Reorganizing for Information Technology Management on Campus Copyright 1990 CAUSE FROM _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 13, Number 3, Fall 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 REORGANIZING FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ON CAMPUS by Harry L. Dillman and Morris A. Hicks ************************************************************************ Harry L. Dillman is Director of Computer Services at the University of Hartford, where he is responsible for administrative and academic computing and data networking. Morris A. Hicks is Associate Director of Computer Services at the University of Hartford, responsible for administrative information systems, application systems and programming, database administration, and data security administration. ************************************************************************ ABSTRACT: The strategic use of information technology is pervading almost all areas of higher education. Institutions must review their IT management structure to assure that the application of this rapidly- evolving technology will be maximized in the highly competitive 1990s. We have seen enormous changes in information technology (IT) over the past five years. Far more than a technically specialized area, it has become more and more integrated with today's business, teaching, and research organizations. As fast as these changes have occurred, the forecast is a continuation of this technological pace through the end of this century. The result of this advancement will be information technology as a "ubiquitous intellectual utility."[1] This prospect requires careful consideration by higher education institutions of how effectively they are organized to apply technology in their unique environments. Clearly, institutions must proactively approach and resolve key organizational issues to reap maximum benefit. Perceptions of information technology's effectiveness and evaluation of its importance to the overall success of an enterprise have shifted dramatically. The business world has already recognized that now, more than ever, information technology must be responsive to both the operating and the strategic needs of the entire organization. As a result, we have seen the emergence of a new, senior-level information technology manager: the chief information officer or CIO. The role of the corporate CIO is to provide an organization-wide perspective, to assure that the organization will implement technology for strategic advantage, and to incorporate information technology into the strategic planning process. In the commercial world, the organizational issues have been resolved in a variety of ways, ranging from the CIO having line responsibilities for all information technology activities, to a corporate-level CIO with no line organization and a small central staff with certain oversight functions. While business has recognized the changing role of information technology for a number of years, it is only recently that we have begun to see such recognition in higher education. Business, for the most part, has tended toward a strong centralized approach even in heterogeneous corporations. Within higher education a decentralized structure has been most prevalent, particularly the separation of administrative and academic information processing. Information technology now encompasses many functions beyond the traditional data processing role. The challenge is to integrate the many disparate sources of information, network systems, and information processing into a cohesive and responsive infrastructure. Much of this integration will overlap traditional academic and administrative areas, adding further complexity to campus IT management and organizational structures. With more complex organizational structures comes the problem of effectively managing widely diverse information technology services. Understanding the new demands and requirements for applying service management across such diverse areas represents a substantial challenge to the senior information technology officer. And in our profession, we are all too aware of other new pressures being exerted in higher education: a more austere budget environment, competition for students and faculty, higher expectations for information technology, and demands for more complex and efficient campus networks. All of these pressures demand that we re-examine our information technology organization structure and management practices. Integration of many different on- and off-campus networks, more automation of office services, networking library services, and merging of voice, data, and video transmissions on a common network are all factors affecting the need to address the effectiveness of current IT organization structures. Old Structures, New Technologies One of the most common organization structures on campus is one in which the computing unit reports to either an administrative or an academic senior officer. In some cases we find separate computer departments, one reporting to an administrative office and the other to an academic office. The network structure is often fragmented, with data networks under the direction of a computer service group, telephone services the responsibility of another administrative department, video transmission the purview of still another campus unit, and library services generally reporting to yet another officer. The widespread use of microcomputers, workstations, and local area networks has allowed the distribution of information processing across all campus constituencies. In many cases, office automation, ad hoc databases, and electronic mail networks have been developed utilizing a number of different local area network (LAN) technologies. The recent popularity of CD-ROM equipment and its use as a distribution medium for large databases over a growing spectrum of interests has raised questions about where and how to manage this new technology. We can expect interactive videotext and hypertext technologies to raise the same questions as the use of these media proliferates. Even the way that we print and publish documents has undergone massive changes through information technology. The typewriter is now a relic and will soon follow the slide rule into oblivion. Desktop