This paper was presented at the 1997 CAUSE annual conference and is part of the conference proceedings, "The Information Profession and the Information Professional," published online by CAUSE. The paper content is the intellectual property of the author. Permission to print out copies of this paper is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage and the source is acknowledged. To copy or disseminate otherwise, or to republish in any form, print or electronic, requires written permission from the author and CAUSE. For further information, contact CAUSE at 303-449-4430 or send e-mail to info@cause.org.


The Role of the Information Systems Professional in Small Colleges and Universities

Dr. Maggie McClintock

Mississippi University for Women

Columbus

Mississippi

In 1986, CAUSE published Computing Strategies in Small Colleges and Universities, by Coughlin, which examined technology and IS administrators in CAUSE and EDUCOM institutions.

This presentation compares findings of a follow-up study in which 350 of 629 CAUSE and EDUCOM schools with fewer than 5000 students responded to a similar survey. The new study is concerned with the role of IS administrators in policy setting and resource acquisition, and the role of committees in the IS arena. Differentiation between private and public institutions in the management/governance structure is covered.

INTRODUCTION

The role of technology in the "Information Age" is well recognized by business, industry, and government and is completely woven into their organizational structures and strategic planning processes. Glover (1993) emphasized technology’s role when he said "that the quality of strategic planning is limited by the quality of information available to decision makers…" (p. 103) and that executive information systems were critical in furnishing the necessary data which produced information.

A number of well-known authors on higher education issues stressed the critical nature of information technology to education; for example, Keller (1993) wrote "that institutions that have powerful information technology and capabilities are likely to widen their competitive advantage over the ‘have nots’" (p. 12). According to Stuckey (1996) and McClure (1996), information resources were not an option, but a necessity in higher education and institutions that did not embrace information technology could find themselves extinct. Alvarez (1996) noted that even if institutions maintained the status quo in technology they would be at risk and West (1996) said that institutions that failed to take advantage of technology would find themselves left behind in our market economy.

Even though the literature highlights the importance of technology to higher education, the question remains as to whether higher education’s decision-makers recognize the implications of this new era, if they understand the importance of technology, and if they know how to utilize information system resources to their institutions’ benefit.

A study conducted by IBM on large post secondary institutions and reported on by Baxter at the 1993 CAUSE conference indicated that many college administrators do not understand how to apply technological resources and the information system directors who do understand technology frequently are excluded from the strategic planning process. The IBM study "indicated that the primary reason appropriate changes were not and are not made is an unresolved power/authority struggle" (p. 48). While information system directors at colleges and universities are delegated the authority to implement information systems, the power to change work tasks is retained by departmental administrators.

Green and Gilbert (1995) identified the root of the problem when they wrote:

The successful integration of information technologies is almost always associated with significant structural change – the kind of change that educational institutions routinely resist…structural change in education occurs slowly, incrementally, and over a period of many years – decades. Indeed it is well known that the collegial decision-making process works far better at preserving culture and knowledge than at responding quickly to new technologies and changing environmental issues. (p. 12)

Organizational Structure and Information Technology

The management/governance structure is an area that strongly impacts the effective use of technology in educational institutions. It is an important aspect in examining the role of information systems administrators. West in 1991 indicated that IS administrators are relegated a secondary place in higher education based on a traditional organization framework that exists in colleges and universities and the way that planning occurs. He continued that a paradigm shift would be required for organizational changes to occur, but "there is little evidence that any major paradigm shifts are taking place…" (p. 3). Baxter supported this contention when she noted that the IBM study found that ""even though automation has significantly changed job responsibilities, on many campuses reporting structures have remained unchanged." (p. 48)

Other authors have made similar assertions concerning the link between technology and organizational structure. Person (1994) stated that "organizational structure is one of the most important issues in the evolution of campus information technology" (p. 44). Dolence and Norris (1995) wrote that "artificial barriers between academic and administrative systems must be eliminated if an institution is to transform" (p. 74.) Dillman and Hicks noted that computing resources in higher education’s institutions were separated into disparate entities drawn along the administrative and academic divisional lines.

