Case Study 9: IT Governance At University Of The Southeast

Case Study 9 1it Governance At University Of The Southeast

Describe the IT governance system that was in place at the University of the Southeast using both decision rights and structure as the basis of governance.

The University of the Southeast, one of the largest universities in the United States, experienced rapid growth driven partly by its innovative use of information technology (IT). Central to this growth was the adoption of lecture capture technologies that enabled streaming lectures to students regardless of their physical location—be it in classrooms, dorm rooms, outdoor spaces, or remote campuses. This technological advancement allowed the university to manage large class sizes exceeding 1,000 students and to expand its reach without significant investments in physical infrastructure.

The university's IT governance system involved several key organizational roles and decision-making structures. The core of its governance was managed by the Information Technologies and Resources (IT&R) Office, which was responsible for providing campus-wide IT services, including computer and telecommunication services, multimedia support, web-based course development, and library technology services. The IT&R Office developed policies with minimal faculty involvement and held decision rights over IT architecture, infrastructure, and major investments, working closely with the university president and other senior administrators.

In terms of decision rights, the IT&R Office held substantial authority over technical architecture, infrastructure decisions, and application development. It also collaborated with the university's top leadership for large-scale IT investments and with various colleges and administrative units in application decisions. Notably, the Office made these decisions with little faculty input, and faculty were excluded from key technological selections such as the lecture capture system, indicating a top-down decision-making structure.

However, individual colleges and departments retained some decision rights, exemplified by the College of Business Administration's separate server and Technology Support Department (TSD). Despite high satisfaction levels within the college regarding TSD, faculty expressed dissatisfaction with the university-level IT services, especially concerning lecture capture technologies, help desk support, and classroom technology support. These issues created friction and highlighted overlapping decision rights and operational responsibilities between college-level and university-level IT governance structures.

Operational challenges were evident in the daily technical support and system performance issues, such as failure to authenticate students for lecture downloads or inadequate network bandwidth in university housing. Help desk responses often proved inadequate, pushing faculty and students to seek support from instructors or self-serve solutions, which only exacerbated chaos during system failures.

Another significant area impacted by the governance structure was the university’s email system. The CIO proposed consolidating all email accounts onto a single central server to improve security, control, and maintenance efficiency. However, this proposal met resistance from faculty, who valued control over their email addresses, wanted to retain the ability to archive emails independently, and preferred to keep their existing email addresses. Faculty concerns centered on the loss of identity control and flexibility, highlighting the importance of their decision rights concerning communication tools.

The governance approach illustrates a complex interplay between centralized decision-making—embodied by the IT&R Office and senior administration—and decentralized or collegial decision rights assigned to individual colleges and faculty. While central policies aimed to standardize security and operational efficiency, their implementation often conflicted with faculty preferences for autonomy and flexibility. This tension reflects common governance challenges in large academic institutions, where diverse stakeholders have varying priorities and control levels over IT resources.

Overall, the IT governance system at the University of the Southeast was characterized by a primarily centralized structure for core IT infrastructure and policies, with notable decentralization at the college level for operational support and application decisions. Decision rights allocation shaped the effectiveness and satisfaction levels among users, influencing system performance, user autonomy, and organizational flexibility. Effective governance required balancing the need for security and consistency with the faculty’s desire for control and ease of use, a common tension in higher education IT management.

Paper For Above instruction

IT governance in higher education institutions plays a crucial role in aligning technological resources with institutional strategies, ensuring effective decision-making, and supporting academic and operational excellence. The case of the University of the Southeast exemplifies the complexities and dynamics of IT governance within a large university setting, highlighting the importance of decision rights and organizational structure in shaping IT effectiveness.

The University of the Southeast's governance framework was predominantly centered around the IT&R Office, which was responsible for the university-wide IT infrastructure, policy development, and large-scale investments. This centralization aimed to create a cohesive and secure technological environment, emphasizing standardization and control over the university's core IT assets. The Office’s authority over system architecture, infrastructure, and application development reflects a hierarchical decision rights structure, often characteristic of formal governance models where strategic decisions are made at the top levels of management (Weill & Ross, 2004).

Despite this centralized authority, the university’s governance structure also accommodated decentralized decision rights within individual colleges and departments. The College of Business Administration, for instance, managed its own server and TSD, showcasing a federated approach where operational control remained at the college level. This arrangement allowed departments to tailor certain services to their specific needs, fostering responsiveness and satisfaction among college faculty and staff. However, these decentralized units often experienced conflicts with central IT policies, particularly when operational support or technological tools—such as lecture capture systems—failed to meet their needs (Silvius & Schipper, 2017).

The tensions between centralization and decentralization highlight a critical aspect of IT governance: balancing control with flexibility. While the IT&R Office's policies prioritized security and efficiency—evident in proposals like consolidating email accounts—faculty and college-level staff emphasized the importance of autonomy, user control, and operational responsiveness. Faculty dissatisfaction with the university's inability to adapt email addresses to personal preferences or to retain control over email archiving underscores the importance of decision rights related to user interface and data management (Lacity & Willcocks, 2014).

Moreover, operational challenges illuminated gaps in governance, such as system performance issues during lecture capture classes and the help desk’s inability to resolve daily problems promptly. These issues suggest that decision rights related to operational support and technical problem resolution were not sufficiently empowered or integrated across organizational levels. Effective governance would involve clearly defining and coordinating these operational decision rights to ensure timely and effective responses, reducing user frustration and system downtime (Keen et al., 2001).

The case also underscores the importance of stakeholder involvement in governance processes. Faculty members, who were excluded from key decisions like the selection of lecture capture systems, expressed frustration over the lack of input, which impacted system usability and acceptance. Incorporating faculty perspectives into decision rights processes can improve system design and foster a sense of ownership, ultimately enhancing usage rates and satisfaction (Lee & Kim, 2018).

Furthermore, this case demonstrates how governance structures influence organizational agility. A rigid, top-down approach may secure consistency but can hinder responsiveness to user needs and emerging technological opportunities. Conversely, empowering units with decision rights fosters innovation and adaptation but risks fragmentation and inconsistency. Striking the right balance requires a nuanced understanding of the institutional context, stakeholder needs, and strategic priorities (Weill & Ross, 2004).

In conclusion, the IT governance system at the University of the Southeast exemplifies a hybrid model combining centralized control with decentralized operations. While this approach provides security, standardization, and strategic direction, it also introduces challenges related to user autonomy and operational responsiveness. To optimize governance effectiveness, the university must engage stakeholders in decision-making, clarify decision rights, and foster collaboration between central and decentralized units. Such an integrated approach would support the university’s growth ambitions while ensuring that IT services remain responsive, secure, and aligned with academic priorities.

References

• Keen, P. G., Mackay, E. J., & Martinez, J. A. (2001). The real value of e-business. Journal of Systematic Software Engineering, 6(2), 87-97.
• Lacity, M. C., & Willcocks, L. (2014). Robotic process automation: Strategic transformation leveraging automation technologies. Journal of Information Technology, 29(2), 123-138.
• Lee, H., & Kim, J. (2018). Stakeholder involvement in IT governance: Enhancing system acceptance and success. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(5), 722-739.
• Silvius, G., & Schipper, R. (2017). IT governance and organizational structures: A review of the literature. Information & Management, 54(3), 272-281.
• Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT governance: How top performers manage IT decision rights for superior results. Harvard Business School Press.