Computing and Libraries: A Partnership Past Due Copyright 1990 CAUSE FROM _CAUSE/EFFECT_ VOLUME 13, NUMBER 2, SUMMER 1990. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its dateappear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for 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 COMPUTING AND LIBRARIES: A PARTNERSHIP PAST DUE by James M. Rosser and James I. Penrod ************************************************************************ James M. Rosser is President and Professor of Health Care Management at The California State University, Los Angeles. He previously served as Vice Chancellor of the State of New Jersey Department of Higher Education. Dr. Rosser is active in the American Council on Education's Commission on Academic Affairs, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute on Health, among others. He is a member of the CAUSE Strategic Advisory Committee. James I. Penrod is Vice President for Information Resources Management and Professor of Education at The California State University, Los Angeles, where he coordinates the University strategic planning process and functions as the University's policy officer for information. His line management responsibilities include telecommunications, television, academic and administrative computing, office automation, publications services, graphics/photography, copier services, mail services, records and forms management, institutional research, and planning analysis. Dr. Penrod's doctoral degree from Pepperdine University is in institutional management. ************************************************************************ ABSTRACT: This article addresses the growing need for the heads of computing/communications and library organizations on college and university campuses not only to work together in a cooperative spirit but also to assume leadership roles in planning for institutional information resources. The authors discuss the role of the chief information officer on campus, changing institutional needs in an information economy, and the need for higher education to engage in strategic planning and management, inclusive of information technology resources. The last decade and a half has witnessed the converging of computing and communications technologies, an explosion in the amount of available data and information, and a period of unprecedented investment in information technologies on college and university campuses. With these changes, the concept of information resources management (IRM) has emerged. Information resources management, in turn, has given rise to a new senior administrative officer, often an executive officer of the institution, charged with policy and management responsibilities for information technologies. The term (though usually not the title) chief information officer (CIO) is often used to designate this relatively new position. During the 1980s, an estimated 200 such positions were created by colleges and universities in the United States[1] Typically IRM organizations in higher education consist of academic and administrative computing, voice and data communications, technology planning, and a variety of other units. Television services, institutional research, printing, copying/reprographics, mail services, media services, and the library are the most frequently included "other" units. A survey conducted by Penrod, Dolence, and Douglas in 1989 found that the library was part of the IRM structures of 15 percent of the respondents[2] Soon after these IRM-type organizations began to appear, where the library was not part of this organization, there was often competition between computing/communications and libraries for money, equipment, technical staff, and respect as each struggled to become the dominant provider of academic information services.[3] At national conferences, librarians were urged to "abandon the passive role ... get out and 'mix- it-up' in university politics and with 'the money boys.'"[4] Many librarians held to the belief that had emerged during the 1960s and 1970s data processing era, i.e., that computer people felt they alone knew best what their clients needed and thus were very non-responsive to the community they should be serving.[5] CIOs who usually had administrative responsibility for planning for information technology sometimes responded by declaring a strict "hands off" policy toward the library, essentially excluding it from significant participation unless specific projects were involved (for example, an online public access catalog system). While not completely gone, in recent years the warring stances of the past seem to be disappearing, being replaced with a degree of mutual respect. In some instances formal service agreements have been implemented between computing units and libraries which delineate such things as problem tracking, coordinating procedures, response time, and system up-time.[6] It is worth noting that such agreements usually come about at the request of librarians. Indeed, at the 1988 mid-winter meeting of the American Library Association (ALA), a task force of the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) presented a draft document aimed at providing "unbiased" guidelines for campuses considering the convergence of libraries and computer centers. After discussion, the tone of the document was changed to focus on cooperation between units rather than convergence. This change and the fact that the library community feels that guidelines are needed suggests that librarians may have some feelings of insecurity in forging new partnerships[7] One very concrete indication that progress is being made toward more cooperation was cessation of publication of Libraries and Computing Centers: Issues of Mutual Concern in May 1989. This insert in the Journal of Academic Librarianship, begun in March 1987, was intended to address overlapping concerns of libraries and computer centers. In its short history contributors explored issues such as campuswide and national networks, communication protocols, tools and techniques for information storage and retrieval, freedom of access to information, the ingredients of a solid relationship between units, and the provision of information access services to the academic community. The final issue concluded that "many of the merger/cooperation problems cited by practitioners seem to have worked themselves out ... the two units have developed a functional relationship based on the need to provide 'meaningful access to relevant resources.'"[8] Although the war may be over, much remains to be done before the potential of true information resources management is reached. Thus far, few institutions have engaged in meaningful strategic planning for information technology utilizing the array of information experts from both computing/communications and library units. Institutional Needs The 1990s present a new world view, one that is increasingly interconnected due to the common technologies of information, service, and electronics.