2014 CDS Benchmarking Report
Table of Contents
Section
Introduction
3–10
About CDS
3
About the 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report
4
Customizing 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report Graphs, in Five Steps
5–6
Introduction to Benchmarking
7
Steps for a Successful Benchmarking Assessment
8
Identify Your Goals
9
Summary of the Landscape
2
Slide(s)
10
IT Financials
11–21
IT Staffing
22–31
IT Services
32–48
Methodology
49–52
About CDS
Since 2002, the EDUCAUSE Core Data Service (CDS) has been providing higher education CIOs and senior IT
leaders with the benchmarks they need to make strategic decisions about IT at their institutions. On average, more
than 800 institutions (both within and outside the United States) participate in a survey about IT financials, staffing,
and services. Survey participants are rewarded for their time and effort with access to CDS Reporting, a self-service
tool that enables institutions to benchmark their IT organizations against those of their peers. In addition to gaining
access to CDS Reporting, institutions also participate in CDS for the following reasons:





3
To study their IT organization
To benchmark against past performance
To look at trends over time*
To start gathering and using metrics
To have data available “just in case”
* The number of years available for trend data varies throughout the CDS dataset. For example, CDS data on funding
can be tracked from 2002 to present, whereas CDS data on expenditures can be tracked for FY2012/13 and FY2013/14.
About the 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report
Traditionally, the CDS annual report has summarized the state of higher education IT; however, the strength of CDS data are
shown through their benchmarking capability. To serve both purposes, the 2014 CDS annual report has been refactored as a
Benchmarking Report to summarize key findings from the CDS 2014 survey, provide a glimpse into the breadth of CDS data,
and ultimately provide you with an opportunity to conduct your own benchmarking assessment. The customizable graphs
contained within this report are meant to be used to assess your IT operation compared to that at peer institutions of similar
size, control, or Carnegie Classification.
As you consider the metrics and benchmarks contained within this report in relation to your institution, findings that differ from
your experience should inspire questions, not answers. When questions do arise, CDS Reporting can facilitate further
investigation (if your institution participated in CDS 2014). If your institution did not participate, consider adding your data to
the next CDS survey, launching in July 2015.
The CDS 2014 survey concluded with 828 participants. The metrics discussed in this report focus primarily on FY2013/14
central IT financials, staffing, and services from 720 nonspecialized U.S. institutions. Metrics are calculated for each of six
Carnegie Classification groupings using the 2010 classification system (AA, BA, MA private, MA public, DR private, and DR
public). These groupings provide the most granular breakdown by institutional type possible (given available sample sizes)
and should provide suitable comparison groups for most institution types and sizes within the United States.
Fifty-nine specialized U.S. institutions and 49 non-U.S. institutions from 17 countries participated in this year’s survey;
however, small sample sizes from each of these groups preclude meaningful aggregate analysis. If your institution is a
specialized U.S. institution or a non-U.S. institution, this report may be used to compare your institution to institutions in a
similar Carnegie Classification or to the metric calculated for All (non-specialized) U.S. institutions. A list of CDS 2014
participants can be found on the CDS website.
4
The metrics in this report evaluate central IT only. Central IT funding, expenditure, and staffing data are only one component
of the full IT resource picture at institutions with significant distributed IT resources. Data on distributed resources, however,
remain elusive. A year-over-year analysis of the CDS data collected about distributed IT resources revealed low data
reliability, an indication that current methods for gathering these data are ineffective. For this reason data on distributed IT
resources have been excluded from this report but can be found in CDS Reporting. Efforts are under way to improve the
quality of these data for future years.
Customizing 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report
Graphs, in Five Steps
1. Review the slide notes for background on why each metric is important and to
identify the origin of each metric.
2. Use the CDS 2014 survey and IPEDS* data to calculate values for your
institution.
3. Right-click on the slide graph and select “Edit Data…” in the pop-up menu.
5
* IPEDS data are used to normalize metrics in CDS based on institutional size and budget.
More information about IPEDS data is available online.
Customizing 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report
Graphs, in Five Steps (cont’d)
4. Enter data for your institution where
indicated in the Excel spreadsheet.
6
5. Check to make sure data for “My
Institution” is now visible.
Introduction to Benchmarking
Today’s institution must run efficiently and effectively. Having a clear understanding of your organization’s financial,
