2014 cds benchmarking report (261999448)

2014 CDS Benchmarking Report

2

Table of Contents

Section Slide(s)

Introduction 3–10

About CDS 3

About the 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report 4

Customizing 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report Graphs, in Five Steps 5–6

Introduction to Benchmarking 7

Steps for a Successful Benchmarking Assessment 8

Identify Your Goals 9

Summary of the Landscape 10

IT Financials 11–21

IT Staffing 22–31

IT Services 32–48

Methodology 49–52

3

About CDS

Since 2002, the EDUCAUSE Core Data Service (CDS) has been providing higher education CIOs and senior IT leaders with the benchmarks they need to make strategic decisions about IT at their institutions. On average, more than 800 institutions (both within and outside the United States) participate in a survey about IT financials, staffing, and services. Survey participants are rewarded for their time and effort with access to CDS Reporting, a self-service tool that enables institutions to benchmark their IT organizations against those of their peers. In addition to gaining access to CDS Reporting, institutions also participate in CDS for the following reasons:

To study their IT organization To benchmark against past performance To look at trends over time* To start gathering and using metrics To have data available “just in case”

* The number of years available for trend data varies throughout the CDS dataset. For example, CDS data on funding can be tracked from 2002 to present, whereas CDS data on expenditures can be tracked for FY2012/13 and FY2013/14.

4

About the 2014 CDS Benchmarking ReportTraditionally, the CDS annual report has summarized the state of higher education IT; however, the strength of CDS data are shown through their benchmarking capability. To serve both purposes, the 2014 CDS annual report has been refactored as a Benchmarking Report to summarize key findings from the CDS 2014 survey, provide a glimpse into the breadth of CDS data, and ultimately provide you with an opportunity to conduct your own benchmarking assessment. The customizable graphs contained within this report are meant to be used to assess your IT operation compared to that at peer institutions of similar size, control, or Carnegie Classification.

As you consider the metrics and benchmarks contained within this report in relation to your institution, findings that differ from your experience should inspire questions, not answers. When questions do arise, CDS Reporting can facilitate further investigation (if your institution participated in CDS 2014). If your institution did not participate, consider adding your data to the next CDS survey, launching in July 2015.

The CDS 2014 survey concluded with 828 participants. The metrics discussed in this report focus primarily on FY2013/14 central IT financials, staffing, and services from 720 nonspecialized U.S. institutions. Metrics are calculated for each of six Carnegie Classification groupings using the 2010 classification system (AA, BA, MA private, MA public, DR private, and DR public). These groupings provide the most granular breakdown by institutional type possible (given available sample sizes) and should provide suitable comparison groups for most institution types and sizes within the United States.

Fifty-nine specialized U.S. institutions and 49 non-U.S. institutions from 17 countries participated in this year’s survey; however, small sample sizes from each of these groups preclude meaningful aggregate analysis. If your institution is a specialized U.S. institution or a non-U.S. institution, this report may be used to compare your institution to institutions in a similar Carnegie Classification or to the metric calculated for All (non-specialized) U.S. institutions. A list of CDS 2014 participants can be found on the CDS website.

The metrics in this report evaluate central IT only. Central IT funding, expenditure, and staffing data are only one component of the full IT resource picture at institutions with significant distributed IT resources. Data on distributed resources, however, remain elusive. A year-over-year analysis of the CDS data collected about distributed IT resources revealed low data reliability, an indication that current methods for gathering these data are ineffective. For this reason data on distributed IT resources have been excluded from this report but can be found in CDS Reporting. Efforts are under way to improve the quality of these data for future years.

http://www.educause.edu/coredata

http://www.educause.edu/coredata

5

Customizing 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report Graphs, in Five Steps

1. Review the slide notes for background on why each metric is important and to identify the origin of each metric.

2. Use the CDS 2014 survey and IPEDS* data to calculate values for your institution.

3. Right-click on the slide graph and select “Edit Data…” in the pop-up menu.

* IPEDS data are used to normalize metrics in CDS based on institutional size and budget. More information about IPEDS data is available online.

https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/CDS2014_allmodulesfinal.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

6

Customizing 2014 CDS Benchmarking Report Graphs, in Five Steps (cont’d)

4. Enter data for your institution where indicated in the Excel spreadsheet.

5. Check to make sure data for “My Institution” is now visible.

7

Introduction to BenchmarkingToday’s institution must run efficiently and effectively. Having a clear understanding of your organization’s financial, staffing, and operational status is critical to making informed decisions and optimizing the impact of IT; having the same information about your peers and aspirant peers is even better.

