EduCause Top Ten IT Issues 2007

8/14/2019 EduCause Top Ten IT Issues 2007

1/11

EDUCAUSEr e v i e w May /Ju n e 2 0 0 7

ITBy John S. Camp, Peter B. DeBlois, and the 2007 EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee

10

John S. Camp is Chair of the 2007 EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee and retired CIO of Wayne State University.Peter B. DeBlois is Director of Programs and Media Relations for EDUCAUSE and staff liaison to the Current IssuesCommittee.

Which IT issue is of top concern to technology leaders inhigher education today? Did the number-one issue of2006Security and Identity Managementcontinue to be ofprime importance to college and university IT leaders?Did new issues emerge on the top-ten list? Did issuesfrom last year drop off the list this year? The eighth an-nual EDUCAUSE Current Issues Survey has the answers. Administered by the EDUCAUSE Current Issues Com-

mittee, whose members review and update the set of IT issues to be presented each year, the Web-based survey was conducted in December 200 6. Survey participantstheprimary representatives, typically CIOs, of EDUCAUSE member institutionswereasked to check up to five of thirty-two IT issues in each of four areas: (1) issues that arecritical for strategic success; (2) issues that are expected to increase in significance; (3) is-sues that demand the greatest amount of the campus IT leaders time; and (4) issues thatrequire the largest expenditures of human and fiscal resources.1

ISSUES

2 0 0 7 J o h n S . C a m p , P e t e r B . D e B l o i s , a n d t h e 2 0 0 7 E D U C A U S E C u r r e n t I s s u e s C o m m i t t e e I l l u s t r a t i o n b y R o n B r o w n , 2 0 0 7 May /Ju n e 2 0 0 7 EDUCA

T O P

2


2/11

Complete details and an in-depthanalysis of the 2007 Current Issues Sur- vey are published in the Summer 2007issue of EQ, the EDUCAUSE quarterly journal for IT practitioners. TheEQ article presents detailed demographicbreakdowns, offers a 2006/2007 compari-son of the top-ten issues in all four areas,and places the responses in the contextof other organizations annual surveysand reports on IT-related trends in highereducation.2

ThisEDUCAUSE Reviewarticle focuseson the first of the four areas noted above:the top-ten issues that IT leaders identi-fied as the most important for their insti-tutions to resolve for strategic success. Foreach issue, we offer a definition and a setof questions. The questions are not meantto be exhaustive; they are intended tostimulate thinking and discussion.

But first, how do these results com-pare to last years?3 Five findings meritspecial mention:

n For the 2007 survey, the Current Is-sues Committee decided to split a key issue choice from last years survey:Security and Identity Management.Last year, this combined issue was thenumber-one IT-related issue, toppingFunding IT,which had occupied the

top position for three consecutive years (20032005). This year, survey respondents had two choices:Security and Identity/Access Management. Com-mittee members reasoned that the twoissues had separately matured and be-come complex enough in recent yearsthat keeping them combined madeno sense. With this change,Funding IT moved back into the top position,with Securityrated number two andIdentity/Access Managementnumberfour.

n For the first time,Course/Learning Management Systems(C/LMSs) movedinto the top-ten ranking, as numbernine. It is tempting to attribute thisnotable radar blip to the communitys vigorous discussion of the Blackboardmerger with WebCT and the patentcontroversy over the past year. Not tominimize the galvanizing impact ofthat controversy, but perhaps it is moreimportant to recognize the evolution

EDUCAUSE Current

IssuesCommittee John S. CampCommittee Chair CIO (retired) Wayne State University

Anne Scrivener AgeeCIOConnecticut State University System

Debra H. AllisonDeputy CIOMiami University

Shah ArdalanCIOCommunity College of Southern Nevada

Elaine David Assistant Vice President, Information

Services, and Director, IT Security,Policy, & Quality Assurance

University of Connecticut

Mary M. Doyle Vice President for Information Systems Washington State University

James M. Dutcher Vice President for Technology Orange County Community College

Gilbert R. GonzalesCIOCalifornia State University, Monterey Bay

Sandra Helms Bury Executive Director, Customer SupportBradley University

Kathryn Joan Monday Vice President for Information ServicesUniversity of Richmond

