Last edit: 05-03-17 Graham Wideman

Personal

Introduction

The information infrastructure strategy that I hoped to pursue contained a number of distinct thrusts.  These are briefly described below, and many were advanced in parallel. Each item also includes a pointer to further information on how that item progressed.

• Develop Shared Background Understanding of the Enterprise:  Develop a shared body of knowledge about the basic structure and operation of the university, both for professional I.S. staff, and for administrative and other "lay" participants. This "enterprise context", historically particularly weak at SDSU,  is an essential foundation for any effort to even describe any particular situation, let alone for informed decision-making. What happened?
   
• Survey Systems and Information Stores and Put In Context:   Develop a shared body of knowledge regarding what systems SDSU has, who manages and maintains them, what departments and work they support, and what valuable enterprise information they manage.  What happened?
   
• Develop Shared Data Models: From analysis of existing systems and other input, create data models as a basis of  sharing rigorous enterprise conceptual knowledge at least among I.S. professionals. This is essential for any progress to be made in the level of sophistication achieved in interoperation of systems.  In addition, process models would be likely be needed to understand what operational data would be most useful to potential data users.  What happened?
    
• Develop Key Data Dimensions:  Identify the key data dimensions, and work toward making them usable at the enterprise-scope level.  Find or create a system that can become a reliable authority for each dimension (eg: OrganizationId, PersonId, FacilityId and so on.)  Understand and put into place mechanisms to help other systems either converge on the same Id schemes, or develop translations that account for the different usages.   What happened?
   
• Operational Priorities:  As it turned out, there were some urgent "unforeseen" operational circumstances that needed addressing -- not on my initial agenda, but in my critical path!   What happened?
   
• Demonstrations: Operational and Decision-Support:  If possible, develop proof-of-concept demonstrations showing two important leverage opportunities for existing operational systems:
  • Improved information delivery of operational  info (eg: transaction progress) to broad campus customers, and
  • Aggregation of data across systems  to provide decision-support information.  

  Such demos fulfill a number of functions:

  • Actually deliver a useful service to a limited group of "early adopter" users.
  • Early users validate analysis assumptions.
  • Show functionality to senior management, and create demand amongst end users.

  What happened? 

• Advocacy for Improved Information Environment:  Where possible, participate in forums and make presentations to stakeholders and decision makers to advance raise the awareness of the opportunities available and steps needed.  What happened? 

The team for carrying out this work initially (1995) consisted of myself, and whatever collaboration I could elicit from colleagues around campus.  As I had hoped, this collaboration turned out to be extensive, many colleagues were ready, willing and able to participate in efforts to advance the state of the campus-wide information infrastructure, and numerous productive and rewarding relationships resulted.  In mid 1996 I was granted an additional position and was happy to bring on board recent SDSU Information and Decision Systems graduate Patrick Vesey, who was instrumental in a number of the ensuing activities.

[Back]

Go to: