Obtaining Administrative Information Systems and Services
Texas State University-San Marcos
UPPS No. 04.02.01
Issue No. 6
Effective Date: 6/5/02
Review: April 1 E4Y01. POLICY STATEMENTS
01.01 We at Texas State are committed to supporting the educational mission of the institution through efficient information storage and retrieval, appropriate auditing procedures, professional personnel services, and a safe environment. The following procedure contributes to the fulfillment of this policy.
01.02 The purpose of this UPPS is to establish policies and procedures that facilitate the effective development, procurement, utilization, and allocation of information systems, resources and services. This UPPS elaborates on the University's established systems development methodology, the Systems Development Life Cycle, or SDLC. (See UPPS No. 04.02.03, "System Development Life Cycle Methodology" for more information about SDLC policy and procedures.)
02. FUNCTION AND ALLOCATION OF ISS STAFF RESOURCES
02.01 Function of ISS
The Office of Information Systems & Services (ISS), a subdivision of Technology Resources, strives to implement and maintain effective and efficient information systems to meet the administrative information processing needs of the University. ISS provides analysis, design, and programming services for development of customized information systems, as well as support services for implementation, integration, and maintenance of third-party administrative software packages. ISS also provides data administration and distribution services for the centrally administered databases utilized by these software systems. These databases are commonly referred to collectively as the administrative database.
02.02 Allocation of ISS Resources
ISS staff hours are expended in one of the five (5) general categories listed and defined below. In any given fiscal year, ISS expects the aggregate of its professional staff hours to be distributed as follows: 35% to burden, 15% to maintenance, 20% to enhancement, 20% to development, and 10% to research. The percentages will vary from these targets in any given month and year for numerous reasons, including extended illness, staff turnover, holidays, external mandates, etc.
a. Burden - hours attributed to staff and departmental overhead items, such as staff development and training, all forms of paid leave, wellness activities, breaks, staff meetings, committee participation, time and project accounting, personnel management activities, etc.
b. Maintenance - hours expended in keeping current functionality operable in existing systems. Activities include review of access control and production logs, 'bug' fixes, periodic data structure maintenance to sustain satisfactory performance, addressing questions from users and others about system functionality, etc. This category also includes emergency or immediate changes and/or corrections to software and data structures necessary to restore operability and minimize downtime.
c. Enhancement - hours spent making revisions and/or improvements necessary to keep an existing system viable; i. e., to insure the continued effectiveness of the system in meeting the changing requirements of the user, the University, or of external organizations. It is important to note the distinction between enhancement and maintenance. By definition, enhancement activities extend and/or modify an existing system's current functionality, whereas maintenance activities are intended to sustain and support the system's current operational capability.
d. Development - hours spent in the implementation of new automated systems or major revisions to complex systems. Development projects are generally broad in scope, impact multiple departments, and/or are significant in terms of the implementation resources required.
e. Research - hours invested in structured investigation of emerging technologies and system development techniques and their applicability to the Texas State information services environment. It includes experimentation and prototype development in order to establish models that will form the basis of new methods, standards and procedures
02.03 ISS staff resources are allocated in support of numerous systems, projects, and activities, depending on the University’s priorities (see section 04 of this UPPS). Some ISS staff are focused almost exclusively on infrastructure support, but most specialize in the support of a particular set of information systems (e.g., Finance, Human Resources, and Student Systems, etc.). Staff are allocated to address the burden, maintenance, and enhancement needs of each system, while still allowing a reasonable amount of time for research and development.
Because development activities add to the total software inventory, the staff resources required for maintenance and enhancement activities will rise over time in direct proportion to the amount of development completed. This in turn reduces the percentage of staff hours available for future development. The ISS Director is responsible for tracking these changes. The ISS Director will recommend changes in staffing levels as necessary to maintain the percentage allocations listed in section 02.02. The ISS Director will also recommend new percentage allocations in the event staffing levels remain static.
02.04 It is intended that development activities be assigned to the ISS staff members most knowledgeable and capable in the particular areas to be addressed. These are normally the same individuals responsible for maintenance and enhancement activities in those areas. However, the priorities of the Administrative Systems Coordinating Council (ASCC), project size, and conflicting schedules may dictate that development hours come from individuals whose maintenance and enhancement responsibilities lie elsewhere. The ISS Director will redirect staff resources as necessary to address these situations as they occur.
03. PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTING ISS SERVICES
03.01 Complete an ISS Service Request
Except for emergency situations, all requests for enhancement or development services must be submitted in writing to ISS, and should utilize the format illustrated in Attachment I, the Information Systems Service Request. This format meets the requirements of SDLC and is designed to fully but concisely document the problem or opportunity to be addressed. Always include a goal, supporting objectives (which may include parameters or constraints), relationship(s) to strategic plan(s), and a list of the stakeholders and key operational users. Attachment II is an example of a completed request.
Normally, a request must appear on a departmental, divisional, or ASCC Priority List before ISS will address it. The only exceptions are requests with negligible impact on existing prioritized requests, and mandates as described in section 03.03. When conflicts arise between departments within the same division with respect to the appropriate commitment of ISS resources, the divisional priority takes precedence. The ASCC priority takes precedence in similar conflicts between departments in different divisions, or between divisions themselves.
03.02 Evaluating the Size, Scope, and Complexity of the Project
Requests vary greatly in size, scope, and complexity, as do the resources necessary to address them. Consequently, the requestor should review the draft service request with the appropriate system support analyst(s) and with the appropriate members of the ISS staff. (Generally, these are the individual(s) with responsibility for the information system(s) most impacted by the request). Together they should arrive at a common understanding regarding the size, scope, and complexity of the request. The following list is but a subset of items that may be considered in making this determination:
a. the potential impact of various solutions on other users, systems, applications, departments, divisions and the University in general;
b. the need and opportunity for integration with other systems and applications, whether planned or already in existence;
c. time constraints, implementation deadlines and the likelihood that these might change;
d. the potential impact of governmental regulations, vendor non-disclosure information, and emerging technologies on alternative solutions;
e. the degree to which continuing user involvement is necessary and available to properly satisfy the request from this point forward;
f. the capacity of existing hardware, software, network, and human resources to satisfy the need;
g. the depth to which alternative solutions should be explored; and
h. the set of SDLC activities appropriate and necessary for effectively satisfying the request.
The requestor should revise the request based upon the results of this review, and should pursue prioritization of the request as discussed in section 04 of this UPPS.03.03 Document External Mandates via Service Request
ISS resources must often be committed in response to Federal, State, or other external mandates. The administrative head responsible for compliance with the mandate is also responsible for prompt generation of the service request(s) necessary to maintain or achieve compliance. The applicable law or regulation should be cited in the request. The request should clearly specify the consequences of not meeting the mandate.
The existence of a mandate, in and of itself, does not exempt the Administrative Head from submission of a service request. Prioritization of the service request at the appropriate level is still required (see section 04.01). However, because of the limited implementation time often associated with mandates, normal prioritization procedures (see section 04 of this UPPS) must sometimes be suspended. Whenever this appears necessary, ISS will consult the Chair of the appropriate priority setting body at the earliest possible time. For this reason, it is critical that appropriate service request(s) be submitted as soon as possible.
03.04 Requestor's Commitment of Resources
The submission of an Information Systems Service Request implies a willingness on the part of the requestor to commit human resources to the successful satisfaction of the request. ISS will not address any service request that does not specify one or more individuals to represent the requestor as stakeholders and active participants in completing the request.
04. PROCEDURES FOR PRIORITIZING REQUESTS AND COMMITTING RESOURCES
04.01 Tri-level Priority Mechanism
To meet its goals as a service provider, ISS strives to insure that its resources are engaged in satisfying the service requests that the user community deems most beneficial. These requests should normally correlate with departmental, divisional and university strategic plans. They often define projects that are critical in achieving the objectives in these plans. However, resource limitations make it impossible to address all requests simultaneously.
Consequently, a tri-level prioritization mechanism has been developed to assist users in guiding the efforts of the ISS staff. Each department or office sets the initial priority of each request that it originates. Requests that require divisional prioritization are prioritized as specified by the vice president (see section 04.03). University level (or ASCC) priorities are established and monitored by the ASCC.At each level, a priority setting body reviews and ranks new service requests relative to service requests already submitted. Major consideration must be given to the availability of staff resources (user, ISS and system support analyst) and to the resources already committed to projects in progress. Service requests that contribute to strategic plan goals and objectives should be prioritized accordingly.
