A Bit of History--and Governance
Structures at Peer Institutions
Research CI Governance Task Force
23 June 2014
Academic Rankings of World
Universities
Source: www.shanghairankings.com
Institution
Cornell
Wisconsin
Michigan
UIUC
UMN
Northwestern
UMD
Penn State
Purdue
Ohio State
MI State
Iowa
2003
12
27
21
45
37
29
75
40
80
81
87
90
2012
13
19
22
25
29
30
38
49
56
65
96
-
2013
13
19
23
25
29
30
38
54
57
65
92
-
Background
We received a charge on May 28, 2013 from VP F&B David Gray and
Interim Provost Rob Pangborn to examine institutional IT metrics and
governance structures at peer institutions and develop recommendations
for consideration at Penn State.
Benchmark data from EDUCAUSE was analyzed for funding, staffing, and
organizational structures at 14 peer institutions (Big 10 schools plus
Cornell and UC Davis), along with detailed information on governance
models from the similarly sized and relevant PSU peers Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin (MMW). EDUCAUSE is an imperfect source in a
number of ways, but reportedly the best available. Penn State reports
only central IT funding, which suggests that the high level of spending in
comparative terms may considerably understate our total outlay on IT:
Goldstein’s findings put the figure at $248m. We do not believe, however,
that particulars of funding significantly impact the governance
recommendations.
Central: IT
policy
Support: Help
desk
Support:
Desktop
Educ.
Technology
Res.
technology
Data Center
Comm Network
Comm Telephony
IT security
ERP
ID Mgmnt.
Web support
1
152
0
0
0
7
23
0
4
4
12
1
22
18
0
1
0
2
11
6
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
37
33
10
24
40
17
12
4
51
17
15
7
5
22
46
62
78
57
79
47
48
51
4
13
26
24
24
9
85
4
23
57
35
130
69
39
50
26
34
12
27
28
8
0
0
0
47
0
63
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
2
15
11
50
13
25
8
33
9
10
19
10
49
12
15
74
35
59
93
26
16
55
10
37
34
22
34
23
88
14
0
11
20
1
23
5
28
4
22
5
6
28
20
18
13
20
5
16
16
5
15
6
8
4
8
10
139
122
102
121
142
165
107
14
92
53
33
6
74
0
27
112
78
44
49
23
83
26
65
40
46
19
25
40
9
9
0
20
6.
14
17
24
0.
9
12
5.
11
7
24
4
7
60
9
0
562
665
383
568
590
511
508
267
345
239
290
134
326
224
Penn State
G4 Median
Big10+ Median
62
45
26
1
0
4
0
1
1
37
24
17
46
62
47
85
23
34
8
0
0
2
15
13
15
59
34
88
11
11
20
18
10
139
121
92
27
78
44
9
9
9
24
7
6.5
562
568
345
G4 Avg.
Big10+ Avg.
39
27
51
19
1
2
22
20
66
40
28
41
0
9
25
20
56
40
8
13
17
11
115
79
78
50
10
10
24
11
539
388
6
0
0
10
9
Total Central
IT
Central: Project
Mgmnt
62
46
26
45
49
29
23
10
16
9
17
19
31
27
Other
Institution
Penn State
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Wisconsin
Indiana University
Michigan State University
Purdue University
Rutgers
The Ohio State University
The University of Iowa
University of Maryland
University of Nebraska
Cornell University
Univ. California - Davis
Administration
Staffing Metrics – FTE by Function
President's cabinet
ERP cmte.
Educ. tech. cmte.
Res. comp. cmte.
IT operations cmte.
IT services cmte.
Faculty advisory cmte.
Stud.advisory cmte.
System/district office
Component campuses
State agency
Other
Not app
Institution
Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey
The Pennsylvania State University
University of Minnesota
Purdue University
University of Nebraska − Lincoln
The University of Iowa
University of Maryland
University of California, Davis
University of Wisconsin−Madison
The Ohio State University
University of Michigan−Ann Arbor
Michigan State University
Indiana University
Cornell University
Trustees
Central IT Receives Input From? – Big Ten +
(Tabular Format, 1 = input, 0 = not)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Key Findings
• Penn State spends more on IT than its peers.
– Overall funding for central IT @ PSU is considerably higher than at our
peers on an absolute (PSU $114m; MMW $90m; Big10+ $59m) and per
FTE basis (PSU is 15-35% higher than peer groups)
– PSU spends significantly more on non-compensation expenses than our
peers (PSU $48m; MMW $29m; Big10 $22m), with an unusually large
allocation for facilities and utilities costs ($28m; MMW $1m). Penn State
spends significantly less on compensation for staff than its peers.
• Penn State appears to have more centralized IT functions than
almost all peers.
– PSU is one of very few institutions that places research IT staff within
central IT. [Note June 2014: RCC has now moved.]
• PSU’s governance structures differ considerably from those of most
peers.
– IT @ PSU seeks input from fewer stakeholder committees than its peers
and with fewer direct or dotted reporting lines from CIO office to senior
executive leadership.
Executive Summary (Governance)
• New governance models from Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (who
have recently rethought organization and governance) share several
features
– They appear stakeholder (customer) driven and are often led by faculty for
academic domains and business administrators for finance and business domains.
– There is a focus on setting strategic priorities, making the business / mission
alignment case for approving new initiatives and continuing current practices, and
mechanisms for ensuring accountability.
– They appear broadly representative and include formal and informal input
mechanisms from communities of practice.
– They have clearly defined executive leadership oversight from outside of IT.
• Penn State’s communities of practice (faculty, researchers, educators)
appear to provide little or no significant input into IT oversight and
governance.
– This is consistent with the findings of the research IT subcommittee.
Michigan
Michigan - Faculty Driven Governance
University IT Executive Committee
Information & Technology Services
Unit IT Steering Committee
Medical Ctr. Information Technology
Teaching & Learning
Knowledge
UNIVERSITY
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
COUNCIL
Deans, Faculty & Students
Information & Infrastructure Assurance
Research
Patient Care
Administration
Faculty Chair
Additional Faculty Members
IT Governance at Univ. Minnesota
General User Community
Student Groups
Surveys
Technology Trends
Etc.
Chancellors,
Deans, VPs
ACIOs
Synthesize
Demand
President
Chancellors,
Deans,
VPs
Input
Vice President
Information Tech.
The
Budget 5
OIT-Charged
Technical Groups
ATAC
EPG
Formal CoPs
University Governance
Dean’s Council
SCIT
FCC
Etc.
IT Exec
Oversight
IT Buyers
Committee
Technical Community
AITC
Net-People
Code-People
Etc.
Associate CIO
IT Service
Owners
Local IT Directors
IT Executive
Oversight
IT Leadership Community (ITLCoP)
Other Formal Communities of Practice
Other Formal Communities of Practice
IT Leadership Community
. . .
Other Informal Communities of Practice
Service Portfolio
1.
Project A
2.
Project B
3.
Project C
4.
Etc.
Decision Process
Funding
Service Portfolio
1.
Project A
2.
Project B
3.
Project C
4.
Etc.
Service Portfolio
1.
Project A
2.
Project B
3.
Project C
4.
Etc.
Execution/Implementation
Wisconsin – Faculty Governance
• Strong culture of faculty
governance.
• Strategic priorities set and budget
oversight by faculty-led
Information Technology
Committee that consists of eight
faculty, three students, as well as
non-voting representation from
various stakeholders appointed by
the provost, and the CIO in an exofficio capacity.
• Research computing is led by a
separate faculty committee with
shared administrative oversight by
Provost, VCR and CIO.
Wisconsin – Governance
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
•
MEMBERSHIP. The Information Technology Committee shall consist of the
following members:
– Eight faculty members, two from each faculty division, appointed for terms of four years.
– Three academic staff members. No member of the Division of Information Technology staff
may serve as a voting member of the committee.
– Three students, at least one of whom shall be an undergraduate student and at least one a
graduate student, to serve one-year terms.
– Director of the Division of Information Technology, ex officio nonvoting.
– One nonvoting member representing the director of the University General Library System,
two nonvoting members representing the vice chancellor for administration, one nonvoting
member representing the provost, and one nonvoting member representing the vice
chancellor for student affairs. These members shall be appointed by the provost.
Wisconsin – IT Governance
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
•
FUNCTIONS. The Information Technology Committee is the faculty advisory body for policy
and planning for information technology throughout the university. In performing its
functions, it shall consult with such groups and individuals as it feels may be able to provide
valuable advice. It may request such reports on budgets, personnel policies, and other topics
as are necessary for it to make informed judgments and recommendations. It shall establish
such subcommittees as are necessary to carry out its functions.
–
–
–
–
–
–
Reviews and makes recommendations on strategic planning for the university’s information
technology resources.
Reviews the performance of information technology facilities and services in supporting and assisting
scholarly activities.
Receives reports from and provides general direction to committees formed to address specific
information technology issues.
Monitors technical developments.
Consults with and advises appropriate administrative officers on budget and resource allocation
matters including charges and funding sources for information technology services.
Receives recommendations from departments, deans, and the Division of Information Technology
regarding the establishment, abolition or merger of information technology services and facilities
supported by university funds, and makes recommendations regarding these actions to the
appropriate administrative officers.
Recommendations in Principle
• Build on current recommendations in Goldstein report by adopting best
practices from peer institutions to suit the particular needs and culture at
Penn State.
• Seek dynamic and inclusive governance.
•
•
Structures that work at other institutions are those that are aligned with the
missions of the University and that get significant input from stakeholder/customer
groups.
The ability to be forward-looking and get more return on investment depends on
community involvement and optimization.
• Draft recommendation
– Align governance structures with academic and business missions of the University,
and communities of practice in research, teaching, and business/enterprise.
– Build a culture of inclusiveness and transparent governance through use of a mix of
the domain steward and matrix models in place at our closest peer institutions.