Upload
educause
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Traditionally, the Core Data Service 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.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. http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/2014-cds-benchmarking-report
Citation preview
2014 CDS Benchmarking Report
2
Table of Contents
Section Slide(s)
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 10
IT Financials 11–21
IT Staffing 22–31
IT Services 32–48
Methodology 49–52
3
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:
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.
4
About the 2014 CDS Benchmarking ReportTraditionally, 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.
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.
5
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.
* IPEDS data are used to normalize metrics in CDS based on institutional size and budget. More information about IPEDS data is available online.
6
Customizing 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report Graphs, in Five Steps (cont’d)
4. Enter data for your institution where indicated in the Excel spreadsheet.
5. Check to make sure data for “My Institution” is now visible.
7
Introduction to BenchmarkingToday’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.
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 e-learning, 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
8
7. Improve.
Explore options for im
proving
upon any or all elements of a
benchmarking effort.
1. Identify your goals.
What are your benchmarking
needs? What is the goal of this exercise?
2. Identify your audience.
Are you gathering data for leadership, users, or
services owners?
4. Evaluate data quality.*
Determine whether data contain errors. Do
the data need to be reformatted or
cleaned?
3. Identify data sources.
Do you have the data you need? Which
groups will you compare against?
5. Develop a plan for reporting.
Are you reporting the data at the right
frequency, in the right formats, and to the
right people?
6. Consider possible
outcomes. Will any action take
place upon reporting the results?
* 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 [email protected].
9
Identify Your GoalsThe 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.
2015 Top 10 IT Issue Supporting metrics Slide(s)
1 Hiring and Retaining Qualified Staff, and Updating the Knowledge and Skills of Existing Technology Staff
Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE 30–31Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 23–24; 27–29
2
Optimizing the Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning in Collaboration with Academic Leadership, Including Understanding the Appropriate Level of Technology to Use
Most common teaching and learning support services for faculty 36
3 Developing IT Funding Models That Sustain Core Service, Support Innovation, and Facilitate Growth
Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution 17
Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 16
Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 21
4 Improving Student Outcomes through an Institutional Approach That Strategically Leverages Technology Systems most commonly mobile friendly 48
5Demonstrating the Business Value of Information Technology and How Technology and the IT Organization Can Help the Institution Achieve Its Goals
Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) 12–14Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses
6Increasing the IT Organization’s Capacity for Managing Change, Despite Differing Community Needs, Priorities, and Abilities
Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years 47
7 Providing User Support in the New Normal—Mobile, Online Education, Cloud, and BYOD Environments
Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher 34Institutions offering self-service help optionsAccess points that are 802.11n or 802.11ac 41Systems most commonly mobile friendly 48
8 Developing Mobile, Cloud, and Digital Security Policies That Work for Most of the Institutional Community Institutions with mandatory information security training 42
9Developing an Enterprise IT Architecture That Can Respond to Changing Conditions and New Opportunities
Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years 47
10 Balancing Agility, Openness, and Security Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment 43
10
Summary of the LandscapeTo 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% Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher for central IT help desk 18 Student FTEs per lab/cluster workstations provided by central IT 50% Institutions hosting or participating in cross-institutional data center services 23% Access points that are 802.11n 57% Institutions with mandatory information security training for faculty or staff 27% Institutions planning to replace customer relationship management (CRM) systems in the next three
years.
11
IT FinancialsThe 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 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 expensesFive-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 18–20
8 Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 21
12
Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) vs. total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses
$0 $906 $1,8120.0%
4.2%
8.4%
Series1DR private
3.7%Series1
DR public3.2%
Series1MA private
4.7%Series1
MA public4.4%
Series1BA
4.4%
Series1AA
5.9%
Series1My institution
0.0%
Median total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) (all nonspecialized U.S. median = $906)
Med
ian
tota
l cen
tral
IT sp
endi
ng a
s a p
erce
ntag
e of
insti
tutio
nal
expe
nses
(all
nons
peci
alize
d U.
S. m
edia
n =
4.2%
)
Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff), five-year trend
RY2009/10 FY2010/11 FY2012/13 FY2013/140
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
My institutionAll nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private
Fiscal year*
Med
ian
tota
l cen
tral
IT sp
endi
ng p
er in
stitu
tiona
l FTE
(stu
dent
s, fa
culty
, and
staff
)
13 * FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.
14
Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses,five-year trend
RY2009/10 FY2010/11 FY2012/13 FY2013/140
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
My institutionAll nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private
Fiscal year*
Med
ian
tota
l cen
tral
IT sp
endi
ng a
s a p
erce
ntag
e of
insti
tutio
nal
expe
nses
* FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.
