Enterprise IT Value through Technology Governance

In the EDUCAUSE blog post "What Is Enterprise IT?," Betsy Reinitz defines enterprise IT in higher education to include technology, staff, services, and support associated with enterprise systems and services, as well as their strategy, management, budgets, and policy.

She also includes resources and services that central IT provides to enable the various campus departments, colleges, and distributed IT divisions to function and provide value to their customers. With the advent of the cloud, providing appropriate resources and services has become much more complex, and the focus has shifted from managing technologies to providing services. The Georgia Institute of Technology is no different. Georgia Tech's Office of Information Technology (OIT) provides IT leadership and support to campus departments and colleges by working in partnership with academic and business units to meet the unique needs of a leading research university. OIT is the provider of enterprise-wide (administration, instruction, and research) information technology in support of students, faculty, staff, and researchers (see Georgia Tech's OIT website).

As Diana Oblinger notes in "Getting Your Ducks in a Row: Governance, Risk, and Compliance," information technology plays a critical role in higher education. However, if IT investments are not aligned with the institution's goals and supported by sound policies and process methodologies, it will be difficult to display the effectiveness, positive impact, and value to our constituents that these investments bring to the institution. Technology governance should ensure this alignment and provide business value through planning and decision making. This blog describes the approach that Georgia Tech has taken to transform the former technology governance process into a new model more sharply focused on providing value and alignment with institutional goals.

Georgia Tech already had a technology governance framework. This framework was based on a "parallel structure," as explained by Joanna Grama in "Understanding IT GRC in Higher Education: IT Governance." Georgia Tech had multiple, parallel IT governance structures that were targeted toward functional areas such as research, administrative/business functions, the student life cycle, and the like. These separate functional areas were intended to come together to form a single portfolio of a prioritized list of initiatives for campus. Below is the former framework for Georgia Tech's governance process (figure 1).

However, this model was not producing optimal outcomes for various reasons, including:

• The governance process was not well understood by all users.
• Linkages to our strategic priorities were unclear. There was no alignment to the budgeting process.
• The governance process was technology-centric instead of strategy-centric.
• Not all technology investments utilized the governance process.
• The strategic governance committee had grown too large. The members of the committee delegated duties to others who had no decision-making authority, and the same members staffed multiple committees.
• Proposals were measured by investment level rather than impact on strategy. Not all investments had reviewed or approved business cases or change management plans.
• There was an inconsistent cadence, focus, and format of subcommittee operations. Subcommittee priorities were not routinely vetted through the governance process.

It became clear that we needed a governance model that supported our culture, shaped by research with an emphasis on teaching and learning and that aligned our IT portfolio with our strategy. The new model is based on a "hub-and-spoke structure," as Grama explains in contrast to the "parallel" structure. The new model was designed around the entire IT portfolio of Georgia Tech, rather than only the central IT portfolio within OIT. This effort required a thorough analysis of the total IT spend across all areas of Georgia Teach, as well as a review of that spend against institutional strategic priorities. In a hub-and-spoke structure, a single IT governance model is created with specific functions delegated to committees. In our case, the committees are formed to align with our IT portfolio and our strategic goals. Governance is mapped directly to IT strategic goals [http://oit.gatech.edu/about/goals-and-priorities], and the IT strategic goals are mapped to our strategic priorities. The Project and Portfolio Management Organization (PPMO) serves as the link between technology governance and the IT portfolio. Below is the framework for Georgia Tech's new technology governance model (figure 2).

Georgia Tech's Technology Governance: A Working Definition

Technology governance at Georgia Tech aligns the enterprise technology portfolio with the institution's strategic priorities. The Technology Governance Steering Committee (TGSC) advises on, guides, and recommends technology strategies that enable Georgia Tech to fulfill its mission through the delivery of strategic priorities. This is accomplished through:

• Structures to define individual and group roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, and decision-making authorities
• Decision-making processes that support the defined rights, accountabilities, and authorities
• Portfolio management processes that will guide technology investments and prioritization decisions

Through this alignment, and using the new technology governance process as a vehicle, OIT will provide value to business, academic, and research partners in the following areas.

Effectiveness through:

• Prioritizing IT investments in harmony with Georgia Tech's goals
• Analyzing total cost of ownership and continuously assessing the value proposition of services that result from projects or initiatives by understanding the entire life cycle
• Helping to improve IT financial models and resource management
• Reviewing and advising on portfolio performance against strategic priorities of the institution

Control through:

• Engaging in efficient and more cost-effective decision making
• Aiding authoritative decision making that cannot be easily by passed
• Accounting for risks related to strategic plans and developing appropriate mitigation strategies

Impact through:

• Considering the learning impact to Georgia Tech's strategic goal to sustain and enhance excellence in scholarship and research
• Considering the impact to Georgia Tech's human, financial, space, and equipment resources
• Identifying, assessing, advising, and collaborating on innovative opportunities to transform across strategic priority areas

At Georgia Tech, we are transforming our technology governance process by shifting from a parallel to a hub-and-spoke structure, which allows us to focus on providing value and align with institutional goals (see Strategic and Business Operations Framework [http://sbof.gatech.edu/]). For more on effective IT governance practices, see "Enterprise IT Summit Follow-Up: What Is Effective IT Governance?."

Hemalatha Manickavinayaham is IT Project Manager Principal at Georgia Institute of Technology.