Folks are UCLA are nervous about an effort on campus to consolidate the various local IT systems into a unified arrangement. There are reasons, mainly issues of cybersecurity and compatibility, to have a single system. But the record at UC* and at UCLA** in converting older systems into new ones has not been great. The Regents are currently suing computer consultants for failures related to its pension payment system.*** So, the history is in fact one of cost overruns and failure. So, it's natural that folks are nervous.
Some of the concern in Murphy Hall seems to be that a single organization just should have a single computer/IT system. But that argument depends heavily on defining "organization." Are not individual schools, for example, organizations? If you took the single-system-for-single-organization argument to its logical end, you could argue that UC is ultimately just an entity within state government and therefore the whole state government, including UC, should have a single system.
As for cybersecurity, is it really obvious that having a single system is best? If someone were to hack into such a hypothetical unified system, there would be access to everything. Is it possible that a more diffuse arrangement has certain advantages? Getting into one of many systems might not provide access to others.
Finally, if you are at point A and imagine that point B would be better, isn't it important to consider the costs of the transition? So, if we had a time machine, maybe we should go back to the beginning and create a unified system rather than the multiple systems that actually were developed. But we don't have a time machine and what is - is.
===*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/01/a-clue-to-ongoing-mystery.html.
**https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/05/do-i-sense-computer-snafu-part-3.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment