on autopilot. Self-driving cars are here! With this technology now available in the present, we in HE must be aware that the post-graduation jobs market is shifting and so with it our students’ needs/demands. Martin also made reference to how Amazon have realigned their warehouses and distribution centres with over 45,000 robots (BettyBots)completing orders in a “human exclusion zone”. These are jobs that once would have been completed by humans and now make up 12% of Amazon’s workforce.

High-Speed Robots Part 1: Meet BettyBot in “Human Exclusion Zone” Warehouses-The Window-WIRED

Given the pace of change, we need to make sure that our institutions are assisting our students’ needs to re-train. Maybe we need to be re-focusing on training for careers in robot script writing, self-drive car engineering or robotic engineering. Our vision for the future will be the defining factor that shapes our successes.

For anyone wishing to view Martin’s full presentation, he has recorded and made it available on YouTube here:

This blog post first appeared on http://www.edstout.co.uk/blog/

 

 

Post-conference reflections from a bursary award winner

Allister-Homes-Profile-pic---small

 

 

Allister Homes
Senior Systems Architect
University of Lincoln

Gartner EA Summit – a week on

It’s been a week since I got back from the Gartner EA Summit in London, so I thought I would provide some reflections on the event. These are purely my opinions, and other people may well have a different take. If you’d like to see more of the detail of the event, have a look at my previous two posts (day 1 and day 2).

I think the focus was on larger organisations, and there was often an unvoiced assumption that there were significant numbers of architects and developers within the organisation (compared with what a typical university would have). It wasn’t unusual for suggestions to be made along the lines of ‘when you get back, why not assemble a small team of 5 people to go and investigate X, Y and Z’; having the capacity to do that sort of thing at short-notice sounds like quite a luxury.

Like many large conferences the non-keynote sessions were categorised into tracks, and at this summit they were A: Delivering Business Outcomes, B: Leveraging and Leading Practices in EA and C: Architecting the Digital Business. Rather than stick to a particular track I moved between them, going to the sessions that sounded most relevant to my work, organisation and sector. Sessions that were in the same stream contained common threads, as you would expect, and – in a couple of cases – some repetition.

I think directly applying what I learnt to day-to-day EA in HE will be more challenging than I initially thought it would be. This is because many of the sessions I attended were future-based (what changes to consider in the coming years) and either very strategic or focussed on large-scale IT development approaches (such as changing paradigms to one of micro-services and web-scale IT). It’s not an event that I would suggest attending every year, but would perhaps provide a useful background of EA direction every two or three years.

Being candid, the networking was not as useful as I had hoped. Conversations seemed to be mostly between people who already knew each other, which of course is only natural for any of us. I tried starting conversations with a number of attendees during breaks, but found that although everyone would give succinct answers to opening questions along the lines of where they were from, what they thought of the previous session, and so on, I couldn’t get a conversation going. I thought perhaps it was just me for a while, but then noticed the same thing happening to other people making such attempts too (which was something of a relief!).

As I mentioned, I selected the sessions that sounded most relevant rather than what sounded most intriguing or interesting from a personal rather than professional point of view – e.g. I went to ‘Business-Outcome-Driven Application Strategy’ rather than ‘Smart Machine Disruptions Will Dominate This Decade’, which ran at the same time. In hindsight the more extravagant sounding sessions may have contained relevant information too and perhaps provided some alternative ways of thinking about things.

The above may sound a little negative but that’s not my intention. It was an interesting and useful conference to attend, and I’m just trying to provide an honest and balanced opinion. I think the main topics and take-away points, based on the sessions I attended, in no particular order, were:

