Achieving Institutional Effectiveness in
Making IT Investments
American University
Washington, D.C.
Kamalika Sandell
Senior Director of Enterprise Systems, IT
Nana An
Executive Director, Budget and Payroll
NCCI Annual Meeting, July 2010
American University, Washington, D.C.
2
American University, Washington, D.C.

Private 4-Year University, Chartered by Act of Congress in 1893

Strategic Plan: “Leadership for a Changing World” 2010-2020

12,500 Undergraduate, Graduate, Law Students

Fall 2009: 1,533 Freshmen; 330 New Transfers

650 Full-Time Faculty; 430 Adjunct; 1,300 Full-Time Staff

105 Study Abroad Programs in 34 Countries

Politically and Socially Active Student Body
3
American University, Washington, D.C.
 Operating Budget
 Two-year operating budget approved by the Board of
Trustees since 2002
 FY2011: $ 480 million
 Endowment Value: $ 385 million (as of May 2010)
 Bond Rating
 Moody’s: “A2”
 Standard & Poor’s: “A+” upgraded in November 2009
4
Outline
I.
Technology as a strategic investment
II.
Technology portfolio approach – why do we
care?
III.
Portfolio approach: advantages and challenges
IV.
Technology portfolio framework
V.
Alignment with Strategic Plan and budget
VI.
Keys to success
5
Learning Outcomes
1.
A better understanding

