Facilitating Change for Survival Copyright 1993 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 16, Number 2, Summer 1993. 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 date appear,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 FACILITATING CHANGE FOR SURVIVAL by A. Wayne Donald and Michael Naff ABSTRACT: Higher education is facing significant challenges that require adopting a philosophy that promotes change. Information technology organizations have the opportunity to contribute to campus change by providing leadership in finding better ways to leverage available resources. Technology alone will not change the way we do business, but it is an enabling tool that offers great opportunities. This article describes how the University Systems Analysis & Services group at Virginia Tech is helping departments facilitate strategic changes for administrative processes and overall operations. Economic, political, and social transformations have caused significant changes in higher education during the past decade, and predictions for the 1990s are even more dramatic. In terms of administrative functions, the escalating cost of higher education will force institutions to do more with less. With the always present concerns about demographic changes, aging physical structures, global competition, operating budgets, quality education, and so on, higher education is in for an arduous decade.[1] Severe budget reductions over the past three years at Virginia Tech are prime examples of conditions facing many institutions. An annual budget loss of over $38 million (even though $11 million has been replaced with tuition and fee increases), the elimination of approximately 300 positions, and some layoffs have impacted business operations, academic and research programs, outreach opportunities, and the spirit and morale of faculty and staff. Higher education can benefit from the experiences that have transpired in business and industry during the 1980s, when companies began to recognize they had to change business practices if they were to survive in the competitive business world. They also recognized that increasing capital and human resources did not necessarily lead to success. Instead, the focus shifted to addressing issues surrounding service, quality, speed of response, and innovation.[2] This focus is increasingly evident in today's higher education environment. Although global change is critical, change on campus in administrative areas to ensure more efficient and effective operations is also important. Implementing an aggressive planning process can help institutions discover new methods for meeting ever-increasing demands for facilitating change. A combination of reengineering and total quality management concepts can reveal opportunities for meeting the many challenges with advanced and innovative alternatives. Organizational structures are already changing in some institutions to simulate what has been happening in private industry, that is, flatter structures with more point-to-point relationships.[3] However, how institutions plan and organize for change and implement these concepts are critical factors. A CONCEPT FOR FACILITATING CHANGE AT VIRGINIA TECH An article by Richard L. Nolan in the Winter 1990 CAUSE/EFFECT focused on the issue of transforming business activities in higher education. Nolan explained that "'getting it' means understanding what transformation is, what is driving it, and what must be done to transform an organization. Transformation is changing an organization and the principles of managing it in a way that makes the organization viable, productive, and competitive in the information economy of the 1990s and beyond. The state of most organizations today and the way they are being managed will not survive into the 1990s."[4] A discussion paper for the Virginia Tech community was published in March 1993, entitled, "Where Do We Stand and What Might We Do?" The paper addresses environmental assumptions and operating principles for Virginia Tech, and emphasizes the need to work together as a team. Perhaps the most significant statement in the paper is that "a commitment to excellence is a commitment to continuous improvement and meaningful change."[5] Just as Nolan emphasized the need to understand transformation, Virginia Tech understands the need to work with University communities to motivate change. Taking the appropriate steps to _facilitate_ change will be essential in _recognizing_ successful change. Defining a change process A challenging question facing institutions preparing for this transformation is whether to adopt a concept of reengineering or one of total quality management. Is there really a difference? The strategy adopted at Virginia Tech was influenced by the opinion that the concepts are really one and the same. A 1992 white paper published in _InformationWeek_ states that business reengineering can be looked at "as a way of jump-starting a total quality management program when we don't have a year to think about it, a year to get ideas, and a three- year outlook to get solutions implemented."[6] Virginia Tech has incorporated a concept of reengineering into planning for administrative processes and systems to improve business activities at the University. The approach is geared towards a fresh and objective view of business processes. We are fortunate that senior management supports an approach of "leaving no stone unturned." Reengineering efforts not only examine University business processes, but often analyze policies (both local and state), organization, staffing, and information technology--all subject to change. The reengineering effort is, in many ways, "jump-starting" a total quality program that will instill an environment of continuous improvement at the University. A reengineering definition Reengineering has often been defined as a variation of other processes. Definitions have been associated with such terms as quality processes, industrial engineering, strategic information systems, and business processes such as Process Design Concept (PDC) and High Productivity Program (HPP).