You can: With CDS benchmarking data on:

Make the case for additional resources by comparing resource allocations to those of peers or estimating the level of investment required to achieve a certain output or service level.

• Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs• Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and

staff)

Make the case for organizational structure or governance by uncovering best practices for IT leader reporting structures, IT governance structures, or distributed IT service delivery models.

• CIO reporting line• IT governance maturity• Organizational units responsible for more than 100 IT functions

Calibrate your performance against best practices and “best in class” institutions that have set the bar for your institution.

• CDS participants have the ability to customize benchmarking assessments by selecting specific peer institutions with which to compare.

Communicate the value of IT by comparing service portfolios and service performance to financial investment.

• Services provided by central IT compared to total IT expenditures and IT expenditures by IT domain area.

Assess the relative maturity of strategic initiatives such as e-learning, student success technologies, and analytics.

• IT maturity for seven IT capabilities, including e-learning, student success technologies, and analytics.

Steps for a Successful Benchmarking Assessment

8

7. Improve.

Explore options for im

proving

upon any or all elements of a

benchmarking effort.

1. Identify your goals.

What are your benchmarking

needs? What is the goal of this exercise?

2. Identify your audience.

Are you gathering data for leadership, users, or

services owners?

4. Evaluate data quality.*

Determine whether data contain errors. Do

the data need to be reformatted or

cleaned?

3. Identify data sources.

Do you have the data you need? Which

groups will you compare against?

5. Develop a plan for reporting.

Are you reporting the data at the right

frequency, in the right formats, and to the

right people?

6. Consider possible

outcomes. Will any action take

place upon reporting the results?

* Evaluating data quality is important even when using CDS data. As you analyze CDS data be sure to evaluate whether the budget and staffing numbers reported are in line with what is expected and please report suspicious data to [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

9

Identify Your GoalsThe first step to a successful benchmarking study is to identify your goals. CDS data can support general benchmarking studies with goals such as “identify best practices” or “communicate the value of IT,” as well as more targeted efforts such as “make the case for additional resources.” For example, the table below provides a view into how certain CDS metrics (all of which are contained in this report) can be used to address the 2015 Top 10 IT Issues.

2015 Top 10 IT Issue Supporting metrics Slide(s)

1 Hiring and Retaining Qualified Staff, and Updating the Knowledge and Skills of Existing Technology Staff

Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE 30–31Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 23–24; 27–29

2

Optimizing the Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning in Collaboration with Academic Leadership, Including Understanding the Appropriate Level of Technology to Use

Most common teaching and learning support services for faculty 36

3 Developing IT Funding Models That Sustain Core Service, Support Innovation, and Facilitate Growth

Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution 17

Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 16

Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 21

4 Improving Student Outcomes through an Institutional Approach That Strategically Leverages Technology Systems most commonly mobile friendly 48

5Demonstrating the Business Value of Information Technology and How Technology and the IT Organization Can Help the Institution Achieve Its Goals

Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) 12–14Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses

6Increasing the IT Organization’s Capacity for Managing Change, Despite Differing Community Needs, Priorities, and Abilities

Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years 47

7 Providing User Support in the New Normal—Mobile, Online Education, Cloud, and BYOD Environments

Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher 34Institutions offering self-service help optionsAccess points that are 802.11n or 802.11ac 41Systems most commonly mobile friendly 48

8 Developing Mobile, Cloud, and Digital Security Policies That Work for Most of the Institutional Community Institutions with mandatory information security training 42

9Developing an Enterprise IT Architecture That Can Respond to Changing Conditions and New Opportunities