staffing, and operational status is critical to making informed decisions and optimizing the impact of IT; having the
same information about your peers and aspirant peers is even better.
7
You can:
With CDS benchmarking data on:
Make the case for additional resources by comparing resource
allocations to those of peers or estimating the level of
investment required to achieve a certain output or service level.
•
•
Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and
staff)
Make the case for organizational structure or governance by
uncovering best practices for IT leader reporting structures, IT
governance structures, or distributed IT service delivery
models.
•
•
•
CIO reporting line
IT governance maturity
Organizational units responsible for more than 100 IT functions
Calibrate your performance against best practices and “best in
class” institutions that have set the bar for your institution.
•
CDS participants have the ability to customize benchmarking
assessments by selecting specific peer institutions with which to
compare.
Communicate the value of IT by comparing service portfolios
and service performance to financial investment.
•
Services provided by central IT compared to total IT expenditures
and IT expenditures by IT domain area.
Assess the relative maturity of strategic initiatives such as elearning, student success technologies, and analytics.
•
IT maturity for seven IT capabilities, including e-learning, student
success technologies, and analytics.
Steps for a Successful Benchmarking Assessment
2. Identify your
audience.
Are you gathering data
for leadership, users, or
services owners?
3. Identify data
sources.
6. Consider
possible
outcomes.
Will any action take
place upon reporting
the results?
1. Identify your
goals.
What are your
benchmarking
needs? What is the
goal of this exercise?
5. Develop a plan
for reporting.
Are you reporting the
data at the right
frequency, in the right
formats, and to the
right people?
8
Do you have the data
you need? Which
groups will you
compare against?
4. Evaluate data
quality.*
Determine whether
data contain errors. Do
the data need to be
reformatted or
cleaned?
* Evaluating data quality is important even when using CDS data. As you analyze CDS data be sure to evaluate whether the budget and
staffing numbers reported are in line with what is expected and please report suspicious data to coredata@educause.edu.
Identify Your Goals
The first step to a successful benchmarking study is to identify your goals. CDS data can support general benchmarking
studies with goals such as “identify best practices” or “communicate the value of IT,” as well as more targeted efforts
such as “make the case for additional resources.” For example, the table below provides a view into how certain CDS
metrics (all of which are contained in this report) can be used to address the 2015 Top 10 IT Issues.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
10
2015 Top 10 IT Issue
Supporting metrics
Hiring and Retaining Qualified Staff, and Updating the
Knowledge and Skills of Existing Technology Staff
Optimizing the Use of Technology in Teaching and
Learning in Collaboration with Academic Leadership,
Including Understanding the Appropriate Level of
Technology to Use
Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE
Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
Developing IT Funding Models That Sustain Core
Service, Support Innovation, and Facilitate Growth
Improving Student Outcomes through an Institutional
Approach That Strategically Leverages Technology
Demonstrating the Business Value of Information
Technology and How Technology and the IT
Organization Can Help the Institution Achieve Its Goals
Increasing the IT Organization’s Capacity for Managing
Change, Despite Differing Community Needs, Priorities,
and Abilities
Providing User Support in the New Normal—Mobile,
Online Education, Cloud, and BYOD Environments
Developing Mobile, Cloud, and Digital Security Policies
That Work for Most of the Institutional Community
Developing an Enterprise IT Architecture That Can
Respond to Changing Conditions and New
Opportunities
Balancing Agility, Openness, and Security
Most common teaching and learning support services for faculty
Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and
transforming the institution
Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as
a percentage of total central IT spending
Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT
spending
Systems most commonly mobile friendly
Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and
staff)
Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses
Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years
Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher
Institutions offering self-service help options
Access points that are 802.11n or 802.11ac
Systems most commonly mobile friendly
Slide(s)
30–31
23–24; 27–29
36
17
16
21
48
12–14
47
34
41
48
Institutions with mandatory information security training
42
Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years
47
Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk
assessment
43
Summary of the Landscape
To provide a brief, high-level view of the data contained within this report, below are the nonspecialized U.S. metrics for
some of the most commonly used CDS benchmarks:
IT Financials

