1. 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report

2. Table of Contents 2 SectionSlide(s) Introduction3–10 About CDS3 About the 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report4 Customizing 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report Graphs, in Five Steps5–6 Introduction to Benchmarking7 Steps for a Successful Benchmarking Assessment8 Identify Your Goals9 Summary of the Landscape10 IT Financials11–21 IT Staffing22–31 IT Services32–48 Methodology49–52

3. About CDS Since 2002, the EDUCAUSE Core Data Service (CDS) has been providing higher education CIOs and senior IT leaders with the benchmarks they need to make strategic decisions about IT at their institutions. On average, more than 800 institutions (both within and outside the United States) participate in a survey about IT financials, staffing, and services. Survey participants are rewarded for their time and effort with access to CDS Reporting, a self-service tool that enables institutions to benchmark their IT organizations against those of their peers. In addition to gaining access to CDS Reporting, institutions also participate in CDS for the following reasons:  To study their IT organization  To benchmark against past performance  To look at trends over time*  To start gathering and using metrics  To have data available “just in case” 3 * The number of years available for trend data varies throughout the CDS dataset. For example, CDS data on funding can be tracked from 2002 to present, whereas CDS data on expenditures can be tracked for FY2012/13 and FY2013/14.

4. About the 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report Traditionally, the CDS annual report has summarized the state of higher education IT; however, the strength of CDS data are shown through their benchmarking capability. To serve both purposes, the 2014 CDS annual report has been refactored as a Benchmarking Report to summarize key findings from the CDS 2014 survey, provide a glimpse into the breadth of CDS data, and ultimately provide you with an opportunity to conduct your own benchmarking assessment. The customizable graphs contained within this report are meant to be used to assess your IT operation compared to that at peer institutions of similar size, control, or Carnegie Classification. As you consider the metrics and benchmarks contained within this report in relation to your institution, findings that differ from your experience should inspire questions, not answers. When questions do arise, CDS Reporting can facilitate further investigation (if your institution participated in CDS 2014). If your institution did not participate, consider adding your data to the next CDS survey, launching in July 2015. The CDS 2014 survey concluded with 828 participants. The metrics discussed in this report focus primarily on FY2013/14 central IT financials, staffing, and services from 720 nonspecialized U.S. institutions. Metrics are calculated for each of six Carnegie Classification groupings using the 2010 classification system (AA, BA, MA private, MA public, DR private, and DR public). These groupings provide the most granular breakdown by institutional type possible (given available sample sizes) and should provide suitable comparison groups for most institution types and sizes within the United States. Fifty-nine specialized U.S. institutions and 49 non-U.S. institutions from 17 countries participated in this year’s survey; however, small sample sizes from each of these groups preclude meaningful aggregate analysis. If your institution is a specialized U.S. institution or a non-U.S. institution, this report may be used to compare your institution to institutions in a similar Carnegie Classification or to the metric calculated for All (non-specialized) U.S. institutions. A list of CDS 2014 participants can be found on the CDS website.CDS website The metrics in this report evaluate central IT only. Central IT funding, expenditure, and staffing data are only one component of the full IT resource picture at institutions with significant distributed IT resources. Data on distributed resources, however, remain elusive. A year-over-year analysis of the CDS data collected about distributed IT resources revealed low data reliability, an indication that current methods for gathering these data are ineffective. For this reason data on distributed IT resources have been excluded from this report but can be found in CDS Reporting. Efforts are under way to improve the quality of these data for future years. 4

5. Customizing 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report Graphs, in Five Steps 1.Review the slide notes for background on why each metric is important and to identify the origin of each metric. 2.Use the CDS 2014 survey and IPEDS* data to calculate values for your institution.CDS 2014 survey 3.Right-click on the slide graph and select “Edit Data…” in the pop-up menu. 5 * IPEDS data are used to normalize metrics in CDS based on institutional size and budget. More information about IPEDS data is available online.online

6. Customizing 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report Graphs, in Five Steps (cont’d) 4.Enter data for your institution where indicated in the Excel spreadsheet. 6 5.Check to make sure data for “My Institution” is now visible.

