Skip to main content.
Policies and Processes for Resource Allocation

ALLOCATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

POLICY STATEMENT

Information technology resources will be allocated under the management and supervision of the Vice President for Information Resources and Chief Information Officer in accord with the University mission. Members of the University community will have opportunities to advise the vice president regarding allocation of such resources through processes established by the vice president and widely published.

Responsible Officer: Vice President for Information Resources and Chief Information Officer
Effective Date: August 21, 2006
Originally Approved by: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (July 1, 2004)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to clearly designate responsibility for allocation of information technology resources and to indicate how interested constituencies can provide advice and recommendations for such allocations.

PROCESSES

Information technology resources may take the form of equipment (hardware), software, associated ongoing licenses or maintenance agreements for each, services, and support (especially support provided by professional staff employed by the University). These resources are proposed, reviewed, established and retired or discontinued through planning and budgeting processes. Below is a thumbnail of the graphic depiction of the cycles for those processes at the University of Mary Washington.  PLEASE CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO SEE A LARGER VERSION OF IT.

Thumbnail of graphic depiction of planning and budgeting process

Steps in the process include:

  1. During the Fall Semester, the Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable (TLTR) provides input to the Department of Information Technologies' (DoIT's) annual review of its current activities, services and costs , as well as to the department's annual review of the strategic vision for IT for the University and the department.
  2. The Administrative Systems Executive Council (AdminExec - currently the Banner Project Executive Council) provides similar input in the Fall Semester.
  3. In December after the strategic input phase, DoIT tests notions with both the TLTR and the AdminExec regarding potential projects and adjustments in ongoing levels of service (Tactical Input Phase 1).
  4. In early January after DoIT has prioritized potential projects and estimated budgets, it tests its priority-ranked lists with the two groups (Tactical Input Phase 2).
  5. After revising the lists based on the advice of the two groups, DoIT incorporates the staffing implications of proposed projects and estimated budgets into its HR planning in mid-January.
  6. DoIT makes initial proposals for the University's internal budgeting process when requested (usually late January or early February).
  7. DoIT incorporates the implications of actions of the General Assembly into its analysis of resource needs and reallocation possibilities (including HR planning) in March for the purpose of updating its proposals under review in the University internal budget process.
  8. DoIT updates its proposals in the University internal budgeting process in mid-to-late March.
  9. In April, the University sets its budget (subject to final approval by the Board of Visitors), including the amount that will be available for IT hardware and software from various sources and including what funding and positions will be available for projects and initiatives.
  10. The available hardware/software budget is compared to the schedule of desirable replacement cycles (i.e., three years for personal computers), and if funds are not sufficient to completely accomplish that year's equipment and software program, the vice president relies on prioritization advice from the President's Core Planning Group. At this point, some reallocation within the resources provided for IT through the University's internal budget process may be necessary to ensure that the highest priority needs are being addressed.
  11. Any unmet IT-related needs (not funded in the internal budget process) that will continue to be important for a sufficient period of time, as well as any needs that can be or traditionally have been funded by additional state funds, will be considered for state funding proposals from the University to the Governor and General Assembly for the coming year. The time lag from point of formal proposal to actual funding/position availability for such proposals is generally one year.

NOTE: It is important to emphasize that the depiction of interactions between various University activities and the planning processes of the Department of Information Technologies illustrates only minimally two important processes. The first is an ongoing formal one - the President's Core Planning Group, a group that meets throughout the year and includes the VP for Strategy and Policy (to whom the VP for Information Resources/CIO reports) as a member. In all such meetings there is communication about both the strategic and tactical issues related to information technologies at the University, and this is the usual means by which the institution's formal structure has input to the strategic and tactical planning of the Department of Information Technologies. So, for example, an academic department chair may express the wishes of his or her department regarding information technologies to the dean, who then communicates it via the Core Planning Group apparatus. The second is an informal one in which all members of the Department of Information Technologies, including the vice president, explore strategic and tactical issues with faculty, staff and students of the institution, as well as other institutions around the region and the nation. This constant environmental scanning is an essential component of the annual construction (and constant refinement) of the department's strategic and tactical planning.

PRIORITIES

The University's general priorities for allocation of information technologies are:

  • Highest and Primary: To support the education, research, and administrative purposes of the Universityof Mary Washington.
  • Medium and Secondary: To support other uses indirectly related to the Universityof Mary Washington purposes with education or research benefits, including personal communications.
  • Lowest and Least Important: Recreation and entertainment.