Dialogue: Does the Cornell Policy Process Play in

Peoria?

David Stack, Ph.D.Deputy CIOUniversity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

Merri Beth Lavagnino, M.L.S., CIPPChief Information Policy OfficerIndiana University

Lisa TrubittAssistant to the CIO for Policy & CommunicationsUniversity at Albany, SUNY

EDUCAUSE 2007, Seattle, WA

Copyright Merri Beth Lavagnino, Lisa Trubitt and the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents 2007. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors.

In the beginning…

Cornell University Policy Development Forum

2006

Cornell Policy Process Elements

All Policies, not just IT policiesResponsible Executive proposes policyImpact Statement precedes draftingTemplate for interacting with stakeholdersPolicy Office shepherds the processPolicy Advisory Group approves draftsExec. Review Committee approves final

How Do We Shape Up?

All Policies No No No

Responsible Executive No Yes No

Impact Statement Sort of No No

Template Yes Yes No

Policy Office No Yes No

Policy Advisory Group Yes Sort of No

Executive Committee ? Sort of No

The process used at Indiana University is based on the Policy Development Process With Best Practices issued by the Association of College and University Policy Administrators[1]

1)Identification of policy needs (primarily through monitoring legislative and technology developments, institutional experience, and evaluation of policy suggestions from the university community). 2)Drafting of initial policy language. 3)Distribution to small group of stakeholders for initial review and input. 4)Editing based on input from step 3. 5)Presentation to large group of stakeholders for review and input. 6)Editing based on input from step 5. 7)Presentation to Vice President for Information Technology, Chancellors, President, and Trustees for approval. 8)Posting and announcing. 9)Educational activities. 10)Maintenance, typically involving review every three years.

[1] http://process.umn.edu/acupa/projects/process/default.cfm

UW–Milwaukee Policy Process

UniversityCommittee

Faculty SenateIT

PolicyCommittee

UW–Milwaukee Policy Process

What it can feel like to

the office that

proposes a new policy

Q: Who is responsible for policy, especially IT policy?

Ad hoc, but a “Policy on Policies” is is awaiting chancellor approval

Trustee Resolution put VP for IT in charge of IT policy

Divisions assume responsibility for their own policies

Q: Policy sponsorship from the top or selling from the

bottom?

Even with a champion, it morphs into “selling up”

In practice, usually from the top

Sponsorship from the top is more common

Q: Begin with a full draft or an abstract?

Full draft

What’s an abstract? ;)

Either is possible; full drafts more common

Q: How are policies approved?

By Faculty Senate, but many opportunities for “veto” on the way

VPIT “approves” but we find the word “endorse” to be very useful...

Upon PRB recommendation, CIO takes to President for final approval

Q: What is the role of shared governance in policy

process?

Faculty Senate, University Cmmte, Academic Staff Cmmte, IT Policy Cmmte (to name a few)

Many stakeholders, but Faculty Council Technology Cmmte is VIP!

Numerous stakeholders inform PRB’s recommendation

Q: Do IT policies follow the same process as other

policies?

So far as we know…

No

No

Contact Information

Lisa Trubitt trubitt@albany.edu

Merri Beth Lavagnino mbl@iu.edu

David Stack david@uwm.edu