1. Examining the need for a more collaborative relationship
The IT/IR Nexus
Examining the need for a more collaborative relationship

2. Today’s speakers are Timothy Chester, Ph.D.
Vice President for Information Technology
University of Georgia
Gina Johnson, Ph.D.
Assistant Executive Director for Partnerships and Membership
Association for Institutional Research
Jonathan S. Gagliardi, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Center for Policy Research and Strategy
American Council on Education

3. How effectively does IT and IR collaborate at your campus?
Pulse Check
How effectively does IT and IR collaborate at your campus?
What gets in the way of that?

4. We hear a lot about data-informed decision making and data-enabled executives
A growing share of presidents are paying greater attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion; resource strategies and finance; and strategically managing money, time, and talent. Doing this well requires the increasingly sophisticated use of robust and integrated data

5. Presidents recognize the central nature of assessing and improving student outcomes
Most legitimate performance measures
Retention rates
Graduation rate
Minority student outcomes
Least legitimate performance measures
U.S. News & World Report’s ranking
Competitive/external research grants awarded
Tuition and fee costs for in-state students
In this year’s ACPS, new questions were added related to the legitimacy of specific performance measures. Presidents were asked to score 11 separate measures on a scale of zero (not legitimate at all) to 10 (completely legitimate). Overall, presidents chose retention rates, graduation rates, and minority student outcomes as the most legitimate metrics.
Public institution presidents scored retention rates as the most legitimate (8.0), followed by graduation rates (7.7), and minority student outcomes (7.6). The most legitimate metrics among private institution presidents were also retention rates and graduation rates, each having received a mean legitimacy score of 8.2.
Presidents at doctoral-granting institutions reported the highest scores in both retention rates and graduation and graduation (8.7 and 8.6, respectively), whereas presidents at associate colleges rated the lowest scores (7.9 and 7.4, respectively) compared to other institution types.
Public institution presidents saw U.S. News & World Report’s rankings as less legitimate by 0.6 point with a mean score of 2.2 compared to private institution presidents (2.8).
The second least legitimate metric type for public institution presidents was grant awarded (4.1) whereas private institution presidents considered tuition and fee costs for in-state students (3.8) as the second least legitimate metric type.
Presidents of doctorate-granting universities perceived U.S. News & World Report’s rankings more legitimate among all institution type at a mean score of 3.7. Associate college presidents reported the lowest score on U.S. News & World Report’s rankings at a mean score of 1.4, which was 2.3 points lower than that of doctorate-granting universities.

6. Despite this, they seem disconnected from IR
When asked to pick areas that will grow in importance for future presidents…
30%
Assessment of student learning
12%
Using institutional research (evidence) to inform decision making
In general, presidents reported growing importance on student assessment, however, not many presidents indicated that they believed that using IR to inform decision-making would grow in importance.
Presidents from special focus institutions reported the highest percentage (32.4%) regarding the growing importance of assessment of student learning, followed by associate colleges (31.6%), and doctorate-granting institutions (29%).
Presidents from associate colleges indicated higher percentage (16.4%) compared to other institutional type that they will use IR evidence, followed by doctorate-granting universities (11.2%) and master’s institutions (11.1%).
When we asked areas occupy most of your time, presidents at associate colleges reported that they spent more time on using IR evidence in decision making (8.7%) compared to other institution types (Total average: 5.2%). Presidents at doctorate granting institutions spent no time in student assessment, and also reported the lowest percentage using their time on IR based decision making (2.4%) compared to others.
Perhaps that is because the data and insight created by IR is not presented in compelling and digestible ways. This warrants a deeper and more collaborative relationship with IT.
Perhaps that is because the data and insight created by IR is not presented in compelling and digestible ways. This warrants a deeper and more collaborative relationship with IT.

7. “You don’t climb mountains without a team, you don’t climb mountains without being fit, you don’t climb mountains without being prepared and you don’t climb mountains without balancing the risks and rewards. And you never climb a mountain on accident – it has to be intentional.” Mark Udall
IR as a field is evolving alongside the evolution of the expectations on higher education to be increasingly accountable and data-informed
Increased ubiquity of data and tools
Increased need for training of all employees in data and information tools and skills
Central role of IR is changing and professionals in the field are intentionally preparing for these changes {transition to D&F of IR}

8. The Duties & Functions of IR
Identify information needs
Collect, analyze, interpret, and report data and information
Plan and evaluate
Serve as stewards of data and information
Educate information producers, users, and consumers
IR and ir – concept of the function of institutional research as a collective process at an institution in which many people and units are involved.
Briefly explain each D&F
IR plays a central role in the function when it is working well
Areas where IR and IT partner closely for success include: Collect, analyze, interpret, and report data and information (esp collect and report); Serve as stewards of data and information (data governance, use); Educate information producers, users and consumers (co-training on data warehouse and visualization tools)
Second Tim’s comments important, mutual competencies in change advocacy/management; relationship building; communication to influence

9. IT – IR Possibilities
In the context of ERP Implementations and Enhancements

15. What are you doing to create a strong IT/IR relationship?
Pulse Check
What are you doing to create a strong IT/IR relationship?
How can leadership facilitate that?

16. Thank You! Questions: jgagliardi@acenet.edu accidentalcio@uga.edu