Problems of the Small Institutions

Clearly, the impact of management/governance is even more critical to the small colleges and universities that are emphasized in this presentation – the institutions with 5000 or fewer students. Ringle and Smallen noted at the 1995 CAUSE conference that "one of the more important distinguishing characteristics of small colleges is the scarcity of resources they can apply to the pursuit of technology goals." (p. 1-1-2)

Ringle later offered this advice in 1996:

It’s obvious to many people that financial pressures, converging technologies, campus-wide information resources, and plain old common sense dictate that the best strategy for small colleges is to eliminate organizational competition, conflicts, and redundancy by having a coherent technology service operation. (p. 32)

A major point of this presentation today is that only a few references in the literature emphasize the importance of technology to small colleges and universities and even fewer authors examine organizational issues related to these types of institutions. Not only is the literature largely devoid of information that applies to the smaller institutions but one of the serious weaknesses of research on information technology in higher education is the populations which are surveyed. Much of the research centers on large institutions or major research universities. Penrod, Dolence, & Douglas (1990) recognized this weakness regarding research populations when they noted that many surveys are gathered at conferences and that there is a "significant under representation of institutions that historically do not attend national conferences...small institutions, liberal arts colleges, and community colleges" (p. 28).

The principal study devoted to technology in small colleges and universities was conducted by Coughlin. His research, Computing Strategies in Small Colleges and Universities, was published as a monogram by CAUSE and Digital Equipment Corporation in 1986. One of the main issues raised by the Coughlin study concerned management/governance as it related to information systems in colleges and universities with 5000 or fewer students. This issue is even more relevant today.

A new study that examined the management/governance structure and used Coughlin as a point of comparison was completed in 1996. The study titled The Role of Information Systems As a Strategic Resource in Small Colleges and Universities by your speaker considered two research questions related to the management/governance structure:

To what extent had the management/governance structure changed as it related to information system administrators in colleges and universities with 5000 or fewer students since the Coughlin study?

To what extent did private institutions with 5000 or fewer students differ from public institutions with 5000 or fewer students with regard to information system administrators and the management/governance structure?

The Population

The research instrument was distributed to member institutions of CAUSE and Educom that were identified as having 5000 or fewer students during academic year 1995/96. There were 629 institutions that met the criteria. Each institution’s chief information systems administrator was mailed a survey to complete. The response rate of 55.6% represented 350 institutions that returned a completed survey.

Member institutions of CAUSE and Educom were chosen for two reasons. First, both organizations are the principal professional organizations devoted to the management, use, and study of information systems in higher education. Second, Coughlin used the member schools in his study. However, when Coughlin began his research, only 271 institutions that belonged to the two organizations had student populations that did not exceed 5000 whereas 629 institutions constituted the total population in the new study. Also, during that time period, approximately 10% of all institutions with 5000 or fewer students belonged to one or both of the organizations. Ten years later when the new study was completed, approximately 23% of all institutions with 5000 or fewer students belonged to either CAUSE or Educom or both. This percentage was derived from the approximate total of 2687 institutions with fewer than 5000 students as reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education (1997).

CAUSE had a total of 1243 members in mid-1995. Educom reported a total membership for the same period of 587. After eliminating member schools with more than 5000 students, duplicate memberships, non-U.S. institutions, and members that were non educational institutions from the lists, a total of 629 post secondary institutions made up the final population count for the study. The chief information systems administrator of each institution was mailed a survey. A second mailing was sent when a response was not received. An email message was sent or a phone call was made for the third and final contact. IS administrators at 350 institutions provided usable survey information. Table 1 in the Appendix provides information concerning institutional demographics.

