IT strategy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
**To configure for use | **To configure for use | ||
**To train users | **To train users | ||
===Institutional Problems=== | |||
====The Meatware==== | |||
*User intransigence | *User intransigence | ||
*Bad data | **technological: don’t understand/like new technology imposed on us; we have change fatigue | ||
**Technical: trained to be inflexible; formal; | |||
**Lawyers don’t write well. Legal drafting is convoluted, over particularised, and therefore prone to negotiation and error | |||
*User knowledge is imperfect | |||
**Individuals who don’t understand policies are incentivised to apply them literally (being institutionally short an option - see below) | |||
**Institutional Knowledge: Generally is good (UBS turnover is comparatively low) but we leak institutional knowledge and it is not tracked and captured. | |||
*Institutional knowledge is poor | |||
**We don’t track our decisions - no MI kept on litigation close shaves; which issues come up and which don’t. | |||
*Legal department’s institutional position: Being a control function, Legal is “short an option” - will get no credit for approving a deal that is successful; will be criticised for failing to approving a deal which encounters any legal issues. | |||
**Important to carefully differentiate legal from commercial issues and allocate ownership correctly. | |||
====The firmware==== | |||
*Bad static data (inaccurate; unreliable) | |||
*Bad legal standards (overcomplicated; commercially unrealistic; out of date) | |||
*Bad templates (too many; overcomplicated; inconsistent; out of date) | |||
*Bad taxonomies | |||
===Opportunities=== | ===Opportunities=== | ||
*Data we don’t use: All historical departmental email: - a rich source of indexable institutional knowledge - this resource should not be restricted to use in conducting. | |||
*Underused/misunderstood existing tools - | *Underused/misunderstood existing tools - | ||
**Sharepoint | **Sharepoint | ||
**Microsoft Word/Excel | **Microsoft Word/Excel | ||
**Workshare | |||
*Opportunities to enhance/improve existing tools | *Opportunities to enhance/improve existing tools | ||
**TADH | **TADH | ||
*Easy implementation to enhance interaction and connectivity | *Easy implementation to enhance interaction and connectivity | ||
** | **“Business Data Catalogs” to interrogate external databases from within Sharepoint | ||
**Application Interfaces (“API”s) | |||
__NOEDITSECTION__ | __NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Revision as of 11:42, 4 December 2016
Ground up IT strategy
Constraints
- Few resources
- To pay for IT
- To package/maintain/install IT
- To configure for use
- To train users
Institutional Problems
The Meatware
- User intransigence
- technological: don’t understand/like new technology imposed on us; we have change fatigue
- Technical: trained to be inflexible; formal;
- Lawyers don’t write well. Legal drafting is convoluted, over particularised, and therefore prone to negotiation and error
- User knowledge is imperfect
- Individuals who don’t understand policies are incentivised to apply them literally (being institutionally short an option - see below)
- Institutional Knowledge: Generally is good (UBS turnover is comparatively low) but we leak institutional knowledge and it is not tracked and captured.
- Institutional knowledge is poor
- We don’t track our decisions - no MI kept on litigation close shaves; which issues come up and which don’t.
- Legal department’s institutional position: Being a control function, Legal is “short an option” - will get no credit for approving a deal that is successful; will be criticised for failing to approving a deal which encounters any legal issues.
- Important to carefully differentiate legal from commercial issues and allocate ownership correctly.
The firmware
- Bad static data (inaccurate; unreliable)
- Bad legal standards (overcomplicated; commercially unrealistic; out of date)
- Bad templates (too many; overcomplicated; inconsistent; out of date)
- Bad taxonomies
Opportunities
- Data we don’t use: All historical departmental email: - a rich source of indexable institutional knowledge - this resource should not be restricted to use in conducting.
- Underused/misunderstood existing tools -
- Sharepoint
- Microsoft Word/Excel
- Workshare
- Opportunities to enhance/improve existing tools
- TADH
- Easy implementation to enhance interaction and connectivity
- “Business Data Catalogs” to interrogate external databases from within Sharepoint
- Application Interfaces (“API”s)