10 Balancing Agility, Openness, and Security Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment 43

10

Summary of the LandscapeTo provide a brief, high-level view of the data contained within this report, below are the nonspecialized U.S. metrics for some of the most commonly used CDS benchmarks:

IT Financials $906 Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) 4.2% Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses 54% Central IT compensation spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 34% Central IT noncompensation operating spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 9% Central IT capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending

IT Staffing 7.7 Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 17% Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE $1,076 Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE

IT Services 75% Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher for central IT help desk 18 Student FTEs per lab/cluster workstations provided by central IT 50% Institutions hosting or participating in cross-institutional data center services 23% Access points that are 802.11n 57% Institutions with mandatory information security training for faculty or staff 27% Institutions planning to replace customer relationship management (CRM) systems in the next three

years.

11

IT FinancialsThe first step to strategically funding IT is to identify budget parameters based on type of institution, institutional population, and institutional budget. Then, based on institutional priorities and your current IT environment, determine a spending portfolio that will get you to where you want to be. Breaking the budget down by dollars spent running, growing, and transforming the institution; by each IT domain area; and by capital versus operating work will help you determine the right blend of innovation spending to operating spending for all areas of IT.

The metrics contained in this section can help you address the following questions: What is a practical range for total budget based on my institution type, institutional population, and institutional

budget? (metrics 1–3) Are changes in my budget from the previous fiscal year in line with changes in peer budgets? (metric 4) What is an appropriate distribution of spending for my institution? (metrics 5–8)

Metric Slide(s)

1 Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) vs. Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses 12

2 Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff)Five-year trend 13

3 Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expensesFive-year trend 14

4 Total central IT FY2013/14 spending as a percentage change from FY2012/13 15

5 Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 16

6 Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution 17

7 IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending 18–20

8 Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 21

12

Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) vs. total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses

$0 $906 $1,8120.0%

4.2%

8.4%

Series1DR private

3.7%Series1

DR public3.2%

Series1MA private

4.7%Series1

MA public4.4%

Series1BA

4.4%

Series1AA

5.9%

Series1My institution

0.0%

Median total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) (all nonspecialized U.S. median = $906)

Med

ian

tota

l cen

tral

IT sp

endi

ng a

s a p

erce

ntag

e of

insti

tutio

nal

expe

nses

(all

nons

peci

alize

d U.

S. m

edia

n =

4.2%

)

Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff), five-year trend

RY2009/10 FY2010/11 FY2012/13 FY2013/140

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

My institutionAll nonspecialized U.S.AABAMA publicMA privateDR publicDR private

Fiscal year*

Med

ian

tota

l cen

tral

IT sp

endi

ng p

er in

stitu

tiona

l FTE

(stu

dent

s, fa

culty

, and

staff

)

13 * FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.

14

Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses,five-year trend

RY2009/10 FY2010/11 FY2012/13 FY2013/140

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07


Fiscal year*

Med

ian

tota

l cen

tral

IT sp

endi

ng a

s a p

erce

ntag

e of

insti

tutio

nal

expe

nses

* FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.

15

Total central IT FY2013/14 spending as a percentage change from FY2012/13

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA

All nonspecialized U.S.