$906 Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff)

4.2% Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses

54% Central IT compensation spending as a percentage of total central IT spending

34% Central IT noncompensation operating spending as a percentage of total central IT spending

9%
Central IT capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending
IT Staffing

7.7
Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs

17%
Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE

$1,076 Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE
IT Services

75%

18

50%

23%

57%

27%
10
Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher for central IT help desk
Student FTEs per lab/cluster workstations provided by central IT
Institutions hosting or participating in cross-institutional data center services
Access points that are 802.11n
Institutions with mandatory information security training for faculty or staff
Institutions planning to replace customer relationship management (CRM) systems in the next three years.
IT Financials
The first step to strategically funding IT is to identify budget parameters based on type of institution, institutional
population, and institutional budget. Then, based on institutional priorities and your current IT environment, determine
a spending portfolio that will get you to where you want to be. Breaking the budget down by dollars spent running,
growing, and transforming the institution; by each IT domain area; and by capital versus operating work will help you
determine the right blend of innovation spending to operating spending for all areas of IT.
The metrics contained in this section can help you address the following questions:

What is a practical range for total budget based on my institution type, institutional population, and institutional
budget? (metrics 1–3)

Are changes in my budget from the previous fiscal year in line with changes in peer budgets? (metric 4)

What is an appropriate distribution of spending for my institution? (metrics 5–8)
Metric
11
Slide(s)
1
Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) vs. Total central IT spending as a
percentage of institutional expenses
12
2
Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff)
Five-year trend
13
3
Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses
Five-year trend
14
4
Total central IT FY2013/14 spending as a percentage change from FY2012/13
15
5
Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending
16
6
Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution
17
7
IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
8
Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending
18–20
21
Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff)
vs. total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses
Median total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional
expenses (all nonspecialized U.S. median = 4.2%)
8.4%
AA
$599
5.9%
MA public
$768
4.4%
MA private
BA
$979
$1,129
4.7%
4.4%
DR public
$941
3.2%
4.2%
DR private
$1,629
3.7%
My institution
$0
0.0%
0.0%
$0
12
$906
Median total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff)
(all nonspecialized U.S. median = $906)
$1,812
Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff),
five-year trend
Median total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students,
faculty, and staff)
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
1,000
AA
BA
800
MA public
MA private
600
DR public
DR private
400
200
0
RY2009/10
FY2010/11
FY2012/13
FY2013/14
Fiscal year*
13
* FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.
Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses,
five-year trend
Median total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional
expenses
0.07
0.06
0.05
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
0.04
AA
BA
0.03
MA public
MA private
DR public
0.02
DR private
0.01
0
RY2009/10
FY2010/11
FY2012/13
FY2013/14
Fiscal year*
14
* FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.
Total central IT FY2013/14 spending as a percentage change from
FY2012/13
My institution
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
0.3%
0.0%
BA