Keiko PitterChief Technology Officer Whitman College

David Stack Deputy CIOUniversity of WisconsinMilwaukee

Peter B. DeBloisStaff LiaisonDirector of Programs and Media RelationsEDUCAUSE

14 EducausE r e v i e w M y/J ne 2007

of C/LMS technology as a missiocritical enterprise system; its acceleating use as a fundamental teachinand learning resource by institutionof all kinds; the challenge of choosinan open-source or vendor-suppliedsolution; and the impact of the C/LMtechnology on IT funding, in termof both licensing and local supporIndeed, the 2006 inaugural EDUCAUSE Catalyst Award went to CourManagement Systems as a complefar-reaching web of initiatives that hahad broad impact on higher educationin less than a decade.4

n Disaster Recovery/Business Cont which made a dramatic appearanclast year as number fourfollowithe U.S. hurricane seasons of 2004 an2005remains on the top-ten list th year, at number five.

n E-Learning/Distributed TeachingLearning,which ranked ninth last yeardoes not appear on the 2007 top-telist. This is still an area of top strategimportance for nearly all institutionbut has likely been displaced, at leasfor this year, by the rising attentiobeing given nationally and locally tCourse/Learning Management Systakey technology supporting e-learning

n Web Systems and Services,which was

number ten in 2006 and has appearedregularly since 2003, does not appeon the top-ten list in 2007. Includinas it does such subitems as developin Web-based business strategies, intgrating legacy and Web-based systemand developing Web policies, this itemhas perhaps stabilized sufficiently tnot be of particularly high importancto the CIO.

With most issues either holding theirankings or moving up or down by on

one position from 2006 to 2007, the toten issues have remained fairly stablNonetheless, their natures and dimensions of urgency are constantly in flumeriting a fresh look with each yearsurvey results. Below, the members of th2007 EDUCAUSE Current Issues Comittee describe the top-ten issues thaIT leaders say are the most important ftheir institution to resolve for strategisuccess.


3/11


Issue #1: Funding ITIn 2007,Funding IT resumed its place as thetop-ranked strategic IT issue, where it hasappeared five times since the survey beganin 2000. In fact,Funding IT is the only issue

that has ranked as number one or numbertwo for all eight years of the survey. Es-calating costs for IT service delivery andmaintenance in the face of funding pres-sures at the institutional level leave littleflexibility in many IT budgets. Along withthese institutional pressures come broad-ening external pressures on the highereducation community for improved ac-countability and productivity.

These internal and external pressuresplace IT leaders in a highly visible catch-22 situation: requests for innovation to

advance institutional goals compete with

demands for reduced expenditures, allas technology has become a necessity forinstitutional improvement.5 The Spell-ings Commissions challenge for moreaccountability, efficiency, productivity,and transparency with respect to higher

education costs is not likely to fade away anytime soon.6 Board members andother local constituencies also expectmore accountability and demonstrationof value in exchange for funding sup-port. Increases in IT funding are likely dependent on the CIOs ability to alignwith institutional priorities, to convey the value that information technologiesbring to these priorities, and to deliver onthe promises.

Associated with the critical need tocollaborate, communicate, and deliver

is the need for IT budget and expense

benchmark data, as well as studentcentered metrics demonstrating the valuof IT. These measures, combined witthe development of an adaptive planninmodel7 to help ensure IT alignment andagile responses to changing needs,8 areessential for funding success. Funding fIT initiatives is more likely to follow prposals and programs that clearly advancinstitutional goals, demonstrate the valuprovided by IT, and are communicated iways the various constituencies can readily understand.

Critical questions forFunding IT in-clude the following:

n Can the institution identify revenuestreams that are better aligned with thcurrent drivers of IT costs?

n What external collaborative opportunities might enable cost reductionscost avoidance, or even a new revenustream?

n What percentage of the IT budgeis flexible? What percentage is consumed by fixed costs?

n Does the institution have an activitybased budget in place to facilitatcommunication about the costs associated with specific IT services? Athe hard decisions being made abouwhich trailing-edge services shoul

be discontinued in favor of strategiservices?n What decision-making process ca

the institution implement to free upportions of the central IT budget eac year for innovative uses?

n What student-centered metrics besconvey the value that IT provides fothe institution?

n What steps can the institution take timplement or enhance its IT governance process to ensure that IT priorities are in alignment with institutiona

goals?

T -Ten IT Issues,2007 1. Funding IT

2. Security

3. Administrative/ERP/Information Systems

4. Identity/Access Management

5. Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity

6. Faculty Development, Support, and Training

7. Infrastructure

8. Strategic Planning

9. Course/Learning Management Systems10. Governance, Organization, and Leadership for IT

Escalating c sts f r IT service delivery and maintenanin the face f funding ressures at the instituti nal levelleave little flexibility in many IT budgets.


