EDUCAUSE Top 10 2026

The Power of Connection: Turning Technology Potential into Institutional Progress

By Remberto Del Real, Chief Marketing Officer, CampusWorks + Dynamic Campus

EDUCAUSE’s 2026 Top 10 Issues reveal a fundamental shift in higher education technology leadership: Success increasingly depends not just on managing technology, but on connecting people, data access, systems, and strategy to move institutions forward.

For years, higher education technology leaders have been asked to do more with less. Maintain aging systems. Strengthen cybersecurity. Lead data governance. Support evolving teaching and learning needs. Deliver reliable services. And somehow find the time, talent, and resources to innovate.

Now, artificial intelligence is accelerating expectations even further.

The 2026 EDUCAUSE Top 10 reflects this expanding mandate. Its issues range from collaborative cybersecurity and responsible AI adoption to data-driven decision-making, technology investment, workforce readiness, and operational efficiency.

But the most important takeaway may not be any single issue on the list: technology leadership has become an exercise in connecting capabilities across the institution.

Cybersecurity cannot succeed without shared responsibility. AI cannot deliver meaningful value without trustworthy data and informed users. Analytics cannot improve decision-making if information remains fragmented across departments. And new technology investments cannot generate sustainable returns if the underlying processes and operating models remain unchanged.

For CIOs and other technology leaders, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity: to move beyond keeping systems running and become even more influential partners in shaping institutional strategy.

Here are four priorities that can help make that shift possible.

1. Build the Foundations for Responsible Innovation

Connecting EDUCAUSE Issues #1, #2, and #5: Collaborative Cybersecurity; The Human Edge of AI; and Knowledge Management for Safer AI

As AI adoption accelerates, institutions face a difficult balancing act: enabling innovation while protecting institutional data, maintaining security, preventing technology debt, and ensuring technology is used responsibly.

The challenge is that adoption rarely follows a neatly coordinated institutional roadmap.

Faculty experiment with AI tools to support instruction. Students incorporate them into coursework. Staff discover opportunities to automate administrative tasks. Departments adopt new applications to solve immediate problems. Technology decisions are sometimes made before institution-wide policies or support structures are in place.

Technology leaders are left managing a growing ecosystem of tools, users, and risks that extends well beyond the traditional boundaries of IT as well as an increasing expectation of more seamless technology experiences.

The answer cannot simply be tighter control.

As institutions evolve, they need to create environments where responsible innovation is easier than unmanaged experimentation.

That begins with a shared understanding of risk and responsibility. Cybersecurity cannot reside solely within the IT department, just as AI governance cannot be the exclusive responsibility of technology leaders. Academic affairs, institutional research, human resources, legal counsel, finance, and executive leadership all have roles to play.

Clear policies, defined decision rights, accessible training, human oversight, and practical safeguards can help establish the conditions for responsible experimentation.

But institutions also need to understand whether their underlying technology environments are ready to support these emerging capabilities.

A comprehensive technology assessment can help identify vulnerabilities, outdated infrastructure, fragmented applications, redundant operational costs, and gaps that may create unnecessary risk or limit innovation—as well as hidden cost savings.

The objective is not to slow adoption. It is to establish a stronger foundation for moving forward with confidence.

And because the threat landscape and technology environment are constantly changing, institutions may benefit from specialized expertise that supplements internal capabilities and strengthens their ability to respond.

The opportunity: Shift from treating security and governance as checkpoints to embedding them into a culture of responsible innovation.

2. Turn Institutional Data into Institutional Intelligence

Connecting EDUCAUSE Issues #3, #4, #8, and #10: Data Analytics for Operational and Financial Insights; Building a Data-Centric Culture; From Reactive to Proactive; and Decision-Maker Data Skills and Literacy

Higher education institutions generate enormous amounts of data.

Enrollment systems capture student behavior and progression. Financial systems track revenue and expenditures. Learning management systems provide insights into academic engagement. Human resources, advancement, facilities, and other departments maintain additional information that can inform institutional decisions.

Yet having data is not the same as being able to use it effectively.

