RSS

Communications Audit

WSU Spokane ITS Systems Infrastructure Support Group
Communications Audit 

 Overview 

The Systems Infrastructure Support Group is part of the Washington State University-Spokane Information Technology Services Department. Primarily, this group retains responsibility for ensuring functionality of the University’s computer systems infrastructure. To do so entails maintaining the security and operation of the campus data center, which houses a multitude of servers and other infrastructure equipment.  Responsibility also falls on this group to maintain campus departments’ server-based file shares, along with individual employee shares via Syncplicity, in addition to the campus video surveillance and access control system.  

The SIS Group consists of nine members, all men, who have worked at WSU spanning from one to twenty plus years. The Assistant Director of Enterprise Systems and Support, Bryan Valley, assumes predominant leadership of this group, which also includes three System Administrators, three IT Specialists and two IT Technologists. Overall, because of its small size and sweeping male predominance, the culture of this group is tight knit, intricate, and difficult to implement specific and immediate change. Currently, the group is specifically lacking structures in place to implement effective policy change, formal communication standards, and systems of accountability. The conglomeration of this lack of standards and policy essentially creates a dysfunctional trifecta, contributing to cyclical communication faults and lack of efficiency both internally and externally.  

External Communication Structure  

At initial glance, and when talking to members of this group, there is very little cohesive external communication that goes on.  If one begins to investigate and understand the different job functions members are a part of, it becomes apparent the greater amount of external communication needed. When talking to members, the overwhelming sentiment expressed is that they are the behind the scenes part of campus ITS. There is validity in this sentiment, given the nature of how the group as a whole relies on the Technical Support Center to be the face of Campus IT. However, when you delve into the different parts that they are responsible for, they carry a larger campus presence than what would first be assumed.  

According to the final draft of the 2014 ITS Annual Report, the SIS group is the “behind the scenes group” of campus IT.  This is true when you consider the number of servers they are responsible to maintain, as well as other enterprise resources they’ve recently brought into production. What isn’t heard or able to be tangibly quantified, is the number of close relationships being fostered with the campus’ researchers. The efficacy in establishing these relationships helps to ensure the University’s ability to both recruit and maintain high level researchers. University needs in the realm of research development continue to grow as the goal of building a world class medical education center is sought after. Tight knit collaboration with university researchers is a necessary component in both learning their technology needs, and being able to support those needs on a long-term basis. The SIS Group consistently works to develop new technologies to aid researchers, including the deployment of RedCap, a Linux based research database developed by Vanderbilt University, that allows university researchers to collaborate with 1200+ research institutions in nearly 90 countries around the world.  

The SIS Group also actively collaborates closely with WSU Pullman ITS, and other University researchers, to develop an on campus High Performance Computer (HPC) for data crunching. As this project continues to develop, campus researchers will be able to process their research data at a more efficient and rigorous pace. A main avenue where this will be of focus and benefit will be in assisting genomics research, where the data sets are large, requiring large amounts of computing resources.  

Being a satellite, or urban campus, there is an over pressing need for active communication and collaboration with colleagues and other departments at the main campus in Pullman. In the past, dealing with the main campus has posed challenges for this group in terms of maintaining active communication. There continues to be current concerns regarding the nature of this need for the success of the group. The greatest frustration expressed is the need to work with their counterparts at the Pullman campus on a daily basis. The need for this daily communication is governed by a reliance on central university infrastructure and resources, which are housed and administered in Pullman. Working with the different ITS departments in Pullman to efficiently and effectively get jobs assigned can be challenging according to the SIS group members. They report that the relationship with the Pullman campus (as a whole) is very resistant to change. As the Spokane campus continues to rapidly grow, there’s a need to evolve and establish fluidity in adopting new technologies. The two conflicting operation styles can be very challenging for Spokane, who frequently bounce from project to project. As a result of Pullman’s resistance to fluidity, many projects in Spokane are in a pattern of being delayed for weeks at a time, if not months. Several members if the SIS group has expressed their frustration in the communication, or lack thereof, with their colleagues in Pullman.   

In discussing their need to have sufficient communication with Pullman ITS, a difference in culture has become a pragmatic avenue for exploration. BV has discussed the notion that building relationships motivates most departments, and therefore individual employees, at Pullman campus. He explained, “Pullman is all about established relationships; if you have an existing relationship, they will communicate with you. If you don’t have relationship, you have to get in line with everyone else. It’s about the personal relationship, not professional courtesy. It should be the opposite. That’s a culture thing in Pullman though. I hope we don’t do that here.” This explanation highlights how a difference in culture between the two campuses can serve as an explanation for what feels like an overarching communication lapse, resulting in an expressed productivity lapse for the Spokane campus, which relies so predominantly on Pullman.  

