A Bit of History--and Governance Structures at Peer Institutions

Research CI Governance Task Force23 June 2014

Academic Rankings of World Universities Source: www.shanghairankings.com

Institution 2003 2012 2013Cornell 12 13 13Wisconsin 27 19 19Michigan 21 22 23UIUC 45 25 25UMN 37 29 29Northwestern 29 30 30UMD 75 38 38Penn State 40 49 54Purdue 80 56 57Ohio State 81 65 65MI State 87 96 92Iowa 90 - -

BackgroundWe 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.

Staffing Metrics – FTE by Function

InstitutionAdministration

Central: Project Mgmnt

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 Other

Total Central IT

Penn State 62 1 0 37 46 85 8 2 15 88 20 139 27 9 24 562University of Michigan 46 152 1 33 62 4 0 15 74 14 18 122 112 9 4 665University of Minnesota 26 0 0 10 78 23 0 11 35 0 13 102 78 0 7 383University of Wisconsin 45 0 2 24 57 57 0 50 59 11 20 121 44 20 60 568Indiana University 49 0 11 40 79 35 47 13 93 20 5 142 49 6. 590Michigan State University 29 7 6 17 47 130 0 25 26 1 16 165 23 14 6 511Purdue University 23 23 0 12 48 69 63 8 16 23 16 107 83 17 0 508Rutgers 10 0 0 4 51 39 1 33 55 5 5 14 26 24 0 267The Ohio State University 16 4 1 51 4 50 0 9 10 28 15 92 65 0. 345The University of Iowa 9 4 0 17 13 26 3 10 37 4 6 53 40 9 10 239University of Maryland 17 12 2 15 26 34 1 19 34 22 8 33 46 12 9 290University of Nebraska 19 1 0 7 24 12 0 10 22 5 4 6 19 5. 134Cornell University 31 22 1 5 24 27 0 49 34 6 8 74 25 11 9 326Univ. California - Davis 27 18 0 22 9 28 0 12 23 28 10 0 40 7 0 224

Penn State 62 1 0 37 46 85 8 2 15 88 20 139 27 9 24 562G4 Median 45 0 1 24 62 23 0 15 59 11 18 121 78 9 7 568Big10+ Median 26 4 1 17 47 34 0 13 34 11 10 92 44 9 6.5 345

G4 Avg. 39 51 1 22 66 28 0 25 56 8 17 115 78 10 24 539Big10+ Avg. 27 19 2 20 40 41 9 20 40 13 11 79 50 10 11 388

Central IT Receives Input From? – Big Ten +(Tabular Format, 1 = input, 0 = not)

Institution

Trustees

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

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1The Pennsylvania State University 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0University of Minnesota 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Purdue University 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0University of Nebraska − Lincoln 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0The University of Iowa 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0University of Maryland 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0University of California, Davis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0University of Wisconsin−Madison 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0The Ohio State University 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0University of Michigan−Ann Arbor 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Michigan State University 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Indiana University 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Cornell University 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 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

Patient Care

UNIVERSITYINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY

COUNCIL

Information & Technology Services

Unit IT Steering Committee

Medical Ctr. Information Technology

University IT Executive Committee

Teaching & Learning

Knowledge

Research

AdministrationInformation & Infrastructure Assurance

Deans, Faculty & Students

Faculty ChairAdditional Faculty Members

IT Governance at Univ. Minnesota

ACIOsSynthesizeDemand

Chancellors,

Deans,VPs

IT Executive Oversight

General User Community- Student Groups- Surveys- Technology Trends- Etc.

Technical Community- AITC- Net-People- Code-People- Etc.

OIT-Charged Technical Groups- ATAC- EPG- Formal CoPs

University Governance- Dean’s Council- SCIT- FCC- Etc.

The Budget 5

PresidentChancellors, Deans, VPs

Local IT Directors

IT BuyersCommittee

IT ExecOversight

Input Decision Process Funding Execution/Implementation

Vice PresidentInformation

Tech.

IT Service Owners

Associate CIO

IT Leadership Community (ITLCoP)

IT Leadership CommunityOther Formal Communities of Practice

Other Formal Communities of Practice

Other Informal Communities of Practice . . .

Service Portfolio1. Project A2. Project B3. Project C4. Etc.

Service Portfolio1. Project A2. Project B3. Project C4. Etc.

Service Portfolio1. Project A2. Project B3. Project C4. Etc.

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 ex-officio capacity.

• Research computing is led by a separate faculty committee with shared administrative oversight by Provost, VCR and CIO.

Wisconsin – Governance

• 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.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Wisconsin – IT Governance• 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.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

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.