ED 387 126

TITLE

INSTITUTIONREPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEJOURNAL CIT

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

IR 017 355

The EDUTECH Report. The Education TechnologyNewsletter for Fa:ulty and Administrators,1992-1993.

EDUTECH International, Bloomfield, CT.ISSN-0883-1327Mar 9397p.

EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue,Dloomfield, CT 06002-1634 ($97 annualsubscription).Collected Works Serials (022)EDUTECH Report; v8 n1-12 Apr 1992-Mar 1993

MFOI/PC04 Plus Postage.Access to Information; Computer Security; *ComputerUses in Education; Decision Making; EducationalChange; Educational Planning; *EducationalTechnology; Higher Education; Information Systems;*Information Technology; Interviews; Leadership;Strategic Planning; jelecommunicationsDistributed Computing; EDUCOM; InformationInfrastructure

This newsletter examines education technology issuesof concern to school faculty and administrators. Regular features ineach issue include educational technology news, a book review, and aquestion and answer column. The cover articles during this volumeyear are: "Data Access Issues: Security Vs. Openness"; "Creation ofan Information Infrastructure" (John D. Hoh); "Enterprise-WideComputing: A Vision Takes Shape"; "Educational Change ThroughTe,hnology"; "Strategic Planning: A Business Plan for Computing";"Hot Issues 1992-1993"; "Decision-Making for Academic Computing: theCascade Effect"; "New Leadership at E.DUCOM: Interview with Robert C.Heterick"; "Exemplary Leadership and IT Excellence"; "IT Excellence:It's Not Instant Pudding"; "Quality Distributed Data Management"(Lore Balkan and Gerry McLaughlin); and "Choosing a New System: TwoSchools Do It Right." (MAS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

*******************A:,A:,A**A:.:.:,A****=**************

*

-4-1'71-71-"gq April 1992 Volume 8Number 1

The Education Tdchnoioc:, NetesIcttcr tor Faculty and AdMinistrators

Data Access Issues:Security Vs. Openness

ne of the major benefits of today's technology is being able tostore large amounts of data, process the data efficiently, and then

get that data back out in report form or on screens quickly and easily.Although we are not fully there yet. we are certainly quickly movingtoward a world in which data that used to be kept in file cabinets inindividual offices, on index cards in academic laboratories, or onmicrofilm in the library can be seen by anyone from any location.That, of course, is both good news and bad news. At the very sametime that the technology is enabling access, issues of security, privacy,and confidentiality are taking on new importance. Further complicatingmatters is the traditional attitude toward data "ownership" found inmost institutions today. Never before has it been as important forcolleges and universities to develop a set of consistent, well-publicizedpolicies about data access and access restrictions.

In terms of institutional data, access can be thought of as a spectrumof activities and attitudes ranging from a perception of ownership andcontrol over certain data (and hence, a reluctance to share it) to, at theother end of the spectrum, full accessibility to all of the institution'sdata by any affiliated person, including students. Most colleges anduniversities that have developed data access policies have decided thata point somewhere in between these two extremes is appropriate. Re-gardless of what decisions are made, or how the decisions mightchange over time, the important thing is that the issues are recognizedand discussed, decisions are made, and results are clearly communicat-ed to everyone concerned.

The primary issues that need policy guidelines are these: whether therewill be a single, integrated information source of institutional data:

continued On page

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOlfce of Educehonal Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

0 This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organisationoriginating 1.

0 Minor changes have been made to impfovereproduction quality

Pornts of view Or opinions stated in thrs docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI posihon or policy

"Essentially, the reality that Iand my colleagues have lookedat is that of technology as thehandmaiden of the existingsystem, and as such it isn'tvery important in mostschools. The exception is withregard to libraries, specificallyinformation systems. I'mimpressed in a few libraries tosee the beginning, a realflicker, of libraries being realinformation centers of a veryprofound kind."

Theodore SizerBrown UniversityInterviewTechnosSpring 1992

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Linda H. Fleit

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." )

-

UNIVERSITY OFMIAMI AND IBMLAUNCHPARTNERSHIP

NEW ELECTRONICNEWSLETTERS

EDUCOM PRESIDENTKEN KING RESIGNS

L:6(

The University of Miami announced recently that it has entered into apartnership with IBM to double the number of computers available toUniversity of Miami students and to expand mainframe capacity and access toworldwide computer networks. The $16 million partnership is unique in scope,affecting 21 areas of study and research at the largest private researchinstitution in the Southeast. According to Jane Ryland, president of CAUSE,the association for the management of information technology in highereducation, "Investments in information technology can make a real differencein enhancing the education, research, and management functions of aninstitution. The rest of the higher education community will be eagerlywatching for results from the leadership shown by the University of Miami andIBM in forming this partnership."

EUITNEWS, an experiment in providing short, frequent updates directly toparticipants in EDUCOM's Educational Uses of Information Technology(EUIT) program by e-mail or FAX, is now available. Volume 1, Number 1 waslaunched in mid-March, and can be acquired through e-mail by sending arequest to EUITEDIT@EDUCOM.EDU.

Digital Equipment Corporation has also started an electronic newsletter."DECNEWS for Education and Research" is designed to provide a compact,timely source of news about Digital's products, programs, and applications foreducation and research customers. It will also give customers access to moredetailed documents such as information sheets, white papers, and pressreleases electronically. Those interested in receiving the newsletter are askedto contact DECNEWS@mr4dec.ENET.DEC.COM to receive a copy of the firstissue and instructions on how to subscribe.

Kenneth M. King, President of EDUCOM, has announced his resignation, totake effect as of December 31, 1992. Dr. King said that by this fall he will havefulfilled his commitment to EDUCOM's Board of Trustees to serve as presidentfor five years and that he believes this is a good time for a transition inleadership. EDUCOM is in the process of developing a new long-term strategicplan and will be able to recruit a new president optimally suited toimplementing that plan.

Under Dr. King's stewardship, EDUCOM has experienced significant growth inmembership, has achieved national recognition for leadership in creating theNational Research and Education Network, and has become a strong voice foradvocating higher education information technology in the national politicalarena.by moving its headquarters from Princeton, New Jersey to Washington,D.C.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Blcomfield, Connecticut. 06002-1634;(2031242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Reit; Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 1992, EDUTECH International. All rightsreserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated. leprinted. or republished without the written permission of the publisher.Facsimile reproduction. including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN N0883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

1.)

Book Review

About six years ago, a group ofschools which came to be known asthe Consortium of Liberal ArtsColleges (CLAC) began to deal seri-ously with technology is-sues on their campuses.Feeling, perhaps, not wellserved by the major na-tional computing organi-zations, these schools,somewhat unique in bothsize and mission, wantedto share information, tolearn from each other'sexperiences, and in gener-al, to see what could comeof associating in this man-ner. Judging by the quali-ty of this book, good things have in-deed come.

Technology Froma Special Perspective

The chapters cover the full range ofhigher education computing issues,from dealing with the costs of tech-nology to building the infrastruc-

larger institutions, a great amountof the information and insight pre-sented here applies to all schools,not just liberal arts colleges and not

just small colleges. Butthe book's title is unfortu-nately bound to decreasethe likelihood that every-one in higher educationwho ought to read thisbook will, in fact, evenopen the front cover.

Computing Strategiesin Liberal Arts Colleges

Edited by Martin Ringle

EDUCOM Strategy Series on InformationTechnology

Computing Strategies in LiberalArts Colleges is the latest in theEDUCOM Strategy Series, and sim-ilar to other books in the series, thisone is a collaborative effort (al-though it is definitely not a casestudy book, thank goodness). Editedby Martin Ringle of Reed College,the book presents us with a lot ofauthors, but also with a consistentstyle and intent. Thus we have avery effective collaboration thatfocuses not just on descriptions ofwhat certain colleges have done tomeet the challenges of informationtechnology, but also a great deal ofinsight into why things were donein certain ways, and how decisionswere made. Most of the authors aredirectly involved with planning forand delivering information techn0k,-gy to their campuses, so they are ina position to provide valuable experiences as well as perspective.

The book is organized into fourparts: planning and finance; organi-zational issues; networks, distribut-ed computing, and telecommunica-tions; and the impact of computing.

ture, from faculty development tohiring a consultant, from setting upadvisory groups to dealing withburnout among the computer staff.

The topics are important ones, butthe timing of this book is also espe-cially important. We have reached acritical junction in higher educationcomputing; more institutions arebeginning to take stock of what hashappened in the last few years of'very rapid growth, expansion,, andexpense, and are trying to figure outwhat should be done at this point tointelligently prepare for the future.As Ringle rightly points out, "...it isbecoming increasingly clear thatgrowth will level off during the nextfew years and that the shape ofcomputing in the latter part of thenineties is likely to set the standardat liberal arts colleges for decades tocome." A book like this, then, thatprevides some good input into an in-stitution's technology self-analysisand planning, is an invaluable re-source.

The only trouble with this book isthe title. While in some respects.issues and concerns at liberal artscolleges differ significantly from

"At some (small] colleges,skepticism regarding com-puterization still lin-gers...," writes Ringle inthe introduction. It's safe

to say that this skepticism still lin-gers throughout all of higher educa-tion, and in fact, has led directly totechnology not yet even beginning tofulfill its true potential, especiallyon the academic side. Robert Gavin,president of Macalester College,writes in the preface, "Twenty-fiveyears ago the president of a liberalarts college would not be writingabout the importance of computing."The truth is that most college presi-dents, liberal arts college or other-wise, would not write about it today,either.

That's what makes books like theseso important. Yes, they can help usmodel certain computing practicesthat seem to work, and they canhelp us avoid the mistakes thatothers have already made. But per-haps their most important contribu-tion is in promoting the view thathigher education information tech-nology is a substantive, serious,high-level issue that ought to be onthe minds of our institution's de-cision-makers.

For ordering information, contactJohn Gehl at EDUCOM in Washing-ton, DC; (202) 872-4200.

11110111111MAIIII"'

Note: The fortunate readers of Con-nect. the Journal of DepartmentalComputing at the University of Cin-cinnati (UC) have been treated overthe years to articles on the adven-tures of Piranha Corp, a companythat has perfected the concept ofuser-hostile computing. Sad to saythat budgets cuts have forced thejournal to be discontinued, but Jon-athan Kopke, Senior Systems Engi-neer in the Medical Computer Ser-vices Division of the UC ComputingCenter (and Chair of the Piranha-Corp Board of Directors), graciouslyconsented to allow us to follow up onour original series of excerpts.

About PiranhaCorpAs regular readers will recall, Pir-anhaCorp (whose motto is "RealProgrammers Don't Need Menus") isthe world's foremost distributor ofuser-hostile computer products suchas PiranhaClean, "The JanitorialManagement System That ReallyBites The Dust" and PiranhaKey,"The Keyboard Mapping UtilityThat Helps You Keep All Your KeysUnder Your Thumb."

Other products include The Eel,"The Surge Protector That Lets YouTake High Voltage Problems IntoYour Own Hands:" FishFood, "TheComputerized Diet Plan For PeopleWho Really Want To Take Choles-terol Problems To Heart:" and thePiranha Branch eXchange (PBX)the telephone system marketedunder the motto, "What We HaveHere Is A Failure To Communicate."

In recent months, a number of badpennies have tried to cash in onPiranhaCorp's notoriety. The mostblatant imitator is PariahCorp withtheir motto, "We Never Stop SayingSO WHAT," but two other majorcontenders have also entered thefield: BorderLine Software ("Runthe Borderline") and Albatross Arti-ficial Intelligence Systems ("Let AnAlbatross Pick Your Brain").

Further AdventuBlyte MagazineIn addition to its hardware andsoftware products, PiranhaCorppublishes Blyte Magazine, foundedin response to the company's con-cern about too much cooperation inthe user-hostile computing industryleading to the accidental develop-ment of standards. Recent articleshave included a product focus on"Seedy ROM Storage" and an in-depth section entitled "Why Settlefor a No-Name Virus: The FastestSpreading Infections Yet."

Piranh aCorp has become especiallyconcerned in recent months thatthere were only two major incom-patible microcomputer architectures:IBM's proprietary Micro ChannelArchitecture (MCA), and the Com-paq-Tandy-Zenith Extended Indus-try Standard Architecture (EISA).To offset the possibility of user com-prehension, Blyte is promoting theso-called "Old MacDonald Architec-ture" with Expensive Industry Es-tablished Input/Output (EIEIO).

Like other computer journals, Blyteis financed entirely by advertising.Nonetheless, Blyte emphasizes thatits writerssimilar to their counter-parts in other trade journalsre-main completely uninfluenced bythe fact that their salaries are paidby the developers of the productsthey are evaluating. Admittedly,this makes it hard to explain someof Blyte's recent reviews, such as"PiranhaCalc Version 34.6d: Dy-namic Diagonal Display SlantsStatistics." In fact, it would appearthat only PiranhaCorp productshave ever merited Blyte's covetedAchilles' Seal of Approval.

Carping about PiranhaWareOne of the products listed in thenew PiranhaCorp advertising isPiranhaThesaurus, which featuresantonyms as well as synonyms. Wethought this would be useful untilwe put the cursor on the word "in-

flate" and pressed the antonym key,and PiranhaThesaurus changed itinto FLATE. PiranhaThesaurus alsothinks that the opposite of "undula-ting" is DULATING. Fortunately,we're smart enough to catch suchstupidity.

PiranhaNet is another TELLIGENTcreation listed in the PiranhaCorpadvertising. PiranhaNet doesn'tactually serve any purpose; it's onlya token network. We hope it is DIC-ATIVE of the trends in networking.

PiranhaDOS is a set of OVATIVEextensions to the popular operatingsystem. While some competent andEPT programmers might occasional-ly find a use for the commandERASE/W (erase and weep), few ifany would really need ERASE/CHK(erase and commit hari-kari). Fur-thermore, we don't understand thefunction of the command FLOOR-MAT C:.

Perhaps we should have been morecautious, but in the PiranhaCorpadvertising, the "School of Piranhas"looked so impressive, and the priceso ORBITANT, that all of our pro-grammers were on their way to theSchool before we noticed the list ofsatisfied customers: Osborne Com-puters and the DeLorean MotorcarCompany.

When our programmers arrived atthe School of Piranhas, they discov-ered that the highly touted "luxuryaccommodations" were nothing morethan a cluster of tents. Persons whohad not yet begun their trainingwere housed in the "Future Tents,"while those who had successfullycompleted the course were accom-modated in the "Past Perfect Tents."Several disoriented people sleepingoutside on the ground appeared tobe dangling participants.

The first session of the trainingprogram was a screening test to

s of Piranha Corpassess the current knowledge of theattendees. For future reference, thecorrect response to the questionabout the number of programmersneeded to change a light bulb is D("Nonethat's hardware").

After the test, a huge group of peo-ple crowded into the classroom forthe DIVIDUALIZED instruction.The instructor had been billed as "awell known commercial spokesper-son" who "appears regularly onnetwork TV," but it was still a sur-prise to encounter Teddy Ruxpin inthat setting. And we really don'tbelieve the claim that he can alsofunction as a tape backup unit.

The course was not a total waste,however, since each participant goto take home a PiranhaCorp productvalued at $49.95. Knowing howmany programs call for you to"Press Any Key When Ready," Pir-anhaCorp gave out durable plasticceyboard templates which point out,he Any Key.

?iranhaCorpspawns new lineAccording to our trusted informer,PiranhaCorp is floundering badly.The company is up to its gills indebt. The days are gone when inno-cent buyers would bite hook, line,and sinker for PiranhaCorp's notori-ous bait-and-switch tactics. There-fore, PiranhaCorp has decided toreel in new customers with a whaleof a new, user-friendly line of prod-ucts.

PiranhaCorp realized that whatmakes most software too difficult forthe average person is that it has toomany complicated features. There-fore, PiranhaCorp has decided tointroduce PiranhaLITE, "The Pro-grams with One-Third Fewer Fea-tures Than Any Other Software."PiranhaCorp will soon be bombard-ing the city with commercials whichwill feature the Radio City Music

Hall Diskettes, and which will pro-mote PiranhaWrite LITE with themotto, "Everything You AlwaysWanted In A Word Processor, AndLess."

We were able to get hold of a betatest version of PiranhaWrite LITE,and we have to admit that it's auniquely simple word processingsystem. According to the advertisingon the package, "As you type, yourkeystrokes are immediately relayedto your printer. No complicatedediting! No confusing menus! Nounreliable diskettes! When you'redone typing, your document isdone!" The software works only withPiranhaCorp's proprietary "Micro-Fish Printer." In another attempt tobecome user-friendly, however, Pir-anhaCorp has designed the Micro-Fish so that when it's used in Por-trait Mode, it produces one 8x10,two 5x7's, and a dozen wallet-sizedcopies of every document.

Furthermore, we hear that Piranha-Corp is developing a three-dimen-sional spreadsheet, PiranhaCalcLITE. Rather than having to re-member complicated commands toscan forward and backward throughthe third dimension, users of Piran-haCal.c LITE will simply wear inex-pensive cardboard glasses with onered lens and one green lens. Theprogram is guaranteed to work onany kind of a tablekitchen table,coffee table, even a ping pong table.

Our informer has also leaked infor-mation about PiranhaFile LITE, auser-friendly database which issimply a computer interface to aRolodex. One attractive feature ofthis system is that on hot days, theuser can send the program into anendless loop and get a good. strongbreeze from the spinning Rolodex.

From everything we can gather.PiranhaCorp is scaling new heightsin trying to avoid going belly-up. We

have to agree with the Annual Re-port PiranhaCorp sent to its share-holders: "PiranhaCorp is the ccmpa-ny that takes a sacking and keepson hacking." We can't wait to seePiranha FREE.

PiranhaCorpdrops letter bombIn the past few years, the entirebusiness world has been envelopedby electronic mail, and PiranhaCorphas decided that it's time they puttheir stamp on this market. Hence,we have PiranhaMail.

To PiranhaCorp, the major technicalhurdle in the development of anelectronic mail system was finding away for users to lick the electronicstamps without catching a virusfrom a common carrier.

As a unique convenience, if a Piran-haMail memo arrives when you'renot in your office, the system auto-matically removes the name at thebottom of the distribution list,writes your name at the top, andsends ten copies to your friends.

PiranhaMail also has a BROAD-CAST feature. For efficiency, itdoesn't actually deliver a copy of aBROADCASTed message to everyuser in your department; it simplyprints one copy of the message,marks it CONFIDENTIAL, andleaves it casually on the copyingmachine in the hall.

As an afterthought, PiranhaCorpalso recognized that sending flowersby wire has been a lucrative enter-prise for other telecommunicationscompanies, but the profits are large-ly limited to a few mushy holidays.Consequently, in an attempt tocome up with a wire service thatwould be less seasonal, PiranhaCorpdeveloped a method for wiring trashdirectly to the landfill of yourchoicethus, the so-called PiranhaElectronic Junk Mail.

Data Access Issues: Security Vs. Openness ...continued from page 1

who will be the custodians of thedata, responsible for keeping it ac-curate and up-to-date; which piecasof data should be changed automats-cally by changes in other pieces ofdata; who will be able to see whichdata on a more or less routine basis;and how will exceptions be made fornon-routine data access.

Single sourceThe question here is whether thereshould be a single computerized in-formation, source from which all in-formation about prospective stu-dents, enrolled students, alumni,parents, faculty, staff, and compa-nies is both updated and accessedthroughout the entire institution. Arelated question is whether individ-uals should appear in this informa-tion source only once, regardless ofthe number of relationships eachore: has to the institution.

With a single information source inwhich each entity appears onlyonce, a great deal of the usual du-plication of data found on typicalcampuses today is eliminated. Forinstance, in many institutions, whenthe president wants to mail anannouncement to both alumni andparents of current students, a per-son who is both an alumnus and aparent will get two announcements.It is also possible (even likely, per-haps) that the announcement couldgo to two different addresses if, say,an address correction or update wasmade in one place and not in theother. It certainly happens todaythat a single individual is simulta-neously an alumnus, a parent, andan employee. Further, he or shecould be taking a course or two aswell! A single information source,with each individual record appear-ing only once, goes a long way to-ward achieving accuracy and timeli-ness in the institution's data.

A single source, however, does in-crease the institution's securityrisks. Storing data this way makes

it easier to access the data in help-ful and useful ways, but it alsomakes it easier to access that samedata in inappropriate ways.

CustodianshipFor each piece of data kept by theuniversity, regardless of how orwhere it is kept, who will be desig-nated as the custodian of that data?That is, who will be responsible forcollecting that data element andthen keeping it accurate and up-to-date, not only for his or her ownpurposes, but also for others whomay need to use that data?

Eventually, a lot ofdata entry will happen

by the individualsthemselves on whom thedata is being kept. Who,after all, has a greaterstake in the accuracyand timeliness of this

data?

Responsibility for certain data ele-ments may change over time, suchas a student home address movingfrom the responsibility of the admis-sions office, then to the registrar,then to the alumni records office. Inaddition, more than one office mayshare this responsibility at any onemoment; for instance, both the reg-istrar's office and the housing officemight. update local addresses.

Generally, custodianship has beenmoving closer to the source over theyears. Whereas once the norm wascentralized data entry (usually key-punching), we have seen in recentyears more office-based data entry

through online systems. But it has-n't stopped moving yet, and eventu-ally, a lot of data entry will happenby the individuals themselves onwhom the data is being kept. Wealready have touch-tone registrationin many places; it won't be longbefore we see students updatingtheir own local addresses, admis-sions prospects filling out theirapplications directly into the Admis-sions system, and employees enroll-ing for benefits online. Who, afterall, has the greatest stake in theaccuracy and timeliness of the data?

Automatic changesNot all data. has to be updated di-rectly through data entry. The insti-tution needs to decide which, if any,data elements should be affectedautomatically by changes in otherdata elements. For instance, is itimportant when a student signs upfor campus housing to have thehousing charges automatically ap-plied to his or her accounts receiv-able record? If a student withdrawsfrom the institution, should certaindata be automatically updated toreflect that fact?

Having changes to data automati-cally propagate throughout an en-tire database can help ensure bothaccuracy and timeliness of data, butthis automation also makes it muchharder to keep track of why particu-lar data elements changed, andunder which circumstances. Unlessthere are clear and accurate audittrails that can trace changes to databack to their source, users have noway of knowing whether a change isa legitimate one, or a result of acci-dent, or worse, mischief.

Furthermore, some changes ought toalso generate notifications to certainpeople alerting them to the change.A student withdrawal, for instance,is typically something that needs tobe known by a lot of people in dif-ferent offices (including faculty).Whether everyone is notified elec-

tronically or otherwise, a changenotice, automatically generated bythe change itself, should be sent.

Routine accessThere is a certain amount of infor-mation that many people are goingto want to access more or less rou-tinely, even if it is not under theirdirect custodianship. For instance,the people in Financial Aid willwant to know the admissions status.of students who have applied foraid; the Registrar will want to knowwhether a student's bill has beenpaid before letting the student regis-ter; the Admissions Office peoplewill want access to alumni address-es to match prospects with alumni.

The question that must be decidedis: who will be able to see whichdata on a routine basis? That is,who will be granted access withouthaving to specifically request it?These decisions are often madewhen new administrative systemsare installed, recognizing that one ofthe biggest benefits of a new system

is its ability to make data accessrelatively easy. But these decisionsare not always easy to make, espe-cially if many departments havebeen reluctant in the past to share"their" data.

The most common method used todetermine routine access is by com-mittee, usually an administrativeusers group, or, sometimes, thecommittee that made the originalsystems decision. The least desir-able, and increasingly rare, way todo this is to put all of the accessdecisions in the hands of the com-puter center director.

In any case, the most importantcomponent of the decision should bethe position within the institutionand the tasks that go with that pos-ition. Data access should rarely, ifever, be granted to individuals; onlyto positions.

Specific accessThen there are the cases in whichsomeone needs access to data for a

"Many educators fear that the computer willgive students such powerful search andresearch engines that faculty will becomeredundant. Just as the printing press freedteaching to move to a higher level ofconceptualization, so, too, will education inthe information age transcend what has beencommon in our time. Good teachers will notbe replaced by teaching assistants andteachers' aides, but they will be freed todefine education in more exciting andcreative terms."

Norman CoombsRochester Institute of Technology"Teaching in the Information Age"EDI/COM ReviewMar/Apr 1992

special purpose. How will specificaccess to specific data be granted?An institution generally has threeoptions here: one is to appoint acampus data administrator who willmake all of these decisions. A sec-ond option is to have each decisionbe the purview of the custodian ofthe data in question. The third is tohave the same committee that de-cided on routine access decisionsmake these decisions as well.

The way that seems to work best, interms of both efficiency and politics,is to combine these inethods, so thatsomeone who needs access to certaindata first requests it from the datacustodian, and then uses the com-mittee if the decision needs to be"appealed."

In summary, technology today en-ables a full range of data access; itis up to each institution to makesure that the right policies andprocedures are in place to ensurethat data access is properly limitedto the legal and the ethical.

In Future Issues

- The destructive power ofthe blame-the-usersyndrome

- Round table: campuscomputing in theyear 2000

- Ten steps to buildinga top-notch computerservices department

Need a consultant? EDUTECH Inter-national prov;des consulting servicesexclusively to colleges and universi-ties. Call us at (203) 242-3356.

Q. I have been asked to serve on the policy commit-tee for university computer services, but as the provostfor our undergraduate colleges, frankly, I don't feelqualified at this point to serve in this capacity. I

haven't had any real hands-on experience with com-puters, and I find most of the jargon incomprehensi-ble. Is there some quick way I can get educated in thisarea?

A. Your concern ts understandable, but you are prob-ably worrying more than you need to. Most likely youwere asked to be a member of this committee not foryour technical expertise, but rather for your perspectiveon the institution itself. You don't need to have hadhands-on experience with computers to serve on a pol-wy committee; what you do need is an understandingof the ways in which technology could be serving yourinstitution. That requires being in touch with the is-sues surrounding information technology: its potential.its costs, and its impact. It is the vision of technology,much more than the application itself, that makes apolicy committee especially useful and important. Somesuggestions: read The Best of CAUSE I EFFECT 1978-1991 (Available from CAUSE: (303) 449-4430) andOrganizing and Managing Information Resources on

Campus (Available from EDUCOM: (202) 872-4200) tobegin with. Also, have a chat with the head of comput-ing on your campus for an overview of what's going on;if you hear any jargon in that discussion, keep request-ing that zt be eliminated, until it is.

Q. Our philosophy in computer services has alwaysbeen to serve as many people as possible. Everythingwe do, from applications programming to staffing themicro labs, is directed towards helping the greatestnumber of people. The problem is that there are justtoo many people who need help, and we are alwaysstretched too thin. How can we get more resources?

A. These days. you probably can't. There are two op-tions you could consider: helping all users more effi-ciently so you use less resources, and changing yourphilosophy so that you channel more of your support tothose users whose leverage will most benefit the institu-tion. For all users, there is more support available to-day (packaged software, videotaped training, less costlymicros, etc.) that takes some pressure off the computercenter For targeted users, the benefit to the institutionis more likely to outweigh the cost of their support.

EDUTECH iNTERNATIONAlIll.:Pc: I

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

I)111)kl \ I 1. ; PAID1.1(11 \ \ " I \ I Bloomfield, CT

II I .11011: Permit No. 117

"PPE May 1992 Volume 8Number 2

The Education Technology Neu'sletter for Faculty and Administrators

Creation of anInformation Infrastructure

By John D. HohAmerican International College

Computing and information technology has been greatly hamperedin making a major contribution to higher education. Even with

its enormous potential, current considerations, including the reliabilityand capacity limitations of existing wiring schemes, the lack of expan-sion capabilities in many of the functional areas, over-reliance on theservices provided by a centralized computing services environment,and the inability to facilitate non-text graphical applications have allcontributed to the problem. In order to make genuine progress, boththe current situation and future needs require higher education to em-bark on an ambitious project: the creation of an information infrastruc-ture.

Goals of the information infrastructureSeveral goals and objectives need to be planned for in creating thisnew information infrastructure for higher education. The first goal isto create a single (at least from the user's point of view) robust, fault-resistent, and flexible networking infrastructure that supports a hetero-geneous computing and technology environment. In addition to beingboth hardware-independent and software-independent, the infrastructuremust combine a variety of media, such as coaxial cable, copper pairs,and fiber in order to link offices, dormitory rooms, instructional labs,library resources, external information sources, and all of the institu-tion's computing facilities.

Second, the networking environment has to have sufficient capacity forboth future growth and emerging technologies. This capacity must beavailable, or be able to be added easily and relatively inexpensively,in several areas, such as the number of access points and bandwidth.

Continued on page 4

"Helping students becomeinformation literate is not thesame as teaching them libraryor bibliographic skills.... Amore systematic effort isneeded to integrate informa-tion resources and technologiesinto the heart of the curri-culum at all institutions.Without an all-out effort, therewill continue to be studentsgraduating from liberal artsprograms never having usedan index, much less an on-linedatabase."

Patricia Senn BreivikTowson State University"Information Literacy: An

Agenda for Lifelong Learning"AAHE BulletinMarch 1992

NF1V441 .37

fur.DY

LEAGUE FOR The theme of the 1992 annual conference of the League for Innovation in theINNOVATION ANNUAL Community College is "Content and Connection: People Using InformationCONFERENCE Technology in Community Colleges." It will be held this year on October 21-24

in Orlando, Florida, and will be hosted by Santa Fe Community College andValencia Community College.

BINATIONALNETWORKING

CHARTLNG THECOURSE ATEDUCOM '92

Topics will include multimedia in instruction and student services; distancelearning and remote access to resources; serving students with disabilities,underprepared students, and older adults; changing organizational structuresand processes; preparing faculty, students, and staff for new roles; anddeveloping partnerships for technology implementation. For more information,contact the League for Innovation Computer Conference, 25431 Cabot Road,Suite 204, Laguna Hills, California 92653; (714) 855-0710.

BESTNET, the Binational English and Spanish Telecommunications Networkproject, administered by San Diego State University, has received a donation of$250,000 in computer hardware and software from Digital EquipmentCorporation. The project was set up to explore ways that technology canchange the process of education and create new learning communities thatcross institutional boundaries.

According to Digital, the donation includes computers, terminals, associatedequipment, and software. It was given to enable the universities participatingin the project "to conduct significant research in computer communication andapplications in higher education and multi-institutional informationmanagement."

Preparations are now underway for EDUCOM's annual fall conference oninformation technology in higher education. Hosted by the Johns HopkinsUniversity, the conference is scheduled for October 28-31 in Baltimore,Maryland. Scheduled speakers include Kenneth Olsen, President of DigitalEquipment Corporation, and Seymour Papert, well known for his work inadvancing the field of educational technolou, and winner of EDUCOM's 1991Louis Robinson Award.

The theme this year is "Charting Our Course: Setting a National Agenda forInformation Technology and Higher Education." Sessions will target four areascritical to setting a national agenda: inter- and intra-institutional organizationand change, teaching and learning, access to resources for learning andresearch, and new scholarship and the changing nature of information. Formore information, contact EDUCOM, 1112 16th Street, N.W., Suite 600,Washington, DC 20036; (202) 872-4200.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International. 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield. Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. Pi esident and Publisher; Linda H. Fla; Vice President: Emily Dadoonan. Copyright (2) 1992, EDUTECH International. All rightsreserved. This publication, or any part thereof. may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without the written permission of the publisher.Facsimile reproduction, including C.-otocopving, is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription, S97.

The Trends That Challenge UsA n advertisement put out rc cent-

ly CAUSE for one of its pub-lications summed up very well whatmost information technology profes-sionals have lived through in thelast decade or so: mainframes tominis to micros; batch processing tointeractive to client-server; central-ized to decentralized and back ag-ain; data processing to networkedinformation; computer center toLAN to WAN.

Exciting, to be sure, but also hecticand challenging. And of course, thechanges are still going on as rapidlyas ever, and not just in the technol-ogy itself, but also in the ways inwhich both academic and adminis-trative users want to deal with dataand information. What are some ofthe challenges campus technologyprofessionals will be facing thisdecade? Some ithe most importantones are here; responding appro-priately to these trends while stillmaintaining stability is going to bethe cornerstone of the 1990s.

Eventual disappearance of central-ized, mainframe-based computing infavor of more user-oriented architec-tures. As the price/performance ofsmaller computers continues to im-prove, as it has been doing at a veryrapid pace in recent years, therewill be fewer mainframes handlingthe kind of work that mainframeshandle today, and less dependencyon large, staff-dependent, mainte-nance-hungry hardware kept in spe-cial environments. Both data anddata processing are quickly movingout from large centralized sources tosmaller, cheaper, increasingly pow-erful configurations, located closerto the users themselves. It is nolonger a question of whether main-frame computing will disappear, butwhen.

More people wanting access to moreinformation, regardless of where orhow it is stored, including remotely.

As more information is made acces-sible electronically, and as electronictransmission becomes both more re-liable and faster, it will become lessimportant where information is lo-cated, and more important to pro-vide the means to get at it.

More user control, more desire to dothings themselves. Users in generalare becoming increasingly sophisti-cated in their computing, and moreconscious than ever of the possibili-ties offered by technology. Alongwith this increasing awareness is adesire to shape their own computing

Bringing automationto the established way

of doing things hassome benefit, but

reengineering the orga-nization itself is where

the real benefits oftechnology will emerge.

environments to accommodate per-sonal work habits, and their ownideas on ways in which technoloucan improve productivity. Whereasonce users relied oi computing pro-fessionals to supply the answers,increasingly, users want to do theirown computing, in their own way.

More purchased systems. less devel-oped in-house. The world of commer-cial software is rapidly improving,and becoming not only more widelyfunctional, "user-friendly," easier tolearn, and better documented, butalso more accommodating of idio-syncracies. It is much more likelytoday than ever before that a com-mercial, packaged, tested, and prov-

en solution for many of the institu-tion's information processing andcourseware needs can be found. It isbecoming increasingly apparent thata package that meets even just aportion of information and process-ing needs is likely to be.a more cost-effective solution than developingand programming the same capabil-ities in-house.

Change in focus from development touser support. At the same time asthe need to develop software in-house decreases, the need to supportusers in other ways is increasing.Users typically need a great deal ofsupport in making the transition todoing more of their own computingfrom having someone do it for them,and need to be able to rely, at leastfor a time, on knowledgeable andexperienced staff to help guide theway.

Universal connectivity. Eventually,all electronic devices will have somekind of communications capability,and all devices that can communi-cate will communicate. It is the re-sponsibility of central computer ser-vices organizations to make sure thecommunications highway that willenable this is in place and fullyreliable.

The need for reengineering both incomputing and in the institution asa whole. As technology continues topermeate our educational institu-tions, it is becoming clear that inorder to maximize the typicallylarge investment in hardware, soft-ware, communications, and staff, areformulation of the ways in whichtasks are accomplished, as well asthe overall goals to be reached (notby technology necessarily, but bythe institution itself) is necessary.Bringing automation to the estab-lished way of doing things has bene-fit, but reengineering the orraniza-tion itself is where the real benefitsof technology will emerge.

Creation of an information infrastructure ...contuzued from page I

The third goal is to extend the net-work beyond the confines of themain campus and to remove the us-ual constraints of time and geogra-phic proximity to the process ofinformation access, retrieval, andanalysis.

Fourth, the infrastructure has tobring the full complement, of com-puter, communication, library, andinformation services to each desk-top. In order to facilitate and sup-port this idea, the academic commu-nity must be made aware of the ma-ny benefits of an information-richenvironment.

The fifth goal is to create an envi-ronment in which scarce and expen-sive resources, such as laser print-ers, FAX services, CD-ROM servers,application software, and connec-tions to outside services, may beshared.

And finally, the infrastructure mustcreate an environment that "demo-cratizes" the use of informationservices. Users should have accessto services without the burden ofexcessive costs and should not havelimitations imposed on them due tophysical challenges or handicaps.

Consequencesof the implementationAn information infrastructure willimpact in major, important, andpositive ways on higher education.

Empowerment: Academe will benefitfrom the decentralization of respon-sibility. A computing environmentthat supports data acquisition, gra-phical and quantitative analysis,and literature searches all through

John oh is the director of com-puting and communications servic-es at the American InternationalCollege in Springfield, Massachu-setts.

the network will empower the enduser. It will give the individual andthe department the tools to queryappropriate information sources andproduce timely and accurate reportswithout the assistance of a central-ized computer service.

Ability to facilitate emerging tech-nologies: A properly designed infor-mation infrastructure will have li-mitless expansion capabilities. Thiswill allow institutions to add usersand services when appropriate, aswell as being able to access and util-ize new technologies, such as video

Many faculty are nowrealizing that the most

time-honored andpowerful learning

formattheseminarcan bedelivered through

technology, free of theconstraints of time and

space.

conferencing, EDI, ISDN, and FAXservices, when they become cost ef-fective.

Collaboration and scholarly commu-nication: The communication be-tween students and teachers as wellas the scholarly exchange betweenand among colleagues will inevita-bly rely more frequently on the useof digital technologies. Many collegeand university faculty are now real-izing that the most time-honoredand powerful learning formattheseminarcan be delivered throughtechnology, free of the constraints oftime and space. Using technologyfor seminars and conferencing cre-

ates an ideal meeting place that is"virtual."

Communication between scholars of-ten revolves around research. Cur-rent research is often done colla-boratively through networks. Thenetwork has become the "collabora-tory" for researchers and authorsfrom different institutions. Theemergence of new network capabili-ties will allow the education andresearch community to access notonly each other, but diverse techni-cal environments and informationresources as well.