In looking at the need to establish better communication with colleagues in Pullman, it is critical for members of the SIS Group to work to establish better relationships. Regardless of the SIS group’s belief that Pullman should be willing and able to help when needed, understanding their culture, and how they operate, is vital to the Spokane campus’ success. Team members who have been working in the WSU System for several years have the established relationships in place needed to keep open communication flowing. The success of established team members pushes the argument that it is equally important for newer team members to seek an opportunity to foster similar relationships. By nature, this will inevitably come with time as Spokane continues to rely on Pullman. However, with the fast pace of growth happening on the Spokane campus, naturally letting these relationships build and evolve might not be enough. Giving newer team members opportunities to travel to Pullman on a regular basis, as a means to collaborate face to face with their counterparts, would be a good way to build and encourage these professional relationships and rapport.  

The SIS Group is very willing to help other departments. This is made evident by a longstanding open door policy established with other groups on campus, such as the Technical Support Center. The group understands the need to build relationships, so that all departments can grow, reaching their collective goals and potential. While it may be more difficult to build a similar type relationship with Pullman as the group has been established on their local campus with the TSC, any growth would be beneficial. It would be challenging to foster a similar type relationship with Pullman because, by nature, the type of support the SIS group gives to the TSC is different than the symbiotic relationship Spokane campus has with Pullman. As the front facing group, the TSC is responsible for all tier one and two level support, relying on the SIS group for tier three support. In other words, while the two groups are on an equal playing field, the SIS group plays the role of the older sibling, acting as the next level of defense for problem solving. 

This type of relationship would not be successful in developing with Pullman, as the Pullman counterparts would most likely not be appreciative of that kind of interaction. Most of the colleagues in Pullman have worked for WSU for many years, and are very entrenched in their current status quo. The infrastructure currently in place was built up with pride by many of the current staff. Because of this, Spokane is at a noticeable disadvantage. The Spokane campus, for all intents and purposes, poses the role of the younger sibling. This does not come as a surprise, and even makes sense, since WSU Spokane has only been in existence for the last 25 years and the development of the Spokane campus (formally known as the Riverpoint campus) has mostly been constructed over the last 15 years.  

The SIS Group (and all of Spokane ITS) needs to find a way to foster healthy relationships with Pullman, as well as other branch campuses. This needs to be done by building healthy collegial relationships, fostered and based on equality with these other groups. One struggle that will be encountered is the way the SIS Group communicates with these external groups. Currently, they operate as a tier three level support agent. They have established an internal culture where they are the ones who can fix what no one else can; they are the architects and builders of campus technologies. This is who they are, what they are known for on campus, and they are great at it. The problem with this expectation is it creates a narrow sense of internal authority. When that sense of internal authority is all one experiences on a regular basis, it can be hard to work with others who truly are equals, or who may even rank higher and more experienced than they do.  While the SIS Group does have members of their team who have worked at WSU for 15 years or more, only one has actually work as a part of Systems for that entire duration. Due to recent growth and reorganizing within campus ITS, no other members have been a part of the team for longer than two years.  

Internal Communication Structure  

One might think that because the nature of this group is so small and close knit, that would inherently mean it would have flourishing internal communication within the group and the satellite campus. However, through further investigation, it becomes apparent that this is not necessarily the case for the SIS group. While it can be said that the internal communication is still stronger than its lacking external communication, current standards leave a lot to be desired, particularly when compared to other longstanding groups on campus. The size of the group serves as both a deterrent and an aid in increasing internal communication. Because the group is so small, it has become more interconnected which means it can be difficult to change the established standard without people taking a policy change personally. However, in that same token, because the group is so small, it will be easier to track possible successes for any policy changes and standard changes in terms of increasing communication productivity.  

Currently, the group operates independently within its small internal structure. Members frequently work independently on their own tasks with little to no specified collaboration between members. Group members may not ever know what others are working on at any given point unless they are specifically involved in that project. This does create a sense of autonomy within the group and a reliance on independent expression. Neither of these are inherently bad characteristics, except for the fact that it does not serve to unify the members under a common goal. This being said, the internal communication is still by and large more effective and more successful than external communication attempts. This can be accounted for directly because of the size of the group. The small size and few members keeps the lack of truly functional communication operating. Simply, one cannot help but be forced to work as a team when there are only nine members in this specific team.  

Aside from how the group functions autonomously as a whole on campus within itself, their connection with other campus groups dictates a large portion of further internal communication structure. The nature of how the SIS group interacts with various campus groups highlights their overall influence on the Spokane campus, and the need to improve the foundation of internal communication structures. Primarily, this influence can be seen through the relationship the group maintains with the Network Operations team. Together, the relationship of these two groups are responsible for day-to-day functionality of maintaining and supporting the data communication on campus. This includes, but is not limited to, the maintenance of local networks, firewalls, and server upkeep. The SIS group has the potential to play a crucial role in developing this relationship so both can work cohesively together for the overall efficiency of campus technology.  

