Sustainable Computing
and Calls for Service
Workshop
ColoradoCollege ITS
4/26/044/29/04

Workshop Report

• • Continuous Improvement Associates • •

Phone: 719 599-0977 • E-mail:

Website:

Table of Contents

Workshop Report

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Sustainable Computing and Calls for Service Workshop
Colorado College ITS - 4/26/04 & 4/29/04

Executive Summary

Pre-Workshop Problems and Challenges Survey

Workshop Session I, 4/26/04

Problems in the Context of the Calls for Service (CFS)
& Sustainable Computing (SC) Causal Loop Structures

Considering Policies & Initiatives to Improve Loop Operation

Workshop Session II, 4/29/04

Exponential Improvement

Policies & Initiatives to Improve Loop Performance & Initiative Ranking

Policy and Initiative Descriptions

Policy and Initiative Influences on Feedback Loops

Recommendations

Appendix I. The Wheel of Learning

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Randy Stiles for his interest in, and openness to, this systems approach to organizational development … and for taking a chance on it.

Thanks especially to Marla Gerein for her assistance with many aspects of this project and this report … and for suggesting the project in the first place.

Sustainable Computing and Calls for ServiceWorkshop
ColoradoCollege ITS - 4/26/044/29/04

Executive Summary

This report records the results of systems thinking workshops at ColoradoCollegeto examine ITS initiatives and priorities relative to fostering Sustainable Computing (SC) and handling Calls for Service (CFS). Systems thinking workshops take the perspective that the root causes of problems in an organization are reinforcing and balancing feedback loops that are being driven in a way that produces behaviors and events that do not serve the organization’s Vision, Purpose and Values.

In Part I, we examined ITS challenges (determined in asurvey of ITS personnel) in the context of SC and CFS causal loop feedback structures. The group then suggested other problems and challenges and, after skillful discussion (balancing inquiry and advocacy), we consolidated like challenges. Then, again after skillful discussion, participants re-ranked the challenges and with this perspective ranked the feedback loops to determine those perceived to be the most important in driving system behavior.

In preparation for Part II, the group formed teams to examine the feedback loops and suggest Policy/Initiative Proposals to improve performance. In Part II, the group reviewed Policy/Initiative Proposals and, after skillful discussion and classifying them as to Difficulty and Impact, participants prioritized Policy/Initiative Proposals.

The figure below shows the top-ranked initiatives.

Figure 1 . Workshop Session II Ranking of Top Initiatives with Difficulty and Impact Ratings

The table below shows a complete listing of the policies and initiatives in priority order.

Ranked Policies & Initiatives
Difficulty / Impact / Policies and Initiatives / # of Votes / Priority
Medium / High / ITS Planning and Project Template / 28 / P1
Medium / High / Defining Limits / Service Level Agreement (SLA) / 22 / P2
Medium / High / SWAT Team / 13 / P3
Medium / Medium / Information Campaign (prep for charge backs) / 12 / P4
Medium / High / Strategy: Enhanced ITS communication w/administrative counterpart to tech specs / 12 / P5
Hard / High / Make Time for Internal Planning / 8 / P6
Hard / Medium / ITS Website / 8 / P7
Medium / High / Life Cycle SW / 8 / P8
Medium / High / Orientation of New Admin personnel / 8 / P9
Hard / Medium / Hire best available student / 6 / P10
Easy / High / Dissemination of meeting decisions / 6 / P11
Easy / Medium / Meeting Split between Admin & Technical / 6 / P12
Medium / High / ParaProfs / 5 / P13
Hard / High / Charge Backs for Capacity (bandwidth & storage) / 5 / P14
Medium / High / Tech Liaisons / 3 / P15
Hard / High / Charge Backs on Services / 2 / P16
Medium / High / Problem Tracking / Improvement / 1 / P17
Easy / Medium / Display phones / 1 / P18
Medium / High / Student Workforce / 0 / P19
Medium / High / Coordinated Advocacy / 0 / P20
Medium / Medium / Contract Out / 0 / P21
Easy / Low / Candy Jar at Help Desk / 0 / P22

These initiative priorities based on group consensus can serve as a general input for final project prioritizationand planning. However, management may set other priorities based on other considerations. For example, there are three initiatives (in green above) considered “Easy” that have Medium and High impacts that might well move up in priority.

A section in this report describes the Policies Initiatives to explain their abbreviated titles. Another section shows where the Policies Initiatives influence the feedback loops to improve organizational performance. (see the Table of Contents). These are, of course, not definitive, nor is the ranking final,because priorities continually shift. This is a step in a cycle of continuous improvement.

