2014 CDS Benchmarking Report

Transcription

1 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 IT Staffing IT Services Methodology

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 3 * 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 Report Traditionally, 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 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 (,,,,, 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. 4 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.

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

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. 6

7 Introduction to Benchmarking Today 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: 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. With CDS benchmarking data on: 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. Calibrate your performance against best practices and best in class institutions that have set the bar for your institution. Communicate the value of IT by comparing service portfolios and service performance to financial investment. Assess the relative maturity of strategic initiatives such as e- learning, student success technologies, and analytics. CIO reporting line IT governance maturity Organizational units responsible for more than 100 IT functions CDS participants have the ability to customize benchmarking assessments by selecting specific peer institutions with which to compare. Services provided by central IT compared to total IT expenditures and IT expenditures by IT domain area. IT maturity for seven IT capabilities, including e-learning, student success technologies, and analytics. 7

8 Steps for a Successful Benchmarking Assessment 2. Identify your audience. Are you gathering data for leadership, users, or services owners? 6. Consider possible outcomes. Will any action take place upon reporting the results? 1. Identify your goals. What are your benchmarking needs? What is the goal of this exercise? 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? 4. Evaluate data quality.* Determine whether data contain errors. Do the data need to be reformatted or cleaned? 8 * 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 coredata@educause.edu.

9 Identify Your Goals The 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 Top 10 IT Issue Supporting metrics Slide(s) Hiring and Retaining Qualified Staff, and Updating the Knowledge and Skills of Existing Technology Staff Optimizing the Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning in Collaboration with Academic Leadership, Including Understanding the Appropriate Level of Technology to Use Developing IT Funding Models That Sustain Core Service, Support Innovation, and Facilitate Growth Improving Student Outcomes through an Institutional Approach That Strategically Leverages Technology Demonstrating the Business Value of Information Technology and How Technology and the IT Organization Can Help the Institution Achieve Its Goals Increasing the IT Organization s Capacity for Managing Change, Despite Differing Community Needs, Priorities, and Abilities Providing User Support in the New Normal Mobile, Online Education, Cloud, and BYOD Environments Developing Mobile, Cloud, and Digital Security Policies That Work for Most of the Institutional Community Developing an Enterprise IT Architecture That Can Respond to Changing Conditions and New Opportunities 10 Balancing Agility, Openness, and Security Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs 23 24; Most common teaching and learning support services for faculty 36 Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending Systems most commonly mobile friendly 48 Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years 47 Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher Institutions offering self-service help options 34 Access points that are n or ac 41 Systems most commonly mobile friendly 48 Institutions with mandatory information security training 42 Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years 47 Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment

10 Summary of the Landscape To 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 5 Institutions hosting or participating in cross-institutional data center services 23% Access points that are n 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. 10

11 IT Financials The 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 1 Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) vs. Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses Slide(s) Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) Five-year trend Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses Five-year trend Total central IT FY2013/14 spending as a percentage change from FY2012/ 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 Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 21 11

12 Median total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses (all nonspecialized U.S. median = 4.2%) Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) vs. total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses 8.4% $ % 4.2% $ % $ % $ % $1, % $1, % 12 $ $0 $906 $1,812 Median total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) (all nonspecialized U.S. median = $906)

13 Median total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff) Total central IT spending per institutional FTE (students, faculty, and staff), five-year trend 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, RY2009/10 FY2010/11 FY2012/13 FY2013/14 Fiscal year* 13 * FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.

14 Median total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses Total central IT spending as a percentage of institutional expenses, five-year trend RY2009/10 FY2010/11 FY2012/13 FY2013/14 Fiscal year* 14 * 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 0.3% % 1.6% % 3.4% % % % % % 5. Median total central IT spending as a percentage change from previous year 15

16 MA private All nonspecial ized U.S. My institution Central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending Compensation Noncompensation Capital Compensation Noncompensation Capital Compensation Noncompensation Capital Compensation Noncompensation Capital Compensation Noncompensation Capital Compensation Noncompensation Capital Compensation Noncompensation Capital Compensation Noncompensation Capital 7% 6% 9% 1 11% 1 12% 25% 34% 35% 32% 32% 35% 35% 54% 5 54% 56% 51% 56% 59% Median central IT compensation, noncompensation, and capital spending as a percentage of total central IT spending

17 All nonspecial ized U.S. My institution Percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution Run Grow Transform Run Grow Transform Run Grow Transform Run Grow Transform Run Grow Transform Run Grow Transform Run Grow Transform Run Grow Transform 6% 5% 5% 11% 7% 6% 7% 9% 13% 12% 13% 13% 15% 16% 79% 79% 8 79% 77% Median percentage of central IT spending on running, growing, and transforming the institution