publishing, computer-aided design (CAD), image creation and storage, graphics, and easy-to-use presentation software have significantly changed the way many of us communicate and manage our responsibilities. Use of computers in art and music schools has greatly changed the way we teach in these areas, and much attention is being focused on the potential of computing to enhance the teaching/learning process in general. New advances in image processing and digital synthesizing equipment will continue to challenge faculty and students. The list could go on and on. The question before us is: "How can we manage information technology on campus to assure that we maximize the potential benefits across such a wide spectrum of possibilities?" How -- Not Whether -- to Change It would be simple if a single organizational structure could be defined that would be acceptable to all institutions and to the administrative and academic members within each of our colleges and universities. But it's not likely to happen that way. The issues relating to a centralized versus decentralized approach for managing information technology have been presented many times. To reduce one of the controversies almost to an oversimplification, administrative user offices will, in general, be comfortable with a centralized structure while the academic community will demand a decentralized one. Teaching and research are faculty issues, and the fears that principles of academic freedom and innovation could be compromised with a strong, authoritarian, centralized structure are very real concerns within higher education. There are also critical differences in size, mission, traditions, financial resources, and culture among institutions which affect decisions about an appropriate organization and management structure for information technology within a particular institution. Another complicating factor is the current state (or "stage" in Nolan's parlance) of the assimilation of IT into the institution.[2] A greater assimilation (later stage) will aid in the institutional understanding of IT and the need for its effective management. No institution, then, can develop an appropriate IT organization without a thorough understanding of the following elements: * The size, organization, and role of the institution * Funding sources -- internal and external * Information technology penetration or stage * The importance of information technology to the institution's faculty and researchers * The importance of information systems in contributing to the institution's governance and financial well-being * The institution's traditions and culture Given the different emphases on the use of information resources at different universities, several patterns of management structures might be applicable in various combinations. Whatever the organization chosen, certain key management areas must be addressed to help bring coherence to the issues: * IT and Strategic Planning An organizational structure must be developed that allows information technology input to the institution's overall strategic planning process. * Institutional Resources and Infrastructure Institutional information databases should be centrally managed and campus-wide standards established to maintain the integrity of the networks. * User Councils Councils for administrative and academic users should be established to give users a voice in the information technology decision-making process. * Defined Responsibilities End-user and central information systems functions should be clearly defined and understood. * Standards Technology standards should be set only to the extent that they can be effectively managed and enforced. Each institution will determine the most effective way to organize, depending on its own unique profile. What is critical is recognizing the importance of planning for and managing information resources from an institution-wide perspective to achieve an institutional IT strategy. Advice and input from faculty and administrative committees can help assure that user needs will be represented. Priorities and policies established within an institution-level strategic planning function can help assure that the most critical information technology needs receive sufficient resources, especially when those resources are strained. In a rapidly changing IT environment, the process of assessing the most appropriate IT management structure must be revisited as new opportunities and pressures arise: any organizational structure for IT that works today will need to be reconsidered tomorrow. Such attentiveness and flexibility will allow senior administrators to determine and install the structure that will best meet the current strategic goals of their institution. ======================================================================== Footnotes 1 Abraham Peled, "The Next Computer Revo-lution," Scientific American 257:4 (October 1987), pp. 57-64. 2 R. L. Nolan, "Managing the Computer Resource: A Stage Hypo-thesis," Communications of the ACM, July 1973, pp. 399-405. ======================================================================== For further reading: Hall, Stephen C. "The Strategic Business of IS -- A classic organizational approach to structuring information services can bring better focus and financial health," Information Technology Quarterly, Summer 1988, pp. 4- 14. Information Technology: Can It All Fit? CAUSE Professional Paper Series, #2. Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1989. King, J. L., and K. L. Kraemer. "Evolution and Organizational Information Systems: An Assessment of Nolan's Stage Model," Communications of the ACM, May 1984, pp. 466-475. McFarlan, F. W. "IS in Academia -- Reframing the Ivory Tower," Information Technology Quarterly, Summer 1988, pp. 15-19. Nolan, R. L. "Managing the Crisis in Data Processing," Harvard Business Review, March/April 1979, pp. 115-126. Parker, M. M., and R. J. Benson. "Applying Service Management Principles to Information Systems Organizations, An Introductory Discussion," CSDP Working Paper Series, Vol. 3, No. 1. St. Louis: Washington University, 1989. Rosser, J. M., and J. L. Penrod. "Computing and Libraries: A Partnership Past Due," CAUSE/EFFECT, Summer 1990, pp. 21-24. ************************************************************************