15
Total central IT FY2013/14 spending as a percentage change from FY2012/13
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%
3.4%
1.7%
0.0%
1.6%
0.6%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
Median total central IT spending as a percentage change from previous year
16
Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending
CapitalNoncompensation
CompensationCapital
NoncompensationCompensation
CapitalNoncompensation
CompensationCapital
NoncompensationCompensation
CapitalNoncompensation
CompensationCapital
NoncompensationCompensation
CapitalNoncompensation
CompensationCapital
NoncompensationCompensation
DR p
ublic
MA
publ
icAA
My
insti
tutio
n
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
12%25%
59%6%
35%56%
10%35%
51%7%
32%56%
11%32%
54%10%
35%50%
9%34%
54%0%0%0%
Median central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending
17
Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution
TransformGrow
RunTransform
GrowRun
TransformGrow
RunTransform
GrowRun
TransformGrow
RunTransform
GrowRun
TransformGrow
RunTransform
GrowRun
DR p
ublic
MA
publ
icAA
My
insti
tutio
n
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
7%13%
80%6%
13%80%
9%16%
77%7%
11%79%
5%12%
80%5%
15%79%
6%13%
79%0%0%0%
Median percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution
18
IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
IT su
ppor
t ser
vice
sIn
form
ation
syst
ems
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
13%
13%
17%
14%
18%
19%
15%
0%
20%
17%
19%
18%
18%
9%
18%
0%
Median IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
19
IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
Educ
ation
al te
chno
logy
serv
ices
Com
mun
icati
ons i
nfra
stru
ctur
e
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
9%
10%
10%
11%
11%
11%
10%
0%
13%
23%
12%
11%
13%
7%
13%
0%
Median IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
20
IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
Info
rmati
on se
curit
yDa
ta c
ente
r
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
2%
3%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
0%
5%
4%
4%
4%
2%
5%
4%
0%
Median IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending
21
Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
2%
2%
3%
1%
1%
1%
2%
Median central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending
22
IT StaffingStaffing 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 Slide(s)
1 Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 23
2 Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEsFour-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 FTEFour-year trend 26
5 Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 27–29
6 Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE 30
7 Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTEFive-year trend 31
23
Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
9.7
7.1
8.6
7.2
10.3
4.7
7.7
0.0
Median central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
24
Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs,four-year trend
FY2010/11 FY2011/12 FY2012/13 FY2013/140
2
4
6
8
10
12
My institutionAll nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private
Fiscal year
Med
ian
cent
ral I
T FT
Es p
er 1
,000
insti
tutio
nal F
TEs
25
Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My onstitution
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
12%
17%
22%
24%
20%
7%
17%
0%
Median student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE
26
Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE,four-year trend
FY2010/11 FY2011/12 FY2012/13 FY2013/140.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
My institutionAll nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private
Fiscal year
Med
ian
stud
ent w
orke
rs a
s a p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l cen
tral
IT F
TE
27
Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
Info
rmati
on sy
stem
sIT
supp
ort s
ervi
ces
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
1.8
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.7
0.6
1.2
0.0
2.4
1.5
2.6
2.2
3.4
1.5
2.2
0.0
Median central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
28
Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
Com
mun
icati
ons i
nfra
stru
ctur
eEd
ucati
onal
tech
nolo
gy se
rvic
es
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
0.5
1.0
0.0
Median central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
29
Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
Info
rmati
on se
curit
yDa
ta c
ente
r
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
Median central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
30
Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400
$1,371
$1,095
$1,091
$1,168
$1,190
$620
$1,076
$0
Median central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE
31
Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE,five-year trend
RY2009/10 FY2010/11 FY2012/13 FY2013/14$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
My institutionAll nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private
Fiscal year*
Med
ian
cent
ral I
T tr
aini
ng sp
endi
ng p
er c
entr
al IT
staff
FTE
* FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.
32
IT ServicesIn 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?
33
IT Domain Area Metric Slide
IT Support Services
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
Educational Technology ServicesMost common teaching and learning support services 36
Student FTE per shared workstation provided by central IT 37
Data Center
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 InfrastructureCommunications infrastructure technologies most likely to be deployed soon 40
Access points that are 802.11n or 802.11ac 41
Information SecurityInstitutions with mandatory information security training for faculty, staff, or students 42
Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment 43
Information Systems and Applications
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
IT Services: Benchmarks
34
IT Support Services: Service delivery
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
Insti
tutio
ns o
fferin
g tie
r 2/le
vel 2
serv
ice
or h
ighe
r for
cen
tral
IT h
elp
desk
98%97%
80%98%
86%78%
89%
0%82%
78%72%
82%80%
60%75%
0%
Median percentage
35
IT Support Services: Annual number of tickets per institutional FTE, among institutions with a central IT help desk that offers each mode
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
Wal
k-in
E-m
ail
Phon
e
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
0.30.1
0.20.2
0.3
0.20.0
0.70.3
0.70.4
0.60.4
0.50.0
1.20.9
0.80.9
0.80.90.9
0.0
Median annual number of tickets per institutional FTE among institutions with a central IT help desk that offers each mode
36
Educational Technology Services: Most common teaching and learning support services for faculty
My
institution
All nonspecialized
U.S. AA BA MA public MA private DR public DR privateClassroom 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
37
Educational Technology Services: Student FTE per shared workstation provided by central IT
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
DR private *DR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
DR private *DR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
Stud
ent F
TE p
er v
irtua
l lab
/clu
ster
wor
ksta
tion
prov
ided
by
cent
ral I
T
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
147335
181217
76183184
0
19225
1185351
1010
4110
197
14180
Median student FTEs per shared workstation provided by central IT
* 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.