The Instrument

The survey instrument consisted of three sections with a total of 20 questions. These sections paralleled similar sections in the original Coughlin survey (1986) and used a total of fourteen of Coughlin’s original questions. The three sections were (a) institutional profile, (b) management/ governance, and (c) finance/budgeting. The first section, institutional profile, gathered demographic data on the institution. The second section gathered data that related to the management/governance structure, its administrators, and the decision making process. The third section gathered data on finance/budgeting for information technology. An additional area was provided for respondents to add comments.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences PC version 6.1 for Windows (SPSS/PC). The data were coded numerically, and descriptive and inferential statistical methods were employed. Frequencies and percentages were used to identify data characteristics and the .05 alpha level was employed to test for significance. In order to avoid an increased probability for Type 1 errors in post hoc series testing, which identifies differences as significant when they really are not significant, the Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used and the observed significance level for each comparison was adjusted from .05 to the corrected alpha values.

The data variables were categorized counts in which the categories were tested against the hypothesis to determine if each category had a specified proportion in the population. If the results showed that categories were not equally distributed then a null hypothesis could be rejected; in other words, if the difference in distributions between the categories was statistically significant the null hypothesis was rejected. An appropriate test for relationship between pairs (cross tabulations) was the chi-square.

Some of the questions required either a Yes or No answer while others questions required the respondent to choose a specific answer from a multiple choice scenario. The survey gathered descriptive types of information that resulted in frequency distributions of the data; for example, one question asked if the institution had a single information systems administrator, while another question asked respondents to whom the administrator(s) reported. The findings appear in tables located in the Appendix and show actual counts as well as percentages.

Demographics about the Institutions

The variables that constituted the demographic profile of the institutions were type of control, 1995/96 academic year enrollment measured in FTE, total annual operating budget for the institution, and total annual operating budget for the information systems department. There were some instances where respondents did not answer every question; for example, a few institutions would not furnish budgeting information.

Type of Control

Both public and private institutions were represented in the study. In Coughlin’s study (1986), of the 103 institutions that responded, 40% were public and 60% were private. In the new study a total of 350 institutions responded. The public institutions made up 36.3% of the respondents and 63.7% of the respondents were private institutions.

On examining the 629 total institutions that made up the population of CAUSE and/or Educom schools with 5000 or fewer students in the Fall of 1995, 38% were public and 62% were private. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in their 1997 Almanac that for the Fall 1995, 2687 post secondary schools had no more than 5000 students of which 32.7% were public and 67.3 were private. (Refer to Table 2 in the Appendix).

Size of the Institutions

Student enrollment ranged in size from a low of 150 students for the smallest institution responding to a high of 5000 students in the largest institution that responded. Five institutions reported they had fewer than 500 students and five institutions reported that they had 5000 students exactly. The mean enrollment was 2254 FTE for this study. In Coughlin’s 1986 study, the smallest school had 400 FTE and the highest respondent had 5000. The mean enrollment of the Coughlin study was 2226. By extrapolation using the Fall 1995 enrollment from The Chronicle (1997) a rough approximation shows a mean enrollment of 2117 for institutions with fewer than 5000 students.

Total Information Systems Budget

The total operating budget for IS ranged from a low of $50,000 to a high of $4,500,000 for this study. The mean was $911,194. In Coughlin’s research in 1986, the lowest IS budget was $20,000 and the highest was $1,500,000 with a mean of $389,100. In both studies, the total annual IS operating budgets included personnel, hardware, software, telecommunications, and miscellaneous expenses while excluding any library or media costs.

Total Institutional Budget

In examining the total institutional budget for 1995, the budget figures ranged from a low of $2,500,000 to a high of $163,000,000 in the current study with a mean of $29.7 million. In Coughlin’s earlier study in 1986, the total institutional budget ranged from a low of $3,500,000 to a high of $60,000,000 and a mean of $14.9 million.

Data Analysis Related to Demographics

After analyzing the data based on demographic factors, the following points can be made about type of control, institutional size, and budgetary data. Frequencies related to the demographic data appear in Table 1 of the Appendix.

Regarding type of control, the sample size of 350 respondents to the current study appears to be closely representative of the private and public institutions in the general population of the 629 institutions in this study. The findings in the current study could generalize to this population when examining relationships between institutional types.

