CEITPS Charter

PDF version available to download pdf.

Consortium for the Establishment of
Information Technology Performance Standards
(CEITPS)

INTRODUCTION:
The Consortium for the Establishment of Information Technology Performance Standards (CEITPS) was founded to develop standards for measuring the performance of Information Technology (IT) organizations and the value/quality of the IT services and products within Higher Education. This organization will be the defining body for IT measurement standards providing universities and colleges an instrument for determining the health of their IT services and products.

  1. Article I. Purpose (Mission)

    The mission of CEITPS is to provide royalty-free standards for Information Technology (IT) performance measures. The Consortium is initially focused on information technology performance measures in higher education, but the standards published may (should) be applicable to other industries that employ information technologies.

    Metrics are increasingly becoming a universal tool used for improving information technology services or products. One barrier to the successful use of metrics in higher education IT circles is the absence of a common language and a lack of agreed upon standards for those measures. A set of standards for IT performance metrics will enhance the ability of organizations to improve the performance and the value or quality of their services and products. Additionally, standards for determining the quality of services or products will offer organizations the opportunity to fairly and accurately benchmark with their peers.

  2. Article II. Strategic Plan

    1. Vision
      The simple but challenging vision of CEITPS is the adoption of a United States national set of standards for IT service or product performance measures. This requires the publication of nationally accepted standards for IT service performance measures and the encouragement of their adoption.

    2. Goals

      1. Develop standards (with definitions) for the measurement of IT service performance, to include:

        1. Effectiveness Metrics – a customer view of the service or product

          • Delivery – how well is the service or product delivered?

          • Customer Satisfaction – how satisfied is the customer with the service or product?

          • Customer Service – how well is the customer treated (served)?

        2. Efficiency Metrics – an internal view of the service or product from a business point-of-view. Many times this reflects the processes involved in providing the service or product more than the service or product itself.

          • Cost – what is the cost compared to the benefit?

          • Time – how much time does it take to provide the service or product?

          • Quality – what is the level of quality of the processes involved?

      2. Encourage deployment of established Standards
        It will not suffice for CEITPS to develop and publish standards. The organization must encourage the use and adoption of the standards to fulfill the overall vision of moving IT performance measures to a point where they are universally understood and can be optimally used for improvement. Special emphasis and effort must be put into having a common set of standards accepted nationwide throughout the United States IT industry in higher education.

      3. Founding Principles

        • Standards for measurement should be a royalty-free, openly available tool for organizational improvement.

        • Standards should not be the property of any entity.

        • Standards should improve the quality of work by an organization adopting them.

        • Standards should be developed in as inclusive an environment as possible.

        • Standards should not be developed with any special interests or individual (person or organization) interests. Standards should be developed for the benefit of all.

        • Standards should be developed and published in a timely manner – the entire process from proposal to publication should not exceed 6 months.

        • Standards must be adopted by the industry to be effective.

  3. Article III. Participatory Structure

    1. Board of Directors
      The Board of Directors will be drawn from the membership of the consortium. The inclusion on the board will be decided by either a biannual membership vote or status as a charter member.

      • Size. The number of members which comprise the board will be defined by the existing board, with attention given to the board becoming too large. One of the benefits of a consortium over a Standards Development Organization is the consortium’s agility; this should be considered whenever discussing expansion of the board.

      • Voted Board of Directors. Every two years, a director’s position on the Board of Directors will be up for election. The membership will be allowed to vote for any candidates. The only requirement for candidate status is to be a member in good standing of the consortium currently and for the 12 months preceding the election. Each institute of higher education is allowed no more than one seat on the board at a time. The Executive Director’s position is not counted in this maximum.

      • As with all organizations, highly motivated individuals will be required to create the consortium. These charter members will have an option to sit on the board for up to five years. After that time, their continued involvement as a director will be voted upon by the current board of directors. This ensures that charter members, while critical at the outset, do not become entrenched and possibly harm the growth of the consortium. A vote of ¾ of the board is required to remove a charter member from the board after the five year window.

      • Executive Director. For the first five years, the Executive Director (founder) will also act as the Chairperson of the Board of Directors. After this time, the Chairperson will be selected by the Board of Directors by a ¾ vote of directors. The Chairperson will be selected from the Board membership and serve for a term of five years. There is no limit to the number of consecutive terms a Chairperson can hold the position, but after the first five year term, an incumbent Chairperson, if reselected, will go through the selection process annually. The initial five year term is intended to give the Chairperson the necessary time to fulfill the duties of the position and provide stability in the leadership of the organization.

