Thanks, Andrew for your comments. I hope you and others will use the
electronic media to help create a common vision and plan for IT at UVM.
At 3:18 PM -0500 7/28/1997, Andrew Hendrickson wrote:
>1. Didn't we already do this only two years ago? The committee charge
>sounds almost identical to that of the Information Technology Strategic
>Planning Committee of 1994-95.
Actually there are important differences in the charge that did not show
up until the actual charging meeting on Friday. You will note that Ray
Lavigne has anticipated your question: See
>In going through the committee membership,
>it appears to be (with a few exceptions) the same cast of characters as
>that committee. If you seat a committee with mostly the same list of
>people two times in a row, do you expect to get different conclusions?
There are a few new "characters" and I expect we can all benefit from our
>2. Is this committee part of the planned revision process for the original
>Strategic Plan? Or, are we starting all over again?
We expect to build on past planning efforts -- not start all over again.
>3. What happened to the old plan? We never heard a status report on the
>implementation of the original strategic plan. The ITEC committee was
>formed, what did they accomplish?
The old plan is still in place and, along with other planning documents,
is linked to from the lastest IT planning Web page.
Planning is not something you do once and never have to do again. It is a
recursive process, responding to a changing environment, learning from our
successes and failures...