0.6%
MA public
MA private
1.6%
0.0%
DR public
1.7%
DR private
0.0%
3.4%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
Median total central IT spending as a percentage change from previous year
15
4.5%
5.0%
DR private DR public
MA
private MA public
BA
AA
All
nonspecial
My
ized U.S. institution
Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a
percentage of total central IT spending
Compensation
Noncompensation
Capital
Compensation
Noncompensation
Capital
Compensation
Noncompensation
Capital
Compensation
Noncompensation
Capital
Compensation
Noncompensation
Capital
Compensation
Noncompensation
Capital
Compensation
Noncompensation
Capital
Compensation
Noncompensation
Capital
0%
0%
0%
54%
34%
9%
50%
35%
10%
54%
32%
11%
56%
32%
7%
51%
35%
10%
56%
35%
6%
59%
25%
12%
0%
16
20%
40%
60%
Median central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital
spending as a percentage of total central IT spending
80%
100%
All
nonspecial
My
ized U.S. institution
Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the
institution
Run
0%
0%
0%
Grow
Transform
Run
79%
Grow
13%
Transform
6%
AA
Run
79%
Grow
15%
Transform
5%
BA
Run
80%
Grow
12%
DR private DR public MA private MA public
Transform
5%
Run
79%
Grow
11%
Transform
7%
Run
77%
Grow
16%
Transform
9%
Run
80%
Grow
13%
Transform
6%
Run
80%
Grow
13%
Transform
7%
0%
17
20%
40%
60%
80%
Median percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution
100%
IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
My institution
0%
Information systems
All nonspecialized U.S.
18%
AA
9%
BA
18%
MA public
18%
MA private
19%
DR public
17%
DR private
My institution
20%
0%
IT support services
All nonspecialized U.S.
15%
AA
19%
BA
18%
MA public
14%
MA private
17%
DR public
13%
DR private
13%
0%
18
5%
10%
15%
20%
Median IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
25%
IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
Communications infrastructure
My institution
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
13%
AA
7%
BA
13%
MA public
11%
MA private
12%
DR public
23%
DR private
Educational technology services
My institution
13%
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
10%
AA
11%
BA
11%
MA public
11%
MA private
10%
DR public
10%
DR private
9%
0%
19
5%
10%
15%
20%
Median IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
25%
IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
My institution
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
4%
Data center
AA
5%
BA
2%
MA public
4%
MA private
4%
DR public
4%
DR private
5%
My institution
0%
Information security
All nonspecialized U.S.
2%
AA 1%
BA 1%
MA public
2%
MA private 1%
DR public
3%
DR private
2%
0%
20
5%
10%
15%
20%
Median IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
25%
Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT
spending
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
2%
AA
1%
BA
1%
MA public
1%
MA private
3%
DR public
2%
DR private
2%
0%
21
1%
2%
3%
Median central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending
4%
IT Staffing
Staffing models are evolving. Hiring and retaining qualified staff, and updating the knowledge and skills of existing
technology staff, is the #1 Top 10 IT Issues in 2015. Services are being outsourced, but institutions need staff to
manage outsourcing and need more services and bandwidth to support BYOD. Does this mean fewer staff or the
same number of staff with different skills? Through this evolution, you’ll want to keep an eye on several benchmarks:
ratio of central IT staff to institutional FTE, student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE, percentage of IT
staff across IT domain areas, and training spending per IT staff member. Paying attention to how others are staffed
and knowing how your peers balance their staff portfolio can help you find the right fit. Knowing what your peers are
spending on staff training can help you budget for updating skill sets of existing staff.
The metrics contained in this section can help you address the following questions:

What is a practical range for staff size based on my institution type and size? (metrics 1–2)

What is the right blend of staff? (metrics 3–5)

