the national survey of computing and information...

campuscomputing.net October 20132

The National Survey of Computing and Information Technology

Campus IT Officers Affirm the Instructional Integration of IT as Their Top Priority, Offer Mixed Reviews on IT Effectiveness and Outsourcing for Online Education

New data from fall 2013 Campus Computing Survey reveal that CIOs and senior campus IT officers view instructional support and IT service issues as their top technology priorities over the next two-three years. The survey participants also offer a mixed view about the effectiveness of campus IT investments. And as a group, campus IT officers are not sanguine about MOOCs or outsourcing campus efforts to expand online programs as viable instructional strategies or as effective revenue strategies for their institutions. Campus IT Priorities Four-fifths (79 percent) of the CIOs and senior campus IT officers who participated in the fall 2013 survey report that “assisting faculty with the instructional integration of information technology” is a very important institutional IT priority over the next two-three years. Three-fourths (73 percent) also identify “providing adequate user support” and “leveraging IT resources to advance the student success/student completion agenda of my campus” as top priorities.

“Viewed in aggregate, five of the seven issues identified by 60 percent or more of the survey participants as ‘very important’ IT priorities focus on technology based services, rather than pure technology issues,” says Kenneth C. Green, founding director of The Campus Computing Project. “The instructional integration of IT, user support, mobile computing, online education, and leveraging IT for student success are all service issues that support larger institutional goals and priorities.” Green notes that across sectors, the ranking of IT priorities are also fairly consistent. “Although the numbers may vary by sector, there is a clear message in the new survey data that the top campus IT issues are really about enhancing and expanding IT services.” Assessing the Effectiveness of Campus IT Investments The focus on IT services becomes even more interesting when viewed in the context of how campus IT officers assess the effectiveness of campus investments in information technology. Two-thirds (67 percent) view the campus IT investment to support

library resources and services as “very effective,” followed by administrative information systems (64 percent), on-campus teaching and instruction (62 percent), student services (54 percent), and academic support services (51 percent). In contrast, just a fourth (25 percent) cite the IT investment to support analytics as very effective, followed by alumni activities (27 percent), development efforts (31 percent), and online courses (42 percent). The numbers regarding the effectiveness of IT investments to support research and scholarship understandably vary by sector, highest in universities (almost 50 percent) and lowest in private four-year colleges (30 percent).

“These data suggest that CIOs and senior campus IT officers assess the effectiveness of IT investments at their institutions as ‘okay to good,’ but not great,” says Green. He acknowledges that across almost all campuses there have long been great expectations for the role of technology in instruction and campus management, and that both technology providers as well as campus technology advocates and evangelists may have contributed to unrealistic expectations about how quickly an investment in IT could deliver expected gains in instructional outcomes or institutional performance and productivity. “A key challenge for IT leadership is to communicate the effectiveness of IT investments, both to senior campus officials and also to faculty,” says Green. MOOCs and Online Education CIOs and senior campus IT officers are not overly optimistic about MOOCs – massive, open, online, courses – as a viable strategy for instruction or for revenue. Just over half (53 percent) agree that MOOCs “offer an effective academic model for the effective delivery of online education” while less than a third (29 percent) view MOOCs as offering “a viable business model” for campuses to secure new revenue from online courses. Yet even as senior IT officers are not sanguine about MOOCS, which may be offered by a consortia elite institutions (edX, created by Harvard and MIT) or for-profit firms (such as Coursera and

The 2013 Campus Computing Survey October, 2013

Udacity), the 2013 data reveal that a small but significant number of campuses are contracting with third party providers for various services (recruitment, curricular development, student services) to help develop or expand their online programs.

In aggregate just under a fourth (23 percent) of the campuses that participated in the 2013 survey report some sort of outsourcing for their online programs, ranging from 34 percent in public universities to 11 percent in community colleges. However, here as with MOOCs, senior campus IT officers are not upbeat about outsourcing: less than half (45 percent) agree that outsourcing offers a viable instructional strategy for their institution’s online efforts while just a third believe that outsourcing provides a viable revenue strategy for their institution’s online activities. The clear exception to these numbers is among IT officers in private universities: more than half (54 percent) view outsourcing some aspects of online education as a viable instructional strategy, while three-fifths (62 percent) view it as an effective revenue strategy. More Colleges Go Mobile The 2013 survey documents another year of solid gains in the proportion of colleges and universities that have activated mobile apps. Four-fifths (79 percent) of the campuses participating in this year’s survey have activated mobile apps as of fall 2013 or will do so in the coming academic year, compared to three-fifths (60 percent) in fall 2012, 42 percent in fall 2011, and 23 percent in fall 2010. Across sectors, private universities lead the move to mobile: 95 percent will be up on mobile apps by the end of the current academic year, followed by 93 percent of public universities, 85 percent of public four-year colleges, and approximately 70 percent of both private four-year institutions and community colleges. What explains these gains in going mobile? “Colleges and universities are clearly playing catch-up with the consumer experience. Students come to campus with their smartphones and tablets expecting to use mobile apps to navigate campus resources and use campus services,” says Green. Also of note is that senior campus IT officers now report that tablets and smartphones have higher priority in their IT planning activities: 86 percent cite tablet devices and 82 percent note that smartphones will be “very important” in IT planning over the next two-three years, compared to just 62 percent who cite laptop computers. The focus on mobile devices in IT planning, says Green, “suggests that IT leaders are following the ‘Gretsky rule’ and are skating to where the digital puck is going.” Fewer Campuses Experience Budget Cuts The 2013 data reveal that almost a fourth (24 percent) of the surveyed colleges and universities experienced reductions in the Central IT budget this past academic year, down from 27 percent in the 2012 and compared to a third (36 percent) in fall 2011, 44 percent in 2010, and fully half (50 percent) in fall 2009. Concurrently, almost two-fifths (37 percent) reported increases in the Central IT budget this year over last versus 33 percent in the 2012 survey.