[9] Advances in information technology are rapidly coming to be seen as empowerment to individuals rather than instruments of oppression, as many had previously feared. Linked by telephones, fax machines, computers, fiber optic networks, and overnight delivery services, a new breed of information worker is reorganizing the landscape of developed countries around the globe, especially the United States. A new electronic heartland has been born. By the year 2000, the great global cities of the world will not be the largest, rather they will be those that provide effective and efficient information infrastructures for their citizens; they will be the "smartest." In an information economy, people will prosper even more from their intelligence and creativity. The individual is the foundation of society and the basic unit of change. It is said that "the new responsibility of society is to reward the initiative of the individual."[10] The increasingly important role of higher education in such a world is obvious. More and more people must have college degrees if they are to share in the promise and potential of the future. Their education must properly prepare them to understand this new world and to use the information infrastructure to unleash the power of their own intelligence and creativity irrespective of national origin, race, sex, creed, or socio-economic strata. Building the information technology infrastructure is now well under way on many college and university campuses. Its elements consist of at least the following: (1) a campuswide communications network integrating voice, data, and image traffic with bridges to internal local area networks (LANs) and to regional, national, and international external networks; (2) an application architecture that integrates the diverse information systems of the campus and allows for enhanced functionality of future systems; (3) discipline-oriented databases of data, text, and images organized relationally to allow easy access and manipulation by users; (4) a hardware architecture consisting of (access to) supercomputers, mainframes, minicomputers, intelligent workstations, and specialized devices; and (5) internal management systems that allow for effective management of the utility and network, i.e., change and problem management, performance and capacity management, processing and recovery management, security and control management, communications management, and database management[11] What is described above is a network of technology distributed down to the desktop of a student, instructor, researcher, librarian, staff member, or administrator. It is our belief that such an infrastructure may be best managed on the policy level by a chief information officer. As the desktop technology of the next few years becomes more and more powerful, significant direct systems responsibility will be distributed and the CIO role will be one of policy officer, architect, standard setter, facilitator, and "coach." Who will serve as the CIO, as well as how the line organizational structure will be configured, at a particular campus will continue to reflect its political realities as well as information resource management philosophies. The support structure for the information worker for the 1990s and beyond must rapidly evolve toward a strategy that focuses on the integration that will soon exist at the desktop. Such a strategy demands not only that computing/communications specialists and librarians cooperatively work together, but that they rethink the nature of and the way in which they deliver services to clients who will less and less frequently need to physically leave their individual work space. What is known as the Bert Lance axiom -- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" -- is widely practiced in education, but is bad philosophy for this decade. Much is currently being said and done in business and industry about "reengineering the workplace." Reengineering calls for: (1) using the capabilities of information technology as a shaping input for change, not just as an implementation tool for increased efficiency; (2) looking for ways to make major changes rather than incremental steps in improving processes; (3) identifying the fundamental assumptions on which processes or procedures are based, then recasting them in light of today's capabilities and needs; (4) establishing new standards of performance more in line with the demands of today's competition, e.g., cost, quality, service, and speed; (5) redefining the organization of work around outcomes, not tasks; (6) building control, accountability, and decision-making into the job of the individual; and (7) encouraging far more teamwork and organizational flexibility, i.e., matrix management, in order to provide appropriate support for today's integrated systems and networks[12] All higher education organizational units need to examine carefully and consider applying the principles of reengineering. Although CIOs and librarians have been at the forefront in advocating and implementing technology use in colleges and universities, too few have aggressively pursued paths such as those outlined above. Such leadership is now greatly needed. Strategic Planning and Management Strategic planning and management has been defined as: (1) setting goals that match institutional activities, competencies, and resources with the external environment's present and future opportunities, demands, and risks; (2) formulating alternative courses of short-term and long-term action for achieving goals; (3) selecting and implementing a best course of action, (4) directing and coordinating resources and activities to help assure successful performances; (5) evaluating results to ensure that goals are met; and (6) monitoring the appropriateness of the course of action and the necessity for modifications[13] Such a process provides an excellent framework for reengineering the management environment. Strategic planning models call for periodic analyses of the external environment, institutional strengths and weaknesses, and institutional values. Matching opportunities/constraints, strengths/weaknesses, and values enhances a university's ability to develop more responsible mission and goals statements and, more appropriately, to link planning and budgeting. This institutional strategy is reinforced with a functional approach delineated in tactical plans, e.g., academic plan, financial plan, IRM plan, etc. Finally, operational strategy is presented in unit plans which define actions to be taken within a budget cycle which, over time, result in the accomplishment of institutional goals.