1. A Bit of History--and Governance Structures at Peer Institutions Research CI Governance Task Force 23 June 2014

2. Academic Rankings of World Universities Source: www.shanghairankings.com Institution200320122013 Cornell1213 Wisconsin2719 Michigan212223 UIUC4525 UMN3729 Northwestern2930 UMD7538 Penn State404954 Purdue805657 Ohio State8165 MI State879692 Iowa90--

3. Background We received a charge on May 28, 2013 from VP F&B David Gray and Interim Provost Rob Pangborn to examine institutional IT metrics and governance structures at peer institutions and develop recommendations for consideration at Penn State. Benchmark data from EDUCAUSE was analyzed for funding, staffing, and organizational structures at 14 peer institutions (Big 10 schools plus Cornell and UC Davis), along with detailed information on governance models from the similarly sized and relevant PSU peers Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (MMW). EDUCAUSE is an imperfect source in a number of ways, but reportedly the best available. Penn State reports only central IT funding, which suggests that the high level of spending in comparative terms may considerably understate our total outlay on IT: Goldstein’s findings put the figure at $248m. We do not believe, however, that particulars of funding significantly impact the governance recommendations.

4. Staffing Metrics – FTE by Function Institution Administration Central: Project Mgmnt Central: IT policy Support: Help desk Support: Desktop Educ. Technology Res. technology Data Center Comm - Network Comm - Telephony IT security ERP ID Mgmnt. Web support Other Total Central IT Penn State62103746858215882013927924562 University of Michigan4615213362401574141812211294665 University of Minnesota2600107823011350131027807383 University of Wisconsin45022457 050591120121442060568 Indiana University49011407935471393205142496.590 Michigan State University297617471300252611616523146511 Purdue University23 012486963816231610783170508 Rutgers10004513913355551426240267 The Ohio State University1641514500910281592650.345 The University of Iowa94017132631037465340910239 University of Maryland17122152634119342283346129290 University of Nebraska19107241201022546195.134 Cornell University312215242704934687425119326 Univ. California - Davis271802292801223281004070224 Penn State62103746858215882013927924562 G4 Median45012462230155911181217897568 Big10+ Median2641174734013341110924496.5345 G4 Avg.3951122662802556817115781024539 Big10+ Avg.2719220404192040131179501011388

5. Central IT Receives Input From? – Big Ten + (Tabular Format, 1 = input, 0 = not) Institution Trustees President's cabinet ERP cmte. Educ. tech. cmte. Res. comp. cmte. IT operations cmte. IT services cmte. Faculty advisory cmte. Stud.advisory cmte. System/district office Component campuses State agency Other Not app Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey00000000000001 The Pennsylvania State University01000001101000 University of Minnesota01100011100000 Purdue University11100011100010 University of Nebraska − Lincoln01100011100010 The University of Iowa00110011100000 University of Maryland01111111110110 University of California, Davis01111111110000 University of Wisconsin−Madison01110011110010 The Ohio State University11111011100110 University of Michigan−Ann Arbor01111110000010 Michigan State University01111010000000 Indiana University00111001000000 Cornell University01111101100000

6. Key Findings Penn State spends more on IT than its peers. – Overall funding for central IT @ PSU is considerably higher than at our peers on an absolute (PSU $114m; MMW $90m; Big10+ $59m) and per FTE basis (PSU is 15-35% higher than peer groups) – PSU spends significantly more on non-compensation expenses than our peers (PSU $48m; MMW $29m; Big10 $22m), with an unusually large allocation for facilities and utilities costs ($28m; MMW $1m). Penn State spends significantly less on compensation for staff than its peers. Penn State appears to have more centralized IT functions than almost all peers. – PSU is one of very few institutions that places research IT staff within central IT. [Note June 2014: RCC has now moved.] PSU’s governance structures differ considerably from those of most peers. – IT @ PSU seeks input from fewer stakeholder committees than its peers and with fewer direct or dotted reporting lines from CIO office to senior executive leadership.