My institution

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%

3.4%

1.7%

0.0%

1.6%

0.6%

0.0%

0.3%

0.0%

Median total central IT spending as a percentage change from previous year

16

Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending

CapitalNoncompensation

CompensationCapital

NoncompensationCompensation


CompensationCapital



CompensationCapital



CompensationCapital


DR p

ublic

MA

publ

icAA

My

insti

tutio

n

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

12%25%

59%6%

35%56%

10%35%

51%7%

32%56%

11%32%

54%10%

35%50%

9%34%

54%0%0%0%

Median central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending

17

Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution

TransformGrow

RunTransform

GrowRun

TransformGrow

RunTransform

GrowRun

TransformGrow

RunTransform

GrowRun

TransformGrow

RunTransform

GrowRun

DR p

ublic

MA

publ

icAA

My

insti

tutio

n

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

7%13%

80%6%

13%80%

9%16%

77%7%

11%79%

5%12%

80%5%

15%79%

6%13%

79%0%0%0%

Median percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution

18

IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

IT su

ppor

t ser

vice

sIn

form

ation

syst

ems

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

13%

13%

17%

14%

18%

19%

15%

0%

20%

17%

19%

18%

18%

9%

18%

0%

Median IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending

19


DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

Educ

ation

al te

chno

logy

serv

ices

Com

mun

icati

ons i

nfra

stru

ctur

e

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

9%

10%

10%

11%

11%

11%

10%

0%

13%

23%

12%

11%

13%

7%

13%

0%


20


DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

Info

rmati

on se

curit

yDa

ta c

ente

r

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

2%

3%

1%

2%

1%

1%

2%

0%

5%

4%

4%

4%

2%

5%

4%

0%


21

Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

0% 1% 2% 3% 4%

2%

2%

3%

1%

1%

1%

2%

Median central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending

22

IT StaffingStaffing models are evolving. Hiring and retaining qualified staff, and updating the knowledge and skills of existing technology staff, is the #1 Top 10 IT Issues in 2015. Services are being outsourced, but institutions need staff to manage outsourcing and need more services and bandwidth to support BYOD. Does this mean fewer staff or the same number of staff with different skills? Through this evolution, you’ll want to keep an eye on several benchmarks: ratio of central IT staff to institutional FTE, student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE, percentage of IT staff across IT domain areas, and training spending per IT staff member. Paying attention to how others are staffed and knowing how your peers balance their staff portfolio can help you find the right fit. Knowing what your peers are spending on staff training can help you budget for updating skill sets of existing staff.

The metrics contained in this section can help you address the following questions: What is a practical range for staff size based on my institution type and size? (metrics 1–2) What is the right blend of staff? (metrics 3–5) Do I have the appropriate budget to retrain current staff? (metrics 6–7)

Metric Slide(s)

1 Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 23

2 Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEsFour-year trend 24

3 Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE 25

4 Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTEFour-year trend 26

5 Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 27–29

6 Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE 30

7 Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTEFive-year trend 31

23

Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

9.7

7.1

8.6

7.2

10.3

4.7

7.7

0.0

Median central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs

24

Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs,four-year trend

FY2010/11 FY2011/12 FY2012/13 FY2013/140

2

4

6

8

10

12


Fiscal year

Med

ian

cent

ral I

T FT

Es p

er 1

,000

insti

tutio

nal F

TEs

25

Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My onstitution

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

12%

17%

22%

24%

20%

7%

17%

0%

Median student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE

26

Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE,four-year trend

FY2010/11 FY2011/12 FY2012/13 FY2013/140.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30


Fiscal year

Med

ian

stud

ent w

orke

rs a

s a p

erce

ntag

e of

tota

l cen

tral

IT F

TE

27

Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

Info

rmati

on sy

stem

sIT

supp

ort s

ervi

ces

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

1.8

1.2

1.3

0.9

1.7

0.6

1.2

0.0

2.4

1.5

2.6

2.2

3.4

1.5

2.2

0.0

Median central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs

28


DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

Com

mun

icati

ons i

nfra

stru

ctur

eEd

ucati

onal

tech

nolo

gy se

rvic

es

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

0.9

0.8

0.5

0.5

0.7

0.2

0.6

0.0

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.2

1.2

0.5

1.0

0.0


29


DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

Info

rmati

on se

curit

yDa

ta c

ente

r

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.0


30

Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400

$1,371

$1,095

$1,091

$1,168

$1,190

$620

$1,076

$0

Median central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE

31

Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE,five-year trend

RY2009/10 FY2010/11 FY2012/13 FY2013/14$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600


Fiscal year*

Med

ian

cent

ral I

T tr

aini

ng sp

endi

ng p

er c

entr

al IT

staff

FTE

* FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.