The current study’s findings cannot be directly applied in the individual institutional size categories as defined in The Chronicle of Higher Education’s almanac issue (1997) since the categories used by The Chronicle have a slight variation. The Chronicle breaks at 4999 rather than an enrollment size of 5000 which tends to skew any comparison. If the five institutions that reported enrollments of 5000 are disregarded in the current study then a direct comparison can be made. The current study’s mean average would change to 2214 which is quite close to the mean average of 2117 extrapolated from The Chronicle (1997) for the same time frame.

An analysis was performed on several of the variables in the current study to determine if there was any quantifiable relationship. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient was the measure employed to determine if there was any relationship between variables such as FTE, institutional budget, and information systems department budget. Positive relationships were found for the following variables.

The existence of a positive relationship between the budgets for the information systems department and the institution was apparent from the findings. This positive correlation means that the higher the total institutional budget then the higher the information systems department budget.

A positive relationship was present when correlating FTE to budgetary data. The findings indicated that as student FTE increases so does the total institutional budget. In correlating FTE to the information systems department the findings indicated that as student FTE increases so does the IS department budget.

The Findings

Management/Governance Issues

In this section, research questions one and two are analyzed. Both of these research questions related to information system administrators and the management/governance structure. Research question one asked whether the management/governance structure as it related to information system administrators had changed when comparing Coughlin’s findings to the findings in the 1996 study. Research question two examined any relationship between the management/governance structure and type of control – differences that may be associated with private versus public institutions.

Eleven hypotheses were tested for significance related to the management/governance structure. A single information systems administrator responsible for both administrative and academic information systems was identified by the term "Chief Information Administrator" or CIA.

For purposes of this presentation the hypotheses are not represented and the tables are presented only in a simple format displaying counts and percentages.

Table 3 in the Appendix examines reporting responsibility. Seventy four percent of the reporting institutions stated that they had a single administrator (CIA) responsible for both administrative and academic computing on their campuses. The findings revealed that more institutions now have a single administrator responsible for technology services than when Coughlin reported his findings in 1986.

Table 4 in the Appendix shows the breakdown between public and private institutions with 47% of the private institutions reporting that they have a single administrator while only 27.2% of the public institutions have a CIA.

Table 5 in the Appendix shows results relating to whom the information system administrators report. Over half of the IS administrators report to either the chief academic officer or the chief business officer. Another 15.7% report jointly to the chief business officer and another executive. Less than 20% of the IS administrators report directly to the president in the new study.

Table 6 in the Appendix shows the differentiation between public and private institutions in regard to the reporting structure for chief information system administrators. Twenty-one percent of the IS administrators report to either the chief academic officer or the chief business officer in public institutions while 34.7% have the same reporting structure in private institutions. Eleven percent of the chief IS administrators report to the president in private institutions while only seven percent report to the president in public institutions.

An answer to some general speculation may be found in the data represented in the preceding tables. Wide spread reports have circulated for sometime that there is a growing trend in post secondary education toward a sole administrator responsible for information system functions. Such a trend can be supported for small institutions by the findings in this study since the study’s participants clearly indicated that they have consolidated their information systems functions under a chief information administrator in close to two thirds of the institutions. However, the results indicate that this trend for a CIA is more prevalent in the private institutions.

Regardless of whether the institution has a sole information systems administrator it is still apparent that the reporting structure has changed little since Coughlin’s original study. No significant difference could be found in the reporting structure from the 1986 to the 1996 study. The reporting structure differences between public and private institutions for information system administrators are insignificant as well. In other words, the CIA in the small institutions does not rank at an equivalent level as the CIO position in large universities.

