Dialogue: Does the Cornell Policy Process Play in Peoria? David Stack, Ph.D. Deputy CIO University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Merri Beth Lavagnino, M.L.S., CIPP Chief Information Policy Officer Indiana University Lisa Trubitt Assistant to the CIO for Policy & Communications University at Albany, SUNY EDUCAUSE 2007, Seattle, WA

Copyright Merri Beth Lavagnino, Lisa Trubitt and the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors.

In the beginning… Cornell University Policy Development Forum 2006

Cornell Policy Process Elements All Policies, not just IT policies Responsible Executive proposes policy Impact Statement precedes drafting Template for interacting with stakeholders Policy Office shepherds the process Policy Advisory Group approves drafts Exec. Review Committee approves final

How Do We Shape Up? All PoliciesNo Responsible ExecutiveNoYesNo Impact StatementSort ofNo TemplateYes No Policy OfficeNoYesNo Policy Advisory GroupYesSort ofNo Executive Committee?Sort ofNo

The process used at Indiana University is based on the Policy Development Process With Best Practices issued by the Association of College and University Policy Administrators[1] 1)Identification of policy needs (primarily through monitoring legislative and technology developments, institutional experience, and evaluation of policy suggestions from the university community). 2)Drafting of initial policy language. 3)Distribution to small group of stakeholders for initial review and input. 4)Editing based on input from step 3. 5)Presentation to large group of stakeholders for review and input. 6)Editing based on input from step 5. 7)Presentation to Vice President for Information Technology, Chancellors, President, and Trustees for approval. 8)Posting and announcing. 9)Educational activities. 10)Maintenance, typically involving review every three years. [1]

UW–Milwaukee Policy Process University Committee Faculty Senate IT Policy Committee

UW–Milwaukee Policy Process What it can feel like to the office that proposes a new policy

Q: Who is responsible for policy, especially IT policy? Ad hoc, but a “Policy on Policies” is is awaiting chancellor approval Trustee Resolution put VP for IT in charge of IT policy Divisions assume responsibility for their own policies

Q: Policy sponsorship from the top or selling from the bottom? Even with a champion, it morphs into “selling up” In practice, usually from the top Sponsorship from the top is more common

Q: Begin with a full draft or an abstract? Full draft What’s an abstract? ;) Either is possible; full drafts more common

Q: How are policies approved? By Faculty Senate, but many opportunities for “veto” on the way VPIT “approves” but we find the word “endorse” to be very useful... Upon PRB recommendation, CIO takes to President for final approval

Q: What is the role of shared governance in policy process? Faculty Senate, University Cmmte, Academic Staff Cmmte, IT Policy Cmmte (to name a few) Many stakeholders, but Faculty Council Technology Cmmte is VIP! Numerous stakeholders inform PRB’s recommendation

Q: Do IT policies follow the same process as other policies? So far as we know… No

Contact Information Lisa Trubitt Merri Beth Lavagnino David Stack