1

Redesigning the EDUCAUSE

Core Data ServiceDan UpdegroveEDUCAUSE Live!

May 10, 2010

1

Redesigning CDS: Overview

• Rationale for a Core Data Survey• Antecedents & initial vision • How CDS Works• CDS today & the need for an overhaul• Redesign Project: scope, timeline, initial

member feedback & observations• Request for feedback via online survey

2

What If?

• EDUCAUSE members could access a database of other institutions’ IT profiles

• The database provided tools for comparing with peer groups, “aspiration groups,” & others

• The database were updated annually, with attn to new issues & technologies; built-in trend analysis

• All data were identified by institution, yet access, usage were restricted to minimize disclosure

• An annual summary report (no institution IDs) were published in PDF format

3

Prospective Uses of a CDS

• Improving IT management & planning• Calibrating institutional IT leadership goals • Contextualizing discussions with exec

officers & campus advisory groups• Making the case for new services &

resources• Defending against critiques & budget cuts • Exploring & negotiating CIO job changes • Enabling EDUCAUSE to align programs &

represent the membership

4

CDS Antecedents

• Seminars on Academic Computing, C. Warlick: Directory of Computing Facilities in HE, ’71- 90

• CAUSE member surveys, summary reports, “ID Service” for customized requests: ’79-96

• Educom Higher Ed Data Sharing Project - HEDS (spun off as independent consortium), ‘80 -

• Smallen/Leach - COSTS Project, ‘90s - ’06• K.C. Green - Campus Computing Project, ’94 -

5

EDUCAUSE Data-related Initiatives

• Org formed ‘98 via merger of CAUSE, EDUCOM• Current Issues Survey established in 2000;

reports published annually• EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research – ECAR

est, 2000, “culture of evidence”; extensive set of reports, some restricted to subscribers

• A Research Task Force recommended creation of a Core Data Service, ‘01

• COSTS Project merged w CDS, ‘06

6

Core Data Service of EDUCAUSE

• Online input, predefined analytics & reports• U.S. Carnegie classes (2000 version) built in;

user-defined peer groups easily configured• Annual summary report published online• Access to identified data: only campuses that

have contributed this year; only individuals authorized by primary rep (usually the CIO)

• No publication, disclosure > “need to know”

7

CDS Survey Categories

• IT Organization, Staffing, Planning• Financing & Management• Faculty & Student Computing• Networking & Security• Information Systems

• (Nearly all questions pertain to central IT only)

• (Online glossary provided)

8

CDS Analytics & Reports

• Manage Peer Groups• Select year (most recent or prior)• Select survey section & question• View summaries, 2-year trends, inst-by-inst

comparisons, inst breakdowns by 2000 Carnegie Class, control (public/private), student FTE enrollment, user-defined peer groups

• Tables, bar charts, pie charts• (Batch downloading not supported)

9

10

CDS Annual Cycle (2010 example)

• Jan: FY’09 survey introduced; close input to FY’08• Jan-May 14: Member input of FY’09 in time for ASR• Jan-May 14: Access to two previous years (FY’07 +

FY’08) authorized for institutions that completed survey in ’09 (for FY’08) or in ‘10 (for FY’09)

• May 15: Access window now FY’08 + FY’09• May 15-Dec: No access for those w FY’09 undone• May-Dec: Continue member input of FY’09 data• Oct 1: Annual Summary Report (ASR) published

11

AUP for Data Access

• Only institutions that have submitted data• Indiv access only if authorized by Primary Rep• No publication of inst-identifiable data• No external sharing of info, even aggregated• No pub of aggregated data w/o permission• Viewing of inst-identified or aggregate data

limited to campus policy/planning groups• Campus contractors may not share w/ company

12

Core Data Service Today

• Considered one of EDUCAUSE’s most important services by many members

• Over 950 institutions contributed data in 2008• Essentially all U.S. Carnegie categories, as well

as 29 foreign countries represented • From 2007-2008 ~ 850 indiv users of analytic

& reporting tools, 5K sessions, 80K page views• But, CDS hasn’t had serious review since 2002

13

CDS Survey Participants, 2008

14

Carnegie Classification (2000)

Respondents

AA (Community Colleges) 148

BA (4-year colleges) 202

MA (masters’ degrees) 261

DR (doctoral/research) 180

Other U.S. institutions 56

Sub-total US 847

International 109

Total 956

The Need for an Overhaul• Only about half of members contribute data

• About half the contributors appear to “use” it

• While many members report high value use, many shortcomings have been noted

• CDS as a service was conceived in 2001, with rather minor content changes since

• CDS as an operational database service was deployed in 2002; it is difficult to maintain and a barrier to major enhancements

1515

The CDS Redesign Project

• Launched March 2010• Member advisory group formed• Will include focus groups, interviews, survey, wiki• In scope: content, input process, relation to other

datasets, analytics & online reporting, possibility of downloading, other AUP considerations, more international participation

• Other suggestions, concerns, exemplars welcome• Managing consultant: Dan Updegrove

16

Project Timeline

• Member input; working group, May-Summer

• Announcement at Oct Annual Conference: redesigned survey, online service; reconsidered AUP, annual summary report; structure of an ongoing advisory group

• New content input system by Jan, 2011• New analytic & reporting by June, 2011• Annual review by staff and advisory group

17

Initial Member Feedback

• One survey for all types of institutions? • Survey content doesn’t reflect latest technology,

services, issues – or distributed IT• Multi-campus systems not addressed well• Content mostly inputs, thin on outputs • Data input process has no built-in delegation• Reporting formats limited; no data download• Participation decline: 1400 (‘02) --> 950 (‘09)

18

Other Initial Observations• CDS website rather opaque; assumes only

CIOs access it, and that CIOs already understand it

• Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges (CLAC) has download rights, why no others?

• Even CLAC, a “tight” peer group, uses CDS data with care, augmented by meetings, email surveys

• Are all expectations realistic?– “The ideal, trusted, all-purpose database”– Suitable for large, special projects, e.g., ERP

1919

What Do You Think?

• How has your institution -- and peer group or system -- used CDS?

• If your institution hasn’t used CDS, or no longer does, how does CDS fall short?

• Suggestions / enhancements … out of the box?

• Please consider completing this survey

• Email Dan: updegrove@gmail.com• www.educause.edu/coredata

20