Scholarly needs will be fulfilled in amanner that eventually will be farsuperior to the traditional dissemi-nation method of paper journals.These "electronic papers" will becategorized and cross-referencedwith other relevant works. This willprovide important links among thedisciplines. The end result will be toachieve one of the fundamentalaims of higher education: the ex-pansion and enhancement of schol-arly communication.

Engage users: The primary purposeof higher education is to create anddisseminate knowledge. Traditional-ly this dissemination process wasbased upon a textbook/lecture meth-od which stressed the rote deliveryand ingestion of facts and theories.Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon re-fers to this model of learning as the"infection theory" of learning. Inter-estingly, this method is in directcontrast to models put forth by twoof our most famous educators andphilosophers: Dewey and Locke.

Dewey was mainly concerned withleading the learner, through his orher own spontaneous impulses andinterests, to achieve growth throughparticipation and reflection. Similarly, Locke's method of education wasone that encouraged initiative, inde-pendent judgment, observation, andcritical use of reason.

The textbooldlecture approach failsto involve the student, does not ac-commodate the existence of informa-tion in multiple forms, and fails toemploy "electronic tools" to gatherand manipulate data into informa-tion and knowledge. On the otherhand, the classroom can be a placewhere the instructional processeffectively integrates the humanelement with technology throughthe use of tools such as powerfulworkstations, communication net-works, and a variety of audio-visualmedia.

Technology allows students to moveaway from the passive reception ofinformation to the active engage-ment in the construction of knowl-edge. Through technology, studentsbecome better equipped to applytheir new knowledge to real-worldsituations and contexts.

Technology also expands our abilityto express, understand, and useideas in a multitude of symbol sys-tems. In compound documents, sym-bolic expressions involving digitizedmedia, sounds, graphics, and textcan be presented all on the samedisplay.

Brian Hawkins of Brown University(winner of the 1991 CAUSE ELITEAward) has visualized that the focusof a progressive information strate-gy will be to provide an easy-to-useaccess method to all informationresources, thus enabling faculty andstudents to employ informationtechnology to the degree that itfacilitates their own scholarly andeducational goals.

Knowledge management: Technologi-cal innovations have further bh...-redthe distinction among the tradition-al roles of libraries, computer cen-ters, and academic departments. Asa result, libraries will be underincreasing pressure to provide ac-cess to information in electronicform and to integrate their services

with other aspects of academic andscholarly life.

Libraries historically have beenidentified with the functions ofstorage and retrieval. In an articlein The EDUCOM Review in the Fallof 1990, Richard Lucier used theterm "knowledge management" tomean organizing concepts that giveinformation structure, and he con-cluded that we are moving towardsit rapidly. This is a move beyondsimply replacing or automatingwhat is currently being done. Know-ledge management involves an inno-

The classroom can bea place where the in-structional process

effectively integrates thehuman element with

technology through theuse of tools such as

powerful workstationsand communication

networks.

vative transformation of how wework in the academic community.

Others have described the ideal el-ectronic library not as a single enti-ty where everything is stored butrather as a range of services andcollections made accessible throughnetworks that reach beyond individ-ual campuses or research laborato-ries.

In another EDUCOM Review, Win-ter 1990, in an article entitled, "Im-plementing the Vision: A Frame-work and Agenda for Investing inAcademic Computing," RichardWest and Richard Katz detailed the

evolution of information environ-ments. Four key areas are currentlyunder transition. First, academicinformation resources have evolvedfrom being available through books,journals, archives, and physicalstorage in the library to being avail-able electronically and free of geo-graphic bias via multimedia work-stations.

Second, the tools of research are nolonger just card catalogs, bibliogra-phies, and indexes located in thelibrary. Expert system front-ends forindexing, browsing, and retrievalare being incorporated rapidly intothe tools set for researchers.

Third, document delivery will shiftfrom abquisition based on libraryand interlibrary loans to print-on-demand delivery at the workstation.We are already beginning to seesome of this.

Finally, user support traditionallyhandled by the librarian, archivist,and curator will evolve into supportby information management profes-sionals.

The challengeWith things changing as rapidly asthey are, it is easily to lose sight ofthe larger, intangible issues havingto do with ethical computing.

A college or university is, at anygiven time, a user and a creator ofinformation. Higher education mustrecognize that it has a responsibilityto educate all those in the communi-ty as to what is appropriate, ethical,and legal behavior. Academia, inconjunction with other interestedparties, should address a number ofissues relating to society's needs inthe age of information. Only highereducation has the combination ofinterest, resources, and the seriousconcern for what is ethically andmorally correct. It must take thelead in dealing with issues relatingto "correct" computing.

5

What It Takes To Be A CIOn the increasing number of in -

it. stitutions creating and fillingthe Chief Information Officer (CIO)position, it, seems all too often thatthe person chosen to fill the newslot is not the incumbent computercenter director. Even though logicsuggests that the CIO position isthe next step on a computer profess-ional's career path, when it comestime to choose a CIO, many collegesand universities look to the outside.Why?

Of course, we have all heard the ad-vice about leadership, vision, andthe need to have a proactive atti-tude. But these are vague, hard todefine traits; what we need are thespecific abilities that will measur-ably enhance a computer center dir-ector's chances for taking the nextstep and becoming a CIO.

Since the most efficient way to fig-ure out what's needed is to ask theones who are already there, that iswhat we did. In an informal, veryunscientific survey, we asked sever-al current CIOs what it takes to getwhere they are. This is what welearned.

The ability to see things from differ-ent perspectives. Most computer cen-ter directors have been technicalpeople during their careers, perhapsfor a lengthy period of time; nowthat they are managing, it is verydifficult for some of them to let go ofthe technical perspective. Many for-mer programmers miss the technicalchallenges and rewa...ds. Program-ming produces results; it is logical,organized, and lends itself well tostraightforward problem-solving. Onthe other hand, managing is mostlydealing with other people: messy, il-logical, emotional, and a seeminglyendless series of problems. In addi-tion, corning "up through the ranks"and perhaps feeling some disdainfor one's non-technicaI bosses (not tomention the users) also colors the

perspective of some directors. It isnot a coincidence that the majorityof CIOs today have never been pro-grammers.

But one of the most important tal-ents of a college administrator is hisor her ability to be empathetic, tosee the world through the eyes, ofothers on campus. To ascribe attrib-utes to situations which are notnecessarily from only a single pointof view (and to be non-judgmentalabout it) is a critically importantability for advancement. How doesthis problem look to the user? IIowdoes this situation seem to the fac-

-k

While goodcommunications skillsare important in any

environment, in highereducation, they are

right up there at the topof the requirements list.

ulty? What is the president likely tothink about this? Being able to ans-wer these questions without cyni-cism and without thinking that theother people are crazy or dumb de-finitely enhances one's career oppor-tunities in administration.

Empathy requires two vitally impor-tant skills: listening and withhold-ing quick judgements. Does thismean the computer center directorshould not have strong opinionsabout things? No, but it does meanthat those opinions need to reflectbroader perspectives than just thedirector's own.

The ability to get people to do thingsthey don't want to do. There is still

an enormous amount about technol-ogy that non-technical people do notunderstand. This is also likely to bethe case well into the future, as thetechnology continues to move rapid-ly. More than anything else, it isthis lack of understanding thatmakes people fearful about gettinginvolved with technology, and onceinvolved, obstinate about doing cer-tain things, such as following stan-dards for hardware and softwarepurchases, taking backups routine-ly, or having the information tech-nology policy committee meet morethan once a year. It isn't that thepresident doesn't want to build newcomputer facilities and hire morecomputer people, it's that she does-n't understand why it has to cost somuch.

The art of persuasion is what isneeded here. And the artistic basisfor persuasion is excellent communi-cations skills, both in writing and intalking. While good communicationsskills are important in any environ-ment, in higher education, they areright up there at the top of the re-quirements list. The vocabulary, thegrammar, the diction, and the abili-ty to make a reasoned verbal argu-ment have to be on an absolute parwith everyone else's in this highlyintelligent and educated community.If the computer center director's arenot, the task of convincing, cajoling,and persuading, all necessary to getcampus people to buy into technolo-gy and its proper usage, will beenormously difficult. And the com-puter center director will not beseen as a candidate for the CIOposition.

The ability to not "take sides" be-tween the computer people and theusers. There are still plenty of insti-tutions that have an us-versus-thembattle going on between the comput-er center and its users. Even whenthe battle is not overt, the sense isoften that there are sides, and every

person on campus is clearly on oneside or another. Not taking sides inthese situations is extremely diffi-cult, especially when the computercenter director is, in a sense, caughtin the middle. But it is also ex-tremely important in maintainingthe relationships that need to be inplace for the future.

Working with the computer centerstaff to help them understand thatthe users are not the enemy, andworking with the users to improvetheir capacity to deal with computerpeople are better strategies thanconstantly being defensive.

An understanding of the missionand culture of the institution, andan appreciation for the goals ofhigher education in general. Thefurther up one gets on the careerladder, the more important it is tobe acculturated into one's workingsociety. A computer center director

who acts as though this were a bus-iness like any other, who managesthe computer center without sensi-tivity to the things that make high-er education different: the role ofthe faculty, the decision-makingprocess, the number of campus com-mittees, and so on, is surely notgoing to be seen as one who can fitinto a higher place in the institu-tion. It may be corny, but it's alsotrue that higher education is a no-ble enterprise, and one's attitude to-ward it will make a difference.

The ability to build a team. No oneworks alone, especially in an envi-ronment that is characterized bycollegiality. The computer centerdirector needs to know how to builda team within the computer center,with users for projects, and withother faculty and administrators forpolicy committee work. Team build-ing requires getting people who mayhave entirely different roles and

"Electronic classrooms are blossoming acrossthe academic landscape, the result of cross-breeding computer technology with peda-gogy. But are we employing the microcom-puters in our electronic environments as fancytypewriters, or are we using them to revealword processing's potential to our students?The challenge is to design assignments thatserve as sound writing exercises, whileemploying the special abilities word process-ing technology offers. In an academic worldof increasingly scarce resources, if we can'tdesign such exercises we must questionwhether expenditures for electronicclassrooms are necessary."

Edward KlonoskiUniversity of Hartford"Recycled Writing: The Macro Function of Word Processing"Collegiate MicrocomputerFebruary 1992

purposes to work together for a com-mon objective; not easy, but very re-warding.

Enough of an understanding aboutthe technology to know right fromwrong. Of course, that's quite a lot,but it's also less than most comput-er center directors know. Illogical onthe surface perhaps, but not whenone considers the fact that a CIO isa college administrator first and atechnologist second. Knowing aboutthe potential of technology, havingthe vision and the imagination toknow what's possible, as well as anunderstanding of the costs and ben-efits are the important needs, morethan knowing how to program orhow to rerun a production job. Doesthis mean that what a computercenter director knows is useless inbecoming a CIO? Not at all; it justmeans that he or she needs to putthat all together into a broader per-spective.

In Future Issues

- Round table: campuscomputing in theyear 2000

- Ten steps to buildinga top-notch computerservices department

- The destructive power ofthe blame-the-usersyndrome

Need a consultant? EDUTECH Inter-national provides consulting servicesexclusively to colleges and universi-ties. Call us at (203) 242-3356.

Q. For the first time, I need to put together a strate-gic plan for information technology at our college, andI really don't know where to start. The only planningI've done in the past has been putting together ourannual budget.

A. You could start by acquiring the strategic plansthat have been submitted to the CAUSE &change lib-rary (contact them at (303) 449-4430) just to give youan idea of what strategic plans look like and an out-line to follow. These are some basic guidelines: think ofa three-year planning horizon; longer than that is justguesswork. Through both formal and informal discuss-ions, ask as many people on campus as possible whatthey think ought to be in it; don't try to create this allon your own. Keep it short, keep jargon out of it, stayas specific as you can, and focus on the primary, largebenefits that information technology brings to yourcampus. And keep in mind that it is the planning pro-cesS, more than the plan itself, that is really valuable:the discussions with current and potential users, thethinking in future terms of costs and benefits, theseveral iterations the document will go through beforeit is finished. Even with all of the work, you can take

MI6

satisfaction from the fact that you will be creating botha process and an invaluable guide for your institution.

Q. We have been working on a systems project withthe accounts payable department for two years now,and we can't seem to bring it to a successful conclu-sion. We leave test material for them to look at, andthey say they're too busy. We give them guidelines onhow to run this new system in parallel with their oldone, and they say it's too much work. We want to meetwith them regularly, and they keep postponing themeetings. How can we get them to work with u)s?

A. Whose idea was it to do this project in the firstplace? Either there are reasons for it being completedthat make sense to the users, or there are not. If not,give it up, and wait until they are ready. If the initia-tive for new systems and projects doesn't come from theusers, or if they don't see enough benefit in the poten-tial results to be willing and eager participants, andeben to take a leadership role, there's no sense in evenbeginning a systems project. You would be better offworking on something that has greater value.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALNov Kling Ners wes to Ifigher Hut JI fl

DITORIAL OFFICLS120 MOUNTAIN A\ ENI.EBLOOMFIELD. Cr (1IFRI2.

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

-""7-1

June 1992Volume 8

Number 3

The Educalion 'Technology Newstetter for 1-1.zeulty and Administratory

Enterprise-Wide Computing:A Vision Takes Shape

picture this: A junior who recently transferred to a four-year col-lege from a local community college is meeting with her advisor

to discuss her course load for the coming semester. Her advisor beginsthe session by displaying the student's transcript on a desktop comput-er. Next the advisor uses the computer to search the university's on-line course catalog for course requirements for the student's declaredmajor and for regulations pertaining to transferring credits from two-year institutions. Once they have looked over the requirements andtransfer regulations and agree on a course load, the student leaves heradvisor's office and goes to the library, where she uses a desktopcomputer to register for next semester's classes and to add her localaddress to the student information system. Her advisor, meanwhile,uses her computer to review the transcript of the next student she isscheduled to advise.

Or this: A dean of academic research has been asked by the board oftrustees to analyze the relationship between the engineering faculty'ssalaries and the research grants they have obtained. To do this, sheuses a spreadsheet program on her desktop computer to access relevantdata froth both the university's academic personnel system and the en-gineering school's research database. She then uses the spreadsheetprogram to analyze and graph the data. The dean then creates a finalreport, complete with charts and graphs, which she sends by electronicmail to each trustee.

Or this: A senior chemistry major is seated at his dorm room desk pre-pared to start the evening's studies. He begins by turning on his desk-top computer and opening an electronic folder that contains correspon-dence between himself and his chemistry professor. This evening, thestudent finds his professor's comments about his thesis proposal.

continued on page 4

"Today, one of the main waysof spending 'too much time' onteaching is to spend time de-signing and developing educa-tional computer programs andexploring the use of suchprograms in the classroom.For many who attempt to usethe computer for education,the conflict between the desireto assist students in learningand the desire to promoteoneself professionally is all tooclear. Educational computingthus lies at the center of manydebates about teaching versusresearch."

Robert J. CavalierCarnegie Mellon University"Shifting Paradigms in Higher

Education and EducationalComputing"

EDUCOM ReviewMay/June 1992

SCT ACQUIRESINFORMATIONASSOCIATES

DESKTOP COMPUTINGSURVEY AVAILABLE

COMPUTER LITERACYCOURSE NOWCONSIDEREDREMEDIAL

Systems & Computer Technology Corporation (SCT), a leading supplier ofhigher education administrative software is in the process of acquiring one ofits major competitors. SCT has announced an agreement with Dun &Bradstreet Software (D&B Software) to purchase D&B's subsidiary,Information Associates.

Long-time rivals in providing higher education software, SCT and IA will nowcombine their resources and market shares to become a major force in thecollege and university software marketplace. Each company produces completesuites of administrative software running on a variety of hardware platforms;how the software products will c;lange as a result of this purchase has yet tobe determined.

The 1991 EDUCOMUSC National Survey of Desktop Computing in HigherEducation is based on responses from more than 1,000 two- and four-yearpublic and private colleges and universities. The survey was conducted by theUniversity of Southern California's Center for Scholarly Technology during thespring and summer of 1991, and builds on a survey from the previous year.Responses give information on academic computing budgets, strategies forcoping with reduced budgets, specific vendor and system percentages,microcompUter operating system preferences, resale programs, student versusinstitutional ownership of computers, support for faculty in developingcourseware, and organizational issues.

Many of the data items were compared with responses to the 1990 survey, andshow clearly the effect in many areas of technology budget cuts. The surveyreport is available for $30.00 from the USC Center for Scholarly Technology,University of Southern California, Doheny Memorial Library, Los Angeles, CA90089.

The College of Business Administration at the University of Nebraska atLincoln has declared that so many of its entering students are already soproficient with computing that a basic course in personal computing will nowbe offered as remedialin other words, not for credit.

In order to demonstrate proficiency, entering students will need to score wellon an exam that tests database usage, familiarity with spreadsheet software,and word processing knowledge. If they fail the exam, students may eithertake the basic course for no credit, or use a self-paced instruction p-ogramthrough the university's computer center.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH Intemational, 120 Mountain Avenue. Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit: Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1992. EDUTECH International. All rightsreserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without the written permission of the publisher.Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying. is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription. S97.

2

Changing the Way We Do Business

Note: While many colleges and uni-versities have made the switch tofully integrated on-line administra-tive information systems, many morehave yet to do so. For those stillcontemplating the change, it may bedifficult to imagine some of the ac-tual impact on day-to-day life that a-new system will have. This article,written by a user, describes the im-pact of a new system with an inte-grated database.

The Good NewsThe bottom line is that the new sys-tem has increased and improved theservice to students. For one thing,there is less shuffling of studentsfrom office to office to find out theanswer to a problem because accessto information is much more wide-spread. In addition, the quality ofthe information is better.

A change in data in one moduleshows up in other modules. For ex-ample, a new registration transac-tion leads to an immediate recalcul-ation of tuition and a change in thefinancial aid module. A student cannow be admitted and registered in amatter of five minutes as opposed tohaving to wait overnight for a batchprogram to run.

Data, such as name changes, ad-dress updates, and so on, only needto be entered once. In the past, itwas often necessary to update thesame information in several mod-ules, either manually or in batch.Having to do it only once eliminatesthe possibility of it being correctedin one file but wrong in another.

Barbara Ross is in the Registrar'sOffice at the University of Color-ado, Boulder. This article is basedon part of a paper she delivered atthis year's AACRAO conference.

by Barbara Ross

Another advantage to the.student isthat users have a much better un-derstanding of the procedures usedin other offices because everyone isso interdependent now. It benefits astudent when a staff member has abroader base of knowledge. On theother hand, students now expectstaff to answer a greater number ofquestions; a common comment fromstudents is, "Why can't you pull upthat screen?"

One of the greatest advantages isthat users don't have to log in andout of different systems for differentkinds of information. In addition,

The bottom line isthat the new system hasincreased and improved

service to students.

there is a huge amount of new infor-mation available. In fact, we sub-scribe to the Potato Chip Theory ofInformation: you can't eat just one.When users see the amount of infor-mation contained in an integrateddatabase, they want more and moreof it.

System ImpactsMany batch programs that used torun every night can now run onlyon the weekends due to long runtimes. Much of this is related toeither the size of the database, thecompetition for each module to runits batch job using the same data-base, or the complexity of the pro-grams.

Many batch jobs that could run con-currently in the past because they

were u..,ing separate databases orfileF, now either create contentionproplems or must be run in the pro-per sequence to work effectively.Scheduig of critical processing,such as that which occurs immedi-ately before a semester begins, re-quires that all affected areas gettogether to establish data and pro-cessing dependencies and flow dia-grams. Without this, there is no wayto ensure that all of the work willget done, as well as done in theproper sequence.

Another difference is that whatlooks like a simple system modifica-tion may require changes in othermodules now. This simple changecan proliferate greatly, increasingthe amount of work to be done. inaddition, all users must now reviewand approvr.: all modifications to anymodule in the system. There alsoneeds to be a system manager whocan review and coordinate all modi-fications.

With an integrated database, youhave a large number of users ac-cessing one database at the sametime (as opposed to many usersaccessing different databases inseparate systems), creating a muchgreater dependency on the system.In addition, too many users on thesystem at the same time can lead topoor response time or overloadingand losing the system for periods oftime.

Due to its size and complexity, thenew system has created a great in-crease in workload for everyone,including both users and systemspeople. The extra workload is fromhaving to manage the data, to se-cure and monitor changes of data, tofix bugs in one module complicatedby the need to evaluate the impacton other modules, to make addition-al enhancements, to program morereports, and to troubleshoot.

3

Enterprise-Wide Computing: A Vision Takes Shapecontinued from page 1

Based on those comments, he useshis desktop computer to review sev-eral abstracts that are part of theuniversity's on-line library system.He then goes on to complete his as-signment for drama class, viewingvideo clips of portions of Americanand British productions of Hamlet.

These are not futuristic visions, butrealistic scenarios that could be im-plemented today due to recent ad-vances in software and networkingtechnology that greatly facilitatecommunication between incompat-ible hardware and software.

In the scenarios described above,usersincluding students, faculty,and administratorsall have accessto their university's campus-wide(also known as enterprise-wide)computer system, a system of net-worked computers that can servethousands of users. In an enterprisesystem, anyone with a desktop com-puter has the potential to accessany information stored on campuscomputers, from local data, such asinformation about a specific courseor department, to global or institu-tion-wide data. Traditionally, thiskind of information has been re-stricted to campus mainframes andminicomputers. But now, thanks tothe development of enterprise sys-tems, universities can leverage thatinformation so that it can be usedby any member of the universitycommunity. Because users have im-mediate and direct access to data,they can work more productively,while minimizing the costs associat-ed with relying on computer centerpersonnel to access data for them.

Of course, everyone on a collegecampus will not need the same kind

This article first appeared in theWinter 1992 issue of Qyz.a, a pub-lication of Syllabus Press, and isreprinted with their permission.

of information. In fact, it is criticalthat certain information be keptconfidential. Thus, a critical func-tion of an enterprise system is pro-viding users access to appropriateinformation while limiting their ac-cess to other information, all basedon users' interests and needs.

Focus onclient/server computingWith recent advances in softwareand network connectivity solutions,enterprise-wide systems are increas-ingly based on a client/server modelof computing in which a host, usual-

n enterprise-widesystem represents a leapin information sharing

because it providesusers with easy yet

secured access to dataand applications that

span all of aninstitution's depart-

ments and disciplines.

ly a mainframe or minicomputer,and a desktop computer share thetask of processing information.

Many educational institutions haveimplementedor are in the processof implementingclient/server ap-plications that serve individuals inone segment of an institution's oper-ation, such as admissions or studentinformation. An enterprise-wide sys-tem represents a leap in informa-tion sharing, and hence user knowl-edge and productivity, because itprovides users with easy yet securedaccess to data and applications thatspan all of an institution's depart-ments and disciplines. Thus the

dean described earlier has access toinstitution-wide personnel data aswell as research data about herschool, while the chemistry major isable to communicate with his chem-istry professor as well as with thecampus library system.

From an administrative perspective,the emphasis on client/server archi-tecture provides information sharingat a lower cost. Many colleges anduniversities already have investedheavily in personal computers. Cli-ent/server architectures, designed toappropriately balance the load of in-formation processing between main-frames/minicomputers and desktopcomputers, can greatly increase theproportion of total processing powerdesktop computers contribute.

How it worksWhen a user sits down at a desktopcomputer that is part of an enter-prise system, he or she typicallybegins by providing a name and apassword. Once the system has ac-cepted the password, the desktopcomputer sends a message to a cen-tral database asking what kind ofdata that user can access. The desk-top computer responds by displayinga menu of choices representing thedata and applications available tothe user based on the user's charac-teristics. For example, an enterprisesystem that provides on-line studenttranscripts would provide a studentaccess to his or her own transcripts,an advisor with access to advisees'transcripts, and a dean with accessto the transcripts of all students inthe college.

Many of the applications availableon an enterprise system permit us-ers to gather information from sev-eral different data sources. Butbecause an enterprise system oper-ates as a single logical applicationwith a single interface, users cangather this information using thesame procedures, regardless of thekind of data they are accessing or

the locat:on of the data. Users alsocan combine data from a variety ofsources in one session. Thus, as inthe scenario above, the dean is ableto use spreadsheet software to queryboth the research database and thepersonnel system, even though thedata is stored in different formatson different computers.

Finally, with the appropriate net-work setup and security measures,users can even gain access to anenterprise system from remote sites.While attending a conference, a de-partment head could use his or herportable computer to check for elec-tronic mail; while home on springbreak a student could check the on-line student directory for the namesof classmates in the same town.

Characteristics ofenterprise applications.To be effective in today's dynamicenvironment, systems that provideenterprise-wide information accessshould possess a number of impor-tant qualities. First, applicationsshould be distributable, meaningthat they can be divided into dis-crete functional components thatrun on different platforms but oper-ate across the network as a singleapplication. The system's overallefficiency is increased because eachplatform runs the software compo-nent that takes advantage of thatplatform's unique capabilities. Desk-top computers, for example, are ide-ally suited for graphically display-ing information while mainframesare better suited for processing mas-sive quantities of data.

As more and more software is writ-ten for desktop computers, the pro-portion of total enterprise softwareactivity occurring on desktop com-puters will increase. This is goodnews from a budgetary standpointbecause it means that, rather thaninvesting in new mainframes andminicomputers, enterprise systemswill be able to rely more on existing

desktop computers for an increasingnumber of computing tasks.

Enterprise system applications mustalso be shareable, meaning thatthey can be used by several users orother applications simultaneously,and portable, meaning that thesame application can run on differ-ent platforms, thereby minimizingdevelopment and support costs.

The applications that comprise anenterprise-wide system network alsoshould all be interconnected. As aresult, a change made to one part of

Because an enterprisesystem operates as a

single logicalapplication with a

single interface, userscan gather information

using the sameprocedures, regardlessof the kind of data they

need or its locatkm.

the system will filter through to allof the other relevant components.Thus, when a student uses a desk-top computer to add his or her cam-pus address to the student informa-tion system, the system automati-cally adds the address to the stu-dent's health record, transcript, andfinancial record as well. This built-in "intelligence" greatly reduces themanual maintenance that tradition-ally has been required to keep largesystems up-to-date.

Software advances supportenterprise-wide computingDuring the late 1980s, it becameincreasingly common for faculty and

staff to use their personal comput-ers to gather information from data-bases on mainframe computers. Thisempowered individuals who previ-ously had been shut out of directcontact with data. At the same time,however, these sessions proved to bea drain on computer resources. Infact, as a result of processing andcommunications bottlenecks, manylarge institutions experienced ahuge increase in the cost of process-ing transactions.

In the 1990s, network connectivityis becoming pervasive, and trans-mission costs are plummeting. Fur-ther, new object-oriented program-ming languages are available thatgreatly facilitate software develop-ment on client/server systems. Fi-nally, several new "off-the-shelf"database access products are nowavailable that minimize the need todevelop costly custom software. Ta-ken as a whole, these developmentsmean that, for the first time, insti-tutions now have at their disposalthe requisite hardware and softwaretools and products to build enter-prise systems.

But easier connectivity and newsoftware technologies are only partof the equation. By far the mostdaunting task facing institutionsseeking to implement enterprise-wide systems is integrating the cur-rent portfolio of incompatible hard-ware, operating systems, and appli-cations into a cohesive and unifiedsystem, while incorporating a morehuman-centered approach to com-puting as desktop computers con-tinue to proliferate and affect thelives of many individuals. To ach-ieve these objectives, what is neededis an information systems architec-ture that provides an overall frame-work for building and linking appli-cations and data to each othera"builder's blueprint" for makingsure that each hardware and soft-ware component works together asan integrated whole.

The Disappearing Mainframe?

Those of us interested in textprocessing who started comput-

ing in the 1970s or early 1980s usedmainframe computers. We main-tained that mainframes were realcomputers and that microcomputerswere toys. They might be fun forgames, but microcomputers werenot useful for any kind of seriouscomputing, and they never wouldbewe thought. But as micro,om-puter speeds and capacities spiraledupward in the late 1980s, it becameincreasingly difficult to argue thatmicrocomputers could not be usedfor significant computing. In the1990s, it is obvious the idea thatmainframes are the only genuinecomputers is a ridiculous conclusion.

There is a danger now, however,that we might form another conclu-sion, equally ridiculous. We mightjudge that the mainframe is a dino-saur that has no future. Some edu-cational institutions have alreadydropped mainframe computing fromthe curriculum. Some argu that allthe computing we want to uo can bedone on microcomputers or on net-works of micros, and at a tremen-dous cost savings. Considering thepresent change in thinking, it isworthwhile to examine ..the compara-tive advantages and disadvantagesof mainframes and microcomputersand to consider whether mainframesare, in fact, really on their way out.

If we take a look at only processingspeed, the performance of top-end

Eric Johnson is a professor ofEnglish and Dean of the College ofLiberal Arts at Dakota State Uni-versity. A version of this articleoriginally appeared in the May1992 issue of Text Technologyunder the title "Mainframes andMicrocomputers."

by Eric Johnson

microcomputers is equal to that ofsome mainframes. Some processorsfound in micros are capable of exe-cuting several millions of instruc-tions per second, about the speed ofsome mid-range mainframes. Manu-facturers claim that microprocessorswill soon reach speeds as high asone hundred million instructions persecond. Of course, mainframe pro-cessors are also getting faster.Speeds of one billion instructionsper second have been reported.

The issue of processor speed is com-plicated by machines with multiple

Mainframe computersare expensive to

purchase and operate,and many people wouldlike to eliminate them if

possible.

processors. Both mainfthmes andmicros have been developed withparallel processors: "highly parallel"or "massively parallel" architecturesemploy as many as 64,000 proces-sors. In any case, raw processingspeed is usually not the most criti-cal measure of usefulness of a com-puter.

Despite the proliferation of on-linecomputing, many mainframe com-puters are still used for large-vol-ume batch processing, producingmuch of what is thought of as com-puter output: inventories, bankstatements, student tran scrip ts, andso on. For batch processing, theoperations of the peripherals (espe-cially disk drives and printers) aremore important than raw processing

speed. The quick, reliable operationof mainframe peripherals is majorleague, whereas similar processingwith microcomputer equivalents isbarely sand-lot level.

Supposedly, similar technology ex-ists for both mainframe and micro-computer peripherals. In theory, thetechnology is the same, and some ofit is not especially recent. In prac-tice, the results are not the sa-qe.For example, when a program runson a mainframe that requires morememory than the machine has, andif everything is set up correctly,data or program code will be swap-ped from real memory to virtualmemory on disk, and then swappedback in again as needed. The speedis such that the user will hardlynotice any slowing of operation.

I used what I thought was similartechnology to create and use virtualmemory on disk on a microcomput-er. The machine had eight mega-bytes of real memory; the program Iexecuted required sixteen megs ofmemory to run. As the program ran,it filled the eight megs in about fiveminutes and started to swap pagesof memory to the hard disk. Thelight that indicates disk activityflickered, then stayed on continu-ously. The program ran for abouttwelve hours until I forced it to quit.I calculated how long the programwould have continued to run had Inot stopped it; about a month!

Obviously, my microcomputer wasthrashing badly, and therefore,doing very little us( ful work. Afriend who writes comnilers for aliving offered to rewri.;e my pro-gram; probably the progr,.m couldhave been constructed so that itwould work better than it had.

The point, however, is that my im-plementation ran on a mainframewith about the same amount of

memory without any trouble. Thetechnology of mainframes is simplybetter. It made whatever adjust-ments were necessary to do theprocessing I wanted done, ratherthan forcing me to adapt my pro-gram to the computer. Anotheradvantage to mainframe processingis the speed and assurance of main-frame data backups. Mainframebackup (and restoration, when need-ed) is so routine, certain, and accu-rate, that a disk crash is more of aninconvenience than a disaster. Askmicrocomputer users who have hada disk crash whether "inconven-ience" is the word they would use.

Mainframes have truly massivedata storage capacities. Hundreds orthousands of gigabytes of storagecan be available, and it can be ac-cessed quickly. A single mainframedisk drive might hold a thousandnovels, and it can transfer data at arate of about one novel a second. In

addition, mainframes can be usedby many users at many locations tocommunicate throughout the world.

The combination of massive storagecapacity and rapid multi-user com-munication ability may make main-frames the most common media ofstorage and distribution of largetext corpora in the future. Main-frames also allow a number of peo-ple to use the same computer. Theycan run one another's programs atthe same time and on the same pro-cessor; users can access the samefiles; and it is easy to compare files.Users of a mainframe can be in thesame room or on different contin-ents. In short, it is the ideal envi-ronment for a team approach tocomputing.

By definition, a m-inframe comput-er is a multi-tasking, multi-usermachine that has extensive sharedstorage that can be rapidly accessed,

"If it is our wish to create an environment inwhich faculty will apply technology to theirteaching and scholarly work, then it is ourresponsibility to ensure that faculty are awareof technological opportunities, have access toa variety of hardware and software, and areprovided support to assist them in learning touse the technology productively over a widerange of functions. In a supportive environ-ment, the fourth stageapplication---willcome as a natural result of the first three, andwill be initiated primarily by the facultymember."

Doan Modianos and Joel HartmanBradley University"Computing in the Curriculum: A Case Study"Collegiate MicrocomputerNovember 1991

processed, and printed; it has so-phisticated communications capabil-ities. It is a very valuable kind ofcomputer, plainly too useful to dis-appear anytime soon. They certainlywill not be replaced by microcom-puters simply because micros canperform minimal instruction loopsrapidly. Local area networks ofmicros can communicate with oneanother and with mainframes andbe very effective, but they are notsubstitutes for mainframes.

Mainframe computers are expensiveto purchase and operate, and manypeople would like to eliminate themif possible. However, it appears thatmainframes are still the best ma-chines for substantial large-scalecomputing for both business andresoarch. New kinds of mainframeswill be, and are being, developed,and new products will ensure thatthey remain important componentsof modern technolou.

In Future Issues

BESTNET: A study ineducational changethrough technology

Applying TQM to thecampus computerservices department

Response to the Dean'sDilemma: a user versusthe computer center

Need a consultant? EDUTECH Inter-national provides consulting servicesexclusively to colleges and universi-ties. Call us at (203) 242-3356.

Q. Academic and administrative computing at ourcollege report to two different people at the vice-president level, the provost and the financial vicepresident, respectively. The president and his execu-tive staff are beginning to see the wisdom of combin-ing the two areas, but there doesn't seem to be a goodway to do this within the current organization, andcreating a new vice president position is out of thequestion. What are other colleges doing?

A. While there is no precise model for this in highereducation yet, most colleges and universities go aboutthis in one of three ways. They either create a new vicepresidency, reporting to the president, responsible forleadership and oversight of all aspects of informationtechnology, both administrative and academic; or theyestablish this new responsibility as a formal, well-de-fined part of an existing vice president's function; orthey create an assistant associate vice presidency or ex-eciitioe directorship, to which all of the current opera-tional computing functions report. The advantage ofthe third option is that it is usually easier to eithercreate a new position or to rearrange responsibilities ata less visible level than vice president. Regardless of

which option is chosen, the principal characteristics ofthis new responsibility are these. responding to theneeds of the whole community of users and potentialusers, both administrative and academic, throughlistening, coordinating, and planning, and leading thecollege to a sensible, cost-effective vision for computing.

Q. Can a computer center director ever be elevatedto the position of chief information officer at his or herown institution?

A. It has happened, of course, but frankly, it seemsrare enough to be noteworthy. Unfortunately, the mostcommon series of events leading up to establishing aCIO position is characterized by frustration, conster-nation, and even bewilderment about computing on thepart of the rest of the institution. Tao often, the admin-istration and the faculty see the computer center direc-tor as part of the problem, rather than as part of thesolution. An increasingly common way for them to fixthe problem is to create a new position to which thecurrent computer center director will report. The majorissues are credibility and lead,ership.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Tethiniai Nvrvnes to iiighvr

IDITORIAL 0i.FICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENI 'F.BLOON1FIELD 06(.1()2

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

July 1992 Volume 8Number 4

E P 0"rhe Education Technoiof.,y Newsletter for Facuity and Administrators

Educational ChangeThrough Technology

When budgets are tight and when campus decision-makers haveto be persuaded to undertake new initiatives, it often falls upon

the shoulders of the computer people to justify spending resources oninformation technology. Unfortunately, it isn't always easy to articulatethe benefits of technology projects. especially in terms that make senseto non-computer people. Every once in a while, however, a technologyproject comes along, the benefits of which are so clear and undeniablethat it serves as a model for others.

"Imagine African students taking a science course from a U.S. profes-sor without ever entering a classroom. Instead, they use videotapes andon-line assignments, dialogues, and testing. Consider a Mexican pro-fessor teaching cross-cultural understanding by having students fromdifferent countries talk back and forth on their computers. Now envis-ion American researchers simultaneously monitorintz these computer-based courses, in order to analyze cross-cultural electronic commu-nication styles." This is the vision of BESTNET, an evolving researchproject using telecommunications and related technologies.

