|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Policy and Procedure ManualChapter 200, Campus Organization and Management Responsible Department: Information and Educational Technology A. This section establishes oversight and accountability for existing and proposed campus administrative computing systems to ensure that campus administrative information technology investments benefit from timely review and broad consultation, promote integrated systems, and minimize impacts on business processes and workload. B. This section addresses administrative systems, including systems with a significant impact on or interaction with other administrative systems. A. Administrative computing system--any computing system serving the administrative or business functions of the campus that meets one or more of the criteria in III.B, below. B. Project sponsor--the senior management official(s) of the unit(s) that own(s) the business process associated with the administrative computing system project. A. Campus administrative computing systems shall be developed in a manner that promotes effective system integration and interoperability with existing systems and between administrative units. B. Campus administrative computing systems that meet one or more of the following criteria are subject to the review process presented herein: 1. Systems that cross organizational boundaries. 2. Systems critical to meeting the University's business needs, regulatory obligations, or the enterprise-wide delivery of educational content. Includes high-risk systems that could result in a failure by the University to perform essential functions, a significant loss of funds, or significant liability or legal exposure. 3. Systems for which funding is sought from the Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor for development, implementation, modification, or maintenance. 4. Systems for which total implementation costs (purchase, programming, consulting, integration, and first-year maintenance) equal or exceed $150,000. C. Research computing systems or departmental teaching-related systems that do not meet the criteria above are wholly outside of the review process presented herein, but may be governed by other policies when protected or private data (e.g., student or employee personal information) is involved. D. The purpose of the review process shall be to promote collaboration between units developing similar systems, to minimize the development of repetitive shadow systems, and to ensure the efficient use of University resources. E. Departmental systems generally will not meet the criteria above, but will be reviewed or overseen by the appropriate vice chancellor, vice provost, or dean. IV. Roles and Responsibilities A. The Vice Provost--Information and Educational Technology (IET) 1. Is responsible, in consultation with the Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors (CODVC), for the review and coordination of campus administrative computing systems that meet any of the criteria in III.B, above. 2. Determines, in consultation with the project sponsor, whether to initiate a review process for a new or existing system, or for a significant modification to an existing system. 3. Appoints, in consultation with the project sponsor, the ad hoc workgroup and the oversight committee, as appropriate. 4. May establish, in consultation with the Administrative Computing Coordinating Committee, periodic deadlines and other requirements for the submission, coordination, and review of plans. B. The project sponsor 1. Develops, in consultation with the Vice Provost--IET, a concise preliminary plan for review by the ad hoc workgroup. 2. Establishes, in consultation with the Vice Provost--IET, a review timeline for the preliminary plan. C. The ad hoc workgroup 1. Is appointed by the Vice Provost--IET and project sponsor, and will typically include technical leads designated by deans, vice chancellors, and vice provosts, and staff and faculty representatives as appropriate. 2. Reviews the preliminary plan and reports findings to the ACCC. D. The Administrative Computing Coordinating Committee (ACCC) 1. Is appointed by the Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor, consisting of the Vice Provost--IET, the Vice Chancellor--Resource Management and Planning, the Vice Chancellor--Administration, a dean or dean's designee, an Academic Senate representative, and other administrative and community representatives designated by the Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor. 2. Reviews and makes recommendations on individual systems, informed by the findings of ad hoc workgroups. 3. Ensures the system review is comprehensive but timely, and in keeping with the intent of this policy. 4. Determines if a project is exempt from developing a comprehensive plan. 5. Defers to other campus and college administrative processes for assessing funding proposals. 6. Consults with the Academic Senate, Campus Council for Information Technology (CCFIT), CODVC, Internal Audit, and other stakeholders on comprehensive plans and provides recommendations to the project sponsor. 7. Provides an abstract of each project plan, its status in the review process, and a summary of review findings on their Web site. 8. Issues an annual report of its activities, including an overall assessment of the status of and progress towards effective integration and coordination of campus administrative computing systems. E. The oversight committee 1. Is appointed jointly by the project sponsor and the Vice Provost--IET, and typically includes representatives from user and other stakeholders, the Office of Resource Management and Planning, and academic or administrative units as appropriate. The committee shall be co-chaired by designees of the project sponsor and IET. 2. The specific charge of the oversight committee shall be determined by the project sponsor and Vice Provost--IET, and will typically encompass: a. Monitoring aspects of project implementation and status. b. Reviewing, communicating, approving (or seeking approval for) changes in scope, impacts on workload, or policy issues. c. Referring major changes in project development to the ACCC. d. Reviewing project status and expenditures relative to the project plan and budget. e. Ensuring development of communication plan to system stakeholders and users. f. Ensuring continued consultation with system stakeholders and users. 3. When possible, existing oversight committees will be asked to fulfill this role. 4. Systems specific to a single school, college, or administrative unit may benefit from the same general approach described above, but on a smaller scale. 5. To guide system operation and maintenance, the oversight committee may remain in place after the system is implemented, sometimes with modifications to its membership or charge. A. The review process assesses the anticipated impact of a technology plan on campus business processes and on faculty and staff workload. B. The review process for campus administrative computing systems revolves around the following three main components: 1. A preliminary plan, developed by the project sponsor, in consultation with the Vice Provost--IET, provides a brief, high-level overview of functional goals and technical approach, and is reviewed by an ad hoc workgroup. 2. A comprehensive plan, developed by the sponsor at the request of the Administrative Computing Coordinating Committee (ACCC), is informed by preliminary feedback provided by the ad hoc workgroup. 3. A report, with findings and recommendations, is submitted by the ACCC to the project sponsor and the Vice Provost--IET. C. Detailed descriptions of these components and procedures are provided at http://admincomputing.ucdavis.edu. Additional information is available from Information and Educational Technology. VII. References and Related Policies A. Office of the President: 1. University Policy on Administrative Information Systems, 10/28/03. 2. Business and Finance Bulletins: a. IS-3, Electronic Information Security. b. IS-10, Systems Development Standards. c. RMP-1, University Records Management Program. d. RMP-7, Privacy of and Access to Information Responsibilities. e. RMP-8, Legal Requirements of Privacy of and Access to Information. B. UCD Policy and Procedure Manual: 1. Section 310-21, Computer Vulnerability Scanning Policy. 2. Section 310-22, UC Davis Cyber-Safety Program. 3. Section 320-20, Privacy of and Access to Information. Copyright © 2006 The Regents of the
University of California, Davis Campus. All Rights Reserved. |
|