7. Introduction to Benchmarking Today’s institution must run efficiently and effectively. Having a clear understanding of your organization’s financial, staffing, and operational status is critical to making informed decisions and optimizing the impact of IT; having the same information about your peers and aspirant peers is even better. 7 You can:With CDS benchmarking data on: Make the case for additional resources by comparing resource allocations to those of peers or estimating the level of investment required to achieve a certain output or service level. Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) Make the case for organizational structure or governance by uncovering best practices for IT leader reporting structures, IT governance structures, or distributed IT service delivery models. CIO reporting line IT governance maturity Organizational units responsible for more than 100 IT functions Calibrate your performance against best practices and “best in class” institutions that have set the bar for your institution. CDS participants have the ability to customize benchmarking assessments by selecting specific peer institutions with which to compare. Communicate the value of IT by comparing service portfolios and service performance to financial investment. Services provided by central IT compared to total IT expenditures and IT expenditures by IT domain area. Assess the relative maturity of strategic initiatives such as e- learning, student success technologies, and analytics. IT maturity for seven IT capabilities, including e-learning, student success technologies, and analytics.

8. Steps for a Successful Benchmarking Assessment 8 7. Improve. Explore options for improving upon any or all elements of a benchmarking effort. 7. Improve. Explore options for improving upon any or all elements of a benchmarking effort. 1. Identify your goals. What are your benchmarking needs? What is the goal of this exercise? 1. Identify your goals. What are your benchmarking needs? What is the goal of this exercise? 2. Identify your audience. Are you gathering data for leadership, users, or services owners? 2. Identify your audience. Are you gathering data for leadership, users, or services owners? 4. Evaluate data quality.* Determine whether data contain errors. Do the data need to be r eformatted or cleaned? 4. Evaluate data quality.* Determine whether data contain errors. Do the data need to be r eformatted or cleaned? 3. Identify data sources. Do you have the data you need? Which groups will you compare against? 3. Identify data sources. Do you have the data you need? Which groups will you compare against? 5. Develop a plan for reporting. Are you reporting the data at the right frequency, in the right formats, and to the right people? 5. Develop a plan for reporting. Are you reporting the data at the right frequency, in the right formats, and to the right people? 6. Consider possible outcomes. Will any action take place upon reporting the results? 6. Consider possible outcomes. Will any action take place upon reporting the results? * Evaluating data quality is important even when using CDS data. As you analyze CDS data be sure to evaluate whether the budget and staffing numbers reported are in line with what is expected and please report suspicious data to coredata@educause.edu.coredata@educause.edu

9. 9 Identify Your Goals The first step to a successful benchmarking study is to identify your goals. CDS data can support general benchmarking studies with goals such as “identify best practices” or “communicate the value of IT,” as well as more targeted efforts such as “make the case for additional resources.” For example, the table below provides a view into how certain CDS metrics (all of which are contained in this report) can be used to address the 2015 Top 10 IT Issues. 2015 Top 10 IT IssueSupporting metricsSlide(s) 1 Hiring and Retaining Qualified Staff, and Updating the Knowledge and Skills of Existing Technology Staff Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE30–31 Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs23–24; 27–29 2 Optimizing the Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning in Collaboration with Academic Leadership, Including Understanding the Appropriate Level of Technology to Use Most common teaching and learning support services for faculty36 3 Developing IT Funding Models That Sustain Core Service, Support Innovation, and Facilitate Growth Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution 17 Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 16 Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 21 4 Improving Student Outcomes through an Institutional Approach That Strategically Leverages Technology Systems most commonly mobile friendly48 5 Demonstrating the Business Value of Information Technology and How Technology and the IT Organization Can Help the Institution Achieve Its Goals Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) 12–14 Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses 6 Increasing the IT Organization’s Capacity for Managing Change, Despite Differing Community Needs, Priorities, and Abilities Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years47 7 Providing User Support in the New Normal—Mobile, Online Education, Cloud, and BYOD Environments Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher 34 Institutions offering self-service help options Access points that are 802.11n or 802.11ac41 Systems most commonly mobile friendly48 8 Developing Mobile, Cloud, and Digital Security Policies That Work for Most of the Institutional Community Institutions with mandatory information security training42 9 Developing an Enterprise IT Architecture That Can Respond to Changing Conditions and New Opportunities Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years47 10Balancing Agility, Openness, and Security Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment 43