Among public institutions, about a fifth of universities and four-year colleges suffered central IT budget cuts this past year, down from a third in the 2012 survey. This year as last, about a third of community colleges reported cuts in their central IT budget. Private/non-profit institutions continue to fare better than their public counterparts: just 8 percent of private universities reported Central IT budget cuts this for fall, compared to 16 percent in 2012, a fourth (25 percent) in fall 2011, and 57 percent in 2009. The number for private four-year colleges was virtually unchanged (19 percent in 2013 vs. 18 percent in 2012), but still down from 25 percent in fall 2011 and 42 percent in 2009. “Compared to the first years of the Great Recession, the survey data offer some generally good news about IT budgets, as fewer institutions experienced cuts this year than last,” says Green. But he notes that IT budget cuts continue for many colleges and universities and that about a sixth (17 percent) reported mid-year cuts, about the same as in 2012. Green cites the rising demand for an array of campus IT resources and services – mobile apps, high speed wireless, IT user support services, instructional design assistance for faculty teaching online, and IT security, plus the need to refresh an aging campus IT infrastructure – as major sources of pressure on campus IT budgets, and by extension, major challenges for campus IT leaders. Small Gains in Cloud Computing The proportion of campuses reporting a strategic plan for Cloud computing rose to 27 percent in fall 2013, up from 24 percent in 2012, 21 percent in 2011, and 9 percent in 2009. Just 7 percent of the survey participants report that their campus has moved or is converting to Cloud Computing for ERP (administrative system) services, compared to 6 percent in 2012 and up from 4 percent in 2011 (range: from 15 percent for public four-year colleges to 4 percent for public universities.) Although large proportions of CIOs and senior IT officials acknowledge that “Cloud computing offers a viable strategy for campus ERP applications” (63 percent), and that “Cloud computing will play an increasingly important role in our campus ERP strategy” (66 percent), the survey data suggest the longer term movement to Cloud-based ERP applications over the next five years will be very slow: just a tenth expect that their institution will be deploying Cloud-based development, financial, or student information systems by fall 2018.

The 2013 Campus Computing Survey is based on survey data provided by senior campus IT officials, typically, the CIO, CTO, or other senior campus IT officer, representing 451 two- and four-year public and private/non-profit colleges and universities across the United States. Survey respondents completed the online questionnaire from September 6 through October 9. Copies of the 2013 Campus Computing Survey will be available on December 1st from The Campus Computing Project in Encino, CA (campuscomputing.net). Price: $45, which includes shipping to US addresses.

THE CAMPUS COMPUTING PROJECT Begun 1990, The Campus Computing Project is the largest continuing study of the role of computing, eLearning, and information technology in American higher education. The project’s national studies draw on qualitative and quantitative data to help inform campus IT leaders, college faculty and administrators, policy-‐makers, and others interested in a wide array of information technology planning and policy issues that affect colleges and universities. The 2013 Campus Computing Survey was supported, in part, by the following sponsors: Apple, Blackboard, Campus Management, CampusWorks, Canvas by Instructure, Cengage Learning, The Center for Digital Education, ConnectEDU, Copia Interactive, CourseSmart, Dell, Desire2Learn, Echo360, Eduventures, Ellucian, Evisions, Follett Higher Education Group, Google, Hobsons, IBM Higher Education, Jenzabar, Kaltura, Kaplan, Longsight Group, McGraw-‐Hill Higher Education, Microsoft, Moran Technology Consulting, Oracle, Pearson, Perceptis, rSmart Group, Sonic Foundry, SONY, Thanos Partners, TouchNet Information Systems, Turnitin, Unicon, and Workday.