One may assume that because these groups play a crucial role in campus IT, they would all play nicely with one another, so to speak. However, it has become apparent that this is not necessarily the case. Frequently IT leadership can be seen playing the role of mediator between the systems administrators and the network administrators. While there is deep interconnectedness between the job functions of these groups, they do not work collaboratively or communicate well. In fact, the frequent discord between systems administrators and network administrators quite nearly mirrors that faulty communication Spokane Campus ITS has with Pullman Campus ITS; just as the Spokane Campus relies on Pullman campus, and frequently finds itself frustrated at the lack of cohesive communication and delay in task completion, system administrators rely on and are often frustrated with network administrators. However, despite the fact the two exist on the same campus, there is that same delay in communication that prevents effective task completion.  If there was more cohesive efficiency and collaboration in the relationship between systems and network administrators, there would be increased productivity for all parties involved. The struggle with this, however, is that it would require a complete shift in organizational framework of Spokane Campus ITS structure. Neither group would need to be functioning autonomously for true improvement to take place.  It should be of great interest that the same communication flaws that Spokane has with its mother campus in Pullman mirror the internal communication flaws on Spokane campus within groups. This leads one to believe there is an inherent lack of structure and unity within campus ITS.  

External Recommendations 

Thus far, it has been indicated the ways that communication is currently falling short for the SIS group and its members. The faulty communication structures create ineffective systems of workflow and impedes the group’s ability to tangibly grow its presence. This should not be construed that the group is failing, but that there are very specific and tangible ways to create more effective communication structures. The benefit of this would be increased internal, as well as external productivity, increased team unity, and continued expansion of group presence on both the satellite campus as well as with the Pullman Campus. These steps in growth would benefit the group and create a more effective, streamlined systems of practice for daily problem solving. This, in turn, would create more pride in work as tasks are completed more efficiently and cohesively for the group. A few small alterations in practice could drastically change the trajectory and valued success of the SIS group and its current practices. 

One such recommendation that could help increase success in external communication might be to bring in a functioning project manager. This project manager would need to be an external member, in such that they are not internal to the SIS group or Network Operations. The benefit of utilizing an external person would be that it brings an unbiased, third party into helping establish guidelines and expectations when working on projects. By having this role be satisfied by a person who does not belong to the group internally, it allows for all members of the group to be held to the same level of accountability. No person would feel like they are being targeted or having unfair expectations placed on them. This is especially crucial given the small size of the group itself; because there are only nine functioning people within the group, it would be easy for feelings to become hurt, or for people to take change personally as processes become more streamlined. A third-party project manager would allow for the ability to effectively set expectations across the board unilaterally.  

There would be several specific challenges in onboarding a third-party project manager, however.  One challenge might be the difficulty in establishing a sense of respect for this new person. In this instance, the size of the group would serve as a deterrent. The group already functions in a small realm of influence, so it may not be open to the influence of another person initially. The leadership of the project manager would have to be established with caution and in a means that doesn’t create upheaval. It can be more difficult to establish new leadership for a small group of people that have been self-governing than it would be for a larger group of people who are more accustomed to being directed. Currently, on campus there is already a person who serves a project manager type role. However, as of right now, that person is a female. Considering that the SIS group is a small knit, group of men, this could also create difficulty in establishing respect. It may be difficult for a female to enter this tight knit, male dominated community and be initially given respect from group members (especially in a male dominated field like IT). Leadership would need to be established internally from team leads, and expectations for behavior would have to be firmly in place and upheld from the onset.  

Furthermore, bringing on a project manager would require technical knowledge. The functionality of the group is extremely technical by nature. To be successful, the project manager would need to have a comprehensive understanding of the nature of each project. Otherwise, the project manager will not know best how to facilitate effective leadership for the group, will not be able to best communicate goals for projects, or expectations for execution. All of this would lead to the previous mentioned initial lack of respect for the project manager. For the continuity of the campus, it would be crucial for the project manager to understand the nature of the projects. Understanding the projects helps in giving reliable leadership, setting appropriate goal setting, and communicating necessary expectations. Not to mention, a project manager who understands the nature of the task is more able to hold accountability to all members of the group. Simply, one cannot determine if another person is working to the best of their skills if they do not understand the skills required to complete a task. For continuity in task completion, as well as determining a person who will be most respected and accepted by the group, it will be crucial to seek out leadership in a third-party project manager, but who also retains the technical skills to understand the nature of the job at hand.  

