Perhaps the lack of integrated IT technology plans stem from: -Dispersed budget authority over that which might be called "I.T. items" may render the overall sum of I.T. infrastructure, components parts, support, etc. and their innevitable interrelationships unmanagemeable. It is questionable whether any strategy or plan can be in play if it isnt directly supported by a budget which is at least somewhat isolated from cannibalization for other (non-I.T.) needs.
-It is difficult and time consuming to create a thorough I.T. plan, and most thorough plans will end up contorted by new IT needs which were unanticipated but validly achieve high priority, opportunities which are too good to miss, or by changes in operating and capital budgets (downward). - I recommend (and use) a very straightforward statement of Goals and Objectivess every year which are measureable and seemingly achievable based on budget information available (or in advance of budget to help create it or advocate for it). It is straightforward enough so that anyone can understand what we are trying to do and is shared among all I.T. staff as well as senior management. We base items which appear on our knowledge of organizational and backoffice needs as well as interviews with department heads as to their anticipated needs and wishes.Both next year and multi year goals/objectives are identified. The entire document is never longer than 3 pages, and broad themes are presented with subordinate objectives. An example The theme: Improve Fundamental Infrastructure Beneath this: 1.Assure capacity, integrity and reliability of network infrastructure (including cabling, servers, troubleshooting capability, capacity for storage and use of images, video, voice, etc.). 2.Complete development and implementation of a comprehensive Network security/virus protection plan (multi-stage firewall, e-mail server with virus protection, intrusion detection system [IDS], etc.). 3.Implement disaster preparedness/business recovery strategy in conjunction with Facilities and Design (may include need for back-up server(s), new back up devices, regular test protocol). Details are left for later, on a piece by piece basis (keeping in mind the whole picture). I should note that at the Cleveland Museum of Art, I.T. operations and budget are highly centralized, the CIO is a member of senior management, and the strategic use of information technology is a core component of the Museum's own Strategic Goals. In this respect I understand that I am far more fortunate than many. Nonetheless, I think that an overall IT Goals and Objective Statement for an institution (not a department) should be useful and achievable by a museum of any size and organizational structure. Even where IT is seemingly dispersed, agreement on such a statement could help converge priorities and direction. Do you think I am close on this? -----Original Message----- From: Ilana Trager [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Web or IT Plans as Part of Museum Planning Here's a theory: All non-profits, including museums, want to show as little of their budget going to admninistration as possible. It's important when persuing grants and public support that we produce balance sheets that show most of our budget going to "programs," not "administration." IT is considered "administration," unless it's shown as part of a program department's budget, like curatorial, education, or even marketing. So, I suspect the typical lack of a comprehensive technology plan has less to do with the complex nature of museum tech, and more to do with avoiding a managment style that will complicate the issue of reporting the admin vs program budget ratio. - i _____________________ Ilana Trager Information Systems Manager Bellevue Art Museum office 425.519.0766 fax 425.637.1799 -----Original Message----- From: Guy Hermann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 8:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re:Web or IT Plans as Part of Museum Planning This comes up periodically on this list and I have yet to see any meaningful integration of a technology plan with any museum's strategic plan. More typically, a museum will include programs that depend on technology to their plan and then look at the ramifications of that separately. I am beginning to think that this is because of the exceptionally complex nature of the museum technology environment--there are just too many needs to serve. Creating a fully integrated plan that addresses collections, the web, education, ticketing, fund raising, group scheduling, membership, facility management, accounting, etc. is simply too much, especially since all of these are still moving targets. I have done a few technology assessments recently--the precursor to planning. The results have been a better sense of priorities and of what is possible, but even in these committed organizations, a fully integrated plan is too ambitious. What do others think? Why don't more museums have formal technology plans? ----------------------------------------------------- Guy Hermann 8 1/2 Godfrey Street Mystic, CT 06355 home: 860-536-2994 cell: 860-857-7363 --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected]