THE CAMPUS COMPUTING PROJECT PO Box 261242 • Encino, CA 91426-‐1242 • USA

TEL: 818.990.2212 • FAX: 818.979.6113 • campuscomputing.net

CAMPUS COMPUTING, 2013 Kenneth C. Green • The Campus Computing Project

© Kenneth C. Green, 1990-2013

www.campuscomputing.net 1

CAMPUS COMPUTING, 2013 The 24th National Survey of Computing and Information Technology in US Higher Education

Kenneth C. Green THE CAMPUS COMPUTING PROJECT campuscomputing.net 17 October 2013


2013 Project Sponsors

The Campus Computing Project




Methodology

•  451 institutional participants

•  Web-based data collection

•  Survey period: Sept 6 – Oct 9

•  80% of the 2013 participating campuses also participated in the 2012 survey


2013 Survey Participants

Category Dept of Ed

N (adjusted)

Survey N

Participation Rate (pct.)

Public Research & Doctoral Universities

168

68

40%

Private Research & Doctoral Universities

92

39

42%

Public 4-Year Colleges (Baccalaureate & Masters)

374

88

24%

Private 4-Year Colleges (Baccalaureate & Masters)

824

162

20%

Associate Degree/ Public Community Colleges

1018

94

9%





2013 Highlights •  Top IT priorities focus on instruction, advancing the campus

completion agenda & supporting mobile.

•  Tablets and smart phones surpass laptops as important in IT planning.

•  Big gains (again) in the deployment of mobile apps.

•  Budget cuts continue to decline, but public campuses remain more at risk than private/non-profit.

•  Mixed assessments from CIOs about the effectiveness of campus IT investments.

•  Slow transition to the Clouds continues.

•  Data document the rising role of video.

•  Transitions continue in the LMS market. The Campus Computing Project

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Leveraging social media ERP upgrade/prelacement

Shared services / IT collaboration Migrating to the Cloud

Supporting BYOD Upgrading the campus network

Learnning & manageial analytics Professional development for IT staff

Financing replacement of aging IT IT security

Online education Mobile computing

Leveraging IT for student success Providing adequate user support Hiring/retaining qualified IT staff

Assisting faculty integrate IT into instruction

Top Institutional IT Priorities Over the Next Two-Three Years, Fall 2013 pct. reporting very important (6/7)

scale: 1=not important; 7=very important


Top IT priorities focus on SERVICES: Instructional integration, user support, mobile, online ed, student success

service

technology




Top Institutional IT Priorities Over the Next Two-Three Years, Fall 2013 (scale score 1=not important; 7=very important; percentage for 6/7) Top priorities

focus on instructional integration, user support, and IT staffing


All Campuses

Public Universities

Private Universities

Public 4-Yr. Colleges

Private 4-Yr. Colleges

Community Colleges

Assisting Faculty Integrate

IT into Instruction

(79%)

TIE: Instructional Integration &

Online Ed on the Web

(79%)


IT into Instruction

(84%)

Instructional Integration &

Leveraging IT for Student Success

(82%)


IT into Instruction

(78%)

Leveraging IT

for Student Success

(80%)

Hiring/

Retaining Qualified IT Staff (73%)

Hiring/

Retaining Qualified IT Staff

(tie: 72%)

Hiring/


Hiring/


Hiring IT Staff

& Adequate User

Support (69%)

Providing Online Ed

on the Web (76%)

Providing

Adequate User Support

(72%)

TIE: User Support

& Mobile

Computing (72%)

TIE: User Support

& Mobile

Computing (72%)

Providing

Adequate User Support

(76%)

Supporting

Mobile Computing

(67%)

Assisting Faculty

Integrate IT into Instruction

(75%)

Top Institutional IT Priorities by Sector, Fall 2013





Top Institutional IT Priorities, 2013 Campus Computing Survey

(pct.. reporting “very important”) EDUCAUSE “Top 10 IT Issues”

(panel assessment)

1 Assisting faculty integrate technology into instruction (74%)

Leveraging the wireless and device explosion on campus

2

Hiring / retaining qualified IT staff (73%) Improving student outcomes by leveraging technology

3 Providing adequate user support (73%) Developing a campus-wide cloud strategy

4 Leveraging IT resources to advance student success / student completion priorities ( 72%)

Developing an agile and open IT organizational model to accommodate a changing IT environment

5 Implementing/supporting mobile computing (67%)

IT security: the balance between infrastructure openness and security

6 Providing Online Education (64%) Funding IT strategically

7 Network and Data Security (64%) Developing a sustainable strategy for online ed

8 Financing the replacement of aging IT (52%)

Supporting the trend towards consumerization and BOYD

9 TIE: Professional development for IT personnel & Learning/Managerial Analytics (50%)

Transforming the institution’s business with IT

10

Upgrading the campus network (48%)

Using analytics to support critical outcomes The Campus Computing Project

Rating the IT Infrastructure, Fall 2013

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Digital dashboards / ERP analytics Mobile apps / services for students, faculty &

Research computing IT training for students

Data warehousing Disaster planning

IT training for faculty Campus web site services / student portal

Cellular coverage across the campus Web resources to support instruction

Instructional computing Overall assessment of IT security (network

Telecommunications and phone system Enterprise systems

Emergency communications / notification Wireless networks

User support services Multimedia / AV enabled classrooms

Online reference resources the library Computer networks and data communication

means; scale: 1=poor; 7= excellent

•  Highest rankings for the network, “hardware,” and content

•  Lower rankings for services

•  Would faculty and students agree with the ranking for user support services?