  • The Internet of Things (IoT) will become more important and will need more consideration, including by considering Things in the business domain, not just information systems or infrastructure domains. Also, computing everywhere is becoming the norm, but try to think people first rather than mobile devices.
  • Organisations need to operate in the digital world and interact digitally. Expect significant changes over the next 5-10 years, not just small increments – things you cannot yet imagine.
  • Large-scale application architecture is shifting towards an app and service approach, and a more extreme approach to Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). For new-style web-scale IT (but not enterprise scale core systems so far) there is a shift away from large systems and databases, including moving away from 3NF.
  • Software defined applications and infrastructure should be expected for networks, security, and other core elements to replace less flexible and less responsive infrastructure.
  • Business architecture is a critical element of EA (but we all know this already, don’t we?)
  • Attention needs to be paid to enabling technology to respond to business moments. It is often impossible to predict these business moments, so the approach must be to architect for agility instead.
  • Use the wisdom of the crowd: consider taking advantage of opportunities to crowd source solutions to problems, whether in the business or information systems domains.
  • Make good use of models, roadmaps, stories and personas to engage people, explore with them and explain to them. Use the right tools and techniques for the people in question.
  • Cloud offerings are becoming more complex, so architects need to understand what vendors are really offering, not just the fog and hype. Reasons for moving to cloud are not just cost (and in fact there is often no cost saving) – instead the drivers tend to be technology agility, business agility, offloading responsibilities, and advantages of security and scale. Most organisations are likely to use a hybrid of cloud services.

 

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

Enterprise Architecture Trends and Strategies

Allister-Homes-Profile-pic---small

 

 

Allister Homes
Senior Systems Architect
University of Lincoln

Gartner EA Summit Day 2

I’ll take the same approach as the blog post for day 1, summarising the sessions I attended.

Top 10 strategic technology trends for 2015

top 10

I thought this session brought together some of yesterday’s themes quite nicely – I’m not sure if that’s how it was intended or whether it was a coincidence (or even just my interpretation), but that’s how it came across to me.

First of all the presenter explained the traits that the Vanguard Enterprise Architect – Gartner’s term for the architect of tomorrow – will need to have:

  • Futurist, trend spotter
  • Business visionary
  • Technology analyst
  • Strategist (social connector)
  • Educator, communicator
  • Vendor watcher
  • Leader, collaborator
  • Evangelist, catalyst
  • Salesman

We were told that if you see trends in a spectrum, the enterprise architect should consider adopting trends, and how they can help the organisation, during their growth phase – after the emerging phase (when disruption is uncertain) and before they become mainstream (when the disruption is happening or has happened).

The top strategic trends Gartner identified as being of greatest important to EA over the coming years are:

  • Merging Real World and Virtual World
    • 1 – Computing everywhere (think mobile people instead of mobile devices)
    • 2 – Internet of Things
    • 3 – 3D printing
  • Intelligence everywhere
    • 4 – Advanced, pervasive and invisible analytics
    • 5 – Context-rich systems
    • 6 – Smart machines
  • New IT reality emerges
    • 7 – Cloud/client computing
    • 8 – Software-defined application and infrastructure
    • 9 – Web-scale IT (our IT world will look more like Google)
    • 10 – Risk-based security and self-protection

Business outcome driven application strategy
The focus of this session was bimodal application strategies, particularly the use of mode 2. Most IT departments are generally seen as good at identifying savings and efficiencies that an organisation can make, but not necessarily as good at supporting new revenue opportunities and taking advantage of new opportunities. Organisations need to take advantage of business moments – that is, opportunities that arise suddenly and are transient – and if the IT department is not good at responding to those opportunities with the business then they will become marginalised and bypassed. We heard how business moments are human-centric, transient, ad-hoc and blur the physical and digital boundaries. The difficulty for enterprise architects is that it is hard to plan the target state for these business moments when we have no idea what the state will look like until the transient opportunity arises. Instead, we have to design the architecture to be able to respond to opportunities rapidly as they arise.

In bimodal IT, mode 1 is the more traditional way of doing things, is consistent, has steady governance controls and does things ‘the right way’; mode 2 on the other hand has no simple path, is flexible and adaptive. Mode 3 looks more chaotic but it doesn’t have to be. Mode 1 might use a waterfall methodology (but might use Agile) whereas mode 2 can only succeed with Agile methodologies.

