Deep Dive: Edge, Leverage, and Trust

Olivia Carter

When people picture IT at a big research university, they usually imagine this smooth, centralized machine—one big team managing everything efficiently, right?

Mark Putnam

That’s a common assumption—especially from folks used to corporate environments. They see multiple IT organizations doing similar things and think, “Wow, what a waste.”

Olivia Carter

Exactly. Like, why would ten departments run separate systems? Wouldn’t consolidation be more efficient?

Mark Putnam

It might seem that way, but universities aren’t corporations. They’re more like federations—collections of schools and departments, each with its own culture and mission. That complexity isn’t an accident. It’s by design.

Olivia Carter

Wait. By design? So this whole messy-looking structure has a reason?

Mark Putnam

Absolutely. Think about it—departments like engineering, medicine, and business, they all have very specific needs. Forcing them into some rigid, top-down system designed for standardization? That would kill, you know, the very flexibility that makes them innovative in the first place.

Olivia Carter

Hmm... okay, but—doesn't that just sound like a nicer way of saying it’s inefficient? Like, isn’t complexity just another word for chaos sometimes?

Mark Putnam

I get the skepticism, but it’s not chaos when it’s managed well. It’s strategic differentiation. What looks like duplication from the outside is often a way to meet unique, specialized needs without compromising the institution as a whole.

Olivia Carter

Alright, but then why does this "federated" structure get so much pushback? What’s the main misunderstanding here?

Mark Putnam

It’s simple—many decision-makers focus on cost. They see separate systems, different teams, and think, "Hey, consolidating all of this will save money." And while there’s a kernel of truth in that, it misses the bigger picture: universities need flexibility to innovate. That’s what keeps them relevant, especially in research.

Olivia Carter

And it’s not just cost-cutting, right? I mean, doesn’t centralization sometimes make things less responsive, maybe even stifle creativity?

Mark Putnam

That’s exactly it. Centralization focuses on efficiency at the expense of responsiveness. Research universities need both scale and innovation, and pure centralization doesn't always deliver that balance.

Olivia Carter

Okay, Mark, so you’ve convinced me that centralization isn’t always the answer. But if universities are sticking with this decentralized approach, how do they make sure it’s not just chaos in disguise? What’s the strategy to keep it effective?

Mark Putnam

Two decades ago, Brad Wheeler and his colleagues at Indiana University advocated for a transformative approach to IT governance: the Edge–Leverage–Trust model. This framework was designed to address the unique complexities of higher education institutions, balancing the need for centralized efficiency with the autonomy required for localized innovation.Rather than striving to eliminate complexity, the model emphasizes managing it wisely. By clearly delineating which services should be standardized and which should remain flexible, Edge–Leverage–Trust provides a strategic roadmap for aligning scale and adaptability within diverse organizational structures.

Olivia Carter

Okay, hold on—Edge, Leverage, Trust. What exactly do those mean? Let’s break it down.

Mark Putnam

Alright, let’s start with Edge. Innovation thrives at the "edges"—the departments, research centers, professional schools. These units are agile. They experiment. They adapt quickly to new needs. Trying to rope them into one big centralized organization... well, let’s just say it usually destroys that agility.

Olivia Carter

Hah. So basically, don’t mess with the nerds in the labs—they know what they’re doing.

Mark Putnam

That's right. Now, let’s move to Leverage. This is where shared services come in. Things like campus-wide Wi-Fi, identity management, cybersecurity—those should absolutely scale. These aren’t areas to reinvent the wheel.

Olivia Carter

Right, that’s the boring stuff—you’re not gonna have researchers fight over who gets to manage the Wi-Fi.

Mark Putnam

Exactly. And the last part? Trust. This is where good governance comes into play. The university’s central IT sets the policies, enforces standards, and makes sure no one is duplicating tools just for the sake of it. But local teams still retain control over what’s unique to their mission.

Olivia Carter

Huh. So, trust acts like the glue—it’s how you make sure everyone’s playing nice without micromanaging. Did I get that right?

Mark Putnam

You got it. Trust is the hardest to get right, though. Institutions thrive or crumble based on whether their governance is solid. And that’s why this model—Edge–Leverage–Trust—leaves room for flexibility but keeps everyone aligned to shared standards.

Olivia Carter

Alright, but how does this all feel in practice? I mean, does it really work, or is it just, like, fancy academic jargon?

Mark Putnam

Ah, and that’s the proof of any strategy, isn’t it? It's about execution. And, honestly, I've seen it work, both in academia and in the private sector. We’ll get into some examples in just a minute—how real places have lived out this model and actually thrived because of it.

Olivia Carter

You mentioned real examples, Mark—places that have actually thrived with this Edge–Leverage–Trust approach. I get how it fits in academia, but I’m curious—does this model really work in corporate settings too?

Mark Putnam

It does. And one of the most fascinating examples I’ve seen was at Raytheon, a massive private-sector research firm. They were essentially using Edge–Leverage–Trust, though they didn’t call it that by name. The structure was remarkably similar to what was implemented at Indiana.

Olivia Carter

Wait, hold on. Raytheon? Like the aerospace and defense company? I can’t imagine they’d run anything in a “loose network” framework. Doesn’t corporate IT scream centralization?

Mark Putnam

You’d think, but they actually managed to blend centralization and flexibility really well. At the corporate level, they ran core IT functions. Things like cybersecurity, enterprise resource planning, email systems—those were fully centralized. No question about it.

Olivia Carter

Alright, that’s the Leverage part. But what about at the edges?

