University of Arizona's IT centralization spurs research worries

A plan to centralize Information Technology at the University of Arizona will “impact” 625 employees and approximately $400 million worth of research, a new faculty report states.

The centralization plan was “planned and executed in private, without the consultation of department heads, vice presidents or IT stakeholders,” says the 60-page report released by the General Faculty Committee on Information Technology.

It has also “led to issues around violations of federal contracts, uncertainty in operations, disrupted planning around new IT acquisitions, maintenance of existing systems, and a general loss of morale,” the report contends.

The faculty report doesn’t specify what it means by the word “impact” on the employees and research, but IT staff members say they believe there could be layoffs and serious cuts to research funding.

But Lanita Collette, the university’s acting chief information officer, said the claims the centralization plan will negatively affect research, grants and staff members are “false.”

“The centralization of IT will positively impact the ability of the university to meet increasingly demanding security requirements from granting agencies as it will ensure appropriate security measures are in place across all departments of the university,” Collette said in a statement to the Arizona Daily Star.

She also said, “The IT centralization plan was reviewed and supported by the President, the Provost, the SVP (senior vice president) for Research, the Interim CFO, and other SVPs.”

Rather than IT employees working for specific colleges and departments, they will now report to centralized leadership. Many of the IT employees who were centralized declined to speak about their experiences on the record for fear of retaliation. Unlike faculty, they cannot be given tenure, and with impending UA layoffs, many fear for their job security.

The centralization may also endanger some expensive equipment if it’s now handled by centralized workers who are not experts in processes, the report states.

Telescope sites, technology integration centers and research labs could be affected, the report states: “These locations are highly specialized and require full time dedicated IT staff to management. Variously, these sites also require decentralized IT controls to meet federal contracting requirements and to guarantee mission success.”

Collette did not specifically respond to the endangerment claims.

Addressing security concerns

A statewide audit conducted in June 2018, which the Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University also participated in, found that the UA’s technology procedures were “deficient” in 23 recommended areas.

Unlike ASU and NAU, the UA did not offer “response explanations” of how it planned to implement the recommendations.

Instead, the university released a one-sentence statement.

“The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit recommendation will be implemented,” the UA responded to the recommendations at the time.

A follow-up report released in 2022 found that only five recommendations had been implemented, 12 had been partially implemented and six were still not implemented.

ABOR, ASU and NAU have all implemented or are in the process of implementing their recommendations, making the UA an outlier.

“The absence of detailed explanations for the audit’s recommendations indicates a lack of transparent planning and accountability, which could hinder the effective mitigation of IT security risks,” the General Faculty Committee on Information Technology wrote in this month’s report.

Notably, the report states, none of the recommendations had to do with centralizing IT, but rather than focusing on implementing the recommendations UA leadership instead set its sights on centralization.

Collette, the university’s acting CIO, said: “The audit findings confirmed that University departmental IT practices were not sufficiently addressing all security concerns, while central IT met the required security standards.

“When centralization of university departmental IT is complete, all security practices across the university will comply with the recommendations in the audit.”

“The IT centralization plan incorporates best practices recommended in the audit,” Collette added.

“What’s my future here?”

In November 2022, UA President Robert C. Robbins committed to centralizing IT by June 2023, causing campus IT managers to send an email to Chief Information Officer Barry Brummund sharing their concerns about the efforts.

“We would like a better understanding of how staff positions are being handled and what options are being made available to employees whose relevance may be reduced or eliminated by the proposed changes,” the managers wrote at the time. “The abrupt way this plan was announced has had an intense emotional impact on staff across campus.”

The plan to centralize seemingly fell by the wayside in the following months, until the UA’s financial crisis was revealed last fall. Robbins and the university’s former CFO announced a financial miscalculation last November; it has since been revealed that the university is in a $177 million deficit.

On Feb. 14, emails were sent to all IT staff that they would be centralized by March 4 — only a three-week notice.

Robert Lanza has been employed by the UA since 1994. Currently, he serves as the IT manager for the Norton School of Human Ecology and as the building manager for McClelland Park.

