Partnerships Between Universities and Information Technology Vendors Copyright 1990 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 13, Number 1, Spring 1990. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of thismaterial is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributedfor commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its dateappear, andnotice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the associationfor managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN UNIVERSITIES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VENDORS by Donald M. Norris ************************************************************************ Donald M. Norris is Vice President and Director of the Washington, D.C.- area office of the M&H Group, Inc., a management consulting firm. He has nearly twenty years' experience as a management consultant, author, strategic planner, and researcher. He served as Director of Planning and Policy Analysis at the University of Houston and has held other administrative and research posts at the University of Texas at Austin, The University of Michigan, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Dr. Norris is author of the book A Guide for New Planners, published by the Society for College and University Planning (SCUP). ************************************************************************ ABSTRACT: This article examines partnerships between information technology vendors and universities based on information gathered in interviews with more than twenty chief information officers or chief academic computing officers at universities considered leaders in information technology in the United States. The author addresses why partnerships are formed, describing four types of partnerships in the process; how partnerships are formed; the importance of the vendor contract; and the impact of partnerships on institutions and the broader higher education community. In the forty years since its inception, the information technology industry has enjoyed a close relationship with colleges and universities. Since the time of Harvard's Mark I and the development of ENIAC at the University of Pennsylvania, campus researchers and scientists have guided information technology companies and have assisted in product development and testing. Many of today's information technology companies were started as a result of research or products developed in higher education institutions. Other companies obtained university assistance to stimulate their rapid growth and development. The scope of vendor donation and discount programs to colleges and universities expanded to a new level in the 1980s with the introduction to the campus of the personal computer and extensive data networking. The familiar technology companies that for decades had helped institutions deal with mainframes and minicomputers were joined by new players, such as Apple Computer, Inc., offering colleges and universities new types of products, deep discounts on their equipment, or outright donations. Some institutions made a commitment to developing computing-intensive environments and invested substantial resources in telecommunications, mainframes and minicomputers, personal computers, and the support staff to maintain this significant information technology enterprise. As campuses have invested in these resources, the importance of information technology to higher education has been recognized by a growing number of educational leaders. At the same time, the influence of the campus professionals responsible for information technology has grown. The emergence of the chief information officer (CIO) has enabled campus staff to deal better with the complex requirements of planning for and managing information technology. The CIO or chief academic computing officer has also emerged as a leading player in forging information technology partnerships. To better understand the basic nature of university-industry relationships, the M & H Group, Inc., a management consulting firm, examined partnerships between technology vendors and leading computing universities. Using a focus group of CIOs, we developed five criteria for identifying universities that are leaders in the field of information technology: (1) the academic reputation of the institution; (2) its strategic commitment to information technology; (3) its organizational approach to information technology; (4) the quality of its programs in computer science and other computing-intensive disciplines; and (5) the publication record and visibility of its information technology professionals at national meetings of organizations such as EDUCOM, CAUSE, ACM, and IEEE. The focus group identified sixteen universities as leading computing institutions. These universities satisfied all or most of the five conditions for leadership. Other universities follow the actions and initiatives of these leaders with keen interest. In addition to these sixteen institutions, nineteen universities in a second group were considered highly influential. Both groups were contacted and over twenty CIOs or academic computing officers were interviewed. Exhibit 1 lists the types of institutions invited to participate in our survey. Nothing in higher education generates more debate than lists which rank colleges and universities on different measures. For that reason, and to respect the request for strict confidentiality from several of our respondents, we have not identified individual institutions. The remainder of this article is based on the information gathered from our interviews with CIOs and/or academic computing officers at more than twenty of these institutions. (Exhibit 1 not available in text-only version.) WHY FORM PARTNERSHIPS? Some CIOs emphasized the practical aspects of partnerships, including the saving or leveraging of