Mark Putnam

Well, each division—like Missile Systems, Space Systems, Cybersecurity—had its own CIO. These division-level teams controlled localized IT, tailored exactly to their operational needs. It wasn’t chaos, though; it was disciplined. They worked within corporate policies and standards while retaining independence to innovate and stay nimble.

Olivia Carter

Huh. So the divisions could do their thing, as long as they stayed within the rules. Sounds... familiar.

Mark Putnam

That's right. It’s just like the relationship between central IT and individual schools or departments in a university. They leveraged what should scale, but they kept their agility at the edges.

Olivia Carter

Honestly, it’s kind of wild that a place like Raytheon, with all its security demands, wasn’t forcing everything into one rigid structure. I mean, you’d think top-down control would be the only way to keep things safe.

Mark Putnam

You’re not alone in thinking that. The instinct to centralize for security is strong, but what Raytheon understood—and what universities need to understand—is that centralized control isn’t the same as disciplined clarity. You can centralize the right things to maintain security without stifling innovation.

Olivia Carter

So, in a way, Indiana University and Raytheon were facing the same challenge. Completely different worlds—academia versus the private sector—but they both found balance with this edge-leverage-trust idea.

Mark Putnam

That’s the point. The model isn’t just about IT—it’s about systems thinking. It works because it adapts to the needs of the organization, whether that’s building fighter jets or conducting groundbreaking research. Scale and innovation don’t need to live in conflict; they can live in harmony.

Olivia Carter

Yeah, but it’s easy to say that on paper, right? What happens when someone—let’s say a division or department—tries to ignore those shared standards? Doesn’t that throw everything off?

Mark Putnam

It can, and that’s where governance comes in. It’s not just about having rules—it’s about building trust that those rules are fair and make sense. Without trust, even the best model falls apart. We’ll talk more about how that’s done when this kind of strategy is applied at scale.

Olivia Carter

Okay, so governance and trust keep everything together—that makes sense. But let’s bring this close to home, Mark. We’ve talked about how this framework works across sectors, but what about in practice? Say, at a university like the University of Georgia—how does it really look on the ground?

Mark Putnam

Great question, Olivia. At UGA, the Edge–Leverage–Trust model isn’t just a theory; it’s very much in action. We’re talking about one university with a centralized core but diverse, specialized needs across its schools and departments.

Olivia Carter

Okay, so give me an example. What’s centralized, and what gets left to the edges?

Mark Putnam

Well, UGA centralizes all the basics—the foundational stuff. One identity system, one MFA platform, a single email system, a unified network, core ERP, and things like donor databases and desktop management. These core services ensure cost-efficiency and reliability.

Olivia Carter

Sounds like the Leverage part to me. But what about the Edge?

Mark Putnam

That's right. The Edge is where things get interesting. Take the College of Engineering, for instance—they’ve got makerspaces loaded with specialized tools. Or the business school, which uses Salesforce to engage MBA students in unique ways. Even the health center handles its own electronic health records system. These aren't just luxuries; they’re mission-critical tools that wouldn’t fit into a one-size-fits-all central system.

Olivia Carter

Hah, so it’s like, “Do what you need to do—but follow the rules." That’s where trust comes in, right?

Mark Putnam

That’s right. Every local team at UGA operates within common policies and shared tools. This ensures no one’s reinventing the wheel or compromising security. The central IT sets the guardrails, but there’s enough flexibility to meet individual needs.

Olivia Carter

Okay, but here’s what I’m wondering—how do you stop all of this from turning into a free-for-all? I mean, what happens if someone decides to just... ignore the rules?

Mark Putnam

That’s where governance becomes critical. It's not a matter of strict enforcement; it’s about building relationships and trust. For example, at UGA, the CIO isn’t just a policy enforcer—they strive to be a strategic partner. They work closely with leaders across departments to ensure alignment. It’s a collaborative process.

Olivia Carter

But isn’t that easier said than done? Like, people trust rules when they make sense, sure. But what if one department feels like it’s getting the short end of the stick?

Mark Putnam

That’s a valid concern, and it highlights why communication is so important. Governance isn’t just about writing policies—it’s about involving stakeholders in the process. When departments understand the "why" behind the rules and see how the system benefits everyone, they’re far more likely to buy in.

Olivia Carter

Alright, I think I’m starting to see the bigger picture. It’s not about control—it’s about alignment. But what’s the real takeaway here for universities trying to emulate this model?

Mark Putnam

The takeaway is this: scale and innovation can coexist. You don’t need to lose flexibility when you centralize what makes sense to scale. And the key to managing that balance is building trust through strong, transparent governance.

Olivia Carter

And when it works, you get a system that’s both efficient and creative. Honestly, I’m kinda blown away by how something that looks so messy on paper can actually be so strategic in reality.

Mark Putnam

That’s exactly it, Olivia. It’s not about eliminating complexity—it’s about harnessing it. And when you do, institutions can achieve incredible things—whether it’s groundbreaking research, scalable innovation, or, let’s face it, just keeping everyone’s Wi-Fi running smoothly.

Olivia Carter

Hah, smooth Wi-Fi! Now that’s a hard sell. But honestly, Mark, this was super insightful. Thanks for breaking it all down with me.

Mark Putnam

My pleasure, Olivia. And for anyone listening, whether you’re in higher ed or not, just remember—systems matter. Get the alignment right, and everything else falls into place.

Olivia Carter

On that note, we’ll wrap it up here. Thanks for tuning in, everyone—we’ll catch you next time!