32

IT ServicesIn a changing environment, it is important to know which services are in demand and which are fading in importance; which should stay local and which can be outsourced; and which must have mobile deployment or be accessible via the cloud. It’s important to provide the right services in the most efficient manner. CDS has data that can help you understand how your peers are supporting users in mobile computing, online education, cloud, and BYOD environments. CDS data on faculty support services can help you determine how to help your faculty optimize the use of technology in teaching and learning, and data (including vendor/product, deployment, and management strategy) on 50 different information systems can help you strategize for an enterprise architecture that is right for you.

The metrics contained in this section can help you address the following questions: What services should I provide? How should I provide those services? How can I evaluate service efficiency or effectiveness?

33

IT Domain Area Metric Slide

IT Support Services

Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher for central IT help desk 34

Institutions offering self-service options for central IT help desk services 34

Annual number of tickets per institutional FTE among institutions with a central IT help desk that offers each mode (phone, e-mail, walk-in) 35

Educational Technology ServicesMost common teaching and learning support services 36

Student FTE per shared workstation provided by central IT 37

Data Center

Institutions using commercial data center services 38

Institutions hosting or participating in cross-institutional data center services 38

Institutions using SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS to provide data center services 39

Communications InfrastructureCommunications infrastructure technologies most likely to be deployed soon 40

Access points that are 802.11n or 802.11ac 41

Information SecurityInstitutions with mandatory information security training for faculty, staff, or students 42

Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment 43

Information Systems and Applications

Systems most commonly vendor hosted (IaaS) 44

Systems most commonly vendor managed (PaaS) 45

Systems most commonly vendor managed (SaaS) 46


Systems most commonly mobile friendly 48

IT Services: Benchmarks

34

IT Support Services: Service delivery

DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA

All nonspecialized U.S.My institution

DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


Insti

tutio

ns o

fferin

g tie

r 2/le

vel 2

serv

ice

or h

ighe

r for

cen

tral

IT h

elp

desk

98%97%

80%98%

86%78%

89%

0%82%

78%72%

82%80%

60%75%

0%

Median percentage

35

IT Support Services: Annual number of tickets per institutional FTE, among institutions with a central IT help desk that offers each mode

DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


Wal

k-in

E-m

ail

Phon

e

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

0.30.1

0.20.2

0.3

0.20.0

0.70.3

0.70.4

0.60.4

0.50.0

1.20.9

0.80.9

0.80.90.9

0.0

Median annual number of tickets per institutional FTE among institutions with a central IT help desk that offers each mode

36

Educational Technology Services: Most common teaching and learning support services for faculty

My

institution

All nonspecialized

U.S. AA BA MA public MA private DR public DR privateClassroom technology support for faculty ✔ ✖ 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100%

Faculty individual training in use of educational technology ✔ ✖ 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100%

Learning (course) management training and support for faculty ✔ ✖ 99% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Faculty group training in use of educational technology ✔ ✖ 98% 97% 96% 99% 99% 99% 98%

Online learning technology support for faculty ✔ ✖ 97% 100% 86% 100% 97% 99% 100%

✔ My institution has this service✖ My institution does not have this service

37

Educational Technology Services: Student FTE per shared workstation provided by central IT

DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


DR private *DR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


DR private *DR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


Stud

ent F

TE p

er v

irtua

l lab

/clu

ster

wor

ksta

tion

prov

ided

by

cent

ral I

T

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

147335

181217

76183184

0

19225

1185351

1010

4110

197

14180

Median student FTEs per shared workstation provided by central IT

* Sample sizes for lab/cluster workstations and virtual lab/cluster workstations provided by central IT at DR private institutions were too small to calculate an appropriate benchmark.

38

Data Center: Outsourcing and shared services*

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

Insti

tutio

ns u

sing

com

mer

cial

dat

a ce

nter

serv

ices

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

48%

77%

17%

73%

26%

47%

50%

0%

40%

23%

30%

31%

30%

16%

27%

0%

Median percentage

* For the purpose of this analysis, outsourcing refers to the use of commercial data center services; shared services refers to institutions using hosted services provided by system or state/consortia facility OR providing services to other institutions or consortia.