    2. Working Groups
      Working Groups are the life’s blood of the consortium. Working groups will be tasked with drafting standards to be reviewed by the membership.

      • Membership on a given working group will be determined by the Board of Directors. Volunteers will be considered and the group formed based on a determined optimum size for effective and efficient work progress.

      • There is no maximum nor minimum size for a working group except as determined by the Board of Directors to ensure success.

      • It is the responsibility of the working group to develop a high quality standard. It must be comprehensive, of a technically high quality, and meet all requirements for review. The standard must be produced quickly – according to the deadlines offered by the Board of Directors.

      • The assignment of roles on the working group are determined by the Board of Directors.

      • The working group will dissolve upon the publication of the standard.

      1. Confidentiality and Outreach
        It is important for the working group to involve membership in the development of the standard. The best way of doing this will be through the consortium’s online forum or listserv list. While inputs to the working group will be open, the decisions being made should be held reasonably confidential by the working group to ensure that no undue influence is levied on the group by any individual (person or organization).

      2. Participation
        As with all levels of participation in the consortium, participation as a working group member is fully voluntary. The responsibility of the Board of Directors is to recommend and ratify any participants.

        1. Working Group Lead. The working group lead is assigned by the Board of Directors and is responsible for:

          • Calling meetings of the Working Group

          • Establishing a communication process for the working group

          • Ensuring the Standard Template is complete and correct upon submission for review

          • Assigning a Secretary for the Working Group

        2. Secretary.

          • The secretary will capture essential information from meetings, communications, and membership feedback (forums, listserv lists, etc.).

          • The secretary will ensure that an objective and complete record of the standard creation process is documented and made available to the Board of Directors.

        3. General Membership Advocate. The General Membership Advocate will be assigned by the Board of Directors.

          • The Advocate is responsible for representing the general membership on the working group. The advocate should NOT be a fully engaged developer of the standard. The advocate tries to represent the general membership, helping the working group create a standard which will be approved on the first vote by the general membership.

          • The advocate reviews existing CEITPS standards for examples of what was acceptable to the general membership in the past.

          • The advocate can solicit input from a representative from any specific interest groups within the general membership.

    3. General Membership
      Membership in the Consortium is open to any higher education organization and its constituents. Since the standards established by CEITPS are intended for the higher education IT industry, the future users of the standards are invited to be members and therefore participants in their creation.

      1. Membership Agreements

        • Membership requires the signing of an agreement which defines the bylaws to which a general member must comply

        • The agreement will include at a minimum

          • Contact information for the applicant (especially school affiliation)

          • Explanation and itemization of any dues required

          • Expected level of participation (failure to participate at the minimally expected level may result in removal from membership)

      2. Membership Classes
        Currently, there is only one class for general membership. Any dues required will be uniform regardless of the size of the organization or level of participation of the member.

  4. Article IV. Standardization Process

    1. Proposal

      • Any member may submit a standard for development. If the submitter is not a member of CEITPS, they can submit a proposal through a member in good standing who will act as the sponsor for the proposal.

      • All proposals will be submitted using the CEITPS proposal template

      • Proposals will be reviewed for

        • Relevance – the standard must be for Information Technology Performance of a service or product and specify how a measure is to be defined, collected, reported, and/or used.

        • Correctness – besides spelling and grammar, the proposal has to substantiate any claims, have proper references attached, and be correct in all ways possible.

        • Completeness – all required fields must be completed.

    2. Proposal Review and Approval

      • Every submission will be reviewed by a Director.

      • The reviewing Director will be assigned by the Executive Director. Directors will be assigned on a rotating basis, with consideration given to areas of interest and expertise.

      • The Director assigned to a proposal will work with the submitter (or the sponsor) until the proposal meets the requirements for submittal or it is withdrawn by the submitter. Note: one of the tenets of CEITPS is to publish standards in a timely manner. The entire process from submittal to publication should not take longer than six months.

    3. Working Group Assignment
      Any of the roles on the working group can be filled by a Director. Being a Director does not exclude the person from participating on a working group nor from submitting or sponsoring a proposal. Any Director involved with the submission of, or draft of, a standard must not be involved in the approval or Director level review.

      • The Board of Directors will form a working group from members of CEITPS to review and research the proposal and then create a standard to fulfill the identified need.

      • A working group leader will be identified by the Board of Directors.

      • A General Membership Advocate will be identified by the Board of Directors.

      • Each proposal should be assessed by the Board of Directors for the proper mix of working group members. It is feasible that the size of the group can range from 1 to 100 and the mix range from one subject matter expert to a dozen.