BESTNET stands for the Binational English and Spanish Telecommu-nications Network, and was created in 1985 by Dr. Beryl Bel lman ofCalifornia State University, Los Angeles and Dr. Armando Arias, Jr.of Texas A&I University with grants from many sources, includingDigital Equipment Corporation. The purpose of the project is to con-duct research on the higher education applications of computer confer-encing, electronic mail, videotext, and related technologies in the areasof instruction, inter-institutional cooperation, research, institutionalservice, and administration. Among other things, BESTNET is current-ly using electronic networks and software to conduct courses and en-courage cross-cultural communications through computer conferencing.

continued On page 3

_

"Eventually, some concreteresponse to demands fromstudents and faculty for amore highly sophisticatedinformation environment willbe necessary on every campus.Leadership in the articulationof campus priorities, inno-vation in the development ofdemonstration projects, andlong-term strategic relocationsof resources from varioussources will be required if thevision of the future is to bemore than a mirage."

The Research Libraries Group"Executive Summary"Preferred Futures for Libraries:

A Sumnary of Six WorkshopsWith Univershy Provosts andLibrary Directors

November 1991

COLUMBUS STATETESTS NEW PROGRAMFOR DEAF STUDENTS

REPORT ONOWNERSHIP ANDCOPYRIGHTSAVAILABLE

CONFERENCESSPONSORED BY THEAAC E

Columbus State Community College is assisting students who are deaf byintroducing the use of "real-time captioning" in the college classroom. This newmethod of accessing classroom lectures provides students with a court reporterinstead of the traditional sign language interpreter. The court reporter recordslectures with the recorded words appearing on the screen of a desktopcomputer provided to the student. A small window in the screen allows thestudent to participate in class discussions or formulate questions for theinstructor. The student is also given a written transcript of the lecture.

All services to introduce the program have been donated by ProfessionalReporters Inc., whom the college plans to work through if funding becomesavailable to extend the experimental program. For more information, contactSeana Elam at Columbus State Community College, 550 East Spring Street,P.O. Box 1609. Columbus, Ohio 43216; (614) 227-2412.

A new government report, "Finding a Balance: Computer Software, IntellectualProperty, and the Challenge of Technological Change," issued by theCongressional Office of Technolou Assessment, is now available. The reportdiscusses the ownership and copyright of electronic information. To order the$11 report, contact the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington DC 20402; (202) 783-3238. The order number is052-003-01278-2.

The Association for the Advancement of Computing in..Education (AACE), an"international, educational organization whose purpose is to advance theknowledge, theory, and quality of teaching and learning at all levels withcomputer technologies," is sponsoring a series of conferences in 1993.

STATE 93, to be held March 17-20, 1993 in San Diego, California, is thefourth annual conference on technology and teacher education. The theme thisyear is "Technology Across the Curriculum," and will include papers, panels,workshops, and poster sessions on topics related to the use of technology inteacher education and instruction about technology in pre-service, inservice,and graduate teacher education. ED-MEDIA 93, will be held in Orlando,Florida on June 23-26, and is the World Conference on EducationalMultimedia and Hypermedia. AI-ED 93 is the World Conference on ArtificialIntelligence in Education, to be held August 23-27, 1993 in Edinburgh,Scotland.

For more information, contact AACE at P.O. Box 2966, Charlottesville,Virginia 22902; (804) 973-3987.

LThe EDUTECH REPORT i,. published each month by EDUTECH International. 120 Mountain Avenue. Bloomfield. Connecticut, 06002-1634:(2031 2.12-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Reit: Vicc President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright © 1992. EDUTECH International. All rightsreserved. This publication, or any part thereof. may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without the written permission of the publisher.bacsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription. S97.

4 I

Educational Change Through Technology ...continued from page 1

The unique part of BESTNET isthat it doesn't just link people whoare physically remote, not even justthose from different colleges anduniversities; what puts it at theforefront is that it is multi-nationaland cross-cultural.

Major BenefitsThe BESTNET team has alreadyused computer conferencing in sev-eral disciplines, including writingcomposition, anthropology, sociology,and psychology. Those involved withBESTNET cite several major bene-fits of computer conferencing overthe traditional classroom-centeredcourse. First, it tends to promotegreater student participation. It alsopromotes student-to-student interac-tion, and improves students' writ-ing, editorial, and logical skills. Allof these things make students moreactive participants in the learningprocess, thus making the processmore effective.

Second, students have greater flexi-bility in their schedules compared tohaving to be in a classroom at a cer-tain time. As students become morediverse and less traditional in theirapproaches to education, this kindof flexibility is essential.

Third, for those students for whomEnglish is a second language, orwho may be having difficulties forother reasons, this format allowsthem to review materials as manytimes as they wish, at their ownpace. This puts students in controlof their own learning experiences.

The researchers have also foundthat students who may be at a dis-advantage in a traditional class-roomminorities, the disabled, andthose for whom English is a secondlanguageparticipate with greaterconfidence in electronic communica-tions than they do in non-electronic.

Finally, by allowing courses to beshared across institutions and even

national borders, the medium alsosupports multi-national and cross-cultural learning and ir teraction.With a rapidly growing global econ-omy and living in an increasinglydiverse country, this kind of interac-tion has immediate practical impli-cations and benefits.

Project SpecificsThe BESTNET project is centered atSan Diego State University, chairedby Dr. Frank Medeiros, associatevice president for academic affairs.It is organized as a consortium op-erating under the framework of theSan Diego State University Founda-

By allowing courses tobe shared across

institutions and evennational borders, themedium also supports

multi-national andcross-cultural learning

and interaction.

tion; representatives of member in-stitutions comprise a Board of Di-rectors. The other eight member in-stitutions are California State Uni-versity at Los Angeles; Centro deEnserianza Tecnica y Superior in Ti-juana, Mexico; Instituto Tecnológicode Mexicali in Mexicali, Mexico; So-noma State University; the Univer-sity of New Mexico; University ofCalifornia at Irvine; Texas A&I Uni-versity; and California State Uni-versity, Dominguez Hills.

Many of these institutions are therecipients of network equipmentgrants from Digital. In fact, thesegrants are especially significant tothe Mexican institutions, who, be-

fore receiving the grant, used dial-up lines to access BESTNET andhad to limit participation to facultybecause of the cost. The Digitalgrant allowed for a direct line acrossthe border.

Members of the BESTNET projectnow offer students a broad range ofcourses over the network, includingChicano Studies and Introduction toComputers, Technology and Society.Some members, such as John With-erspoon, chair of the telecommunica-tions and film department at SanDiego State, are developing coursesthat use BESTNET as the primaryvehicle of course delivery. ProfessorWitherspoon's "Technological Trendsin Telecommunications" course isconducted almost entirely withoutclass meetings, by using BESTNET,videocassette, reading, telephone,and one-on-one meetings.

At the moment, students, faculty,and researchers involved with theproject are located in North Ameri-ca, South America, Africa, Europe,and Australia. In the near future,BESTNET itself may be extended toinclude institutions in Africa, LatinAmerica, the United Kingdom, andthe Pacific Basin. Dr. Bellman hasbeen working for two years to ex-tend BESTNET into Africa, initiallyfocusing on creating virtual class-rooms and laboratories for institu-tions in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Oth-er potential international applica-tions for BESTNET include long dis-tance courses through the OpenUniversity in England and access tograduate-level nursing courses forLatin American countries offered bythe California State University,Dominguez Hills.

For more information about BEST-NET, contact Dr. Frank Medeiros atSan Diego State University, (619)594-6883. Thanks to both MaryHoffman at Digital and Dr. Med-eiros for the information containedin this article.

Y ou know the type. The adminis-trative version is a COBOL

pro, convinced that COBOL is stillbest because it is "self-document-ing." Thinks 360 architecture wasthe last great leap forward in tech-nology. Committed forever to writ-ing mainframe programs for users,because obviously, the users can't doanything much good on their own.Recently acknowledged microcom-puters, but only for "peripheral"systems. The academic version isfervently programming in FOR-TRAN while still hoping that 36-bitcomputers will make a comebacksoon and that Digital will finallyreverse its position on the DECsys-tem-10.

Unfortunately, even with all of theskill and experience this persontypically has, he or she is movingfurther and further away from whatis required of today's campus com-puter professionals in this NewWorld of computing. Ironically, peo-ple who were once attracted to thenewness of it all, who were willingto put themselves out on long tech-nological limbs, who were alwaysamong the first to try anything newas long as it taught them somethingthey didn't already know, have nowseemingly become the most risk-averse and conservative people inthe computer center.

Both personal computers and thepassage of time have created theNew World; one in which usersknow a lot more than they used toabout what they want and how todo it. And one in which the technol-ogy itself is moving rapidly forwardinto areas we never even imagined.

It isn't that Old Worlders don't havesomething to offer; in fact, whatthey have to offer is still extremelyvaluable. While it's true that someof them are not valued the way theyused to be by the users, their skillsand experience are needed as much

Old World Computer Peopltoday as they ever were. That's whyit's so important for the Old World-ers to make the transition into theNew Worldit's not just for them-selves, it's for the institutions theystill work for as well.

A recent Cornputerworld editorial(June 15, 1992) emphasized thispoint: "That's right, you're the oldfogy who stands in the way of prog-ress at :your site. You're the personwho tried to say 'slow down' to themillions upon millions of PCs thatfound their way into corporations in

'LTnfortunately, evenwith all of the skill andexperience these peopletypically have, they are

moving further andfurther away from what

is required of today'scampus computer pro-

fessionals.

the 1980s and that now have to bereplaced because they can't commu-nicate with one another. You're theimmovable stump who insists onpromulgating internal network stan-dards so users can, in fact, accessdata in minis and mainframes.You're the Luddite who insists on acalculated approach to acquiringnew technology. You're the killjoywho pollutes those great downs1 ingplans with dumb questions like,'Who's going to manage the LAN? Doyou know how much it will cost?What will be done about data securi-ty?' You. You're 'old IS.'"

The trouble is, even with all of thethings Old Worlders did right, the

j

New World is becoming increasinglyuncomfortable with them, and forgood reason.

The real problem is that much ofthe Old World behavior has veryserious consequences, such as rein-forcing the perception in the mindsof users that information technologyprofessionals are always throwingup barriers, finding reasons whysomething can't be done, and gener-ally, being part of the problem in-stead of part of the solution. Inaddition, by not keeping up with thelatest technologies, Old Worldersrisk doing things less well and lessefficiently than their institutionsneed them to.

The New World of computing de-mands that computer professionalsbe not only technically talented andup-to-date, but that they also beresponsive, cooperative, user-orien-ted, and able to see beyond justtheir own concerns.

The Two Are Worlds Apart --The differences between Old Worldand New World computing are huge.Some examples:

Old World: Software is hard towrite, therefore it should be hard touse. If users really want computers,they have to be willing to make thecommitment to learning how to usethem properly. New World: The ea-sier software is to use, the greaterthe user's productivity, and that'sthe whole point. Yes, a commitmentby the users is necessary, but not tothe point where they are pullingtheir hair out in frustration.

Old World: Time spent in non-pro-gramming activities like documenta-tion, meetings, and listening to theusers is time wasted. New World:Interpersonal, communications, andwriting skills are just as importantas technical skills, and used togeth-er, will result in better software.

and New World ComputingOld World: The more elegant andsophisticated a program is, thebetter. New World: The more un-derstandable and maintainable aprogram is, the better.

Old World: Users tell me some-thing about what they want, then Igo away for as long as it takes meto write the program, and deliver tothe user a finished product. NewWorld: Programs need to be firstdeveloped, and then supported,through partnerships formed Withthe user. Developing a program isan iterative process, incorporatinguser feedback throughout the devel-opment and maintenance cycles.

Old World: It doesn't matter howlong it takes to do something, aslong as it's done right. Deadlinescan always be moved. New World:Establishing a deadline is making acommitment that must not be bro-ken. A deadline is an expectation onthe part of the user that somethingwill result at a certain timea timeimportant to that user. This mustnot be violated.

Old World: Users have to be led,and sometimes forced, to use com-puters the right way. Users reallydon't know what they want most ofthe time. New World: Users knowmuch more than software develop-ers about their business and whatneeds to be done (and what doesn'tneed to be done). If a user has to beforced to do something, it is eitherbecause the user has not been suffi-ciently educated in the need to do it,or it is something that has littlevalue to the user, and therefore,probably should not be done in thefirst place.

Old World: Programming is an art,not a science, and art is an end untoitself. New World: Programming isan art, not a science, and art thatserves a purpose is art that is trulyvalued.

Getting From Here To ThereHelping Old Worlders move to theNew World is a joint responsibility.To be sure, Old Worlders have torecognize the need to move, andmake a commitment to it, but theirmanagement also has a commitmentto make as well.

First, of course, the Old Wor 'der'smanager has to be New World, orthis just isn't going to work. Themanager has to set the example, of-fer leadership and guidance, andcontinually reinforce the Old World-

It's extremelyimportant for the OldWorlders to make the

transition into the NewWorld, as difficult as itmay be. It's not just forthemselves, but for theinstitutions they still

work for as well.

er's efforts to make the transitioninto the New World.

Second, New World standards haveto be established and communicat-ed; hiring New World people when-ever an opening occurs, for instance,sends a pretty clear signal. Similar-ly, the reward structure has to besuch that New World behavior is re-inforced and Old World behavior isdiscouraged.

Third, there has to be lots of train-ing. Training should be part of eve-ry campus computer center's budgetanyway, but in this case in particu-lar, it is a crucial element. Whetherit is in concepts or techniques, whet-

her on-site or off-site, whether byvideotape or in person, training justcannot be given short shrift.

Fourth, teaming Old World peoplewith New World people can help theconcepts and behavior rub off, aswell as reinforcing the idea thatteamwork is valued.

Advice for Old WorldersWork with the users, not for theusers, and certainly not againstthem. Learn what it means to be amember of a partnership or a team,working for a common goal.

There is as much technical chal-lenge and opportunity for creativity(maybe more) in an end-user-friend-ly computing environment than inan old, ,umbersome, hard-to-useone. CASE tools, relational databas-es, client/server technology, andnetworking are just as interestingas COBOL and VSAM.

It's okay not to be an expert insomething; you will be given asmuch of a chance to learn all thisnew stuff as you need. And if you'renot, learn it on your own, the wayyou did with a lot of the old stuff.

You will be pleasantly surprised athow much of what you know trans-fers over to the New World. It's notso different that you won't find a lotof it familiar.

Start thinking of your role different-ly.. You no longer have to build ev-ery engine from scratch. Now youneed to determine the placement ofthe steering wheel and decide whe-ther the shift should be on the floor.Anyone can build an engine; it takestalent and skill to create a vehicleenvironment tailored to the driver'sneeds.

You are just as needed in the NewWorld as you were in the Old, justin a different way.

Book Reviews

IT's Role in a Larger Mission

we all know what higher educa-tion has been facing in recent

years, the major forces acting uponour colleges and universities. Weknow about declining enrollments,about the diminishment ofthe public's perception ofthe value of a collegeeducation, about the in-ternal divisiveness rack-ing many of our institu-tions. We also know wehave to respond, that thestatus quo just won't workanymore. We need to be-come much more efficientthrough raising productiv-ity and lowering costs, weneed to become more ef-fective by improving thedelivery of instruction and

derful to think that many of ournation's great colleges and universi-ties might actually be warming upto the idea that administration hasto be every bit as good as the aca-

nally as a vision statement by se-nior administrative officials of theUniversity of California), while wor-king with the assumption that "U.S.college and university leaders have

done an outstanding jobin creating and nurturing

Sustaining Excellence in the 21st Century: AVision and Strategies for College and

University Administration

Richard N. Katz and Richard P. WestCAUSE Professional Paper #8

Reengineering: A Process for TransformingHigher Education

James I. Penrod and Michael G. DolenceCAUSE Professional Paper #9

the conduct of research,and we need to convincethe public once again of the truevalue of a college education. Wearen't talking about making smallrefinements here and therewe'retalking about making fundamentalsurvival-issue changes, and we'retalking about not having much timeto make them. It's not too early, noris it an overreaction, to be some-what of an alarmist about this.

What many people in higher educa-tion have not realized yet, or per-haps are just beginning to realize, isthe critically important role thatinformation technology will play inmaking these changes. The two newprofessional papers from CAUSEgive us some real insight into thisissue.

Sustaining Excellence in the 21stCentury: A Vision and Strategies forCollege arid University Administra-tion is based on the premise "thatthe outstanding administration of acollege or university's business af-fairs can enhance the institution'spursuit of academic excellence."What a great idea!! And how won-

demic side for the institution tothriveand perhaps even to sur-vive.

Of course, some institutions haveknown this all along, but too manyothers have acted as if it isn't so. Nomore. No more the arrogance thatcomes from not having serious com-petition for one's students or facultyand that allows the administrationand administrative systemstobe slapdash and shoddy. The fact isthat entering students, even in thevery best schools, will no longertolerate a lost admissions applica-tion or a botching of the financialaid package. No longer will collegesbe able to withstand the consequen-ces of budgets being overspent be-cause budget managers have accessonly to month-old information onpaper reports. No longer will alumniput up with a missing acknowledge-ment of their gift or excuse receiv-ing three copies of the same issue of'the alumni bulletin.

Administration has to improve. Sus-taining Excellence (produced origi-

the world's finest systemof higher education," alsoacknowledges that pres-sures on higher educationmust lead it to change.

And the changes are ma-jor: more decentralization.a more nurturing andstimulating environmentfor future leaders, a smal-ler workforce optimizingthe institution's resources,a networked rather than ahierarchical organization,and investment in tech-

nology to make it all happen. Infact, none of this can happen with-out institutional commitment to ap-propriate technological initiativesand a full recognition of the ways inwhich technology can contribute tothe institution's goals, especially inareas such as distributed systemsand networking.

If change is the goal, then Reengin-eering: A Process for TransformingHigher Education gives us a way toget there. The basic theme here isthat it isn't enough to just employtechnology to make current process-es more efficient; the processesthemselves have to be fundamental-ly alteredtransformedin order totake the most advantage of thebenefits offered by technology. Ag-ain, our colleges and universitiessimply cannot ignore this impera-tive.

What needs to be done? First, ourcolleges have to develop a serviceorientation towards their students:in other words, students 'need to beseen as customers or consumers. Se-

cond, quality in many areas has toimprove. And third, individualshave to be empowered to use theirown judgement in carrying out theirduties and responsibilities. In short,a new organizational culture, withinformation technology at its core,needs to be envisioned, developed,and sustained.

Is any of this going to be easy? No,but nothing worthwhile ever is. AsPenrod and Dolence put it, "puttinginstitutional mission before division-al or disciplinary priorities, elim-inating unnecessary programs andredistributing scarce resources, re-examining and redefining long heldassumptions, finding new ways tomeasure what we do, changing theparameters for the way leaders areselected, and redefining the internalreward structure of the institutionmay prove to be very difficult...."The word "may" is rather too gentlehere, but do we have a choice? Canour colleges and universities notmake these sorts of changes and

still survive? That possibility isbecoming less likely each day.

It is very significant that we areseeing these papers emerge from anorganization like CAUSE, ratherthan, say, the American Associationof Higher Education, or one of theother more general-purpose groups.In the preface of Reengineering, infact, Penrod and Dolence state thatthe paper was written for profes-sionals in higher education IT man-agement. On one hand, this emer-gence from an IT organization isgood news because we can see thenow obvious links between the fu-ture of higher education and thefuture of campus information tech-nology. Even though the subjectmatter in both papers has to dowith higher education in general, itis clear that higher education is nowinextricably tied to technology.

The bad news is that unless non-computer people are exposed to thisinformation more or less constantly,

"Because it is considered good corporatepolicy to get the leaders of tomorrow from theacademic world, the software community isbecoming increasingly populated by sophisti-cates who can merely write specifications,talk about the 'big picture' and deliverimpressive speeches. At best, the graduates ofthese courses of study patronize the efforts ofthe people who code, test and maintain soft-ware systems. At worst, these newly mintedgraduates actively malign the programmers'approach to software development and ex-press the opinion that anyone who writes inno-vative and creative code should be fired."

Francis K. Walnut"Lofty Ideas Don't Build Systems"ComputerworldJune 15, 1992

they just aren't going to "get it" (inthe words of Dick Nolan). So forevery campus computer person whoreceives copies of these papers,there need to be ten or twelve non-computer people who receive them(and read them!) as well. Happily,CAUSE reports having already re-ceived a number of high-quantity or-ders.

Change in higher education is uponus, and information technology pro-fessionals have to be a part of thesechanges. Now, more than ever be-fore, campus IT people have a realopportunity to influence what isgoing to happen at their institu-tions, and to help lead, not just thecomputing aspects, but the entireenterprise, to excellence.

Copies of these papers are availablefrom CAUSE for $8 each for CAUSEmembers, $16 otherwise. Contactthe CAUSE office at 4840 PearlEast Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder,Colorado 80301; (303) 449-4430.

In Future Issues

- This year's hottesttechnology issues: whatour readers think

Response to the Dean'sDilemma: a user versusthe computer center

Strategic planning: abusiness plan forcomputer services

Need a consultant? EDUTECII Inter-national provides consulting servicesexclusively to colleges and universi-ties. Call us at (203) 242-3356.

Q. Last month you had an article, "The DisappearingMainframe?" which contended that large mainframecomputing is going to be around for a whileanopinion with which I agree wholeheartedly. But in theMay issue of CIO Magazine, the following appeared:"The mainframe's days are numbered....The latestpoop predicts that only 45 percent of core applicationswill reside on host machines by 1994, down from 77

percent today....One-third of companies surveyed [byForrester Research Inc.l said they will never buyanother mainframe." These are the kinds of articles I

get handed when I request an upgrade to our main-frame.

A. It stands to reason that with higher education's(and everyone else's) tight budgets these days, thepeople who make spending decisions are going to try tofind ways to save money. Mainframe computing has al-ways been associated with big dollars, so the emphasisnow is on downsizing. The other problem is that toomany computer people are still "mainframe bigots" andhave not yet come to fully appreciate what other hard-ware can do; that tends to make the decision-makersskeptical of requests for mainframe upgrades. In fact,

making definitive statements about the lifespan ofmainframe computing ( whether short or long) is boundto get the statement-makers into trouble (who has everbeen right in predicting anything in the computer in-dustry?). The real issue is to make the most efficientuse of all of the resources you have. If you can make anhonest business case for upgrading your mainframemeaning you have objectively examined the alternativesand can demonstrate why they are not as goodandyou have built up credibility with your administration,then that should do it.

Q. I've been the computer center director at a collegefor about nine months, and I'm having a really toughtime. I just can't understand all the politics that goeson around hereno one wants to make a decision, andeveryone gets involved in everything, no matter whattheir expertise. Is it like this at every school?

A. Pretty much. Understanding the culture of highereducation, and of your institution in particular; willhelp. It's not like being in business, but that is itsadvantage, as well as a source of frustration.

IEDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

F1RST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

THE August 1992 Volume 8Number 5

The Education Technology Newsletter for Facuity and Administrators

Strategic Planning: A BusinessPlan for Computing

C trategic planning for information technology is a tough task. ItL7 takes time, commitment, good written and oral communicationsskills, and motivation. It takes lots of legwork and lots of discussionwith users and potential users. the campus administration, faculty gov-ernance bodies, and students. It's no wonder it gets put off, and oftennot done at all. The pressing problem is that with technology changingas rapidly as it is, with the users becoming more sophisticated in theircomputing needs and wishes. and with budgets tightening everywhere,strategic planning is more important now than ever before. So thechallenge is to make the creation of an information technology stra-tegic plan for the institution as non-burdensome as possible.

One thing that will help is understanding the similarities between aninformation technology strategic plan and a traditional business plan.A business plan is a considerably less obscure document, one alreadyknown to many who might not otherwise be familiar with strategicplanning. Especially now, with entrepreneurism sweeping the countryand many new start-up companies needing investment capital, severalbook and software publishers are marketing business-plan-creationbooks and programs, leading the reader and user through the funda-mentals of planning. The advantage is that all of the major sections arealready identified, and often, a lot of the boilerplate text is supplied.

Even though a traditional business plan is basically a vehicle forraising money from potential investors, it can be easily adapted todiscussing and describing the long-term strategy of campus informa-tion technology. In fact, even the goal of raising money isn't entirelyirrelevant to campus computing; one important objective of a strategicplan is to get the campus decision-makers to support (that is, to fund)

continued on page 4

"In industry, alas, it has longbeen taken for granted thatuniversities provide littlepractical training for computerprogrammers. Programmersoften regard their formaltraining, if they have had any,as little more than a bad joke.Statements such as, 'I learnedmore in four months on thejob than in four years ofcollege' are so common as tolead almost inescapably to theconclusion that something isseriously wrong with the wayprogrammers are educated inour universities today."

Nathaniel S. Borenstein"Colleges Need to Fix the Bugs

in Computer-Science Courses"The Chronicle of Higher

EducationJuly 15, 1992

THE INTERNETSOCIETY MEETS INJAPAN

AWARDS FORTECHNOLOGY ANDTEACHEREDUCATION

ACM SIGUCCS USERSERVICESCONFERENCE

At its first formal meeting, the Internet Society Board of Trustees gathered inKobe, Japan, and took several steps that will affect internetworking worldwide.The Internet Society is an international professional organization establishedfor evolving and extending availability of the techniques and technologies thatallow diverse information systems to openly communicate. It also includes theInternet, the network of networks that links millions of users worldwide. Thesetechnologies and the Internet are very rapidly evolving and are increasinglyviewed as critically important infrastructure.

The organization formerly known as the Internet Activities Board was mergedinto the Internet Society as a body called the Internet Architecture Board(IAB). The IAB will evolve the technology of the Internet and develop theseries of international standards which are used today for common openinterconnection, management, and use of diverse equipment, networks, andapplications such as electronic mail, file transfer, news distribution, andremote logon. The Board of Trustees also decided to establish a cooperativerelationship with the Geneva-based United Nations agency, the InternationalTelecommunication Union (ITU). In addition, the Internet Society will submita contribution to the ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference that underscoresinternetworking as critical infrastructure and the use of the Internet tosignificantly enhance global telecommunications collaboration. For moreinformation, contact the Internet Society Secretariat, Suite 100, 1895 PrestonWhite Drive, Reston, VA 22091; (703) 620-8990.

The Society for Technology and Teacher Education (STATE), a division of theAssociation for the Advancement of Computing in Education, recentlyannounced the 1992 awards for outstanding work in the area of technology andteacher education. Recipients included Brian Reilly, Glynda Hull, and CynthiaGreenleaf, University of California Berkeley; Ray Braswell, AuburnUniversity - Montgomery; Thomas Brush, Dennis Knapczyk, and LoriHubbard, Indiana University; and Janice Woodrow, University of BritishColumbia. For more information contact AACE, P.O. Box 2966,Charlottesville, VA 22902; (804) 973-3987.

"Learning From the Past, Stepping Into the Future" is the theme of this year'sAssociation of Computing Machinery's Special Interest Group on Universityand College Computing Services User Services Conference, to be heldNovember 8-11 at the Stouffer Tower City Plaza Hotel in Cleveland, Ohio.Presentation topics include management strategies; financial options;marketing services; security and ethics; consulting, training, anddocumentation; networking and telecommunications strategies; and strategiesfor small schools. For more information, contact Al Herbert, University ofAkron; (216) 972-7174.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit; Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1992, EDUTECH International. All rightsreserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without the wntten permission of the publisher.Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN N0883-1327. One year subscription. S97.

3,)

Responses to The Dean's Dilemma

A few months ago, we publisheda case study depicting the di-

lemma often faced by campus deci-sion-makers these days: whether toauthorize a director of a depart-ment under the Dean's area of re-sponsibility feeling ill-served by thecomputer center (in this case, theHousing department) to proceedwith a purchase of a microcomput-er-based stand-alone system justfor that office or to accede to thewishes of the computer center di-rector who wants the campus tohave a fully integrated informationsystem and who has planned toaddress the needs of the HousingOffice reasonably soon.

We received many responses to thiscase from both computer peopleand users; many of the responseswere quite heated. We picked outrepresentative excerpts from sever-al of them:

"Fine. Great. Let the Housing Of-fice do whatever it wants to. Justdon't expect any help from us whenit comes time to: 1) modify thesoftware; 2) fix the software tomake it work right; 3) connect thehardware to the campus network;4) download student informationfrom the mainframe; 5) any ofhundreds of other things theHousing Office calls on us for."

"Of course the Housing Officeshould be allowed to get this newpackage. In any other environment,when a service or product is notworking for you, you have the op-tion of changing to a different ser-vice or product that works better.If the Housing department feelsthat the computing department hasnot been doing a good job for them,they should have the optionandeven be encouragedto get assis-tance elsewhere. Why should thecomputer services department havea monopoly?"

"Where is the information technol-ogy steering committee? Policies onthis sort of thing should have beenset up by this committee long ago."

"Let's look at the real issue: theHousing Office isn't getting what itneeds from computing. It is rea-sonable to expect a certain amountof deferral of their needs on behalfof the whole institution, but notforever; not if they are expected todo their jobs properly. We all needtools to do our jobs; increasingly, astandard tool set for administrators

In any otherenvironment, when a

service or product is notworking for you, you

have the option ofchanging to a differentservice or product that

works better.

and staff contains a computer. Howlong should they be expected towait while everyone else on cam-pus gets service?"

'What about the obvious main-frame bias on the part of the com-puter center? Even when the com-puter people get around to ad-dressing the needs of the HousingOffice, they are likely to come upwith an overly expensive, overlycumbersome, hard-to-use systemanyway. The housing people havefound a good, solid micro-basedsystem; more power to them!"

"Users should not go off on theirown. Information technology needs

to provide an integrated, campus-wide solution that serves everyone.This has been proven time andtime again to be the most cost-effective way to use technology re-sources. But the real question inthis case is why the users feel theyhave to go off on their own to getwhat they need. Are they just pri-ma donnas who won't play by therules, or has the computer centerreally been failing them? In manycases I've seen, it's a little of both,and both issues need to be dealtwith. Neither issue is properly ad-dressed by buying a stand-alonesystem that serves the needs ofjust one office."

"The question is whether the insti-tution is looking at the short termor the long term. Buying this pack-age for the Housing Office un-doubtedly fills some short-termneeds, but very likely at the ex-pense of the long-term future ofinformation resource sharing atthis institution."

"It sounds as if the Housing Officehas done its homework by choosinga system that has all the function-ality they want. The problem is,however, that functionality, whilevery important, is not the onlycriteria by which to choose a sys-tem. In addition to vendor supportserviceswhich the housing direc-tor sort of glosses over in hermemothere are many other im-portant things, such as compatibili-ty with what the rest of the insti-tution is doing. No administrativeoffice operates in isolation any-more. The new system has to fitinto the institution's informationarchitecture."

"It sounds as if the computer direc-tor got her nose out of joint be-cause she wasn't in on the selectionprocess. Well, guess what? Userscan make good decisions too!"

3

Strategic Planning: A Business Plan for Computing ...continued from page I

the strategy outlined in the plan.In that sense, the plan is for thepurpose of getting the computingdepartment's most important in-vestorsthe rest of the campuscommunityto buy into what thedepartment wants to do.

On the right is a chart showinghow a business plan format can beadapted and used for a strategicplan for IT. In addition, there are anumber of guidelines for the pro-cess itself which should also bekept in mind; these are guidelinesthat business people try to followwhen doing a business plan:

Get the ideas for the plan fromoutside the department. In otherwords, talk to the customers (us-ers) and especially, to potentialusers about what they want thecomputing department to be doingover the long-term. The strategicdirection for information technolo-gy should be set by the community,not by IT insiders.

Involve the whole departmentin creating the plan. Once the in-formation has been gathered fromthe campus community, as manypeople as possible within the de-partment should get involved inactually formulating the plan.Deciding on the appropriate tech-nology to focus on for the long-term, generating ideas for technol-ogy research, doing budget projec-tions, making sure policies andprocedures are in place for the staffto stay current and motivated, andso on, should all be done by depart-ment people. Don't designate a"planning administrator;" make itpart of everyone's responsibility,especially the managers. Do, how-ever, designate a "planning coord-inator" so it actually gets done.

Keep the document as short aspossible. One of the failings of theacademic environment is writing

too much, and one of the pressureson anyone writing anything in thisenvironment is to maintain thequest for length. Nevertheless, weall know in our hearts that theshorter the plan is, the more likelypeople will read it, even though noone on a college campus will actu-ally admit that. Pretend that thereaders of the plan are venturecapitalists, who typically do notspend more than an amount oftime counted in minutes reading abusiness plan.. Be brave, don'tcount the number of pages or

Even though atraditional businessplan is basically avehicle for raising

money from potentialinvestors, it can beeasily adapted to

discussing and describ-ing the long-term

strategy of campus IT.

words, and make the plan as briefas possible.

Make the document readable.Even if it's short, it needs to be un-derstandable and unambiguous inits wording. Do not, under any cir-cumstances, use technical jargon orfall into the trap of using inflatedlanguage when concrete terms willdo. Again, the goal here is to getthis document widely read, under-stood, accepted, and supported.

Don't get distracted. In businessterms, it's called overdiversifying,and it's generally dangerous. It isimportant to stay focused on the

core needs of the institution andthe talents and skills of the com-puter staff.

Keep the plan as fluid as possi-ble, to accommodate both changinguser needs and advancing technolo-gy. Make it clear that this is aliving document, not something tobe engraved in stone, and althoughthe overall goals will remain thesame, the objectives in meetingthose goals are likely to changeover time.

Be realisti - in the cost projec-tions. It used to be that in order toget something fundee the cost pro-jections needed to bt, understated.This is one of the things that hascontributed to computer people'slack of credibility, and should beavoided.

Why Bother9Michel Robert of Decision ProcessInternational, a company in West-port, Connecticut, observed recent-ly that perhaps strategic planningisn't such a critical thing after all.As reported in the August 1992issue of Inc. Magazi, e, Robert be-lieves in the Christopher ColumbusSchool of Management: "When Col-umbus left, he didn't know wherehe was going. When he got there,he didn't know where he was.When he got back, ;le didn't knowwhere he had been. But he gotthere and back four times in 10years without getting lost." Per-haps so, but it is a far more treach-erous world out there today, andthose in campus information tech-nology who do not commit to stra-tegic planning do so at their ownperil. Besides, Columbus never didrind India.

The business plan outline came from "ABusiness Plan is More Than a Financ-ing Device" by Jeffry A. Timmons, inGrowing Concerns, a publication of theHarvard Business Review.

4

Plan ComponentsPurpose

Typical Business Plan IT Strategic Plan

Introduction Introduction The usual.

Management Summary Management Summary Many people will read just this section, so include allof the highlights, especially from the impact section(see below).

The Company and itsIndustry

I

The Department's Mis-sion Statement andCurrent Service Levels

Every computing department needs a mission state-merit, and if it isn't there already, this is a good ex-cuse to spend some time developing one. Describe thefoundation purpose for information technology at thisinstitution. Also use this section to briefly describecurrent service and activity levels, especially if thereare service level agreements with the users.

Market Research andEvaluation

User Research Describe the user community and the sources of inputon what services need to Le provided. Also describepotential users of information technology.

Proposed Products orServices

Proposed Services This is the heart of the plan, a full description of theservices that information technology will be involvedwith during the timeframe covered in this plan, aswell as the goals to be reached by providing thoseservices.

Community Impact Institutional Impact Give a clear description of the benefits to the institu-tion if this plan is accepted. Highlight this section.

Marketing Plan Marketing Plan One of the too-frequently ignored areas of informationtechnology, marketing should be emphasized in thissection. Use this section to describe how new facultymembers can find out what is offered for them in thecomputer center; the purpose of the newsletter; newcampus outreach activities; and so on.

Design and Develop-ment Plans

Evolving Technologies Give a brief, non-technical description of what theevolving technologies are and how the, are addressedin a cost-effective way by this plan.

Manufacturing andOperations Plans

Operational Plans Describe the process of achieving the goals set forthin this plan in operational terms, including short-term objectives.

Financial Plan Financial Plan What will this all cost, and how will it be paid for?

Overall Schedule Overall Schedule Outline the phases of the plan, and what will beaccomplished when.

Important Risks, As-sumptions, and Prob-lems

Important Risks, As-sumptions, and Prob-lems

Describe the assumptions used to formulate the plan,and give a brief discussion of what might come alongto alter what is in this plan, either positively or nega-tively.

Management Team Omit The management and staff of the department is al-ready known to the community, so this section is notneeded.

L.)-WW1.

5

Administrative Systems:How the Faculty Benefit

Q elling a new administrativek--) system, or a major upgrade toan existing system, to campus deci-sion-makers can be difficult, partic-ularly when budgets are tight. Newand enhanced systems are usuallysold by citing the benefits to beaccrued in the efficiency of campusadministrative operations and thebetter data and information thatwill result. But one area that oftenis not emphasized enough is the setof benefits to the faculty of the newsystem. Focusing on this area andbringing the faculty on board withthe need for a new or significantlyimproved system can make the dif-ference between getting budget ap-proval frx the system and not.

Although it may be often hidden orbrushed aside by administrators asnot really significant, faculty actu-ally spend quite a bit of time in so-called administrative tasks, suchas checking their class lists, fillingout grade sheets, developing coursedescriptions, and advising studentson their courses of study. Considerthese comments from Dr. John Bid-dle, an associate professor in theSchool of Business at the Universi-ty of Louisville:

"If what an institution of highereducation is all about is the educa-tion of its clientele, the educatorshould be provided with the latesttools available, and the red tapeassociated with the teaching/re-search process should be reduced toa minimum. What red tape youask? Consider the instructor whohas 200 or more students a term.Obviously, the class list is in elec-tronic form, but the instructor re-ceives it in hard copy. By the timethe class list arrives in the instruc-tor's mailbox, it is out of date, evenif it is produced daily.

