Is There an IT Consultant in the House?

by Martin Ringle

Thirty years ago computers in higher education were relatively rare and so was technological expertise. Individuals who were among the privileged few to know the difference between EBCDIC and ASCII had an opportunity to dispense wisdom about the future of computing to everyone from faculty members to college presidents. Over time, such people discovered that their knowledge was worth quite a bit to institutions pondering the acquisition and use of these expensive new devices.

Today, information technology consulting is a mammoth industry, accounting for billions of dollars in annual revenues and encompassing activities as diverse as systems integration, business process re-engineering, operations outsourcing, and numerous other sub-fields. While higher education constitutes a relatively small fraction of this business, IT consulting for colleges and universities has nonetheless skyrocketed during the past decade. A vast number of institutions, both public and private, from two-year colleges to research universities, have retained information technology consultants. And higher education's appetite for technical assistance shows no sign of abating.

Among the array of IT consulting activities, the area that is most relevant to presidents, provosts, CFOs and other senior officers is strategic technology consulting. Key questions about budgets, organizational structure, staff size, allocation of resources, technology standards, usage policies, long-range planning and related issues fall within this domain. The people who specialize in providing such assistance tend to be chief technology officers and former technology officers who have become independent consultants or employees of quality firms such as Edutech, Kaludis, Compass and, of course, the 800-pound gorilla of IT consulting, the Gartner Group. While other areas of technology consulting are worthy of discussion, the following observations are directed toward the myths and realities of strategic technology consulting.

"A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country . . . ."
- Matthew 13:57

A perennial misconception about external consultants is that they are hired because of their expertise and possibly because they have privileged knowledge about the future. In some cases these assumptions may be correct. For the most part, however, neither expertise nor clairvoyance has anything to do with the rationale for enlisting outside assistance. Colleges and universities retain consultants for the same reason that a lawyer hires someone else when he or she is the target of litigation: professional objectivity. Even the most experienced and forward-looking IT officer is susceptible to the biases of institutional context and personal history. An outsider, on the other hand, can bring fresh insights to the table. If the consultant or consulting firm has extensive expertise or exceptional industry contacts, so much the better.

There is, of course, a potentially insidious aspect to IT consulting that manifests itself with surprising regularity: Decision-makers often accept recommendations from external consultants uncritically, thereby demeaning the expertise of IT professionals within the institution. In some cases, this occurs because there is a lack of trust and respect for the IT staff; in other cases, the consultancy itself triggers a lack of trust and respect for the IT staff that did not previously exist. Inviting an IT consultant to an institution must therefore be done with great care and deliberation. Issuing an invitation to a consultant without the knowledge and cooperation of the IT staff is generally a good way to provoke a circling of the IT wagons. If the underlying purpose is to bring a simmering situation to a boil, and perhaps to elicit a resignation (or 10), this may be an effective strategy. On the other hand, if the purpose is to identify technology problems and find ways to address them, then it is important to help IT staff see themselves as beneficiaries rather than as targets of the consultancy.

It is also important to bear in mind that to a consultant, whose first-hand acquaintance with a campus may consist of a 48-hour site visit, an offhand remark by a disgruntled faculty or staff member can easily take on sinister importance. All too often, consultants wield an excessive (and perhaps unwanted) amount of influence over the fate of IT personnel. It is vital, therefore, that senior officers be as clear and as candid as possible when defining the consulting charge. If there is a question of confidence with regard to the chief technology officer or the IT staff, it must be placed on the table at the very outset of the consultancy. Failure to do so, whether because of uncertainty or a misconceived notion of propriety, only serves to decrease the value of the site visit and can muddy the results of the consultancy.

"Consult: to seek another's approval of a course already decided on."
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

In many cases, the best clients are those who already have a reasonably good sense of how things stand and are enlisting the aid of a consultant principally to help them confirm that their perceptions are correct. Sometimes, though, this approach can be dangerously distorted. For example, senior officers (and others) may have complex political agendas unrelated to the improvement of technology support for faculty, students or staff. Hiring a consultant may be viewed by such officers as a way to fortify and advance their agendas. Unwary consultants can be led down the garden path, fed biased information, scheduled to meet only with selected political allies, and pressured (by a sense of obligation to the person who hired them) into issuing a report in support of a politically slanted position.

A good IT consultant is one who is experienced enough to recognize this type of exploitation, sufficiently ethical to resist it, and skillful enough to provide valuable services to an institution in spite of it. Twenty years ago, during one of my earlier consultancies, I learned about this the hard way. After two days of interviews with dozens of faculty, staff and students, I met with the president of the university. I reported that I had identified the source of the technology problems and, with considerable trepidation, informed him that they emanated from his own office. Unfortunately, I failed to note the color rising in his face as I spoke. I finished my report by pointing out that the problems could be solved by simply changing a few executive orders. To my astonishment, the president let loose a torrent of profanity that surpassed anything I had heard while growing up on the streets of New York. His parting words were memorable: "You're as stupid as those idiot faculty members I sent you to investigate." Ah, the lessons of youth.