>5.5

>5.0

2012 2013




IT Planning & Policy Issues Tablets & Smartphones Over Laptops!

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Public Universities




Community Colleges

pct. reporting “very important” (6/7) scale: 1=not important; 7=very important

How important are these issues for campus IT planning and policy over the next 2-3 years

Laptops Tablets Smartphones “Skating to where the digital puck” is going: •  A clear message

that “new platforms” are more important in IT planning than old hardware.


IT Planning & Policy Issues Other Top IT Planning Issues

pct. reporting very important (6/7) scale: 1=not important; 7=very important

How important are these issues for campus IT planning and policy over the next 2-3 years

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Web-based tutorials

e-Books (e-textbooks)

Desktop virtualization

Online IT training

LIT Standards

Web conferencing

Internet videoconferencing

Online technical support

Online course evaluation

Content management systems

Data encryption

Server virtualization •  Planning priorities include a mix of security, technology, and service issues.





A Reminder from 2012 Rating the Effectiveness of Campus IT Investments

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

On-Campus Instruction

ERP / Admin Info Systems

Analytics

Presidents Provosts CIOs

pct. reporting “very effective (6/7); scale: 1=not effective; 7=very effective


Sources: Green, Presidential Perspectives Survey, INSIDE HIGHER ED, March 2011 Green, CAO Survey, INSIDE HIGHER ED, Jan 2012 Green, Campus Computing 2012, Nov, 2012

•  Presidents and provosts are generally less sanguine about the effectiveness of IT invest-ments than their IT officers.

CIOs Rate the Effectiveness of Campus Investments in Information Technology, 2012

0 20 40 60 80

Data analysis & managerial analytics

Research and scholarship

Alumni activites / engagement

Development efforts

Student recruitment

Online ed courses & programs

Academic support services

Student services

On-campus teaching & instruction

Library resources and services

Admin info systems & operations

<30%

31-50%

<50%

pct.. rating very effective (6/7) scale: 1=not effective; 7-=very effective


•  Very mixed assessments about the effectiveness of campus IT investments




CIOs Rate the Effectiveness of Campus Investments in Information Technology, 2012 vs. 2013

0 20 40 60 80

Data analysis & managerial analytics

Research and scholarship

Alumni activites / engagement

Development efforts

Student recruitment

Online ed courses & programs

Academic support services

Student services

On-campus teaching & instruction

Library resources and services

Admin info systems & operations

<30%

31-50%

<50%

2013

pct.. rating very effective


•  Modest gains in 2013 survey

•  Core message remains the same as last year: IT is doing ok, but not great.

Budget Cuts, 2006-2013 percentage of institutions reporting budget reductions for central IT services over prior year funding, 2006-2013

•  THE GOOD NEWS: declines in budget cuts continue

•  Still experiencing the compounding consequences of continuing budget cuts

•  Privates fare better than publics

•  One-sixth (16%) experienced additional mid-year cuts, averaging 9%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Public Universities


Public 4-Yr Colleges

Private 4-Yr Colleges

Community Colleges

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013




Budget Cuts vs. Budget Gains, Fall 2013

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 Budget Cut Budget Increase

percentage of institutions reporting budget increases or cuts, by budget line fall, 2013

Central IT Budget

Wireless Services

Cloud Computing

IT Security

Mobile Services

Business Analytics

•  Investing in security, cloud, mobility & analytics

•  Reduced spending in public labs and for replacement hardware

•  Student lab replacement cycle now 3-4 years (77%) vs. 2-3 years (55%) in 2008


ERP Software

& Services

ERP Expenditures (estimated annual expenditures for licensing and maintenance fees)

•  Core ERP spending accounts for about 9-10% of total central IT expenditures.

•  Less dollars for ERP in community colleges but a larger proportion of the IT budget (11-12%)





Reorganizing IT Units, Fall 2013

36 pct. have reorganized academic computing units in the

past two years

29 pct. expect to restructure

academic computing the next two years.

Organizational structures for many IT units are in transition.

15 percent who have reorganized

academic computing expect

to do it again in the next two

years!.


Little change in these numbers in recent years

•  Public 4-yr. colleges and universities were more likely to have an IT re-org than privates in the past 2 years

•  Universities are more likely to anticipate a re-org in the next 2 years

IT Security IT Security Incidents, A/Y 2006 – 2013

percentages


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Device Theft w/

Confidential Data

Attack on the

Campus Network

Identity Management

Computer Virus

Spyware Social Networking

Incident

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 •  Device theft rising (computer, phone, USB drive)

•  Other issues ”stable”




IT Security Student Security Incident Linked to a Social Networking Site percentages by sector, 2006-2012


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Public Universities




Community Colleges

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 •  Social networks continue to present campus security challenges

IT Security Intentional Employee Misconduct Affecting IT Security

percentages by sector, 2007-2013


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Public Universities




Community Colleges

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 •  Employee misconduct reflects rising stress levels among IT staff




The IT Security Concerns of CIOs, Fall 2013

- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Hack / attack on research files

Incident linked to social networks

Employee malfeascence

Major computer virus infestation

Major spyware infestation

Other attack on institutional data files

Hack / attack on adm /fin files

Hack / attack on student data files

Hack on server not managed by central services

Identity management issues

Hack / attack on the campus network

Stolen computer, phone, tablet, USB drive pct. reporting high (4/5); scale: 1=low; 5=high

•  The theft or loss of a device and network attack are the top security concerns.

•  “Independentservers” are the “petulant adolescents” of campus IT security.


Updating Campus IT Security & Disaster Plans, 2013


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Universities


Public 4-Yr.

Colleges

Private 4-Yr.

Colleges

Community Colleges

percentages, fall 2013

Last Update for IT Security past 13-24 months

past 12 months

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Universities


Public 4-Yr.

Colleges

Private 4-Yr.

Colleges

Community Colleges

Last Update for IT Disaster Recovery percentages, fall 2013 past 13-24 months

past 12 months

•  23 pct.. DO NOT have a strategic plan for network and data security

•  33 pct.. DO NOT have a strategic plan for IT disaster recovery (vs. 39% in 2012)




Much Ado About MOOCs?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All Institutions

Public Universities


Public 4-Yr.

Colleges

Private 4-Yr.

Colleges

Community Colleges

Offer a viable model for the effective delivery of online instruction

Offer a viable business model for campuses to realize new revenues

percentages who agree/strongly agree, fall 2013


•  A bare majority of CIOs see MOOCs as viable model for online instruction

•  More than two-thirds of CIOs are uncertain about the revenue mode

•  Incremental gains over 2012

Outsourcing Instructional Services for Online Programs?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

All Institutions

Public Universities


Public 4-Yr.

Colleges

Private 4-Yr.

Colleges

Community Colleges

VIABLE instructional strategy to launch or expand online programs

PROFITABLE strategy to launch or expand online programs

percentages who agree/strongly agree, fall 2013


Are perspectives on MOOCs informed by real experience with outsourcing? •  Outsourcing some

online ed services is well underway

•  Outsourcing viewed as more effective for instruction than for profits.

•  CIOs in private universities more supportive of outsourcing instructional services than their peers.

Currently out-sourcing some aspects of online ed




To provide or not to provide

Campus IT Services

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Faculty/ staff email

Printing for

Students

Student Email

Public Computng

Labs

Evening/ weekend help desk

Video Lecture Capture

Audio Lecture Capture

Student ePortfolio

Facultuy ePortfolio

Computer Resale

percentages, 2013

•  Do we offer IT services that we could reduce or cut?

Currently Provide


Campus IT Services

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Printing for

Students

Student Email

Public Computng

Labs




Student ePortfolio

Facultuy ePortfolio

Computer Resale

percentages, 2013

•  Few CIOs are prepared to reduce IT services many say they would like to cut.

Currently Provide Should Provide





Campus IT Services

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Printing for

Students

Student Email

Public Computng

Labs




Student ePortfolio

Facultuy ePortfolio

Computer Resale

percentages, 2013

•  Few CIOs are prepared to reduce IT services many say they would like to cut.

Currently Provide Should Provide Do & Should Provide

Let’s Talk About Clouds





Where are the Clouds?

High Clouds ERP & HPC

Middle Clouds Calendar, CRM & LMS

Low Clouds mail & calendar

Just over a fourth of campuses (27%) have a strategic plan for Cloud Computing, up from:

•  24% in 2012, •  21% in 2011, •  15% in 2010 and •  9% in 2009.