10. Summary of the Landscape To provide a brief, high-level view of the data contained within this report, below are the nonspecialized U.S. metrics for some of the most commonly used CDS benchmarks: IT Financials  $906 Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff)  4.2% Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses  54%Central IT compensation spending as a percentage of total central IT spending  34%Central IT noncompensation operating spending as a percentage of total central IT spending  9%Central IT capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending IT Staffing  7.7 Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs  17% Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE  $1,076 Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE IT Services  75%Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher for central IT help desk  18Student FTEs per lab/cluster workstations provided by central IT  50%Institutions hosting or participating in cross-institutional data center services  23%Access points that are 802.11n  57%Institutions with mandatory information security training for faculty or staff  27%Institutions planning to replace customer relationship management (CRM) systems in the next three years. 10

11. IT Financials The first step to strategically funding IT is to identify budget parameters based on type of institution, institutional population, and institutional budget. Then, based on institutional priorities and your current IT environment, determine a spending portfolio that will get you to where you want to be. Breaking the budget down by dollars spent running, growing, and transforming the institution; by each IT domain area; and by capital versus operating work will help you determine the right blend of innovation spending to operating spending for all areas of IT. The metrics contained in this section can help you address the following questions:  What is a practical range for total budget based on my institution type, institutional population, and institutional budget? (metrics 1–3)  Are changes in my budget from the previous fiscal year in line with changes in peer budgets? (metric 4)  What is an appropriate distribution of spending for my institution? (metrics 5–8) 11 MetricSlide(s) 1 Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) vs. Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses 12 2 Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) Five-year trend 13 3 Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses Five-year trend 14 4Total central IT FY2013/14 spending as a percentage change from FY2012/1315 5Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending16 6Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution17 7IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending18–20 8Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending21

12. Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) vs. total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses 12

13. Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff), five-year trend 13 * FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.

14. Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses, five-year trend 14 * FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.

15. Total central IT FY2013/14 spending as a percentage change from FY2012/13 15

16. Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 16

17. Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution 17

18. IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending 18

19. IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending 19

20. IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending 20

21. Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 21

22. IT Staffing Staffing models are evolving. Hiring and retaining qualified staff, and updating the knowledge and skills of existing technology staff, is the #1 Top 10 IT Issues in 2015. Services are being outsourced, but institutions need staff to manage outsourcing and need more services and bandwidth to support BYOD. Does this mean fewer staff or the same number of staff with different skills? Through this evolution, you’ll want to keep an eye on several benchmarks: ratio of central IT staff to institutional FTE, student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE, percentage of IT staff across IT domain areas, and training spending per IT staff member. Paying attention to how others are staffed and knowing how your peers balance their staff portfolio can help you find the right fit. Knowing what your peers are spending on staff training can help you budget for updating skill sets of existing staff. The metrics contained in this section can help you address the following questions:  What is a practical range for staff size based on my institution type and size? (metrics 1–2)  What is the right blend of staff? (metrics 3–5)  Do I have the appropriate budget to retrain current staff? (metrics 6–7) 22 MetricSlide(s) 1Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs23 2 Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs Four-year trend 24 3Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE25 4 Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE Four-year trend 26 5Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 27 – 29 6Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE30 7 Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE Five-year trend 31

23. Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 23

24. Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs, four-year trend 24

25. Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE 25

26. Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE, four-year trend 26

27. Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 27

28. Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 28

29. Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 29

30. Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE 30

31. Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE, five-year trend 31 * FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.

32. IT Services In a changing environment, it is important to know which services are in demand and which are fading in importance; which should stay local and which can be outsourced; and which must have mobile deployment or be accessible via the cloud. It’s important to provide the right services in the most efficient manner. CDS has data that can help you understand how your peers are supporting users in mobile computing, online education, cloud, and BYOD environments. CDS data on faculty support services can help you determine how to help your faculty optimize the use of technology in teaching and learning, and data (including vendor/product, deployment, and management strategy) on 50 different information systems can help you strategize for an enterprise architecture that is right for you. The metrics contained in this section can help you address the following questions:  What services should I provide?  How should I provide those services?  How can I evaluate service efficiency or effectiveness? 32

33. 33 IT Domain AreaMetricSlide IT Support Services Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher for central IT help desk34 Institutions offering self-service options for central IT help desk services34 Annual number of tickets per institutional FTE among institutions with a central IT help desk that offers each mode (phone, e-mail, walk-in) 35 Educational Technology Services Most common teaching and learning support services36 Student FTE per shared workstation provided by central IT37 Data Center Institutions using commercial data center services38 Institutions hosting or participating in cross-institutional data center services38 Institutions using SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS to provide data center services39 Communications Infrastructure Communications infrastructure technologies most likely to be deployed soon40 Access points that are 802.11n or 802.11ac41 Information Security Institutions with mandatory information security training for faculty, staff, or students42 Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment43 Information Systems and Applications Systems most commonly vendor hosted (IaaS)44 Systems most commonly vendor managed (PaaS)45 Systems most commonly vendor managed (SaaS)46 Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years47 Systems most commonly mobile friendly48 IT Services: Benchmarks