The Problems & Challenges and the Policies & Initiatives to ameliorate them that were developed in these workshop sessions are a good start. However, it is virtually certain that the priorities developed on the basis of perceptions is not the same as those that would be determined by keeping track of the things that go wrong and developing a Pareto chart based on actual data … and then developing Policies & Initiatives based on this improved understanding. Doing this more effectively allows preventing classes of problems that go wrong by directing energy toward “fire prevention,” rather than to “fire fighting.”

While recording and tabulating things that “go wrong” does takes time from current activities that are considered urgent, such an investment pays off many times over.

A legitimate question is, “Why not simply consider Problems & Challenges and directly develop Policies & Initiatives to improve them?” The reason is that improvement may only be possible when there areactions taking place around an entire feedback loop. A parallel is that a bicycle chain only moves if all the links move. Therefore, it can be important to combine, or tightly coordinate, initiatives that affect the same loop, and/or develop performance measures around the loop to confirm that loop operation is actually improving.

Pre-Workshop Problems and Challenges Survey

Prior to the workshop, ITS conducted a survey to determine a preliminary ranking of ITS problems and challenges. The figure below shows the survey results for all respondents.

Figure 2 . Results of Pre-workshop Survey Results on ITS Problems & Challenges: All Respondents

Understandably, different organizations within ITS had different perspectives as indicated in the following table and figures showing the responses of four ITS groups.[1]

Figure3. Table: Results of Pre-workshop Survey on ITS Problems & Challenges byResponding Group


Figure 4 . Results of Pre-workshop Survey Results on ITS Problems & Challenges: Administrative

Figure 5 . Results of Pre-workshop Survey Results on ITS Problems & Challenges: Academic Technology Services

Figure 6 . Results of Pre-workshop Survey Results on ITS Problems & Challenges: Audio Visual Services

Figure 7 . Results of Pre-workshop Survey Results on ITS Problems & Challenges: User Services

Workshop Session I, 4/26/04

Randy Stiles introduced the session, setting the context by distributing and reviewing the draft “Action Agenda for Information Technology Services, 2004 – 2009.”

We then reviewed the systems thinking approach and how Values, Purpose and Vision act through system structure (including mental models) to produce observed behaviors. We also reviewed the substantial benefits derived from creating “organic processes” that reinforce achieving behaviors that serve the organization’s Values, Purpose and Vision.[2]

After reviewing the results of the pre-workshop survey, participants in teams of two discussed survey results and suggested additional problems using the nominal group technique.[3] We posted the ideas to the board, using inquiry as we proceeded to clarify as necessary. We clustered like ideas, agreed on names for the clusters, and consolidated the new and pre-workshop lists. The table below shows the results.

Figure8. Table: Results fromWorkshop I Voting on ITS Problems & Challenges, New Problem Names in Blue

From: Initial Problem Name / To: New Problem Name / Notes
Insufficient Staffing / *Balance ITS Capacity & Expectations / Better define and then
communicate ITS service limits and constraints to the
CC community
InsufficientCollege Planning / Quality of College Planning, Pres/LDRP / ITS is negatively impacted by a lack of coordinated planning at the college-wide level.
InsufficientInfra Funding / (same) / The ColoradoCollege budget does not currently fund
adequate lifecycle replacement of its IT infrastructure.
Managing IT Life Cycle / *College & ITS Planning for Sustainability / Includes: Lifecycle Acceleration, or Extension, Beyond Optimum could be a problem
Decentralization Impacts / (same) / Sub-groups within ITS are physically separated across campus.
Managing Infra Growth / *College & ITS Planning for Sustainability
InsufficientPres Equip Funding / Insufficient Infrastructure Funding
Increased Need for Specialization / Incr'd Need for Spec'zn (Complexity) / Diagram variable remains "Computing Infrastructure
Complexity"
Growth of SW Licensing Costs / *College & ITS Planning for Sustainability
Managing Infra Complexity / Incr'd Need for Spec'zn (Complexity)
InsufficientSupport Req Notice / *Balance ITS Capacity & Expectations
ERP workload / *Balance ITS Capacity & Expectations
Managing Security Threats / *Infrastructure Protection / Increased need to anticipate, immunize against and deal with ever-changing security threats.
Growth in Present'n Equip Dmd / Insufficient Infrastructure Funding
Growth of Contract Maint Costs / *College & ITS Planning for Sustainability
Low morale / *Salary Compression/Low Morale
Low ERP Imple. Visibility / *Communication w/i ITS & Community
Lack of Pres Equip Familiarity / *Community Training
Increased Spec Reduces Stud Supp / (same)
Computer Diversity / Incl’d in "Computing Infrastructure Complexity"

Following this we allowed time for individuals to advocate for the problems they perceived to be most important. And, after a break, participants were given a number of votes to distribute among the problems. The table and the Pareto chart below shows the ranking.