Table 7 in the Appendix deals with the question of whether there has been a change in who sets overall information systems policy for the institution since the Coughlin study. The findings suggest that there is a difference and that chief information system administrators have more responsibility for policy setting now than in 1986. Policy setting in this instance applied to who made final recommendations to the institution’s president. Information system administrators gained 13% more policy setting responsibility. However, the percentage is still not that high with only 38% of IS administrators given that level of responsibility. The biggest losers were committees that accounted for 46% of the policy setting in 1986, but only 24% in 1996. No differentiation exists in the public and private institutions regarding the question of policy setting. The findings appear in Table 8 in the Appendix.

Table 9 in the Appendix examines who has responsibility for major information system acquisition decisions, including both hardware and software purchases. The findings indicate that there is a significant change since the Coughlin study. The chief information administrator has much more responsibility in 1996 for acquiring major IS resources. Once again the findings indicate that the IS administrators have gained what the committees have lost. In 59% of the responding institutions the chief information administrators make the purchasing decisions and less than 12% of the time the decision falls to a committee. This is an increase of over 21% for the IS administrators since 1986. Table 10 shows the differentiation between public and private institutions though no statistical significance was discovered..

This study also examined if centralized acquisition applied to distributed computer resources such as personal computers for faculty, staff, and administrators. The results in Table 11 indicate that 74% of the reporting schools had centralized control over the acquisition of distributed resources. No significant change had occurred since Coughlin’s study. The change that did occur was in who excised control over acquisition. Once again the information system administrators had gained more responsibility and committees had lost responsibility during the ten years between the studies.

Table 12 shows that centralized control falls to the Chief Information Administrator 69% of the time and committees about 12% of the time in the current study. In 1986, the CIA only had control for distributed resources 47% of the time while committees had such control 34% of the time. Tables 13 and 14 examine the differentiation between the public and private institutions concerning these questions. No significant difference was found in who exercises control for distributed resources acquisition in private and public institutions.

The final question dealing with management/governance structure centered on strategic planning. The survey asked if the institution had a strategic planning process in place, and if it did, was the chief information system administrator a participant in that process. An overwhelming 84% of the respondents indicated that a strategic planning process was in place at their institutions. The institutions included the chief information system administrator in the process 89% of the time. Public institutions included their IS administrators 34% of the time and the privates did so 55% of the time. The results appear in Table 15 though no statistical significance was found.

Though finance/budgeting issues are not included in this presentation there were several interesting findings revealed in the study. Information system administrators perceived that their departments are losing ground financially and that a comparison with expenditures for other institutional resources supports this premise when comparing Coughlin’s study and the 1996 study. Respondents to the current survey also indicated that information system departments are not being adequately funded and this may indeed be a reality since the mean information system department budget was found to be only 3% of the total institutional budget.

Conclusions

The following conclusions are drawn from an analysis of the data and findings that related specifically to the management/governance issues and chief information administrators.

The growing trend in post secondary education for a sole administrator responsible for information system functions is supported by this study. However, the findings indicate that the small private colleges and universities are more likely to implement the model of a sole administrator than their public counterparts.

The findings in this study regarding the rank of the chief information systems administrator support the premise that these administrators are not executive level administrators. This study found that organizational structure had not changed significantly in small colleges and universities during the ten year period since publication of the Coughlin research (1986).

The findings in this study indicate that chief information system administrators have increased their overall institutional policy setting responsibility for information systems. One can suggest that the setting of policy is an indication that chief information administrators have achieved some level of prestige even without advancing to an executive level in their institutions.

The findings in this study indicate that chief information administrators have the ability to make decisions and recommendations for the acquisition of information system resources directly to upper administration. This indicates they have increased their control over their functional areas during the ten years period between the studies.

The findings in this study indicate that the chief information administrators’ responsibilities exceed their immediate span of control and overlap into other departments in the institutions since they exercise centralized control over acquisition of distributed resources. This is a characteristic frequently associated with a CIO position.

The findings in this study indicate that the chief information administrators participate in the strategic planning process. They have a voice in planning and it can be suggested that such participation signals recognition of their importance to their institutions.


References

Alvarez, L. R. (1996). Technology, electricity, and running water. Educom Review, 31(3), 25.

