Documents Contributed by ECAR, IT Governance, and Planning

This ECAR case study complements the 2008 ECAR study, Process and Politics: IT Governance in Higher Education, by Ronald Yanosky with Jack McCredie. ECAR undertook this case study of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) to demonstrate how the underlying elements of a mature governance process facilitate the strategic development of information technology (IT) services. QUT has carried on a sustained program of IT governance development for almost a decade, in order to create a mature set of institutional supports, a layered advisory and decision-making structure that feeds innovation, and a network of involved governance participants, with the ultimate goal of developing a set of optimal IT services for the university. Characterized as "relationships underpinned by light-weight process frameworks in order to extract value from technology tools," QUT's IT governance structure relies on engaged people who drive the process as well as the project management and financial tools that assist with decision making.

Citation for this work: Pirani, Judith A., and Gail Salaway. "Queensland University of Technology: Three Generations of IT Governance (and Counting)" (Case Study 4). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

This 2008 ECAR research study examines the extent of participation in IT governance by campus leaders and constituents; the use of IT governance mechanisms such as IT steering committees, project review, and performance measurement; and practices associated with good IT governance outcomes. The report is based on a literature review, consultation with practicing CIOs experienced in IT governance, and a web-based survey that was distributed to institutional representatives (mostly senior IT leaders) at 1,648 EDUCAUSE member institutions in June and July 2007. We received 438 responses (a 26.6 percent response rate to the survey). In addition, we received 216 responses from 59 institutions to a quantitative web-based survey for participants in IT governance who work outside of central IT. In addition to reporting the findings from these quantitative tools, this study includes feedback from interviews with 28 senior IT leaders from a mix of institutions. The interviews were designed to gain deeper insights into findings from the quantitative analysis and to capture additional ideas and viewpoints. A corporate edition is available here.

Citation for this work: Yanosky, Ronald, with Jack McCredie. Process and Politics: IT Governance in Higher Education (Research Study 5). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar .

This 2008 ECAR research study examines the extent of participation in IT governance by campus leaders and constituents; the use of IT governance mechanisms such as IT steering committees, project review, and performance measurement; and practices associated with good IT governance outcomes. The report is based on a literature review, consultation with practicing CIOs experienced in IT governance, and a web-based survey that was distributed to institutional representatives (mostly senior IT leaders) at 1,648 EDUCAUSE member institutions in June and July 2007. We received 438 responses (a 26.6 percent response rate to the survey). In addition, we received 216 responses from 59 institutions to a quantitative web-based survey for participants in IT governance who work outside of central IT. In addition to reporting the findings from these quantitative tools, this study includes feedback from interviews with 28 senior IT leaders from a mix of institutions. The interviews were designed to gain deeper insights into findings from the quantitative analysis and to capture additional ideas and viewpoints. A non-profit edition is available here.

Citation for this work: Yanosky, Ronald, with Jack McCredie. Process and Politics: IT Governance in Higher Education (Research Study 5). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar .

This ECAR roadmap synthesizes the important issues and recommended actions drawn from the 2008 ECAR research study, Process and Politics: IT Governance in Higher Education, byRonald Yanosky with John W. McCredie. The research study examines the extent of participation in IT governance by campus leaders and constituents; the use of IT governance mechanisms such as IT steering committees, project review, and performance measurement; and practices associated with good IT governance outcomes. The report is based on a literature review, consultation with practicing CIOs experienced in IT governance, and a web-based survey that was distributed to institutional representatives (mostly senior IT leaders) at 1,648 EDUCAUSE member institutions in June and July 2007. We received 438 responses (a 26.6 percent response rate to the survey). In addition, we received 216 responses from 59 institutions to a quantitative web-based survey for participants in IT governance who work outside of central IT. In addition to reporting the findings from these quantitative tools, this study includes feedback from interviews with 28 senior IT leaders from a mix of institutions. The interviews were designed to gain deeper insights into findings from the quantitative analysis and to capture additional ideas and viewpoints.

Citation for this work: Pirani, Judith A., and Ronald Yanosky, “Process and Politics: IT Governance in Higher Education Roadmap” (Roadmap). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2005, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

This document presents the key findings of the ECAR study,Process and Politics: IT Governance in Higher Education.This 2008 ECAR research study examines the extent of participation in IT governance by campus leaders and constituents; the use of IT governance mechanisms such as IT steering committees, project review, and performance measurement; and practices associated with good IT governance outcomes. The report is based on a literature review, consultation with practicing CIOs experienced in IT governance, and a web-based survey that was distributed to institutional representatives (mostly senior IT leaders) at 1,648 EDUCAUSE member institutions in June and July 2007. We received 438 responses (a 26.6 percent response rate to the survey). In addition, we received 216 responses from 59 institutions to a quantitative web-based survey for participants in IT governance who work outside of central IT. In addition to reporting the findings from these quantitative tools, this study includes feedback from interviews with 28 senior IT leaders from a mix of institutions. The interviews were designed to gain deeper insights into findings from the quantitative analysis and to capture additional ideas and viewpoints.

Citation for this work: Caruso, Judith Borreson, and Ronald Yanosky. “Process and Politics: IT Governance in Higher Education” (Key Findings). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

Presentation at the December 2005 ECAR Symposium in Carefree, Arizona. This presentation identifies a set of principles covering information technology governance, architecture, and procurement (GAP) and advances the view that these principles could and should be adopted by higher education in order to deliver efficiency and opportunity for higher education IT organizations and reduce the failure of IT projects.

This case study explores how the University of Cincinnati has developed a governance structure that allows the IT organization to align priorities and function as a cohesive element across the institution. Governance includes participation from all major university constituencies, including members of the president's cabinet. Four working committees represent academic, administrative, and infrastructure IT issues, and an executive IT steering committee ensures the structure's validity and stature. The University of Cincinnati has also developed a sustainable governance process for prioritizing and funding enterprise level campus IT investments in a highly decentralized research university environment.