Affirming the Strategic Importance of Cloud Computing


•  Across all sectors, a clear message that CIOs view moving ERP to the Cloud as strategic for their institution.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Universities




Community Colleges

percentage who agree/strongly agree, fall 2013 Increasingly important role in ERP strategy

Viable strategy for key ERP applications

Important part of campus plan to reduce IT costs

Source: Kenneth C. Green, The 20122 Campus Computing Survey

2012




The Cloud Slow Migration to Cloud Computing


percentages, fall 2011 - 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Student Email

Calendar LMS Services

CRM Services

ERP Services

Research / HPC

Storage / Business Continuity

Still little move-ment to the Cloud for the really big, high-value tasks: •  Risk

•  Limited Options from Providers

•  Trust

•  Control

Source: Kenneth C. Green, The 20122 Campus Computing Survey

2011 2012 2013

The Cloud eMail and “Office” Applications


•  Student email is now “deep” in the Cloud, courtesy of Google and Microsoft

•  Less willing to move faculty & adm. email to Cloud services

•  Slow campus movement to Cloud Apps – Google Docs and Microsoft 365

•  Small but noticeable gains compared to fall 2012

percentage now using/converting to as of fall 2013

2012

Student Email Faculty Email Office Apps

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All Institutions

Public Universities




Community Colleges

2012




LMS Moves to the Clouds


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Public Universities


Public 4-Yr.

Colleges

Private 4-Yr.

Colleges

Community Colleges

LMS as the “toe in the Cloud” experience for higher education?

percentage reporting Cloud-based LMS, fall 2011 - 2013

2011 2012 2013

ERP Moves (Slowly) to the Cloud


•  Do gains in 2013 reflect the rising role of Cloud apps for HR services?

•  Do multi-campus system structures foster faster migration to the Cloud for ERP?

²  Public 4-Yr Colleges

²  Community Colleges

percentage reporting Cloud-based ERP, fall 2011 - 2013

2011 2012 2013

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Public Universities




Community Colleges




Research and HPC Move (Slowly) to the Cloud


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Public Universities




Community Colleges

Varying departmental vs. institutional strategies, initiatives, and deployment?

percentage reporting Cloud-based research & HPC, fall 2011 - 2013

2011 2012 2013

No Mass Movement to the Cloud by 2018 High likelihood of my campus moving to a Cloud/SaaS Solution in Five Years (scale: 1=not likely; 7=very likely; pct.. for 6/7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Learning Mgmt

Content Mgmt

CRM

HR System

Financials

SIS

Research Mgmt

Development

fall 2012

fall 2013

Some gains in 2013, but most CIOs don’t see “high cloud” applications coming soon to their campuses Explanations? •  Absence of provider

offerings •  Can’t visualize

moving to Cloud •  Want to retain

command, control & computing

•  Let others make the journey first percentage





“Lecture Capture is an Important Part of Our Campus Plan for Developing & Delivering Instructional Content”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Public Universities




Community Colleges

percentage who agree/strongly agree, fall 2010-2013


•  Slight gains in the importance of Lecture Capture.

•  Growing role of video in lecture capture

2010 2011 2012 2013

Lecture Capture, Fall 2013


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

All Instituitons

Public Universities


Public 4-Yr.

Colleges

Private 4-Yr.

Colleges

Community Colleges

percentages,

audio video •  Percentages understate real numbers as much of the activity is in large, lower-division undergraduate classes.

•  Video increasingly important for hybrid, flipped, and online courses




The Future (Still!) Bodes Well for eBooks! eBook Content Will be an Important Source for Instructional Resources in Five Years (pct. who agree/strongly agree, 2009 - 2013)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Universities

Private Univesities

Public 4-Yr.

Colleges

Private 4-Yr.

Colleges

Community Colleges

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

We’re still waiting for that future to arrive!

•  Students remain less enthusiastic than publishers.

•  Still waiting for eTexts to deliver on added-value AND lower cost.

Encouraging the Use of the Creative Commons License for Digital Content


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

All Institutions

Public Universities




Community Colleges

percentages, fall 2011 - 2013 Producers vs. users

•  Survey question focuses on the faculty as producers of digital content

•  Uncertain impact on the faculty prerogative to select course materials

2011 2012 2013




Institutional Use of Social Media Campus Presence on Facebook (percentages, 2009 vs. 2013)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Univ.

Private Univ.

Public 4-Yr.

Private 4-Yr.

Comm. Colleges


Campus Presence on Twitter (percentages, 2009 vs. 2013)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Univ.

Private Univ.

Public 4-Yr.

Private 4-Yr.

Comm. Colleges

2009 2013

•  Facebook: Incremental Gains •  Twitter: +10% for Pvt Univ and Pub 4-Yr.

Institutional Use of Other Media


Campus Presence on iTunesU (percentages, 2009 vs. 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Univ.

Private Univ.

Public 4-Yr.

Private 4-Yr.

Comm. Colleges

2009 2013

Public Universities & Comm Colleges: + 10%

Campus Presence on YouTube (percentages, 2009 vs. 2013)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Univ.

Private Univ.

Public 4-Yr.

Private 4-Yr.

Comm. Colleges

2009 2013

Comm College: + 10%




Managing and Monitoring Social Media

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Public Universities




Community Colleges

Individual units operate with autonomy

Central monitoring but no campus policies

Campus policies and central monitoring

percentages, fall 2013


•  Wide range of institutional policies on and practices on monitoring institutional social media activities.