At many institutions, valuable information remains distributed across disconnected systems, departments, and reporting environments. Different teams may rely on different definitions, inconsistent data quality, or competing versions of institutional performance.

The result is a familiar frustration: Leaders have more information than ever, but not necessarily greater clarity about what to do next.

Four of EDUCAUSE’s Top 10 Issues speak directly to this challenge.

Together, they point toward a more ambitious objective than simply improving dashboards or reporting capabilities. Colleges and universities can strengthen institutional agility by integrating knowledge management and building a culture in which reliable, accessible data informs decisions across the organization. When that happens, data becomes a strategic asset.

That requires both technical and organizational change.

On the technical side, improving data access requires integrated systems, consistent data definitions, sound governance, and reliable access to information. On the organizational side, institutional leaders need data literacy—the skills and confidence to interpret data, challenge assumptions, and translate insights into action.

It also requires a shift in mindset.

Instead of asking only what happened last semester or last fiscal year, senior leaders should increasingly ask what may happen next.

Where are demographic shifts and enrollment trends signaling potential financial exposure? Which student populations may need additional support? What spending patterns suggest opportunities to improve efficiency? How might different scenarios, financial pressures, and resource constraints affect institutional priorities?

Emerging AI and predictive analytics capabilities can yield data insights that help institutions move from retrospective reporting and reactive problem solving toward more proactive planning and business decision making.

For example, CampusLens from CampusWorks + Dynamic Campus brings together institutional data, AI-powered analytics, and higher education expertise to help leaders identify patterns, anticipate challenges, and make more informed decisions.

But even the most sophisticated analytics platform is only as valuable as the institution’s ability to act on what it reveals.

Technology teams have an opportunity to help establish the connective tissue between data, decision-makers, and institutional strategy.

The opportunity: Move beyond providing access to information and help build an institution-wide capacity to turn insight into action.

3. Make Technology Investments Work Harder Across the Institution

Connecting EDUCAUSE Issues #6 and #9: Measured Approaches to New Technologies and AI-Enabled Efficiencies and Growth

Every new technology promises something: greater efficiency, better experiences, improved decision-making, reduced operational costs, or new capabilities.

But the cumulative effect of years of technology investments can be difficult to see.

Institutions often inherit complex environments shaped by successive implementations, changing leadership priorities, evolving business needs, and the practical realities of limited budgets and staffing.

Applications overlap. Customizations accumulate. Manual workarounds become embedded in daily operations. Deferred maintenance competes with emerging priorities for scarce resources.

And new technologies are frequently layered onto existing processes without fundamentally changing how work gets done.

Against that backdrop, EDUCAUSE’s emphasis on measured technology investment is particularly important.

The question isn’t simply whether a technology is worth buying. It’s whether the institution is positioned to realize its value.

Before committing to another major investment, technology leaders can benefit from examining their existing portfolios to gain a deeper understanding.

Which applications are underutilized? Where are capabilities duplicated? Are systems configured and integrated to support current institutional needs? What is the total cost of maintaining the environment? And are operational processes limiting the value of investments already made?

An objective IT assessment can help establish that baseline, create mutual understanding among stakeholders, and inform a more intentional technology roadmap.

Just as importantly, institutions should examine processes surrounding their systems.

Applying AI or automation to an inefficient process may make it faster without making it better.

Through business process optimization, institutions can reconsider how work flows across departments, identify unnecessary complexity, and streamline processes around the needs of students, faculty, and staff.

The same principle applies to enterprise applications. Institutions may already own powerful capabilities within their ERP, SIS, CRM, or other platforms but lack the specialized resources or bandwidth to fully leverage them.

Targeted application management expertise can help internal teams improve configurations, optimize performance, address backlogs, and make greater use of existing investments.

For technology leaders, the goal should be to create more institutional value from the resources already available before automatically adding more.

The opportunity: Shift the technology investment conversation from acquiring capabilities to realizing measurable institutional and student success outcomes.

