Final report and recommendations

On January 25, 2006 the IHETS Board of Directors reviewed, revised, and unanimously accepted ten recommendations in the full report below.

• IHETS Organizational Review 2005: Final Report and Recommendations to the IHETS Board of Directors (pdf)
  
  • Preface and executive summary (pdf)
  • Report and recommendations (pdf)
  • Appendices A, B, and C (pdf)

 

Review purpose and focus areas

The technology landscape has changed dramatically since the 1960s and higher education’s uses of technology have shifted from the periphery to the core of mission fulfillment. The advent of optical fiber networking in Indiana and the widespread adoption of technologies to improve teaching and learning on campus and off combine to make this a good time to reassess the value of the consortium and where the organization should go next. Three focus areas were selected for extensive review:

1. Structure and function of the consortium

A consortium is designed to provide members a place where activities can be undertaken more efficiently and more cost-effectively than individual members can do independently. The consortium model emphasizes collaboration and shared responsibility. The consortium structure and agreed-upon functions directly influence the type and level of service the consortium provides its members.

2. Current and future services and associated business models

Consortium services are the almost daily points of interaction that provide members direct and indirect value. Each service should be based on identified member needs and regularly reviewed for viability and the level to which it continues to address the originally identified need. Over time all needs evolve, and consortium services should effectively evolve with those needs. All services should be cost effective—meaning they provide an aggregated service more richly and less expensively than individual consortium members can acquire independently.

3. Governance and accountability

There are multiple governance models available as examples. An appropriate governance structure should provide for effective member engagement and leadership as well as appropriate oversight and accountability. The type of structure selected, the complicated nature of the services provided, and the amount of resources available or at risk all dictate the type of governance and level of accountability required. 

Review methodology

The review began with a self-study process consisting of several concurrent activities:

• Assembly of documentation by staff (descriptions of services, financial reports, historical background;
• An online survey of the users of IHETS’ various services and members of the IHETS committees;
• Discussion among the most active IHETS committees to provide broader institutional perspectives than a survey of individuals can elicit and to help clarify any confusing results of the survey; and
• Invited reflections and observations from members of the IHETS Board of Directors, selected external stakeholders at the executive level, and former IHETS leaders.
• Research on other state entities such as state networks and virtual universities.

An external review team was named, including national experts in networking, technology consortium services, and state-based virtual universities. The external team worked under the auspices of an internal team made up of member representatives and outside partners appointed by the IHETS Board of Directors. The outcome of the self-study effort provided the external and internal review teams a foundation to discuss the current IHETS consortium structure, governance, and services provided, and offer insight about how they align with perceived current and future consortium member needs.

Input from the external team helped the internal team develop potential recommended shifts in consortium services and associated business models in tandem with appropriate governance and accountability models.

The questions addressed by the internal and external review teams focussed on the exploring questions including:

• Is the current IHETS consortium structure the most effective and appropriate for the current and future situation?
• Are the current services aligned effectively with member needs?
• Are there future services that will become quickly more important than some of the current services?
• What governance structure will most effectively provide input from and accountability to members for the identified set of services?
• What level of accountability is demanded by the nature of consortial services?
• What level of member involvement is required within the governance structure to satisfy that required level of accountability?
• What is the most appropriate balance between legislatively appropriated state funds and revenue generated from member institutions—either directly as fees for service or indirectly as membership dues?