Recently I witnessed a listserv thread about performing an assessment of information technology for a college or university. Originally the request was for names of consultancies that perform such services with the dialogue morphing into a suggestion of asking peer and/or aspirational institutions to visit the campus as a team to do the assessment. Having participated in consultant and peer/aspirational led assessments in the past, I started thinking about the positives and negatives of each approach and began to try to catalog them as best I could:
Costs: Peer/Aspirational led assessments will most likely be the most cost effective. Even if the team members are paid a small honorarium along with expenses it will still be significantly less than contracting for a professional consultancy.
Technical Expertise: I’m somewhat undecided on if one would bring more expertise than the other, but I would tend to think that the consultancy would bring more expertise to the table than a peer led approach because of the volume they will have with technology refreshes. Peers/aspirants swap out technology typically after it has been depreciated whereas consultants primarily work with customers on new technology projects practically on a daily basis. This constant exposure to new technology would suggest the consultant has an advantage. Nevertheless, educational institutions are in the researching technology business, so there could be exceptions to this generality.
Organizational Issues: Personnel costs are typically the largest cost driver in an IT organization, not technology. Additionally, dysfunctional IT organizations are usually dysfunctional because of personnel issues and not technology. I would tend to think that consultancies are in a better position to identify and make recommendations on organizational issues than peer/aspirant led assessments based upon their greater experience in dealing with large numbers of customers, along with matters related to candor discussed below.
Commitment/Thoroughness: Who will do the better job: the professional consultant or the volunteer peer/aspirant? I would think that assessment isn’t the core competency of the peer/aspirant whereas it is for the consultant. Peers are learning on the job while professionals come to the job with many assessments behind them, along with a methodology for conducting, scoring, etc. I’m not convinced the volunteer peer/aspirant would or could be as thorough or committed to the assessment as the professional.
Candor/Discretion: My inclination is to think that the consultant is going to be more candid about the problems in an organization than a colleague, especially as they relate to personnel issues, management style, etc. I would also imagine consultants are better prepared in how to break disturbing news and proposing solutions than colleagues who you’ll run into time and time again at meetings, symposiums, and the like. Finally, if there are major problems, is it really a good idea to air such dirty laundry with colleagues?
I recognize I’m most likely missing a lot and have perhaps oversimplified in many respects. So … what’s your opinion? I welcome your thoughts and commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Consultants are especially encouraged to comment!
I like your evaluation criteria. Another one that I would suggest is sponsorship and buy-in. Sometimes these external IT assessments are being done specifically in response to faculty concerns. In this case a report produced by someone from a peer or aspirational institution may be more likely to be accepted than by one produced by a consulting firm.
ReplyDeleteIn such cases, it is still likely that a consulting firm would bring both a process and a candor that might be sorely needed. I am a big advocate a blended approach that brings in a consulting firm but has as a member of the consulting team or the steering committee an external evaluator from a peer or aspirational institution who is known and accepted by the community where the evaluation is taking place.
Steve Landry, CIO
Seton Hall University