Accessible Navigation. Go to: Navigation Main Content Footer

IT Strategic Plan 2012-2020

Appendix C:  SWOT analysis


Campus IT SWOT analysis feedback

 September 23, 2011

Session 1 – 9 a.m.

Participants

Robert Logan, Forestry/Davidson Honors College
Martin Horejsi, College of Education
Jonathan Crammett, College of Education
Tim Edwards, College of Health Professions & Biomedical Sciences
James Cramer, Law School
Karen Moore, Administration & Finance
Diane Norem, Administration and Finance
Peg Schalk, Facilities Services
Art Held, UM Foundation
Steven Van Grrinsven, Information Technology – EIS
John Greer, Mansfield Library
Danielle O’Leary, Alumni Office
Antony Jo, Student Affairs IT
Jessica Roberson, Student Affairs IT 

Strengths

  • Dedicated staff
  • Customer service
  • Technical expertise
  • Reliability
  • Virtualization
  • Uptime/downtime
  • Communication
  • Library system across campuses
  • Flexibility

Weaknesses

  • Staff
  • Technical expertise
  • Reliability
    • Email
    • Authentication (Central Authentication Services)
    • Communication from central IT (source/coordination)
  • Banner downtime
  • Lack of Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
  • Identification taxonomy
  • Failover capability
  • Poor documentation of recovery protocols (central and decentralized)
  • Amount of distributed vs. centralized computing without adequate parameters and coordination (documentation)
  • Depth of staffing
  • Lack of strategic planning
  • Lack of physical storage
  • Video
  • Network capability no comprehensive
  • Bureaucracy
  • Forms
  • Paper processes
  • Lack of life-cycle planning
  • Funding model for IT on campus
  • IT staff salaries not competitive
  • Lack of transparent priority-setting mechanism

Opportunities

  • Wireless technology
  • Falling costs
  • Cloud computing
  • Virtualization
  • Economies of scale
  • Site licenses
  • Affiliate campuses cooperation
    • Licenses
    • Leveraged support
    • Failover systems
    • Data
  • Video capability

Threats

  • Hostile security environment
  • Economic meltdown
  • Legal/governance environment
  • Accelerated expectations


Session 2 – 10:30 a.m.

Participants

Jesse Neidigh, Student Affairs
Michael Braden, School of Pharmacy
Keith Kuhn, UM Foundation
Kent McGowan, Financial Aid/Enrollment Services
Larry Gianchetta, School of Business Administration
Stephen Kalm, College of Visual and Performing Arts
Judy Fredenberg, Office of the VP for Research and Development
Susan Harper-Whalen, College of Education
Loey Knapp, Information Technology
Robert Squires, School of Extended and Lifelong Learning/UMOnline

 Strengths

  • Student support
  • Alumni / Foundation databases
  • Enthusiastic desire to help/commitment
  • Technical expertise in most institutional systems
  • Flexibility / nimble response in distributed support
  • Wired network speed/reliability
  • Staff levels

Weaknesses

  • Lack of staff / stability of funding
  • Lack of consistency/coordination of student support
  • Lack of Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
  • Lack of timelines
  • Lack of transparent mechanisms for setting priorities
  • Deficiency in identifying/accessing assistance for specific systems
  • Stability of workforce
  • Funding model
  • Security / governance / delegation
  • Inconsistent support of new technologies
  • Transparency / communication of policy
  • Lack of structure for planning/decisions (“Doing things on purpose”)
  • IT funding focus
  • Lack of integration of IT with strategic directions of UM
  • Highly customized enterprise system (Banner) 

Opportunities

  • Remote computing
  • Collective purchasing power
  • Collective computing power
  • Cloud computing
  • Presence of technology as a marketing/recruiting tool
  • LMS / integration of systems
  • Collaborative / contract external resources

Threats

  • “Remote” support
  • Cloud computing
  • Technological capacity vs. rising expectations
  • ID theft / security
  • “Shiny” technologies

 

Student IT SWOT analysis feedback

 October 10, 2011

Participants

Andrew Crompton
Adam Ormesher
Michael Callahan
Kristi Viereck
Kris Singer
Jenna Beck
Matt Haefner
Kristy Ernst
Ashley Ferro
Diego Baccino
Katherine Carlson 

Strengths

  • Centralized administration for users and computers – domain based
  • Easy to find help
  • Fairly wide wireless access on campus
  • Fairly good access to computers
  • E-resources at library – fairly good access to
    • Subscriptions
    • E-books
    • Journals
    • Online resources
  • OneStop – use a lot
  • Web based content reasonably current
  • Online content easy to navigate
    • UM main website
    • Moodle
    • Blackboard
    • Academic Planner 
    • Library
  • Computer labs are good / fairly well budgeted
  • CyberBear works reasonably well
  • Academic planner works well / very visual / better than CyberBear

Weaknesses

  • Spotty uptime in residence halls networks
  • Academic Planner is useful, but not always up to date and is completely separate from CyberBear
  • Lack of wireless at Lewis & Clark
  • Lack of wireless in all of residence life
  • Scattered IT departments – lots of hoops to jump through to get things done
    • More than 8 different departments
    • Each academic department has its own support
  • Departments host their own websites 
    • Style doesn’t match from site to site
    • Difficult to enforce/implement standards
  • Residence halls bandwidth is too small
  • Technology in classrooms and labs inconsistent / software is variable
  • Lack of centralized support to address issues
    • No central “ticket” system
    • Department workers don’t know who to call to resolve problems
  • Bugs in logging into campus email. Once you log in, it’s hard to get out of system
  • Spam – particularly from Business School (too many/too frequent messages)
  • Moodle is not user friendly
    • Navigation – too much / cluttered
    • “a million” broken links
    • Sometimes faculty present too much info on Moodle at one time
    • Hate common area
  • Initial campus anti-virus install was annoying/frustrating
    • Couldn’t contact anyone on the weekend
    • Renewal was difficult

Opportunities

  • Wi-Fi in residence halls
  • Wi-Fi everywhere
  • Connect Academic Planner with CyberBear
    • Academic Planner needs to be up-to-date (hourly or live)
  • Better individual control of email distribution lists
  • More centralized, uniform IT
  • More help, especially in dorms and off campus
  • Advertise IT help opportunities
  • Video training for users for more applications (i.e. Academic Planner, it’s great)
  • Orientation on basics of everything by an IT person, not faculty
  • Integrate all websites into umt.edu to simplify navigation and increase usability/consistency

Threats

  • Web template use - Lack of rules / enforcement of rules
  • Rising enrollment – more users, more complexity
  • Rising tuition – limits opportunities
  • More devices creates need for increased bandwidth, support, wireless
  • Rapid technology advances makes it hard for University to stay current
    • Some departments advance, others do not
  • Wireless – harder to secure student information
  • Poor disaster recovery planning
    • Accessing during an emergency
  • Money to fund IT – What gets cut?
    • Prioritization
    • Will people support new/increased fees for IT?

Feedback

Requires NetID login