4/11


n What steps can the institution taketo contribute to the development ofhigher education cost standards andstudent-centered metrics?

Issue #2:SecurityIT security remains a top concern at col-leges and universities, a direct result ofthe changing landscape: increasingly,critical data and services are availableelectronically; data breaches are occur-ring more frequently; and the number ofsecurity-related state and federal regula-tions is increasing. College and university personnel have an increased responsibil-ity to be proactive in their approach toensuring the security of information re-sources while operating within a cultureof openness and decentralization.9

Critical questions forSecurityincludethe following:

n

Does the institution have privacy andsecurity policies that extend beyondthe legally required areas and thatencompass all of the institutions ITresources and not just the central

systems? Are the policies enforcedconsistently across the enterprise, re- viewed regularly, measured for effec-tiveness, and audited for compliance?Do the institutional procedures reflectthe goals of the policies?

n Does the institution have a formal,documented incident-response planthat includes procedures for detecting,reporting, alerting, escalating decision-making authority, containing, remedi-ating, and returning to service? Doesthe plan include a notification processwhen confidential data have been po-tentially compromised? Are any IT stafftrained in computer forensics?

n Do senior administrators recognizetheir roles as information stewards?Have clear, consistent policies andprocedures been developed for classi-fying, handling, retaining, and dissem-inating information and appropriatesecurity controls for protecting critical

and confidential resources?n Does the institution have an enter-prise IT security program to addressthe changing nature of IT threats andthe increasing number of IT security-

related federal and state mandatesHow does the institution remaincurrent with respect to the changinregulatory landscape? How has the institution dealt legally and, if necessartechnically with CALEA?

n Is IT security viewed as a funding prority? Are there necessary funds to fcilitate and support improved securitmeasures on a campus-wide basis?

n Does the institution have a chief pr vacy officer and/or a chief informatiosecurity officer for striking the balancbetween privacy and security? Arthere sufficient resources to assesrisks to, and ensure the privacy and scurity of, the institutions informatioresources?

n Has the institution planned or completed a comprehensive risk assessment to identify and prioritize vulnerable areas and to find ways to mitigapotential risks, including those cause

by lost or stolen mobile devices? Dothe institution routinely consider pri vacy and security implications befobuying or deploying new systems otechnologies?

n Does the institution provide anawareness and training program inprivacy and security? If so, does thprogram include awareness of the defensive measures appropriate to thinstitution to protect systems, dataand identity? Does the institutionregularly communicate information

about its policies and procedures toits constituents?n Has the institution built the appropri

ate infrastructure to improve securityHas it implemented a unified threatmanagement system that includesuch features as firewalls, VPNantivirus/antispyware/antispam/antiphishing, bandwidth manage-ment, intrusion prevention and detection, and content filtering?

C llege and university ers nnel have an increasedres nsibility t be r active in their a r ach t ensuringthe security f inf rmati n res urces while eratingwithin a culture f enness and decentralizati n.

The 2007 Current Issues Web site(http://www.educause.edu/2007IssuesResources/ ) offers the following resources:

n Recommended readings for each of the top-ten issuesn Downloadable PowerPoint presentations on the top-ten issues and

multiyear trendsn Links to EDUCAUSE Resource Center entries for each of the top-ten

issuesn HTML and PDF links to theEQand EDUCAUSE Reviewarticles


5/11


Issue #3:Administrative/ERP/Information SystemsUntil recently, most campuses were inthe early stages of ERP implementa-tions; however, since the majority ofrespondents to the EDUCAUSE CoreData Service survey reported havingimplemented or being close to imple-menting their ERPs,10 this overview discusses the later stages of this never-ending process.

Although the number of ERP vendorsand providers can be counted on bothhands, competition has forced them tooffer stronger products and better services.To understand the dynamics and results ofthis competition, Gartner publishes andregularly updates itsMagic Quadrant for Higher Education Administrative Suites.11 Dueto both external pressures (e.g., competi-tion) and internal pressures (e.g., funding),campus officials have to assess the op-portunities and the risks of migrating to adifferent vendor or open-source solution. Vendors are increasingly responsive tomajor shifts in higher education, concen-trating on value-based business modelsand on the shifting student demographics.Even though a fully developed open-source ERP has yet to be finalized, that iscertainly an evolving option to watch.