Do I have the appropriate budget to retrain current staff? (metrics 6–7)
Metric
22
Slide(s)
1
Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
23
2
Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
Four-year trend
24
3
Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE
25
4
Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE
Four-year trend
26
5
Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
6
Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE
30
7
Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE
Five-year trend
31
27–29
Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
My institution
0.0
All nonspecialized U.S.
7.7
AA
4.7
BA
10.3
MA public
7.2
MA private
8.6
DR public
7.1
DR private
9.7
0
23
2
4
6
8
Median central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
10
12
Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs,
four-year trend
Median central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
12
10
8
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
6
BA
MA public
MA private
4
DR public
DR private
2
0
FY2010/11
24
FY2011/12
FY2012/13
Fiscal year
FY2013/14
Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE
My onstitution
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
17%
AA
7%
BA
20%
MA public
24%
MA private
22%
DR public
17%
DR private
12%
0%
25
5%
10%
15%
20%
Median student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE
25%
30%
Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE,
four-year trend
Median student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE
0.30
0.25
0.20
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
0.15
BA
MA public
MA private
0.10
DR public
DR private
0.05
0.00
FY2010/11
26
FY2011/12
FY2012/13
Fiscal year
FY2013/14
Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
My institution
0.0
IT support services
All nonspecialized U.S.
2.2
AA
1.5
BA
3.4
MA public
2.2
MA private
2.6
DR public
1.5
DR private
My institution
2.4
0.0
Information systems
All nonspecialized U.S.
1.2
AA
0.6
BA
1.7
MA public
0.9
MA private
1.3
DR public
1.2
DR private
1.8
0.0
27
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Median central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
3.5
4.0
Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
Educational technology services
My institution
0.0
All nonspecialized U.S.
1.0
AA
0.5
BA
1.2
MA public
1.2
MA private
1.0
DR public
1.0
DR private
Communications infrastructure
My institution
0.9
0.0
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
0.6
0.2
BA
0.7
MA public
0.5
MA private
0.5
DR public
0.8
DR private
0.9
0.0
28
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Median central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
3.5
4.0
Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
My institution
0.0
All nonspecialized U.S.
0.2
0.1
Information security
Data center
AA
BA
0.2
MA public
0.1
MA private
0.2
DR public
0.2
DR private
0.2
My institution
0.0
All nonspecialized U.S.
0.1
AA
0.1
BA
0.1
MA public
0.1
MA private
0.1
DR public
0.2
DR private
0.2
0.0
29
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Median central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
3.5
4.0
Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE
My institution
$-
All nonspecialized U.S.
$1,076
AA
$620
BA
$1,190
MA public
$1,168
MA private
$1,091
DR public
$1,095
DR private
$1,371
$0
30
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
Median central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE
$1,200
$1,400
Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE,
five-year trend
Median central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
My institution
$1,000
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
$800
BA
MA public
$600
MA private
DR public
DR private
$400
$200
$0
RY2009/10
FY2010/11
FY2012/13
FY2013/14
Fiscal year*
31
* FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.
IT Services
In a changing environment, it is important to know which services are in demand and which are fading in importance;
which should stay local and which can be outsourced; and which must have mobile deployment or be accessible via
the cloud. It’s important to provide the right services in the most efficient manner. CDS has data that can help you
understand how your peers are supporting users in mobile computing, online education, cloud, and BYOD
environments. CDS data on faculty support services can help you determine how to help your faculty optimize the
use of technology in teaching and learning, and data (including vendor/product, deployment, and management
strategy) on 50 different information systems can help you strategize for an enterprise architecture that is right for
you.
The metrics contained in this section can help you address the following questions:

What services should I provide?

How should I provide those services?