resources. However, many perceived more profound motivations. The true impetus for a partnership is to enable the institution to achieve the state-of-the-art technological environment it needs to serve its students and faculty, whether it be through encouraging and supporting access to technology in classroom work, or facilitating research and development and applying technology to the solution of a problem. In order to maintain their own power base and internal/external credibility, CIOs need to know where the market and technology are going, and they need to know where the different vendors are headed. Finally, partnerships often provide institutions a competitive advantage in attracting students and faculty as well as other vendors who might want to participate in partnership and advanced problem-solving activities. Vendors enter into these arrangements for different reasons. By working with researchers, they can see technology "ahead of its time," know more about the future, and "farm out" problems or topics they cannot deal with internally for a variety of reasons (such as lack of expertise, corporate politics, staffing patterns, time pressures, or convenience). Vendors also achieve tax write-offs through various philanthropic and partnership ventures; these benefits support the extent of partnership activity but are not the primary raison d'etre. Types of Partnerships In examining information technology partnerships, we defined four types: (1) philanthropic, (2) marketing, (3) marketing and joint-venture combinations, and (4) joint ventures. We found most of the leading computing institutions are engaged in all four types of partnerships with several major vendors simultaneously. A university's relationships with a single vendor typically consisted of several types of partnerships at one time, as new vendor partnerships emerged to replace or supplement existing relationships. Exhibit 2 is an illustration of the spectrum of information technology partnerships, the details of which follow. (Exhibit 2 not available in text-only version.) Many participating universities requested that the specific nature of their relationships with vendors be kept confidential. We have honored that request. In this article, we cite only broad examples of publicly recognized programs, citing examples involving individual institutions only when specifically authorized to do so. Philanthropic Partnerships The leading computing universities receive significant corporate philanthropy from major information technology companies in the form of cash and equipment donations. While some CIOs considered equipment donations to be philanthropic, most considered them to be a marketing device. And, since most philanthropy is handled by another part of the university (such as the vice president for development), not all CIOs knew which technology vendors had been approached and which had responded to proposals from the development office. Many respondents believe that vendors are shifting their corporate emphasis from philanthropy to marketing or a combination of marketing and joint-venture initiatives. As vendor companies develop greater experience in dealing with universities, they are devising more sophisticated programs of philanthropy that result in better positioning of their products in the market. Marketing Partnerships The baseline marketing program for colleges and universities is the standard discount, which is available from most vendors of hardware, software, and telecommunications equipment. In addition, the leading computing institutions, or other institutions that have been targeted for a special market pitch, receive an additional percentage discount, resulting in some truly deep discounting arrangements. Other examples of a marketing partnership include rudimentary advisory boards, where there is little exchange of ideas. Also, simple vendor responses to requests for proposals (RFPs) are generally considered to be a one- dimensional marketing activity. Most equipment donation programs are viewed as marketing activities because the equipment is given to influence purchase decisions. However, equipment donations are no longer accepted without question. The CIOs in our study made it clear they have learned to accept only donations of new equipment that match the technological direction the university is pursuing. Most of the CIOs at the leading computing universities believe that pure marketing programs neither satisfy their needs nor meet the vendor's long-term interests. Put simply, they are not just looking for free equipment. Although they expect deep discounts, to be sure, what they really want is to be engaged in a process whereby technical problems of mutual interest to the university and the vendor are being solved, and to have access to information about the vendor's new products, advanced technology, strategies, and views of the future. To attain these ends, the CIOs have volunteered their universities as alpha or beta test sites to help vendors develop products and have invested significant time and energy working with vendors to design products and approaches that meet the needs of the university marketplace. But they only assist those vendors who listen to their advice. Some marketing initiatives evolve into joint ventures or marketing and joint-venture combinations. Indeed, the marketing initiative generally is viewed as an evolutionary stage in the partnering process, whereby the vendor is still learning how to deal effectively with universities. In most mature partnerships, the marketing component is combined in some way with cooperative programs/joint-venture elements. Marketing and Joint-Venture Combination Partnerships There are three types of marketing and joint-venture activities: (1) consortium programs by the major vendors; (2) joint product development (collaboration in