It was suggested that when starting out with a bimodal approach, we should first pick a specific project or projects to experiment with. Use agile approaches, devops, create an innovation lab and use small vendors. Then, as competence with mode 2 and a more unstructured world grows, mode 2 can start to be applied in more situations. There are significant differences in characteristics between mode 1 and mode 2 approaches, including funding arrangements, which are less predictable but can be less risky with mode 2. In an Agile project it will be known much earlier whether a project is likely to fail than would be the case in a waterfall project (called failing fast), and much less of the budget would have been spent, meaning the financial risk can be lower. Organisations will probably always have some mode 1, but a bimodal approach will start to displace it to some extent.

This session was presented by the same person who presented Application Architecture for Digital Business yesterday, and the information about app and service style application architecture from that session was repeated in this one. It was suggested that the likes of Nginx and in-memory computing are used for scale and performance. There was also a comment that, for integration, don’t assume the ESB is centre of universe. It is still good for core systems, but gateways (e.g. with APIs) can be faster and easier for mode 2 applications.

Orchestrating Ideation: Creating Breakthrough Innovation Opportunities
The ‘nuts and bolts to drive innovation’ were presented in this session, which concentrated on thoughts for an innovation pipeline. Innovation in many large businesses used to be driven by a small group, perhaps a dedicated Research and Development team. Businesses need to, and are, changing this approach now, partly because it is increasingly possible for someone with a good idea to simply go out and build it with tools at their disposal (cloud-based services in the case of IT tools) without the involvement of specialist teams in the organisation and without any kind of governance or approval. The change of approach needs to move from the likes of R&D teams to the wisdom and diversity of the crowd, and from managing innovation to orchestrating, engaging and motivating the right set of people and guiding them through an innovation pipeline.

Gartner has come up with a way of categorising problems according to their nature and applying different methods to crowd-source solutions depending on that categorisation.

pic 2

Problems can be categorised as complicated (e.g. putting a man on the moon in 10 years), complex (e.g. climate change) or chaotic (e.g. traffic movement). For each categorisation there are different knowledge scopes, and also different approaches:

  • Analysis for complicated, breaking down the problem into smaller pieces
  • Synthesis for complex, aiming for the best outcome to a problem without a way of necessarily knowing if it is ‘solved’ (see yesterday’s blog post for a session that covered analysis vs synthesis)
  • Selection for chaotic, where the whole problem can’t necessarily be solved but solutions can be selected to solve incremental parts of it.

Stakeholders will also vary according to the problem type. This is all much easier to explain using a series of Gartner’s slides, but I don’t think I can reproduce that much copyright material without falling the wrong side of the rules.

When it comes to the type of crowd used to solve the different categories of problems, complicated problems are best solved with specialist teams, e.g. the DARPA robotics challenge; complex problems are solved best with community co-creation, starting with a goal rather than a problem and then selecting the best option, e.g. the way the city of Porto Alegre involves citizens in setting the use of the discretionary budget; and chaotic problems are best solved using the largest possible target audience and giving the community a broad space to get many different ideas rather than setting a specific goal, and then working through filters of selection, development and final launch, e.g. the Department of Work and Pensions’ staff ideas scheme.

All of this needs to be done by putting rules and recognition/reward around a process. Participants are motivated from having autonomy (being part of the change), mastery (developing skills) and purpose (having meaningful contribution). A pipeline provides creative constraints to encourage creativity, because if there are no boundaries or guidance at all it is harder to think of something to be creative with, and organisations should put in place a way of managing innovation portfolios to make the best of crowd sourced ideas.