39

Data Center: Use of SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS

DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


Insti

tutio

ns u

sing

PaaS

to p

rovi

de d

ata

cent

er se

rvic

es

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

45%31%

30%31%

28%11%

28%0%

24%26%

14%16%

25%13%

20%0%

78%74%74%

68%59%

60%68%

0%

Median percentage

40

Communications Infrastructure: Communications infrastructure technologies most likely to be deployed soon*

* For the purpose of this analysis, technologies to be deployed soon are those with expected or initial deployment status.

My institution

All nonspecialized

U.S. AA BA MA public MA private DR public DR private

Unified communications and collaboration ✔ ✖ 34% 21% 34% 35% 31% 45% 30%

IPv6 ✔ ✖ 31% 25% 32% 41% 14% 37% 40%

Session initiation protocol (SIP) ✔ ✖ 28% 25% 25% 33% 17% 37% 30%

Network capacity planning and management tools ✔ ✖ 19% 26% 15% 20% 17% 20% 16%

✔ My institution has this technology✖ My institution does not have this technology

41

Communications Infrastructure: Wireless network configuration

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

Acce

ss p

oint

s tha

t are

802

.11a

cAc

cess

poi

nts t

hat a

re 8

02.1

1n

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

0%

0%

0%

2%

2%

4%

1%

0%

14%

12%

42%

24%

26%

17%

23%

0%

Median percentage

42

Information Security: Training for faculty, staff, and students

DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


DR privateDR public

MA privateMA public

BAAA


Insti

tutio

ns w

ith m

anda

tory

info

rmati

on se

curit

y tr

aini

ng fo

r fac

ulty

or s

taff

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

37%23%

29%28%

23%38%

29%

0%61%

60%42%

65%45%

72%57%

0%

Median percentage

43

Information Security: Risk assessments

DR private

DR public

MA private

MA public

BA

AA


My institution

Insti

tutio

ns th

at h

ave

cond

ucte

d an

y so

rt o

f IT

secu

rity

risk

asse

ssm

ent

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

78%

86%

64%

81%

73%

83%

78%

0%

Median percentage

44

Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-managed (SaaS)

My institution

All nonspecialized


E-mail: student ✔ ✖ 55% 42% 53% 52% 56% 62% 69%

Customer relationship management ✔ ✖ 36% 34% 39% 31% 31% 36% 50%

Learning (course) management ✔ ✖ 31% 35% 21% 27% 41% 33% 33%

E-mail: faculty/staff ✔ ✖ 30% 15% 38% 18% 34% 35% 38%

Library ✔ ✖ 23% 34% 23% 15% 32% 14% 24%

Facilities management ✔ ✖ 20% 26% 21% 16% 34% 15% 13%

✔ My institution uses SaaS for this system✖ My institution does not use SaaS for this system

45

Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-managed (PaaS)

My institution

All nonspecialized


E-mail: student ✔ ✖ 5% 6% 4% 3% 1% 8% 8%

Web content management ✔ ✖ 4% 4% 4% 1% 4% 5% 4%


Library ✔ ✖ 4% 3% 6% 4% 3% 3% 2%




Grants management: preaward ✔ ✖ 2% 2% 0% 2% 6% 3% 3%

Grants management: postaward ✔ ✖ 2% 2% 0% 2% 6% 1% 2%

Human resources information ✔ ✖ 2% 2% 1% 4% 3% 2% 2%

Procurement ✔ ✖ 2% 2% 1% 4% 0% 1% 2%

✔ My institution uses PaaS for this system✖ My institution does not use PaaS for this system

46

Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-hosted (IaaS)

My institution

All nonspecialized


E-mail: student ✔ ✖ 13% 20% 9% 16% 14% 11% 8%





Library ✔ ✖ 6% 12% 8% 1% 12% 2% 4%


IT service desk management ✔ ✖ 4% 6% 3% 3% 5% 4% 4%

Procurement ✔ ✖ 4% 8% 0% 3% 5% 6% 0%

Advancement/fundraising ✔ ✖ 3% 5% 3% 1% 4% 3% 4%

✔ My institution uses IaaS for this system✖ My institution does not use IaaS for this system