 Internal Recommendations 

Working more collaboratively would also be a tool that could be utilized to increase communication structures. This would be beneficially both internally and externally. Currently, there is little collaboration between the Spokane Campus and the Pullman campus. The nature of this needs to change if the SIS group is ever going to work effectively with the Pullman campus in task completion. On an internal level there is very little effective collaboration within group members. This must change if the team is ever going to be fully unified and working to its fullest potential. Collaboration, both internal and external, will help to foster a culture of inclusion and expectation for excellence in the group. By being willing to work more collaboratively, the presence of the group will grow on campus, and task efficiency will increase; the group will be better equipped to do more projects with the time they have, and achieve completion in a more efficient manner, if they learn to collaborate cohesively with one another. The goal of doing so would be to increase overall Campus unity; we are all working for a common goal of university excellence.  

To mold the group into adopting a system of effective collaboration, there will need to be specific practices in place to establish expectations. An example of this would be to stop assigning large projects to a single person within a group. If large tasks and projects are broken up and disbursed to multiple members of the group, they will be forced to begin working with one another. At this point, it would become essential and crucial to establish written expectations in collaboration. Having written standards for teamwork sets the expectation of what behavior may or may not be acceptable. As the team transitions towards working more collaboratively, it is essential to set the team members up for the best course of success. Providing clear and written expectations is a means to begin establishing this sense of accountability for all members on the team.  

In this same vein, there must be more willing collaboration between the Spokane campus and the Pullman campus. There needs to be more opportunities for team members from the Spokane campus to work with members of the Pullman campus. For there to ever be a true collaborative relationship, Pullman campus must begin viewing members of the Spokane campus as part of their team. This may be fostered by creating more cross campus training events and by creating more opportunities for the two campuses to interact on a face to face level. By and large, the two groups of people must begin becoming more familiar with one another. For there to be a healthy professionally collaborative relationship, there must be mutual respect for both groups. This will never be accomplished if Pullman campus and Spokane Campus IT don’t begin interacting in a more interpersonal fashion. As it stands, the Spokane campus and the Pullman campus do not work effectively or cohesively together. Pullman must begin to view Spokane as a collogue versus a nuisance to be managed. The bridge that is currently creating a lack of University unity must be crossed. Otherwise there will continue to be a delay in task completion and frustration from the SIS group as the feel unable to effectively self-manage, build rapport with Pullman, and grow within their own job functionality.  

Because there is a mirroring of communication lapses both externally and internally, recommendations to solve internal communication flaws are very similar to recommendations to solve external communication flaws. One way to initiate this would be to have both the systems administrators and network administrators be governed by a central leader on campus. As it stands, each entity functions autonomously, which doesn’t promote interpersonal communication well. There is little to no accountability for delayed task completion and little motivation for employees to work cohesively together. If both parties answered to the same leadership, it would provide accountability in communication. There would no longer be any excuse in delays of communication that causes task completion to be postponed for weeks at a time.  

Likewise, bringing all employees under one central leadership would ensure that everyone is held to the same standard of accountability. No single employee within Systems or Network Operations would be exempt. The result of doing so would be increased campus unity, increased productivity, and a stronger face of campus ITS. This in turn will help to foster a culture of excellence and increase trust in campus ITS, as the campus population and IT needs continue to grow.  

Conclusion 

While the SIS group is small in numbers, it plays an integral role in campus ITS. However, a lack of formal structure in both external communication as well as internal communication is limiting its potential. It would be beneficial to set some specific structure changes in place that would promote increased productivity both internally and externally. The benefit of doing so would be to improve the presence of the group both internally on campus, as well as externally in its relationship with the Pullman campus. For the continued growth and productivity of the group, it will be essential for there to be systematic structures in place that encourage collaboration in an efficient and cohesive manner. As the Spokane campus continues to grow in services and size, it will become crucial for ITS to make adaptations in productivity. Otherwise, it will become detrimental to the growth and development of the campus.  If Spokane seeks to continue to stand apart from its mother campus and grow in prestige, then the SIS group must be willing to become less autonomous both externally and internally. There needs to be a culture of collaboration for the SIS group to thrive.  

The process of adopting a culture of collaboration will not come easily to the SIS group, and will require there to be a season of organizational restructuring. However, with the onset of new standards in place, as well as the expectation of collaboration, it will bring forth an expectation of excellence. As the Spokane campus at large continues to grow and focus on academic research, this culture of excellence within the realm of ITS will mirror the academic culture of excellence campus-wide. For the campus to thrive and grow, it needs to have a foundation to grow on. It is not a gross exaggeration to conjecture that the SIS group has the potential to be that foundation for the campus. Increased productivity within the group means increased productivity for the campus. Likewise, increased unity for the group means increased unity for the campus. While small in numbers, the SIS group is crucial to the growth and development of the campus. The realm of influence that the SIS group possesses should not be taken lightly. It will be necessary for specific changes to begin taking place in a timely fashion. Where there is a fully unified IT department, there is a culture of development, collaboration, and inclusion. These are all characteristics that should be sought after and expected as the campus as whole seeks to make a name for itself in the realm of academic excellence.  

 

Comments are closed.