"The problem is really compoundedhere. The instructor wants tomaintain the class records in elec-tronic form, maybe on the samesystem the Student Records Sys-tem is on. In this instance, theinstructor receives the class list inhard copy and has to rekey the in-formation back into the same sys-tem it came from. Another scenariois that the instructor has a work-station with a connection to the

ocusing on this areaand bringing the

faculty on board withthe need for a new or

significantly improvedsystem can make the

difference betweengetting budget approvalfor the system and not.

mainframe and wants to keep theelectronic grade book on the work-station. The time wasted in rekey-ing the grade book information ineither case is valuable time thatcould have been spent preparingfor the class or doing some otherproductive activity." (From anarticle in the Summer 1992 SIG-UCCS Newsletter, InstructionalData Requirements from Adminis-trative Systems.")

It is easy to hear the frustration inthis faculty member's voice. Facul-ty are not always included in theoriginal needs analysis for thesystem, and as a result, their needs

4111MINIMMIIIMINIX211

are not always addressed ade-quately. And even if the systemitself does address them, there areoften administrative policies thatprevent faculty from using the sys-tem.

But a well-designed, modern cam-pus information system typicallyhas many advantages for a facultymember, such as these:

Dealing with the Registrar's Of-fice and keeping records more ef-ficiently. Whether class rosters areprinted or on-line, they will bemore accurate with the new sys-tem. They can be downloaded to afaculty member's workstation fornote keeping, grading throughoutthe semester, and so on. On-linefinal grade sheets and grade entryand verification will be enhanced.Keeping track of students' statusesin terms of withdrawals, changes ofmajor, and leaves of absence willbe easier.

Support for advising. On-lineacademic information for a facultymember's advisees will be availableon the faculty member's worksta-tion, as will degree audit informa-tion. Answering questions such as,"What will I have to take next yearif I switch from chemistry to finearts?" will be much easier, alongwith supplying information for pre-paration for graduate school, de-gree changes, graduation postpone-ments, and so on.

Budgets, preparing and moni-toring. The odious task of prepar-ing a budget will be greatly allevia-ted by the new system's budgetpreparation capabilities. In addi-tion, being able to see up-to-the-minute on-line budget information,rather than waiting for monthly

reports that seem to never arrive,is a need shared by administrativedepartment heads as well. Even ifthe faculty were not consulted ontheir needs, this feature is likely tobe part of the new system anyway.

Purchase orders. Both filling outpurchase orders and then checkingon their status will be part of anew system, a feature especiallyimportant for faculty engaged ingrant-supported research.

Course descriptions. Using text.processing software to write coursedescriptions for the catalog andthen transmitting them electroni-cally to the person responsible forcollecting them will make lit easi-er for faculty, especially if they canmodify existing course descriptions.

Class scheduling will be easierfor the Registrar's Office, and

therefore, more likely to result in abetter schedule. For faculty whoneed to balance their teachingloads with other duties such as re-search, advising, committee work,and office hours, a more easilycreated and modified class schedulewill be a major advantage.

Personnel data. Faculty shouldbe able to look at their own person-nel records, and perform othertasks such as changing their homeaddress or signing up for benefits.Department heads should also beable to access certain parts of therecords of the faculty members intheir department.

Electronic mail with adminis-trators. General communicationacross campus should be enhancedwith a new administrative system.Usually, if electronic mail is avail-able before a new system, it is

"In an era when budgets are getting tighterand competition among colleges and univer-sities for a declining student population isincreasingly fierce, it behooves collegeadministrators and information systemspersonnel to provide better ways to improvethe flow of information to facilitate faster, moreefficient decision making. In the 1990s,administrators need an easy way to harvestinformation for analysis and reportingneedswithout investing a lot of money andprogramming time. Information harvesting isthe cost-effective transformation of raw datafrom host computers and servers intomeaningful information on the desktop."

"Information Harvesting: Leveraging Desktop Solutions"QuerySpring 1992

confined to just the academic side.Acquiring a new administrativesystem often leads to an examina-tion of the nee 1 for a campus-wideelectronic mail system that con-nects everyone.

Generally improved access tobetter information. Typically,new administrative systems hold agreat deal more information thanthe old ones, and much of that newinformation will be on-line. Over-all, both the quantity and qualityof information will be greatly im-proved, as will the access methods.

Campus-Wide SystemsIncluding the faculty in the, needsanalysis is extremely important.The term "administrative system"is fast becoming outdated; the sys-tems that need to be put into placenow are campus-wide, and shouldaddress the needs of everyone. NI

In Future Issues

- This year's hottesttechnology issues: whatour readers think

- What the SCT buyout of IAmeans for highereducation software

- Ethical issues in computingcenter management

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

Q. I just started here as director of computer ser-vices, and it looks like I have inherited a real mess.The users hate this department, the administrationis fed up with all the budget increases over the pastfew years with little to show for them, and the fac-ulty generally thinks we're a waste. Where do Ibegin?

A. Thu need to begin with the basics. Make a deter-mination as quickly as possibleas an outside con-sultant wouldas to the real causes of these prob-lems. Then make two plans: a short-term fix plan anda long-term strategic plan, the latter one evolving asyou apply the short-term fixes and get to know the in-stitution and the users. You'll have a certain amountof leeway during your "honeymoon" period, so use itto your advantage. Clean up internal processes andthe computer center environment. Don't promise any-thing to users unless or until you know for sure youcan deliver, then make it something small. Boost staffmorale by saying what you mean and sticking to it.Build slowly, but steadily; don't hesitate to say nowhen a user's request is unrealistic, but offer a work-able compromise. Work toward creating partnerships

LI,

and building credibility. Your users, your bosses, andyour staff all need to know they can rely on you.

Q. We recently completed building a new technolo-gy center on campus, and have filled it with hun-dreds of workstations and workstation furniture. Theproblem is that we are now having discussions (argu-ments, really) about whether some of the worksta-tions should be enclosed or whether they should allbe left out in the open. As the director of computing,I think this should be up to me, especially since Iwas the one who determined the numbers and con-figurations of the computers.

A. It should be up to the teaching faculty to makethis decision. It should also have been up to them todecide on the workstation configurations and num-bers. These are decisions that will have a direct effecton their ability to teach, and the student's ability tolearn. You should have a committee of selected facultymembers meet on a regular basis to discuss these is-sues and to make the final determinations on them,or at least, the final recommendations to the adminis-tration.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloornfield, CTPermit No. 117

711L.:Tr-, September 1992 Volume 8Number 6

The Education 'Technology Newsletter fOr.Faculty and Administrators

Hot Issues1992 1993

n our annual telephone survey to determine this year's most um-' portant issues for higher education information technology, itdidn't take long to see that what is happening in IT is very much areflection of what's going on in higher education in general: shrinkinginstitutional income as enrollments decline, interest rates continue tofall on investment income, and the recession continues to affect fund-raising efforts; increased pressure for spending on financial aid, build-ing maintenance, and faculty salaries; and in many places, a highly-charged political atmosphere making dealing with campus politics evenhairier than usual. This all serves as a most challenging backdrop tothe issues and concerns of college and university information technol-ogy professionals. In speaking with over one hundred higher educationdirectors of computing, we have come to the conclusion that the wordof the year is pressure, enormous, and in some cases, overwhelming.

Level or shrinking budgets. Retrenching, downsizing, consolidation,and contraction were the words we heard over and over. And all re-sources are being affected: people, machines, software, and dollars. Asone respondent put it, "We have lost our networking focus, we arepostponing projects; we are reallocating people's time." We heardabout travel and training cuts, cuts in discretionary monies so thatthere could be no more favors, cuts in mandatory maintenance andsupplies, and cuts everywhere else. This issue, talked about by everyone of our respondents, was not only an issue in and of itself, but alsopermeated every other issue that our respondents discussed. Simplyput, but most difficult to actualize, the computer services departmenthas to do more with less.

Growing inadequacy of existing systems. Despite huge efforts tomaintain them, many existing systems (both hardware and software)

Continued On page 3

"Our campuses are gettingnetworkedthe ground swellof user interest is seeing tothat. It is our job as directorsto channel those energies,provide the coordination andframework to make them cost-effective, and work with ourfaculty and administration toaccomplish the goal."

Ardoth HasslerExecutive Dire;:tor, Computer

CenterCatholic University of AmericaLetter to the EditorEDUCOM ReviewJuly/August 1992

EDUCOMANNOUNCES 1992ROBINSON AWARD

IBM LENDSEMPLOYEES TOHIGHER EDUCATION

COMPUTING ANDTHE CURRICULUM

EDUCOM has announcee that the third annual Louis Robinson Award hasbeen given to Stanley G. Smith, Professor of Chemistry at the School ofChemical Science,, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In making theannouncement, EDUCOM President Kenneth King said, "Stan Smith's workrepresents the very best in the application of computers to teaching andlearning in higher education. He has been a continuous force for innovation aswell as a dedicated teacher; I am delighted to join in applauding hisachievements."

The award consists of $25,000 in cash and $25,000 in IBM equipment andsoftware; it honors the late IBM advocate of computer technology applicationsto education, Dr. Louis Robinson. Funded by IBM, with the recipient selectedby the EDUCOM Board of Trustees, the program was created to stimulate andrecognize advances in using information technology to improve teaching andlearning. The award will be presented at the EDUCOM conference in October.

In a partnership between business and education, IBM is lending 34 en., loyeesto schools and other educational organizations during the 1992-93 school year.Now in its twenty-first year, the goal of the program is to help minority anddisadvantaged students pursue higher education, especially in the criticalfields of science and engineering, which face a nationwide shortfall of students.

Under IBM's Faculty Loan Program, employees receive full pay and benefitswhile they work in colleges, universities, high schools, and relatedorganizations. Most faculty loan participants teach at colleges and universitieswhere the majority of students are women, African-American, Hispanic,American Indian, or are students with disabilities. Other employees are onloan to minority engineering programs at universities, where they seek toencourage minority and disadvantaged students to take science and mathcourses in high school to prepare for a technical major in college.

"Computing and the CurriculumNew Tools For Scholarship" is the theme ofthis year's series of computer workshops sponsored by the CaliforniaEducational Computing Consortium (CECC). The Fall '92 workshops,consisting of three concurrent sessions on computing as a tool for learning, arescheduled for October 23-24, and are being hosted by the University of SanDiego.

For more information, contact Jack Pope, University of San Diego, (619) 260-4810. To register, contact Alexia Devlin at San Francisco State University,(415) 338-2582.

The EDUTECH REPORT is publislwd each month by EDUTECH International. 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06(102-1634:(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit; Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 1992. EDUTECH International. All rightsreserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without the written permission of the publisher.Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription, 597.

2 4 3

Hot Issues: 1992-1993continued from page I

are being left behind by the chang-ing needs of users. As the systemsage, they seem to meet fewer needsthan ever, and needs are changingquickly, as is the skill with whichusers now approach computing."Our systems are old and clunky,and, by the minute, it becomesharder and harder to make chang-es," said one of our respondents,"but we just can't afford to tossthem out at this point." The pres-sure is to somehow make these sys-tems adapt to current needs for aslong as possible. until they can bereplaced.

Outsourcing. More people thisyear mentioned outsourcing thanhas ever been the case in pastsurveys. It is clearly more of abudget issue than a service issue,at least for computer center direc.-tors, and when it was mentioned, itwas cautiously. The word most of-ten used was "maybe." No one thatwe spoke with suggested full facili-ties management, but many areconsidering at least partial out-sourcing for specific tasks, such asdata entry. The pressure is to lookat outsourcing before others out-side of computing do, to be fullyprepared with objective reasons forand against, and not have to be de-fensive.

Decline of "Us Versus Them".Many respondents spoke to us ofincreasingly better user relation-ships; in some cases even using theword "partnerships." On both theacademic and administrative sides,relations seem friendlier with thecomputer center than ever before.One respondent said, "There is somuch computing going on now allaround campus, with all the class-room use we are seeing, and all ofthe administrative microcomput-ing, that the users really need usto be responsive and cooperative. Ifwe weren't, this institution justwould not put up with it; there are

too many users now for any non-sense." This trend may also beindicative of a narrowing gap be-tween front-line computer servicespeople and their users, as usersbecome more technically proficientand computer people learn moreabout the work being done in userdepartments.

Enterprise-wide computing. Formost, it's more a dream than a re-ality at this point, although manymentioned using it as a basis forstrategic planning. But as onerespondent told us, "Enterprise-wide computing is motherhood andapple pie; you just can't argue withthe sense of it. Unfortunately, wehaven't got the time, the expertise,or the money to make it happen."The interoperability (or lack there-of) of current systems is the majorroadblock at this point.

Re-. From recoding to reengineer-ing to reorganizing, there is a lot ofredoing going on. At this point, it ishappening more in the computercenter than in the institution as awhole (especially reengineering)but we may be beginning to seesome progress here.

Viruses. This is new on our listthis year, and was mentioned by asignificant number of directorswith whom we talked. It seems asif every time a group of people oncampus, such as. an academic de-partment, begin using microcom-puters in large numbers, the firstthing that happens is that they areattacked by a virus. Good comput-ing habits and dealing only withclean disks are learned behaviors,and computer centers haven't hadthe chance to get the word out toeveryone yet.

Networking. We saved this onefor last, not because it wasn't men-tioned often; just the opposite. Thisis the seventh year we have done a

Hot Issues feature, and networkinghas been in every single one; itnow deserves this special place ofhonor. It isn't that some collegesaren't coming up with solutions,it's just that even for the ones whoare, the solutions seem so, well,temporary. One of our respondentssaid, "What's happening now innetworking makes what happenedto microcomputers in the mid-80sseem like a turtle on Valium."Should we have our own BITNETnode? Will wireless transmissionsmake us regret all the money spenton trenching'? Are some of thoseschools that had the campus cabledby a commercial cable-TV companyregretting the fact that studentswatch too much MTV? How manyof our faculty really need the Inter-net? Can we have both IBM PCsand Macs hook up to our new ad-ministrative system?

And still, some campuses haven'teven begun on their networkingquest, or are using five- or seven-year-old telephone switches for thesmall amount of data transmissionthat's going on. The pressure is topull it all together, and as onerespondent put it, "make it allwork like the books say it should.But it doesn't." Most of the peoplewith whom we talked still considerthemselves in the stage of buildingthe infrastructure, taking small,tentative, uncertain steps here andthere. Major proposals are metwith much doubt and skepticism(and of course, a reluctant to com-mit the resources). There are lotsof schools doing pieces of it, butvery few doing it all.

Other topics mentioned. Provid-ing access to computing for thosewith disabilities, electronic trans-mission of administrative datafrom off-campus (such as trans-cripts and admissions applications),staff (and director) burnout, andplanning versus fire-fighting.

n Monday, April 13, 1992, at9:15pm, a fire broke out in the

hallway adjacent to the ComputerCenter at Forclham University. Thefire was intense, taking 13 firetrucks and 70 New York City fire-fighters several hours to exting-uish. While the fire was confinedfor the most part to the hallway,there was major damage to theprincipal wiring plant that allowsall of our users on three campusesaccess to the mainframe comput-ers.

'Me day after the fire, at about12:00 noon, our staff was allowedinto the Computer Center to startrepairs. By 5:00pm that same eve-ning, we were able to provide 40percent of our users with totalsystem access. Our staff then hadto leave the computer center be-cause of the cleanup activity thathad to be done by Physical Plant,but by the close of business on thefollowing day, Wednesday the 15th,we had over 90 percent of our us-ers back on-line with all of oursystems operating.

How did we do it? Total QualityManagement. Fordham Universityand especially the Computer andInformation Management Systems(CIMS) department have been ac-tively involved with TQM sinceApril 1991. Based on principlesthat were being taught in theclassrooms of Fordham, a TaskForce was initiated at the Gradu-ate Business School. The purposeof the task force was to transformour administrative functions ac-cording to TQM.

Walter Weir is the executive director ofComputer and Infinmation ManastementSystems. and Sylvia Westerman is thedirector of the Graduate School ofBusiness al roranani University.

Total Quality Mana

CIMS quickly embraced this newphilosophy and took some dramaticsteps to make sure that TQM wasreally used, and not just talkedabout. For example, one of theunderlying principles of TQM isthe use of teamwork to get prob-lems solved. CIMS started eightprocess improvement teams (PIPs)during the year before the fire.These teams had the task of deal-ing with issues such as the man-agement of university-wide equip-

Each person knewexactly what needed to

be done and got on withdoing it. They had the

right tools and they hadthe authority; as a

result, they were able ti .save us from whatcould have been a

major catastrophe forthis university.

ment inventories, customer satis-faction and communications be-tween users and the ComputerCenter, disk space management,academic computing in the labs,improving relations between sys-tems programmers and applica-tions programmers, the registra-tion process in the Graduate Schoolof Business, operator procedures,and network organization.

By the time the fire occurred, sev-eral of these teams had alreadybeen working on problems in a waythat ended up assisting us greatlyin the fire recovery process. For

by Walter Weir

instance, the network team hadbeen looking at the issue of cus-tomer satisfaction, and at the prop-er inventory methodology to beused, addressing the correct tag-ging and identification of variouscircuits and communications linesthat come into the Computer Cen-ter.

Prior to the incorporation of TQM,several of our network people weretypical back-room experts, thosewho always seem to get along bet-ter with equipment than with peo-ple. But with the TQM philosophyof individual empowerment. wewere able to get these people to-gether to talk so that all of ournetwork people could be in tunewith management and understandmore clearly what their jobs wereand what was expected of them.This team determined what thereal problems were in terms ofhaving the correct types of toolsand test equipment available andthe correct network maps thatneeded to be developed. The TQMmethodology brought all of theseissues to the fore so that they couldbe acted upon.

During that process, the "manage-ment team" performed in a supportand resource role to ensure thatthe right tools and equipment werein place. When the fire occurredand we had to send our networkpeople in to repair the damage, noone had to stand over them andsay, "You do this and you do that."Each one knew exactly what need-ed to be done and got on with do-ing it. They had the right tools andthey had the authority; as a result,they were able to save us fromwhat could have been a major cat-astrophe for this university. Infact, they were able to resolve it insuch a fast and expeditious fashionthat many people were totallyamazed.

4

nent: A Trial by FireSylvia Westerman

Some typical comments: Dr. JohnW. Healey, vice president for plan-ning and budget said, "That wewere able to be in service so quick-ly is a tribute to our TQM manage-ment." Stephen Bordas, universityregistrar, said, "After I heard aboutthe fire, I panicked, thinking aboutthe impending Graduate Businessregistration and the Universitygraduation just weeks away. Mypotential doctor bills were quelledby the early resolution of theseproblems through the use of TQM."Richard Waldron, vice president forenrollment management, said,"Great job! It would have been areal mess if this was a prolongedoutage."

Another factor contributing to oursuccess in this crisis is that wehave also tried to involve our ven-dors in our TQM experience. Digi-tal Equipment Corporation (a TQMorganization itself), which handlesall of our mainframe maintenance,and General Electric Corporation,which handles all of our high-vol-ume equipment and is also a TQMorganization, have both participat-ed in several of our process im-provement team sessions.

The results of this close coopera-tion were readily apparent duringthis crisis. When our Digital salesrepresentative, John Salzmann,arrived on the scene the morningafter the fire, he already had acomplete understanding of our or-ganization and structure. He knewwho was responsible for what be-cause he had been involved inworking out these issues with us.He arr:ved on the site with a disas-ter recovery plan that ready to gointo place the moment it was need-ed. He was also able to roll up hissleeve& and assist us in providingtechnical experts in our systemsarea as well as network technicalexperts. Because GE was also part

of our TQM team, the GE repair-man who arrived on the scene thenext day was able to size up thesituation quickly, and could beginto work immediately with our net-work people.

Because of the TQM philosophythat we had adopted, our networkfolks down to the lowest level wereempowered to make decisions intheir own areas. As a direct result,we were able to diagnose problems

By listening to thestaff on a regular basis,and in a non-threaten-ing way, management

can begin to understandwhat the real frustra-tions are. With TQM,

management's role is toprovide the necessary

resources, not thedetails.

and effect repairs much faster thanwe would ever have been able towithout TQM as an underlying andguiding philosophy.

By listening to the staff on a regu-lar basis, and in a non-threateningway, management can begin to un-derstand what the real frustrationsare. With TQM, management's roleis to provide the necessary resourc-es, but not necessarily the detail ofwhat the staff is to do. By turningthe management pyramid upsidedown, things work more smoothly.The work is done quicker, and inmost cases, it's done better. Of

course, it isn't that, way 100 per-cent of the time, but in comparingthe traditional top-down manage-ment style with TQM, it is obviousthat TQM is an overall bettermethod of operation in terms ofproductivity and efficiency.

Our customers are happier. Theyfeel they can talk to people in theComputer Center and get results.The users don't have to call man-agement every time to get some-thing done. Now, by calling thefirst-level person, the users will getwhat they need in an expeditedfashion. The CIMS staff also ishappier because they are more con-fident and in control; they feelimportant because they are empow-ered to take action.

The fire at Fordham could haverendered us helpless for weeks.The center of the fire took place atthe hub of all of our communica-tionstraffic, dial-in circuits, inter-campus T-1 links, and the cablingplant. Had we not incorporatedTQM in our work, had we not livedand breathed the philosophy andmade it work for us, I believe thatwe never could have accomplishedwhat we did in such a short periodof time. The staff did an outstand-ing job; they did an enormousamount of work, and they deservethe credit.

I think one can take our experienceas a reason to consider TQM. I be-lieve our decision to go with TQMwas the right one, and our success-ful management of the emergencyis the proof. The CIMS team andthe vendors did the work; the job ofmanagement ended up being writ-ing thank-you letters to them. Itwould be hard to find a betterexample of the benefits of TQMthan that. While I can't say thatTQM is perfect in al] regards, I cansay that TQM works for us.

bit'1. COPY AVii."S. ',WM/

An Open Standard for Coursewareby Eduardo Rivera and Evelyn Haddock

The belief that computers canprovide benefits and the opti-

mistic expectation that they arenow supplying said benefits havefueled a tremendous growth in theuse of computers in education overthe past several years. But in thelong run, educators will lose faithin the value of computer-based in-struction if objective evaluationsbegin to accumulate evidence thatcomputers have made little differ-ence in the education of students.

Problems of the old styleDespite new.applications for hard-ware and courseware in learning,expectations have not always beenmet. Although computers can pro-vide lessons that are fast-paced,interactive, friendly, and multime-dia-based, many students feel thatcourseware in general is slow, re-petitive, very similar, and boring.

The same attitude has befallenmany instructors. At the begin-ning, they are usually very enthu-siastic about computing coursewareapproaches. But later, regardless ofthe results and of the time they in-vested to learn computerized tools,they may abandon these new ap-proaches. This happens when theyperceive computers as yet anotherrigid instructional technology. Inthis case, instructors feel that theyare only administering agents forpre-programmed material. Natural-ly, creative and innovative instruc-tors feel uncomfortable with suchcourseware.

Eduardo Rivera and Evelyn Haddockare professors in the department ofMath and Computer Science at the In-terAmerican University in Puerto Rico.This article was adapted with permis-sion from one originally published inthc August 1992 TILE. Journal.

Further, although some coursewarepackages are visually exciting, theycan still be discouraging when aninstructor is relegated to a passiverole. This lack of enthusiasm iseasily transmitted to students,overtly or subconsciously. Finally,students also want to use comput-ers more independently by explor-ing concepts as opposed to justselecting options.

Opening up closed systemsWe believe that the primary reasonfor inadequate use of courseware in

An ideal scenariowould be that each

instructor prPd:-Tcs hisor her own ,::oursei:iarein an institution xithunlimited computer

facilities.

the classroom is due to the natureof "closed packages." A closed pack-age is software that can only be ex-ecuted. Such a package cannot bemodified, nor merged with otherpackages or adapted in any way byan instructor. The only role left forthe instructor is to show studentshow to "play" the courseware.

Authoring courseware by instruc-tors would seem to be the answer,and it is, to the extent that it ispractical. An ideal scenario wouldbe that each instructor produceshis or her own courseware in an in-.stitution with unlimited computerfacilities. At the moment, this isnot feasible. Creating courseware is

much harder than writing a book.In addition to academic content,the author must cope with visualeffects, human-machine interac-tion, ordering sequences, organiza-tion, and a host of other details.Learning these tricks takes experi-ence, so in most cases, the qualityof self-made courseware does notcompete with commercial products.

It is estimated that for each hourof courseware use marketed by asoftware house, the developmenttakes up to 200 hours. Despite themany excellent authoring tools a-vailable, it is presumable that mostinstructors (with some notable ex-ceptions) will not develop their owncourseware. We are convinced,however, that instructors can betrained to evaluate, modify, adapt,and use current courseware.

New conceptTeaching tools must be adapted tothe different styles and approachesof every instructor. This is why,even though an instructor canteach the same subject every year,the course is unique. Computersare being used more and more inthe classroom as an instructionaltool. However, if they cannot bemodified, then they contradict theflexible spirit of pedagogy.

With this in mind, we suggest anew concept for educational soft-wareOpen Courseware. In es-sence, Open Courseware is academ-ic content-specific software thatcan be modified by instructors,linked to other packages adheringto the Open standard, and then re-distributed to other instructors forthem to modify or link, and so onand so on, to infinity. The "open"part of the term relates to softwarein the sense that it would be inde-pendent of commercial companies.

6 4

Under this scenario, an instructorwould be able to modify and trans-fer part of the courseware to anyother piece of courseware, withoutviolating copyrights or paying extrafees. This implies that the interfacefor any commercial tools for suchOpen Courseware should be stan-dardized, even though each toolwould be different.

The ten main characteristics ofOpen Courseware are: portability:independent of machine architec-ture; modularity: can be cut andpasted with other modules; adapt-ability: modifiable by the instruc-tor; flexibility: simple to incorpo-rate tools or other programs; non-procedural: should not impose asequence of learning; bidirection-al: student and computer can askfor information or provide explana-tion; critique: provide tools orguidelines for critical thinking;interactive: between students andinstructors, or students and stu-

dents; instructor-oriented: so theinstructor can adapt it for use iithe classroom; and accessible: fora large variety of educational sys-tems internationally.

We believe our concept for OpenCourseware would assure a largerdemand than the traditional closedpackages. Software houses neednot fear the instructors who wouldbe writing the modifications andadaptations to Open Courseware.Software houses should insteadshift their focus to providing mate-rials and tools for instructors touse in adapting courseware toclassroom needs.

ConclusionsClosed packages of software arecondemned to fail because theywork against pluralism and thefreedom of educators to use a tool.To develop Open Courseware therewill have to be an agreed-uponstandard approach to developing

"Networks change the way people teach andlearn; networks will cause curricula to berestructured; and they are providing neweducational opportunities for certain kinds ofstudents. In the long term, it seems almostcertain that networks and the resourcesavailable to faculty and students throughnetworks will have a broad impact on theuniversity in terms of how classes are taught,who teaches, and the composition of thestudent body."

Christinger TomerUniversity of Pittsburgh"Integrating Network-Based Information Services

into Instructional Settings"Academic and Library Computinguly/August 1992

and modifying any piece of course-ware. In addition, closed course-ware produced massively empha-sizes quantity. In order to improvequality, courseware must be able tomeet individual educators' needs.Under our Open Courseware con-cept, instructors could use onlythose parts of a package that fittheir interests and use them in theorder they prefer.

We are faced with a great opportu-nity to improve the quality of edu-cation. In the following years, mil-lions of dollars will be spent oncourseware, but this investmentshould be based on a standard in-terface that allows the building ofbetter courseware. If this issue isfocused upon, priorities for course-ware will be directed to adoptionand adaptation by educators.

We are convinced that the future ofcourseware needs to proceed in thisdirection.

In Future Issues

- What makes software awardwinners different .fromother faculty?

Coping with administrativesoftware vendor demos

Ethical issues in computingcenter management

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

^7

i

Q. Every year, our Personnel department makes alldepartment managers on campus do performance re-views for their staffs. As the director of computerservices, I find this one of the most terrible things Ihave to do, and dread it coming around each year. Iknow my staff isn't perfect, but the ones who arereally good already know it, and the ones who arenot as talented are already trying as hard as theycan. The reviews are either totally superficial orhorribly embarrassing. So what's the point?

A. Performance reviews are difficult, but they canalso reap large rewards for everyone if done properlyand in the right spirit. You need to con,sider thateveryone deserves to hear both positive and negativecriticism, given as objectively as possible, and in thespirit of reinforcement, rather than punishment. Oneof the things that will help is to haue a form, de-signed specifically for computer people (Your Person-nel office can probably help with this), that guidesyou in giving a fair and honest appraisal for eachperson, based on his or her job description and per-formance. Another thing that will help is to set goalsfor all of your staff members, to give both you and

them a yardstick by which to measure progress. Thebenefits of performance reviews come mainly from theopportunity to offer important feedback, both positiveand negative, which is a critical component of anysystem, human or otherwise.

Q. My Academic Computing Advisory Committeejust delivered a report to me recommending steps tobe taken to improve academic computing. Unfortun-ately, since the committee could not reach a consen-sus, there are different approaches outlined in eachstep. As the Provost, I don't feel technically qualifiedto make decisions about which approach is correct.Should the committee be expected to come to a con-sensus on technical issues, or is that unrealistic?

A. It may be unrealistic, depending on your environ-ment, but the larger issue is the role of the academiccomputing director. In your description, there seemsto be a step missing in which some scrutiny and ana-lysis is applied to the committee's report. This isusually a function of the person in charge of comput-ing, who serves as a conduit between makers of wishlists and administrators who want realistic solutions.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

4

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

THE October 1992 Volume 8Number 7

The Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

Decision-Making for AcademicComputing: the Cascade Effect

Maintenance costs on the campus VAX system, used primarily tosupport academic computing, had gotten too high the last cou-

ple of years, and the administration wanted to look into options for re-'clueing the costs. A variety of belt-tightening measures were alreadyunderway throughout the college, and in that spirit, the academic vicepresident asked the director of academic computing to consider waysin which hardware maintenance costs could be reduced. These ways,suggested the vice president, could range anywhere from replacing theVAX to dropping its maintenance, or any other option that seemedreasonable and cost-effective.

The director had some ideas about how this might be done, but he alsowanted to talk it over with the academic computing committee. At thecommittee meeting, however, instead of the endorsement of his ideasthat the director expected, what he got instead was a lot of loud dis-agreement. As soon as the subject was opened, in fact, two very vocalcommittee members immediately jumped into the discussion--one whowanted to replace the old VAX with another less expensive VAX, andthe other who wanted an IBM RS/6000. Once they had their say, twoother members expressed their thoughts that networked microcomput-ers ought to take the place of a central machine, and yet another per-son wanted to talk about operating systems and the fact that the oldVAX never had the right one on it.

Unable to come to an agreement, the director and the committee sub-mitted a proposal to the administration with four options for address-ing the VAX situation, and left it up to the administration to decidewhich one was best. Unable to sort out the technical complexities ofthe proposal options, the administration chose the one with the leastupfront dollar outlayand the decision has been suspect ever since.

continued on page 4,

"The new learning and infor-mation technologies can changeteaching and learning pro-cesses and improve theorganization and managementof schools. However, changeswill not occur simply bybringing new technology intoexisting curriculum ... ormerely by automating existingadministrative procedures.Reconceptualizing curriculumand instruction, and, in turn.the organization and manage-ment of schooling need to beaccomplished firstor at leastsimultaneously with the designand implementation of aninformation system."

John PhillipoDirector, Ctr. for Educational

Leadership and Technology"The Twenty-First Century

School"EDU MagazineSpring/Summer 1992

A NEW PRESIDENTFOR EDUCOM

EDUCATIONALSOFTWARE wro GO"

SOFTWARE FOR ARTHISTORY

EDUCOM has announced that Dr. Robert Heterick, Vice President Emeritus at,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, will be its new presidenteffective January 1, succeeding Ken King, who is retiring. Heterick hascommented on his appointment, "As we enter the Information Age, we willdiscover that knowledge will become the driving force of society and access tothat knowledge will become a measure of wealth. EDUCOM is committed tothe belief that education and information technology will be the levers ofprogress in the next decade. Situated as it is, on the boundary of the highereducation and information technology communities, EDUCOM will play apivotal role in this nation's entry into the Information Age. I am very pleasedthat I will be able to play a part in this exciting transformation."

During his thirty years at Virginia Polytech, Heterick has held a number ofpositions and is currently Professor of Management Science. He has chairedtwo departments, directed a research laboratory, and served as AssistantDean, as Director of the University Computing Center, and as Vice Presidentfor Information Systems. Heterick is also a member of several commissions andboards including the Coalition for Networked Information Steering Committee,and has held positions with CAUSE, including Chair of the Board of Directors.

Trying and buying educational software at the University of SouthernCalifornia campus bookstore in Los Angeles can now be done by pointing afinger on a touch-sensitive screen. The Courseware on Site system, developedby Intellimation with the support of Apple Computer, features an interactivekiosk and invites shoppers to "test-drive," evaluate, and purchase their choiceof over 200 educator-developed programs.

The kiosk offers information about programs that can be accessed by subject(from art to zoology), title, keywords, hardware and software requirements, orany combination of such cues. Users can explore the software that best servestheir needs by investigating program summaries, viewing "snapshots" or slideshows of each program, or by launching fully operational versions of the soft-ware. For more information, contact Intellimation, Library for the Macintosh,P.O. Box 1922, Kiosk Department, Santa Barbara, California 93116.

The Getty Art History Information Program (AHIP) will be releasing shortlythe Art & Architecture Thesaurus: Authority Reference Tool Edition, the firstproduct using new creative reference software that AHIP has developed for thefield of art history and related disciplines. Carefully researched andconstructed, the thesaurus' vocabulary was developed to ensure accuracy andconsistency of information retrieval, and to facilitate the exchange of electronicinformation. For more information, contact the J. Paul Getty Trust, 401Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica, California 90401; (310) 395-0388.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International. 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Reit: Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 1992, EDUTECH International. All rightsreserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not he duplicated. repnnted. or republished without the written permission of the publisher.Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN 40883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

SCT and IA: Impact on Higher Ed Software

J ust a short time ago, two giantrivals in the higher education

software marketplace became one;Systems and Computer Technology(SCT) acquired Information Associ-ates (IA) in a move which is al-ready having a major impact onthe higher education software mar-ketplace. Among all of the obviousvirtues of such a move for SCT(including increased software main-tenance income and having to con-tend with fewer competitors) comesa set of concerns for both IA andSCT clients, as well as for potentialadministrative software customers;these concerns are being addressedin a variety of forums by SCT, in-cluding discussions over the Inter-net. What follows is a summary ofthe major issues, along with re-sponses from SCT's management.

Current support: The first majorarea of concern comes from the IAinstalled base of users, numberingover 400, and has to do with main-taining support levels. Is it likelythat IA clients will be made to feellike "stepe.ildren" in the new SCTenvironment, having to compete forsupport with existing SCT clients?

SCT's response: In terms of cur-rent software, SCT is fully commit-ted to maintain both IA and SCTclients. The acquisitioli of IA'sknowledgeable staff of more than200 people will allow SCT to followthrough on that commitment. Weunderstand very well the loyalty ofIA clients; many of them have livedthrough a series of transitions. Weintend to nurture that loyalty bycontinuing to provide excellent ser-vice and support.

Future directions: The secondmajor area of concern is about thefuture. The major question is whet-her the new development directionsthat IA had been promising its cus-tomers, principally in client/server

technology, will be continued andsupported by SCT, and if so, inwhat form.

SCT's response: In terms of fu-tures, there are four major IAproduct development efforts thatSCT evaluated: IA-Plus, the latestIA software running on the RDBrelational database managementsystem in a DEC VAX environ-ment; IA-Plus, the latest IA appli-cations software running on theDB2 database management systemin the IBM mainframe environ-ment; EDI.Smart which allows theelectronic transfer of student tran-scripts; and NewGen which is thenext generation of IA software,made for a client/server environ-ment. Of these four, the first isbeing discontinued. The next twoare viewed by SCT as strategicproducts, and will therefore, re-ceive full development commit-ment. The fourth, NewGen, as aspecific product is also being can-celed, but a migration path for bothIA and SCT clients is being plan-ned which will incorporate many ofthe design features of NewGen,including client/server. SCT haschosen the name BANNER2 forthis product (BANNER is the namefor the current SCT relationalDBMS-based software).

BANNER2 is anticipated to beavailable in late '93 or early '94with the first phase of a graphicaluser interface (GUI) and most ofthe client platforms supported. it iscumntly expected that full GUIand all planned client platformswill be available in late '94.

SCT knows this choice of a namefor the new product has causedsome concern for former IA clients,thinking, perhaps, that BANNER2means that the next generation isreally BANNER and not what theyknow as NewGen. However, IA's

communication to its clients wasthat there would be a substantivemigration effort to move from itscurrent product line to the newclient/server product. SCT's obliga-tion to BANNER clients has beenthat the move to the next genera-tion of technology would not re-quire a major conversion effort.Even though SCT is merging thetechnology research from the IANewGen product into BANNER tocreate BANNER2, it will be rela-tively easy to migrate from BAN-NER to BANNER2. Had SCT cho-sen a different name, they wouldhave sent the wrong signal toBANNER clients; that is, they mayhave concluded that BANNER2was a completely different productand that SCT, had not kept itsobligation to have a seamless mi-gration. Former IA clients, on theother hand, should be expectingchange and therefore should be lessdisturbed by a name change thanBANNER clients would have been.