A successful evaluation of ERP ven-dors and solutions should consider morethan just the functionality of the solution.The alignment of the vendors visionwith the institutional mission and theability of the vendor and the institutionto adapt and execute are also critical con-siderations. Clearly, an ERP implemen-tation is not just about the technology,and responsibility and authority shouldnot rest with the CIO alone. Even with abroad set of senior stakeholders, the CIOmust draw on leadership experience,

diverse people skills, anger and stress

management, organizational and projectsupervision, and many other qualities tomake the ERP implementation a success.The good news is that many have donethis and lived to talk/write about it!

Critical questions for Administrative/ ERP/Information Systemsinclude thefollowing:

n Does the institution get timely andready access to information, especially for strategic planning and decisionmaking? Have re-engineered processesimproved operations and increased ef-ficiency? Has the system improvedservices for students, faculty, staff, andadministrators?

n Is the vendor still a leader in address-ing challenges of higher education? Isthe vendors vision aligned with theinstitution's strategic goals?

n What percent of the functionality ofthe ERP is actually being used?

n Was/is the institution able to integrateother major systems/packages with itsERP without major customizations?

n Does the institution have sustainableresources to improve the system andkeep up users productivity in the new environment? What is the total cost ofownership for this system?

n If the last implementation was not suc-

cessful, what are the risks and costs ofcontinuing? Does the institution havethe resources to migrate to anothersystem? If so, can the campus take onsuch a project?

Issue #4:Identity/Access ManagementThe connection between managinginformation about identities and anindividuals access to information andservices now extends to nearly every aspect of academic, administrative, and

community experience.Identity/Access

Management(I/AM) ensures that the righpeople access the right services. In thpast, I/AM was implemented system bsystem, with duplicate identity data ditributed across a campus. The challengnow is to balance identifying, authentcating, authorizing, and provisioning noonly for the systems managed by centrIT organizations but also for the systemof the many units on campus that neeto maintain relationships with differenconstituencies.

Managing the life cycle of an individals institutional roles by consolidatinand securing identity information andproviding this data for services that IT other departments deliver are core enterprise responsibilities. To support thesresponsibilities, several organizationprovide valuable up-to-date I/AM anassociated middleware resourcesincluding EDUCAUSE (http://wwweducause.edu/Browse/645?PARENTID=285), the InCommon Federatio(http://www.incommonfederation.org/)I n t e r n e t2 ( h t t p : / /m id d l e w a r e .internet2.edu/), and the National SciencFoundation (http://www.nmi-edit.orgindex.cfm).

Another important dimension oI/AM is assessing the impact of state anfederal regulatory pressure on identit

information practices and policies, particularly those originating with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy A(FERPA), the Health Insurance Portabiliand Accountability Act (HIPAA), and tGramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Critical questions forIdentity/AcceManagementinclude the following:

n Does the institution have trained stafto select, deploy, and manage I/AMsolutions?

n How does the institution extend and

manage access to confidential dat

Vend rs are increasingly res nsive t maj r shifts inhigher educati n, c ncentrating n value-based businesm dels and n the shifting student dem gra hics.


6/11


within the organization? How does itapply I/AM standards to external part-ners and service providers?

n Do campus leaders recognize theirroles as information and identity stakeholders? Is access to institutionaldata managed properly?

n Does the institution have a strategy for managing digital identities? Doexisting systems use a centralizedrepository, synchronization technolo-gies, best practices, and/or open orpre-standard technologies? Has theinstitution incorporated developingstandards? How does it handle non-compliant systems?

n How effectively does the institutionhelp students, faculty, and staff to un-derstand their legal rights and respon-sibilities and to manage and protecttheir identities?

n Has the institution planned or com-pleted an IT risk assessment to iden-

tify and prioritize vulnerable areasand ways to mitigate potential risks?n Has the institution assessed and lim-

ited the use of Social Security num-bers and other identifying data?

n Has the institution formally estab-lished the ownership of identity datamaintained in its systems?

Issue #5:Disaster Recovery/Business ContinuityThe recovery of IT systems following a

disaster has long been a concern of CIOs,but the broader issue of business con-tinuity planning requires engagementby the entire campus. This engagementrequires executive buy-in to ensure theparticipation of all stakeholders. In theevent that these issues are seen as purely IT problems, it may be necessary for theCIO to provoke discussion by presentingdraft solutions that presuppose commit-ments from other units.

Formal methodologies, consultants,and software tools are available to assistin conducting a business-impact analy-sis. There are also resources available forinstitutions that are required to comply with the federal National Incident Man-agement System (NIMS) or state Conti-nuity of Operations/Continuity of Gov-ernment (COOP/COG) initiatives. Inaddition, the EDUCAUSE Resource Cen-ter section on disaster recovery planning(http://www.educause.edu/Browse/645?PARENT_ID=166) includes an ex-tensive collection of resources for devel-oping, implementing, and maintainingan effective disaster recovery plan.

