Technology: Cost Center or Strategic Lever - Is Your Institution Structured for Strategic Success?

Nick Pistentis, Deputy Chief Information Officer, Metropolitan State University of Denver

Over the past 30 years, technology leadership has evolved significantly; the available literature shows that the title of “Chief Information Officer” was gaining traction in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At the time, resources we take for granted today—including email and switched networking—were just beginning to emerge. Systems we cannot live without today, such as wifi, unified ERP/SIS solutions, SaaS-based collaboration tools, mobile devices, and the range of on-demand analytics and student success platforms, were years, in some cases, decades away from becoming a reality, and as a result, weren’t part of the CIO’s portfolio.

Today, rather than managing mainframe time and supporting a PSTN phone system, the CIO is expected to deliver solutions to the most pressing challenges an institution faces and to do so with the agility never imagined by their predecessors. The CIO and their team must understand the organization’s business processes, relationships, and dependencies at a level of detail that allows them to connect the dots between departments and divisions, building linkages between projects, proposals, systems, and structures that no one else can find. Scroll through any number of campus strategic plans and find the pillars that are not built upon a foundation of technology, data, KPIs, or communication; chances are, you’ll struggle to do so.

With the sea change in duties and organizational impact carried by this evolving role, one could reasonably expect that the role itself would be similarly elevated. Yet, browsing the available literature, which is not the case: in 1990, 40 percent of Higher Ed CIOs reported directly to the president, 36 percent to an administrative vice president, and 19 percent reported to the Provost or a similar academic officer. Less than half reported participating in Board meetings, and those who did were most often in an observational role. Fast forward to 2019, in the most recent survey, 29 percent of CIOs report directly to the president, chancellor, or chief executive, 42 percent report to the senior-most administrative or business officer, and 16 percent report to an academic officer. When asked where they felt they should report, 36 percent picked the chief executive, over 40 percent chose the CBO, and 19 percent chose the Provost or a similar role. Even today, only 42 percent of CIOs sit in the president’s cabinet.

“Technology leaders cannot afford to remain wallflowers. They must be persuasive and assertive, taking an active role in defining the organization’s direction. Every organization should have an articulated vision for technology and digital resources that are regularly reviewed, updated, and published”

When looking outside of the higher education vertical, a different pattern emerges. The percentage of CIOs reporting directly to the chief executive has been climbing year over year, reaching 46 percent globally in 2018 and 55 percent in high-technology industries. Across the public sector as a whole, 54 percent of CIOs report to the senior executive, with only 25 percent reporting to the CFO or COO. Deloitte also found a compelling correlation—organizations with strong, well-defined digital strategies trended toward elevating the CIO role, while organizations where the CIO responded that “digital is not an organizational priority” carried a bias toward a business officer-led reporting structure.

At the same time, technology expenditures continue to climb year over year; Gartner estimates that U.S. post-secondary technology spending will approach $20 billion by 2024; at a per-institution level, this translates to a median outlay of $7.7 million per year, or 4.2% of institutional budgets.

What does the above tell us?

Over a period of 30 years, the percentage of Chief Information Officers reporting to the senior leader of their institution has dropped by 28 percent, while their peers in the industry saw the reverse. Technology expenditures have increased dramatically, providing CIOs with one of the largest budgets in the organization. Yet, less than half of Higher Ed CIOs serve on the president’s cabinet, meaning that a sizeable line item is likely misunderstood; there is a technology advocacy gap in the leadership suite which is getting larger, and both of these variables could be holding back the institution.

With these numbers in mind, and short of marching into a Cabinet meeting unannounced, what is a marginalized CIO to do?

The keys to success lie in the second part of the consultant’s findings—and it’s something that technology leaders can control and own— namely, communication. Technology leaders cannot afford to remain wallflowers. They must be persuasive and assertive, taking an active role in defining the organization’s direction. Every organization should have an articulated vision for technology and digital resources that are regularly reviewed, updated, and published.

 • While the CIO (or CDO) should lead the development of these materials, it cannot happen in a vacuum. Engaging peers in key business and academic areas will ensure broad buy-in and participation in the process.

 • Map technology imperatives to strategic objectives and develop KPIs to track success. This reinforces that neither IT projects nor enrollment initiatives exist in isolation.

 • Don’t be afraid to cross organizational lines, especially if business units that administer systems, prepare data and dashboards, or deliver support exists outside of the traditional IT boundaries.

 • Construct a mature, sustainable governance program for technology and data at your institution and ensure that participants feel ownership over the results – wielding a rubber stamp, no matter how weighty, rarely generates engagement.

 • Execute, execute, execute. Meeting or exceeding the organization’s expectations – particularly in support of strategic initiatives -will reinforce the importance of the technology practice, and in so doing, also elevate the technology leader.

Organizational change rarely occurs overnight, nor should it; an institution with constant, dramatic shifts in design, strategy, or philosophy will struggle to survive. However, with a focused effort to articulate the strategic value of information technology and its inherent relationship to success in all facets of the organization, the successful Chief Information Officer can make a case to elevate their role and join the senior ranks – not as a steward of a budget, but as an agent of strategic transformation.

ERP

Information Technology

SaaS