Skip to main content

UW Madison Advisor Service


Yesterday I had an excellent day visiting the architecture team at the University of Wisconsin – Madison (UWM).  The UWM team was created as long ago as 1995, following a major reorganisation of IT in the university, so they have had plenty of time to learn what works and what does not work for UWM.

One of their recent successes is a major initiative to transform support for their student advisors.  The advisor role is rather like our personal tutor, guiding students on their choice of courses and helping them when other issues arise.  In fact, one of the outcomes of this architecture work is a web site for UWM students that explains what services the advisors can offer – see https://advising.wisc.edu/ .

The problem the team set out to address was hugely complex.  There was no co-ordination or sense of community connecting the advisors in all the different schools, colleges and departments.  Advisors and students had to deal with as many as 17 different IT systems, most of which required different login credentials, has different UIs, presented different versions of the same data, and in general were hard to use.  Advisors and students spent most of the half-hour sessions fighting the IT systems rather than important discussions about the students’ courses and other issues.

The first step to address the problem was to create an Advisory Architecture Review Board (AARB) to oversee the programme of work.  This board had to decide strategy, identify problems and prioritise work.  To aid them, the architecture team worked with them to create a Core Diagram – a high-level description of the advisor’s activities and the capabilities needed to support them, on a single page.

Having created this diagram for the advisors, the team realised they need one for the students’ experience as well.  This shared some common tools and added others that are only used by students.

The AARB then added a heatmap to the core diagram to illustrate which areas worked and which were broken, along with an assessment of the impact of each.  For example, training was deemed broken and of major impact, so was assigned a large red circle.  Recording contacts was deemed to work and of lesser impact, so had a smaller green circle.  Similar circles (red/amber/green) were placed on each activity.  The result was a single page that showed the key activities and which were most in need of work.

This Core Diagram had several benefits.  The process of developing the diagram in the first place helped the AARB and the advisor community at large to share understanding of advisors’ needs.  The disparate groups could see that they faced many of the same problems and therefore could work together to address them.  Finally, the addition of the heat map helped them to prioritise their work, covering non-IT issues such as training as well as IT concerns such as making data consistent and providing a single-sign-on function.  The architecture team did much more as the programme of work progressed but the core diagram provided an important basis for the whole programme. 

The work has progressed significantly since and has been very successful.  Some of the advisors are reporting that the entire nature of the advisory sessions with students is changing: instead of the IT forcing conversation along particular lines, the advisors and students are now free to explore the issues that matter to them.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Changing Principles

In EA, architecture principles set a framework for making architectural decisions.  They help to establish a common understanding across different groups of stakeholders, and provide guidance for portfolios and projects.  Michael Durso of the LSE gave a good introduction to the idea in a webinar last week for the UCISA EA community.

Many organisations take the TOGAF architecture principles as a starting point.  These are based on the four architectural domains of TOGAF: business, information/data, applications, technology/infrastructure.  These principles tend to describe what should be done, e.g. re-use applications, buy in software rather than build it, keep data secure.  See for example the principles adopted at Plymouth University and the University of Birmingham.

Recently though, I encountered a different way of looking at principles.  The user experience design community tend to focus more on how we should do things.  E.g. we should start with user needs, use iterative developm…

Why the UCISA Capability Model is useful

What do Universities do?

This may seem a strange question to ask and the answer may seem obvious.  Universities educate students and undertake research.  And perhaps they work with industrial partners and create spin-off companies of their worn.  And they may work with local communities, and affiliation bodies for certain degress, and they definitely report on their activities to government bodies such as HEFCE.  They provide student services and support.  The longeryou think about it, the more things you can think of that a University does.

In business, the things that an organisation does are called "capabilities", which is a slightly strange term.  I think it is linked to the HR idea of a combination of the CAPacity and ABILITY to do a task.  Whatever the name, it is a useful concept.  A capability is more basic than a process: a University may change the way it educates students but as long as it remains a University it will educate them one way or another.

A capability …

"No more us & them"

WonkHE recently posted an interesting opinion piece with the title Academics and Administrators: No more ‘us and them’. In that post, Paul Greatrix rebutted criticisms of professional services (administrative) staff in Universites from some academics. To illustrate his point, he quoted recent articles in which administrators were portrayed as a useless overhead on the key tasks at hand (teaching and research).

This flows both ways, as Greatrix himself points out. As Enterprise Architect, I work with Professional Services colleagues and I have heard some of them express opinions that clearly fail to understand the nature of academic work. Academics cannot be treated as if they were factory workers, churning out lectures on a treadmill.

I think these comments reveal a fundamental clash of ideas about how a University should work. Some people who come into management positions for other sectors tend to frame the University as a business, with students and research funders as customers t…