How can I evaluate service efficiency or effectiveness?
32
IT Services: Benchmarks
IT Domain Area
IT Support Services
Metric
Slide
Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher for central IT help desk
34
Institutions offering self-service options for central IT help desk services
34
Annual number of tickets per institutional FTE among institutions with a central IT help
desk that offers each mode (phone, e-mail, walk-in)
35
Most common teaching and learning support services
36
Student FTE per shared workstation provided by central IT
37
Institutions using commercial data center services
38
Institutions hosting or participating in cross-institutional data center services
38
Institutions using SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS to provide data center services
39
Communications infrastructure technologies most likely to be deployed soon
40
Access points that are 802.11n or 802.11ac
41
Institutions with mandatory information security training for faculty, staff, or students
42
Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment
43
Systems most commonly vendor hosted (IaaS)
44
Systems most commonly vendor managed (PaaS)
45
Systems most commonly vendor managed (SaaS)
46
Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years
47
Systems most commonly mobile friendly
48
Educational Technology Services
Data Center
Communications Infrastructure
Information Security
Information Systems and Applications
33
Institutions offering self-service options Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service
for central IT help desk services
or higher for central IT help desk
IT Support Services: Service delivery
My institution
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
75%
AA
60%
BA
80%
MA public
82%
MA private
72%
DR public
78%
DR private
My institution
82%
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
89%
AA
78%
BA
86%
MA public
98%
MA private
80%
DR public
97%
DR private
98%
0%
34
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Median percentage
70%
80%
90%
100%
Walk-in
E-mail
Phone
IT Support Services: Annual number of tickets per institutional FTE, among
institutions with a central IT help desk that offers each mode
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.2
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.0
35
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Median annual number of tickets per institutional FTE among institutions
with a central IT help desk that offers each mode
1.4
Educational Technology Services: Most common teaching and learning
support services for faculty
My
institution
36
All
nonspecialized
U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
Classroom technology support for
faculty
✔ ✖
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
Faculty individual training in use of
educational technology
✔ ✖
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
100%
Learning (course) management
training and support for faculty
✔ ✖
99%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Faculty group training in use of
educational technology
✔ ✖
98%
97%
96%
99%
99%
99%
98%
Online learning technology support
for faculty
✔ ✖
97%
100%
86%
100%
97%
99%
100%
✔
✖
My institution has this service
My institution does not have this service
Student FTE per
laptop/tablet provided by Student FTE per virtual
central IT for checkout or lab/cluster workstation
loan
provided by central IT
Student FTE per
lab/cluster workstations
provided by central IT
Educational Technology Services: Student FTE per shared workstation
provided by central IT
My institution 0.0
All nonspecialized U.S. 18
AA 14
BA
7
MA public 19
MA private
10
DR public
41
DR private *
My institution 0.0
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
51
BA
53
MA public
MA private
25
DR public
DR private *
My institution 0.0
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
0
37
50
101
118
192
184
183
76
217
181
335
147
100
150
200
250
300
350
Median student FTEs per shared workstation provided by central IT
400
* Sample sizes for lab/cluster workstations and virtual lab/cluster workstations provided by central IT at
DR private institutions were too small to calculate an appropriate benchmark.
Institutions hosting or participating in
cross-institutional data center services
Institutions using commercial data
center services
Data Center: Outsourcing and shared services*
My institution
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
27%
AA
16%
BA
30%
MA public
31%
MA private
30%
DR public
23%
DR private
My institution
40%
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
50%
AA
47%
BA
26%
MA public
73%
MA private
17%
DR public
77%
DR private
48%