    4. Drafting

      • The working group will communicate progress to the Board of Directors and the submitter (or sponsor), on an agreed upon periodic basis. This is usually done weekly or monthly, depending on the complexity of the proposal.

      • The working group designs the standard, using the CEITPS Standards Template. The working group should reach consensus as a team (including the General Membership Advocate) on the draft. Consensus means that everyone on the working group “can live with” the decision. Everyone does not have to agree or like the decision – but there should be no members totally opposed.

      • The draft standard is submitted to the reviewing Director (the same Director who was responsible for preparing the proposal). The reviewing Director assists the working group in ensuring the standard is correct and complete and still meets the tenets of CEITPS.

    5. Membership Review

      • The draft standard is offered to the general membership for review and comment. The general membership is allowed four weeks to provide input. This includes back and forth discussions via online forums and listserv lists. The working group lead is responsible for participating as the development representative of the working group in the forums and listserv lists.

      • The purpose of the membership review is to collect input, criticism, and objections to any part of the standard. It is the responsibility of the membership to be engaged and assist in forming a universal, useful, and accurate standard. Personal (individual and organizational) concerns should only be raised when they reflect a widely held opinion of the General Membership. The goal is to develop a United States national standard for all.

    6. Membership Vote
      At the end of the 4 week review period, the membership will be asked to vote on the standard. This vote is used as input to the Board of Directors decision making process. The vote is not made public and is not in itself a determining factor for ratification – it is only one input for the Board.

    7. Ratification
      Ratification of a draft standard is decided upon by the Board of Directors. The ratification of a standard requires 2/3 vote of the Board of Directors for the ratification. Some things to be considered:

      • The need (original proposal)

      • The notes of the working group efforts (provided by the Working Group Secretary).

      • The General Membership discussion from the 4 week review period.

      • The recommendations and inputs of the Working Group Leader.

      • The recommendations and inputs of the reviewing Director.

      • Any recommendations and input from the General Membership Advocate.

        As with all official documents, the ratification must have signoffs of all members with their vote of “For” or “Against” the ratification of the standard clearly marked. This rigor is necessary to ensure credibility of the products of CEITPS. The reviewing Director, with help from the Working Group Leader, will consolidate all working documentation. These documents will be made available to the general membership.

      • Approved Proposal (provided to Working Group at start of process).

      • Working Group submitted draft (with signatures) after review.

      • Synopsis of discussion on CEITPS forum and listserv lists.

      • Conclusions of the Board of Directors (signed document).

    8. Public Release

      • When a standard is ratified, it is published in PDF on the CEITPS website.

      • All members will be afforded access to the historical documents accompanying the standard.

      • All members will receive an announcement on the publication.

      • Anyone can access the standard, royalty-free.

  5. Article V. Encourage Adoption of Standards

    1. The Board of Directors is responsible for developing an adoption plan for the standards published by CEITPS. This plan can include:

      • Marketing of the Consortium’s mission

      • Marketing of individual standards

      • Collecting data and tracking the adoption of CEITPS standards by IT departments in and outside higher education

      • Outside Higher Education organizations

      • Hosting conferences, webinars, and the CEITPS website.

    2. The Board of Directors is responsible for establishing and maintaining the CEITPS website – the core communications vehicle for CEITPS, which includes

      • Contact information for the Board of Directors.

      • An open forum for members to discuss IT Performance Standards and related topics,

      • An open forum for collecting input and discussing draft standards.

      • A Listserv list (optional) for collecting input and discussing draft standards.

      • Free Access Repository of CEITPS Standards.

    3. The Board of Directors are responsible for the health and future of CEITPS, to include but not limited to, the vision, goals, principles and values of the organization.

    4. To ensure relevancy of standards, the Board of Directors will establish a periodic review cycle for each standard, taking into account the volatility of the IT field and the particular standard. Any board member may also request an out-of-cycle review of any standard if IT changes dictate it.

    5. To ensure the relevancy of the CEITPS, the Board of Directors will create a set of by-laws which will supplement this charter. The by-laws will provide any needed explanations or details left out of the charter. The charter was written to provide high level guidance and some details are purposefully left for the Board of Directors to determine. The by-laws require a 2/3 agreement from the Board of Directors. The by-laws shall include instructions for changes.

    6. Amendments or changes to the charter require a unanimous vote by the Board of Directors and approval by the Executive Director. Any changes will be tracked and documented using versioning.

Featured Links:

Join the Discussion!

129658-simple-red-square-icon-social-media-logos-linkedin-logo

  • Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
    Arthur C. Clarke
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17