March 2003
Volume 18
Number 12
Campus Partnerships for IT
Partnership means the harmonious combination of allies who are not likely to succeed by themselves. Colleges and universities have learned that information technology requires partnership, but does the organizational structure for IT on campus do what it needs to promote unity and cooperation? This is not primarily about organizational charts. Most institutions have, on paper, a schema that might work under some circumstances. There are better and worse forms of organization – and the better ones do promote better governance, but key elements of the real framework affecting IT do not show up in the usual org chart.
Divisions of administrative responsibility were settled long before IT, the new player, arrived on the scene. So, too, were faculty roles in governance and advisement in administration. For many years it was not clear that IT would be any more than just a specialized activity, limited in scope to data processing in support of some forms of records-keeping and, symmetrically, to number-crunching in support of some work in some academic disciplines. Now, of course, computers and networks are ubiquitous, the entire campus community the clientele, and expectations still very much on the rise.
Only more recently has the wider importance of information technology become clear and accepted. The transition from marginal to universal is incomplete; not all the consequences of IT’s big role on campus have been recognized and addressed. Where the adjustment has been difficult, people tend to focus their concerns on the IT organization, its relations with those it serves, and sometimes where the CIO fits in the institution’s top governance structure. But there are other factors influencing partnership for IT. Some of these considerations have to do with the qualities needed for good partnership among the obvious participants. Others involve a closer look at the contributions needed from groups whose roles are more peripheral and, unfortunately taken less seriously by all concerned.
The IT shop
The information technology management group is the only entity on
campus that thinks about IT all the time – 365 days a year. It knows
more about what happens in this field of activity on campus than any other
organization. But translating these advantages into a strong basis for
partnership is not easy.
As extensive as that collection of knowledge might be, it often seems to be not as complete, accurate, and up-to-date as it needs to be. Blind spots develop. For example, the average IT shop knows little about what the Computer Science department is doing, what their strengths and weaknesses are, how well they are equipped to meet their needs, and what they might contribute to the IT picture on campus. In fact, IT and CS typically maintain at best an uneasy truce – an agreement that they are not partners and need to steer clear of each other – and at worst are open adversaries and competitors for resources.
But on a lesser scale, the IT group’s intelligence about the needs and capabilities of many of its constituents is often not as good as it needs to be in order to speak authoritatively about the state of IT on campus. When this lack becomes visible to others in institutional governance, such as when there is a marked disagreement between the IT department and the user department about whether the users are being "well served," the IT organization’s influence and leadership is weakened.
Complacency is the insidious problem that does more than anything else to undermine the IT organization’s abilities as a partner. It is too easy to make blanket assumptions that are not true, especially if those assumptions reflect the IT department in a positive light. A low volume of calls to the help desk, for example, cannot be taken at face value as a sign that user problems are few and service is good. Poor service leads to fewer calls also (why bother to call if my question will never get answered?); knowing the difference is crucial.
An IT organization that thinks it is doing a good job but in reality has a poor reputation for service severely undermines its own ability to be taken seriously as a partner in the bigger picture for IT. And the more widespread that reputation is on campus, the greater the challenge.
Conversely, having a really good read of how everyone is faring in IT is the bedrock of good credibility. And, as long as that knowledge is used honestly and openly, it is one of the best bases for partnership.
In a similar way, the unity of the IT organization is very important to cultivate. Dissension within the staff is always much more visible and disconcerting to the campus community than the organization imagines. While individuals will inevitably hold different opinions, a staff that gives out conflicting information, seems to be working towards different goals – or just is not well-informed and united in what they are doing – breeds mistrust.
The IT shop has to earn its credibility as a partner every day. It is simply not enough for it to assume that because it is charged with the widest role in support that it will receive the respect it needs to work with everyone cooperatively.
Senior administration
On the other hand, being designated as the authority over IT matters
does not guarantee a senior administrator all the necessary capital for
partnership in IT governance. An important issue is whether the officer
and office to which IT reports have the interest, experience, time, and
patience to play a strong role. Very little in the career experience of
those who hold senior administrative positions prepares them for IT
oversight.
Contrary to common wisdom on campuses, innate interest or skill in technology is probably not the key characteristic in the administrator to whom the CIO reports. There are, naturally, extremes. Those who assume the CIO is really the top person who has to understand technology just do not have the interest needed to be a partner in IT leadership. And, those who fancy themselves amateur CIOs and cannot resist micro-managing IT soon wear out their own effectiveness.
Senior administrators who ensure a good hearing for IT needs and advocate effectively for them at the table where the big decisions are made are the best partners for IT interests. This is the typical view of the CIO, and it is not wrong.
Executive skills
But there are some more subtle qualities that are just as important.
