Metrics: Peer Benchmarking

Introduction

UW Information Technology engages in peer benchmarking through the EDUCAUSE Core Data Service. EDUCAUSE, a nonprofit association with the mission of advancing higher education by promoting the intelligent use of information technology, conducts an annual survey with participation from more than 800 higher education institutions. This section shows key peer comparisons from the 2011 and 2012 EDUCAUSE surveys.

Note: This information will be updated once 2013 EDUCAUSE data becomes available (expected March 2014).

Metrics

2011 and 2012 EDUCAUSE Core Data Peer Comparisons

The following tables represent data from the October 2011 and 2012 EDUCAUSE Core Data Service Almanac Doctorate/Research Institutions (DR EXT and DR INT) reports.* The tables also show UW-IT-specific information based upon UW-IT’s responses to the 2011 and 2012 surveys.

The EDUCAUSE Doctoral/Research (EDUCAUSE DR) report provides data from the doctorate/research institutions that responded to the 2011 and 2012 surveys and reflects data from FY 2010 and FY 2011. The EDUCAUSE Doctoral/Research institution statistics are either an estimated proportion of the population or an estimated median (rather than a mean).

IT Funding, Budget and Costs

Area
EDUCAUSE
DR 2011
UW
2011
EDUCAUSE
DR 2012
UW-IT
2012
Total central IT funding as percentage of institutional budget 3% 2.2% 4% 2.3%
Total central IT funding per institutional FTE (faculty and staff) $4,713 $4,336 $5,004 $4,752
Total central IT funding per institutional FTE (students, faculty and staff) $981 $1,276 $985 $1,397

The IT Organization

Area
EDUCAUSE
DR 2011
UW
2011
EDUCAUSE
DR 2012
UW-IT
2012
Central IT staff as a percentage of total institutional IT staff 63% 34% 63% 34%
Central IT staff as a percentage of total institutional staff FTEs   2.4% 4% 2.4%

IT in Support of Teaching and Learning

Learning Technologies most commonly deployed
2011 Data
2012 Data
60% Document management tools (UW-Broadly) 68% Distance learning: Local students and remote instructor (UW-Broadly)
45% Hybrid courses (UW- Broadly) 66% Simulation (UW - Sparsely)
35% Collaboration tools (UW- Broadly) 64% Document management tools (UW- Broadly)
34% Interactive learning (UW- Sparsely) 64% Twitter (UW- Sparsely)
33% Distance Learning: local instructor and remote students (UW- Sparsely) 58% Blogs (UW- Sparsely)
Learning Technologies most commonly being considered, planned, or sparsely deployed
2011 Data
2012 Data
85% Simulation (UW- Sparsely) 39% E-books (UW- Sparsely)
84% E-textbooks (UW- Sparsely) 39% E-textbooks (UW- Sparsely)
84% Twitter (UW- Sparsely) 38% Open content (UW- Sparsely)
78% Distance learning: remote instructor and local students (UW- Sparsely) 33% E-portfolios (UW- Broadly)
77% Tie:
E-books, (UW- Experimenting)
Facebook (UW- Sparsely)
32% Gaming (UW- Sparsely)

IT Operations and Infrastructure

Area
EDUCAUSE
DR 2011
UW-IT
2011
EDUCAUSE
DR 2012
UW-IT
2012
Servers that are virtualized 40% 30% 47% 35%
Data center occupancy     65% 57%

Information Security

Area
EDUCAUSE
DR 2011
UW-IT
2011
EDUCAUSE
DR 2012
UW-IT
2012
Institutional FTEs (faculty and staff) per information security staff 1,020 907 948 1,143
Institutional FTEs (students, faculty, and staff) per information security staff 4,992 3,083 4,553 3887

 

*EDUCAUSE uses the 2000 Carnegie Classification, with DR EXT referring to Doctoral/Research Universities–Extensive, and DR INT referring to Doctoral/Research Universities–Intensive.