Critical questions forDisaster Recovery/ Business Continuityinclude the following:

n What are the natural and human risksfacing the institution? Colleges anduniversities offer more than educa-tion; they are also typically involved in

housing, health care, entertainment,and retail enterprises.n Which staff, equipment, and infor-

mation are necessary to continuefunctioning in the event of an inci-dent? The institution should look atprocessesfor example, registering astudentrather than the daily opera-tions of discrete offices.

n Which processes are mission-critical?How long can the critical processes beunavailable (what are therecovery time objectives)? How much information loss can

be tolerated (what are therecovery pointobjectives)? Are there tiers of processeswith similar recovery time objectives?

n Rather than designing specific sce-narios for specific crises, can the in-stitution combine recovery modulesas necessary depending on the actualsituation? Specifications for the chainof command, communication plans,alternative work sites, and the neces-sary personnel and resources should

be included, and opportunities forpartnering with other educationalgovernmental, and nonprofit institutions should not be overlooked.

n Does the institution have a documented and tested disaster recoverand business continuity plan in placfor critical applications? How doethe institution determine an accept-able level of risk and the right level investment?

n Where can the documented recovery solutions be stored so as to breadily available in the event of aemergency?

n Are all stakeholders willing to commit to testing the recovery moduleon at least an annual basis in order tprevent a false sense of security anto surface changes in the underlyinprocesses?

Issue #6:Faculty Development,Support, and TrainingFaculty development remains crucial fostrategic success in integrating technoogy into teaching, learning, and researcregardless of institutional size and typ A continuing challenge is the lack of cogruence between the speed with whictechnology is advancing and the speewith which academe is able to evolve anadapt. As Michael M. Crow, the presideof Arizona State University, has notethere is a lack of compatibility betwee

pedagogical evolution and technological evolution.12 Further, students too arechanging. The new generation of studenbrings with them expectations and understandings of technology, as well as life alearning styles, very different from thoof students in the not-too-distant past.

Determining which of the manyemerging technologies are pertinent tfaculty is a continuing challenge.TheHorizon Report: 2007 Editionidentifies key

The rec very f IT systems f ll wing a disaster has l ngbeen a c ncern f CIos, but the br ader issue f businesc ntinuity lanning requires engagement by the entirecam us.


7/11


trends, critical challenges, and technolo-gies to watch in the practice of teaching,learning, and creativity.13 These trendsmay help those who are responsible forprofessional-development activities forfaculty. Another set of valuable resourcesfor helping teachers use technology isthe EDUCAUSE Resource Center pageon Training (http://www.educause.edu/Browse/645?PARENT_ID=480).

Faculty-development programs alsomust be linked to campus infrastructureand services to optimize effectiveness.Planning faculty-development activitiesrelated to the effective uses of mobile andwireless technologies, for example, must

be coordinated with the campus deploy-ment of such technologies.14

There is a renewed emphasis oncollaborative learning. Hence, it isimportant to incorporate inter- andintra-campus collegial networks in fac-ulty development. This might includecreating venues (such as workshops,institutes, forums, brown-bag lunches,wikis) where faculty across disciplinescan discuss what they are learning, cantalk about problems, and can learn fromeach other.15

Critical questions forFaculty Develop-ment, Support, and Training include thefollowing:

n What constitutes faculty development? How is success measured?

n How can faculty better understandtheir students and how students perceive technology?

n What are the appropriate modelsfor faculty training and support? Dfaculty members have time to attenworkshops, or should support personnel consider different service modelto convey the pertinent information?

n Are faculty incentives still an issfor individual faculty members and focampuses?

n How can the standards and assessmenwork of national and internationa

planning faculty-devel ment activities related t theeffective uses f m bile and wireless techn l gies must bec rdinated with the cam us de l yment f such techn l gie


8/11


associations benefit campuses seek-ing to measure student learning andfaculty productivity?

n How should concerns related to digitalmedia copyright protection be incor-porated into development activities?

Issue #7:InfrastructureManaging IT infrastructure for highereducation today is a balancing act. Insti-tutions require high performance, reli-ability, scalability, agility, and a platformfor innovation. Managers must balancecost, manageability, flexibility, stability,privacy, security, and performance.

As institutions strive to improvecommunications and services for allmembers of the community, expecta-tions are high. Service-level agreements(SLAs) are useful tools for establishingexpectations and for understanding therequirements of internal customers.Under the rubric of timing is every-thing, institutions continue to view technologies as a competitive opportu-nity requiring the ability to adopt andadapt quickly.