Transition issues: It is reasonableto expect some bumps along theway to a full integration of the twocompanies, but should either cur-rent clients or potential clients beconcerned about major disruptions?Should institutions that are in theprocess of acquiring software rightnow wait until things become morestable?

SCT's response: Most of the tran-sition difficulties are over. The twomanagement teams worked veryhard to come up with a new orga-nization that would effectivelyblend the existing staffs into acohesive whole, and everyone hasbeen very enthusiastic about it. Allof our teams: the sales force, mar-keting, software development, andclient services are prepared to re-spond to particular client needs,whether that is answering an RFPor fixing a bug in a program.

Dec

isio

n-M

akin

g fo

r A

cade

mic

Com

putin

g: th

e C

asca

de E

ffec

t...

cont

inue

d fr

om p

age

1

Wha

t wen

t wro

ng h

ere?

Cer

tain

lyno

t the

fac

t tha

t the

re w

as d

is-

agre

emen

t abo

ut w

hat t

o do

. It i

sna

tura

l and

und

erst

anda

ble

that

reas

onab

le, i

ntel

ligen

t peo

ple

will

have

dif

fere

nt p

oint

s of

vie

w, a

ndco

me

up w

ith d

iffe

rent

sol

utio

ns to

a pr

oble

m. W

hat r

eally

wen

t wro

ngw

as n

ot th

at th

ere

was

dis

agre

e-m

ent,

but t

hat t

here

was

no

pro-

cess

in p

lace

to w

ork

out t

he d

is-

agre

emen

ts in

a p

rodu

ctiv

e w

aybe

ginn

ing

with

a c

onse

nsus

on

wha

t the

pro

blem

was

that

they

wer

e tr

ying

to s

olve

and

to th

enbe

abl

e to

pre

sent

a p

ersu

asiv

e,un

ifie

d pr

opos

al f

or th

e ad

min

isn

a-tio

n to

dec

ide

whe

ther

to f

und.

With

out t

his

proc

ess,

the

adm

inis

-tr

ator

s w

ho m

ake

reso

urce

and

fund

ing

deci

sion

s ar

e pu

t in

a po

s-iti

on o

f ha

ving

to s

ort o

ut a

ndw

eigh

the

argu

men

ts in

fav

or o

fon

e op

tion

or a

noth

er; m

ost a

dmin

-is

trat

ors

do n

ot f

eel t

echn

ical

lyqu

alif

ied

to d

o so

. Typ

ical

ly, a

d-m

inis

trat

ors

at th

is le

vel d

o no

tha

ve a

tech

nica

l bac

kgro

un,l,

and

need

to r

ely

upon

a tr

uste

d an

dcr

edib

lepr

oces

sto

brin

g fo

rth

prop

osal

s fo

r ac

adem

ic c

ompu

ting

whi

ch in

clud

e co

st-b

enef

it an

alys

espr

esen

ted

in e

duca

tiona

l ter

ms.

If

they

don

't ha

ve s

uch

a pr

oces

s,th

ey w

ill e

ither

put

off

mak

ing

ade

cisi

on in

defi

nite

ly, o

r th

ey w

illta

ke th

e op

tion

that

they

do

unde

r-st

andt

he o

ne th

at k

eeps

the

shor

t-ru

n co

sts

dow

n, e

ven

thou

ghth

at m

ay n

ot b

e be

st f

or th

e co

llege

in th

e lo

ng r

un.

Thi

s ki

nd o

f th

ing

happ

ens

all t

hetim

e. S

houl

d w

e in

stal

l a f

iber

-op

tic n

etw

ork

or c

ontin

ue to

rel

yon

the

twis

ted-

pair

tele

phon

e w

ir-

ing

alre

ady

linki

ng th

e ca

mpu

s?Sh

ould

we

put P

Cs

or M

acs

in th

ene

w c

ompu

ter

lab?

Sho

uld

the

VA

Xru

n V

MS

or U

ltrix

? T

hese

dis

cus-

sion

s te

nd to

leap

to s

peci

fic

impl

e-m

enta

tion

solu

tions

with

out f

irst

defi

ning

wha

t the

pro

blem

is, a

nd

with

out t

he c

ritic

al li

nk b

ack

to e

duca

tiona

l goa

ls. T

oo o

ften

,th

ese

deci

sion

s ar

e m

ade

be-

caus

e th

e pr

opon

ents

of

one

optio

n or

ano

ther

are

mor

e ar

-tic

ulat

e or

hav

e a

tech

nica

lba

ckgr

ound

that

oth

ers

tend

to r

ely

on.

But

thes

e ar

e no

t rea

lly te

ch-

nica

l dec

isio

ns. O

r, a

t lea

st,

thei

r te

chni

cal c

ompo

nent

s ar

eat

a lo

wer

, det

aile

d le

vel.

The

muc

h m

ore

impo

rtan

t com

po-

nent

s of

thes

e de

cisi

ons

occu

rat

a d

iffe

rent

leve

l, an

d ne

edto

be

addr

esse

d fi

rst.

How

to d

ecid

e w

hat t

o do

with

the

VA

X a

nd it

s m

aint

enan

ce?

By

unde

rsta

ndin

g fi

rst w

hat

the

educ

atio

nal g

oals

of

the

facu

lty a

re a

nd r

elat

ing

thos

ego

als

and

obje

ctiv

es to

nee

dsth

at th

e ha

rdw

are

and

soft

-w

are

have

to f

ulfi

ll, a

nd th

enby

dev

elop

ing

a se

t of

mea

n-in

gful

and

spec

ific

crite

ria

agai

nst w

hich

eac

h op

tion

can

be e

valu

ated

.

Let

's ta

ke th

e di

scus

sion

abo

utw

heth

er th

e V

AX

sho

uld

bere

plac

ed w

ith a

noth

er V

AX

or

by a

n IB

M R

S/60

00. W

hile

itis

cer

tain

ly p

ossi

ble

to g

o in

toa

leng

thy

disc

ussi

on o

f th

e di

f-fe

rent

arc

hite

ctur

es, t

he b

ussp

eeds

, the

inte

rope

rabi

lity

ofea

ch o

f th

e av

aila

ble

peri

pher

-al

s, a

nd s

o on

, non

e of

thos

eis

sues

mat

ters

in a

nd o

f its

elf

in m

akin

g th

e fi

nal d

ecis

ion.

Wha

t rea

lly m

atte

rs is

how

wel

l eac

h of

thos

e sy

stem

sst

acks

up

agai

nst w

hat t

heco

llege

nee

ds it

to d

o. W

hat

diff

eren

ce d

oes

it m

ake

that

The

Dec

isio

n-M

akin

g C

asca

de

1111

1%,

The

se d

ecis

ions

driv

e ...

Wha

t con

stitu

tes

a qu

ality

educ

atio

n at

this

inst

itutio

n?

Wha

t is

the

role

of

tech

nolo

gy In

col

lege

s of

our

type

?

Wha

t Is

the

stat

e of

tech

nolo

gy in

hig

her

educ

atio

n to

day?

Wha

t are

our

cur

ricul

umgo

als?

How

do

the

facu

lty fi

t Int

oou

r de

cisi

on-m

akin

gpr

oces

ses?

Wha

t are

our

res

ourc

eco

nstr

aint

s?

Wha

t are

our

Inst

itutio

nal

prio

ritie

s fo

r al

loca

ting

reso

urce

s?

Pre

side

nt a

nd T

opA

dmin

istr

ator

s

... th

ese

deci

sion

s, w

hich

driv

e ...

Inv

Sho

uld

ever

y fa

culty

mem

ber

who

wan

ts o

neha

ve a

com

pute

r de

vice

?

Sho

uld

ther

e be

a c

ompu

ter

liter

acy

requ

irem

ent f

orst

uden

ts?

Wha

t are

the

goal

s of

the

depa

rtm

ents

that

pro

vide

com

putin

g an

d te

chno

logy

serv

ices

?

Who

m d

o ea

ch o

f the

sede

part

men

ts s

erve

, and

how

muc

h se

rvic

e is

requ

ired?

Sho

uld

the

entir

e ca

mpu

sbe

net

wor

ked?

Sho

uld

any

choi

ce o

fde

vice

be

supp

orte

d on

the

netw

ork,

or

shou

ld th

ech

oice

s be

lim

ited?

If th

ela

tter,

wha

t will

the

stan

dard

s be

?

Wha

t app

licat

ions

will

run

on th

e ne

twor

k?

CIO

and

IT P

olic

yC

omm

ittee

... th

ese

deci

sion

s

Wha

t is

the

right

com

bina

tion

of h

ardw

are

plat

form

s: m

ainf

ram

e,m

inic

ompu

ter,

mic

roco

mpu

ter?

Wha

t sho

uld

the

oper

atin

gsy

stem

s be

?

Is It

bet

ter

to c

entr

aliz

e or

dece

ntra

lize

our

supp

ort

serv

ices

? Is

ther

e so

me

mid

dle

grou

nd?

How

sho

uld

each

ser

vice

depa

rtm

ent b

e st

affe

d?

Wha

t phy

sica

l med

ium

shou

ld th

e ne

twor

k be

mad

e fr

om?

Can

ther

e be

com

bina

tions

of m

edia

?

How

sho

uld

we

desi

gn th

eto

polo

gy?

Wha

t will

the

netw

orki

ngpr

otoc

ol b

e?

Sho

uld

we

have

BIT

NE

Tan

d/or

Inte

rnet

conn

ectio

ns?

Dire

ctor

s an

d C

ompu

ting

Com

mitt

ees

the

RS/

6000

is a

RIS

C m

ach-

ine

if w

hat t

he f

acul

ty n

eeds

is th

eV

MS

oper

atin

g sy

stem

bec

ause

that

is w

hat i

s re

quir

ed to

r.in

thei

r in

stru

ctio

nal s

oftw

are?

Wha

tdi

ffer

ence

doe

s it

mak

e if

one

sys

-

tern

is m

uch

fast

er th

an th

e ot

her

if th

e ac

tual

dif

fere

nce

to e

nd u

sers

will

be

mea

sure

d in

nan

osec

onds

?T

he te

chni

cal d

iffe

renc

es b

etw

een

thes

e tw

oop

tions

onl

ym

atte

r if

the

diff

eren

ces

dire

ctly

rel

ate

toth

e ed

ucat

iona

l nee

ds o

f th

e co

llege

as e

xpre

ssed

by

the

facu

lty. I

not

her

wor

ds, t

he d

iscu

ssio

n sh

ould

be c

ente

red

not o

n w

hat i

s im

por-

tant

tech

nolo

gica

lly, b

ut w

hat

is im

port

ant e

duca

tiona

lly.

Furt

herm

ore,

the

ques

tion

ofth

e V

AX

rep

lace

men

t sho

uld

not b

e ta

ken

in is

olat

ion.

Al-

mos

t alw

ays,

dec

isio

ns a

bout

hard

war

e sh

ould

be

driv

en b

yde

cisi

ons

abou

t sof

twar

e: w

hat

soft

war

e,fo

rw

hich

user

s,ne

eds

to b

e su

ppor

ted

on th

ene

w s

yste

m?

Sim

ilarl

y, q

ues-

tions

abo

ut s

oftw

are

cann

ot b

ean

swer

edw

ithou

tkn

owin

gw

hat t

he n

eeds

of

the

facu

ltyar

e. I

n ot

her

wor

ds, f

acul

tyne

eds

shou

ld d

rive

the

soft

-w

are

deci

sion

s, a

nd s

oftw

are

deci

sion

ssh

ould

driv

eth

eha

rdw

are

deci

sion

. So

tryi

ngto

deci

de w

hat s

yste

mto

choo

se to

rep

lace

the

VA

Xw

ith (

or e

ven

deci

ding

that

the

VA

X s

houl

d be

rep

lace

d at

all)

is g

oing

abo

ut it

bac

kwar

ds.

Wha

t sho

uld

have

hap

pene

dat

this

inst

itutio

n w

as f

or th

eac

adem

ic c

ompu

ting

com

mit-

tee

to d

evel

op, b

ased

on

thei

rco

mm

unic

atio

ns w

ith th

e fa

c-ul

ty a

bout

thei

r ed

ucat

iona

lgo

als,

a li

st o

f sp

ecif

icat

ions

that

the

new

sys

tem

had

tofu

lfill

, inc

ludi

ng th

e cu

rric

u-lu

m to

be

supp

orte

d, a

ny p

ar-

ticul

ar s

oftw

are

inte

rest

s th

atth

e fa

culty

had

, any

nee

d to

stor

e an

d ac

cess

som

e am

ount

of r

esea

rch

data

, the

like

lynu

mbe

r of

use

rs th

at w

ould

need

to u

se th

e sy

stem

con

cur-

rent

ly, t

he a

pplic

atio

ns th

atw

ould

run

on

the

hard

war

e,th

e ea

se o

f le

arni

ng a

nd e

ase

of u

se o

f th

e sy

stem

that

was

requ

ired

by

both

fac

ulty

and

stud

ents

, est

imat

es o

f fu

ture

load

and

gro

wth

pat

tern

s of

usag

e, h

ow m

uch

supp

ort w

ould

be

need

ed f

rom

the

hard

war

e ve

ndor

,th

e co

mpl

ete

cost

of

the

syst

em,

and

so o

n. O

nce

this

list

was

dev

el-

oped

, eac

h op

tion

fur

repl

acin

g th

e

VA

X, i

nclu

ding

aot

her

VA

X, t

heIB

M R

S160

00, a

ser

ies

of n

etw

ork-

ed m

icro

com

pute

rs, a

nd a

ny o

ther

optio

n th

at a

nyon

e th

ough

t of

coul

dha

ve b

een

eval

uate

d ag

ains

t eac

hcr

iteri

on.

If th

is p

roce

ss is

fol

low

ed, a

sol

u-tio

n w

ill e

mer

ge in

whi

ch e

ver)

one

can

feel

con

fide

nt. T

he s

olut

ion

will

be d

irec

tly ti

ed to

the

colle

ge's

educ

atio

nal g

oals

bec

ause

the

pro-

cess

will

beg

in w

ith th

e fa

culty

,th

ere

will

be

a fu

ll ex

amin

atio

n of

all o

f th

e re

leva

nt a

ltern

ativ

es, a

ndth

e ch

osen

dir

ectio

n w

ill b

e fu

llyju

stif

iabl

e. A

t tha

t poi

nt, a

pro

pos-

al b

ased

on

that

sol

utio

n sh

ould

be

a re

lativ

ely

easy

task

for

the

ad-

min

istr

atio

n to

eva

luat

e.

The

Cas

cade

Eff

ect

The

cas

cadi

ng o

f de

cisi

ons

depe

nds

on tw

o th

ings

: the

rig

ht p

eopl

e be

-in

g in

volv

ed a

t the

rig

ht le

vels

, and

the

sequ

enci

ng o

f de

cisi

ons

so th

atch

oice

s m

ade

on o

ne le

vel d

rive

the

deci

sion

-mak

ing

on a

low

er le

vel.

The

rea

son

this

wor

ks is

that

peo

-pl

e th

roug

hout

the

inst

itutio

n ar

em

akin

g de

cisi

ons

at th

e le

vel o

fis

sue

at w

hich

they

fee

l mos

t com

-fo

rtab

le. T

hat i

s, r

athe

r th

an th

epr

esid

ent o

r th

e pr

ovos

t try

ing

tode

cide

whe

ther

the

inst

itutio

nsh

ould

hav

e its

ow

n In

tern

et c

on-

nect

ion,

they

are

dea

ling

with

the

maj

or e

duca

tiona

l iss

ues

(Sho

uld

we

have

a c

ompu

ter

scie

nce

maj

or?

Shou

ld w

e em

phas

ize

teac

hing

ove

rre

sear

ch?

Do

we

need

to r

educ

e th

eco

st o

f in

stru

ctio

n? e

tc.)

that

will

dete

rmin

e (b

y ot

hers

) th

e de

gree

tow

hich

the

Inte

rnet

is n

eede

d an

d is

a ju

stif

iabl

e ex

pens

e.

Tec

hnol

ogy

for

its o

wn

sake

is n

olo

nger

a v

iabl

e di

rect

ion,

if it

eve

rw

as. T

he d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

casc

ade

will

ens

ure

that

ther

e is

a d

irec

tlin

k be

twee

n ea

ch te

chni

cal c

hoic

ean

d th

e ov

eral

l goa

ls a

nd o

bjec

tives

of th

e in

stitu

tion.

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE;

5

Coping With Vendor Demosyou've gone through all of theright steps so far in the pro-

cess of selecting a new administra-tive information system, and havenarrowed the large field of choicesto two or three of the most inter-esting and appropriate systems.You have asked the vendors ofthese systems to do an on-campusdemo for you, for your committee,and for various others on campuswho have a stake in the outcome ofthis major decision. The questionnow becomes how to make the bestjudgements about what you willsee in the demos.

The demos are an excellent sourceof information about the systems,but the3 can also be very confus-ing, especially if two or three aredone in a short space of time. Eachvendor typically wants two or eventhree days for their full presenta-tion, and by the time they are allover, the campus participants maybe shell-shocked and bleary-eyed.What are the important issues tofocus on, and how do you sort thoseout from everything else you willsee?

We have talked in these pages a-bout creating a script for the ven-dors to follow (July 1991), both inorder to have a better opportunityto do an apples-to-apples compari-son among the vendors and tomake sure that the vendors areprepared to show you the particu-lar features you want to see in thesystems when they are on campus.This is especially important ifthere is a question or confusionabout whether a system will do acertain task, and if it does, what itlooks like.

Beyond the script, there are a fewimportant issues to keep in mindas you are watching the demos andthinking about them afterwards.While seeing a demonstration of a

system is a unique opportunity togather information unavailable inany other way, it is important to beclear about what you are seeing.

The quality of the demonstra-tion versus the quality of thesoftware. These can be very hardto differentiate, but it is importantto do nevertheless. Because the vis-ual and aural impact of the demoitself can be large, not to mention

Each system will havea different look-and-

feel. The way yourespond to a particularlook-and-feel probably

indicates a certain com-fort level later on whenthe system is in actual

use. But you need tolook behind it also,

since it may camouflageboth benefits and flaws

in the system itself.

the style of the demonstrator,transferring opinions about thedemonstration to the actual soft-ware needs to be done very cau-tiously. A bad demo could be theresult of factors other than thequality of the software (malfunc-tioning audio-visual equipment, anunderprepared demonstrator, afaulty modem, even a late plane),just as an exciting demo and anenthusiastic, knowledgeable dem-onstrator may obscure seriousflaws in the system (not necessarilyintentionally, although that couldhappen too).

On the other hand, the quality ofthe demonstrations, including theattitude on the part of the demon-strator, should not be discountedentirely since it may tell you some-thing about the service and supportyou can expect from the vendorlater on.

The power of the system versusthe complexity of the system.These two are often trade-offs witheach other; what might look daz-zling in a demo because it's sopowerful may in fact turn out to betoo difficult for everyday use or fora broad base of users.

Cosmetics. Each system will por-tray a very different look-and-feel.In one sense, the way you respondto a particular look-and-feel proba-bly indicates a certain comfort levellater on when the system is in ac-tual use. But you need to look be-hind it as well, since a system'slook-and-feel may also camouflageboth benefits and flaws in the sys-tem itself.

Relative costs. There is usually amore or less large disparity in costsamong the systems you look at.While costs usually won't be direct-ly discussed at the demos, they willoffer another chance to evaluatewhether there is a direct relation-ship between costs and benefits ineach system. That is, is the mostexpensive system proportionallybetter than its competitors?

Overall system architecture.You will get a much better feel forthe architecture of the systemduring a demo than you ever couldby just reading about it. There arethree things to look for during thedemo: the integration of varioussystem functions; the amount ofdata redundancy; and the consis-tency in approach to all of thesystem's components as seen by the

(1

way in which the system is navi-gated, the actual user interface,the way things are named, and soon. For instance, if purchase ordersin the finance module and pledgesin the alumni/development modulecan both be numbered automatical-ly, is it done the same way in bothplaces'?

Each of the systems will havethese features built into their ar-chitectures to varying degrees. Youneed to judge whether more or lessof each feature will affect yourworking with the system.

Ease of use. This is usually one ofthe most important criteria inchoosing a new system, and thedemo offers a great chance to eval-uate it. IIow easy is it to get toindividual records? How easy is itto select groups of records? Is thesystem navigation easy to manage?Is the on-line help feature really

helpful? Keep in mind that manydifferent kinds of people will beusing the system, from a variety ofbackgrounds, and with varyinglevels of interest and expertise.Will the system serve them all?

Querying and report writing.This is another extremely impor-tant feature for every new system,and should be very high in every-one's priorities in terms of evalua-tion of the options. You need tomake sure this is one of the fea-tures actually shown during thedemo, and further, to make surethe tool being offered is actuallyusable by end users, as opposed tothe programming staff in the com-puter center. The demo is a goodway to get a feel for how thesekinds of tools work.

You will especially want to seeways in which data from differentparts of the system can brought

"There will always be some people who copysoftware without compunction. The point is tobe certain that educators and students alikerealize that such people are not romanticsoftware revolutionaries. They are simplycriminals. If the laws are wrong, would-belawbreakers should lobby to have the lawschanged...not simply take another steptoward declining values. By not speaking outagainst and by not punishing the guilty(software pirates), we are, by default,condoning their actions, and punishing theinnocent (software authors and future softwareusers)."

Robert A. Strikwerda and John Minor RossIndiana University at Kokomo"Software and Ethical Softness"Collegiate MicrocomputerAutumn 1992

together for either printed reportsor on-screen queries.

Ease of modification. You needto get a sense of system flexibilityduring the demos. Every systemwill have to be changed in someways to meet your specific needs. Itis important to see the ways inwhich the system being demon-strated can be modified, includingsuch things as adding new dataelements and changing standardreport formats.

Other. None of the vendors willfollow your script to the letter;nevertheless, you need to reach acertain comfort level that the fea-tures you ask to see are actually inthe system. In addition, it is likelythat each of the vendors will beasked for more information or somefollow-up. Whether they all res-pond, and in what manner, shouldalso be evaluated.

In Future Issues

The long-term effects (anddangers) of downsizing

What makes software awardwinners different fromother faculty?

Ethical issues in computingcenter management

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consulfingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

^

Q. It seems that more and more faculty want theirown computer these days, but, like everyone else, ourbudgets are limited. How can we keep the facultyenthusiastic about computing without automaticallygranting every request?

A. The issue of microcomputers for faculty is typical-ly a contentious one on most campuses, with opinionsranging from the sense that computers are so funda-mental to the academic enterprise that every facultymember who wants one should automatically get it tothe other extreme of a rigid cost-justification neededfor each and every purchase. One process that seemsto work well is to have an Academic Computing Com-mittee receive faculty proposals and decide which tofund. We think it makes sense for faculty to have tomake their case for computing support to other fac-ulty, since there is more likely to be a common under-standing of the educational goals to be achieved.You'll want to make sure that the committee is madeup of representative faculty, that it has a yearlybudget to work with (with the amount determined bythe IT Policy Committee) to fund the proposals itreceives, and that the criteria by which the committee

1

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Servica; to Higher Education

L

makes its decisions is communicated to the entire fac-ulty on a regular basis, along with the final decisionsabout which proposals are funded.

Q. We would like to increase the numbers of micro-computers on campus employed by both faculty andadministrators, but are finding it very expensive. Wethink there may be some use for older computers,especially for new users, but we wonder if it's reallyright to give obsolete equipment to anyone, evensomeone whose needs are not very sophisticated.

A. If there is any rule of thumb about microcomput-ers today it is that all cost-reduction and avoidancetechniques should be used whenever and whereverpossible. The one thing we know for sure is that thestandards are moving more rapidly forward than anyof us feel comfortable with. What is current today isobsolete almost literally tomorrow. Therefore, leasing,reusing older computers whenever possible, adheringas much as is reasonable to a standard configuration,and buying upgradeable microcomputers should allbe employed. Obsolescence is a relative term; what'simportant is that the equipment fills an existing need.

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

November 1992 Volume 8Number 8

Thc 1.:drication Ncw.$1cItcr jor Faculty and ,idministratory

New Leadership at EDUCOMInterview with Robert C. Ileterick

Dr. Robert C. Heterick, Jr., Vice President Emeritus at Virginia Poly-technic Institute and State University, will become the new presidentof EDUCOM on January 1. Despite a crowded schedule at this year'sconference in late October, Bob kindly consented to an interview withus, to share some of his thoughts on the future of the EDUCOM con-sortium.

ER: You have had such a long and distinguished career in higher edu-cation, including a wide variety of both academic and administrativepositions. Why EDUCOM and why now?

RH: Well, you probably know that the state of Virginia went thoughsome pretty extraordinary budget cutting, and one of the consequencesof that was an offer of an incredibly attractive early retirement; havingspent 30-plus years in the system, it just looked too attractive to turndown. The EDUCOM position came along about the same time thatI was free and available; a number of folks encouraged me to do it,and it sounded like a good idea. Realistically, the opportunities and thechallenges are pretty significant for EDUCOM right now. EDUCOMis going to feel the ripple effect of what's happening in both industryand higher education, and I think it's better positioned than any of theother information technology organizations to really have an impact.

ER: Why do you think EDUCOM is uniquely positioned with respectto other organizations?

RH: Just look at the messages from the President on a number ofinitiatives that mention EDUCOM; clearly EDUCOM has had a signi-ficant impact on the national network scene. It's done the best kindsof things an association can do: it has brought collaborators togetherinto a forum to discuss their ideas: it has produced intelligent ideas;

Icontinued on Page

"Universities are plagued bycaste distinctions that inhibitteamwork. Faculty treat non-faculty colleagues with disdain,professional librarians act likea medieval guild, and comput-ing professionals considertechnical knowledge the onlymeasure of worth. The culturaldivide between the humanitiesand the sciences is well known,but an equally deep divide liesbetween scholars, librarians,and computing professionals."

William ArmsCarnegie Mellon UniversityAs quoted in "Scholars Urged to

Collaborate in Today's'Technology Revolution'

The Chronicle of HigherEducation

October 28, 1992

Lot.01

ON-LINE NEWS FROM Through a new system designed to reach people outside the Washington area,THE LIBRARY OF the Library of Congress (LC) is offering a new, free, on-line service that givesCONGRESS users information about library programs, exhibitions, activities, and job

postings. Users can dial into the free system with any computer that has amodem. The service contains items of interest to the media; information ofparticular interest to librarians, such as news from the Cataloging DistributionService of new products, Collections Services, new LC publications, changes inLC procedures in cataloging and other areas, major personnel appointments,and professional meetings; and news for the public such as exhibit openingsand features on the Library. It also includes download capability. The servicecontains edited versions of stories from the library's newsletter, InformationBulletin, as well as announcements; however, it does not provide access tobibliographic or other library services.

To use the service, which is available 24 hours a day, dial (202) 707-3854through the computer. For more information, contact Guy Lamolinara, Editor,Library of Congress News Service, Library of Congress Public Affairs Office,Washington DC 20540; (202) 707-9217.

USER ASSISTANTS No more the familiar computer center lament, "We can't hold onto our studentSERVE user assistants; they can earn more working at McDonald's!" Now the userHAMBURGERS, TOO assistants can do both. A McDonald's near the main campus of the University

of Houston is offering students the use of microcomputers, copiers, and FAXmachines along with their hamburgers and fries. Students pay to use theequipment, and the restaurant employs other students to help them out. ThisMcDonald's also offers a video arcade and television news broadcasts.

THE MAGIC OFMULTIMEDIA

A satellite broadcast on using multimedia in higher education is scheduled forFebruary 23, 1:00-3:00 p.m. (EST). Offered by the Institute for AcademicTechnology (IAT) at the University of North Carolina (funded by a grant fromIBM), the broadcast will focus on using the computer to combine video, text,sound, still images, and graphics to enhance learning and teaching across thecurriculum. The broadcast will be interactive, and will feature topics such aswhether using technology makes sense in today's tight economic climate. Therewill also be demonstrations of interactive applications in foreign languages,medicine, and other areas. The 1AT was created to support the innovative useof computer technology in higher education.

The satellite broadcast fee is $250 per site; the registration form and fee aredue by February 9. For more information, contact Barbara Bickell at (919) 560-5031.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue. Bloomfield. Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit; Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1992, EDUTECH International. All rightsreserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without the written permission of the puNkher.Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN N0883-1327. One year subscription. S97,

(With apologies to Abbott and Cos-tello....)

Hello, sir. Welcome to Lotta Com-puters and our one-day, 50% offeverything sale. I'm Mr. Ram. Howcan I help you?

Hi, I'm the purchasing agent forCostello Community College. Canyou tell me what your most popularword processing software is?

WriteNow.

I'd appreciate it.

You'd appreciate what?

I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me thename of your most popular wordprocessing package.

WriteNow.

Yes, right now.

That's right.

What is?

You just said the name of the soft-ware.

I did? What did I say the name ofthe software is?

Write Now.

I don't understand you. I ask a sim-ple question, and you keep puttingme off. Tell me your most popularword processing software.

WriteNow.

There you go again. Listen, maybewe should skip the software anddecide on hardware, instead. Canyou recommend something that'sdesigned for an educational setting?

NeXT.

R:ck Blum is a free-lance writer: aversion of this article first appeared inComputerworld.

Who's NeXT?by Rick Blum

Hold on. You can't talk to other cus-tomers until you answer my ques-tion. Now, tell me a hardware plat-form that is right for our college.

I did tell you. NeXT.

If you don't know the answer, whydon't you just say so instead of try-ing to get rid of me?

I'm not trying to get rid of you. I'mjust recommending a good worksta-tion that's designed specifically forcolleges and universities.

Then what is it?

I told you. NeXT.

Fine. Have it your way. I'll just goacross the street to Notmenny Com-puters and do my business there.

Please don't go. Educational insti-tutions are very important to LottaComputers. Let's try again. Whatexactly is it you need to decide?

I need to decide on our next com-puter and right now.

I'm sorry, but they don't work to-gether.

What doesn't?

The hardware and software you justnamed.

How could I? I don't know a thingabout computers! I have an idea.Why don't we forget all this hard-ware 1 software stuff for a minuteand instead just pick an establishedcompany with a wide range of prod-ucts. What do you say?

I'd say that's Bull.

Excuse me! I admit I don't knowmuch about computers, but you don'thave to insult me.

I would never do such a thing. Let'spick another company if you don'twant Bull.

I certainly don't.

OK, no Bull.

Good. Would it be a good place tostart by asking what the best PC isthat you carry?

Sure. I'd say that's Wyse.

Well, thanks. I take pride in choos-ing only prime products for our stu-dents.

I'm sorry, but you can't get a PrimePC anymore. You should get Wyse.

I'm getting pretty wise to you, bud-dy. Look, all I want is a good PC.

That's easy. The choice is Wyse.

Great. Half an hour and all we'vedecided is to make a wise choice. Ican't wait to find out what's next.

It's a workstation specifically de-signed for colleges and universities.

How did we get back to worksta-tions?

You mentioned a brand. NeXT.

I'll move on, but this is your lastchanceput together a system withthe works and, if the price is right,I'll make out a check today.

I'd be happy to. But if you want theWorks, there's no reason to buyWriteNow.

But you said the sale is for one dayonly. I'd like to buy right now.

I'll sell you anything you want. ButI warn you, WriteNow won't workon Wyse PCs, if that matters.

The only thing that matters is to getout of here so fast you'll think I hadwings.

Well, if you want Wingz, forgetabout the Works. We'll put every-thing on a Mac rather than Wyseand I'll give you Word, instead.

Oh yeah? Well, here's my wordG ood- bye!

'Sdisalt4.4fillikete,terfrt," AgY.V.AZGIC%1^1=4

Inte

rvie

w w

ith R

ober

t Het

eric

kco

ntin

ued

from

pag

e I

it ha

s ar

rang

ed f

or te

tirno

ny b

e-fo

re C

ongr

ess;

and

it H

as e

ncou

r-ag

ed f

olks

on

the

Hill

to u

nder

-st

and

the

impo

rtan

ce c

f th

ese

ini-

tiativ

esfo

r hi

gher

eci

ucat

ion.

Ido

n't s

ee a

noth

er a

ssoc

iatio

n ou

tth

ere

that

's b

een

able

to e

xerc

ise

that

deg

ree

of in

flue

nce.

Now

, tha

t's in

one

are

a. T

here

are

man

y ot

her

area

s th

at E

DU

CO

Mne

eds

to o

pera

te in

, but

it h

asce

rtai

nly

dem

onst

rate

d in

that

one

area

that

it c

an g

et th

e at

tent

ion,

it ca

n fo

cus

thos

e re

sour

ces,

and

itca

n re

ally

get

a r

esul

t.

ER

: Wha

t are

som

e:!

:ose

oth

erar

cas

ED

UC

OM

has

c.e

n do

ing

alo

t of

soul

-sea

rchi

ng th

is p

ast y

ear

or s

o, u

sing

foc

us g

roup

s an

d en

-ga

ging

in s

trat

egic

pla

nnin

g. I

syo

ur th

inki

ng a

bout

the

othe

r ar

eas

that

ED

UC

OM

nee

ds to

foc

us o

n a

resu

lt of

that

?

RH

: Yes

. I th

ink

the

proc

ess

ED

U-

CO

M is

goi

ng th

roug

h is

a v

ery

usef

ul o

ne. I

thin

k it'

s do

ne tw

oth

ings

: it h

as p

rodu

ced

a re

cogn

i-tio

n on

a n

umbe

r of

peo

ple'

s pa

rts

that

wha

t ED

UC

OM

has

bee

n do

-in

g ha

ve b

een

the

righ

t thi

ngs

and

that

it h

as b

een

wor

king

in th

eri

ght a

reas

. In

addi

tion,

it ha

spr

obab

ly s

harp

ened

som

e pe

ople

'sat

tent

ion

to th

e fa

ct th

at it

has

n't

been

doi

ng a

ll th

at it

sho

uld

have

in s

ome

of th

ose

area

s.

Now

, whi

leI

thin

k th

e na

tiona

lne

twor

k ef

fort

has

bee

n re

ally

succ

essf

ul, t

he o

ther

maj

or a

ctiv

ityw

hich

, in

the

long

rim

, may

be

atle

ast a

s im

port

ant,

is to

do

som

e-th

ing

abou

t the

way

we

teac

h an

dle

arn

in o

ur in

stitu

tions

of

high

ered

ucat

ion.

ED

UC

OM

has

don

em

any

good

thin

gs to

sta

rt g

rass

-ro

ots

activ

ities

ther

e, b

ut it

has

n't

had

the

kind

of

natio

nal i

mpa

ctth

at it

's h

ad o

n th

e ne

twor

king

side

. So

I th

ink

ther

e's

a be

tter

unde

rsta

ndin

g no

w th

at E

DU

CO

M

need

s to

cre

ate

the

sam

e ki

nd o

fef

fort

to p

rodu

ce r

esul

ts o

n th

ete

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng s

ide

as it

'sdo

ne o

n th

e na

tiona

l net

wor

king

leve

l.

Org

aniz

atio

ns li

ke E

DU

CO

M d

on't

have

a b

otto

m li

ne; t

hey'

re c

olla

bo-

ratio

ns o

f ot

her

orga

niza

tions

, and

so th

ey r

eally

are

cha

nge

agen

ts.

The

cri

tical

issu

e fo

r th

em is

tobr

ing

abou

t the

cha

nge

that

thei

rco

nstit

uenc

ies

are

look

ing

for

but

are

unab

le to

bri

ng a

bout

indi

vidu

-al

ly. A

nd in

that

reg

ard,

you

mea

-su

re th

e su

cces

s of

an

orga

niza

tion

base

d on

how

man

y of

thos

e ch

ang-

es it

has

bee

n ab

le to

bri

ng a

bout

.E

DU

CO

M is

not

a m

embe

rshi

p or

-ga

niza

tion

that

pro

vide

s a

larg

enu

mbe

r of

indi

vidu

aliz

ed, p

erso

nal-

ized

ser

vice

s to

its

mem

bers

, be-

caus

e its

mem

bers

are

the

acad

em-

ic in

stitu

tions

them

selv

es a

nd it

sco

rpor

ate

asso

ciat

es. S

o w

hat i

tdo

es is

to b

ring

thos

e gr

oups

to-

geth

er to

leve

rage

thei

r re

sour

ces

and

to f

ocus

atte

ntio

n to

cre

ate

chan

ge.

ER

:At f

ewer

than

700

inst

itutio

ns,

out o

f a

poss

ible

330

0 or

so

just

inth

e U

.S.,

do y

ou th

ink

that

ED

U-

CO

M h

as e

noug

h m

embe

rs?

RH

: It's

hard

to k

now

wha

t'sen

ough

. The

re a

re s

ever

al w

ays

you

can

mea

sure

that

. ED

UC

OM

has

alw

ays

been

foc

used

on

the

lead

ing

edge

and

the

earl

y ad

opt-

ers

of in

form

atio

n te

chno

logy

as

itha

s tr

ied

to p

ush

the

fron

tiers

. In

that

sen

se, t

he s

ize

of it

s m

embe

r-sh

ip is

pre

tty r

epre

sent

ativ

e of

that

grou

p. I

t wou

ld b

e ni

ce, a

nd o

new

ould

thin

k th

at a

t som

e po

int i

ntim

e w

e w

ill d

o th

is, t

o tr

y to

tar-

get a

ll of

thos

e in

stitu

tions

. But

inpo

int o

f fa

ct, a

lot o

f th

ose

are

smal

l ins

titut

ions

with

no

inte

rnal

focu

s on

info

rmat

ion

tech

nolo

gy,

nobo

dy to

rea

lly jo

in o

n th

e pa

th;

hist

oric

ally

, tho

se in

stitu

tions

hav

ede

mon

stra

ted

a lo

t of

chur

ning

.

