February IT Leadership Team meeting

The IT Leadership Team met on February 23, and provided leaders with an update on the IT Job Family Redesign Project, expanding on last month’s discussion. Sarah Beardsley also engaged the group in discussion around improving the Major Incident Process.

Continued Progress on IT Job Family Redesign Project

Set to launch in June with additional phases to continue into FY23, Blanche Temple gave the group a high-level update on the project. The group, prompted by John Barden, offered positive feedback on the work to date on the job descriptions and job levels.

Over the last few weeks, ITS leadership reviewed the draft IT job descriptions and the market benchmarks aligned to each ITS M&P staff member. The primary focus of the exercise was to ensure the job descriptions aligned to the expectations of each role and job level. It was understood and expected that there would be refinement to the job descriptions and job level descriptors and there would be essentially no movement in the alignment of staff to market benchmarks. The deadline to submit feedback and suggested edits has yet to be determined but it is expected to be sometime in March.

Next up, the IT SLT will solidify the June rollout process. Additionally, training and information sessions to support managers and staff will be offered in late March and early April, to ensure everyone is prepared for the implementation of the project.

Reengineering the Major Incident Process (MIM)

This month, Sarah Beardsley focused the group on improving the Major Incident Process (MIM). Managers of staff were invited to attend the Leadership Team meeting to take part in breakout sessions and provide feedback. Pre-reading materials were provided explaining the process and Sarah kicked off the discussion by explaining the purpose of the process and timeline for improving it. Next, individuals were assigned to one of the 14 breakout rooms, given 25 minutes to brainstorm, and asked to consider the following:

• How can the process of identifying and initiating a major incident could be streamlined and improved?
• Thinking about the Major Incident Process, in general, what pain points/gaps can you identify and how would you propose we eliminate them? Consider each of the following perspectives.
  • Client perspective (clients affected by the outage)
  • Help desk perspective (frontline workers receiving reports of an outage)
  • Resolver group perspective (individuals working to restore service as quickly as possible)
• Reflecting on Technology (the tools that we use to work through and eventually resolve Major Incidents (e.g., ServiceNow, PagerDuty, Bridge line, Two Pager Checklist, Teams, etc.), please provide your thoughts on what’s working, what’s not working and any ideas for enhancements.

Following breakout room report-outs, a lively and productive discussion ensued. It is clear that IT staff are passionate about current tools and processes, and are excited about optimizing our response to future major incidents. It was also noted that there are shared concerns related to After Action Reviews (AAR), keeping the Bridge Line open, communicating during an incident, and the stigma associated with having a Major Incident. Sarah is compiling all of the information gathered through these discussions and will share this feedback with the IT SLT. An overview session will take place in mid-April with the goal of reengineered the MIM process in May.  

The next IT Leadership Team meeting will take place on Wednesday, March 30.