IT project-delivery schedules be-come increasingly short at the sametime that integration and security requirements become more complex.

IT organizations must deploy the ap-propriate combination of hardware,software, and services in a manageableand scalable information architecture.In turn, this architecture must facilitatethe organization, storage, access, andmaintenance of strategic informationservices and resources.

Critical questions forInfrastructure include the following:

n Does the institution have a replace-ment plan for servers, appliances,

network devices, and other hardware?

Does it negotiate prepaid or long-termmaintenance agreements? Has the in-stitution compared lease and purchaseoptions?

n Is the institution planning and bud-geting for environmental upgrades?Does the institution know the power,generator, UPS, air-conditioning,floor-space, and fire-suppressionrequirements for the next three yearsor for an appropriate planninghorizon?

n Does the institution have good moni-toring and benchmarking practices?Does it perform trend analysis to assistwith capacity and upgrade planning?

n Do network and systems administra-tors have the tools and training toautomate problem detection andnotification? Does the institution haveend-to-end component and service-level monitoring agents or tools inplace? Are problem-resolution pro-cesses integrated throughout the ITinfrastructure?

n Do network and critical applicationsservers have built-in redundancy?Does the institution have test environ-ments for use when upgrading hard-ware and software?

n Is the institution effectively manag-ing the accelerating requirements

for systems and storage? Does it havea plan to deal with the developmentand growth of more and larger datawarehouses, institutional reposito-ries, and digital collections? Does theinstitution have an information life-cycle management plan to ensure thecontinued availability and usability ofinformation?

n Is the institution evaluating ordeploying virtualization techniquesfor storage, network, or serverconsolidation?

n Does the institution have adequate

planning, staff and infrastructureresources, and funding to supporresearch computing?

n Does the institution account fothe dynamic change and pace opolicy, security, and compliancerequirements?

n Is the institution effectively meetinthe current demand for both wiredand wireless connectivity and mobilapplications?

Issue #8:Strategic PlanningDeveloping an IT strategic plan maseem, to some, to be close to impossibto achieve. How can planners create efective strategies for IT environmenthat change rapidly and will continue tchange over time? Within the context othe strategic direction of the institutionIT certainly can play its role in supporing institutional directions. Institutionamission, vision, and values must drivthe strategic priorities not only of IT bof all units. The way to craft an IT stregy is to engage key stakeholders in dilogues to answer the question, How caIT help the institution achieve its strategic goals? In addition, any IT strateplan will have to be a living documeupdated periodically to reflect change

in institutional priorities or technologiethemselves.Building the IT strategic plan shoul

be a collaborative effort across academiresearch, and administrative units. Thstrategic plan should consider the roleof students, faculty, staff, and administrtion. However, the plan must be mucmore than a reflection of institutionagoals. It is the roadmap for investmenin IT, and it publicly affirms the majothrusts of IT.

Critical questions forStrategic Planni

include the following:

IT r ject-delivery schedules bec me increasingly sh rthe same time that integrati n and security requiremenbec me m re c m lex.


9/11


n How can the institution become en-gaged in building the IT strategic plan,when so many users may just want24x7 services?

n Is the strategic plan connected to themission-critical foci of the institution?Does the plan address teaching andlearning, research, outreach, and en-gagement goals? Are these constituen-cies actively involved in the planningprocess? How do deans and otherexecutives participate in the process?

n Is there a communication plan toinform all constituents about ITplanning activities? Does it includeconversations with members of thecabinet, regents or trustees, advisory groups, academic leadership, and stu-dent leaders? Do articles about the ITplan appear in the faculty/staff news-letter and the student newspaper? Isthere an IT strategic plan Web site?

n Which tactics for multi-channel com-

munication and engagement shouldbe deployed for the range of IT stra-tegic plan stakeholders on campus:surveys, newsletters, student and ad-ministrative newspapers, town meet-ings, focus groups, interviews, blogs,others?

n Does the strategic plan drive IT budgetpriorities and investments?

n Are the goals of the strategic planrealistic and reachable? Does it in-clude stretch goals intended topush the institution beyond current

capabilities?n Is accountability built into the stra-

tegic plan, with credible metrics forgauging progress? Are benchmarksincluded as short- and long-term yardsticks of success?

n How often is the strategic plan re- viewed and updated? Does the review process include constituents fromacross the institution? How is progressreported to the institution?

n Is the strategic planning processaligned with how the institutionmakes decisions?