[7] However, Virginia Tech has incorporated into its plans and educational/awareness programs the concept of reengineering as a process for * reexamining basic assumptions about the way we do things and rejecting those that do not fit the technological capabilities of today; * redesigning work processes based upon new assumptions; * and "thinking out of the box," that is, refusing to be limited by traditions of the past.[8] Whether reengineering is considered a methodology, process, structure, or transformation, its purpose is to help organizations change the way they think about doing things. It provides the opportunity to be aggressive and rapidly produce results, while introducing a total quality process to sustain progress.[9] IMPLEMENTING A REENGINEERING PROCESS Although few argue against a need for transformation in higher education, implementing a reengineering process promotes change and involves risks. Keys to successful implementation are management support and strong leadership. To gain these, a plan must be in place to "sell" the reengineering concept to senior management, identify leadership for university efforts, and establish (or reorganize) a unit to implement the plan and provide the initiative. Potential costs for reengineering are an obvious concern, but at Virginia Tech we have proceeded under the assumption that such a process can, most often, be implemented with existing resources and that benefits will justify any additional costs. Gaining support Donald Langenberg, chancellor for the University of Maryland system, responded to Nolan's transformation challenge by placing it within the framework of a revolution: "Revolutions are not democratic, in the sense that a popular consensus must develop before anything can happen. All it takes is a few dedicated revolutionaries who do 'get it.' Then it will happen."[10] Penrod and Dolence amplify Langenberg's view by emphasizing that leadership may be the key to a successful reengineering program.[11] The leaders (or revolutionaries) must provide the initiative to "sell" the reengineering concept to senior management. Such revolutionaries are continuing to lead the efforts to incorporate a reengineering program in the planning processes at Virginia Tech. This effort is extremely important and involves several important steps. * The first step in this process is to recognize the need for reengineering and to convey this need to management--in fact, the process is enhanced if this information is conveyed to all levels of management. Management needs to understand that most processes in use today were never thoroughly analyzed or thoughtfully designed. Many present processes are results of automating an existing manual process.[12] * Another important step is to communicate a vision. Part of developing a plan for reengineering is to provide a sense of direction for management. What is it going to buy them? How can it benefit the institution as a whole? In some cases, the reengineering concept may reach beyond administrative areas, and other individuals must have an understanding of what this "revolution" will bring to their areas. Keep explanations simple, but put something out on that horizon. * Management must understand its role in this type of endeavor. The reengineering concept must be "publicly" endorsed. The concept is not one that should be viewed as a crusade for any specific group; it can be most productive if there is a top-down approach and visible management support is present.[13] However, meaningful change can also be initiated from other levels, but this often requires different management techniques. * A more horizontal approach to planning for the institution is also necessary if this type of effort is to succeed. Nolan refers to information technology as shifting from a spectator sport to a participatory sport for senior management. Information technology planning must be an integral part of the institutional planning process that includes a vision, an understanding of change concepts, and a sense of how information technology can complement the institutional mission and goals.[14] Information technology leaders must become part of the team and contribute to overall institutional planning. * Finally, management must comply with putting an organizational structure in place that can be a facilitating and enabling force in the reengineering effort. Any such organization will be impacted by current structures, but the plan needs to include a recommended organization that can provide leadership in facilitating change. The plan and its presentation to management must be persuasive. The design must address major obstacles and present the "newness" of the concept in a way that is not threatening to management. The plan is, indeed, the first step in a lengthy educational process that will reach across campus. An organization for facilitating change Defining an organization to facilitate the reengineering concept requires careful evaluation of what needs to be accomplished, who can get the job done, and where the organization should be placed within the institutional structure. The information systems unit is in a unique position to provide leadership and facilitate the reengineering efforts. It's a rare organization within a company or university that has "the cross-functional license to poke its nose into other people's business."