7. Executive Summary (Governance) New governance models from Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (who have recently rethought organization and governance) share several features – They appear stakeholder (customer) driven and are often led by faculty for academic domains and business administrators for finance and business domains. – There is a focus on setting strategic priorities, making the business / mission alignment case for approving new initiatives and continuing current practices, and mechanisms for ensuring accountability. – They appear broadly representative and include formal and informal input mechanisms from communities of practice. – They have clearly defined executive leadership oversight from outside of IT. Penn State’s communities of practice (faculty, researchers, educators) appear to provide little or no significant input into IT oversight and governance. – This is consistent with the findings of the research IT subcommittee.

8. Michigan

9. Michigan - Faculty Driven Governance Patient Care UNIVERSITY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL Information & Technology Services Unit IT Steering Committee Medical Ctr. Information Technology University IT Executive Committee Teaching & Learning Knowledge Research AdministrationInformation & Infrastructure Assurance Deans, Faculty & Students Faculty Chair Additional Faculty Members

10. IT Governance at Univ. Minnesota ACIOs Synthesize Demand Chancellors, Deans, VPs IT Executive Oversight General User Community -Student Groups -Surveys -Technology Trends -Etc. Technical Community -AITC -Net-People -Code-People -Etc. OIT-Charged Technical Groups -ATAC -EPG -Formal CoPs University Governance -Dean’s Council -SCIT -FCC -Etc. The Budget 5 President Chancellors, Deans, VPs Local IT Directors IT Buyers Committee IT Exec Oversight Input Decision Process Funding Execution/Implementation Vice President Information Tech. IT Service Owners Associate CIO IT Leadership Community (ITLCoP) IT Leadership Community Other Formal Communities of Practice Other Informal Communities of Practice... Service Portfolio 1.Project A 2.Project B 3.Project C 4.Etc. Service Portfolio 1.Project A 2.Project B 3.Project C 4.Etc. Service Portfolio 1.Project A 2.Project B 3.Project C 4.Etc.

11. Wisconsin – Faculty Governance Strong culture of faculty governance. Strategic priorities set and budget oversight by faculty-led Information Technology Committee that consists of eight faculty, three students, as well as non-voting representation from various stakeholders appointed by the provost, and the CIO in an ex- officio capacity. Research computing is led by a separate faculty committee with shared administrative oversight by Provost, VCR and CIO.

12. Wisconsin – Governance MEMBERSHIP. The Information Technology Committee shall consist of the following members: – Eight faculty members, two from each faculty division, appointed for terms of four years. – Three academic staff members. No member of the Division of Information Technology staff may serve as a voting member of the committee. – Three students, at least one of whom shall be an undergraduate student and at least one a graduate student, to serve one-year terms. – Director of the Division of Information Technology, ex officio nonvoting. – One nonvoting member representing the director of the University General Library System, two nonvoting members representing the vice chancellor for administration, one nonvoting member representing the provost, and one nonvoting member representing the vice chancellor for student affairs. These members shall be appointed by the provost. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

13. Wisconsin – IT Governance FUNCTIONS. The Information Technology Committee is the faculty advisory body for policy and planning for information technology throughout the university. In performing its functions, it shall consult with such groups and individuals as it feels may be able to provide valuable advice. It may request such reports on budgets, personnel policies, and other topics as are necessary for it to make informed judgments and recommendations. It shall establish such subcommittees as are necessary to carry out its functions. – Reviews and makes recommendations on strategic planning for the university’s information technology resources. – Reviews the performance of information technology facilities and services in supporting and assisting scholarly activities. – Receives reports from and provides general direction to committees formed to address specific information technology issues. – Monitors technical developments. – Consults with and advises appropriate administrative officers on budget and resource allocation matters including charges and funding sources for information technology services. – Receives recommendations from departments, deans, and the Division of Information Technology regarding the establishment, abolition or merger of information technology services and facilities supported by university funds, and makes recommendations regarding these actions to the appropriate administrative officers. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

14. Recommendations in Principle Build on current recommendations in Goldstein report by adopting best practices from peer institutions to suit the particular needs and culture at Penn State. Seek dynamic and inclusive governance. Structures that work at other institutions are those that are aligned with the missions of the University and that get significant input from stakeholder/customer groups. The ability to be forward-looking and get more return on investment depends on community involvement and optimization. Draft recommendation – Align governance structures with academic and business missions of the University, and communities of practice in research, teaching, and business/enterprise. – Build a culture of inclusiveness and transparent governance through use of a mix of the domain steward and matrix models in place at our closest peer institutions.