Issue #9:Course/LearningManagement SystemsPossibly spurred by concerns overthe Blackboard/WebCT merger andBlackboards patent suit, as well as thecontinuing maturity of open-source op-tions, Course/Learning Management Systems (C/LMSs) have appeared for the first timeamong the top-ten issues facing highereducation CIOs. It may also be the case, assuggested in the beginning of this article,that this visibility can be attributed tothe evolution of C/LMS technology as amission-critical enterprise system, to itsaccelerating use as a critical teaching andlearning resource by institutions of allkinds, and to the technologys impact onIT funding, in terms of both licensing and

local support.Following the pattern of library andERP systems, C/LMSs are fast becominga campus utility, expected to be avail-able 24x7. There is a growing body ofliterature and research on student andfaculty use of and attitudes toward thistechnology. The findings suggest thatoverall penetration in higher educationhas increased by a factor of three since2000; more than 90 percent of campusessupport at least one C/LMS, with nearly 70 percent standardized on a single com-

mercial C/LMS; and although more fac-ulty are using C/LMSs, they are selectiveand, more often than not, are focused onadministrative tools and less on inter-active features.16

C/LMSs are still relatively young. Asthe technology matures, it is evolvingmore toward Learning ManagementSystems, encompassing content man-agement and groupware tools, as wellas assessment tools and e-portfolios to

track learning across courses and semeters. Likewise, the systems are becominmore student-centered, giving studentgreater control over content and supporting more higher-order learningactivities.

Critical questions forCourse/LearninManagement Systemsinclude the following:

n Should the institution buy a commercial C/LMS, or can it support an opensource application? Does the institution have the development expertise toimplement and support open source?

n Does the institution have opportunities to reduce C/LMS costs through consortium arrangement?

n What will be integrated with the CLMS: portal? portfolio? ERP? libraresources?

n Does the institution have trainingsupport resources available to helpfaculty and students make effectiv

use of the C/LMS features?n Has the institution conducted, or is iplanning, an assessment of how thC/LMS affects teaching and learning the institution?

n If the institution is changing systemis there a plan in place to ensursmooth migration of existing materiato the new system?

n Has the institution planned for a highavailability hardware system for the CLMS with sufficient failover capabilito prevent the shutdown of a critica

service?

Issue #10:Governance, Organization,and Leadership for ITThe pervasiveness and strategic value IT in higher education make effectivguidance of IT essential. In addition, Imust be an integral part of an institutions culture.Governance, Organizatand Leadership for IT is a critical issue i

Alth ugh m re faculty are using C/LMSs, they are seleand, m re ften than n t, are f cused n administrativet ls and less n interactive features.


10/11


an institution wants to be successful inusing IT to achieve its goals.

For more than twenty years, variousorganizations, including EDUCAUSE,have collected and disseminated dataabout IT environments in higher educa-tion.17 These data and analyses can helphigher education executives makejudicious decisions about IT in theirinstitutions.

The IT organizational structuremanages the allocation of IT resources(human resources especially) in per-forming operational work, influencesinformation flow throughout the orga-nization, and optimizes the efficiency of

knowledge work.Governance, Organiza-tion, and Leadership for IT undergirds all ofthe other current issue areas and is thefoundation for good/best practicesforprocesses and procedures to ensure thatthe IT services and staff both supportand advance the organizations goals andobjectives.

In higher education, a balance mustbe achieved between the needs ofacademic IT and administrative IT. Inlarger institutions, an added dimensionof balance is required because of largedivisions/departments competing forlimited IT resources. Although gover-nance structures will differ across sizes

and types of campuses, Jack McCredsuggests that to achieve a higher level coordination, campuses should considemoving toward more federated strutures in which areas that overlap can bdefined and governed more collaboratively, efficiently and effectively.18

Beyond institutional structures, statgoverning bodies influence all higheeducation institutions, whether public oprivate. Coordinating and aligning witstate-level governance structures wiallow an institution to offer excellent se vices as well as access to vital statewideformation that the IT organization needto be successful within the region.

The IT rganizati nal structure manages the all cati n IT res urces (human res urces es ecially) in erf rmingerati nal w rk.


