Insights from recent IT Federation discussions
Posted by
on
IT staff from across campus recently participated in discussions about IT Federation. You shared, and we listened. Here are key themes of what we heard.
Over the last several months, the IT Federation Program team met with stakeholder groups across the university and hosted discussions at events like the IT Support Symposium, monthly MIST meeting and IT Professionals Conference. While we shared phase 1 outcomes and answered questions, the primary purpose of these conversations was to better understand what the IT community needs from IT Federation and identify opportunities to build on what’s working well. These insights will help shape Phase 2 as the program works to strengthen collaboration, align shared priorities and improve how IT teams across UW–Madison work together.
We wanted to hear from as many people as possible — leaders, managers, service owners, developers, engineers, user support staff and more. Throughout these discussions, you shared dozens of examples of successful collaborations across central and School, College, and Divisional (SCD) IT. Here’s an overview of what we heard and how we plan to use these insights as we look ahead to phase 2.
Key themes from discussions
From these engagements, five key themes emerged:
- Solving problems together builds trust and understanding
- Relationships and communities connect the IT ecosystem
- Transparency builds confidence
- Understanding different realities leads to better decisions
- Shared expectations require shared accountability
How your feedback will inform phase 2
In phase 2, we plan to develop a shared vision and guiding principles with the IT community; conduct coordinated discovery work for several services identified in Phase 1; and develop and pilot approaches for more coordinated service delivery across the university.
The feedback shared during these discussions will help us:
- Ground vision and guiding principle discussions in the real experiences, needs and priorities of IT professionals across the university.
- Apply proven collaboration practices identified through these discussions — such as shared problem-solving, transparency and community building — to how we engage the IT community throughout service discovery and design activities.
- Identify successful examples of collaboration already happening today and explore how those approaches can be expanded, adapted and incorporated into pilot efforts for the services selected in Phase 1.
Share your thoughts, feedback & examples
If you haven’t had a chance to join one of our discussions yet, you can still share your thoughts. What’s working well? What could be improved? What examples do you have that you can share with the project team?
You can find the 6 discussion questions in this Padlet, along with responses from those who joined our IT Professionals Conference session virtually. Feel free to add your thoughts.
Watch the recording from our session at the IT Professionals Conference
You can also watch the recording of our IT Professionals Conference session for additional information and context. We start with a brief presentation and then move into the discussion.
Explore the key themes
Below you’ll find a summary of each theme. If you’d like to go deeper, we encourage you to read the full report — it includes more detail, specific examples, and a breakdown of enablers and friction points for each one. (Note: You must be logged in to your UW-Madison Google Workspace account to view the report).
What we heard
Collaboration is most effective when people from different roles team up to tackle a specific challenge. Whether it’s a pilot project or a testing group, getting hands-on with a problem helps us understand the real-world constraints, choices and tradeoffs involved. By participating directly and hearing different perspectives, teams don’t just find better solutions — they also gain a much deeper appreciation for each other’s work.
A few examples emerged from the discussion, including the Smart Access Intune testing effort. Participants shared that they got to be part of the testing process through regular meetings, direct access to the implementation team, and visibility into what was being tested which created confidence in the outcomes.
What we heard
Time and time again, people described how a trusted introduction or existing connection made problem-solving faster and easier — whether they were troubleshooting classroom AV tech, working through a tricky software issue or just trying to find the right person for the job. When asked how they build those connections, participants pointed to communities of practice, working groups, conferences, Teams channels and informal peer networks.
But there’s a flip side. When finding help depends on knowing the right person, experiences across campus can be uneven. Those with strong networks get answers quickly; others spend significant time figuring out where to start. It’s a clear signal that more discoverable paths to expertise would benefit everyone.
One participant described a time they needed help with classroom AV technology. An AV consultant connected them with a colleague who had encountered something similar, and had implemented a solution. The individual reflected that they would have appreciated the opportunity to collaborate with that person earlier so they could learn lessons and design together.
What we heard
People generally know where to go for help. Challenges emerge after they ask. Who owns the issue? Has it been handed off? Where does it stand, and when should they expect an update? It can sometimes feel like requests disappear into a black box. Unclear ownership, handoffs or communication can lead to negative experiences for end users. Participants noted that SCD IT teams often step in to help users navigate the complexity, coordinating across teams and advocating on behalf of end users.
The same is true for decision-making. Participants said they could accept decisions they disagreed with — as long as they understood the reasoning behind them. What’s harder to accept is when feedback isn’t heard or considered, or when decisions appear without explanation. As one participant put it, hearing why something couldn’t be accommodated was better than never hearing anything at all.
More visibility into processes, ownership and decision-making isn’t just a nice-to-have. It’s what builds trust.
What we heard
There’s broad support for shared standards and coordinated approaches, but support alone doesn’t make them stick. Policies and best practices often exist on paper but get implemented inconsistently — creating confusion, eroding trust, and limiting the very benefits they’re meant to deliver.
Across IT teams, there are legitimate differences in mission, risk, funding and operational needs. Participants acknowledged that flexibility is often necessary to accommodate these differences. At the same time, several discussions raised questions about what happens after collaborative processes end. The challenge brought up in discussions was not whether exceptions to standards and policies should exist, but how the institution balances local flexibility with collective commitments, while maintaining clarity around ownership, accountability and follow-through.
This theme captured a tension that ran through many discussions: people value local autonomy, but recognize that some goals — cybersecurity, compliance, service consistency, shared user experiences — require alignment across organizational boundaries.
What we heard
Central and SCD IT teams came to the table wanting the same thing: a better understanding of each other’s world. One topic of conversation was the unique needs and challenges facing various IT teams. SCD IT talked about navigating research environments, faculty support, compliance requirements and local operational needs. Central IT discussed supporting services at scale, managing risk and juggling competing priorities across the whole university.
A key insight from discussions: just because we work within the same institution doesn’t mean we’re facing the same problems. Business drivers, constraints and priorities can look very different depending on where you sit. Even the language we use to describe challenges can vary, causing confusion and slowing down progress.
The throughline across all of this? Better decisions emerge when the people affected by those decisions are part of the conversation.
Want to learn more about IT Federation?
- Explore our web page
- Read our previous articles
- Subscribe to our newsletter for ongoing updates and more in-depth information