developing new products, such as the Macintosh and NeXT machines); and (3) responses to RFPs (requests for proposals) issued by institutions to procure equipment and services (many proposals combine pure marketing elements with joint-venture components to enrich the quality and attractiveness of the bid). Consortium Programs. Most of the consortium activities of Apple, IBM, DEC, AT&T, and other vendors fall into the category of marketing and joint-venture activities. Typical examples include IBM's Advanced Education Projects (AEP) Program, DEC's Campuswide Networking Program, the Apple University Consortium, and AT&T's Equipment Donation and U3g Programs. These consortium programs combine several common characteristics: * deep equipment discounts, * some software or product development, * special technical assistance, * support to institutions applying the new technology being developed, and/or * periodic meetings of university members with key company representatives. In the most successful of these ventures, mutual commitment and communication were critical: * The vendors were committed to using the venture to advance the state of knowledge and application. * Expectations were reasonable and there were no complicated contractual obligations. * The process provided an opportunity for exchanging ideas. * The vendors really listened to what the CIOs were saying. * The process was perceived as a genuine effort to establish or strengthen a long-term relationship between the vendor and the university. Short-term, marketing penetration schemes masquerading as joint ventures were not successful. According to the respondents, vendor consortium efforts have matured and changed over time. Many of the CIOs stated that most vendors had become more realistic in their expectations, were reevaluating these types of programs, and were searching for the optional components for the next generation of relationships. Joint Product Development. CIOs at the leading universities have been involved with a variety of vendors in the development of new products. The Macintosh and NeXT machines are a result of this type of collaboration. Although the products that ultimately resulted from this collaboration did not follow the precise parameters stipulated by the CIOs, the products reflected the vendors' synthesis of those parameters into a marketable product. Some respondents did not know how to categorize these types of collaborations, because no explicit discount to the university or marketing benefit was involved. However, the intent of such ventures was both to develop a product that met the needs of the market and to bond the participating CIOs with the new equipment and the company. These goals were achieved in both cases. Thus, the vendor enjoyed both a marketing and a joint-venture dividend and the CIOs served the needs of the higher education marketplace. Responses to RFPs. Many proposals submitted by vendors in response to university RFPs for computing or telecommunications hardware and services were creative approaches that combined deep discounting with joint partnering to solve related technical problems. These creative approaches enable CIOs to use major information technology procurements as opportunities to confront a range of issues and to address a variety of related technical problems. Joint Venture Partnerships For many years, individual faculty and principal investigators have been approached by technology vendors to solve technical problems. These activities typically involved a one-to-one relationship between a principal investigator and his or her contacts at the vendor corporation. Although this type of relationship continues, companies are finding it increasingly advantageous to contract with the institution and not just individual faculty members. One-to-one research projects are being supplemented by projects that involve several different campus organizational units. Two types of joint ventures include: (1) specific, articulated joint ventures, and (2) industrial/university consortia that address important research issues in broader disciplinary areas. Part of the CIO's role is to manage and/or facilitate the joint-venture process. Specific, Articulated Joint Ventures. Once an institution establishes a relationship with a technology vendor, the CIO often becomes involved as an advising party, even if the joint-venture partnership only involves an individual faculty member and a corporate sponsor. Because many vendors have developed extensivealpha and beta testing and product development relationships with the leading computing universities, the CIO needs to be skillful at orchestrating and managing all the parties involved. Often these specific joint ventures are the result of broader, marketing/joint-venture activities that generate a particular product that must be tested or a problem that must be solved. The leading computing universities have become increasingly sophisticated in handling the contractual requirements for these joint ventures. To be successful, the expectations, deliverables, milestones, and responsibilities for these joint ventures must be clearly delineated, and the venture must be managed like a real project. The role of the CIO is sometimes matchmaker, adjudicator, and liaison. Industrial/University Consortia. Problem-focused or disciplinary consortia are being formed by a handful of the best research universities that also are experienced in technology transfer and as industrial liaisons--Georgia Tech, MIT, Washington University, and the University of Michigan, to name a few. The focal point of many of these centers is information technology, or other disciplines using information technology, such as Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM). For example, MIT has established a variety of industrial consortia comprising companies that fund