0%
38
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Median percentage
60%
70%
80%
90%
* For the purpose of this analysis, outsourcing refers to the use of commercial data center services; shared services refers to institutions
using hosted services provided by system or state/consortia facility OR providing services to other institutions or consortia.
Institutions using IaaS to
Institutions using PaaS to
Institutions using SaaS to
provide data center services provide data center services provide data center services
Data Center: Use of SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
My institution
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
0%
68%
60%
59%
68%
74%
74%
78%
0%
20%
13%
25%
16%
14%
26%
24%
0%
28%
11%
28%
31%
30%
31%
45%
0%
39
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Median percentage
60%
70%
80%
90%
Communications Infrastructure: Communications infrastructure
technologies most likely to be deployed soon*
All
nonspecialized
My institution
U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
Unified communications and
collaboration
✔ ✖
34%
21%
34%
35%
31%
45%
30%
IPv6
✔ ✖
31%
25%
32%
41%
14%
37%
40%
Session initiation protocol (SIP)
✔ ✖
28%
25%
25%
33%
17%
37%
30%
Network capacity planning and
management tools
✔ ✖
19%
26%
15%
20%
17%
20%
16%
✔
✖
40
My institution has this technology
My institution does not have this technology
* For the purpose of this analysis, technologies to be deployed soon are those with expected or initial deployment status.
Communications Infrastructure: Wireless network configuration
Access points that are 802.11n
My institution
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
23%
AA
17%
BA
26%
MA public
24%
MA private
42%
DR public
12%
DR private
Access points that are 802.11ac
My institution
14%
0%
1%
All nonspecialized U.S.
AA
4%
BA
2%
MA public
2%
MA private
0%
DR public
0%
DR private
0%
0%
41
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Median percentage
30%
35%
40%
45%
Institutions with mandatory information Institutions with mandatory information
security training for students
security training for faculty or staff
Information Security: Training for faculty, staff, and students
My institution
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
57%
AA
72%
BA
45%
MA public
65%
MA private
42%
DR public
60%
DR private
My institution
61%
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
29%
AA
38%
BA
23%
MA public
28%
MA private
29%
DR public
23%
DR private
37%
0%
42
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Median percentage
60%
70%
80%
Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment
Information Security: Risk assessments
My institution
0%
All nonspecialized U.S.
78%
AA
83%
BA
73%
MA public
81%
MA private
64%
DR public
86%
DR private
78%
0%
43
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Median percentage
70%
80%
90%
100%
Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly
vendor-managed (SaaS)
All
nonspecialized
My institution
U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
E-mail: student
✔ ✖
55%
42%
53%
52%
56%
62%
69%
Customer relationship
management
✔ ✖
36%
34%
39%
31%
31%
36%
50%
Learning (course) management
✔ ✖
31%
35%
21%
27%
41%
33%
33%
E-mail: faculty/staff
✔ ✖
30%
15%
38%
18%
34%
35%
38%
Library
✔ ✖
23%
34%
23%
15%
32%
14%
24%
Facilities management
✔ ✖
20%
26%
21%
16%
34%
15%
13%
44
✔
✖
My institution uses SaaS for this system
My institution does not use SaaS for this system
Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly
vendor-managed (PaaS)
All
nonspecialized
My institution
U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
E-mail: student
✔ ✖
5%
6%
4%
3%
1%
8%
8%
Web content management
✔ ✖
4%
4%
4%
1%
4%
5%
4%
Learning (course) management
✔ ✖
4%
4%
3%
3%
1%
6%
8%
Library
✔ ✖
4%
3%
6%
4%
3%
3%
2%
Customer relationship
management
✔ ✖
3%
2%
4%
0%
6%
5%
0%
E-mail: faculty/staff
✔ ✖
3%
4%
3%
1%
1%
6%
0%
Facilities management
✔ ✖
2%
1%
2%
4%
2%
1%
2%
Grants management: preaward
✔ ✖
2%
2%
0%
2%
6%
3%
3%
Grants management: postaward
✔ ✖
2%
2%
0%
2%
6%
1%
2%
Human resources information
✔ ✖
2%
2%
1%
4%
3%
2%
2%
Procurement
✔ ✖
2%
2%
1%
4%
0%
1%
2%
45
✔
✖
My institution uses PaaS for this system
My institution does not use PaaS for this system
Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly
vendor-hosted (IaaS)
All
nonspecialized
My institution
U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
E-mail: student
✔ ✖
13%
20%
9%
16%
14%
11%
8%
Learning (course) management
✔ ✖
8%
13%
5%
10%
10%
6%
8%
Customer relationship
management
✔ ✖
7%
12%
4%
13%
5%
6%
0%
E-mail: faculty/staff
✔ ✖
7%
8%
4%
9%
8%
6%
4%
Web content management
✔ ✖
7%
11%
7%
4%
14%
3%
