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

2. 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

3. Thanks!
CSG Winter 2006

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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