research projects in an area of mutual interest. MIT has especially active research centers in new materials and another in electronics, with another fifteen to twenty around the campus. The XWindow Consortium at MIT is a specific example of particular interest to the computing industry. The XWindows System moved from software development at MIT's Project Athena to an industry- sponsored consortium at the request of a number of industry partners. Washington University has an active CIM Center and laboratory, involving twenty vendors and sixty-six companies. The University is also involved in highly active research programs with Monsanto and a number of other major companies in the St. Louis area. Georgia Institute of Technology uses its Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) to run both the Microelectronics Research Center and the Manufacturing Research Center that serve as the hub of its university/industry/government research consortia. Consortia and industrial affiliates programs are important for several reasons. First, they reflect the increasing sophistication and skill of institutions in working with complex partnerships. Second, they are an important, potential source of new technology and intelligence for technology vendors, university researchers, and other parties. Third, they often spin off specific joint-venture projects in the information technology industry. HOW PARTNERSHIPS ARE FORMED Whether the institution or vendor makes the first move towards partnership depends on the institution's reputation, the nature of the partnership being pursued, the institution's existing relationship with vendors, and the interests of those vendors. Sometimes a faculty member with an idea will go to the CIO who will then attempt to contact someone within an appropriate vendor company to ascertain who might be interested in that problem and would be willing to support the faculty member's research. When the relationship is less well-developed, the CIO may approach the vendor's local marketing staff members with an idea, and they might try to "sell" the idea internally, serving as advocates. One CIO commented that vendors contact his institution with market- related projects, and projects that require the development of "strategic technology." On the other hand, he approaches vendors with projects that are oriented to instruction or upgrading the curriculum. Not all leading computing institutions are equal. The sixteen public and private universities that are considered leaders by the industry are more likely to be approached by vendors about potential ventures, whereas other leading institutions (those termed highly influential) must be more aggressive in convincing vendors that they are a viable partnership candidate. Sometimes the vendor approaches a CIO or faculty member with whom he or she has worked in the past, and asks whether there are any faculty members on the campus who are able to take on a certain kind of technology-based project. Once they have begun to develop successful partnerships with institutions, vendors prefer to build upon and maintain them, rather than to go through the difficult process of developing relationships with a new institution each time they want or need assistance. When some vendors created consortia or advisory groups in the past, the faculty members and administrators they asked to join a particular consortium were affiliated with universities with strong departments in computer science, electrical engineering, or software systems. Now, vendors usually seek out CIOs with whom they have worked in the past (frequently while they were employed at other institutions); CIOs who work for universities that have the reputation of being leading-edge institutions in computing and information technology; and CIOs of universities that provide a computer-intensive environment, a large, complex organizational environment, or both. Stages to the Relationship The development of new partnerships between vendors and institutions can be a difficult process. Over time, each begins to learn about the idiosyncrasies and culture of the other. Because of the growing body of experience in developing and managing partnerships between higher education and industry, each becomes savvy about dealing with the other. For specific partnerships, there is a life cycle, which begins with a general exploration of the problem, moves to more detailed specification of the partnership responsibilities of both parties, and leads to contract negotiations. The contract stage is then followed by performance and the partnership is consummated by evaluation and reporting. Several CIOs commented that, in the past, the contracting stage has taken considerably more time than is necessary; they suspect this was because vendors believed they would create the next Lotus and wanted to be sure that their rights were protected. In fact, these partnerships have not produced nearly as much as some vendors thought they would in the way of useful deliverables that ultimately resulted in marketable products. Many companies have found that while faculty members have the creative spark, it is difficult to get them to deliver something that is immediately marketable. Over time, vendors and universities have better understood the advantages and limitations of such ventures. Each has come to better manage the expectations of the other in planning and contracting for joint ventures. One CIO provided a tongue-in-cheek definition of the stages of the partnership as (1) exhilaration at the possibilities, (2) reality therapy, (3) working through the terms and conditions, (4) signing the contract, (5) renewed excitement as you move into implementation, (6) loss of energy, (7) mop up, and (8) project completion and declaration of victory. Several CIOs noted that neither they nor the vendors have