Please report any problems to the Shared Tools Team at st-help@doit.wisc.edu    Broken Links? Missing Macros? WIKI Retiring Plugins
Child pages
  • Portfolio Meeting 2019-10-10
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

1:00-2:00, 2112 CS (Bob's Office)

Attending: _x_ Gary De Clute, _x_ J.J. Du Chateau, __Ed Jalinske, _x_ Dave Parter, __ Steve Tanner, _x_ Bob_Turner (co-chair), _N/A_Stefan Wahe

Agenda

  1. Preliminaries: introductions, agenda review, prior meeting notes, and announcements (5 min)
    • Note: August and September meetings were canceled.
         .
  2. Review draft of revised Subcommittee description
    Goal: Review, suggest changes.
    Handout: Edited version of Draft of revised Subcommittee description (2019-10-10 version)
    Reference: Original Draft of revised Subcommittee description (2019-08-28 version)
    .
    Action:
    • The subcommittee description was extensive edited prior to the meeting
    • Agreed on the first four items in the revised scope.

      The Subcommittee should recommend:

      a. Definitions for the common elements of policy portfolios
      b. Definitions for the common roles and responsibilities related to the portfolios,
      c. Criteria for the creation of and changes to the set of portfolios,
      d. Current and future portfolios, and their general scope,
      .

    • Did not reach consensus on the last two:

      e. How well a policy request/initiative fits with existing policies and standards,
      f. If something should take the form of a policy, standard, best practice, etc.
      .
      The question is whether or not to include these in the scope of the Subcommittee:
      .
      Pro: These actions, (e) and (f), need to occur early in the policy process. Waiting until later in the process could waste time if the ultimate decision differs from the assumptions that guided the initial work.  Bringing these issues to the Portfolio Subcommittee would ensure they are addressed early in the process. Some portfolio managers and Responsible Executives will not be familiar with IT policy and how to make such decisions. The Portfolio Subcommittee is better able to make initial recommendations on (e) and (f).

      Con: Agreed that there is definitely a need to act early in the process on (e) and (f). However, these actions are built into Step 1 Plan, and Step 2 Recommend. Both the plan from step 1 and the recommendations from step 2 are reviewed by the PAT.  During the first six months of 2019 the draft plans where brought to the Portfolio Subcommittee for review prior to taking them to the PAT. This introduced too much delay into the process (an additional one or two months.) To speed the process, the portfolio manager and the Responsible Executive(s) can do the early formulation of the plan, which can go straight to the PAT for review. The PAT can advise the less experienced portfolio managers and RE's. The PAT also reviews and comments on the recommendations in Step 2. The Responsible Executive(s) will make the final decision on how to proceed when drafting the proposal in Step 3.

      .

    • Remainder of the edits are OK.
    • Action:
      • The subcommittee will vote.
      • The revised document will be returned to the PAT Exec Comm for review.
        .
  3. Discuss current list of portfolios for inclusion as an appendix in the IT Policy Principles and Procedures currently being revised.
    Goal: Decide what to include in the appendix.
    Handout: Edited version of IT Policy Principles and Procedures (Appendix B only) (2019-10-10 version)
    Reference: Original IT Policy Principles and Procedures (Appendix B only) (2019-09-28 version)
    .
    Action:
    • Decided that there needs to be an additional column for process owners because some of the "advisory groups" are actually process owners.
    • Decided that if there is disagreement on who the advisory group and/or process owners are, the contested fields can be left blank.
      • The table is in an appendix as part of the implementation of the policy and can be changed as decisions are made.
      • The portfolio list was moved to an appendix because changes in the mix of portfolios and groups (and owners) are inevitable.
    • Gary will add that column and fill it in with initial data. Will also change heading from "Advisory Groups" to "Constituency Groups", and "groups" that are better described as process owners will move to the new column.
      • The PAT can review it at their Oct 15 meeting and during the additional review period that will follow that meeting.
      • The PP&P and appendices will go the ITC for the initial reading at their Nov 15 meeting.
        .
  4. Discuss future meeting schedule and next steps.
    Goal: Decide how often to meet and next item(s) to address. 
    See Future Agenda Items below for ideas.
    .
    Action:
    • ...
      .
  5. For next meeting
    • Deferred items from previous agenda(s).
    • See Future agenda items below.
    • More?

PAT Status Summary

PAT Status Summary

Ground Rules

  1. Everyone must be treated respectfully, whether present or not.
  2. Everyone present who wants to speak on a topic must have a chance to speak.
  3. Attend more often than not, and review materials when you can't attend.
  4. Don't be shy, or worry about perception of an idea - we need open borders for these discussions.
  5. Let's park side issues or extensive detail for future work by this team, or others.

Future agenda items

  • Role definitions (portfolio manager, responsible executive, etc.)
  • Best practices for managing a policy portfolio

Meeting Schedule

Subcommittee Members


Member
Unit
Member
Unit
Member
Unit
Sara Tate-PedersonIT PolicyJ.J. Du ChateauArchitectureEd JalinskeCybersecurity
Dave ParterCSSteve TannerDoITBob Turner (chair)Cybersecurity
Stefan WaheCALS



Attachments



  • No labels