You

get

one

of

them

to jo

in a

nor

gani

zatio

nlik

e E

DU

CO

M o

rC

AU

SE o

r A

CIS

, or

som

ethi

ng li

keth

at, a

nd th

e ne

xt y

ear

you

disc

ov-

er y

ou're

spe

ndin

g m

ore

mon

ey a

nd

of th

ose

orga

niza

tions

; now

, I th

ink

its f

ocus

is p

roba

bly

abou

t rig

ht.

ER

: Doe

sn't

that

leav

e E

DU

CO

Mop

en to

cha

rges

of

eliti

sm?

ED

UC

OM

's S

trat

egic

Goa

ls

The

follo

win

g ar

e go

als

deve

lope

d by

the

ED

UC

OM

Str

ateg

icP

lann

ing

Tas

k F

orce

and

app

rove

d by

the

ED

UC

OM

Boa

rd o

fT

rust

ees:

1) P

rovi

de e

ffect

ive

natio

nal l

eade

rshi

p fo

r th

e de

velo

pmen

t and

use

of a

pplic

atio

ns o

f inf

orm

atio

n te

chno

logy

in h

ighe

red

ucat

ion.

2) A

ssis

t in

crea

ting

a na

tiona

l inf

orm

atio

n in

fras

truc

ture

with

aric

h ar

ray

of e

lect

roni

cally

-sha

rabl

e ed

ucat

iona

l- an

d re

sear

ch-

orie

nted

res

ourc

es s

uppo

rtin

g co

llabo

ratio

n am

ong

com

mun

ities

of s

chol

ars.

3) S

timul

ate

inno

vatio

n in

the

use

of in

form

atio

n te

chno

logy

incl

assr

oom

- an

d la

bora

tory

-bas

ed in

stru

ctio

n an

d le

arni

ng a

ndpr

omot

e th

e us

e of

info

rmat

ion

tech

nolo

gy to

sup

port

the

tran

sfor

mat

ion

of in

stitu

tions

of h

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion

thro

ugh

thei

rde

velo

pmen

t of n

ew p

arad

igm

s fo

r te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng.

4) A

dvan

ce th

e co

mm

on in

tere

sts

of li

brar

ies

and

othe

rin

form

atio

n se

rvic

e or

gani

zatio

ns w

ithin

hig

her

educ

atio

n.

5) P

rovi

de id

eas

and

reso

urce

s to

sup

port

hig

her

educ

atio

nin

stitu

tions

in th

eir

use

of in

form

atio

n te

chno

logy

.

6) E

xplo

re w

ith C

orpo

rate

Ass

ocia

tes

a co

mm

on s

trat

egy

to w

ork

in p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith h

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion

to a

chie

ve it

s m

issi

on.

7) O

rgan

ize

and

oper

ate

ED

UC

OM

as

an e

xem

plar

of g

ood

man

agem

ent p

ract

ice.

effo

rt a

nd r

esou

rces

kee

ping

thei

rm

embe

rshi

p th

an th

ey're

pay

ing

indu

es. I

thin

k th

e qu

estio

n is

, whe

redo

you

foc

us a

nd w

hen.

I th

ink

ther

e w

ill c

ome

a tim

e in

the

fu-

ture

that

ED

UC

OM

will

nee

d to

have

a m

uch

larg

er r

epre

sent

atio

n-

RH

: I h

ear

the

accu

satio

n of

elit

-is

m q

uite

a b

it, a

nd I

gue

ss th

ere'

sel

itism

and

then

ther

e's

eliti

sm.

ED

UC

OM

is a

sel

f-se

lect

ing

grou

pof

sch

ools

who

hav

e de

fine

d in

for-

mat

ion

tech

nolo

gy a

s a

maj

or c

om-

pone

nt o

f th

eir

stra

tegi

c en

deav

ors;

in th

at s

ense

, you

can

cal

l the

mel

ite, b

ecau

se th

at d

efin

ition

cer

-ta

inly

doe

sn't

inco

rpor

ate

ever

yin

stitu

tion.

The

fac

t tha

t the

mod

-el

s th

at f

low

out

of

ED

UC

OM

pub

-lic

atio

ns te

nd to

be

thos

e in

stitu

-tio

ns, s

omew

here

clo

se to

the

lead

-in

g ed

ge, i

s no

t at a

ll su

rpri

sing

.A

nd I

don

't fi

nd th

at r

eally

a n

ega-

tive.

The

re a

re c

erta

inly

a n

umbe

rof

qua

lity

inst

itutio

ns th

at a

redo

ing

inte

rest

ing

thin

gs in

info

r-m

atio

n te

chno

logy

that

don

't pa

r-tic

ipat

e in

ED

UC

OM

as

activ

ely

asI

wou

ld li

ke to

see

, and

I'd

like

toen

cour

age

them

to p

artic

ipat

e. B

utto

sug

gest

that

ED

UC

OM

wou

ld,

at th

is s

tage

in it

s lif

e, s

pend

a lo

tof

tim

e tr

ying

to c

onvi

nce

the

smal

llib

eral

art

s co

llege

that

doe

s ab

so-

lute

ly n

othi

ng w

ith te

chno

logy

that

tech

nolo

gy is

impo

rtan

t to

them

,do

es n

ot s

trik

e m

e as

a g

ood

use

ofre

sour

ces.

ED

UC

OM

is th

e ki

nd o

for

gani

zatio

n yo

u co

me

to w

hen

you

real

ize

that

info

rmat

ion

tech

nolo

gyis

str

ateg

ic. E

DU

CO

M is

not

, at

this

sta

ge in

its

life,

goi

ng to

rea

chou

t and

eva

ngel

ize

the

peop

le w

hoha

ven'

t see

n th

e ne

ed. B

ut p

leas

eun

ders

tand

, eve

ry o

rgan

izat

ion

has

an e

bb a

nd a

flo

w, a

nd if

we

sit

here

nex

t yea

r, I

mig

ht te

ll yo

uso

met

hing

dif

fere

nt.

ER

: But

you

do

see

a ro

le f

or E

DU

-C

OM

in te

rms

of e

vang

eliz

ing

fac-

ulty

on

curr

ent E

DU

CO

M m

embe

rca

mpu

ses

who

hav

en't

yet e

mbr

aced

info

rmat

ion

tech

nolo

gy?

RH

: I th

ink

that

ED

UC

OM

nee

dsto

rea

ch p

resi

dent

s, p

rovo

sts,

and

chie

f ac

adem

ic o

ffic

ers

to p

rovi

deth

em b

oth

with

the

info

rmat

ion

onw

hat's

hap

peni

ng in

the

com

mun

i-ty

out

side

thei

r ow

n in

stitu

tions

and

with

the

enco

urag

emen

t for

them

to m

ake

chan

ges

in th

eir

own

orga

niza

tions

. Now

, pre

side

nts

and

prov

osts

don

't ch

ange

org

aniz

atio

nsby

them

selv

es; i

nstit

utio

ns o

f hi

gh-

.r e

duca

tion

typi

cally

incl

ude

facu

l-ty

in th

e ch

ange

pro

cess

. So

it's

clea

r yo

u ne

ed to

rea

ch th

e fa

culty

to g

ive

them

an

awar

enes

s of

wha

tis

out

ther

e an

d w

hat t

heir

col

-le

ague

s ar

e do

ing.

The

re a

re n

oes

tabl

ishe

d jo

urna

ls th

at a

fac

ulty

mem

ber

look

s to

if h

e or

she

has

som

e in

tere

st in

app

lyin

g te

chno

lo-

gy to

the

teac

hing

ven

ue, a

lthou

ghre

sear

ch is

a li

ttle

sim

pler

now

,be

caus

e yo

u te

nd to

see

a lo

t abo

utte

chno

logy

in th

e re

sear

ch jo

urna

ls.

So, y

es, t

here

's a

rol

e fo

r E

DU

CO

Mw

ith th

e fa

culty

, as

wel

l as

a ro

lew

ith th

e ad

min

istr

atio

n, a

nd b

oth

are

impo

rtan

t. Y

ou h

ave

to r

emem

-be

r, E

DU

CO

M, l

ike

man

y of

the

prof

essi

onal

ass

ocia

tions

in W

ash-

ingt

on, i

s ki

nd o

f a

smal

l org

aniz

a-tio

n. Y

ou ta

ke o

ut th

e B

ITN

ET

supp

ort p

art,

and

you'

re lo

okin

g at

a do

zen

or s

o pe

ople

. I th

ink

you

have

to m

ake

som

e ch

oice

s ab

out

whe

re y

ou a

pply

the

time

of th

ose

peop

le, a

nd f

rom

my

stan

dpoi

nt,

the

plac

es c

hose

n so

far

see

m r

ea-

sona

ble.

ER

: Do

you

see

forg

ing

furt

her

alli-

ance

sw

ithot

her

orga

niza

tions

,su

ch a

s th

e on

e yo

u ha

ve n

ow w

ithC

AU

SE a

nd th

e A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Res

earc

h L

ibra

ries

?

RH

: Abs

olut

ely.

We

wan

t to

set t

heri

ght e

xam

ple.

We

don'

t wan

t to

prea

ch c

olla

bora

tion

to o

ur c

ampu

sm

embe

rs a

nd o

ur c

orpo

rate

ass

oci-

ates

and

then

turn

aro

und

and

not

be a

ble,

in a

sim

ilar

way

, to

colla

b-or

ate.

Tha

t jus

t wou

ldn'

t mak

ese

nse.

I th

ink

ther

e ar

e a

num

ber

of o

rgan

izat

ions

, CA

USE

bei

ng th

em

ost e

vide

nt o

ne, t

hat h

ave

sim

ilar

cons

titue

ncie

s an

d si

mila

r ki

nds

ofch

arte

rs, w

ith w

hich

we

can

clea

rly

leve

rage

our

res

ourc

es e

ven

mor

e.

ER

: Any

thou

ghts

of

goin

g a

step

furt

her

aad

resu

rfac

ing

the

idea

of

mer

ging

with

CA

USE

?

RH

: I'm

not

the

pers

on w

ho c

ansp

eak

auth

orita

tivel

y on

that

. Giv

e

,c-A

re-n

arrr

'..L

2=0.

bB

ES

T C

OP

Y A

VA

ILA

BLE

b4

5

Interview with Robert Heterickcontinued from page 5

me a couple of months, and I'llunderstand the situation better. Ido know that the planning groupsof the two boards have met andhave discussed the question of theappropriate kinds of relationshipsthat leverage our resources. Andmy understanding is, at this point,that there is not a sense that aformal merger of the two organiza-tions is in the cards. Now whetherthat will change next year or theyear after, it's hard to say.

ER: When you talk about collabora-tion and leveraging resources, itsounds very much like what is hap-pening on many campuses. Do youforesee a time for all colleges whena single chief information officerwill have responsibility for all of aninstitution's technology resources?

RH: I don't think "chief informa-tion officer" is a reasonable title inthe way we organize our institu-tions. It strikes me as a corporatetitle that is much less meaningfulin higher education. In our institu-tions, we have it pretty well estab-lished that we have a president, aprovost or a vice president foracademic affairs, and a finance vicepresident. As a matter of fact, wecame out of the second world warwith essentially that tripartitestructure, with the president andtwo operating officers reporting tothe president. Since then, we'veseen both the student affairs peo-ple and the development peoplecoalesce into broader and higherpositions, but those people don'thave titles that came out of thecorporate world; they often holddeanships or whatever is the ap-propriate cultural title. I thinkthat's what we're going to see ininformation technology.

In the corporate world, CIOs tendto have an authority to constructsystems and procedures and orga-nizations to accomplish the line

6

missions of their companies. In theacademy, that's never going tohappen. The kinds of things we'retalking about when we talk aboutinformation resources and technol-ogy are support services, not lineactivities. So universities are goingto continue to be dominated by theacademic missions of teaching andresearch and to some extent, out-reach. For some institutions, the ITperson will be someone called "vicepresident"; for other institutions, itwill be someone called "dean"; formany institutions, it will be some-one called "vice provost." In someinstitutions, these may turn out tobe staff positions with responsibili-ty for combined planning, but theunits that do the operations them-selves will still remain disparate.

As a matter of fact, one can makethe argument that what we aretrying to do with this technology isto empower people within an insti-tution. And if we really are verysuccessful at that, one of the conse-quences is that our service organi-zations will fade into the woodworkand become transparent, and thepeople will distribute out into theorganization itself.

Although I have a number of col-leagues who have that term as partof their title, we don't have a gooddefmition for what it means inhigher education. If you're the CIO,do you have responsibility for allinformation? If so, that must meanyou have responsibility for thelibraries, the archives, and a wholeseries of things that are beyondwhere we normally use that term.

ER:Are there projects underway inEDUCOM that you are particularlyinterested in? Or projects comingdown the road that you want tousher through personally?

RH: I think the whole domain forcurrent EUIT (Educational Uses of

Information Technology) activitiesis one that's very interesting to me.The real question for higher educa-tion is, why are we spending moreand teaching less? We are dealingwith public reaction to tuition andfee costs that double the ConsumerPrice Index year after year. Andit's very clear that the process thatour corporate colleagues have beengoing through is one that we aregoing to have to go through also.

We're going to have to find ways tobe less labor-intensive. I have usedthe term "disintermediation" tomean getting the human mediationout of the process and get intomore technology-mediation. Tech-nology has a set of price pointsthat really look attractive; they'regoing down every year, as opposedto personnel costs which are goingup every year. Clearly the big issuefor institutions of higher learningis to teach both more and better forless, and that's what EUIT activi-ties are focused on. That's theexciting area for the next three tofive years. One of the things thatEUIT has tried to do is to empha-size that there are people makingheadway on these problems. How-ever, the headway we've made sofar has been primarily in the do-main of increased effectivenessbetter teaching, not necessarilymore productive teaching. So pro-ductivity is an area that's mostinteresting.

I think you're going to see a lot offocus in EDUCOM over the nextyear or two on the kinds of thingsembodied in Project Jericho. [Thisproject is for the purpose of explor-ing ways to bring down the wallsthat serve as barriers between fac-ulty and information technology re-sources.] One of the issues we haveto deal with is not with the facultyitself, but with the academic offi-cers and presidents in understand-ing that we need to change the re-

ward structures within our institu-tions. We need reward structuresto encourage the faculty to reallydo those kinds of innovative thingsthey're so good at relative to theteaching process. So I think you'llsee the Jericho idea expandedbeyond just doing something withthe faculty, but also looking atfinding ways to help educationalinstitutions change their rewardstructures.

ER: Why do you think it's taking solong for the message to get through?Changing the reward structure forfaculty is something that we, asinformation technology profession-als, have been talking about foryears as the obvious way to be ableto exploit technology for the benefitof our institutions. Why isn't thatmessage getting through loud andclear? Or at least, more than it hasup until now?

RH: I think colleges and universi-ties have incredible inertia. Therewas an interesting report a fewyears back in which it was obser-ved that there were 66 institutionsthat had come forward since theyear 1530 in a form that was stillrecognizable today. Two were chur-ches, two were governments, andthe other 62 were institutions ofhigher education. We have beenamazingly resistant to change. Oneof the great difficulties, and one ofthe reasons that strategic planningis so important, is that what wehave accomplished in higher educa-tion in the U.S. today is the envyof the world. It is clearly very, verygood. And it's hard to mess aroundwith something that has been verysuccessful for a long period of timeand is envied by others.

The thing that we have to get intoour heads is the fiscal stress; the

"Policy statements may never solve computerethics problems. Many computer center direc-tors will attest that during the past three yearstheir campus has developed a computer usepolicy. Only a minority of directors can boast,however, that as a result of the policy, theyhave reshaped the campus' thinking and re-shaped the campus' behavior.... Those faculty,staff, and students who do read the policyinterpret it through their own system ofthought, through their own cultural lenses.Policies are only the beginning of managingthe problem. The key is proactively educatingfaculty, staff, and students about legal andethical use of computing resources."

Sue Stager, reporting for a panel discussionIndiana University"Computer Ethics Survey"SIGUCCS NewsletterSummer 1992

kind of exponential growth somany activities demonstratetea-ching being one of themis notconsistent with our country's re-source base. You could make theargument that we were closer touniversal higher education fifteenyears ago than we are today, as wesee ourselves drawing back stateand federal money and diverting itto mandated programs, healthcare, prisons, and that sort ofthing. We have to know we need tochange before it's apparent, be-cause if we wait until it's deadapparent, it's really too late.

EDUCOM has a significant role toplay in higher education. We havean awful lot of people in our iner-tia-bound institutions who say,wait a minute, we're the best inthe world. If it ain't broke, don't fixit. Well, even being the best, wecan be better.

In Future Issues

What makes software awardwinners different fromother faculty?

The long-term effects (anddangers) of downsizing

Ethical issues in computingcenter management

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

Q. We are just starting a project to acquire a newadministrative information system, and have somedisagreement about the process. Is it necessary to gothrough the development of a formal Request ForProposal?

A. No, but there are steps in the development of anRFP which you will likely find very useful. We allhave a tendency, true for computer people in particu-lar, to leap ahead to solutions before fully definingthe problem. The essence of an RFP is the needs anal-ysis, created through a process of collecting, under-standing, and reaching broad-based agreement on theinstitution's needs for a new system and the purposesto be served by it. This process can be difficult andtime consuming, but is well worth it for any numberof reasons, including preventing second-guessing lateron after the system decision is made. By the way, thisdoesn't have to be just for administrative software.Every major computing-related acquisition, whetherhardware or software, whether to serve academic oradministrative needs, and whether for something newor for a replacement for something already in exis-tence, can profit from a thorough needs analysis.

kTaking the next step to write up a formal RFP (unlessyou are required to by your institution or other rule-making body) is not as important.

Q. We are just forming an Academic ComputingAdvisory Committee for the first time, and all of thefolks who have volunteered to be on it are good,knowledgeable, computer-literate faculty members.Are there other things we need to keep in mind inthe make-up of this committee?

A. The committee should be made up of representa-tive faculty, in the sense that the members will repre-sent the faculty as a whole. It is certainly good tohave computer-literate faculty on the committee, butthe problem with having only such people is that itleaves out a significant group of faculty: potentialusers. Some institutions also include the director ofacademic computing on the committee, but we believethat there should not be any directors in this group.Directors of computing resources should be advised bycommittees such as this one, and can keep the com-mittee members well-informed on specific topics, butshould not be full, participating members themselves.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

THE Decenther 1992 Volume. 8Number 9

The Education Ycchnology New3tetter for Faculty and Administrators

Exemplary Leadership andIT Excellence

n December 2, at CAUSE92, Bernard NV. Gleason, the ExecutiveDirector of Information Technology at Boston College, was pre-

sented with the 1992 CAUSE ELITE Award for Exemplary Leadershipand Information Technology Excellence. The successful twenty-plus-year career of Bernie Gleason (coincidentally. Bernie was given theaward on the twenty-third anniversary of his first day at BC) parallelsBC's dramatic rise in stature over the last two decades. And accordingto his colleagues there. Bernie's contributions have played a major rolein the university's elevation among the ranks of elite institutions ofhigher education.

When Bernie .joined Boston College. the university was in dire finan-cial straits. Seeing the fiscal problems of the institution as an oppor-tunityin fact. a demandfor change. Bernie took the initiative inapplying technology to problem solving, resulting in some of the mosthighly innovative solutions in higher education today.

Vnder Bernie's leadership, Boston College by 1980 had all adminis-trative systems online and totally integrated, with a single systemimagea significant enhancement for the administrative operation ofthe university: was the first major university to have a fully integratedlibrary system, an automated admissions system, and an online studentinformation s\ stem: became a pioneer in the integration of voice anddata services: was among the first to provide desk-top systems for allfaculty and staff with demonstrated need: published a highly regardedstrategic plan for information technology with end-user support as itscornerstone: implemented "Project Glasnost,- a framework for pro-viding open access to administrative information. w ith an emphasis onimaginative techniques a:id a universal ID card for students' use:gained nationw ide attention for the design and implementation of

continued on 0Ni, 7f)

"We need more than a visionof technology, which is a one-eyed vision. We don't want tobe like the (no doubtapocryphal) World War 11missile designers on theOpposing Team who pleaded.'All we did was send them up;we didn't know where theywere supposed to land.' Wehave to know where ourinformation technology lands."

John GehlEDUCOM"How to Count a Computer-EDUCOM ReviewNovember/December 1992

EDUCOMPUBLICATIONSAVAILABLE

NATIONAL NET'93 TOBE HELD IN APRIL

CUMRECCONFERENCE TO BEHOSTED BY BAYLORUNIVERSITY

vq4,-11

D) Dt,

Valuable Viable Software in Education: Cases and Analysis, the result of atwo-year project of EDUCOM's Educational Uses of Information Technology(EUIT) program, involves the collaboration of software dqvelopers, faculty,hardware and software vendors, textbook publishers, university administra-tors, and computing support staff. Twenty case studies tell the story of thegenesis, funding, development, marketing, and use of software that iseducationally valuable and viable. For more information, contact EDUCOM at1112 16th St., NW, Suite 600, Washington DC 20036: (202) 872-4200.

101 Success Stories of Information Technology in Higher Education: The JoeWyatt Challenge is intended for use as a guide, reference, and planning bookfor faculty and administrators. Each college and university success story wasauthored by its primary implementor and includes an abstract, institutionalidentification. project description, a description of the human and technologicalresources required for its implementation, the resulting benefits, the criticalsuccess factors, and a rationale. Primis, the custom-publishing unit ofMcGraw-Hill, is making the book available either as a whole, or by choices of'story according to institution or discipline field. For more information, contactRichard Levy, Primis Senior Fulfillment Specialist, at. 1-800-962-9342.

The National Net'93 Conference will be held April 14-16, i993 at the LoewsL'enfant Plaza Hotel in Washington DC. Topics to he covered include:Extending NREN's ReachThe Last 10 Yards: NREN or nRenCan EveryoneBenefit?: Campus DeploymentLeveraging the NREN: At the StatehouseThe Focus Shifts: Financing the NRENTrickle Down or Bubble Up?; Unitingthe NationsThe International Scene: and Inside WashingtonWhat's Next?

The conference is sponsored jointly by many of the leading organizations inhigher education information technology, including CAUSE, EDUCOM, theAssociation of Research Libraries, and the Coalition for NetworkedInformation. For more information , contact Elizabeth Barnhart at EDUCOM,1112 16th St., NW, Suite 600, Washington DC 20036: (202) 872-4200.

"Information TechnologT The Revolution Continues" is the theme of this year'sCUMREC Conference, to be held May 9-12, 1993 at the Marriott RivercenterHotel in San Antonio, Texas. The conference will focus on current applicationsand hardware as well as emerging technologies and methodologies toimplement systems for advanced administrative applications. State-of-the-arttechniques. evaluation methods, and new tools for developing and utilizingcomputer technologies will be discussed. For more information, contact GaryBlackmon at Baylor Univerity, (817) 755-2711.

The EDUTECI1 REPORT is published each month by EDVITCII International. 120 Mountain Avenue. Illoomlield. Connecticut. 06002.1634:(203)212 3356. PresIdent and Publisher: Linda/1. Heir. Vice President: Fmily Dadoorian. Copv right ,1 t 1992. EDLITECI1 International. All rightsreserved. This publication. or any part thereof. mav not be duplicated. remnted. ot republished without the written permission of the publisher.Facsmok. toproduction. including photocopying. is hit-bidden. ISSN BO55 1 112". One car subscription. ti97.

4. ti

CWISes: Mvth Mania or Miracle?by lloward .lay Strauss, Princeton University

s everal months ago, a technolo-gy vice president from a pres-

t igious university visited us to seeif some of what Princeton was do-ing could be used at his university.We talked about remote consulting,hyper-maps, client-server process-ing, image databases, object orient-ed programming, fiber optic net-works, expert systems, networkedCD-ROMs, the whole panoply oftopics with which people on thecutting edge of technology feel com-fortable. For each topic discussed,he acknowledged its importanceand added a technical point, morearcane than any already made.This enjoyable game was interrupt-ed when he was asked if his uni-versity had a CWISa Campus-Wide Information System.

Ile told us that they didn't andthat he could see no reason for one.After all, he explained, budgetsand staff were tight, and further-more, no one was pressing him toinstall a CWIS.

No one had clamored for us to in-stall one either. In fact, few peopleeven knew what a MIS was whenwe installed one at the end of 1988.Our budgets and staff were tighttoo, but we not only installed aCWIS, we created our own (some-thing I don't recommend). Were wemad, profligate, and off on somett,chnology junket that was irrele-vant and unresponsive to student,faculty, and staff needs'? No, weinstalled a CWIS bl'Cialse we knewwe had to.

,ll if, l (rriciruil., ,wp,jr,,1 in .14 .htem,lor I I r!,1,11 i I ,,,,.tatr:, hdrri 0'12vu 1:11I `.q).: M.( ish i PabItthlW. I I

Weut . t OOM()r ircl ved. inted 11111 mmirmI.,1.11,I Si,ni jl ., .141

111'n Cli liTtic ail, "11 It ri,r;.

Inventing the futureOf course one must take care of theusers' needs, but the fact is thatpeople cannot be relied upon to tellyou what they "need" for the fu-ture. Before the advent of radio,(lid people sit around and say,"Gee, it would really be nice if aperson in Washington DC couldtalk to the whole nation at thesame time'"? It would have beenconsidered madness. Everyone"knew" that it couldn't be done, sono one asked for it.

It is taken for grantedthat a corporate

division should domarketing and productplanning, but these aregenerally alien concepts

for universitydepartments. It is time

that changed.

Do you have a 700 number yet'?You have probably heard of SOOand 900 phone numbers, but a 700number? They're coming, and theywill be your own number, not thenumber of your house, office, orcar, but your personal numberwherever you are. You probablyhaven't written many letters toyour phone company demandingthis new capability, but it will be aneat thing to have and one day itmay seem incredible that peoplegot along without it.

The only test of a new product orservice cannot be that, users de-mand it. Wethe information tech-

nologistsmust envision and in-vent the future of informationtechnology for our users. Then wemust lead them there, for they notonly have difficulty in imaginingwhere they cai go, but they willoften be reluctant to give up thesecurity of the present to enter thefuture.

We saw a CWIS as an essentialelement in the services we had nochoice but to offer. It wasn't aquestion of whether we could afforda CWIS, but whether 'we could af-ford to continue to build our expen-sive computer and network infra-structure without making somebenefits of those facilities univer-sally available. That users (andsome of the administration) hadn'tyet, figured out how important itwas made our marketing more dif-ficult, but didn't otherwise deterus. Nor should lack of demand de-ter you. After all, you will be let-ting your users hear radio for thefirst time.

There's no businesslike show businessOur visitor agreed that being pro-active was often called for, buteven if his university were to offera CWIS, which group should pro-vide it: the computer center, thelibrary, or someone else'? To deter-mine that, it is helpful to knowwhat business each of these groupsimagines it is in.

What business is the computer cen-ter in? Go ask them. Do they saythe computer business, the net-work business, the informationtechnology business, or do they tellyou it's none of your business? It'snot only important that they knowwhat business they are in, but alsothat they are in the right business.

... continued on

3

CWISes: Myth, Mania, or Miracle? ...ronollued from page 3

Wnat business is the library in?Silly question'? No! HOW can thelibrary decide what products andservices to offer. how to do market-ing, and where to deploy scarceresources if they are not in thelight business? Are they in thehook, journal, and periodical 'busi-ness? I hope not. In fact, any groupwho imagines that it is in a prod-uct-oriented rather than a service-(inented business is in the wrowz,business and will soon he out ofbusiness.

It is taken for granted that a corpo-rate division should do marketingand product planning, but theseare generally alien c.incepts fw-

university depirtments. It is timethat charwed. With today's limitedfunds and the high cost of technolo-gy and infrastructure, any depart-ment that assunms its importanceis assured because it always hasbeen in the past May be ill forsome bad news. This is especiallytrue of service departments such asthe library and the computer cen-ter. A CWIS can help. It is anexcellent marketing tool and it willcause departments to focus onsome marketing and product plan-ning issues.

Fly me to the moonIn the early part of' this century,the railroads were sure they knewwhat business they were in. Theywere in the railroad business. Whodidn't thrill at the majestic sight ofa mighty locornot ive speedimz downtwin rilibons of steel that stretchedtrom horizon to horizon'? It seemedobvious that people were in lovewith the sights, the sounds, andeven the smells of trains. But infact. tnost people had no more in-terest in trdns than they do todayin microcomputers, or books fort hat flatter.

People abandoned railroads with-out a second thought to sip marti-

ins at :30,000 feet while they hur-tled through the air at 600 mph int hin aluminum tubes. Did peopledo this because airplanes Weremore high-tech than trains? Ofcourse not. They did it because air-planes got them where they weregoing faster than trains could.What people really wanted wastransportation, not railroads. Butthe railroads were in the railroadbusiness, not in the transportationbusiness, so it never occurre.d tothem to fly people where they weregoing.

People have no real interest in

Microcomputers,books, food processors,video games, and tele-

phones are allvulnerable to joining

hula hoops on thenostalgic junk heap of

technology.

products at all and they will aban-don any product as soon as someother one that is better fills theirneeds. Nothing is immune. It ishard to imagine a replacement forcars, but it. was hard to imagine areplacement for horses before therewere cars. Nlicrocomputers, books,food processors, video games, andtelephones are all vulnerable tojoining hula hoops on the nostalgicjunk heap of technology.

Let me entertain youIs the book business a good busi-ness for the library to be in? No!People don't want books. Theywant entertainment and enlighten-ment (E&E) and they want it

cheaply and conveniently. Booksprovide that service very well. Youcan be entertained and enlightenedin a plane, at home, in bed, or out-side under a tree. As long as booksprovide inexpensive E&E. booksare fine, but if something else pro-vides that service better, books willbe abandoned as quickly as trans-continental passenger railroads.

.1 reasonable business for the li-brary to be in is the E&E business.The library should seek to provideusers with all the E&E informationthey need in the cheapest. mostconvenient way possible. 11 thatmeans providing information viacomputers, networks, newsletters,or skywriting, the library should beprepared to deliver the service.While books may one day fall fromfavor, people will always needE&E. By focusing on the service.not the product, libraries maychange radically (e.g. they mayhave no books, people may use thelibrary via networks, etc.) whilestill serving their traditional func-tions. Once the library realizes it isin the E&E business, a CWIS isone obvious way of providing someof that service.

What business is the computer cen-ter in? I'm sure it is not, in thecomputer business or even the net-work business. A reasonable busi-ness to be in is the "access to E&Einformation- business. That. thissounds a lot like the library busi-ness is really no surprise at all, butthere is a significant difference. Ifwe think of "information systems.'as being the vehicles to provideE&E infOrmation, then the librarymight be primarily concerned withthe "information.' part of an infor-0111., ion system. while the computercenter's concern might be the "sys-tem.' part. Of course, either thecomputer center or the librarymight reasonably define the entireE&E business as its own.

.....1.6,4w*.i.N..vt10(ncAvr4-0.1aM.... .e.okralnaaa-<*t.

But 1.vhere does this leave a CW1S?While either the library or tlh,computer center could "own" aCWIS, an even better owner is theuniversity's communications office(those people who do press releasesand that kind of thing). The com-munications office knows that it isin the E&P, business. It has alwaysknown how to manage informationfor the university and has a longhistory of dealing with every de-partment. It will need some helpfrom the computer center to select,install, and maintain a MIS, andit will certainly rely on the libraryfor information and expertise inthe E&E business, but the univer-sny's information office is uniquelyqualified to run a CWIS.

If you take installing a CWIS seri-ously, it will force you to ask ques-tions like, "What business are wein?"; "Who owns university (War:"What data do we have availabler;"What information do peopleneed?", "What data is confidential,and how confidential, and whodecides?". Getting answers to ques-tions like these is one of the realbenefits of deciding to install a

even before anyone uses it.And a CWIS will get your usersasking questions that will changetheir perception of computing anduniversity information in ways thatwill have long term bcnefits to theuniversity.

It's the hard-knock lifeOur Visitor was willing to acceptthe "enli.14htenrnent." part of theE&E business, but the "entertain-ment" part gave him a bit of' trou-Ide. l'niversities, after all, exist topass enlightenment from genera-tion to generation, to seek mitdeeper understanding of human-kind and the world, to extend tlh,frontiers of knowledge, and tobohlly go where no man has gonebefore. Isn't entertainment thefrivolous stuff that students, facul-

,IM.e154},

ty, and staff do on their own time'?At hest, our guest. offered, it is aperipheral interest of the universi-ty and should not be the first "E"in the E&E business if' it should bethere at all.

Yet if organic chemistry or creativewriting is not entertaining as wellas enlightening, it is a failure ofthe teachers and students, not ofthe subject matter. If it is not en-tertaining, why is anyone learningit and why do we expect that stu-dents will not only learn it butrevere it'?

nfortunately, aCWIS is not a miracle.It will not make yourmanagers paragons ofprofessionalism, nor

make all of yourusers kind and

considerate.

Universities are not forced laborcamps. Computer centers, libraries,and all university departmentshave to market their services. Stu-dents, faculty, and staff aren'taftaid to work, they just don't wantto be bored to death or to be askedto do things that are m?edlesslydifficult. A CWIS can help. It canmake information available thatwill help departments market theirservices, and when done right, theinfbrmation will he compelling,entert a rani ng, 0 nd int cresting.

Mirac le of' miraclesMany claims and promises havebeen made about the power andversatility of a MIS. Is it a myth

or have these things really hap-pened? Yes, all the benefits havebeen seen: they just haven't beenseen all in one place. A CWIS hasmany facets and is like a difficultjuggling act. I haven't seen all ofthe balls in the air at one timeyet. Someplace soon, it's going tohappen.

Another concern is that CWISesare just a passing fad. Just becausehundreds of universities aroundthe world have installed themwould not give me any confidencethat doing so makes sense for myuniversity. But a critical thingabout a CWIS is that it is the ser-vice it provides, not the CWISsystem itself, that is important.Gathering the data for your CWIS,establishing university policies thatmake it possible for you to have aCWIS, structuring data and menusfor a CWIS. and the vast majorityof all the other work you'll need todo to make it successful is valuableeven if' you never turn a CWIS onfor a second. Is a CWIS some pass-ing mania? I don't think so, buteven if I'm wrong, getting one go-ing will be good for your university.

Unfortunately, a CWIS is not amiracle. It will not make yourmanagers paragons of professional-ism, nor make all of your userskind and considerate. It will, how-ever, provide your users with theinformation they need whereverthey are. It will turn the data inyour departments into a universityresource. It wiD get computer-pho-bic people to use computers, and toeven enjoy using them. And it willchange users' perceptions of com-puting and information in waysthat will be of great benefit to theuniversity. A CWIS, without com-promising the university's veryserious mission, can make beingpart of a university more entertain-ing, enjoyable, and yes, enlighten-ing, too.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

What Makes Faculty Award Winners Different?n most campuses today, thenumbers of faculty who are

not computing still outnumber theones who are. And if we countthose who are actively computing,that is, using technology to consis-tently enhance their academic ac-tivities, whether it be teaching orresearch, we find an even smallernumber. What is it that. makes afaculty member interested in pur-suing this still relatively rare in-volvement? And in some cases, notonly pursue it, but be dedicatedenough to the task to become wild-ly successful at it? We talked withsome of this year's EDUCOM soft-ware award winners to find out theanswers. This is what we weret old.

Access to computing tools. Thismay seem to be an obvious need,but it is still a missing ingredientfor many faculty. Even in some ofthe institutions that have madelarge resource commitments in thearea of information technology, itoften seems that the students andthe administration are provided forfirst. A computing device with ap-propriate software on every facultydesktop is a necessity if more facul-ty members are to get involved insubstantive ways with academiccomputing.

Rewards for appropriate tech-nology involvement. It is still, byfar, the norm to ignore work donein software development in the pro-motion and tenure processes. Eventhough the computing work andthe software developed may con-tribute significantly to curriculumdesign, research, or improvementsin classroom instruction, and eventhough the work itself may havebeen, in fact, more extensive thanwhat the faculty member mighthave accomplished with a scholarlyarticle, or even a book. it is notsufficiently acknowledged at. this

point to be an incentive for verymany faculty. I n fact, there may bea disincentive to working in soft-ware development because it takeslvecious and limited time awayfrom other work that will be count-ed for promotion or tenure.

The work is often ignored outsideof the P&T process as well, withother kinds of faculty awards andrewards based on almost anythingand everything but software devel-

Computing can bevery frustrating,

especially if the facultymember is breaking

new ground. Just on thebasic level of getting

different coinponents towork together properly,

a typical facultymember is likely to run

into major problems.

opment or involvement in comput-ing. In fact, some of the faculty toldus that it was ironic, in a way, thatEDUCOM would recognize them inthis important way and applaudtheir achievements when no one ontheir own campuses really knewwhat they were doing.