Figure 9. Table: Results from Workshop I Voting on ITS Problems & Challenges, New Problem Names in Bluew/asterisks

Problem Influences / Number of Votes
*Balance ITS Capacity & Expectations / 38
Quality of College Planning, Pres/LDRP / 23
*College & ITS Planning for Sustainability / 20
*Communication w/i ITS & Community / 16
*Insufficient ITS Empowerment / 14
*Salary Compression / 13
*Community Training / 11
*Infrastructure Protection / 10
Insufficient Infrastructure Funding / 10
Incr'd Need for Spec'zn (Complexity) / 6
*Academic Integration & Collaboration / 6
*Set Prof ITS Goals/Timely Celeb / 4
Decentralization Impacts / 0
*Insufficient ITS Educ/Training / 0
Incr'd Spec Reduces Stud Support / 0

Figure 10. Table: Results Workshop I Voting on ITS Problems & Challenges, New Problem Asterisked

Problems in the Context of the Calls for Service (CFS) & Sustainable Computing (SC) Causal Loop Structures

Following examination of problems and challenges, we reviewed the CFS and SC feedback loops. We alsoreviewed diagrams that show the influences of the pre-workshop suggested Problems & Challenges to put the problems in context and contribute toinformed voting on the importance of the feedback loops. Following this review, participants advocated for the loops they perceived to be most important and then voted on the loops using the proportional voting technique.

The following figures show the structures, including the influences of the newly-defined set of problems and challenges. In addition, some of the loops were renamed to clarify loop action.

Figure 11. Calls for Service Causal Loop Structure with Influences in Red

Figure 12. . Sustainable Computing Causal Loop Structure with Influences in Red

The figure below and the following table show the results of the voting on the feedback loops.

Figure 13. Pareto Chart of Feedback Loops in the the CFS and SCCausal Loop Structures

At the end of Workshop I, teams volunteered to examine the top-ranked feedback loops and suggest initiatives to improve their beneficial operation. The table in the figure below shows the loops examined and team assignments.

Figure 14. Priority Ranking of Feedback Loops in the CFS and SC Causal Loop Structures with Team Assignments

Priority / Feedback Loops / Votes / Team/Lead
1 / CFS & SC R9 IT/College Strategic Feedback / 34 / T1 Marla
2 / CFS R3 Educ&Prev Reduces Probs / 31 / T1 Marla
3 / SC B5a,b,c Staff/Maint/Infra Supp Costs / 26 / T2 Joseph
4 / CFS R8 Long-term Strategic Impr'mt / 25 / T1 Marla
5 / SC B8 Obsolete Old Cuts Supp Req'ts / 19 / T2 Joseph
6 / CFS B1 Answer CFS, Cut Educ & Prev / 17 / T3 Dan
7 / CFS R6 Time Pressure Affects Morale / 15 / T3 Dan
8 / CFS R4 Interruptions Affect CFS Time / 12 / T1 Marla
9 / CFS R5 Productivity from Training / 9
10 / SC B4 Comp Init Purchase Costs / 8
11 / SC R2 New Comp: I Like It / 5
12 / CFS R7 Training Affects Morale / 4
13 / SC B6a Software Upgrade Costs / 2
14 / SC B7a Opp'ty Costs of Learning / 2
15 / SC R1 New Comp Prod'y Incentive / 2
16 / SC R3 Old Comp: Want New One / 1
17 / SC B6b Computer Disposal Costs / 1
18 / CFS B2 User Involvement Incr's CFS / 0
19 / SC B7b Opp'ty Costs of Old Comp Prod'y / 0

Figure 15. Calls for Service (CFS) Feedback Loops Assigned to Team 1

Figure 16. Calls for Service (CFS) Feedback Loops Assigned to Team 3

Figure 17. Sustainable Computing(SC) Feedback Loops Assigned to Team 2

Figure 18. Pareto Chart of Feedback Loops in the the CFS & SCCausal Loop Structures, showing team assignments

Considering Policies & Initiatives to Improve Loop Operation

The teams took on the task of proposing policies and initiatives to improve feedback loop operation using the table below to prompt proposing Policies & Initiatives to enhance “Skills & Capabilities,” to improve “Processes,” and to increase “Value to College ITS Customers.” An additional consideration is to define “Other Organizations or Groups to Involve.”

Figure 19. Policy and Initiative Chart

Policy or
Initiative / Skills &
Capabilities Enhanced / ITS Process or
College Process Enhanced / Increased Value to
College ITS Customers
and/or College Customers / Other Organizations or Groups to Involve

This approach is based on a “Balanced Scorecard” and on the use of a “Strategy Matrix” shown in the figures below.[4]As shown in the figure on Strategic Perspectives, initiatives and policies should support providing customer value by enhancing processes that provide value and by enhancing skills and capabilities that improve the processes.

The figure showing the Strategy Matrix, illustrates that identifying feedback loops provide guidance as to which groups to involve. We tend to organize functionally, but success depends on fostering favorable operation of the loops.

