From the Pentagon to the Provost’s Office

Why research universities shouldn’t rush to centralize IT and what to do instead.

In 2007, early in my first CIO role at Pepperdine University, I found myself at an EDUCAUSE event in downtown Chicago. It was a late evening, and I was enjoying quiet drinks with Cynthia Golden and Diana Oblinger. That’s when Brad Wheeler walked in. Brash, brilliant, and already a force in higher ed IT, Brad was Indiana University’s Vice President and CIO and a professor of business. He wasn’t just running systems, he was reshaping how large institutions align technology with mission.

As a new CIO, I found him intimidating, but also magnetic. Over time, I learned from him, especially how Indiana avoided the false choice between full centralization and fractured autonomy. Their model, Edge, Leverage, Trust, offered a clear path: scale what should scale, innovate where flexibility is needed, and build trust to hold it all together. It wasn’t just efficient, it was elegant.

Brad stepped down some years ago. Our profession has been a little less bold, and certainly more boring, without him. But the model he championed remains essential. In this Dispatch, I make the case for Edge-Leverage-Trust as the most effective IT strategy for research universities and show how it’s also thriving in the private sector.

Why it matters

The IT landscape of a research university often appears fragmented: too many teams, systems, and dotted lines. Board members from finance or industry, and new presidents from outside academia, often ask: Why not just centralize? Why so much duplication?

These questions aren’t naïve. They’re rooted in real concerns about efficiency and cost, especially in today’s financial climate. But they misunderstand the structure of a research university. These aren’t corporations. They’re federations of diverse schools and scholarly communities, each with distinct missions and technical needs.

In this context, total centralization can be counterproductive. What looks like duplication is often strategic differentiation. The goal isn’t to eliminate complexity, but to manage it wisely. That’s where Edge-Leverage-Trust comes in. It’s not just an IT model, it’s a strategy for balancing institutional scale with localized innovation.

How It Works

• Edge: Innovation thrives at the edges in departments, research centers, and professional schools. These units experiment, adapt, and respond quickly to disciplinary needs. Trying to standardize this work through a central org chart kills the very thing that makes it valuable.

• Leverage: Certain IT functions should scale. ERP systems, connectivity, identity management, and cybersecurity are more secure, efficient, and cost-effective when shared. These are the domain of central IT.

• Trust: The glue is governance and alignment. The CIO sets policy, ensures enterprise security, and manages platforms that touch everyone. Local IT teams serve their units but must operate within shared standards and be non-duplicative.

This model was articulated by Brad Wheeler, longtime EDUCAUSE leader and Indiana’s CIO. He showed us that scale and innovation don’t have to live in the same org chart, but they can thrive in the same ecosystem.

Edge-Leverage-Trust applies to the service catalog, not the org chart. You can have the most centralized org chart on paper, but if you’re running a dozen different email systems, you haven’t achieved scale; you’ve simply built a centralized mess. Conversely, a decentralized org chart can still deliver true leverage if you operate one email system, one antivirus solution, one set of desktop management tools, etc. The key isn’t how lines and boxes are drawn; it’s whether you scale what should scale and empower local innovation where it matters most.

From Bloomington to Boston

I saw this same model succeed at Raytheon, one of the world’s most complex private-sector research firms. From 2010–2011, I served as executive liaison to Pepperdine’s Academic Affairs Committee, chaired by Bill Swanson, then Raytheon’s CEO.

During a visit to Raytheon HQ, I met their CIO. Her org was structured just like Indiana’s. Corporate IT ran core infrastructure and compliance. Each division, each with its own CIO, managed localized IT tailored to its mission. This wasn’t chaos. It was disciplined clarity. Scale with standards. Innovation with autonomy.

Critics call this duplication. It’s not. It’s a proven enterprise architecture that enables both innovation and accountability.

What to do

If you’re a board member, president, or provost looking at your university’s IT org chart and seeing what feels like duplication, it’s worth stepping back to ask a different set of questions:

• Are we leveraging what should scale?

• Are we trusting what should remain local?

• Is the CIO empowered to set policy, enforce standards, and serve as a strategic partner and not just a technology manager?

If you’ve already centralized your IT org chart but your community finds the results underwhelming, don’t start by redrawing boxes. The org chart matters far less than the service catalog. Begin by asking: Are we truly scaling services that should scale? Are we trusting what should remain local? More often than not, problem areas stem from a lack of service-level alignment, not the org chart itself. Focus first on what services are delivered and how they’re aligned with the Edge–Leverage–Trust philosophy, and then make adjustments as necessary.

At the University of Georgia, Edge-Leverage-Trust is our operating reality. We run one identity system, one MFA platform, one network, one email system, one ERP, one donor database, one desktop management suite, and one HPC environment. These shared services cut costs and increase reliability.

But every college and division also runs tools for its specific mission. Engineering has makerspaces. Business uses Salesforce to recruit MBA students. Finance automates workflows with bots. The health center maintains its own EHR. All local teams follow common policies and use shared tools.

It’s not a free-for-all, and it’s not rigid control. It’s Edge-Leverage-Trust lived out.

The bottom line

Edge–Leverage–Trust isn’t just clever, it’s strategic. It brings cost efficiency through smart standardization, and preserves the flexibility needed for breakthrough research and innovation. I’ve seen it work at UGA. I saw it work at Raytheon.

Whether you're leading a flagship university or a private research giant, the lesson is the same: scale and innovation don’t need to live in the same building, but they can thrive in the same system.

This model doesn’t just make IT work. It makes it work better.