Every executive-level administrator spends a lot of time hearing and
sorting out conflicting calls for time, attention, and resources. Being
able to challenge weak cases, send lone operators back to find allies, and
put the best cases on a fast track for action are the qualities that
separate the best administrators from the rest. The skill to sort and
reduce the competition for resources is especially valuable in IT
governance because expectations run high and insight into the real costs
are rare: everyone wants more IT capability, but few have any notion of
the real costs of what they are asking for.
A good executive also knows enough to make as few independent decisions as possible. Everything that can be decided by an administrator or group closer to the issue at hand is better handled at that lower level of organization. Having the self-discipline to avoid making others’ decisions for them is an invaluable way of conserving the political capital that is better saved for a few tough decisions that nobody else is going to make.
So, paradoxically, the best practices for senior administrators to whom IT reports consist often of filtering and channeling petitioner’s requests and prompting other administrators to make key decisions. The strength of the executive position depends largely on staying out of quagmires and making sure others are doing their jobs. The best senior partner is one who will be there when nobody else’s power and influence will suffice, but being there often means staying out of unnecessary business so as to conserve political capital.
Committees
Here, too, the popular wisdom is mostly wrong. Committees are not
evil; they embody the values of consultation and collegiality that are
culturally required in academic governance. And, there are not usually too
many committees when it comes to IT matters; more likely they are too few,
and some of them have the wrong members.
IT oversight and advisory committees typically have too broad a charter to be effective. They often suffer from a weak agenda and a lack of focus with an appropriate sense of urgency. Their unspoken charge is, "keep an eye on the IT crowd." The missing directive is, "help clarify and articulate what we need to happen in IT." The general-purpose advisory committee with mixed administrative and faculty membership just cannot do justice to the list of matters that need to be deliberated. Multiple committees with better-delineated agendas might be more able to serve as IT partners.
Having more committees would also solve some long-running complaints about membership. More specialized groups would lead to the appointment (or election) of people with a good match of interest and skills. The general committees tend to draw the "usual suspects," the same people all the time, because their peers defer to them as the experts. More committees and membership slots would break the pattern of sending out the same representatives all the time.
Project groups
The ad hoc project-oriented group is one of the more problematic
partners. If the project arises within the IT organization or the
committees, it should be able to fit into the structure of partnerships
fairly well. The more challenging situation comes when the projects are
outside those groups. For example, one-card systems got started on many
campuses without the involvement of anyone in the IT line of organization
or governance.
On the academic side of the house, grant-funded projects typically get developed under the authority of the dean or provost – and that executive might not think (or choose) to include the IT organization in the partnership. There is a natural tendency to not build wide partnerships when grant-seeking, simply for fear that every partner will expect a share of the money and so dilute the value of the grant. But experience has shown that failure to build partnerships around grant projects often leads to bickering later about who should be lending support and is not.
For faculty, grant funding is one of very few opportunities to bring new funding to their activities and govern their own project. As a consequence, they tend to steer clear of standing committees, "unnecessary" administrators, and the IT organization – all of which seem a threat to the cherished autonomy supplied by the grant and, in the university setting, all of which will be looking for a share of the funding in their efforts to recover costs.
A general, a priori policy on how project groups should work in partnership with the IT organization (and other potential partners) might go a long way towards reducing the reluctance of these groups to work cooperatively. A reserve of funding to set incentives for project groups that work with standing governance committees would also help curb the bad effects of go-it-alone entrepreneurship and create partners instead.
Peer units
Organizational charts give no hint about the potential for
partnerships among administrative units that are peers of the IT
organization. Among these peers are: the library, physical plant, dean of
students offices, and the various centers of IT support and expertise that
can be found in some academic departments and administrative offices.
Generally, how well these partnerships are developed is left to the initiative of personnel, and often at the mid-staff level. Rarely are expectations for relations among these various groups set out explicitly, much less written into their mission statements or planning documents. IT organizations have learned the necessity of forging partnerships with peer units but seldom invest much thought, planning, or resources into ensuring that they happen and become permanent.
Beyond operating-level coordination is an opportunity to form a united front for strategy, planning, and advocacy.
A better org chart
A chart of partnerships might be an enlightened alternative to the
standard organizational chart. It would look more like a process-flow
diagram, rather than a simple accounting of authority and responsibility.
The very exercise of drawing it would document important relationships
already in place and would prompt thinking about how to form still more. TW
The Edutech Report is a monthly publication of Magna Publications
The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by Magna Publications www.magnapubs.com, 2718 Dryden Drive, Madison, WI 53704; 800-433-0499. President: William Haight whaight@magnapubs.com; Publisher: David Burns dburns@magnapubs.com; Managing internal editor: Rob Kelly robkelly@magnapubs.com. Content provided by contributing editors Linda Fleit lfleit@edutech-int.com and Thomas Warger twarger@edutech-int.com. Subscription Customer Service custserv@magnapubs.com. Copyright 2004. All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for specific clients is granted by Magna Publications for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that 50 cents per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 09123. Phone: 978-750-8400; www.copyright.com. For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. One-year subscriptions: $199. Discounts available for multiple subscriptions.