4. Build the Capacity to Lead What Comes Next

Connecting EDUCAUSE Issue #7: Technology Literacy for the Future Workforce—and the leadership capacity required across all 10 issues

Perhaps the most consequential challenge underlying EDUCAUSE’s Top 10 is one that doesn’t fit neatly into a single category: institutional capacity.

Technology leaders are being asked to manage increasingly complex environments while also advancing initiatives that require new skills, deeper cross-functional collaboration, and sustained organizational change.

At the same time, specialized technology talent can be difficult to recruit and retain. Existing teams may be stretched thin maintaining essential operations, responding to service requests, supporting enterprise applications, and addressing emerging security risks.

That creates a difficult tradeoff.

The people best positioned to advance institutional innovation are often the same people consumed by keeping existing operations running.

Solving that problem requires more than simply adding positions.

Institutions need to consider how work is organized, which capabilities are strategically important to maintain internally, and where additional expertise or capacity could create greater flexibility.

In some cases, the answer may be staff development, targeted hiring, or redesigned roles. In others, it may involve interim leadership, specialized project support, or collaborative service delivery arrangements.

Interim leadership and staff augmentation can help institutions bridge critical talent gaps, support major initiatives, and maintain momentum without placing additional demands on already stretched teams.

IT Managed Services and Application Management Services can provide another option: extending institutional capacity through specialized expertise and operational support.

The distinction is important.

The value of a managed services partnership isn’t simply taking work off an institution’s plate. It’s creating capacity for institutional technology leaders to focus on the work that matters most.

For some institutions, that may mean gaining access to expertise that would be difficult to maintain internally. For others, it may mean addressing deferred maintenance, strengthening service delivery, supporting enterprise applications, or freeing existing staff to pursue strategic initiatives.

The right approach will depend on the institution’s circumstances, capabilities, and priorities.

And the strongest partnerships recognize that institutional IT teams bring something no external provider can fully replicate: deep knowledge of campus culture, relationships, institutional history, and the needs of their students, faculty, and staff.

External expertise should complement that knowledge, not diminish it.

Technology leaders also have an important role in helping prepare students for a workforce increasingly shaped by AI and other emerging technologies.

That requires collaboration with academic leaders to ensure students develop not only technical proficiency but also the judgment, adaptability, and critical thinking needed to apply technology effectively in their chosen fields.

The broader leadership challenge is ensuring that the institution’s people, processes, and technology capabilities can evolve together.

The opportunity: Build a more flexible operating model that protects essential services while creating the capacity to innovate.

The Bigger Opportunity: From Technology Management to Institutional Leadership

The 2026 EDUCAUSE Top 10 report is called Making Connections, and that framing captures something essential about the future of higher education technology leadership.

The most important technology issues facing institutions cannot be solved through technology alone.

The solutions are deeply human.

Cybersecurity depends on institutional culture. Responsible AI adoption depends on governance and human judgment. Data-driven decision-making depends on trust, literacy, and shared definitions. Technology investments depend on effective processes and organizational readiness. And innovation depends on having the capacity to pursue it.

These are not isolated IT challenges.

They are institutional leadership challenges in which technology leaders have an increasingly important role to play.

That role requires a shift from managing individual systems and services to helping the institution connect its investments, capabilities, and decisions around shared priorities.

It also requires recognizing that technology leadership doesn’t mean having to solve every problem or maintain every capability internally.

The most effective leaders will be those who know where to focus their teams, where to build institutional expertise, where to collaborate across organizational boundaries, and where strategic partnerships can help accelerate progress.

At CampusWorks + Dynamic Campus, we work alongside higher education technology leaders to strengthen those connections—bringing together strategy, technology, data, operational expertise, and flexible capacity to help institutions get more value from their investments and enhance student success.

Because the measure of technology leadership is no longer simply how well systems perform.

It’s how effectively technology enables the institution to fulfill its mission and prepare for what comes next.

At CampusWorks + Dynamic Campus, we build enduring partnerships with colleges and universities to do exactly that—bring together strategy, technology, operations, data, and people to help institutions strengthen their capacity for what comes next.