Persistence. Computing can bevery frustrating, especially if' thefaculty member is breaking newground. Just on the basic level ofgetting different hardware or soft-ware components to work togetherproperly, a typical faculty memheris likely to run into major prob-

lems. One has to also be fairlyimmune to the potential embar-rassment of running classroomsoftware that doesn't_ work rightt he first time (or any time). Persis-tence in acquiring the right re-sources, persistence in makingthem work and work together, andpersistence in dealing with skepti-cism are all necessary to be suc-cessful.

Specialized support. The supporttypically available from the campuscomputer center is too low-level orgeneral t o be of much help. at leastbeyond a certain point. But whenthe computer center, or one's owndepartment. for that matter. canprovide discipline-specific usersupport, then it can make a verybig difference. One trend that wasnoted was the growing use of userassistants who are knowledgeableabout the actual discipline of thefaculty members in the depart-ments which they serve. Locatingthat person close by, even if he orshe still works for the central com-puter center. was also thought byall to be a very good idea.

A voice in governance. On a fi-nal note, the faculty members withwhom we spoke felt that it wasvery important for the administra-tion of their institutions and forthe managers in the campus com-puter centers to acknowledge theirexistence and their expertise, at.least in certain matters. They feltthat some kind of an academiccomputing advisory committee wasessential in promoting the rightatmosphere on campus that wouldencourage faculty to get involved incornputing in substantive ways.Without such a committee, it wasfelt, a signal is sent that the insti-tution as a whole does not reallyvalue academic technology and thepotential it offers to improving theeducational process.

Exemplary Leadership and Information Technology Excellence ...continued from page I

ATM-like access for students totheir own registration and financialinformation; and reorganized allcomputing and communications un-its into a single IT organization.

Within the IT group at I3C, Berniehas developed a strong group ofdisciples who share his vision andenthusiasm. His willingness toallow employees to experiment andfail, to grow and demonstrate ini-tiative,.has built a highly success-ful and 'innovative organization.

To encourage innovation, risk-tak-ing, and individual contribution.Bernie instituted a totally merit-based review and compensationsystem for his departmenta sys-tem so successful, it was modifiedfor use across the entire university.The structure of the IT organiza-tion, based on the provision ofsuperior end-user support for aca-

demic and administrative users,remains flexible enough to adaptquickly to rapid changes in techno-!ogy while maintaining its focus onthe strategic plan.

These innovations have built an ITorganization with a reputation asone of the best in higher education.In fact, accreditation reports on theuniversity routinely praise its useof computing and communications,and BC has become a role modelfor institutions in their effort touse information technology moreeffectively.

With a focus on comprehensivesolutions and the "big picture,"Bernie shared his vision and exper-iences in Open Access: A User In-formation System, a well-receivedCAUSE Professional Paper. In fact,due to his comprehensive view ofthe institution's strengths and

"...We are focusing on the wrong issue whenwe talk about technology and its role in edu-cation. It is not a matter of putting PowerBooksin the hands of students or filling labs withworkstc...tions. It is, rather, clearly formulatingwhat is expected from the use of computers,planning what resources are to be providedon the networks, and, most importantly, under-standing what communities the electronicsystems can foster.... The computers and thenetworks are the minor (not to be confusedwith inexpensive) parts of the equation.... Thechallenge is to change the fabric of the edu-cational processto question both our missionand methods, not just layer on technology."

Pat NlolholtColumbia UniversityLetter to the EditorThe Chronicle of Higher EducationNovember 1992

needs, its objectives and goals.Bernie is often sought out for hisviews on issues that far transcendhis specific area of respomlibility.

Bernie also brings first-rate admin-istration, management, interper-sonal, and communication skills tohis job. Described by his staff as avery accessible and effective man-ager who communicates well at alllevels within his organization, he iswidely admired and respected forhis open approach.

It is this unusual combination ofleadership, vision, and technicalinnovation which has won BernieGleason the recognition of his peerswith the 1992 CAUSE ELITEAward.

Our thanks to Julia Rudy andthe CAUSE organization for theinformation in this article.

In Future Issues

Applying Total QualityManagement to higher edinformation technology

CAUSE92: the best keepsgetting better

- What are presidentsthinking about? What areClOs thinking about?

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

Q. You recently had an article on vendor demos andthe things to watch for. One thing you didn't men-tion was the order in which the vendors actuallyappear. Doesn't the first one have an unfair advan-tage'?

A. Not necessarily. For an institution that is notreally aware of what is available today in modern,online, integrated administrative information sys-tems, it may be that the first vendor to demonstrateits system has the most opportunity to impress and toeducate the audience. But this is very likely offset bythe last vendor being the one most remembered. Andfor institutions that are already well aware of what'sgoing on in systems today and are conducting the de-monstrations to be able to specifically diThrentiateamong vendors, it probably doesn't matter which or-der the demos are in. It's good that you want to main-tain as level a playing field as possible, but frankly,these things are hard enough to schedule withoutworrying about sequencing as well.

Q. One of the issues that plagues this campus, andI'm sure many others as well, is the issue of diversity

leading to incompatibility. That is, we have prettymuch let everyone choose his or her own computingenvironment, including microcomputer hardware andsoftware. This has resulted in a lot of freedom andindividuality leading to a great deal of enthusiasmand endorsement for computing in general, all ofwhich is good. But it has also led to an enormoussupport issue and increasingly difficult work as moreand more people want to communicate with eachother. Where is the right balance'?

A. Most institutions make this determination usingthe criterion of affivdability. In other words, theessential question is, how much diversity can youafford? If the hardware and software configurationsfor every user on campus were exactly the same, thesupport and comma nicat ion issues would be straight-k)rward and relatively low cost. Even though kw in-stitutions could tolerate such single-mindedness, it isimportant to recognize that every deviation from thatuniformity will have a price. The good news is thatthe price of diversity is dropping, as more bridgesand pathways are built among various' configura-tions.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

January 1993 VolumeNumber 10

EThe Education Technology Neu .letter for Faculty and Administrators

IT Excellence:It's Not Instant Pudding

eY

fingers grip your heart. You've just returned from lunch andsitting on top of your stack of messages is one from the president,

saying she wants to see you right away. With lightening speed, thethree or four reasons she might have called you race through yourmind.... She wants to congratulate you on your success in developingthe new tuition billing system. She wants to talk about putting a work-station on her desk. She wants to talk about training her secretarialstaff in WordPerfect.

Deep down inside, you know it's none of these things. By the timeyou get to her office, you've begun to hear whispered rumors in thehallways. The president's secretary greets you with sympathy in here.)es. You walk into the inner office, and there they sit: the president,the vice president for development, and one of the trustees. How couldthis have happened, the vice president for development says to you.I low could the last set of special donor acknowledgments have goneout in the mail, over the president's signature, riddled with errors,including mistakes in the dollar amounts received and the spelling ofsome of the names'? The donors have been calling, he says, confusedand annoyed.

You try, of course, to put the best face on it with them, try to looklike you knew all about this and that a fix was already in place, tryvery hard not to be defensive or to shift the blame onto the develop-ment staff for not checking the letters before they went out, and ofcourse, try to assure them that this can never, ever happen again.

The bottom line is that after all of your hard work and your dedicationto what you thought was right, you've just moved back about tensteps. You've lost credibility with the person with whom it counts the

. continued on page 4

"Computing in general, andnetworking in particular, areabout empowerment and aboutthe redistribution of access topower through information;about the breakup of mono-polies, that librarians, in par-ticular, have held. But so haveregistrars and bursars andothers who controlled paper-based information. Now comesthe reshaping of the roles ofeveryone involved. Focusing onthe people part of the successequation is a challenge, but nogreater a one than we areaccustomed to dealing with inharnessing the technologyportion of the equation."

Pat MolholtColumbia University"Investments in Human Capital.or Do You Have a MaintenanceContract on Your Programmer'?"CAUSEIEFFECTWinter 1992

.'42=te=111221=r. no.ritgiMM-

THE MAGIC OFTECHNOLOGY

ANOTHER PIONEERPASSES FROM US

SOFTWARE AWARDS1993 COMPETITION

"The Magic of Technology" is the theme for this year's National EducationalComputing Conference (NECC), hosted by the University of Central Florida, tobe held June 28-30, 1993 at Marriott's Orlando World Center in Florida. With5,000 expected attendees, the conference will provide a broad forum for thoseinterested in educational computing. NECC '93 has the following goals: topresent a spectrum of major work regarding computers in instruction; topromote interaction among individuals at all levels in the various aspects ofcomputer uses in education; to develop and coordinate interaction among theprofessional groups involved with computer uses in education (such as theAssociation for Computers in the Humanities, EDUCOM, and the Consortiumfor Computing in Small Colleges); and to produce a proceedings documentingthe status of educational computing.

For more information, contact NECC '93, University of Oregon, 1787 Agate St.,Eugene, Oregon 97403.

John Kemeny, former president of Dartmouth College and CD-inventor of theBASIC language, died in late December of an apparent heart attack at the ageof 66. A mathematician, Kemeny received his doctorate from PrincetonUniversity and worked on the Manhattan Project in the 1940s to develop thefirst atomic bomb. He went on to be a research assistant for Albert Einstein.

In addition to inventing BASIC in 1964 with fellow Dartmouth faculty memberThomas Kurtz, Kemeny was one of the first college presidents to recognize thepotential that technology has for education, especially in the teaching process.In the last few years he had been working on new versions of BASIC and hadbeen a featured speaker at, many conferences and seminars on educationalcomputing.

The annual EDUCOM Software and Curriculum Innovation Awards Programwas established in 1987 to recognize and promote quality educational softwareand computer-based teaching innovations in higher education. This year'scompetition will focus on the natural sciences, the social sciences, thehumanities, mathematics, engineering, and law, and has two divisions: thecurriculum innovation division, for the innovative uses of new or existingsoftware to solve important instructional problems; and the product division,for original software.

Entries for the competitions are due in by February 26, 1993. Forms andadditional information are available by contacting the EDUCOM Awardsprogram at the University of Maryland, Computer Science Center, Building224, College Park, Maryland 20742; (301) 405-7534.

The EDUTE CH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International. 120 Mountain Avenue. Bloomfield, Coimecticm, 06()02-I634:(2031242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fla: Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0. 1993, EDUTECH International. All richisieserved. This publication, or any part thereof, inay not be duplicated. reprinted, or republished without the written pel mission of the publisher.Facsimile reproduction. including photocopying, is roibidden. ISSN r4W3-1327. One year subsciiption, S97.

What Presidents Are Thinking AboutOver the past few months, a lotof attention has been given to

the rule of presidents in shapingtheir institution's approach to in-formation technology. Among otherthings, we have seen a new publi-cation from HEIRA (Higher Educa-tion Information Resources Alli-ance directed toWard presidents,and at least one session at theOctober EDUCOM conference devo-ted to the concerns of institutionalchief executives. But while most of'us can articulate what we thinkpresidents should he thinkingabout, it isn't always as easy todiscern what they actually arethinking about.

So we decided to ask. In an infor-mal survey over the past fewmonths, we talked to more than 50college and university presidentsand asked them the question,"What do you think about informa-tion technology on your campus?"This is what we heard:

The primary role of the Infor-mation Technology departmentshould be facilitative, not di-rectional. Apparently, many presi-dents are under the impressionthat their campuses have beendriven by technology, rather thanthe other way around. While ac-knowledging, to some extent, thatthis has been necessary in somecases to move forward, most ofthem now think that new initia-tives should come from the users,not from the IT department.

We all need to provide a lot ofsupport and encouragement tothe faculty who may be havingtrouble seeing the benefits oftechnology. As one president putit, the faculty need "to have theirappetites whet." But it is also nec-essary to demonstrate why theymight need these new technologyt oolsgee whiz isn't good enough.

Communications skills in theperson who heads up IT are ev-ery bit as important as tech-nical skills. Presidents need tounderstand, and to trust, the per-son in charge of this important(and expensive) resource, and theyare no longer willing to put upwith technical prima donnas.

Most institutions need an advi-sory committee for, among oth-er things, adjudicating compet-ing demands. In the past fewyears especially, everything has

Even when they feelthey are not being

heard, IT folks shouldcontinue to be "doggedlydetermined;" eventually,

it will penetrate eventhe most conservative

president.

turned into a balancing act forresources. Since all demands can-not be met, this committee needsto make sure that the things thatare done are in line with the insti-tution's priorities.

The future is in the library.Presidents are far more convincedof the virtues of library automationthan of almost any other aspect ofhigher education technology. Eitherlibrarians are doing a better sellingjob than IT directors, or the appli-cation is just more obvious to thenon-technical executive.

One of the difficulties in com-municating with IT people is

that they try to teach you ev-erything they know. Keepingtechnology simple and accessiblefor novices, especially presidentialnovices, is a challenge that has notyet been fully met by IT people.There are still a lot of presidentswho feel intimidated by the wholething.

Presidents have to learn that itis wrong to think that comput-ing is not "professional." Theyhave to learn that word processingis a perfectly acceptable alternativeto dictating; electronic mail canwork even better than having asecretary place calls; and so on.

Presidents are as concerned a-bout computer equipment re-placement as they are aboutthe physical plant. From a finan-cial viewpoint, this concern weighsheavily, especially with the popularpress being so filled with stories ofla; Ay advancing technology Mostpr -idents see the need to establisha fund for this, while acknowledg-ing that this would mean tradingoff with something else.

The centralization/decentrali-zation issue is not really rele-vant. Information technology andinformation has to be distributed,rather than either centralized ordecentralized; this is the best ofboth worlds. Otherwise, it is just aterritorial issue. IT should encour-age interaction among the uSersthemselves rather than always try-ing to deliver services centrally.

IT people have to continue tobe persistent. Even though theirwork may be discouraging at times,and even when they feel they arenot being heard, IT folks shouldcontinue to be "doggedly deter-mined;" eventually, it will pene-trate even the most conservativepresident.

3

0

IT Excellence: It's Not Instant Pudding ...continued from page 1

most. Try now going into thatmeeting next week to explain thenew capital expenditures you needto hook up the remaining buildingsto the campus network. Try askingnow that your department be ex-empted from the campus-widehiring freeze.

This mess will get cleaned up, ofcourse, and you and your staff willsurvive. Until next time. The ques-tion is, does there have to be anext time? Do we have to take itfor granted that there will alwaysbe a certain number of errors inthe computer center? Do we haveto assume that information tech-nology is inherently troublesome?

As IT professionals, we owe it toourselves, to our departments, andto our institutions to examine waysto ensure that the work we do con-sistently meets the goals that itshould. There's a lot of evidencethat we are perceived by our insti-aitions as either not settingornot meetingappropriate goals.

And why is it so important that wedo? Why has this taken on, in fact,a most critical importance in thelast few years? Because our institu-tions are struggling. We see itevery day. Enrollments are down.Tuition income is down. Donationsare shrinking. We are hearing thatsome of our educational programsdon't mesh with real world needs.That our colleges are not keepingup with the times. The public islooking very critically at institu-tions of higher learning. So arefederal and state governments,which are themselves under pres-sure to assure that tax dollars arebeing spent wisely.

As a result, decision-makers at ourinstitutions are looking very, verycarefully at the value of informa-tion technology. Two of the most.frequently asked questions on our

campuses today are: "What are thebenefits of information technologyto this institution?" and "IIave allof our expenditures ( mostly large,and certainly larger than in manyother areas of the institution ) beenworth it?"

So the question is, how do we en-sure that our information technolo-gy departments are genuinely use-ful to our institutions'? How do weavoid being an institutional drain,rather than an institutional re-source? How do we make the bene-fits of technology so obvious and sooutstanding that everyone will

Do we have to take itfor granted that there

will always be a certainnumber of errors in thecomputer center? Do wehave to assume that IT

is inherentlytroublesome?

want to movethe president?

forward. including

The answer is that our informationtechnology organizations need toreach a considerably higher peak ofexcellence than the one most ofthem are on at the moment. Andone of the ways that can happen iswith a concept and a set of toolscalled Total Quality Management(TQM). TQM has the potential tomove us in a positive directiontoward excellence,

Total Quality ManagementTQM is a system that has workedwell for several decades in otl.parts of the worI(I, and has become

very popular in our country in thelast few years. While it is true thefocus up to this point has been inthe business and industrial sectors.higher education itself is beginningto embrace TQM as well.

Total Quality Management, knownto some people as the DemingManagement Method, was devel-oped by several people, most nota-bly W. Edwards Deming. Deminggained fame in the 1950's by en-abling Japanese industrial systemsto achieve their reputation forquality.

Deming's theory has been reworkedand expanded upon by a number ofpeople, and has been synthesizedny number of times into some

number of components. Basicallythough, it comes down to threecritical issues.

Issue #1:Focus on the CustomerThe first is that whatever you do,what ever business you are in, yourwork must be driven by, and fo-cused toward, the customer. Youhave to know who your customeris, and even in a college or univer-sity setting, where you might thinkthat the answer to this obvious,knowing who your customer is isn'talways easy to do. You have toknow what your customer wants;you have to know what your cus-tomer needs; you have to knowwhat your customer values. Most ofall, you have to know what yourcustomer thinks quality is.

Who are IT's customers? On onehand the answer is obvious: IT'susers, or customers, are students,administrators, and faculty. Butthat's only if you cut it one way,and describe the user base alongfunctional lines. It could al:;) beput this way: our customers aremain frame users, minicomputersusers, and microcomputer users. Or

you could say the user base ismade up of three groups: potentialusers, infreqoent or undemandingusers, and very frequent or de-manding users. Or you could saythe customers are in two groups:happy and unhappy.

It matters very much who yourcustomers are, because it has im-plications for how you organizeyour services, and what. servicesyou provide. For instance, one ofthe classic organizational issues iswhether there should be combinedor separate computing centers forfaculty and administration. Well. ifan administrator who is using aMacintosh for analyzing down-loaded data from a large IBMmainframe has to go to the aca-(lemic computer center for assis-tance with a Macintosh problembecause that's the only place oncampus that anyone knows aboutMacintoshes, there is reason toquestion whether the division be-tween academic and administrativemakes sense anymore.

The next question we have to askis whether it is the users, or some-thing else, that really drives ourwork. Do we have the idea that wehave to lead the users in order tomake progress, or do we let theusers always take the initiative?

And that leads us into the area ofperformance judgements. Do weuse the customer's criteria to judgeour performance, or do we use ourown'? Often, we're measuring CPUcycles and network bandwidth butthe users are measuring how manyattempts it took to get a file trans-ferred from Mac WordPerfect toDOS WordPerfect. We have tolearn that excellence in informa-tion technology comes from onething only: customer satisfaction;not from the number of MIPS inthe computer center, not from thespeed of the campus network, and

not from the number of lines perday the programmers code.

Issue #2:The ProcessThe second critical issue surroundsprocess. TQM is based on the prin-cipal that process, or the flow ofwork activities, is the critical factorin attaining quality. Even more im-portantly, the process needs to beguided by a truly customer-orient-ed focus. In serving the customerefficiently and effectively, we needto capitalize on the two main pro-cess components of design and out-put.

If a program fails tomeet the primary goal

vf serving the user,according to the user's

definition, then itdoesn't matter how

elegantly crafted it is, ithas failed.

l3oth desit:m and output musi, worktogether in harmony. For instance,if an elegantly crafted programthat produces student bills doesn'tinclude housing charges or finan-cial aid awards, it might not bewhat the user wants. And if it failsto meet. the primary goal of servingthe customer, then it doesn't mat-ter how elegant it is, it has failed.

Issue El:Staff InvolvementThe third critical issue in TQM isstaff involvement. A recent, articlein this publication talked about afire in the computer center at Ford-ham University. One of the au-thors, Walter Weir, Fordham's

executive director of computer andinformation management systems,made this point: "When the fireoccurred and we had to send ournetwork people in to repair thedamage, no one had to stand overthem and say, 'You do this and youdo that.' Each one knew exactlywhat needed to be done and got onwith doing it. They had the righttools and they had the authority;as a result, they were able to saveus from what could have been amajor catastrophe for this universi-ty. In fact, they were able to re-solve it in such a fast and expedi-tious ffishion that many peoplewere totally amazed."

Why did this happen'? Becausemonths before, they had institutedTQM in their department, and bythe time of the fire, had alreadybeen actively engaged in the twomajor components of staff involve-ment: team building and individualempowerment [see article onpage 6]. The results really paid offin a tangible way for them.

It's Not Instant PuddingSo that's all there is to it. Custom-er focus, process improvement, andstaff involvement. Of course, it'snot that easy. In a recent Com-puterworld article, Joshua Ham-mond, president of the AmericanQuality Foundation, made a crucialpoint about quality: "The problemis that many companies are chas-ing this goal without a clear senseof where they are trying to go orhow difficult a journey they shouldexpect." In other words, as Deminghimself said, it's not instant pud-ding. You can't just simply mix allthe ingredients together and hopefor the best. It takes real work.

What's the next step'? If you t funkTQM might be important, you maywant to take some time to learn

continued on page 7

Building an Excellent IT StaffOne of the cornerstones of theTotal Quality Management

movement. is staff involvement.One of the myths about quality isthat in order to achieve a higherlevel of quality, we need more, andperhaps better, people than wehave at the moment. In contrast,one of the principle!, of TQM isthat quality cnn be achieved withthe people we have right now,through better training and devel-opment.

Two key components work togetherin building an excellent IT staff:individual empowerment in concertwith team building.

EmpowermentEmpowerment means giving staffmembers the opportunity to influ-ence what's going on around them.Instead of simply doing work thatthey are assigned by a higher-levelperson. staff members help shapethe very goals and objectives of theIT department itself.

After all, with the emphasis nowon customers, who they are andwhat they need from IT. who bet-ter to guide that direction than thepeople who have been workingmost closely with the customers allalong? Who is likely to know betterthe needs of the Registrar than theprogrammer/analyst who has beenworking on the student informationsystem for the last two years? Whois likely to know better what thestudents who use the computinglabs need than the student labassistants'?

Organizational models are chang-ing. The staff in information tech-nology needs to take on a new andcrucially important role. They arethere not simply to take ordersfrom above or to be informed of thelatest round of decisions made byothers. Rather, they are there to be

aggressive in contributing to prob-lem solving, to taking new initia-tives, and to being much more self-directed than has ever been thecase before in our tradiiional hier-archical organizations.

Team BuildingBut with less management controlcomes an equally important steady-ing device, to make sure that indi-vidual empowerment does not gooff in different directions. Thatdevice is working in teams, another

With this new-foundemphasis on customers,identifying who they are

and what they needfrom IT, who better toguide that directionthan the people who

have been working mostclosely with the

customers all alc ng?

of the cornerstones of the TQMphilosophy. Now, many might saythat at. leas'i. that tradition is al-ready well-entrenched in highereducationeverything is alreadydone by committee. But this isdifferent. TQM teams are not com-mittees in the sense that we knowthem. They are self-directed workgroups.

In addition, they are not necessari-ly made up of people "representing"different constituencies around thecampus the way most committeesare. Rather, they are made up oftask-oriented people involved witha particular process and who want

to get a particular problem or issuesolved.

And, perhaps most important, theteams do not go on forever. Theyare formed to tackle a specific qual-ity issue. and when they have donethat successfully, they disband. Itis this kind of collaboration thatgets things done.

The Other Crucial ItemThere are great benefits to be de-rived from substantive staff in-volvement. But we have to remem-ber that none of this will happenwithout the one crucial item thatwe have traditionally given shortshrift to in the past: training.

It, seems that whenever IT budgetsget tight, or whenever somethinghas to be curtailed for whateverreason, it turns out to be training.That sort of thing isn't going towork anymore, and we have to seetraining take on a new, much high-er priority in our striving for excel-lence.

The new world of computing de-mands that computer professionalsbe not only technically talentedand up-to-date, but that they alsobe responsive, cooperative, user-ori-ented, and able to see beyond justtheir own concerns. Attitudes suchassoftware is hard to write,therefore it should be hard to use;or, time spent in non-programmingactivities like documentation, meet-ings, and listening to the users istime wasted; or, the more clegantand sophisticated a program 13, thebetterhave to be done away with,and the staff who still hold theseattitudes have to be retrained.

If their departments, their insti-tutions, and the staff membersthemselves can make this commit-ment, a major step toward excel-lence wiil have been achieved.

IT Excellence: It's Not Instant Pudding ...continued from page 5

more about it. Needless to say,there is a lot more to TQM thanjust these three basic componentsof customer focus, process improve-ment, and staff involvement. Thereis a whole range of tools and tech-niques. including statistical analy-sis methods, Pareto diagrams, af-finity charts, benchmarking, andon and on. all of which will behelpful in terms of actually imple-menting TQM.

There are three books focusing onTQM in higher education that arequite good: On Q: Causing Quality.in Higher Education, by DanielSeymour, published by Macmillan:the second is from the College andUniversity Personnel Association(CUPA) called Applying the Dent-i ng Method to Higher Education;the third is published by Jossey-Bass through the Association forInstitutional Research, called TotalQuality Management in Higher Ed-ucation. Each of these books is alsofilled with references to other pub-lications that will lead even furtherinto it.

There is no doubt that IT peoplehave the toughest jobs on campus.As a recent Federal Express ad putit, "It's your job not to screw thisup or make any mistakes or dropthe ball or blow the game. Do itfaster and quicker and more reli-ably and more efficiently. Do itright, first-rate, top-notch, withouta hitch, and absolutely flawlessly.Botch this one and you are out ofhere, history, finished, terminated,toast, lunch, gonzo, dead, kaput.And one more thing, DO IT FORLESS MONEY than you've everdone it before!"

It's a big. tough job. TQM will not,contrary to what some quality ex-perts may breathlessly assure you,change everything overnight. Butits guiding principles will allow usall to make some important im-provements and to take some im-portant steps toward achieving ex-cellence. TQM is just one set oftools you can employ to help you dothat. It is a current set, it is basedon some good principles, and it isbuilding up a decent track record

"Perhaps the most serious long-termchallenge to the traditional textbook is posedby the rise of new technologies. Thecomputer, coupled with an ever-expandingarray of interactive, multimedia information-delivery systems, such as ihe videodisk, pointsto a future in which course materials may bealtogether paperless, involving video, graphic,audio,and computer simulations to a degreethat would have seemed like science fictionwhen most of the current faculty werethemselves college students."

James Lichtenberg"The New Paradox of the College Textbook"( 'hangeSeptember/October 1992

in other enterprises. But it is onlya tool, a technique, not an end untoitself. Results are what count. Theperson quoted earlier, JoshuaI Iammond, also said, "Excellence isnot a program; it's an attitude."

We have to do this. Our institu-tions are in trouble, and they can'tafford the information technology'area (and the support and servicesit, provides) to be one iota less thanexcellent. Today, they need our to-tal commitment to assuring thatthe technology and the technologyservices provided by IT meet thegoals of the institution. The ach-ievement of excellence in informa-tion technology is an issue thatdirectly impacts the role our colleg-es and universities will playthroughout the next century. Insome cases, it may even be anissue of survival.

We have the wherewithal and thedrive to make excellence happen.Total Quality Management pro-vides another powerful tool to em-ploy in that endeavor. IN

In Future Issues

- What ClOs are thinkingab9ut these days: majorIT issues identified atCAUSE92

Is pen computing theabsolutely petfect ap-plication fOr higher ed?

Students as the real endusers of admin svstems

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

Q. Although we are a small college, we have manyof the same problems that distress our larger coun-terparts. For instance, we have separate depart-ments for academic computing, administrative com-puting, audio/visual, telephones, and the library,creating a great deal of overlap, inefficiency, and lackof coordinated planning. I know the current thinkingin higher education is to combine all of these into asingle department, and have the person who headsit all up report to the president, but that just doesn'tseem right for us. Are there other alternatives thatwill address these problems besides a major reorga-nization?

A. "Current thinking" isn't quite as consistent onthis issue as you suggest: institutions are employinga rather wide variety of solutions to the problems youare facing. Especially in the case of smaller schools,simply combining administrative and academic com-puting can be a big step forward, and one which canbe most easily justified simply on the basis of custom-er service. The key issues are common vision and co-ordinated planning, both of which can be achieved ina small college without combining everything into one

department (especially the library); nor is it necessarythat the person in charge report directly to the presi-dent, especially in an institution where this would beinconsistent with the overall view of the strategic im-portance of technology. Establishing a high-level in-formation technology advisory committee for coordi-nation and planning, and combining administrativeand academic computing could achieve everythingyou need at this point.

Q. As far as I know, my campus does not have aconnection to either BITNET or the Internet, both ofwhich I consider to be very important for the faculty.I have been trying to get the computer center to dothis, but they keep telling me it's too expensive. Isthere any other way to make this happen?

A. If you have access to a microcomputer with a mo-dem, you can reach the Internet through at least twoof the commercial communications services availabletoday: Compuserve and MCI Mail (Prodigy will soonhave a gateway as well). Although this does not giveyou access to all features and services, it does enablevery inexpensive e-mail with anyone on the Internet.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Servicai to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield. CTPermit No. 117

"7"7",1111

February 1993 Volume 8Number 11

The Education Technoloy Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

Quality DistributedData Management

by Lore Balkan and Gerry McLaughlin, Virginia Techand Rich Howard, University of Arizona

T here is a critically important human role in developing qualityinformation and the data processes of our institutions. An ap-

propriate data environment, whether based on operational. centralized,or distributed functions, should acknowledge that it is people, ratherthan technology, that truly determines the quality of information sup-port. Distributed data management must become as obvious a conceptas is distributed data use. Data users intuitively know this, but typi-cally do not know how to execute good data management.

Positioning for Constant ChangeAs competition for resources and students becomes more intense in atight economy, greater efficiency and better service are important goalsfor every institution. Many colleges have embarked on business pro-cess redesign in order to realize the greatest net gain. In turn, our in-formation systems must adjust and attempt to deliver consolidated in-formation from disparate, stand-alone applications not previously integ-rated. As managers must respond quickly to change, they require datathat can provide relevant current and longitudinal information fromboth internal and external sources. Accurate assessment of a situationis necessary to justify and formulate plans for change. Trend data iscritical for planning and goal setting. Self-assessment data is necessaryfor measuring productivity gains. In addition to supporting analysisthat blends data from the past and the present and anticipates thefuture, the data architecture must allow expansion and addition offunctions over time. It must also he an architecture that can be readilytransported to a varicty of platforms and take advantage of increasing-ly more effective technology as it becomes available. Institutions witha data architecture that is flexible and responsive to innovation are

continued on page 4

"Anyone aware that PC alsostands for personal computerhas probably heard ofInternet, the computer-basedcommunications networkdestined by next week, theweek after, or next term, at thelatest, to revolutionizescholarship by shrinking theinternational academiccommunity to the size of acozy faculty lounge.... Internethums with chaotic activity,most of it uhmoderated, as itsusers would say. The result isa sort of Towel of Babel in anecho chamber, a network vastand complex enough to inducePynchonesque paranoia in themost levelheaded observer."

Adam BegleyLingua FrancaJanuary/February 1993

ADAPTIVECOMPUTING KITAVAILAI3LE

COMPUTERS INLIBRARIESCONFERENCE

NEW CONSORTIUMESTABLISHED FORADM INISTRATIVECOMPUTING

EDUCOM's Educational Uses of Information Technology ( EUIT) Program isoffering the Adaptive! Computing Evalu(etion Kit for Colleges and Universitiesto help meet campus needs and the spirit of the Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA). The kit is designed to help schools complete the computingcomponent of the ADA-required self-evaluation of colleges and universities, andcontains an overview of the legal issues, a background checklist, a user needssurvey, and a short evaluation form.

The kit is being offerei as shareware, both electronically and on paper. Withthe payment of a license fee ($150 for campuses with fewer than 5,000 FTEstudents and $250 for campuses with more than 5,000; EDUCOM membersreceive a 107e discount), required if any part of the document is used to benefitthe campus, the institution will receive a half-hour of' phone consultation. Formore information. contact Carmela Castorina at (310) 6.10-3193.

The eighth annual Computers in Libraries Conference is scheduled for March1-3 at the Sheraton Washington Hotel in Washington, D.C. Session topicsinclude document delivery, computer-based information networks, theCopyright Clearance Center, the workstation of the future, the evolving virtuallibrary, and making the library ready for adaptive technology. There are alsopre- and post-conference sessions, including ones on multimedia computing,and basics of the Internet.

The conference fee is $250, ,'Vith a number of discounts possible. For moreinformation, contact Meckler Conference Management, 11 Ferry Lane WestWestport. Connecticut 06880; (800) 635-5537.

A new consortium has been formed by Cornell University and PennsylvaniaState University to help colleges and universities save money onadministrative computing. The consortium, known as "EXEMPLAR," willpromote the sharing of administrative applications for admissions, studentrecords, registration, the financial area, payroll, and so on, among institutionsthat now use the ADABAS database management system and the Naturalapplications programming language. Other systems are expected to be includedin the future, according to the consortium's founders, David Koehler at Cornelland Kenneth Blythe at Penn State.

Institutions will pay a fee of between $500 and $1000 to join. For moreinformatiol., contact David Koehler, Director of the Information ResourcesDivision of Cort,^11 Information Technologies, 400 CCC, Cornell University,Ithaca, New York 1.1653; (607) 255-7252.

1 he REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International. 120 Mountain Avenue. 131minlield, Connechc01. 06002-10;1:Th;) 2.12 )56. President and Publisher: Linda H. Flew Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright (0 1993. EDUTECII InternationalAll neih

reseised [Ids publication. or any part thereof, may not be duplicated. reprinted, 01 republished %.%ithout the wntten permission of the puolisheiiaLsnaile repioductum, including photocopying. is forbidden. ISSN frOg83-1327. One !, ear subscription, 597.

What CIOs Are Thinking About

A t the 1992 CAUSE Conferencetwo months ago in Dallas, a

group of college and universityChief Information Officers met todiscuss . major issues of concern.One of the first issues brought upfor discussion was whether the CIOposition, regardless of its actualtitle or position within the organi-zational structure, is a viable andlong-lasting position for highereducation. Given the nature of thesubsequent discussion, and the to-pics of concern brought up by thegroup, it was more or less conclud-ed that CIOs were needed for thisvery thing if nothing else: to beconcerned about these vitally im-portant issues.

Looking upward: The CIO has amajor role to play in helping toeducate his or her colleagues, par-ticularly in the upper parts of theadministration, on what technologyis all about and how it contributesto the missions of our institutionsThe need for other institutionalofficers to become educated in thisarea is growing rapidly, and theCIO can be a primary source fort his educat ion.

Changing management models:The management of significant seg-ments of information technology israpidly moving away from a cen-tral focus; if this is not done pro-perly, we risk an under-optimizedcomputing envircnment, which noone can afford. This area bearsclose attention by the CIO as thepush toward local control continuesunabated.

Information as an institutionalresource: We aren't there yet andwe need to be. Institutional policiesand procedures are not fully inplace across the board that treatinformation as the valuable com-modity that it is, and that allow forboth wide access and appropriate

confidentiality and security. TheCIO has the right global perspec-tive to make this happen.

Linkages: Related to the above is-sue, there needs to be more of alink between information technolo-gy, institutional research, and dataadministration. Often, these func-tions are entirely separate and notworking for the same goals.

Benchmarking: CIOs could be do-ing a better job with identifying

The management ofsignificant segments ofinformation technologyis rapidly moving awayfrom a central focus; if

this is not done pro-perly, we risk an under-

optimized computingenvironment, which no

one can afford.

key success indices and measuringtheir information technology areasagainst them. CIOs could also beidentifying, using, and emulatingsuccessful models of higher educa-tion information technology usagemore than they do.

Strategic planning: Informationtechnology needs a strategic planand the plan needs to be alignedwith institutional priorities. Al-though this has been talked aboutfor years, many i nistitutions arestill struggling in this area.

Reengineering: The informationtechnology group should be facili-

tating and providing support forthe institution to reengineer itsfunctions. There was also a consid-erable amount of discussion aboutwhether the CIO should be provid-ing leadership and direction in thisarea, or just acting as an enablerfor the institution's own efforts.

Influence and power: CIOs some-times have both, sometimes nei-ther, but most often, either one orthe other. One person brought upthe notion of collecting "chips" fordoing the right things in the usercommunity, and then being able tocash them in for important newinitiatives.

Seeding: Related to the above, animportant purpose can be servedby CIOs on their campuses byseeding new ideas in the rightplaces, and then helping to culti-vate them. Often it is only the CIOwho has the right organizationalposition and enough resources to beable to do this. The need to be acheerleader was mentioned as well.

Creating community: CIOs oftenhave the chance to help create asense of community through thingssuch as enabling electronic mail,supporting integrated systems, andso on. These activities should beconsidered as just as important asthe technical work that CIOs do.

Preparing a new generation ofCIOs: A new group of people needsto be developed and nurtured, spe-cifically by current CIOs. It is notat all clear where replacementswill be coming from.

The CIO constituent groupmeets on a more or less regularbasis. For more information,contact Kenneth Pollock, VicePresident of IRM, Wright StateUniversity, Dayton, Ohio 45435;(513) 873-3345.

3

Quality Distributed Data Management ...continued front page 1

positioned to take full advantage ofopportunities to improve efficiency;they will earn the confidence andsupport necessary to survive andprosper. Simply put, an institutionthat is not expandable and adapt-able is likely to be expendable, andan institution's data architecture iskey to its expandability.

A Customer-DrivenData ArchitectureIn every situation where a decisionis made, information is provided tosupport that decision. There aresuppliers of the information; thereare producers who handle, analyze,and transform data to information;and there are customers who usethis information. The prodUcers, orinformation workers, must refinethe data and add value or they willbe bypassed. If users choose to godirectly to suppliers of raw dataand attempt to integrate it intoinformation on an ad hoc basis, theresults will be inconsistent at bestand more likely, inaccurate.