Overall technology investment

Resource alignment and impact on strategic
plan
2.
Comprehensive IT needs assessment
3.
Balance immediate and long-term focus
4.
Empowered governance structure
5.
Lessons learned – a maturity model
6
I. Technology as a Strategic
Investment
7
AU Strategic Plan:
Leadership for a Changing World, 2010 - 2020
Strategic Goals
1. Epitomize the scholar-teacher ideal
2. Provide an unsurpassed undergraduate education & experience
3. Demonstrate distinction in graduate, professional, and legal studies
4. Engage the great ideas and issues through research
5. Reflect and value diversity
6. Bring the world to AU and AU to the world
7. Act on our values through social responsibility and service
8. Engage alumni in the life of the university
9. Encourage innovation and high performance
10. Win recognition and distinction
8
AU Strategic Plan
Enabling Goals
1. Diversify our revenue sources
2. Employ technology to empower excellence
3. Enhance the university library and research infrastructure
4. Force partnership by leveraging our capital location
5. Continue as a model for civil discourse
6. Align facilities planning with strategic goals
9
Technology Initiatives Supporting Strategic Plan
2
3
UG Education
& Experience
Degree Audit
1
Graduate
Studies
E-Advising
AU Central
Teacher-Scholar
AU Student
Portal
Hobsons
Admission
System
Virtual Computer Lab
Lynda.com
FARS
Gmail &
Google Apps
Research
Research Computing Cluster
High Speed Network
Bb 9.1
Wimba
4
Grants Mgt Sys
Alumni
8
Colleague Advancement
Alumni Portal
IT
Wireless Upgrade
Business Intelligence (BI)
Security Monitoring
Dashboards
Voice-Mail
New BC Data Center NextGen Workstation
PMP
EG2
Microsoft Sharepoint
Digital Signage
Innovation & 9
Employ Technology
Web Phase 2
High Performance
Digital Asset Mgt
To Empower Excellence
Web Analytics
Digital Media Center
Welcome Center
Win Recognition & Distinction
10
II. A portfolio approach –
why do we care?
11
Technology Landscape @American U
 Central IT function;
multiple local IT
School of
Communications
operations
Center of
Teaching,
Research, and
Learning
SOC
10%
WCL
9%
Washington College of Law
Development Office (1.5%)
Enrollment Services (1.5%)
Office of
Information
Technology
(central IT)
42%
CTRL
18%
Library
11%
College of Arts & Sciences (2%)
WAMU radio station (1.5%)
Registrar (1.5%)
Kogod School of Business (.5%)
School of Public Affairs (.5%)
School of International Services (.5%)
Washington Semester (.5%)
 Demand and expectations greatly exceed resources
 Investments decisions made on a project by project basis
 Collaborative campus, yet silo-ed decision making
 Multiple stakeholders, yet lacking accountability
12
Areas for Improvement at American U
 Better understand “total” technology investment
 Assess uniformly major technology investment decisions
 Proactive, planned management of new technology requests
 Fully leverage systems through investment validation
 Stronger business cases
 A flexible and adaptive IT
 Increased transparency in decision making
13
A Technology Portfolio Approach
 A comprehensive technology demand profile
 Framework for investment validation
 Managing trade –offs, maximizing value, minimizing risk
 Scenarios and options
 Total technology investment irrespective of “where” it is
allocated
 Engaged stakeholders, defined decision making authority
14
III. Portfolio Approach:
Advantages and Challenges
15
Portfolio Approach:
Advantages
 One assessment framework
 Continuous evaluation of risks and opportunities
 Budget approved based on scenarios/ options
 Ability to flex based on changing demands
 Department heads as “Portfolio owner,” accountable for
value of their technology project portfolio
 Collective appropriation of university’s technology fund
 Built in contingencies and management reserves
16
Portfolio Approach:
Challenges
 Managing one big pot – lot of stirring
 Departmental needs vs. institutional priorities
 Unexpected, unplanned needs
 Dedicated resource bandwidth/ not (the earmarks)
 Excellent for long range planning, not suitable for day to
day status updates on technology projects
 Need to invest “time” to plan and create the portfolio, and
to manage to it successfully!
17
IV. Portfolio Framework
18
Campus Stakeholders
The “who” - Key Players
Campus stakeholders
 IT – Lead and facilitate
 Portfolio owners –
Students
Faculty
Staff
divisions lead, nominated
by VP
Alumni
 Steering committee -
IT
Board of
Trustees
group of portfolio owners
Parents
Community
 University Leadership –
Donors
decision making
19
The Method
The “how” – method and data
Example: Prioritization Criteria
 Prioritization criteria
 Aggregate list of needs
 Must Do (Regulatory, Audit, End
of Life)
 Business Case
 Business case
– Volume
 Total cost of ownership
– Strategic priority
 Collaborative decision making
– Student/ constituency
process
 Divisional/ Institutional priorities
priority
– Improved efficiency
– Effort
20
Sample Prioritization Criteria
Volum e (per year)
< 100
< 5000
Value Weight
1
1
2
1
<10000
3
1
>10000
4
2
Strategic Priority (based on
im portance to AU
stakeholders)
Not a priority
A priority to some stakeholders
A moderate priority to some
stakeholders
Critical importance to all
stakeholders
Value Weight
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
Student/ specific
Value Weight
constituency Priority
Indifferent
1
1
View this automation as a nice to
2
1
have
Some have voiced this as a
3
1
process that needs to be
rew orked
Many are demanding this
4
1
process be improved
Ability to Im prove through
autom ation (im proved
efficiency)
Can improve by 25%
Can improve by 50%
Can improve by 75%
Can improve 100%
Value Weight
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
21
Sample Prioritized Initiatives –
low hanging fruits, strategic initiatives
High
2
Nexgen Workstation prog
2
Voice mail upgrade
8 Alumni Portal
9 BI – Self Serve Reporting
9
Financial Aid Packaging
2
2
0 Welcome Center
New Wireless
BI – Predictive Analysis
2 New BC Data Center
4 Research
Computing
4 Grants Mgt – Pre Award
2 Accept/Decline Financial Aid
Priority Score
4
2 Upgrade Web
Registration
2 AU
Central
1 Virtual Computer Lab
Research data mart
2 Degree Audit/ eAdvising
2 Payment Plan automation
2
New
Billing
3 Admissions System
1 Wimba, synch learning
9 BI – Dashboards
2 New
Portal
2
2 Parent Portal
1 Teacher-Scholar
Upgrade email platform
9 eCommerce Application
9 Strategic Planning Tool
9 Upgrade Sponsor Stmt
0 Web Analytics Enhancements
9
Digital Asset Management
1 Lynda.com
1 Faculty Activity Rep Sys P2
4
1
2 Add/Drop
Optimization
2
Grants Mgt – Post Award System
Blackboard Upgrade
2
UG Experience
3
Graduate Studies
4
Research
8
Alumni
9
High Performing Org
0
Win Recognition
2
Tech Excellence
Advising Enhancements
Low
0 New Web Analytics
Small
Medium
Level of Effort
Large
22
Building the Portfolio
The “what” – setting the baseline technology portfolio
 Several options, as “set” of recommendations,
balancing innovation, enabling business outcome,
maintaining operations
 Leadership decision on recommendation
 Central technology fund with approved technology
budget, identifying allocation by initiative, to be released
at the right time with a plan and business case
23
Sample Divisional Portfolio
OIT Portfolio for AY 2009
by University Division
Technology
24%
Academic Affairs
35%
President &UCM
14%
Development
8%
Campus Life
6%
Finance & Treasury
13%
Academic Affairs
Finance & Treasury
Campus Life
Development
President &UCM
Technology
24
Managing the Portfolio
The “now-what” – implementation plans
 Portfolio translation into projects
 Project teams – Functional and Technical
 Ready, Set, Go!
…And, the “so-what” – ongoing portfolio management
 Monthly reviews – net changes, risks, opportunities
 Steering committee appropriation of “opportunities”
 Divisional reports, collective risk mitigation
 Changing demand and impact management
 Quarterly updates to leadership
25
V. Alignment with Strategic Plan
and Budget
26
IT Budget Allocations, FY2008 – FY2011
($14.6 million total)
Thousand
$6,000
$4,800
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,900
$4,500
$2,400
$2,000
$1,000
$0
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
IT Budget Allocations by Program
($14.6 million total)
Technology Initiatives: One Year Later
Strategic Plan Goals
1.
Teacher-Scholar Model
2.
Undergraduate Experience
3. Graduate Studies
4. Research
8. Alumni
9.
Innovation & High Performance
10. Recognition & Distinction
Enabling goal: Technology
Status
VI. Keys to Success
30
Lessons Learned - Ensuring
Accountability, Commitment and Trust
 Collaborative Leadership - IT as custodian of budget, not
sole appropriator
 Effective Technology Plan, Measurable outcomes
 Use a consistent format and a prioritized list
 Provide rationale behind funding decisions
 Share portfolio performance reports with the community
 Continuous ongoing Investment Validation
 Accounting for risks and unknowns
 Engaged, educated and vested campus leaders
 Never stop listening, even when the list is too long!
31
Technology Investment Maturity Model
Leveraging for
strategic outcome
Managing the
Investment
Portfolio approach extended beyond technology – full
campus adoption, accepted as a discipline
Ongoing portfolio analysis, risk and opportunity
identification, outcome assessment
Defining an
Investment Portfolio
Campus integration and collaboration, leadership
Building Investment
Framework
Definition of priorities, selection criteria, project
Identifying
investment needs
AU
engagement, integrated evaluation, value assessment
cost estimates, risk analysis, units define priorities
Ad hoc, unstructured practice, driven by individual
units. No formal benefit or risk evaluation
32
Web Sites and Contact Information
AU Web Site:
http://www.american.edu
Email Address:
nanaan@american.edu
ksandell@american.edu
33
Questions or Comments?
THANK YOU!!!
34