placed enough emphasis on evaluating the project or the relationship. If this is not done, the CIO does not learn about what has gone well, whether the same mistakes are being made, how to do things better the next time, or whether the partnership should be reevaluated. One of the CIOs with considerable experience in joint ventures indicated that the project must be well managed and candidly evaluated. He schedules a formal exit interview with the vendor and has a probing discussion of what went right or wrong, what they should do differently next time, and so forth, for each project. He believes this is essential for developing a healthy partnership. Interviewees observed that vendors have grown more sophisticated, over time, in working with colleges and universities. Initially, companies tried to get something done for nothing, or tried to get as good a deal as they had gotten at a peer institution. CIOs were willing to undertake projects that were not of interest to their institutions. Now companies are beginning to realize that colleges and universities are not contract shops. On the other hand, CIOs are learning that corporations do not have purely benevolent goals. Both sides have come to realize that the needs of each party must be addressed or there is no basis for a partnership. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONTRACT The CIOs who were experienced in negotiating contracts indicated that a contract must specify the following points: * people who will be involved on the company's side; * people who will be involved on the institution's side; * the project manager within the company and within the institution; * the resources that each side will provide; * nature of any confidentiality agreements needed by the company (in many cases, a source code is required and many companies want confidentiality agreements signed; some colleges will not do this as a matter of principle; * the time frame for the project; * the formal evaluation points; and * the nature of deliverables and who owns the deliverables (e.g., many institutions insist on owning the work product with appropriate licenses to the industrial sponsor). Several CIOs noted that the contracts should specify the minimum purchasing requirements and the maximum purchases allowable at a certain price. However, most respondents noted that the contract document is not the only important product of contracting. The process by which the contract is developed is also significant, and this should not be abdicated to the lawyers. The process is an educational one for faculty members; they begin to see that both sides need to win something, and the process allows them to really test the interest of the company in the project. If there is not a real interest on both sides, they have learned not to pursue the project. Several CIOs added that the contract negotiation process forces both sides to answer some tough questions, up front, before the project is launched (see Exhibit 3, page 22). The contract can then be used as a benchmark for interpreting other issues and answering questions that arise during the course of the project. It is also a process for establishing and managing the expectations of each party. Some respondents indicated that the language describing the deliverables is always an issue. Who owns what intellectual property as a result of engaging in this project is often the time bomb that is buried in the description of the deliverables. Some of the CIOs indicated that it is tricky to define the deliverables. On one hand, it is important to be able to specify what the outcome of the project will be, to define the expectations of both parties. On the other hand, too much specificity can result in an institution's painting itself into a corner by having to pursue one methodology or develop one product when the project would be more successful if it were oriented in a different direction. One CIO solves this problem by negotiating a clause requiring that change orders be signed by both parties after a formal review of the project. Intellectual property rights is one of the most difficult issues to negotiate. Over the years companies have learned that faculty members are very protective of their research and graduate students and are not willing to surrender their intellectual property for a 40 percent equipment discount. On the other hand, faculty members believe that vendors are obsessed with a concern that they will miss out on the "big hit" or that they will not write tight enough contracts to allow them to be the one to capitalize on the results of the project they funded. The more experienced CIOs and vendors have developed compromises, e.g., agreements that faculty and graduate students can write about the project after a six-month waiting period, or the institution will provide immediate access to the technology that is developed and will grant the company an exclusive license, if the university can receive royalties in return. The CIO from one state university noted that the university must negotiate contracts that conform to the rules and regulations of the state, and that vendors did not seem to understand that the university was not a free agent. In states like Texas, California, and New York, vendors and public institutions must invest considerable time and energy in navigating through state contracting requirements. According to the respondents, four factors affect the success of the partnership. (1) The spirit in which the contract is negotiated sets the tone of the partnership. For example, is the vendor truly interested in this problem or are they just treating it as a Trojan horse to penetrate the institution as a market? (2) Resolving the issue of the disposition of intellectual property strengthens the partnership considerably. Who owns what, and when and under what conditions