Digital Business Architecture Fuels Digital Business
At the very beginning of this session, it was emphasised that if you are not doing business architecture you are not doing EA – you’re doing EITA (Enterprise IT Architecture) instead. It was also emphasised that business architects must be part of the EA team, and even if there are reasons why the reporting lines for personnel are different it is still important for business architects to sit with and work with the rest of the EA team in a virtual team. Gartner estimates that by 2017 60% of Global 1000 organisations will execute at least one revolutionary and unimaginable business transformation effort, and if business architects are not an intrinsic part of the EA team then the rest of the architecture will not be able to respond properly to these transformations.

pic 3

My interpretation of this session was that much of it was about what should already be taking place in the business domain of EA, with elements of how to take it a little further. One interesting point is that organisations, people and things (think Internet of Things) will all be equal peers when it comes to digital business designs in future. I thought other aspects, such as how business architects should work on business strategy and goals, fill the gap between strategy and execution, and so on, were what has been suggested for a long time. Business moments were talked about again (see earlier in the day) and likened to lightning strikes of opportunity. The suggestion was made that to gain an advantage and be able to respond more quickly than competitors, business modelling should not stop at the boundary of the organisation; instead, also model the business domain of partners, competitors and customers.

Finally, the presenter urged IT and EA departments NOT to think of, or refer to, the rest of the organisation as customers, because doing so makes IT and EA subservient to the rest of the organisation. IT is intrinsic to most modern organisations and crucial to their futures, and department staff should be thought of as peers.

Three Roadmaps to Guide and Drive Change in Your Organisation
As the title suggests, this session was about roadmaps. The first point was that not every roadmap suits every stakeholder – it’s no good giving a tube map to someone getting the bus. In some cases a particular roadmap might only be relevant to a few technical staff, and there is nothing wrong with that because those people need that roadmap, but it would be a mistake to give the same one to board members. The definition of a roadmap provided by the presenter is that it is graphical, illustrates milestones and deliverables, and shows transition from current to future over specified time. Time is the primary dimension, but additional influencing factors may be shown, and the level of abstraction must be appropriate to the audience and purpose. That leads to the first piece of critical information when creating a roadmap – who and what is it for? By understanding that, an appropriate roadmap can be developed that is fit for the people and for the purpose for which it is being created.

pic 4

At this point similar emphasis to that of the previous session was made about the importance of not thinking of the IT department as separate to the rest of the organisation. You wouldn’t typically talk of the finance department and its relationship to the business, for example, so don’t do it with the IT department.

It was also suggested that staff from within the organisation are sought out for how they can help with roadmaps – many organisations have a marketing department with staff who spend much of their time making things look as appealing as possible, so ask if they can help do the same with your roadmaps for example.

A topology of roadmaps was presented covering quadrants of operational planning, operational execution, strategic planning and strategic execution. Roadmaps tend to fit towards the strategic rather than tactical axis, but lifecycle roadmaps cover some of each because they cover the full life cycle of a capability or system over time. Evolution roadmaps show a specific target state and what components are introduced or removed to support the required business outcomes. An enterprise roadmap shows current and planned strategic change at a contextual level, again including the time dimension. It tracks high level business outcomes linked to KPIs, and indicates change across the whole enterprise rather than just one programme or area of it.

2014 Technology Exchange – Day 2 by Matt Cook

matt_c

 

Matt Cook
Head of Infrastructure and Middleware
Loughborough University
Chair of UCISA-NG

 

FIRST Robotics Competition

The Monday evening welcome reception included a contest based on robots developed by high school students. The students were given six weeks to raise funds, design, develop, brand and program a robot – not an easy task! It was great to see such innovation from our students and colleagues of the future. I wish we had these opportunities back when I was at school; the best we experienced was BigTrak and writing Logo programs. However at least we were taught programming in BBC Basic, and not simply how to use the Microsoft Office suite.

2014TechExDay2

The USA is promoting Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in a similar manner to the UK. It will be interesting to see how successful this initiative is in providing the education required for our fellow colleagues of the future and plugging the current skills gap. Talking to the students, they are extremely enthused about the creator, maker, hacker opportunities being given through these programmes.

This is another one of those opportunities which demonstrates the value in the jobs we perform in our respective organisations to support education. I recently undertook a job shadow of a technician in one of our academic schools at Loughborough, and it was one of the most eye opening experiences I had all year.  It was extremely valuable to see the challenges they face within the school, how central IT policy affects their work and the innovation and creative ideas being developed by their students. I would certainly encourage everyone to get out into the wider university more to put everything into perspective.