Baxter, B. M. (1993). Lots of data! No information! (Why universities and colleges do not

take full advantage of their information systems). Proceedings of the 1993 CAUSE Annual

Conference, (pp. 48-53). San Diego, CA.

Coughlin, P. J. (1986). Computing strategies in small colleges and universities. Boulder, CO:

CAUSE Publications.

Dillman, H. L. & Hicks, M. A. (1990). Reorganizing for information technology management

on campus. Cause/Effect, 13(2), 4-6.

Dolence, M. G. & Norris, D. M. (1995). Transforming higher education: A vision for learning

in the 21st Century. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.

Glover, R. H. (1993). Executive information systems: Current assessment & future agenda for

Higher education. Developing Executive Information Systems for Higher Education. New

Directions for Institutional Research, 77. Glover & Krotseng, editors. Jossey-Bass.

Green, K. C., & Gilbert, S. W. (1995, March/April). Great expectations: Content,

communications, productivity, and the role of information technology in higher education.

Change, 27(2), 8-18.

Keller, G. (1993). Strategic planning & management in a competitive environment.

Developing Executive Information Systems for Higher Education. New Directions for

Institutional Research, 77. Glover & Krotseng, editors. Jossey- Bass.

McClure, P. A. (1996, May/June). Technology plans and measurable outcomes. Educom

Review, 31(2), 29-30.

Penrod, J. I., Dolence, M. G., & Douglas, J. V. (1990, June). The chief information officer in

higher education. CAUSE Professional Paper Series #4.

Person, R. (1994, Summer). Organizational structure at the crossroads. Educational Record,

75(3), 42-46.

Ringle, M. (1996, May/June). The well-rounded institution. Educom Review, 31(3), 32.

Ringle, M. & Smallen, D. (1995). Can small universities afford to be technology leaders? Can

They afford not to be? Proceedings of the 1995 CAUSE Annual Conference, (pp. 1.1. –

1.1.10). New Orleans, LA.

Stuckey, J. E. (1996, May/June). Negotiating the slippery slope of technology progress.

Educom Review, 31(3), 33-34.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. (1997, August 29). Almanac issue.

West, T. W. (1991). Being lean and meaningful in the 1990s. Cause/Effect, 14(3), 3-5.

West, T. W. (1996, May/June). Leveraging technology. Educom Review, 31(3), 34-35.


Appendix

Tables

Table 1

Demographics about the Institutions

Categories (n = 350)

Number of Institutions

Percent of Institutions

Type of Control
Public

127

36.3

Private

223

63.7

Size of Institutions FTE
0-199

1

0.3

200-499

4

1.1

500-999

40

11.4

1000-2499

170

48.6

2500-4999

130

37.1

5000

5

1.4

Total IS Budget
Not Reported

7

2.0

200,000 or Less

18

5.1

200,001-400,000

68

19.4

400,001-600,000

65

18.6

600,001-800,000

56

16.0

over 800,000

136

38.9

Total Institutional Budget
Not Reported

7

2.0

10 Million or Less

39

11.1

10,000,001-20 Million

97

27.7

20,000,001-30 Million

84

24.0

30,000,001-40 Million

40

1 1.4

40,000,001-50 Million

36

10.3

50,000,001-60 Million

20

5.7

Over 60 Million

27

7.7

_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 2

Comparison of Institutions by Type of Control

1985/86

1995/96

1995/96

1995/96

Type of

Control

Coughlin Study

38% Response

McClintock Study

55.6% Response

CAUSE/Educom

Members

The Chronicle

U.S. Population

103 Respondents

350 Respondents

629 Institutions

2687 Institutions

Public

40%

36.3%

38%

32.7%

Private

60%

63.7%

62%

67.3%

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 3

Relationship Between Studies and Existence of a Single IS Administrator

Single IS Administrator

Multiple IS Administrators

McClintock

Actual Count

259

90

Total %

74.2

25.8

Coughlin

Actual Count

52

48

Total %

52

48

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 4

Comparison between Institutional Types and Existence of a Single IS Administrator

Single IS Administrator

Multiple IS   Administrators

Public

Actual

95

32

Total %

27.2

9.2

Private

Actual

164

58

Total %

47

16.6

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Table 5

Relationship Between Studies and Reporting Relationship of IS Administrator(s)

CAO

CBO

Pres.