others can hear about the results of the project, must be determined at the outset. (3) The periodic reviews and overall evaluations of the project and the change-order features of the project will strengthen the partnership. (4) The venture is considerably weakened when there is no contract (and there should be) or when the contract is negotiated by lawyers with inadequate participation by technical staff. Another related factor has to do with how rapidly the company "learns" how to do business with the institution. One major telecommunications company always starts with their "standard" agreement, even though it is modified extensively--and in the same way--every time. This is wasteful and unproductive. A few CIOs admitted that they had been involved in some unsuccessful partnerships and attributed the lack of success to the following: (1) changes in the technology environment, which made the outcomes of the project obsolete; (2) individuals who negotiated arrangements and selected vendor equipment without consulting the CIO; (3) lack of vendor commitment to the partnership and the problems it was meant to address; (4) lack of campus commitment to the project or lack of expertise. THE IMPACT OF PARTNERSHIPS Almost all of the CIOs in our study stated that their partnerships had been successful and had affected their universities by * advancing the use of technology at the university at a reasonable cost and on a short time frame; * cutting across organizational boundaries and barriers to achieve technological progress; * giving students, faculty, and staff the opportunity to be involved in cutting-edge technology, to participate in high-level problem solving, and to actually affect the direction of the information technology industry, in some cases; and * working with other universities to advance the state of technology and to shape new products for the university marketplace. The publicity afforded by participation in vendor consortia and donation programs was cited by many CIOs as having an impact on their region and state. Apparently, partnerships have a high public relations value. (This was especially true for Group 2 institutions.) Partnerships are important to the CIOs both institutionally and personally. Having access to information about the future enables them to make sound, insightful decisions about technological developments, thereby saving their universities from wasting resources and energy on poor choices. Moreover, technological enrichment has enabled these universities to advance the state of information technology for all colleges and universities and to enhance their own competitive advantage. It is also clear that some of these partnerships will lead to new models for those who are in the process of developing new institutions or determining how to configure and equip an effective college or university for the 1990s. The Impact on Higher Education Partnerships and collaborations between universities and vendors also have helped the higher education system, at large, both by providing models of what computing-intensive institutions can accomplish and by contributing to the development of new products and acceptance of standards for higher education. The Macintosh and NeXT computers, the Berkeley UNIX, the AIX and IBM RT, XWindows, TCP/IP, and other networking standards, as well as hosts of software products, were either supported in development or championed to acceptance by such partnerships. The partnership between the leading computing universities and major technology vendors is an extremely useful mechanism for enabling vendors to test new ideas, develop products, and test prototypes before the release of a product. From another perspective, these partnerships enable the higher education technology market to assure the development of networking and processing standards that are tailored to its needs. This is a significant accomplishment. CONCLUSIONS From the 1960s to the 1980s, the relationships between colleges and universities and technology vendors have changed significantly. Currently, the relationships involve CIOs, their professional staff, and a broad range of faculty in philanthropic, marketing, and even joint ventures. Many CIOs and academic computing officers at major universities have engaged in highly visible joint ventures with IBM, DEC, Apple, and other technology companies. Moreover, the constellation of advisory boards, user groups, and user consortia created by the vendor companies involves campus professionals and faculty in an information network that has become central to the design, development, and modification of new products. Taken together, the wave of philanthropic, marketing, and joint- venture initiatives over the past five years has enabled many institutions to be infused with impressive inventories of networked personal computers, enhanced telecommunication capabilities, and broadly expanded nodes for data processing. This has been accomplished at a cost and within a time frame that would have been inconceivable using institutional resources alone. Now that this wave has reached a certain level of maturity, however, many thoughtful information technology professionals are asking how to ensure a successful partnership. The basic requirement for the successful partnership is an understanding that both sides bring something to the table, that roughly equivalent contributions and commitments (not just dollars) are being invested, and that significant benefits can be reaped by both sides. The company contributes equipment, access to key corporate people, and trips to the company's research and development labs. The institution provides personnel (faculty and technical staff); graduate students who can run tests and work in development; hardware and software that can be used for test purposes; a complex, technically