34. IT Support Services: Service delivery 34

35. IT Support Services: Annual number of tickets per institutional FTE, among institutions with a central IT help desk that offers each mode 35

36. Educational Technology Services: Most common teaching and learning support services for faculty 36 My institution All nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private Classroom technology support for faculty ✔ ✖ 100% 99%100% Faculty individual training in use of educational technology ✔ ✖ 99% 100% Learning (course) management training and support for faculty ✔ ✖ 99%98%99%100% Faculty group training in use of educational technology ✔ ✖ 98%97%96%99% 98% Online learning technology support for faculty ✔ ✖ 97%100%86%100%97%99%100% ✔ My institution has this service ✖ My institution does not have this service

37. Educational Technology Services: Student FTE per shared workstation provided by central IT 37 * Sample sizes for lab/cluster workstations and virtual lab/cluster workstations provided by central IT at DR private institutions were too small to calculate an appropriate benchmark.

38. Data Center: Outsourcing and shared services* 38 * For the purpose of this analysis, outsourcing refers to the use of commercial data center services; shared services refers to institutions using hosted services provided by system or state/consortia facility OR providing services to other institutions or consortia.

39. Data Center: Use of SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS 39

40. Communications Infrastructure: Communications infrastructure technologies most likely to be deployed soon* 40 * For the purpose of this analysis, technologies to be deployed soon are those with expected or initial deployment status. My institution All nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private Unified communications and collaboration ✔ ✖ 34%21%34%35%31%45%30% IPv6 ✔ ✖ 31%25%32%41%14%37%40% Session initiation protocol (SIP) ✔ ✖ 28%25% 33%17%37%30% Network capacity planning and management tools ✔ ✖ 19%26%15%20%17%20%16% ✔ My institution has this technology ✖ My institution does not have this technology

41. Communications Infrastructure: Wireless network configuration 41

42. Information Security: Training for faculty, staff, and students 42

43. Information Security: Risk assessments 43

44. Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-managed (SaaS) 44 My institution All nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private E-mail: student ✔ ✖ 55%42%53%52%56%62%69% Customer relationship management ✔ ✖ 36%34%39%31% 36%50% Learning (course) management ✔ ✖ 31%35%21%27%41%33% E-mail: faculty/staff ✔ ✖ 30%15%38%18%34%35%38% Library ✔ ✖ 23%34%23%15%32%14%24% Facilities management ✔ ✖ 20%26%21%16%34%15%13% ✔ My institution uses SaaS for this system ✖ My institution does not use SaaS for this system

45. Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-managed (PaaS) 45 My institution All nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private E-mail: student ✔ ✖ 5%6%4%3%1%8% Web content management ✔ ✖ 4% 1%4%5%4% Learning (course) management ✔ ✖ 4% 3% 1%6%8% Library ✔ ✖ 4%3%6%4%3% 2% Customer relationship management ✔ ✖ 3%2%4%0%6%5%0% E-mail: faculty/staff ✔ ✖ 3%4%3%1% 6%0% Facilities management ✔ ✖ 2%1%2%4%2%1%2% Grants management: preaward ✔ ✖ 2% 0%2%6%3% Grants management: postaward ✔ ✖ 2% 0%2%6%1%2% Human resources information ✔ ✖ 2% 1%4%3%2% Procurement ✔ ✖ 2% 1%4%0%1%2% ✔ My institution uses PaaS for this system ✖ My institution does not use PaaS for this system

46. Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-hosted (IaaS) 46 My institution All nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private E-mail: student ✔ ✖ 13%20%9%16%14%11%8% Learning (course) management ✔ ✖ 8%13%5%10% 6%8% Customer relationship management ✔ ✖ 7%12%4%13%5%6%0% E-mail: faculty/staff ✔ ✖ 7%8%4%9%8%6%4% Web content management ✔ ✖ 7%11%7%4%14%3%0% Library ✔ ✖ 6%12%8%1%12%2%4% Facilities management ✔ ✖ 5%8%4%0%9%3%4% IT service desk management ✔ ✖ 4%6%3% 5%4% Procurement ✔ ✖ 4%8%0%3%5%6%0% Advancement/fundraising ✔ ✖ 3%5%3%1%4%3%4% ✔ My institution uses IaaS for this system ✖ My institution does not use IaaS for this system