Often the customer who receivesquality information will, in turn,pass it on in some form to anotherinformation customer, thus becom-ing a supplier. Several customersmay use the same supplier for sim-ilar information while other cus-tomers use different suppliers. Thelikelihood of successful interactionamong these customers may wellbe determined by the compatibilityof the information they each re-ceive and use. When the receiptand use of poor quality data nega-tively impacts the efficiency andservice of a function, steps must betaken to address the problem.These steps always influence andchange the enterprise's data archi-

wrsion of tlus article was oroonallyoven as a talk at Ow IVQ2 CAUSE Cower-titre. flu, authors We Ireguent ontrthulorsIa CAUSE'EFFECT MaLfa:ine.

tecture, and include masking, cop-ing, and correcting, with the latterbeing th most effective.

Toda; 's managers understand thechallenges of an evolving dataarchitecture, perhaps better thanthe traditional computer systemsprofessional. Not only have themanagers endured the unpleasantexperience of receiving multipleand incompatible answers fromtheir major information systems,they have also created their ownnightmares. In their local comput-ing environments, they may havefailed to maintain sufficiently gran-

An institution that isnot expandable and

adaptable is likely to beexpendable, and aninstitution's data

architecture is key to itsexpandability.

ular data in terms of frequency ofcapture or level of summarization.Though few would admit it, mosthave also found it difficult to usedata they have captured because ofinadequate documentation. Addi-tionally, these managers havestruggled with data discrepanciesfor years while the institution'sprogrammers cranked out code toprocess whatever data existed andconsidered their job successful ifthe program ran without generat-ing error messages.

Data Management in anArchitected Environment ,

Architectures are evolving to acombination of decentralized, cen-tralized, and distributed in forma-

tion support environments. In thedecentralized environment, a spi-der-web of systems evolves wheredata is passed from operationalsource systems to a variety of userswho then develop their own sys-tems and may become suppliers tosubsequent customers. Often theseoperational systems are capable ofproducing reliable informationthrough their own documentationand definitions. However, they arenot an organizational resource be-cause their components are not in-tegrated or standardized.

With a centralized system, thereare standards in place for datahandling and coding and the provi-sion of information. This central-ized function ensures the internalvalidity of' the data.

With the mature data architecture,distributed data management, in-formation is distributed to userswith enterprise-wide content andform to support tactical decisionmaking in a strategic and coherentfashion. In this environment, thedata flows from the operationalsource systems through a centralstore, the administrative universitydata base, whefe it is restructured.Information then flows out to usersfrom the data base. This centralstore contains the critical enter-prise data in a standardized form.This means that the source sys-tems must likewise maintain andprocess standardized data and mi-grate data to the central store by aflow through a rigid translationprocess, possible only if there isorganizational accountability fordata quality standards.

Nurturing A Commitmentto Data ManagementWith a data architecture blueprintfor quality information support andan organizational map that identi-fies the data management roles atevery level of the architecture, it

4

becomes clearer where and how towork the organization to increaseawpness and involvement in dis-tributed data management.

The nurturing process must beginwith consensus-building activitiesto identify the information supportrequirements. As with any service,it is always easier to understandwhen the service is poor than whenit is good. It is not surprising, andshould not be viewed as a negative,that the starting point for improv-ing quality is to create focus on theproblems. Many projects and manyproblems have convinced us thatthe key issues are not technologyissues or resource issues; they arepeople issues.

Three Tiers ofData ManagementThe process of creating quality in-formation starts with the supplierin the decentralized operationaloffice. Here there are two sets ofresponsibilities: a data custodianand a data steward. The data cus-todian is responsible for providingrelevant administrative data to theorganization in a reliable form andin a manner consistent with estab-lished standards. The custodian isalso accountable for the proper careof the data in the operational sys-tem and is directly involved in pol-icy matters. A data steward is res-ponsible for the maintenance anddissemination of data under the di-rection of a data custodian, and ex-ecutes procedures which insure thecapture. storage, validation, correc-tion, modification, security, docu-mentation, and delivery of datafrom the operational area.

At the central level, there is atUnction which concerns itself withenterprise-wide administration ofthe information resource, includingactivities such as the developmentand implementation of standardsfor compatibility, accessibility, and

interfaces. It exists to provide in-formation to users from a variety ofdecentralized operational systemsand to further insure that the userwho obtains data is also given anunderstanding of what the dataelements are. and how they werecollected.

Beyond assimilating and integrat-ing data from decentralized opera-tional systems, this central func-tion is also the logical place forinformation workers to perform an-alysis, summarization, and archivalof data critical for an institution'sdecision making. This process of

Many projects andmany problems haveconvinced us that the

key issues are nottechnology or resourceissues; they are people

issues.

producing information is basicallyone of pre-processing data andtransforming it into information.Performing such transformation ofdata and producing informationwill invariably require these infor-mation workers to also function asa mediator between the data sup-plier and the user.

If information is to be provided tovarious users in a full distributedmodel, then the central functionmust take on yet another role. Itmust be involved in selecting andoptimizing technological tools thatincrease the portability and acces-sibility of data. As a follow-on, thiscentral function must market theproducts made available and train

on their use. The result is that theusers will do increasingly moredata analysis and interpretation.To this end, the central functionmust provide the required coordi-nation and education and an in-creased awareness of users' infor-mation needs.

The final tier is that of distributeddata management. It is importantto realize that very few of thoseusers who receive data and supportfrom the central function are trulyend-users because they too havecustomers. Most of them take thedata and further distill and com-bine it through their own analysisand manipulation procedures. Assuch, they perform multiple rolesof user of centrally supplied infor-mation and producer of additionaldata with value added. They mayalso become suppliers of new oper-ational data to the central function.Their most critical need is to un-derstand the generalizations of thedatanot only how the facts canbe interpreted, but also for whatpurposes.

Groups ThatSupport Data ManagementThe individuals in the three-tiereddata management scheme are thefoundation for the compliment ofgroups needed to achieve the cor-rect balance of change across theorganization. Note that the groupswill include users and not just sup-pliers and producers. There willalso be instances where one personis a member of multiple groups.'rhere are at least seven genericgroups that must be engaged in aprogram to change and improvedata quality and likewise, to sus-tain distributed data management:

Management Group: The execu-tive administrators who must beadvised of progress and major steps

continued on page 7

.5

The Institute For Academic Technology

Y ou are in the delivery roomand a newborn baby under

your care is having trouble breath-ing. You must make a quick andaccurate decision about what to doif you are to. save its life, and youchoose wisely. Congratulations arein order. The child, however, wasin no real danger, regardless ofyour decision. You were only study-ing with an interactive computerprogram.

For decades, textbooks, laboratoryexercises, and lectures have typi-fied, and sometimes limited, trad-itional instruction in higher educa-tion. Putting theory into practiceoften had to be done under closesupervision of the instructor, or ona trial-and-error basis once thestudent was out of school and onthe job. Now, through the use ofimaginative, interactive computertechnology, students can face real-life situations, put their skills tothe test and never leave the class-room. It is this technology that theInstitute for Academic TechnologyhIAT) at the University of NorthCarolina at Chapel IIill is helpingfaculty members to understand,use, and create.

The uses and usefulness of the newtechnology in education are almostlimitless. Other examples of thisinnovative technology include aninteractive periodic table programfor undergraduate chemistry stu-dents. Using this program. stu-dents can choose elements from astandard periodic table displayedon their computer screens, read

Li: McRoberts is the Communica-tions Manager at the Institute prAcademic Technology at the Uni-versity Qf North Carolina at ('hapel

by Liz McRoberts

about that element's specific prop-erties, see a three-dimensionalpicture of its s, r-ucture, and evenperform "dangerous- experimentswithout the worry normally associ-ated with such practices in the wetlaboratory.

Another program allows foreignlanguage students to navigatethrough a typical French market-place via video displayed on thecomputer screen, and to listen inon group conversations. It also lets

This year, 3,000academics from

community colleges,four-year schools, andresearch universitieswill attend IAT semi-nars and workshops to

learn more aboutacademic technology.

the student watch and listen tointerviews with market shoppers inwhich the student learns to betterrecognize the language by payingcloser attention to the speaker'sfacial expressions. The programenriches students' learning pro-cesses by truly immersing them inthe French culture. The 1AT pro-vides assistance and encourage-ment for any and all faculty mem-bers who wish to take advantage ofsuch innovative teaching tools.

The IAT, operated by the Universi-ty of North Carolina at Chapel Hilland funded by a grant from IBM,was established in 1989 as a part-nership between business and edu-

cation. The IAT acts as a liaisonbetween faculty members who haveteaching needs and IBM, which isdeveloping the technology to meetthose needs. This year, 3,000 aca-demics from community colleges,four-year schools, and researchuniversities will attend IAT semi-nars and workshops to learn moreabout academic technology and toprovide feedback for IBM on aca-demic products.

"The IAT was set up to enable theworlds of business and academia tocommunicate more effectively andto carry information back andforth." says Dr, William H. Graves.the IAT's director and UNC's asso-ciate provost for information tech-nology. "We work to bridge the gapbetween higher education and th,?computer industry by bringingtechnology into the classroom ,:,ndby helping IBM understand theproducts we academic users need.This way, we give teache:s ways toimprove the quality of education,and we give IBM ways to improvethe quality of its products."

The IAT has an electronic class-room, as well as an auditorium, inwhich its faculty members andstaff conduct seminars, workshops,and individualized planning ses-sions for educators nationwide.These sessions are designed tospark the interest of academics, tokeep them informed about. whatthe available technologies can do,and to help explore ways they canuse technology on their own cam-puses.

For more information about semi-nars, workshops, national satellitebroadcasts, or technical publica-tions, contact the 1AT at UNC atChapel Hill, P.O. Box 12017, Re-search Triangle Park, NC 27709:(91.9) 560-5031.

Quality Distributed Data Management ...continued from page 5

undertaken to improve informationquality. They should not be expect-ed to be wildly excited about thedata management process. Howev-er, they will be very concernedabout data consistency and accura-cy and excited about using thesame data as everyone else.

Custodial Group: The seniormanagers who need to be broughttogether to discuss policies, to dostrategic management of the dataresource, and to discuss issues withthe management group.

Stewardship Group: The supervi-sors and system support analystsfor the operational sourcc system 1,with a set of responsibilities thatare likely embodied in numerousjob descriptions. They translatepolicy into practice and should beencouraged to consider procedureswhich produce standardized data.

Data Management Group: Thisgroup provides the stimulus foridentifying the need for change. Itcoordinates the interfaces between

t he operational level and the users,thereby establishing position torecommend standards. It also col-laborates with the computer tech-nologists on implementing the toolsneeded for data management.

Focus Group: A vertical slice ofthe custodian, steward, operationalpersonnel, users, and other inter-ested individuals who work withdata from a major operationalsource system. This group startsthe development of standards forthe data in an area and then main-tains an activity with audits forsufficiency and relevance. Sub-groups are sometimes formed toaddress specific problem areas.

Administrative Systems UsersGroup: This is an open group ofusers, stewards, systems analysts,and operational personnel fromacross the enterprise. It meets ontopics such as new processes, chan-ges in technology, developments insystems, and the like. Smallertask-groups are formed from thelarger diverse group to work on

"Users of the Rossetti Archive (a hypermediabody of graphics and text related to the paint-ings and poems of 19th-century artist Rossetti),which is envisioned by its creator as a 15-yearproject, will be able to select and display forcomparison any combination of color imagesof paintings and bit-mapped images oforiginal handwritten pages or transcriptions....The ability to quickly find and compareelements in Rosseffi's works will enable insightsthat would be difficult or impractical toachieve by more conventional means."

Gary II. Anthes"Tech noh uman i ties 101"CamputerworldFebruary 1, 1993

developing the standards that mustcut across the entire organization.

Systems Group: The workgroup orproject team that defines, develops,and deploys the underlying sys-tems and networking infrastruc-ture. A subset of this group is usu-ally assigned to support each of themajor operational systems.

To instill good data managementvalues at all levels of the dataarchitecture, it is necessary to useall of these teams to create link-ages between organizational per-spectives. This is best accomplishedby applying the skills of many indi-viduals to problems.

A Look AheadPeople and their relationships inthe organization must change asmany of our processes are re-engin-eered to take advantage of newtechnology and quality manage-ment concepts. We must recognizeand seize opportunities to focus onimproving data management aspart of this evolution.

In Future Issues

- Outsourcing revisited:it doesn't have to beall or nothing

Is pen computing theabsolutely pofect ap-plication for higher ed?

Students as the real endusers of admin systems

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us Cit(203) 242-3356.

Q. We have just one person in our computer center,and he is planning to retire shortly. Most of his workconsists of keeping our information system. which wepurchased about five years ago, up and running andmaking modifications as needed. Does it make senseto think about just getting maintenance servicesfrom the systems vendor, rather than ti-ying to re-place this individual? We are a very small college,and I'm not sure we really need to have our owncomputer person.

lt depends on several things. First, a comparativecost analysis will help you determine which option islikely to involve the least amount of short-term expen-diture, probably a major factor in your thinking. Inthis analysis, be sure to include employee benefits andother overhead items associated with in-house opera-tions. But there are other Rwtors which should alsoenter into your thinking. For instance, /1 o w manyyears will you have to commit to using the systemsvendor? How much is the vendor support cost likelyto increase over time? Will it be a relatively easyprocess to return to in-house support if you shoulddecide to do so in the future? Will you actually be

1

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

getting the same kind of support that you have beenwith an in-house employee? Will you have a say inchoosing the individual who provides the vendorsupport? How will you control quality? What if youdecide to change software systems in the future? Theanswers to these questions should be carefully consl-ered in your decision.

Q. We are beginning to use local area networks inseveral departments across campus. My question hasto do with the software. Is there a restriction onputting up a single copy of software on a networkand letting everyone on the network use it'?

A. Probably yes, but it depends on the specificsoftware you have in mind. When you acquired thesoftware originally, there was a statement under theshrink-wrap which you agreed to adhere to by open-ing the wrap. That statement detailed the restrictionsunder which you can use the software, includingnetwork use, use by a single individual on multiplecomputers, and so on. If you no longer have thatmaterial, it's best to get in touch with the vendorbefore assuming anything one way or the other.

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

J

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBlOomfield, CTPermit No. 117

"r -7r1

I 1711-1.4March 1993 Volume 8

Number 12

Thc Education Technology N e etterffir Facuity and Administrators

Choosing A New System:Two Schools Do It Right

A s anyone who has been through it can tell you, choosing a newadministrative information system is not an easy task. It takes a

lot of work, a great deal of commitment, and an unrelenting desire toreach the goal despite roadblocks and sidetracks along the way. Onething that helps is having a well-defined process to follow that keepseveryone, including the vendors, on track.

Two institutions, entirely different in mission, size, scope, and campusculture, recently successfully completed their searches for a new ad-ministrative system, and both schools, although having chosen twoquite different solutions, followed exactly the same process to achievetheir goals.

Webster University is an independent, nondenominational institutionwith approximately 10,000 students pursuing undewaduate and gradu-ate programs in the Liberal Arts, Performing Arts, Business and Man-agement, and Education. Located in Webster Groves, a major suburbancenter of the St. Louis metropolitan area, the University operates threeother locations in metropolitan St. Louis; four campuses in Europe(Switzerland, the Netherlands, England, and Austria); thirty-five mili-tary bases in sixteen states, Bermuda, the District of Columbia, andIceland; and centers in eleven other U.S. cities. Student enrollment atWebster University has increased 28% in the past five years. Whilefounded in 1915 as a Catholic women's college, Webster became anindependent coeducational institution in 1967.

Wabash College is an independent, undergraduate, residential liberalarts college located in Crawfordsville, Indiana, approximately 45 milesnorthwest of Indianapolis. Established in 1832 to serve the needs of afrontier pushing westward, Wabash has long trained preachers and

continued on page 6U

"Banning recreation oncomputer networks is not agood idea....As is increasinglynecessary in our society,institutions need to establishcommon-sense codes ofbehavior concerning the use ofcomputers, but they should notattempt to solve the problemwith a sledgehammer. Instead,personal responsibility shouldbe stressed and responsiblebehavior encouraged througheducation and sensibleguidelines."

Edward J. CarmienUniversity of FindlayLetter to the EditorChronicle of Higher

EducationDecember 16, 1992

USING TECHNOLOGY An invitation to participate in this year's annual conference has been issued by

TO DO THINGS the League For Innovation in the Community College. "Reinventing the

DIFFERENTLY Community College: Using Information Technology ... To Do Things Differently... To Do Different Things" is the theme of the conference, to be held November14-17, 1993 in Nashville, Tennessee. Presentations are being sought in areassuch as multimedia in instruction and student services: distance learning;networks; services for students with disabilities; models for planning,supporting, and managing technology implementation; and partnerships fortechnology implementation.

TEA,ECOMM INEDUCATION

EVERYTHING ISRELATIVE

For proposal forms and more information, contact the League for Innovation,26522 La Alameda, Suite 370, Mission Viejo, California 92691; (714) 367-2884.

Since the First International Symposium on Telecommunications in Educationwas held in Israel in 1989, the use of telecommunications in education hasgrown rapidly around the globe. Today, thousands of telecommunicationsnetworks and projects enable many students and teachers to engage incollaborative educational projects. Advances in technology, increased pressuresto improve education, changes in world political landscapes, and the resultingpolicy issues create a challenging backdrop for the Second InternationalSymposium on Telecommunications in Education, Tel-Ed '93, to be held at theInfoMart in Dallas, Texas, November 10-13, 1993.

The symposium, Global Connections, will give leaders in educationaltelecommunications a forum in which to learn about rapidly-advancingdevelopments in telecommunications technologies; to debate key policy issues;and to share experiences, ideas, insights, and research findings on theapplications of this new technology to education. The conference (which shouldattract about 1,000 educators, policy makers, and researchers) is designed tolet participants see demonstrations of successful educationaltelecommunications and distance learning projects, as well as discuss emergingtechnology trends.

For more information, contact the International Society for Technology inEducation; 1787 Agate Street; Eugene, Oregon 97403; (503) 346-4414.

Following in the footsteps of most other major libraries, the HarvardUniversity Library is finally bringing automation to its card catalog. But itisn't easy. According to the Associated Press, the project has been made evenmore difficult by hand-written index cards that were cataloged by now-obsoleterules. Some are in Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, and otherwriting styles. The Harvard library system includes 12.2 million volumes.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International. 120 Mountain Avenue. Bloomfield. Connecticut, 06002.1634;

(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Helt: Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1993. EDUTECH International. All rightsreserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated. reprinted, or republished without the written permission of the publisher.

Facsimilz reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN a0883-1327. One year subscription, 597.

:1

A Objective Look at OutsourcingBook Review

F or many information technolo--1; gy professionals, outsourcingtends to be an emotional subject.One still hears tales of ruthlesstakeovers of college and universitycomputer centers by pro-fit-making companies,ousting dedicated em-ployees with years ofservice and then drivingup long-term technologycosts for their vulnerableand helpless contract-bound institutions. Evenbeyond the emotional ar-guments, some have reasonably questioned whet-her such a critical and strategicinstitutional service as ildormationtechnology should be in the handsof outsiders.

organizations define their "core"information services? How can thecosts of providing services be con-trolled? Is there any importantvalue added when an "outsider"

say, the information resources andthe technologies themselves. Real-istic expert advice, especially fornon-technical decision-makers, isprovided in each of these chapters

covering issues such asdoing a cost-benefit anal-ysis, the pros and cons ofoutsourcing, and owner-ship versus pay-as-you-goprocurement.

Managing the Economics of Owning,Leasing and Contracting Out

information Services

Anne Woodsworth andJames F. Williams ll

On the other hand, because of theeconomic conditions pervasivethroughout higher education, manyinformation technology managers(and the administrators to whomthey report) have been forced toconsider at least some outsourcingin recent years, if only to be in aposition to assure their institutionsthat every single technology dollaris being spent wisely. Althoughthis book is focused on librariesand information centers, it willnonetheless turn out to be a veryimportant resource in assessingoutsourcing possibilities and op-tions for computing centers in anobjective, non-threatening, andnon-emotional way.

Managing the Economics of Own-ing, Leasing and Contracting OutInformation Services identifies anddescribes the most important fac-tors that must be considered inmaking decisions about the optimalways to provide access to informa-tion. It also answers some criticalquestions, such as: How should

provides a service'? Is it feasibleand realistic to contract out wholeoperations?

Why do decision-makers, especial-ly, need this book? Because, as theauthors put it, "Computing, infor-mation systems, and libraries aremysterious and marginal opera-tions to most executives. Mysteri-ous in the sense that the fieldsmask their functions in jargonunderstood only by the initiatedthe information scientists, chiefinformation officers, librarians, orinformation resources managers;and marginal because libraries andinformation systems are part ofoperating overhead and not easilylinked directly to profit-margins ororganizational missions." A deci-sion-maker needs a way to makethis link, and to assess whetheroutsourcing some or all of theseoperations makes sense.

The first two chapters examine andthen explain how information ser-vices and systems function withinan organization, and how this kindof work can be handled in-house orcontracted out. The following twochapters describe the complexitiesof the information worldthat is to

.1.

With collaborative ven-tures providing moreopportunities for the pos-sibility of sharing of sys-tems, services, and re-

sources, a chapter is devoted to theissues, problems, and benefits ofcooperative use of information sys-tems and services. Other chaptersinclude a look at the fiscal issues,including costing, pricing, and in-ternal charge-backs; and a very in-teresting review and discussion offuture possibilities (or, "how toeffect change in a no-change cul-ture").

Anne Woodsworth is the Dean ofthe Palmer School of Library andInformation Science at Long IslandUniversity. James Williams isDean of Libraries at the Universityof Colorado, Boulder. Many may re-member Dr. Woodsworth from herwork on higher education ChiefInformation Officers. There aremany other contributors to thebook as well (each chapter is ac-companied by comments from ex-perts in the information field),including William Arms, MalcolmGetz, Robert Croneberger, and Car-ole Cotton.

The book is available for $49.95plus $3.00 for postage and han-dling from Ashgate Publishing, OldPost Road, Brookfield, Vermont05036; (800) 535-9544.

TQM: The Parable of the Red BeadsOne of the well-known founders

k--/ of the Total Quality Manage-ment (TQM) movement is W. Ed-wards Deming. Deming gainedprominence in Japan the 1950s byenabling Japanese industrial sys-tems to achieve their reputation forquality. In fact, they were sopleased by his work that they a-warded him the highest honor tobe given to a non-Japanese: theSecond Order of the Sacred Trea-sure; many still refer to TQM as"The Derning Method."

One of the most interesting experi-ments that Deming conducted hascome over the years to be known asthe "Parable of the Red Beads."This experiment is critical to un-derstanding the operating philoso-phy of TQM.

In this experiment, there are sever-al thousand beads in one container,most of which are white and someof which are red. "Management"has decreed that "the workers"must collect only white beads,because that is what customershave decided they want. The work-ers are given another, larger con-tainer and a paddle with holes in itthat are just smaller than thebeads themselves. The task is topour the beads, in a precise man-ner dictated by management, intothe larger container, then to ex-tract only the white beads usingthe paddle. Of course, inevitablysome red beads will get into theextracted group.

The work will be monitored by twoquality control inspectors. It is therole of the first inspector to recordand count the number of red beadson the paddle each time it is re-moved from the larger container.The other inspector verifies thefirst inspector's tally and is ulti-mately responsible for reportingthe final count. In addition, al-

though both inspectors continuallyurge the workers to improve quali-ty, they are in competition withe ich other to uncover mistakesmade by the other as well as bythe workers.

Not surprisingly, the quality ofresults produced in this situationvaries, even though each workeradheres to stringent guidelines.After each worker has some num-ber of tries, it is possible to estab-lish data to show the results at-tained by each worker, and by the

-

The single mostimportant message here

is that the systemshould be viewed as awhole, that it can beimproved, and that

flaws in quality comefrom flaws in the

process.

group as a whole, and to establishupper and lower control limits.

Deming suggests we can learn fiveimportant truths from his experi-ment.

The first is that variation is part ofany process. Quality will vary.Mistakes will happen. Results willbe different each time the processis executed.

The second point is that, in orderto plan effectively, we must be ableto predict and measure results.Deming has said, "In God we trust.All others must use data." Andwith good reason. The quantitative

measurement component of Dem-ing's philosophy is one of the mostdistinguishing aspects of it.

Third, in general, the system inwhich these workers must performis beyond their control, and thatleads to lower quality. They workunder strict guidelines, and thesystem, like the container of redbeads with white ones amongthem, is riddled with defects. Nev-ertheless, the workers can't doanything about it.

This leads to the fourth point,which is an important one. In thisexperiment, only managers are in aposition to change the system. Theycontrol the procedures and therules. Even the most talented andskilled workers are powerless tochange the monolithic system inwhich they perform.

The fah point is that some workerswill consistently be better thanothers. This is something everymanager ,.:an relate to. There arepeople in any department to whomwe inevitably turn when a jobneeds to be done correctly the firsttime. And there are others whomwe watch closely to try to guardagainst serious errors.

This understood, Deming offers hisconclusion, serving as the very ba-sis of TQM: we should accept varia-tion in human ability as much aspossible, and look instead at thesystem, or the process to improvequality. It is the system itself thatmust be created and shaped, firstto meet the needs of customers,and next, to accommodate the trueabilities of workers.

The single most important messagehere is that the system should beviewed as a whole, that it can beimproved, and that flaws in qualitycome from flaws in the process.

4

TQM: Why Not? Why Not Now?A ll too often for many of us, a

new idea or approach is metinitially with negativesall thereasons that something won't workor isn't any good or has fatal flawsare the first things that leap tomind. If you are in this stage withTotal Quality Management (TQM),the following might be helpful.

First, it is clear that you are al-ready too busy to get into some-thing new. What with the fire-fighting that goes on in the infor-mation technology services depart-ment and the pressure-cooker at-mosphere that has developed, espe-cially with shrinking budgets overthe last couple of years, there isn'tmuch room left to be innovative orcreative. But this may be exactlythe reason that you need some-thing like TQM.

Consider this: in a community col-lege in the midwest, after a studyof their information technologyproblems, it appeared that theinstitution lacked a cohesive focusfor IT; lots of people were doinglots of things, but without thebenefit of a strong, unified direc-tion. They considered creating afunction that would help bringfocus to this area. In achieving abroad understanding in the upperadministration about what some ofthe specific characteristics of thisfunction would have to be, theyrealized that a majority of the timeof the person or persons filling thisfunction would need to be spentamong the user community, listen-ing. Unfortunately, most of thepeople who were currently respon-sible for providing computing ser-vices took great exception to this;one of them in fact said, "How canwe possibly spend our time listen-ing? We are already too busy do-ing." But of course, this was at thevery heart of the problem. Howcould they know they were spend-

ing their time doing the rightthings, if they weren't listening tothe users?

With TQM, a purpose is identified:to serve the customer and to do thework that is customer-focused andcustomer-driven. In addition, bychanging the processes by whichwork gets done, quality can bebuilt in from the start, greatlyreducing the need for endlesschecks, double checks, reworks,reruns, and throwawaysandwasted time. We can't let the rush

The phrase "TotalQuality Management"may go away, but the

underlying principles ofcustomer focus, processimprovement, and staff

involvement willremain; that's what we

have to focus on.

of day-to-day work and a fire-fight-ing mentality allow us to wearblinders forever. We need to takethe time to step back, remove theblinders, and see what is happen-ing all around us.

The second issue is especially forthose who are stuck on the word"customers," or who don't want tothink about TQM because it's toobusiness-oriented, and "after all,we're just a service within an edu-cational institution." This positionneeds rethinking. Consider that it'sentirely possible that one of thereasons that information technolo-gy departments are not thought ofwith the highest esteem through-

out higher education, and are toooften thought of as part of theproblem rather than part of thesolution, is because they have nev-er, for the most part, had any com-petition. They have had virtually acaptive audience all this time, andthis has given IT the unparalleledopportunity to be less than excel-lent. Until IT departments startthinking about running IT the waya competitive business should berun, they are likely to remain inthat deadly trap. It is not a coinci-dence that, at the very same timemany of our institutions are ques-tioning the value of informationtechnology, outsourcing is on therise.

Third, if you are thinking that noone else on campus cares aboutTQM, you could very well be right.But that doesn't matter. You cando it anyway. TQM will require aninvestment in time and possibly inmoney, but once the investmentstarts to pay off, others outside ofIT will start to care. The IT depart-ment can be the ones communicat-ing quality to the rest of the insti-tution. Even the president may beswayed into thinking that IT reallydoes have genuine benefit for theinstitution.

And finally, for those who arethinking that TQM is just a fad,you are probably right. The chan-ces of this being a long-lasting setof tools or techniques with thisparticular set of perspectives issmall. Twenty years from now, oreven twenty months from now, youmay not often hear the words "To-tal Quality Management" anymore.But what definitely isn't a fad iswhat's underneath TQM. The un-derlying principles of customerfocus, process improvement, andstaff involvement will remain, andthat's what we have to concentrateon.

5

Choosing A New System:continued from page 1

teachers, and now also meets theneeds of future doctors, lawyers,corporate leaders, and other profes-sionals. One of the last three liber-al arts colleges for men, Wabashhas maintained enrollment in thepast five years at around 850.

One, a large, multi-campus, inter-national, complex, undergraduateand graduate institution; the other,a small, single-campus, residentialliberal arts college. Yet both, usingthe same process, found solutions totheir administrative informationsystems needs that fit their cul-tures, their environments, their re-sources, and their goals.

Both StartedWith a Needs AnalysisBoth schools had a committee inplace before they began their pro-jects. The committees had beenformed to deal with general admin-istrative computing issues, such aspriorities, data administration be-tween offices, and so on, and bothcommittees had wide-ranging rep-resentation from across their re-spective campuses, including facul-ty. In each case, through the workof the committee, the need for anew system emerged clearly.

Webster and Wabash both hadhome-grown administrative soft-ware that was no longer fullymeeting the institution's needs, es-pecially for end-user data accessand consistency of data between of-fices. Duplication of effort, lots ofmanual work, a great deal of de-pendence on technical staff to doreports and make changes, and ageneral sense of inefficiency ledboth committees to decide that itwas time to make a major changeand to look carefully at systemalternatives.

A thorough, user-oriented needsanalysis led things off. What e-merged from this was not just an

1111=1111ff

Two Schools Do It Right

articulation of the needs for tech-nology support of individual offices,but also a greater understanding ofthe needs of the whole institution.People began to realize, some forthe first time, that data collectedand maintained in one place couldsignificantly impact activities inother places. In addition, common,institution-wide needs were un-covered, such as being able to easi-ly (but securely) download datafrom a central repository to a desk-top. Both institutions had veryfruitful discussions at this point ondata access issues: who should seewhat. who should change what,and for what purposes.

In addition to the fact that theanalysis focused on the long-termstrategic needs of the institution aswell as the short-term, the otherimportant point about the needsanalysis is that it covered every-one, not just administrative offices.The committees in each institutionwere the leading forces, and a lotof attention was given to the opera-tional needs of administrators;still, faculty, students, and the toplevels of each school were also fullparticipants in the process.

What resulted from these carefuland thorough analyses were com-plete requirements documents, co-vering all areas of each institution,emphasizing flexibility, functional-ity, and the need for solid, future-oriented technical underpinnings.

Then the RFPTurning the needs analysis into aRequest For Proposal was a fairlymechanical process at this point,the difficult work of gaining con-sensus on the requirements havingalready been done. The key issuefor the RFP was maintaining asmuch flexibility for each institutionas possible (that is, not lockingthemselves into arbitrary rules orschedules they might regret later

on) and allowing for as much of anapples-to-apples comparison of theexpected responses as possible.

Because of the structure of theRFPs, evaluating the vendor pro-posals turned out to be a relativelyeasy thing to do. Each of the com-mittee members used an evalua-tion form, highlighting the mostimportant aspects to look for in theproposals; even for those peoplewithout a technical background,reaching an objective evaluation ofthe proposal material was a fairlypainless process. Of course, almosteveryone complained about thetime it took to wade through every-thing; on the other hand, the com-mittee members saw this as a veryimportant responsibility whichthey took very seriously. No onewanted the campus computer peo-ple to shoulder this burden alone(least of all, the computer peoplethemselves!), and so each took thetime necessary.

Another important point here isthat although all of the committeemembers were representing indi-vidual areas of their institutions,they were all asked to make ajudgement about how well the pro-posed systems would fit institution-wide needs as well as their own.Everyone felt that this was a par-ticularly important thing to do in afully integrated system, and wouldpreclude the possibility of choosinga system that was outstandinglyexcellent in one area but not a goodoverall solution for the institution.

Digging in deeperAmazingly, each committee cameto a unanimous decision about thethree systems that should becomefinalists (although each committeechose three different ones). In fact,this is not really so amazing; thegroundwork had already been laidfor this to happen. It was a naturaloutcome of the consensus-building

that had been going on in each in-stitution all along. Even with thedifferent interests and concernsrepresented, there was an increas-ing sense in the committees aboutwhat was important about the sys-tems and what wasn't, and there-fore, which ones would be goodchoices and which ones would not.

The finalist vendors were asked tocome to campus to give demos, andin each case, the institution madeup a script for the vendors to follow(again, reflecting both individualand institution-wide concerns) de-signed to provide as much of anobjective comparison as possible.

In iddition, peer-to-peer referencecalls were made, site visits weredone, and information was gath-ered about the vendors from cur-rent and past clients, from visits tocompany headquarters, and fromfinancial reporting agencies. Inseveral cases, by the way, some ofthe vendors tried to discouragedirect contact between institutions;a fact everyone from both Webster

and Wabash wisely ignored.

The peer-to-peer reference callswere especially interesting, becausethey contained so much subjectiveas well as objective information, itwas sometimes difficult to sort itout. One help was to use the samelist of questions for each call, sothat the caller could determinewhether, for instance, his or herpeer was using a current version ofthe software in question. There iscertainly value in the "schmooz"factor of these conversations, butthere is a certain baseline as well.

As a result of all this work, eachinstitution ended up making a un-animous decision. Webster andWabash chose two different ven-dors, two different hardware plat-forms, and two different databasemanagement systems. But theyeach chose a solution that is rightfor them.

Why it worked so wellFirst, the process was inclusive.Everyone, including clerical staff

"Multimedia promises to transform our nation'sclassrooms from a dull and lifeless chalkdustatmosphere into an engaging environment rich incolor imagery, full-motion video and stereosound.... Unfortunately, the progress of equippingour nation's classrooms is being impeded by aserious lack of standardization. Instead of unitingthe nation's best minds toward creating acompatible cross-platform system for deliveringmultimedia instruction, the computer industry ishard at work creating multiple standards andcompeting products."

Dr. Fred T. HofstetterUniversity of DelawareGuest EditorialTHE. JournalFebruary 1993

and faculty, had a chance to maketheir ideas known and to contrib-ute throughout the process.

Second, the process was consensus-driven. In both cases, the next stepwas not taken until most everyonefelt comfortable with the results ofthe step just ompleted.

Third, the process was objective.No one came into it with precon-ceived notions about the outcome.

Fourth, everyone worked veryhard, especially the computer peo-ple. For Webster, Mary Petersen,and for Wabash, Bill Doemel (andthe folks that work for them), did ahuge amount of leading, coordinat-ing, guiding, and coaching.

Were there problems along theway? Of course, as Mary and Billwould be the first to admit. But thebottom line is that both institu-tions are very pleased with theirresults, and they should be. Theyhave started on the road to infor-mation technology excellence. NI

In Future Issues

- EDUCOM's ProjectJericho: why it's soimportant

- The value of technology ineducation is still beingdebated

- The role of the ITdepartment in thereengineering process

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

Q. We are reorganizing and combining our informa-tion technology related service departments, includ-ing academic computing and administrative comput-ing, and we have two questions. First, what is therationale that is used to combine the telephone ad-ministration department into an overall informationtechnology department?

A. The rationale is this: the telephone switch, tele-phone desktop equipment, and the lines connectingall of that need to be managed the same way a cen-tral computer system, computer desktop equipment,and the lines connecting all of that need to be. Itdoesn't really matter that "voice" is the entity beingtransmitted over the lines. In addition, telephony ismuch more complex than it used to be; it is no longera matter of just moves and changes: capacity plan-ning, switch configuration, inside versus outsidemanagement, charge-back and resale potential, choicein physical medium, topography, and so on, are allnow important issues that need to be dealt with in amanner similar to other technology issues. Telephoneadministration is an information service that belongs,organizationally, with other information services.

Q. Our second organizational question has to dowith the library Have many institutions combinedtheir libraries with their computing departments, orare they thinking of doing so in the future?

A. Only a few as yet. While there is some logic tothis (libraries are information services in some wayssimilar to computer centers), many institutions arenow beginning to think that, in fact, they are moredissimilar than first appeared to be the case. For onething, libraries and librarians are more concernedwith information management and retrieval, with theemphasis on the information itself; computer peopleare more concerned with in&rmation technology man-agement and the tools with which information can bemanaged and retrieved, with less emphasis on the in-formation itself This turns out to be a substantivedistinction, especially in the way in which the twogroups approach issues of service delivery. It may bethat, eventually, the library and information technol-ogy support will blend, but for the time being, manyinstitutions that thought this was the way to go arerethinking this strategy, and even uncoupling the twoareas once again.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117