Assumptions:
- The setting is a large public university which emphasizes both research and teaching (service only as a demanded by the state).
- The university values technology as a means to improving learning and provides substantial resources and support personnel for utilization and support.
- The university culture is such that faculty and students generally embrace the use of technology as an integral part of education.
- The university has widely differing views by various schools and colleges as well as by faculty members.
- About 60% faculty utilize the current CT (course management system) to at least “Web enhance” face to face courses.
- The University administration has just introduced a new Second Generation Course Tools CT:NG that is open source, very adaptable and just different enough
from the current CT to strike fear into the hearts of school and college support staff.
- The term “Next Generations CMS” refers to more than just the installation of a particular CMS package. It refers to the CMS application as well as the CMS’s
connection and interaction with other campus applications and databases (present and future).

Context:
- A School of Education, an early adopter of the original CT by individuals but not ‘officially’ adopted by the School.
- Faculty range from early adopters, evangelists to complete skeptics. The growth of the original CT has been by word of mouth by evangelists, students and fellow faculty members in other schools and colleges at social gatherings.
- The school has a center for the learning sciences that often studies how faculty members use technology. The school is a ‘middle’ school with enough budget and enrollment to take on projects of it’s own as well as having enough credibility to work with other schools and colleges.
- The Provost is pressuring schools and colleges to collaborate on instructional, research and (gasp) service projects that utilize the CT:NG. If schools and colleges collaborate the Provost will kick in an equivalent sum to jump start the project if it meets the favor of the central campus initiative office called CARAT (The Center or Advanced Research and Academic Technologies)

Scenario:
Laura Shepard has been dean of the School of Education for 6 years. Having survived for the first five, she is well on the way to a successful second term so it’s time to try a few of the new ideas generated by faculty and colleagues with the use of technology. Laura is no stranger to Course Tools and, as a roll model for the faculty, has used it in the course she teaches each term. While not a techie, she has depended on the kindness of the students, other faculty members and, not surprising, the small but very able tech support staff of the school. She suspects that she has a favored position with them as most everything works the first time… unlike that reported by other faculty members. Laura is a strong team player on the Deans’ Council, the most powerful group on
campus, chaired by the Provost. Often after the weekly meeting, she joins a few of her colleagues (other ‘middle’ school deans) for lunch and sharing problems and promise. Lately they’ve been discussing the problems of technology more and more. These problems range from yet another rant at the PeopleSoft implementation to anecdotes of support staff. As most other deans, Laura gets the most information from her staff and a few faculty members at the extremes of use of technology about the successes or failures in the use of technology. At today’s meeting Laura is discussing the Provost’s
latest missive on innovative projects about CT:NG. “My God, cries Dean Gibson, “How can we be expected to use this new CT when the faculty are just getting used to the current one?” Heads nod and eyes roll. Laura knows enough not to try out the idea (half baked with her staff) with the total group of 7 deans gathered but later starts a side conversation with three deans: Social Work, Natural Resources and Pharmacy. After a brief conversation, each dean meets with the support supervisor in their respective school and encourages them to start a joint project. (Laura does know but wouldn’t be surprised that the support staff have been meeting and have plotted to produce such a project). The project is a variant on CT:NG, to use the framework to expand the CT to handle
research projects and even committee work of students and faculty. As the new CT:NG is open source this should be able to be accomplished. Contacting the CARAT folk, she is encouraged to find that this rates high on their agenda and they are willing to supply some of the special initiative funds to get started. Then Laura accepts the challenge to present the project to the Deans’ Council and wonders why she got into this in the first place. After presenting the project to the Council a vigorous discussion ensues. All express encouragement to the project team but the discussion drifts to support issues. Many deans are concerned that this new project in the context of CT:NG, highly praised by the Provost and CARAT, will become another centralized service and they will be taxed in the future for ever increasing real dollar resources just as they have been with the PeopleSoft project. “My God, cries Dean Gibson, “How can we be expected to use this new CT when were forced to put more and more of our money on central support for PeopleSoft?”

Realizing that the pendulum is swinging from centralized toward decentralized support, Laura finds herself at the center of a committee to move CT:NG support to schools and college. Her staff groans but Laura notices that they are willing to try and she uses them as a semi-confidential source for ideas and trial. The staff of several colleges (and finally all academic tech support staff) form an academic and research collaboration support group (ARCSG) and use that group to drive several basic changes toward ‘single-sign-on’, electronic reserves and remote sensing. Buoyed by starting success, Laura announces to her faulty that all will use CT:NG the following year. One month later Laura clarifies (retracts) that announcement and goes back to encouragement, subversion and roll modeling. Projects completed and implementation started, realizing some faculty or deans will never get it, Laura is completely burned out Laura and leaves the deanship after eight years of duty and becoming a respected and counseled faculty member. “What a great life being a professor with these techie research, teaching and committee tools. Why it makes committee work almost bearable.” “Wait a minute, what am I thinking!”

Lessons from the scenario:
1. Technology changes can drive intra-institutional projects
2. Intra-institutional projects can drive basic technology changes
3. Technology is a tool that can be used a wedge for larger institutional change
4. It not about the technology, its about the culture, climate of the system and
knowing when to try new ideas.
5. Some things never change
6. There is life after deanship