47

Information Systems and Applications: Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years

My institution

All nonspecialized

U.S. AA BA MA public MA private DR public DR privateCustomer relationship management ✔ ✖ 27% 22% 22% 32% 24% 29% 30%

IT service desk management ✔ ✖ 25% 26% 17% 28% 23% 27% 33%



Business intelligence reporting ✔ ✖ 17% 10% 12% 13% 16% 25% 23%


Admissions: undergraduate ✔ ✖ 13% 8% 17% 8% 16% 12% 20%

✔ My institution has recently replaced this system or plans to replace in the next three years✖ My institution has not recently replaced this system and has no plans to replace in the next three years

48

Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly mobile friendly*

My institution

All nonspecialized


E-mail: student ✔ ✖ 63% 62% 68% 59% 58% 61% 73%




* For the purpose of this analysis, mobile-friendly systems are those using any of the following deployment strategies: mobile app, mobile specific website, or responsive web design.

✔ This system is mobile friendly at my institution✖ This system is not mobile friendly at my institution

49

Methodology

50

Methodology, 1 of 3EDUCAUSE invites more than 3,500 institutions to contribute their data to the Core Data Service each year. Invitees include EDUCAUSE member institutions plus nonmember institutions with a record of interaction with EDUCAUSE. Any nonmember institution may request to be added to the CDS sample. Response by YearThe CDS 2014 survey collected data about FY2013/14 and was conducted from July 2014 to December 2014. This was the 12th CDS survey. Since 2002, survey participation has ranged from 641 to 1,023 institutions.

CDS Survey Year of Data Collection Fiscal Year DataNumber of Participating

InstitutionsCDS 2002 2003 FY2001/02–FY2002/03 641CDS 2003 2004 FY2002/03–FY2003/04 840CDS 2004 2005 FY2003/04–FY2004/05 921CDS 2005 2006 FY2004/05–FY2005/06 957CDS 2006 2007 FY2005/06–FY2006/07 962CDS 2007 2008 FY2006/07–FY2007/08 1,023CDS 2008 2009 FY2007/08–FY2008/09 954CDS 2009 2010 FY2008/09–FY2009/10 917CDS 2011 2011 FY2009/10–FY2010/11 826CDS 2012 2012 FY2010/11–FY2011/12 787CDS 2013 2013 FY2012/13 798CDS 2014 2014 FY2013/14 828

51

Methodology, 2 of 3Response by Carnegie ClassificationAs in prior years, survey response across Carnegie Classification was highly variable in CDS 2014. Due to differences in population sizes across institutional types, the number of participating institutions for a particular type of institution may be deceiving. For example, only 62 private doctoral institutions participated in CDS 2014; however, this accounts for 57% of private doctoral institutions that were invited to complete CDS 2014. In contrast, 131 community colleges participated in CDS 2014, but this accounts for only 12% of community colleges that were invited to participate in CDS 2014. International participation spanned 17 countries.

Carnegie Classification Participating Institutions Response Rate

AA 131 12%

BA 167 27%

MA private 115 32%

MA public 111 42%

DR private 62 57%

DR public 134 77%

Other U.S. 59 13%

International 49 13%

52

Methodology, 3 of 3Response by ModuleThe CDS survey is divided into eight modules. CDS survey participation status is based on the completion of the required Module 1: IT Organization, Staffing, and Financing. The remaining seven modules in the survey are optional and cover details about service delivery in the IT domain areas. Some of the optional modules ask about services run at most institutions (e.g., communications infrastructure), while others ask about services run at some institutions (e.g., research computing); thus, response to optional modules varies.

CDS 2014 Module Participating Institutions

M1: IT Organization, Staffing, and Financing 828

M2: IT Support Services 643

M3: Educational Technology Services 574

M4: Research Computing Services 403

M5: Data Centers 552

M6: Communications Infrastructure Services 550

M7: Information Security 545

M8: Information Systems and Applications 560

2014 cds benchmarking report (261999448)

Documents