advanced environment that may be like the workplace environments of the future; and an opportunity for the vendor to get feedback on products and processes before the company goes public with something and gets killed in the marketplace. The information technology partnerships that were examined in our study provide useful models for institutions whose leadership want to learn how to partner effectively with the information technology industry. These partnerships have aided individualcampuses and the higher education marketplace. Partnerships also furnish examples of the perils of failing to achieve excellence in information technology and skill in working with vendors. For example, a number of institutions of excellent academic reputation have fallen from the first tier of leading computing institutions because they have not made a strategic and organizational commitment to information technology or have not been able to solve technological challenges, or both. In the future, CIOs who have not learned to nurture and facilitate partnership activities will be at a distinct disadvantage, while those who have enhanced their ability to work with vendors will provide great opportunities for the faculty, students, and administrative staffs at their institutions. Over the next decade, major universities will continue to increase the technological partnership activities with industry. This development will occur both to support economic development and technology transfer and to achieve advantages for particular institutions and for higher education. These partnerships will involve government as an active participant and funding source for some ventures. One of the remaining challenges is how to enhance the computing environment at all colleges and universities, not just the leading computing institutions. There is a real danger that the gap between the leading computing institutions and other colleges and universities will widen. Most institutions will not be able to afford to establish computing-intensive environments without external support. Perhaps the next generation of higher education, industry, and government partnerships in information technology can determine how to provide an appropriate level of information technology resources for the students and faculty at all colleges and universities. ======================================================================= For further reading: "AT&T's Double Play." InformationWEEK, 2 May 1988, pp. 12-13. "DEC Readies for the '90's." Computerworld Extra, 17 October 1988. Matthews, Jana B., and Rolf Norgaard. Managing the Partnership Between Higher Education and Industry. Boulder, Colo.: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 1984. Rothschild, Kurt. "The Age of Influence." Datamation, 15 December 1988, pp. 18-24. Turner, Judith Axler. "IBM Will Donate Equipment and Services to 48 Colleges to Study How Computers Can Be Used in Manufacturing." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 December 1988, pp. A15-A18. _______. "High-Technology Companies Often Turn to Colleges for Confidential 'Beta Tests' of New Products." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 October 1988. _______. "New Computer Industry Body Heeds Universities' Call for Unified System." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 May 1988, p. A24. _______. "Consulting Scholars, Backed By IBM, Help Colleges Explore the Role of Computers in Academic Life." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2 March 1988. _______. "Carnegie-Mellon Unveils 'Andrew,' A Computing System for Colleges." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 29 January 1986, p. 20. _______. "Minicomputer Pioneer Aims at Campus Market for Networks." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 May 1985. _______. "Apple to Extend Discounts in Its Macintosh Personal Computer to More Colleges." The Chronicle of Higher Education,11 April 1984, pp. 14-15. _______. "Apple Cuts Price on New Computer for 24 Colleges." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 February 1984, p. 11. _______. "IBM Takes Aim at Campuses, Pushing Use of its Computers for Instruction and Research." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 January 1984, pp. 9-10. ======================================================================== EXHIBIT 3: Advice for Negotiating With a Vendor * Make sure that both parties are working on a problem that is of mutual interest. * Be certain that the vendor is committed to the issue or problem that is the focus of the partnership, and that the relationship is structured so that both parties "win" from the partnership. * Make sure there is enough at stake for all parties to be fully committed to successful completion * Ensure that both parties are realistic about what to expect from the project. * Know what you want from the relationship, and do not settle for less. * Spend time planning and identifying potential problems. * Make certain that you negotiate with someone who has the authority to negotiate and make decisions, i.e., someone at a fairly high level in the vendor organization. * Do not give away anything a priori. * Put greater emphasis on support services that the vendor must provide, along with the equipment. * Work out mutually agreeable language that providesfor spin-offs and hand-offs. Define the point where potential development ends and the product will be handed to the vendor, and under what conditions spin-offs will be possible. * Have periodic status reviews (at least twice a year) where the people in the vendor organization and university meet to review the project's progress and to discuss problems and unintended benefits. * Pay more attention to internal project management, and document what has been accomplished. ************************************************************************