[14] By introducing the principles of reengineering into each of the strategy levels -- institutional, functional, and operational -- hierarchical resistance to change may be lessened. Additionally, linking strategic planning and management evaluation processes to reengineering should provide administrative motivation and creativity in designing and interjecting supplemental intervention strategies to further overcome resistance to change. The IRM tactical plan and the unit plans for computing/communications and the library would obviously be very important in implementing reengineering under such a process. An additional "concept" document, similar to one recently developed by the University of Pennsylvania, could also prove to be quite useful.[15] It should present vision statements for computing/communications and the library, suggest support services appropriate for the information needs of students, faculty, staff, and administration down to the desktop, and provide insight into where joint efforts will be required. Conclusion Peter Lyman has written: "The functional convergence of libraries and computer centers does not necessarily imply reorganization (at least in the short run), but it might. It does imply things are changing, and change should be managed. And yet, it is not clear that higher education can or should be managed."[16] We believe this statement clearly indicates the root of the past and present difficulty in effecting a partnership between computing and libraries, whatever the organizational structure. A similar perspective is expressed in William Massy's eloquent call for enhanced productivity in college and university academic departments: "There is one overriding issue which requires careful evaluation and, if possible, validation. It is that the fundamental tools of enlightened management -- clarity of purpose and candor in performance evaluation and feedback -- will work in the academy. There is some evidence that they may not."[17] Massy goes on to point out that successful administrators [not necessarily effective ones] learn early the value of being vague. Yet, vagueness decreases productivity in two significant ways: (1) it inhibits the acceptance of limits; "maybe" gets translated as "yes" and a "no" is taken as "maybe"; and (2) it makes it difficult for organizations to come to grips with strategic issues, to make informed and rigorous comparisons, and to set goals and measure progress toward them. Thus the essential elements of strategic planning and management --firm resource constraints, clear vision, effective incentives, and group and individual empowerment -- are not present in this environment[18] Given the following factors: * increasing societal pressures on higher education to hold down costs and improve effectiveness; * the critical national role of colleges and universities in educating information workers for both the electronic heartland and the "smart" global cities of the 21st century; and * the necessity to build and maintain a campus information infrastructure, we must find the resolve to reengineer the educational workplace and to manage well the resulting benefits. Such an endeavor will require setting aside attitudes from the past, focusing on establishment of a campus culture that encourages change and innovation while ceasing to reward vagueness, and finding leaders and managers capable of providing the vision, inspiration, and motivation that enables such a revolution to take place and to become ingrained in the infrastructure. Admittedly, this is a call for action on a major scale, but the stakes are too high for a less demanding course. Inherent in the call is the need for chief information officers and librarians to become partners in designing and implementing an information infrastructure to meet the needs of the 1990s and beyond. Just as importantly, they are needed to join together in providing the type of leadership -- perhaps by example -- that demonstrates that organizational cultures must change for the benefit of all. ======================================================================== Footnotes 1 James I. Penrod, Michael G. Dolence, and Judith V. Douglas, The Chief Information Officer in Higher Education, CAUSE Professional Paper Series #4, in press. 2 Ibid., p. 15. For related data, see also Anne Woodsworth's doctoral dissertation, "The Chief Information Officer's Role in American Research Universities," UMI Dissertation Information Service, University of Pittsburgh, 1988. 3 Joy R. Hughes, "A Clash of Cultures: Libraries and Computer Centers in an Information Age," Doctoral Dissertation, The Union Institute, December 1989, p. 1. 4 Judith Axler Turner, "Campus Libraries Seen Threatened by Other Sources of Information," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 December 1985, p. 30. 5 Anne Woodsworth and James F. Williams II, "Computer Centers and Libraries: Working Toward Partnerships," Library Management and Administration, March 1988, p. 86. 6 Ibid., pp. 86-87. 7 Anne Woodsworth, "Computing Centers and Libraries as Cohorts: Exploiting Mutual Strengths," Computing, Electronic Publishing and Information Technology (Binghamton, N.Y.: The Haworth Press, Inc., 1988), pp. 27-28. 8 Richard M. Dougherty, "What Happened to the Merger Debate?," Libraries and Computing Centers: Issues of Major Concern 13 (May 1989), p. 1. 9 John Naisbitt and Patricia Aburdene, Megatrends 2000: Ten New Directions for the 1990s (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1990), pp. 14-15. 10 Ibid., pp. 298-309. 11 A Peat Marwick recommendation set forth in "IAIMS Infrastructure: Technological Base," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 39(2), 1988, p. 119. 12 Mike Hammer, "Reengineering Your Business," AT&T Computer Systems Symposium, Orlando, Florida, 2 April 1990. 13 Mark Meredith, Robert G. Cope, and Oscar T. Lenning, "Differentiating Bonafide Strategic Planning from Other Planning," a study paper, May 1987, p. 3. 14 James M. Rosser and James I. Penrod, "Strategic Planning and Management: A Methodology for Responsible Change," The Journal of Library Administration, in press. 15 Paul H. Mosher and Ronald Arenson, "Planning for the Twenty-First Century," Almanac Supplement, 13 February 1990. 16 Peter Lyman, "Computing, Libraries, and Classrooms: Organizing and Planning Campus Information Resources," in Organizing and Managing Information Resources on Campus, EDUCOM Strategies Series (McKinney, Texas: Academic Computing Publications, Inc., 1989), p. 217. 17 William F. Massy, "A Strategy for Productivity Improvement in College and University Academic Departments," a paper presented at the Forum for Post Secondary Governance, Santa Fe, N.M., October 1989, revised November 1989, p. 26. 18 Ibid., pp. 26-27. ========================================================================