Priorities apply not only to ISS staff, but also to user staff, system support analysts, and others whose participation is needed to effectively satisfy requests. Consequently, priority setting bodies must identify a project team and project manager for each prioritized project. ISS will apply its resources to the highest priority requests, consistent with the skills and expertise of the staff available.
4.02 Departmental Priority and Monitoring
If the requestor, ISS, and a majority of the stakeholders all agree that the request is limited enough in size, scope, and complexity to be effectively addressed through departmental priorities alone, then prioritization and monitoring at the divisional and/or ASCC level is not required. ISS and the requestor will work with the stakeholders in addressing the request according to its priority in the requesting department's priority list.
Even when divisional and/or ASCC oversight is initially waived, the requestor, ISS, and a majority of the stakeholders must reach consensus with respect to the SDLC activities and deliverables to be completed in satisfying the request. Inability to reach such a consensus will necessitate divisional or ASCC oversight, whichever is appropriate.
It is the responsibility of the user department to make ISS aware of any changes to the relative priority of its requests. To this end, each department seeking services from ISS should maintain a prioritized list of the service requests they have submitted to ISS. This list should be distributed to the appropriate ISS team and project leader whenever these priorities change.
04.03 Divisional Priority and Monitoring
Divisional prioritization and monitoring is required if the requestor, ISS, or the majority of the stakeholders, believe that the request cannot be effectively addressed through departmental priorities alone. Before the service request is submitted for divisional prioritization, the requestor must publish the request and solicit feedback from all affected parties. Each stakeholder, key operational user, system support analyst, and the appropriate ISS team and project leaders should receive a copy of the request and/or have an opportunity for comment. All comments received by the requestor should be included in or attached to the service request before it is submitted for divisional prioritization. Electronic mail (email) is the preferred medium for the sharing of requests and feedback among stakeholders and for submission of finalized requests to ISS.
Division vice presidents prioritize (or establish a method for prioritizing) the service requests emanating from their divisions. Division vice presidents also assign (or establish a method for assigning) an individual to lead the division's efforts in satisfying each prioritized request.
To communicate these priorities and assignments to ISS, each division should maintain a prioritized list of its service requests. This list should clearly indicate the priorities of the vice president and the division's leader for each project, and should be distributed to the ISS Director whenever these priorities change.
04.04 ASCC Priority and Monitoring
Effectively satisfying a request often requires commitment of resources normally allocated to offices outside of the requesting division, or resources that are currently unavailable, or resources which have been previously committed to other prioritized projects in other divisions. In these and similar situations, it is the responsibility of the sponsoring department or division to obtain the necessary resource commitments from the body that prioritizes the work of those resources. This requirement is essential for adequate inter-division communication and to prevent the over-commitment of resources. The need for cross-divisional resource commitments should become apparent as a result of stakeholder feedback to the request.
For example, a department in the Finance & Support Services (FSS) Division is sponsoring a project that requires resources from the Student Affairs (SA) Division, or the ISS resources normally allocated to SA projects. In this situation, it is the responsibility of the FSS Division (or the requesting department) to obtain a priority for its project from the SA priority setting body. If the priority given by SA is unacceptable to the requesting department, an appeal can be made to the ASCC for resolution. Until ASCC resolves such an appeal, ISS resources will not be applied to the project.
In practice, requests will be subject to such ASCC oversight whenever the ASCC, the requesting division, ISS, or the majority of stakeholders deem such treatment is necessary. ASCC shall establish a method for determining the relative priority of the requests brought before it for approval, and to ensure that ISS is aware of these priorities. To this end, the ASCC should maintain a prioritized list of the service requests to be monitored by the ASCC. This list should clearly indicate the priorities of the ASCC with respect to resource commitment and should be distributed to the ISS Director whenever these priorities change.
05. REVIEWERS OF THIS UPPS
05.01 Reviewers of this UPPS include the following:
Position Date Mr. Don Volz, ISS Director April 1 E4Y Administrative Systems Coordinating Council April 1 E4Y 06. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
This UPPS has been approved by the following individuals in their official capacities, and represents Texas State policy and procedure from the date of this document until superseded.
Mr. Donald D. Volz, Director of Information Systems & Services, ASCC member; senior reviewer of this UPPS
Mr. Robert J. Goss, Assistant Vice President for Technology Resources
Dr. C. Van Wyatt, Vice President for Information Technology
Dr. Denise M. Trauth, President