Each group or individual defines their strategy for improving the operation of each loop. Also each defines a summary strategy for all loops. “Loop leaders” can summarize how all groups will foster each loop.

More specifically, we have a well-defined project when all groups and individuals define "who's going to do what, by when, with what level of quality" for each box in the matrix. This allows using standard project management techniques and engages allthose necessary to improve organizational performance.

Workshop Session II, 4/29/04

The three teams came to ITS Workshop Part II with suggestions for initiatives to improve the operation of the top-ranked feedback loops. After the teams presented their policy and initiative suggestions to the group for discussion, other suggestions were added and time was allowed for participants to advocate for their favored policies and initiatives.

Exponential Improvement

Before prioritizing policies and initiatives, we reviewed the theory of exponential process improvement.[5]Processesof low to moderate technical and organizational complexity can be improved exponentially with a half life of 3 to 6 months. Overa half life, if continuous improvement is pursued, selected measures of process performance can be expected to fall by 50% of the difference between the current value and theoretical minimum value.

The Problems & Challenges and the Policies & Initiatives to ameliorate them that were developed in these workshop sessions are a good start. However, it is virtually certain that the priorities developed on the basis of perceptions is not the same as those that would be determined by keeping track of the things that go wrong and developing a Pareto chart based on actual data … and then developing Policies & Initiatives based on this improved understanding. Doing this more effectively allows preventing classes of problems that go wrong by directing energy toward “fire prevention,” rather than to “fire fighting.”

While recording and tabulating things that “go wrong” does takes time away from current activities that are considered urgent, such an investment pays off many times over.

Policies Initiatives to Improve Loop Performance & Initiative Ranking

After presenting suggested initiatives to the group as an overview, the group classified initiatives on a 3x3Action Priority Matrix, identifying for each initiative its Difficulty (Easy, Medium, Hard) and Impact (Low, Medium,High). After inquiry and advocacy, the group used proportional voting to rank theinitiatives. The table below shows the group’s categorization in the Action Priority Matrix.

Policies & Initiatives as Recorded on Action Priority Matrix
Impact
/ Team / Policies & Initiatives By Difficulty / Votes / Rank
Difficulty: Easy
Low / NT / Candy Jar at Help Desk / 0 / P22
Medium / T1-CFS / Meeting Split between admin and technical / 6 / P12
NT / Display phones / 1 / P18
High / T1-CFS / Dissemination of meeting decisions / 6 / P11
Difficulty: Medium
Medium / T1-CFS / Contract Out / 0 / P21
T2-SC / Information Campaign (prep for charge backs) / 12 / P4
High / T1-CFS, T2-SC, T3-CFS / ITS Planning and Project Template / 28 / P1
T3-CFS / SWAT Team / 13 / P3
T1-CFS, T2-SC / Defining Limits / Service Level Agreement (SLA) / 22 / P2
T1-CFS / Coordinated Advocacy / 0 / P20
T1-CFS / Strategy to enhance ITS communication with an administrative counterpart to tech specialists / 12 / P5
T1-CFS / Student Workforce / 0 / P19
T1-CFS / Orientation of New Administrative personnel / 8 / P9
T1-CFS / Tech Liaisons / 3 / P15
T1-CFS / ParaProfs / 5 / P13
T2-SC / Life Cycle SW / 8 / P8
NT / Problem Tracking / Improvement / 1 / P17
Difficulty: Hard
Medium / T1-CFS / ITS Website / 8 / P7
NT / Hire best available student / 6 / P10
High / T1-CFS / Make Time for Internal Planning / 8 / P6
T2-SC / Charge Back on Services / 2 / P16
T2-SC / Charge Backs for Capacity (bandwidth & storage) / 5 / P14

Figure 24. Team assignments:

Priority / Structures / Feedback Loops / Votes / Team/Lead
1 / CFS & SC / R9 IT/College Strategic Feedback / 34 / T1 Marla
2 / CFS / R3 Educ&Prev Reduces Probs / 31 / T1 Marla
3 / SC / B5a,b,c Staff/Maint/Infra Supp Costs / 26 / T2 Joseph
4 / CFS / R8 Long-term Strategic Impr'mt / 25 / T1 Marla
5 / SC / B8 Obsolete Old Cuts Supp Req'ts / 19 / T2 Joseph
6 / CFS / B1 Answer CFS, Cut Educ & Prev / 17 / T3 Dan
7 / CFS / R6 Time Pressure Affects Morale / 15 / T3 Dan
8 / CFS / R4 Interruptions Affect CFS Time / 12 / T1 Marla

To determine the group’s rankingof the priorities shown in the table above, we used a proportional voting process. While in general there’s interest in doing the easy things with high impact, groups do determine different priorities. The table below shows the policies and initiatives in rank priority order.