Other

CBO/Other

McClintock

Actual Count

92

102

65

30

59

Total %

26.4

29.3

18.6

8.6

17

Coughlin

Actual Count

28

34

22

7

12

Total %

27.1

33

21.3

6.7

11.6

__________________________________________________________________________

Table 6

Relationship Between Institutional Types and Reporting Relationship of IS Administrator(s)

CAO

CBO

PRES.

CAO/ CBO

Other

Public
Actual

30

43

25

14

15

Total %

8.6

12.4

7.1

4.1

4.3

Private
Actual

62

59

40

32

28

Total %

17.8

16.9

11.5

9.1

8.1

_____________________________________________________________________________

Table 7

Relationship Between Studies and the Setting of IS Policy

CAO

CBO

CIA

Committee

Other

McClintock

Actual Count

35

33

133

85

63

Total %

10

9.4

38.1

24.3

18.1

Coughlin

Actual Count

8

13

26

47

8

Total %

7

13

25.4

46

8

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Table 8

Relationship Between Institutional Types and the Settings of IS Policy

CAO

CBO

CIA

Committee

Other

Public
Actual

9

12

50

33

22

Total %

2.5

3.4

14.3

9.5

6.3

Private
Actual

26

21

83

52

41

Total %

7.4

6

23.7

14.9

11.7

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 9

Relationship Between the Studies and Responsibility for IS Resource Acquisition Decisions

CAO

CBO

CIA

Committee

Other

McClintock

Actual Count

14

23

208

42

63

Total %

4

6.5

59.4

12

18

Coughlin

Actual Count

7

11

38

34

10

Total %

7

11

38

34

10

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 10

Relationship Between Institutional Types and Responsibility for IS Resource Acquisition Decisions

CAO

CBO

CIA

Committee

Other

Public

Actual

4

6

80

16

21

Total %

1.1

1.7

22.8

4.6

6

Private

Actual

10

17

128

26

42

Total %

2.9

4.8

36.6

7.4

12

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Table 11

Relationship Between Studies and Centralized Control For the Acquisition of Distributed Computer Resources

Centralized Control

Decentralized Control

McClintock

Actual Count

259

91

Total %

74

26

Coughlin

Actual Count

81

19

Total %

81

19

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 12

Relationship Between Studies and Who Exercises Centralized Control For Acquisition of Distributed Computer Resources

CAO

CBO

CIA

Committee

Other

McClintock

Actual Count

3

14

177

30

33

Total %

1.2

5.4

68.9

11.7

12.8

Coughlin

Actual Count

9

4

39

28

3

Total %

10.8

4.8

47

33.7

3.6

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 13

Relationship Between Institutional Types and Centralized Control For the Acquisition of Distributed Computer Resources

Centralized Control

Decentralized Control

Public

Actual Count

90

37

Total %

25.7

10.6

Private

Actual Count

169

54

Total %

48.3

15.4

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 14

Relationship Between Institutional Types and Who Exercises Control For the Acquisition of Distributed Computing Resources

CAO

CBO

CIA

Committee

Other

Public

Actual

1

3

63

11

10

Total %

0.4

1.2

24.5

4.3

3.9

Private

Actual

2

11

114

19

23

Total %

0.8

4.2

44.4

7.4

8.9

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 15

Relationship Between Institutional Types and CIA Participation in Strategic Planning For Institutions With a Strategic Planning Process

CIA Participation - Yes

CIA Participation - No

Public

Actual Count

100

8

Total %

34

2.7

Private

Actual Count

162

24

Total %

55.1

8.2

______________________________________________________________________________


[Comments] [Search] [Home]