Not so much even by now, before the workshop has even ended. As far as the workshop itself, a few things have jumped out at me. The first is that, while we did spend time talking to our executives as prep work so that we understood that level of leadership. We get out of the strategic. There are some important points here and there. Looking at governance from a high level see my note below about emphasis on size of institution making these solutions less relevant to me, however.
Examining IT security as part of a general campus risk security model is a powerful one. But those were not really the core emphasis of some of these presentations. Yes, we need to care about compliance and cyber-security, but what about our responsibility to foster creativity and the ability for faculty to be free to be innovative?
Finally, there is the empahsis on large institutions. The faculty are all from fairly large ones, and I can understand a bias. That is truly frustrating, and more of an effort than I had anticipated. On a more…personal interaction note, I really need to learn to shut up more. We all have great ideas, and they will conflict at times. In no way has my group made me feel like an outsider or have they ostracized me in any way. But for the sake of getting things done, I need to sit back more and just listen.
Of course, this is a lot easier when the overall work of the team is really excellent. The jury is still out on whether this will be a good educational experience. A while back, I did a series of relatively short posts on a leadership program I attended. Many may wonder why I am now reviewing this program again. In fact, this is a different one. Yesterday was just a half day so my observations are more about the differences in the crowd.
I can certainly talk about my trepidation prior to the start of the session. Would everyone be from really big universities? Even against a director, my experience at such a small college might not translate. I might be this useless appendage. Fortunately, my fears did not come true. While I am a bit surprised by the number of folks that work in administrative systems rather than customer-facing programs , but overall there is a lot of diversity, in jobs, age, years in job, and institution or department.
I think things will work out. More on that as the week goes by. The team project, which was a linchpin of the LTL program, is handled a bit differently.
Because this is a group that are aspiring CIOs, we did spend a big section yesterday talking about the changing role. On the other, I felt that we jumped a bit too far into the changing role. We discussed the changed role — what it is now, under the presumption that we had preconceived notions. Maybe we did. Just an observation. Overall, while I had a pretty full afternoon, it was not as intense as the first day of the LTL.
But I am perhaps more excited overall, and look forward to the week. It is aimed at those working in educational technology instructional technology, teaching and learning, lots of other names , but it goes way out to how one might do presentations for new programs to executive officers, handling 6 or 7 figure budgets, and a number of other high level topics.
Overall, it was a very positive experience. And we want to start one up, so we did want to send someone. But, while I did have these very relevant reasons for being there, I definitely had a different perspective than most.
To be honest, I think this caused a bit of…disconnection and possibly abrasion with my teammates. I apologize to a great overall team for that. Disclaimer: I realize my comments might be taken as criticism of other CIOs or of the intent of the writers of Educause Review. And should be past. At the very least, in terms of career accomplishments, I have no right to make these comments. But if I always thought that way I would rarely write anything.
This is a general commentary, and is not about myself at any rate. If this is still an important question, then ER should be covering it. However, I am not sure it is an important question. The question being posed is whether, in light of all the changes in higher ed in general, IT is facing a set of changes so dramatic that the entire role of an IT organization must be reconsidered?
Several interviewees give a variety of answers, but I must admit that I am having trouble with the question, and the premise itself. So why the ongoing discussion? On the one hand, if one looks at the field of IT unto itself, without the context of managers and leaders, then yes, there is a major shift occurring. One can either acknowledge this change and take advantage of it to grow an organization, or ignore it and become irrelevant. But I think looking at just the entity, the set of services that make up IT, is a completely useless perspective.
What matters are the people and the leaders that are in place. Any and all leaders in IT today must be looking at the landscape far beyond the technology. Business processes, enabling innovation, supporting mobility, accepting BYOD, and pushing forward new and creative initiatives. Again, the true, underlying question for me is why are we still discussing this? The identity crisis is not about IT from the perspective of the IT leadership. Of course, this is in fact often the case — the institution is lagging behind the existing change in leadership styles in IT.
They will be the ones that relegate IT to simply a service provider, rather than an enabler or a creative entity that adds value. This is certainly a big challenge.
But the article implies that the identity crisis is located in the IT organization, or is at least partly so. This is not a statement about the people, much less about any one person in particular. This is a group here to become better leaders. Putting us in groups is going to cause some unease. But there is nothing like a project, trying to make something concrete, to bring people together.
As we worked together, our skills and strengths emerged naturally. Even more impressively, the way we offered to help just flowed. Someone would ask for help I know I did several times and others would start working on solutions. One person made headway, and ideas were thrown about, and we ended up with a great product. Hard skills Proficiency in written and spoken English.
Computer literacy, with high proficiency in the use of standard office software applications e. Ability in project management in a comprehensive way logistics, programme, reporting, staff management ; and to use properly the standard project management tools.
Ability to conduct sectorial analysis and to understand and transform into possible proposal the policies and strategies of the donors. Ability to organize and supervise a complex team. Ability to organize work efficiently and deliver assignments in a timely manner often under time constraints.
Soft skills Strong analytical and practical problem-solving skills. Institutional relations management and cultural context understanding.
Strong supervisory abilities and demonstrated capacity of teamwork and of coordination with the relevant actors. Very good interpersonal and writing communication skills. Child Protection Policy Child abuse in all forms is unacceptable to WATAN, which recognizes its responsibility to protect children from harm in all areas of its work. Discrimination, Abuse and Harassment Policy WATAN provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for employment and expressly prohibits and will not tolerate any form of discrimination, abuse, harassment sexual or otherwise , based upon race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, age, sexual orientation, marital status, citizenship status, disability, or military status.
Applications are strongly encouraged from female candidate. Prepare monthly reports to the Head of Mission and regularly organize project review meetings to identify issues and discuss solutions with relevant heads of departments. Collaborate with the MEAL team to ensure adequate project monitoring, including through the implementation of the AAP mechanism, and the prompt integration of any findings and recommendations into the project implementation.
Regularly monitor all incurred expenditures on the activities budget. For all goods purchased by the project update the inventory, in cooperation with the grants manager. Contribute to strengthening the security assessment and ad hoc procedures, specifically applying the general country procedures to the specific context of the project.
Is responsible for the initial and continuous training of the local staff under responsibility. Reporting Ensure the preparation, in compliance with the deadlines, of all financial and narrative reports — interim and final — expected by the project in coordination with the Head of Mission and with the EU Grant Manager.
Will be a focal point, in coordination with the Head of Mission. Work Place İstanbul, Ankara, Gaziantep.
0コメント