0%
Library
✔ ✖
6%
12%
8%
1%
12%
2%
4%
Facilities management
✔ ✖
5%
8%
4%
0%
9%
3%
4%
IT service desk management
✔ ✖
4%
6%
3%
3%
5%
4%
4%
Procurement
✔ ✖
4%
8%
0%
3%
5%
6%
0%
Advancement/fundraising
✔ ✖
3%
5%
3%
1%
4%
3%
4%
46
✔
✖
My institution uses IaaS for this system
My institution does not use IaaS for this system
Information Systems and Applications: Systems most likely to be replaced
in the next three years
All
nonspecialized
My institution
U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
Customer relationship
management
✔ ✖
27%
22%
22%
32%
24%
29%
30%
IT service desk management
✔ ✖
25%
26%
17%
28%
23%
27%
33%
E-mail: faculty/staff
✔ ✖
22%
24%
15%
35%
19%
25%
12%
Web content management
✔ ✖
21%
22%
23%
18%
28%
18%
18%
Business intelligence reporting
✔ ✖
17%
10%
12%
13%
16%
25%
23%
Facilities management
✔ ✖
15%
8%
11%
17%
12%
16%
28%
Admissions: undergraduate
✔ ✖
13%
8%
17%
8%
16%
12%
20%
47
✔
✖
My institution has recently replaced this system or plans to replace in the next three years
My institution has not recently replaced this system and has no plans to replace in the next three years
Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly mobile
friendly*
All
nonspecialized
My institution
U.S.
AA
BA
MA public
MA private
DR public
DR private
E-mail: student
✔ ✖
63%
62%
68%
59%
58%
61%
73%
Learning (course) management
✔ ✖
60%
66%
54%
62%
56%
60%
60%
E-mail: faculty/staff
✔ ✖
59%
58%
66%
56%
51%
59%
67%
Web content management
✔ ✖
58%
54%
66%
64%
61%
54%
48%
✔
✖
48
This system is mobile friendly at my institution
This system is not mobile friendly at my institution
* For the purpose of this analysis, mobile-friendly systems are those using any of the following
deployment strategies: mobile app, mobile specific website, or responsive web design.
Methodology
49
Methodology, 1 of 3
EDUCAUSE invites more than 3,500 institutions to contribute their data to the Core Data Service each year. Invitees
include EDUCAUSE member institutions plus nonmember institutions with a record of interaction with EDUCAUSE. Any
nonmember institution may request to be added to the CDS sample.
Response by Year
The CDS 2014 survey collected data about FY2013/14 and was conducted from July 2014 to December 2014. This
was the 12th CDS survey. Since 2002, survey participation has ranged from 641 to 1,023 institutions.
50
Number of Participating
Institutions
641
CDS Survey
CDS 2002
Year of Data Collection
2003
Fiscal Year Data
FY2001/02–FY2002/03
CDS 2003
2004
FY2002/03–FY2003/04
840
CDS 2004
2005
FY2003/04–FY2004/05
921
CDS 2005
2006
FY2004/05–FY2005/06
957
CDS 2006
2007
FY2005/06–FY2006/07
962
CDS 2007
2008
FY2006/07–FY2007/08
1,023
CDS 2008
2009
FY2007/08–FY2008/09
954
CDS 2009
2010
FY2008/09–FY2009/10
917
CDS 2011
2011
FY2009/10–FY2010/11
826
CDS 2012
2012
FY2010/11–FY2011/12
787
CDS 2013
2013
FY2012/13
798
CDS 2014
2014
FY2013/14
828
Methodology, 2 of 3
Response by Carnegie Classification
As in prior years, survey response across Carnegie Classification was highly variable in CDS 2014. Due to differences
in population sizes across institutional types, the number of participating institutions for a particular type of institution
may be deceiving. For example, only 62 private doctoral institutions participated in CDS 2014; however, this accounts
for 57% of private doctoral institutions that were invited to complete CDS 2014. In contrast, 131 community colleges
participated in CDS 2014, but this accounts for only 12% of community colleges that were invited to participate in CDS
2014. International participation spanned 17 countries.
Carnegie Classification
51
Participating Institutions
Response Rate
AA
131
12%
BA
167
27%
MA private
115
32%
MA public
111
42%
DR private
62
57%
DR public
134
77%
Other U.S.
59
13%
International
49
13%
Methodology, 3 of 3
Response by Module
The CDS survey is divided into eight modules. CDS survey participation status is based on the completion of the
required Module 1: IT Organization, Staffing, and Financing. The remaining seven modules in the survey are optional
and cover details about service delivery in the IT domain areas. Some of the optional modules ask about services run at
most institutions (e.g., communications infrastructure), while others ask about services run at some institutions (e.g.,
research computing); thus, response to optional modules varies.
CDS 2014 Module
52
Participating Institutions
M1: IT Organization, Staffing, and Financing
828
M2: IT Support Services
643
M3: Educational Technology Services
574
M4: Research Computing Services
403
M5: Data Centers
552
M6: Communications Infrastructure Services
550
M7: Information Security
545
M8: Information Systems and Applications
560