Top Navigation

Side Navigation

IT Strategic Plan and IT Governance

Feedback and Comments on the IT Governance Proposal

Provide feedback

Comments were requested through September 5, 2013.  This cutoff date allows time for final editing and approval before the documents are submitted for inclusion with materials that go to the Board of Trustees prior to their October 11 meeting.  The backdating is as follows: 

  • October 11: Board of Trustees Meeting
  • September 11: Final version is submitted before noon for inclusion in packet of information that is sent to the Board of Trustees prior to their meeting
  • September 9: IT Strategic Plan is submitted to the President for his final approval
  • September 5: Final comments due by close of business 

Return to review the IT Strategic Plan and IT Governance documents.

What students, faculty and staff are saying about the IT Governance Proposal

I strongly support the recommendation of the UTAG subcommittee regarding the ownership of the IT Governance Process: "if the University hired a CIO, then that individual should be utilized and held accountable as reflected in governance. Therefore, the CIO should own the IT Governance process and have the appropriate authority, responsibility, and budget to do his/her job." I am not a supporter of the President's Leadership Team owning this process, a concern that was also raised at the open forum sessions held in late August 2013.

Posted September 5, 2013


1. There is no entry point in the proposed governance structure for IT proposals that are driven by/would enable research activities. CIT recommends that research along with education be the responsibility of the Education Alliance. To better reflect its responsibilities, CIT recommends that this alliance be called Scholarly Alliance.

2. CIT fully supports the Faculty Senate Chair recommendation: “Assure that the faculty members in the Education” (Scholarly ) “Alliance are the majority of voting members. With that in mind, make the Registrar an ex-officio (non-voting).” Without this, it may be the case that there is no faculty representative on the Executive committee which CIT finds counterproductive to the governance process. The idea is the chair of the Education (Scholarly) Alliance to be a faculty member, who will then carry on as a member of the Executive Committee.

3. Add three faculty members to each of the Administration and Marketing/External Alliances. Thus, there will be an equal number of faculty and student representation on these alliances. This is needed because the Faculty, as well as students, are stakeholders in the processes which will be overseen by these alliances.

4. The faculty members in each alliance should come from the CIT, thus ensuring smooth communication with the Faculty Senate and the faculty body as a whole. CIT has 12 members, of which 5 can serve on the Education (Scholarly) Alliance, 3 on the Administration, and 3 on the Marketing/External Alliance.

5. CIT would like to see a mechanism in place which will ensure that the members of the alliances will have strong interest or knowledge of IT. In view of item 4 above, we need to work closely with the Faculty Senate to ensure that the members of the CIT have such interest/knowledge. However, for the rest of the Alliances members, a mechanism has to be established by another governing body. CIT would like to see that addressed in the revised governance proposal.

6. In the current governance proposal there is an imbalance between the faculty/administration representation, with practically no faculty representation at the level of decision makers. To partially remediate that and ensure proper communication in the decision making process CIT recommends a Faculty Senate designee serve on all three bodies: CIT, IT Executive Committee, and IT Governance Council.

7. In terms of proposal flow through the IT governance structure, CIT recommends to make the status of proposals and accompanying comments known to the campus community at each stage of discussion/approval, i.e. ensure a transparent process while proposals are in the pipeline.

8. “Tech Reps” are currently listed as Advisory members of the Education (Scholarly) Alliance. CIT notes that according to the current practice it is not clear in all cases who carries out the role of “Tech Reps” within the various colleges.

9. Overall, more clarification is needed as to the mechanism according to which members at all levels of the governance structure will be chosen.

10. While the current proposal allows for a student ex officio member of the IT Governance Council when discussions affect the student body, any such provision is lacking when discussions affect faculty (which practically would always be the case). Therefore, CIT recommends item 6 above, or the inclusion of a similar mechanism for faculty representation at all levels of the decision making process.

Posted September 5, 2013


Decentralized IT Governance and Policy in Higher Education
Donald A. Krueger, The Ohio State University
Educause Center for Applied Research
Volume 2009, Issue 5
March 10, 2009
http://confluence.ltc.arizona.edu/confluence/download/attachments/2461798/decentralized_it_governance.pdf

"...integration of IT governance and policy across the enterprise is critical to the future of higher education institutions."

Posted September 3, 2013


In the third item in the list of criteria for vetting through the IT governance process (bottom of page 5), change the word "interfaces" to "integrates." A common PC "interfaces" with existing systems, but the IT governance process isn't designed to vet such minor initiatives; the word "integrates" increases the threshold to include only more "substantial" initiatives.

Posted August 29, 2013