11/11


Critical questions forGovernance,Organization, and Leadership for IT includethe following:

n Does the current governance structure,including advisory committees, facili-tate or impede planning, prioritizing,and implementing IT initiatives? shar-ing expensive resources? actions thatcould improve campus IT services?

n Does the institutional executive teamunderstand that the role of an ITleader is not about technology itselfbut is about the ability of a campus toachieve its goals and objectivesthroughtechnology? Does the IT leader interactfrequently with campus executives andacademic leaders? Does he/she sit onthe presidents cabinet and participateon institutional strategic planning bod-ies? To whom does the IT leader report?

n Has the institution established ITadvisory structures that are broadly representative?

n Are IT leaders for the future beingdeveloped? Does the IT organizationhave a leadership-development pathin place?

n How well does the IT organizationcoordinate with state-level governancestructures?

SummaryThe most dramatic change in the EDU-CAUSE Current Issues Survey since last year was thatCourse/Learning Manage-ment Systemsmoved into the top-tenranking of strategic issues, as numbernine. Also in 2007, the split of last yearsnumber-one strategic issue,Security andIdentity Management,into two distinctissues resulted in a more accurate sort-ing:Securityas number two, andIdentity/ Access Managementas number four. Di-saster Recovery/Business Continuity,after

making a dramatic appearance last year as

number four, continues in the top ten this year, as number five.

Like the previous seven surveys, the2007 EDUCAUSE Current Issues Survey shows the ebb and flow of a professionthat is responsive in adapting services andorganizations to emerging technologiesand rising information appetites. Just asthere are the predictable big issues thatcontinue to make the largest blips on thecollective radar, there are those that aresurpassed or replaced by the newer issuesthat now shape the learning enterpriseand figure more centrally in the institu-tional mission. The 2007 EDUCAUSECurrent Issues Survey reflects the globalforces of an increasingly connected andflatter world. But it also reveals thespecial needs and opportunities of U.S.colleges and universities, whichdespitedramatic changes in the sources, form,and delivery of instructional and researchservicesremain the focal point of thenations investment in education.e

Notes1. Of the 1,785 EDUCAUSE primary member rep-

resentatives who received an e-mail invitation tocomplete the survey, 591 (33%) responded.

2. John S. Camp, Peter B. DeBlois, and the 2007EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee, CurrentIT Issues Survey Report, 2007,EQ: EDUCAUSEQuarterly,vol. 30, no. 2 (2007), . Links tothe six previous Current Issues Survey articles and

related resources can be found at .3. See Barbara I. Dewey, Peter B. DeBlois, and the

2006 EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee,Top-Ten IT Issues, 2006,EDUCAUSE Review,vol.41, no. 3 (May/June 2006): 5879, .

4. See the 2006 EDUCAUSE Catalyst Award: .

5. William H. Graves, Improving InstitutionalPerformance through IT-Enabled Innovation,EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 40, no. 6 (November/De-cember 2005): 7998, .

6. U.S. Department of Education, A Test of Leadership:Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education,a Reportof the Commission Appointed by Secretary of

Education Margaret Spellings (Washington, D.C.,

2006), final report, September 2006, .

7. John Voloudakis, Hitting a Moving Target: Strategy in a Real-Time World,EDUCAUSEReview, vol. 40, no. 2 (March/April 2005): 44.

8. Philip J. Goldstein, Information Technolog

Funding in Higher Education,EDUCAUSECenter for Applied Research (ECAR) Researc vol. 7 (2004), .

9. A key resource for security managers and stakholders in higher education is the Web site of thEDUCAUSE/Internet2 Computer and NetworSecurity Task Force: .

10. Brian L. Hawkins and Julia A. Rudy,EDU-CAUSE Core Data Service Fiscal Year 2005 SReport(Boulder, Colo.: EDUCAUSE, 2004950, .

11. Marti Harris, Michael Zastrocky, and Jan-MarLowendahl,Magic Quadrant for Higher Educatioministrative Suites, 2006,.12. Crow quoted in Managing IT from the Top DowChronicle of Higher Education, January 5, 2007.

13. The New Media Consortium and the EDUCAULearning Initiative,The Horizon Report: 2007 tion,.

14. Anne H. Moore, John F. Moore, and Shelli Fowler, Faculty Development for the Net Genertion, chapter 11 in Diana G. Oblinger and JamesOblinger, eds.,Educating the Net Generation(Boul-der, Colo.: EDUCAUSE, 2005), e-book, .

15. Carol R. Holder, New Media and New LiteracPerspectives on Change,EDUCAUSE Review, vol.

41, no. 6 (November/December 2006): 76, .16. See Faculty and Student Computing, chapter 3

Hawkins and Rudy,2005 Summary Report,, andKenneth C. Green,2006 Campus Computing SuSummary(Encino, Calif.: Campus Computing Proect, 2006),

Documents

EduCause Top Ten IT Issues 2007