Lanza said the process of centralization has been “bizarre” and “disconcerting.”

“It has caused, almost like an existential crisis,” he said. “What’s my job? What’s my future here?”

“Need to modernize our tools”

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

The justification for the plan, according to the faculty committee, has “shifted over time.”

“The Office of the CIO executed the IT centralization plan without consultation from the colleges, faculty senate, the deans or the VP for research, stakeholders or its institutional partners,” the report states. “This set a dangerous precedent and is a unique event across R1 institutions (top research universities) with large IT departments.”

The “rapid IT centralization mandates now endanger federal research projects and agreements,” the committee cautioned.

Lucy Ziurys, a regents professor who teaches astrobiology, said she was “shocked” by the centralization plan, which she called “irrational.”

“Robbins and (UA Interim Chief Financial Officer John) Arnold have repeatedly said that they are going to preserve core values at the UA like keeping our high research profile, and this will do completely the opposite,” she said.

In a Staff Council meeting last month, Arnold told employees that the centralization efforts were taking place “not because we don’t value you, (but) because we value you so much.”

“The IT system that they’re functioning under is 142 years old,” Arnold said at the time. “Most of them cost $100 million to replace. We’re doing our best but we need to modernize our tools around the university.”

“Disrupting projects”

Ziurys claimed that the changes were “already disrupting projects, right now.”

Additionally, she worries that the centralization will deter researchers from wanting to work at the university.

“If I’m a researcher and I’m facing this new layer of hassle and uncertainty, I’m not going to come to the UA. Or if I’m here, I’m going to leave,” she said. “We’re on a downward spiral to where there’s no research going on at all because the conditions for doing it are so extreme.”

Lanza, the longtime IT employee, echoed Ziurys’ statements.

He claims that grants given to the UA by state and federal agencies like the Department of Defense and the National Institute of Health will soon dry up.

“Sponsored research, especially with equipment, needs specialized IT workers,” he said. “A person who has been there through the whole process, the install, the upgrades, the whole thing, has a very specific knowledge base.”

Once employees are centralized, however, that knowledge will be no more, he said.

“There are investments on this campus that are specific research with specific IT people attached to them,” Lanza said. “You can’t do this and expect research is going to continue flawlessly, or even at all.”

While the faculty report released last week claims that $400 million in research funding will be directly “impacted” by the centralization, Lanza thinks that in the coming years, it will cease to exist.

He said that once state and federal agencies see the changes being made, they’ll be less likely to give funding to UA researchers. This in turn could lead to a “brain drain” at the university, Lanza said.

“This is how (faculty and researchers) maintain their reputations,” he said. “This is going to grind some projects to a halt. People aren’t going to want to work under these conditions.”

“Will ensure appropriate security”

Collette countered, “The statement that centralization of IT will have incredibly negative impacts on research and grants given to UA faculty and staff members is false. Rather, the centralization of IT will positively impact the ability of the University to meet increasingly demanding security requirements from granting agencies as it will ensure appropriate security measures are in place across all departments of the University. UITS is working closely with the SVP for Research to ensure researchers are supported through the transition.”

Before centralization, academic units had their own departmental IT support staff personnel that were experts on important software and hardware needed by scholars.

The faculty report claims that replacing specialized IT personnel with a central help desk “would most likely result in a significant drop in productivity.”

“A central help desk would not have the experience or breadth of knowledge to adequately and responsively provide support when needed,” the report states.

Additionally, many departments have their own non-centrally supported classrooms and labs that have been customized for their own needs. Centralizing individual IT experts and procedures, the committee wrote, will require serious spending.

For employees like Lanza, this only makes the decision harder to comprehend.

“It doesn’t improve anything,” he said with a sigh. “It destroys the quality of research and education.”

Lanza grew increasingly more exacerbated on the phone as he tried to reckon with the university’s decisions.

“We’re not even sure why we’re doing it,” he said. “We don’t know how we’re doing. But we we’ve been told we have to do this.”