Survey on IT Governance CSG Winter Meeting @ Duke January 4, 2006 Alan Usas Assistant VP, CIS Brown University

Goals of the Survey Who participates in IT governance? What do they govern? How is the work done? Is it effective? Compare results with 2003 ECAR survey Stimulate workshop conversation CSG Winter 2006

Thanks! CSG Winter 2006

One Slide Summary There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. John Tukey Governance is a timely IT topic about an area undergoing change. Formal project reviews are increasingly a component of governance. Scope of governance is driven by questions about investment, business applications, and infrastructure. While schools report a high degree of alignment and involvement, 63% agree that IT governance is effective and 16% say it is well understood. CSG Winter 2006

Institutional Picture CSG ECAR IT leader in the cabinet 47% 51% IT leader role in institutional planning 68% 82% Board has technology subcommittee 0% 21% CSG Winter 2006

Advice on IT Policy/Program CSG ECAR Standing academic committee 79% 67% IT leader determines after informal discussions 53% Standing administrative committee 68% 63% Students participate 44% Senior administrators primarily 34% IT leader acts independently 32% 21% Board members primarily 5% 3% No one had only the independent choice! CSG Winter 2006

Formal Project Reviews 68% Yes Proposal authoring Other IT staff (92%) Head or chair (69%) IT planner (54%) Scope of review Cost threshold (54%) Other criteria (46%) All projects reviewed (15%) Process attributes Review is multi-step (77%) Project status is tracked (62%) Projects are assessed (31%) Approval is only involvement (15%) Other critieria: Impact on individuals beyond the implementation staff Staff hours Capital projects Visibility, complexity, resource requirements CSG Winter 2006

Domain of IT Governance IT investment and prioritization (79%) Business applications: what do we need (74%) IT infrastructure strategies (68%) IT architecture (63%) IT principles: how does IT create value on the campus (47%) CSG Winter 2006

IT Alignment CSG ECAR Rating Agree Central IT aligned with institutional priorities 5.9 95% 85% Administrators actively involved 5.6 76% IT leader perceived as responsible for governance structure 5.2 79% 73% IT priority-setting is broadly inclusive 4.7 63% 69% Faculty actively involved 4.5 56% Department IT aligned with institutional priorities 4.6 53% 70% IT governance is effective 4.4 Students are actively involved 4.0 42% NA Deans are actively involved 3.6 26% 45% IT governance is well understood 3.5 16% CSG Winter 2006

Constituencies Heard CSG ECAR Rating Always* Chief administrative officer 5.7 53% 52% Provost/academic VP 5.5 47% Chief financial officer 5.4 51% Faculty 4.8 21% 33% Department or unit heads 4.7 26% NA Deans 4.3 16% 30% IT vendors 4.4 Students 4.2 5% 17% President/chancellor Trustees/regents/board 2.9 *Rated “always” or “almost always” CSG Winter 2006

Facilitating IT Priority Setting CSG ECAR Senior IT leader 100% 93% IT planner 32% 9% Non-IT administrator 24% Institutional planner 16% 5% Outside consultant 6% Faculty member 10% Dean 0% 11% Librarian CSG Winter 2006

Top Influencers CSG ECAR Senior administrators 95% 83% CIOs 63% 47% Central IT management 53% 45% Faculty 21% 41% Non-IT department heads 18% Department IT management 16% 6% Deans 23% Students 11% 15% CTOs 5% Librarians 0% 3% CSG Winter 2006

Effective Governance Senior IT leader is a member of the cabinet More evenly split on formal reviews (58/42 vs. 86/14) Priority setting more regularly inclusive (provost, CFO, faculty, department heads, deans, students) CSG Winter 2006

Musings on Governance We are undergoing a change in governance… it is a work in progress. (multiple similar comments) One of the things IT seems to have had a hard time getting into the picture is a regular system of "feedback loops" about lessons learned from previous projects. What are the most effective ways to get real engagement from campus leaders? CSG Winter 2006

More Musings In general, what works for governance is very dependent on the style of the senior leadership and on the degree of centralization of the institution. IT governance can be organized in lots of ways. In the end, I think it comes down to trust and relationships. Places where IT thrives typically have faith in the processes in place and the people executing those decisions. The structures themselves take many forms. CSG Winter 2006