A Profile of the LMS Market, Fall 2013

Blackboard (including Angel & WebCT)

41%

Desire2Learn 11%

Sakai: 5% Other: 2% No Std LMS 4%

Does your campus have a single [campus-wide] LMS? (percentages, all institutions)

Moodle 23%


Jenzabar: 2% eCollege: 1%

•  Topping off on LMS use? 62 pct.. of classes using the LMS in 2013, compared to 58 pct.. 2011 but way up from 17 pct.. in 2000.

•  Blackboard share down from 57 pct.. in 2010, 71 pct.. in 2006.

Instructure 8%




Institutional Demography of LMS Providers, 2013

All Pub Univ

Pvt Univ

Pub 4-Yr

Pvt 4-Yr

Comm Coll

Bb 41.6 51.5 56.4 39.8 35.4 40.9

D2L 11.8 13.2 2.6 21.6 1.9 22.8

eCollege 1.8 -- -- 1.1 3.1 2.2

Instructure 8.0 11.8 7.7 5.7 5.6 11.8

Jenzabar 2.0 -- -- -- 5.2 0.8

Moodle 23.3 5.9 10.3 21.6 39.5 15.1

Sakai 4.9 5.9 1.3 5.7 4.9 1.1

percentage of campuses reporting a campus-standard LMSS, fall 2012

•  Market presence often varies by sector

•  Two –thirds (64%) of campuses report plans to review the current LMS strategy for budget or other reasons


“Mobile Apps are an Important Part of Our Campus Plan to Enhance Instr. Resources & Campus Services”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Universities




Community Colleges

percentage who agree/strongly agree, fall 2010 - 2013


•  Steady gains in the percentage of campuses that view mobile apps as a key instructional resource.

2010 2011 2012 2013




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Universities




Community Colleges

Activating Mobile Apps, Fall 2010-2013

2010

percentage of institutions reporting that mobile apps are now active or will be deployed during the current academic year


•  Big gains (again) over the past 12 months

•  Impact of student expectations and consumer market experience

•  More (LMS & ERP) mobile app & service providers means a wide range of costs for deployment

2011 2012 2013

Some Key Issues




Mixed Rating on the Effectiveness of Campus IT Investments •  Very mixed assessments from

presidents, provosts, and IT officers about the effective-ness of IT investments

•  Unrealistic expectations about the impact on instruction and operations?

•  Over-promised and under-delivered?

•  “A failure to communicate?”


The Key Campus Technology Challenges are No Longer about IT


•  IT is the “easy part” of technology on campus

•  THE CHALLENGES: People, planning, policy, programs, priorities, silos, egos, and IT entitlements

•  Provide much-needed support, recognition, and reward for faculty

•  Address the rising level of digital demand in the midst of reduced financial resources for IT (and other key programs & services)

•  Communicate about the effectiveness of and need for IT resources – to on- and off-campus audiences




The Context of the Campus IT Conversation


WHAT DO WE KNOW? •  The consumer experience

now defines (rising) expectations about campus IT resources & services.

•  There is rising pressure for higher education to provide the much promised productivity bang for all the IT bucks.

TWO KEY ISSUES •  Why don’t faculty do more

with IT and eLearning?

•  Why don’t colleges and universities make better use of IT for campus management?

plus ça change

How Do We Get Faculty to…


•  1986: Use computers

•  1996: Use the Internet

•  2012: Use Digital Resources

Changing (evolving!) questions but common underlying issues: •  Training •  User support •  Infrastructure •  Recognition & Reward •  Evidence of Benefit

Underlying Faculty Question

WHY SHOULD I DO THIS?




MOOC Madness?

Peak

of In

flated

Expe

ctatio

ns

Trough of Disillusionment

Slope of Integration

Plateau of Productivity

TECHNOLOGY TRIGGER TIME

VISI

BILI

TY

THE GARTNER HYPE CYCLE FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES •  Big numbers, big media coverage, big expectations

•  Big dollars?

•  Growing trustee and state interest in MOOCs as a way to grow revenue and/or reduce costs

MOOCs

The Gartner Group The Campus Computing Project

What Do We Know About MOOCS?

7.5 pct. Mean completion rate, as reported

by 103 MOOC instructors

March 2013 Chronicle of Higher Education Survey of 103 MOOC Instructors

Big numbers dominate much of the discussion, but:

•  Open enrollment: no pre-reqs, no commitment & no “skin in the game”

•  No course fees (no revenue!)

•  Big enrollment drops in the first weeks: content, schedule, preparation, student support

•  Ad hoc student support infrastructure

•  Cost accounting for course development and instructional support?




TARGET: Textbooks Steve Jobs set his sights on textbooks as the next industry he wanted to transform, seeing it as “an $8 billion a year industry that was ripe for digital destruction. . . . His idea was to hire great textbook writers to create digital versions and make them a feature on the iPad.” Walter Issacson, Steve Jobs

Underlying Premise

CONTENT IS KING

Content becomes King only because of an effective (almost idiot-proof) infrastructure and ecosystem.