38
Data Center: Outsourcing and shared services*
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
Insti
tutio
ns u
sing
com
mer
cial
dat
a ce
nter
serv
ices
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
48%
77%
17%
73%
26%
47%
50%
0%
40%
23%
30%
31%
30%
16%
27%
0%
Median percentage
* 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.
39
Data Center: Use of SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
Insti
tutio
ns u
sing
PaaS
to p
rovi
de d
ata
cent
er se
rvic
es
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
45%31%
30%31%
28%11%
28%0%
24%26%
14%16%
25%13%
20%0%
78%74%74%
68%59%
60%68%
0%
Median percentage
40
Communications Infrastructure: Communications infrastructure technologies most likely to be deployed soon*
* For the purpose of this analysis, technologies to be deployed soon are those with expected or initial deployment status.
My institution
All nonspecialized
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%
✔ My institution has this technology✖ My institution does not have this technology
41
Communications Infrastructure: Wireless network configuration
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
Acce
ss p
oint
s tha
t are
802
.11a
cAc
cess
poi
nts t
hat a
re 8
02.1
1n
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
4%
1%
0%
14%
12%
42%
24%
26%
17%
23%
0%
Median percentage
42
Information Security: Training for faculty, staff, and students
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
DR privateDR public
MA privateMA public
BAAA
All nonspecialized U.S.My institution
Insti
tutio
ns w
ith m
anda
tory
info
rmati
on se
curit
y tr
aini
ng fo
r fac
ulty
or s
taff
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
37%23%
29%28%
23%38%
29%
0%61%
60%42%
65%45%
72%57%
0%
Median percentage
43
Information Security: Risk assessments
DR private
DR public
MA private
MA public
BA
AA
All nonspecialized U.S.
My institution
Insti
tutio
ns th
at h
ave
cond
ucte
d an
y so
rt o
f IT
secu
rity
risk
asse
ssm
ent
0%10%
20%30%
40%50%
60%70%
80%90%
100%
78%
86%
64%
81%
73%
83%
78%
0%
Median percentage
44
Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-managed (SaaS)
My institution
All nonspecialized
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%
✔ My institution uses SaaS for this system✖ My institution does not use SaaS for this system
45
Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-managed (PaaS)
My institution
All nonspecialized
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%
✔ My institution uses PaaS for this system✖ My institution does not use PaaS for this system
46
Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-hosted (IaaS)
My institution
All nonspecialized
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%
✔ My institution uses IaaS for this system✖ My institution does not use IaaS for this system
47
Information Systems and Applications: Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years
My institution
All nonspecialized
U.S. AA BA MA public MA private DR public DR privateCustomer 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%
✔ 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
48
Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly mobile friendly*
My institution
All nonspecialized
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%
* 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.
✔ This system is mobile friendly at my institution✖ This system is not mobile friendly at my institution
49
Methodology
50
Methodology, 1 of 3EDUCAUSE 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 YearThe 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.
CDS Survey Year of Data Collection Fiscal Year DataNumber of Participating
InstitutionsCDS 2002 2003 FY2001/02–FY2002/03 641CDS 2003 2004 FY2002/03–FY2003/04 840CDS 2004 2005 FY2003/04–FY2004/05 921CDS 2005 2006 FY2004/05–FY2005/06 957CDS 2006 2007 FY2005/06–FY2006/07 962CDS 2007 2008 FY2006/07–FY2007/08 1,023CDS 2008 2009 FY2007/08–FY2008/09 954CDS 2009 2010 FY2008/09–FY2009/10 917CDS 2011 2011 FY2009/10–FY2010/11 826CDS 2012 2012 FY2010/11–FY2011/12 787CDS 2013 2013 FY2012/13 798CDS 2014 2014 FY2013/14 828
51
Methodology, 2 of 3Response by Carnegie ClassificationAs 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 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%
52
Methodology, 3 of 3Response by ModuleThe 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 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