Maintaining professional objectivity during a consultancy is sometimes quite difficult. Members of the faculty, staff, administration and student body can be thoroughly charming and yet totally wrong in what they say - sometimes innocently, sometimes not. Like a detective, a good consultant must listen to all the stories impartially, pick out both the realities and the inconsistencies, and develop an accurate understanding of the entire situation in a matter of days or even hours. Such skills, coupled with technical expertise, don't come cheap. Which brings us to the matter of money.

It's Going to Cost How Much?!

One of the more entertaining moments of a site visit occurs when a consultant reveals to the senior officers - especially the chief financial officer - how expensive it will be to address the institution's technology goals. Despite all the optimistic predictions in the 1970s and 1980s, it is now clear that the costs associated with the procurement and support of technology do not generally replace the costs of anything else; they are simply additive. While technology enables people to do some things faster and more efficiently, it also enables them to do many more things than before, hence one rarely sees reductions in either budgets or staff size as a result of the introduction of new technology. On the contrary, most colleges and universities have consistently reported net increases in staffing and budgets as a direct consequence of the proliferation of technology.

An IT consultant is often the catalyst that motivates decision-makers to authorize new funding for technology. This is the reason why IT consultancies - like the traditional visit to the dentist - conjure such mixed emotions. While it is critical for institutions to be realistic about the future costs of technology support, the news is never pleasant. For example, not too long ago, while briefing the senior officers of a comprehensive university, I mentioned that the faculty were woefully ignorant of the many ways in which technology had been successfully incorporated into the curricula at peer institutions. I recommended the allocation of funds to enable faculty to become acquainted with useful trends in instructional technology. The horrified provost asked, "But won't that knowledge just create an appetite among the faculty to acquire computers, set up student lab facilities, and hire technical support staff? Where will all that money come from?" It was a fair question. Unfortunately, the alternative - to keep the faculty as technologically ignorant as possible - was untenable. Deferred awareness of technology is just as dangerous as deferred maintenance of physical facilities; sooner or later something is going to crumble.

The four cardinal truths of financing information technology are these: it is expensive, it is additive to existing budgets, its benefits are difficult to assess, and it is here to stay. While an IT consultant may be the bearer of this bad news, it is important to recognize that he or she can provide expert advice on how an institution can make the best use of its limited financial resources.

Card-Carrying Credibility

There are three primary sources of expertise for strategic technology consulting. In descending order of cost they are: (1) major accounting (or IT) firms; (2) specialized higher education groups; and (3) CIOs and other IT professionals who serve as "peer consultants." Oh yes, there is an important fourth source: Strangers who sit next to presidents on airplanes. I have long suspected that a great many IT initiatives - ranging from the creation of dormitory networks to the adoption of Windows 95 - are the result of in-flight consulting. Data to support this suspicion, as you might expect, is not readily available.

In most cases, the cost of a consultant is insignificant when compared with the amount of money an institution may be planning to spend on technology; the investment in external expertise, therefore, is almost always worth the cost. The cost of a consultancy, however, does not necessarily correlate with its quality. For example, some years ago I received invitations to serve as a sub-contractor in higher education for several large accounting and IT firms. I readily agreed, assuming that an affiliation with such prestigious corporations would elevate my credentials and credibility. However, it wasn't long before I discovered that my fees constituted less than ten percent of what the clients were being charged. While it is true that large firms have substantial overhead costs, profit margins of this magnitude are hard to understand, especially when the reports I sent to clients were of precisely the same quality, regardless of whether I was sub-contracting or working independently.

On other occasions I have been hired to evaluate consulting reports made by large firms because, as one client put it, the firm was " . . . insensitive to the needs and financial constraints of an institution such as ours and their recommendations utterly ignore the political realities of our campus environment." The moral of the story? Neither the size of a firm nor the breathtaking level of its fees should be looked upon as a guarantee that the advice provided will be either relevant or useful.

A Hippocratic Oath for Techies?

In many respects, IT consulting is similar to getting a medical diagnosis: Though you know it's for your own good the news can be very depressing. And the cost of the cure can make you wonder if staying sick wouldn't be preferable.

Unlike the medical profession, however, there are virtually no standards for IT consulting and little information about the impact - much less the success or failure - of past consultancies. Predictions about the future of technology and giving advice about the best strategies should always come with an implicit caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. Given the factors involved in IT decisions - such as the speed with which technology changes, the equally fast evolution in users' needs, the externalities of financial and political upheaval throughout higher education, and the turnover of key administrators, faculty and staff - it is exceedingly difficult to assess the quality of IT consulting assistance, even retrospectively. In this regard, IT consulting differs not only from medicine but from many other areas of higher education consulting as well. Despite the precision associated with computer technology, consulting on technology is still an art rather than a science; and wisdom and integrity are as critical as technical expertise.

Around 400 B.C., Hippocrates wrote the famous physician's oath that bears his name. Among other things, the oath requires each prospective medical practitioner to swear thus: "I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous." The oath concludes "While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!" Perhaps IT consulting has a lesson to learn from Hippocrates.

Martin Ringle is director of computing & information services at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. He has done more than 75 consultancies in higher education during the past 20 years and currently serves as coordinator of a nonprofit peer consulting group formed in 1995 in response to the demise of the Educom Consulting Group. [email protected]


Educom Review Table of Contents