IN THE REAL WORLD


Textbooks Are an Ecosystem


And the ecosystem has also become a fortress.

•  No (or low) cost to faculty and institutions

•  Convenience

•  Quality Control

•  User Support

User Support •  Sales Reps •  Teacher’s

Guides •  Student

Handbooks

•  Test Sets •  Web Sites •  Conferences •  Communities •  Call Centers

Supplement / Supplant Requirements

•  Accreditation •  Standards/Regs

•  Curricular Sequences

•  Authors •  Editors •  Content

Designers •  Instructional

Specialists •  Author

Contracts •  Supplemental

Content

Backend Infrastructure

Alliances that Add Value •  Content •  Distribution

•  Cross-Licensing •  Tech Firms




Academe Does NOT Make Effective Use of Data for Decisions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Presidents Provosts CFOs* Sources: Green, Presidential Perspectives Survey, INSIDE HIGHER ED, March 2012 Green, CAO Survey, INSIDE HIGHER ED, Jan 2012 Green, CFO Survey, INSIDE HIGHER ED, July, 2011

My campus does an effective job of “using data to aid and inform campus-decision-making.” Scale score: 6/7; scale: 1=not effective; 7=very effective


•  Although senior campus officials say they want and value data, the majority do not believe that their institutions do a very effective job of using data for decision-making

(*financial

data)

Which Campus Units Make the Best Use of Data?


•  Admissions

•  Alumni / Development

•  Athletics

•  Physical Plant

•  Food Service

WHY? •  Clear outcomes •  Semi-autonomous •  Independent

resources •  Short decision

cycles •  Dependent on

data

Change the Culture of Data •  OLD: What YOU

did wrong! •  NEW: How do WE

do better!

DATA AS A RESOURCE, NOT A WEAPON!




The Technology Conundrum

We have lots of information technology. We just have too little information.

© CartoonBank, 2002


The (Digital) Potemkin Campus

•  Rising expectations for the role and availability of IT resources to support instruction and operations/mgmt.

•  Infrastructure is critical to the effective use of IT.

•  INSTRUCTION: On-campus and online, the instructional infrastructure is not keeping pace with the demand for resources and services.

•  OPERATIONS: Higher ed is years behind efforts in the consumer market to leverage the value of data.

Grigory Potemkin

Catherine The Great




INNOVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Issues and Opportunities for Educational Entrepreneurs

campuscomputing.net

Kenneth C. Green

KENNETH C. GREEN is the founding director of The Campus Computing Project, the largest continuing study of the role of computing, eLearning, and information technology in American colleges and universities. Campus Computing is widely cited by both campus officials and corporate executives as a definitive source for data, information, and insight about planning and policy issues affecting information technology and online education in American higher education. Green also serves as the senior research consultant to Inside Higher Ed, and helped to launch Inside Higher Ed’s national surveys of presidents, provosts, and other senior campus officials.

An invited speaker at some two dozen academic, industry, and campus conferences each year, Green is the author, co-‐author, or editor of 20 books and published research reports and more than 100 articles and commentaries published in academic journals and professional publications. He is often quoted on higher education and information technology issues in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Education, and other print and broadcast media. In 2012 EdTech Magazine cited Green’s DIGITAL TWEED blog, published by Inside Higher Education, as one of the “50 must read IT blogs in higher education.” In October 2002, Green received the first EDUCAUSE Award for Leadership in Public Policy and Practice. The award cites his work in creating The Campus Computing Project and recognizes his "prominence in the arena of national and international technology agendas, and the linking of higher education to those agendas." Green’s corporate clients and project sponsors number some three dozen firms in the information technology and college publishing industries including Adobe, Apple, Blackboard, Campus Management, Cengage Learning, Copia, Dell, Echo360, Desire2Learn, Ellucian, Evisions, Follett Higher Education Group, Google, Hobsons, Hyland Software, Instructure, Jenzabar, Kaltura, McGraw Hill Higher Education, Microsoft, NEC, Oracle, Pearson, Sonic Foundry, SONY, and TouchNet, among others.

From 1989 to 1994, Green was a senior research associate (1989-‐1991) and later director (1991-‐1994) of The James Irvine Foundation Center for Scholarly Technology at the University of Southern California. Prior to his affiliation with USC, Green held concurrent appointments from 1983-‐1989 as the associate director of UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute and as the associate director the American Council on Education/UCLA Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), the nation's largest and oldest empirical study of higher education.

A graduate of New College (FL), Green completed his Ph.D. in higher education and public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.

!

THE CAMPUS COMPUTING PROJECT®

campuscomputing.net PO Box 261242 • Encino, CA 91426-1242 • USA

Tel: 818.990.2212 • Fax: 818.979.6113 [email protected]

®

the national survey of computing and information...

Documents