18 IT support services Information systems IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending 18% 9% 18% 18% 19% 17% 2 15% 18% 19% 14% 17% 13% 13% 18 5% 1 15% 2 25% Median IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending

19 Educational technology services Communications infrastructure IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending 13% 7% 13% 11% 12% 23% 13% 1 11% 11% 11% 1 1 9% 19 5% 1 15% 2 25% Median IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending

20 Information security Data center IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending 4% 5% 2% 4% 4% 4% 5% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 2% 20 5% 1 15% 2 25% Median IT domain area spending as a percentage of central IT spending

21 Central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 21 1% 2% 3% 4% Median central IT outsourcing spending as a percentage of total central IT spending

22 IT Staffing Staffing 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 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 FTEs Four-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 FTE Four-year trend 26 5 Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE 30 7 Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE Five-year trend 31 22

23 Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs Median central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs

24 Median central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs Central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs, four-year trend FY2010/11 FY2011/12 FY2012/13 FY2013/14 Fiscal year

25 Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE My onstitution 17% 7% 2 24% 22% 17% 12% 25 5% 1 15% 2 25% 3 Median student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE

26 Median student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE Student workers as a percentage of total central IT FTE, four-year trend FY2010/11 FY2011/12 FY2012/13 FY2013/14 Fiscal year

27 Information systems IT support services Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs Median central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs

28 Communications infrastructure Educational technology services Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs Median central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs

29 Information security Data center Central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs Median central IT domain area FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs

30 Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE $- $1,076 $620 $1,190 $1,168 $1,091 $1,095 $1, $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 Median central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE

31 Median central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE Central IT training spending per central IT staff FTE, five-year trend $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 RY2009/10 FY2010/11 FY2012/13 FY2013/14 Fiscal year* 31 * FY2011/12 data were not collected in CDS on either expenditures or funding.

32 IT Services In 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? 32

33 IT Services: Benchmarks IT Domain Area Metric Slide Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher for central IT help desk 34 IT Support Services Educational Technology Services 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, , walk-in) Most common teaching and learning support services 36 Student FTE per shared workstation provided by central IT Institutions using commercial data center services 38 Data Center Institutions hosting or participating in cross-institutional data center services 38 Institutions using SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS to provide data center services 39 Communications Infrastructure Information Security Communications infrastructure technologies most likely to be deployed soon 40 Access points that are n or ac 41 Institutions with mandatory information security training for faculty, staff, or students 42 Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment 43 Systems most commonly vendor hosted (IaaS) 44 Systems most commonly vendor managed (PaaS) 45 Information Systems and Applications Systems most commonly vendor managed (SaaS) 46 Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years 47 Systems most commonly mobile friendly 48 33

34 Institutions offering self-service options for central IT help desk services Institutions offering tier 2/level 2 service or higher for central IT help desk IT Support Services: Service delivery 75% % 72% 78% 82% 89% 78% 86% 98% 8 97% 98% Median percentage

35 Walk-in Phone IT Support Services: Annual number of tickets per institutional FTE, among institutions with a central IT help desk that offers each mode 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. Classroom technology support for faculty % Faculty individual training in use of educational technology 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 10 Learning (course) management training and support for faculty 99% 98% 99% Faculty group training in use of educational technology 98% 97% 96% 99% 99% 99% 98% Online learning technology support for faculty 97% 10 86% 10 97% 99% has this service does not have this service

37 Student FTE per laptop/tablet provided by central IT for checkout or loan Student FTE per virtual lab/cluster workstation provided by central IT Student FTE per lab/cluster workstations provided by central IT Educational Technology Services: Student FTE per shared workstation provided by central IT * * 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 institutions were too small to calculate an appropriate benchmark.

38 Institutions hosting or participating in cross-institutional data center services Institutions using commercial data center services Data Center: Outsourcing and shared services* 27% 16% 3 31% 3 23% 4 47% 5 26% 73% 17% 77% 48% 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 Institutions using IaaS to provide data center services Institutions using PaaS to provide data center services Institutions using SaaS to provide data center services Data Center: Use of SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS 68% 6 59% 68% 74% 74% 78% 2 13% 25% 16% 14% 26% 24% 28% 11% 28% 31% 3 31% 45% Median percentage

40 Communications Infrastructure: Communications infrastructure technologies most likely to be deployed soon* All nonspecialized U.S. Unified communications and collaboration 34% 21% 34% 35% 31% 45% 3 IPv6 31% 25% 32% 41% 14% 37% 4 Session initiation protocol (SIP) 28% 25% 25% 33% 17% 37% 3 Network capacity planning and management tools 19% 26% 15% 2 17% 2 16% has this technology does not have this technology 40 * For the purpose of this analysis, technologies to be deployed soon are those with expected or initial deployment status.