Central IT vs Research Perspective on Information Security

There was a very interesting panel discussion mid-way through the Tuesday schedule investigating the challenges faced by both the central IT function and research centres in managing Information Security. Rob Stanfield from Purdue University provided an overview of the provision at his organisation and one thing that stood out was the scale of some of the US based education organisations that dwarfed most of the largest UK universities. The scale of operation also brought increased scale of both staffing, and following a coffee break discussion, of budget too. Purdue are currently recruiting a Security Risk Analyst and see an important element of their future service to be able to be better placed to advise on Information Security impact across their business.

There is a growing move to work with researchers to define strategy that allows Information Security to be an enabler and an active component in winning research grants. The panel all agreed that there was a need to form better relationships between research and central IT; something that I’ll personally be working on at Loughborough University over the coming years. There was an agreement that the era of silo’d departmental research email servers and wireless networks was not effective and the future is centralisation and collaboration. Closing comments focused on “…there is nothing like a good data breach to bring about change!” and “…some people are more concerned with IDS appliances than the balance of risk.”

Over coffee a number of people who attended the session were interested in the current UCISA activities to develop an Information Security Management System (ISMS) implementation guide and the update to the popular ‘Exploiting and Protecting the Network’ document; both set to launch in early 2015. Keep an eye on the UCISA website for more information!

As suggested, I will be posting details about these activities to the EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group mailing list as well. This list may also be of interest to UK colleagues who are looking to get a wider perspective on Information Security concerns within global education organisations. Whilst the remit for security falls between both the Network (NG) and Infrastructure (IG) groups within UCISA, some readers of the blog may not be aware of the UCISA-IS Information Security mailing list. Although currently low traffic, it is a growing area of discussion.

For those with larger security teams, it may also be of interest to explore the TERENA TF-CSIRT group.

Privacy in Access and Identity Management

Dr Rhys Smith (Janet) delivered the final session I attended on Tuesday. I’ve not personally been involved in the Access and Identity Management (AIM) side of IT at Loughborough; however I was eager to see what was on the horizon for Moonshot, especially what it can offer the research community. It was nice to see some friendly faces: Rhys Smith, John Chapman and Rob Evans from Janet; and Nicole Harris from TERENA when I arrived at the conference; I’ve also since met quite a few people I’ve spoken to by email before or have seen posting on mailing lists from.

Rhys gave a gentle introduction to AIM before describing how we should be adopting privacy by design, as it is so difficult to retrofit. As part of a privacy vs utility discussion; Rhys provided the example that the routing of IP network packets outside of the EU is breaking EU data protection guidelines as an IP address is deemed to contain personally identifiable information. Whilst this example is simply unworkable, the categorisation of IP addresses has caused some interesting consequences for our Computer Science researchers.

Following a narrative of the difference between web based federation (SAML) and network based federations (like eduroam); Rhys outlined the timescales for the Moonshot trial and official service. Being able to unify many technologies from simple SSH through to Windows desktop authentication opens many possibilities for secure research collaboration in the future.

Other Thoughts

There were lots of interesting conversations through the conference today about the development of common shared tools or building blocks to solve future challenges. From the infrastructure that supports eduroam through to the Kuali HE software suite. Many felt that through collaboration, a better solution can be developed with less resource; however there were concerns that high workloads in recent years had removed a lot of these opportunities for some.

Another common theme was the adoption of standards, rather than closed proprietary technology, avoiding vendor lock-in where possible and using the infrastructure as a live research aid for students within our organisations.

Learning Points

• Get out into the wider university to put your role into perspective;
• Turn Information Security policy and strategy into an enabler that wins research grants;
• Seek collaboration and closer relationships with our research community;
• Explore opportunities for privacy by design;
• Keep a watching brief on Janet Moonshot developments;
• Support the development of common shared tools and building blocks where appropriate.

Matt Cook