47. Information Systems and Applications: Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years 47 My institution All nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private Customer relationship management ✔ ✖ 27%22% 32%24%29%30% IT service desk management ✔ ✖ 25%26%17%28%23%27%33% E-mail: faculty/staff ✔ ✖ 22%24%15%35%19%25%12% Web content management ✔ ✖ 21%22%23%18%28%18% Business intelligence reporting ✔ ✖ 17%10%12%13%16%25%23% Facilities management ✔ ✖ 15%8%11%17%12%16%28% Admissions: undergraduate ✔ ✖ 13%8%17%8%16%12%20% ✔ My institution has recently replaced this system or plans to replace in the next three years ✖ My institution has not recently replaced this system and has no plans to replace in the next three years

48. Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly mobile friendly* 48 My institution All nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private E-mail: student ✔ ✖ 63%62%68%59%58%61%73% Learning (course) management ✔ ✖ 60%66%54%62%56%60% E-mail: faculty/staff ✔ ✖ 59%58%66%56%51%59%67% Web content management ✔ ✖ 58%54%66%64%61%54%48% * For the purpose of this analysis, mobile-friendly systems are those using any of the following deployment strategies: mobile app, mobile specific website, or responsive web design. ✔ This system is mobile friendly at my institution ✖ This system is not mobile friendly at my institution

49. 49 Methodology

50. 50 Methodology, 1 of 3 EDUCAUSE invites more than 3,500 institutions to contribute their data to the Core Data Service each year. Invitees include EDUCAUSE member institutions plus nonmember institutions with a record of interaction with EDUCAUSE. Any nonmember institution may request to be added to the CDS sample. Response by Year The CDS 2014 survey collected data about FY2013/14 and was conducted from July 2014 to December 2014. This was the 12th CDS survey. Since 2002, survey participation has ranged from 641 to 1,023 institutions. CDS SurveyYear of Data CollectionFiscal Year Data Number of Participating Institutions CDS 20022003FY2001/02–FY2002/03641 CDS 20032004FY2002/03–FY2003/04840 CDS 20042005FY2003/04–FY2004/05921 CDS 20052006FY2004/05–FY2005/06957 CDS 20062007FY2005/06–FY2006/07962 CDS 20072008FY2006/07–FY2007/081,023 CDS 20082009FY2007/08–FY2008/09954 CDS 20092010FY2008/09–FY2009/10917 CDS 20112011FY2009/10–FY2010/11826 CDS 20122012FY2010/11–FY2011/12787 CDS 20132013FY2012/13798 CDS 20142014FY2013/14828

51. 51 Methodology, 2 of 3 Response by Carnegie Classification As in prior years, survey response across Carnegie Classification was highly variable in CDS 2014. Due to differences in population sizes across institutional types, the number of participating institutions for a particular type of institution may be deceiving. For example, only 62 private doctoral institutions participated in CDS 2014; however, this accounts for 57% of private doctoral institutions that were invited to complete CDS 2014. In contrast, 131 community colleges participated in CDS 2014, but this accounts for only 12% of community colleges that were invited to participate in CDS 2014. International participation spanned 17 countries. Carnegie ClassificationParticipating InstitutionsResponse Rate AA13112% BA16727% MA private11532% MA public11142% DR private6257% DR public13477% Other U.S.5913% International4913%

52. 52 Methodology, 3 of 3 Response by Module The CDS survey is divided into eight modules. CDS survey participation status is based on the completion of the required Module 1: IT Organization, Staffing, and Financing. The remaining seven modules in the survey are optional and cover details about service delivery in the IT domain areas. Some of the optional modules ask about services run at most institutions (e.g., communications infrastructure), while others ask about services run at some institutions (e.g., research computing); thus, response to optional modules varies. CDS 2014 ModuleParticipating Institutions M1: IT Organization, Staffing, and Financing828 M2: IT Support Services643 M3: Educational Technology Services574 M4: Research Computing Services403 M5: Data Centers552 M6: Communications Infrastructure Services550 M7: Information Security545 M8: Information Systems and Applications560