41 Access points that are ac Access points that are n Communications Infrastructure: Wireless network configuration 23% 17% 26% 24% 42% 12% 14% 1% 4% 2% 2% 41 5% 1 15% 2 25% 3 35% 4 45% Median percentage

42 Institutions with mandatory information security training for students Institutions with mandatory information security training for faculty or staff Information Security: Training for faculty, staff, and students 57% 72% 45% 65% 42% 6 61% 29% 38% 23% 28% 29% 23% 37% Median percentage

43 Institutions that have conducted any sort of IT security risk assessment Information Security: Risk assessments 78% 83% 73% 81% 64% 86% 78% Median percentage

44 Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-managed (SaaS) All nonspecialized U.S. student 55% 42% 53% 52% 56% 62% 69% Customer relationship management 36% 34% 39% 31% 31% 36% 5 Learning (course) management 31% 35% 21% 27% 41% 33% 33% faculty/staff 3 15% 38% 18% 34% 35% 38% Library 23% 34% 23% 15% 32% 14% 24% Facilities management 2 26% 21% 16% 34% 15% 13% 44 uses SaaS for this system does not use SaaS for this system

45 Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-managed (PaaS) All nonspecialized U.S. student 5% 6% 4% 3% 1% 8% 8% Web content management 4% 4% 4% 1% 4% 5% 4% Learning (course) management 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 6% 8% Library 4% 3% 6% 4% 3% 3% 2% Customer relationship management 3% 2% 4% 6% 5% faculty/staff 3% 4% 3% 1% 1% 6% Facilities management 2% 1% 2% 4% 2% 1% 2% Grants management: preaward 2% 2% 2% 6% 3% 3% Grants management: postaward 2% 2% 2% 6% 1% 2% Human resources information 2% 2% 1% 4% 3% 2% 2% Procurement 2% 2% 1% 4% 1% 2% 45 uses PaaS for this system does not use PaaS for this system

46 Information Systems and Applications: Systems most commonly vendor-hosted (IaaS) All nonspecialized U.S. student 13% 2 9% 16% 14% 11% 8% Learning (course) management 8% 13% 5% 1 1 6% 8% Customer relationship management 7% 12% 4% 13% 5% 6% faculty/staff 7% 8% 4% 9% 8% 6% 4% Web content management 7% 11% 7% 4% 14% 3% Library 6% 12% 8% 1% 12% 2% 4% Facilities management 5% 8% 4% 9% 3% 4% IT service desk management 4% 6% 3% 3% 5% 4% 4% Procurement 4% 8% 3% 5% 6% Advancement/fundraising 3% 5% 3% 1% 4% 3% 4% 46 uses IaaS for this system does not use IaaS for this system

47 Information Systems and Applications: Systems most likely to be replaced in the next three years All nonspecialized U.S. Customer relationship management 27% 22% 22% 32% 24% 29% 3 IT service desk management 25% 26% 17% 28% 23% 27% 33% faculty/staff 22% 24% 15% 35% 19% 25% 12% Web content management 21% 22% 23% 18% 28% 18% 18% Business intelligence reporting 17% 1 12% 13% 16% 25% 23% Facilities management 15% 8% 11% 17% 12% 16% 28% Admissions: undergraduate 13% 8% 17% 8% 16% 12% 2 47 has recently replaced this system or plans to replace in the next three years 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* All nonspecialized U.S. student 63% 62% 68% 59% 58% 61% 73% Learning (course) management 6 66% 54% 62% 56% faculty/staff 59% 58% 66% 56% 51% 59% 67% Web content management 58% 54% 66% 64% 61% 54% 48% 48 This system is mobile friendly at my institution This system is not mobile friendly at my institution * 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.

49 49 Methodology

50 Methodology, 1 of 3 EDUCAUSE 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 Year The CDS 2014 survey collected data about FY2013/14 and was conducted from July 2014 to December This was the 12th CDS survey. Since 2002, survey participation has ranged from 641 to 1,023 institutions. Number of Participating CDS Survey Year of Data Collection Fiscal Year Data Institutions CDS FY2001/02 FY2002/ CDS FY2002/03 FY2003/ CDS FY2003/04 FY2004/ CDS FY2004/05 FY2005/ CDS FY2005/06 FY2006/ CDS FY2006/07 FY2007/08 1,023 CDS FY2007/08 FY2008/ CDS FY2008/09 FY2009/ CDS FY2009/10 FY2010/ CDS FY2010/11 FY2011/ CDS FY2012/ CDS FY2013/

51 Methodology, 2 of 3 Response by Carnegie Classification As in prior years, survey response across Carnegie Classification was highly variable in CDS 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 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 International participation spanned 17 countries. Carnegie Classification Participating Institutions Response Rate % % % % 62 57% % Other U.S % International 49 13% 51

52 Methodology, 3 of 3 Response by Module The 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