Dialogue: Does the Cornell
Policy Process Play in Peoria?
EDUCAUSE 2007, Seattle, WA
Lisa Trubitt
Assistant to the CIO for Policy & Communications
University at Albany, SUNY
Merri Beth Lavagnino, M.L.S., CIPP
Chief Information Policy Officer
Indiana University
David Stack, Ph.D.
Deputy CIO
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
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 policies
Responsible Executive proposes policy
Impact Statement precedes drafting
Template for interacting with stakeholders
Policy Office shepherds the process
Policy Advisory Group approves drafts
Exec. Review Committee approves final
How Do We Shape Up?
All Policies
No
No
No
Responsible Executive
No
Yes
No
Sort of
No
No
Template
Yes
Yes
No
Policy Office
No
Yes
No
Policy Advisory Group
Yes
Sort of
No
?
Sort of
No
Impact Statement
Executive Committee
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
IT
Policy
Committee
Faculty Senate
University
Committee
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?
Divisions assume responsibility
for their own policies
Trustee Resolution put VP for IT in
charge of IT policy
Ad hoc, but a “Policy on Policies” is
is awaiting chancellor approval
Q: Policy sponsorship from the
top or selling from the bottom?
Sponsorship from the top is more
common
In practice, usually from the top
Even with a champion, it morphs
into “selling up”
Q: Begin with a full draft or an
abstract?
Either is possible; full drafts more
common
What’s an abstract? ;)
Full draft
Q: How are policies approved?
Upon PRB recommendation, CIO
takes to President for final approval
VPIT “approves” but we find the
word “endorse” to be very useful...
By Faculty Senate, but many
opportunities for “veto” on the way
Q: What is the role of shared
governance in policy process?
Numerous stakeholders inform
PRB’s recommendation
Many stakeholders, but Faculty
Council Technology Cmmte is VIP!
Faculty Senate, University Cmmte,
Academic Staff Cmmte, IT Policy
Cmmte (to name a few)
Q: Do IT policies follow the
same process as other policies?
No
No
So far as we know…
Contact Information
Lisa Trubitt
[email protected]
Merri Beth Lavagnino
David Stack
[email protected]
[email protected]