[15] At Virginia Tech, once the organizational and reengineering concepts were approved by senior management, it was clear that information systems professionals should provide the leadership[16] because they: * tend to have a greater University-wide perspective of issues; * are usually experienced in working with management from many areas of the University (can help facilitate cross-functional discussions); * have a visionary perspective that is useful in looking at transformational issues; * are accustomed to systemic thinking; * possess a willingness to challenge the way things are done; and * understand and recognize the technological opportunities available for new initiatives. In January 1992, the vice president for information systems was given the leadership responsibility for the reengineering efforts. Existing information systems resources were used to set up a new department-- University Systems Analysis & Services (USAS)--reporting directly to that vice president. USAS is charged with providing direction and leadership for administrative systems and for incorporating a philosophy that integrates reengineering concepts into the planning process. Since its conception more than a year ago, the department has moved rapidly to assemble a staff, define organizational philosophies, implement an aggressive and team-oriented approach to project management, and begin facilitating change at Virginia Tech. Staffing the USAS team Perhaps the most important ingredient in the success of any reengineering effort is personnel. Staffing USAS for leading the reengineering projects was not unlike putting together a sports team: you put good players in strategic positions along with the necessary role players to make a team that can be successful. The immediate reaction from many organizations is that such people do not exist within the company (or institution) and that such personnel may also be unaffordable. Virginia Tech found the right personnel for the tasks among existing resources and has received full support in reallocating several faculty and staff positions. USAS management initially searched within the University (faculty, staff, and even students) to locate individuals who possessed certain skills needed in this undertaking. Rapid and major change in the work environment is not easily accepted by personnel; however, change is what reengineering is all about. Therefore, assembling a critical mass of innovative people who can deal with change and aid others is crucial.[17] USAS management at Virginia Tech continues to seek senior personnel who possess the abilities to serve the institution by providing: * vision and innovation in solving problems, * a bias for action, * quick identification of waste, * the ability to think horizontally and across administrative boundaries, * confidence and maturity to set aside ego and be a team player, * a knack to "blue sky" and think big, * an awareness of current technology and future trends, * understanding of the University mission and processes, * an ability to anticipate future higher education reaction to trends, threats, and opportunities, * an interest in helping Virginia Tech in a most difficult and challenging period.[18] Assembling a staff with these qualities is important and helps to create a new responsiveness to University administrative functions and systems. USAS operating philosophies Deficiencies within the administrative systems environment indicated the need for an organization that would be responsive and provide leadership. Identifying characteristics of such an organization helped define the functions of USAS and expectations for specific groups. * USAS does not deliver services in an area unless "invited" to do so by the area through a formal request directed to the information systems vice president. A University priority is assigned each request by a team consisting of the provost, chief business officer, and information systems vice president. The request is then sent to the USAS director. * If the requesting office does not agree to a reengineering approach, that is, an initial examination of the business processes and organization, the project will not become a priority item for senior management. * Resources are allocated to priority projects as the resources become available. The USAS director also maintains an "internal" project list to enhance opportunities for evaluating new technologies and for fully utilizing staff personnel. * USAS stresses a team concept within its structure and on individual projects so people are working together towards a common vision. * The USAS organization is "project driven" so that available resources can be utilized effectively; resources are available in USAS, other information systems organizations, and administrative offices. * Each USAS project team consists of high-quality and aggressive personnel with both diverse and advanced expertise. * Project guidelines are always accessible to ensure consistency in analysis and development of project plans. * Each project accepted by USAS is approached with an open mind and analyzed with a global perspective. Participation from all those affected by changes is required. * Rapid development and implementation techniques are used to ensure shorter turnaround for projects accepted by USAS. * Administrative offices secure and maintain sufficient resources to accept responsibility for production and maintenance after a process and/or system is operational. Administrative processes at any institution of higher education provide opportunities to impact cost, quality, service, and innovation. Creating an organization with these operational philosophies has helped Virginia Tech anticipate changes, recognize opportunities, and progress to strengthen the administrative environment. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR REENGINEERING SUCCESS Once an organization has been defined and the staff assembled, the making of internal changes must be established as a priority. USAS management realized that if its organization was to lead reengineering efforts, then change had to start at home. Traditional and conventional practices of managing projects would no longer be effective for facilitating change. The old "systems development" practices, policies, methodologies, and operations had to be reviewed for improvement, change, and/or elimination. Staff development A top priority in any reengineering effort must be in the area of staff development. The USAS staff presented several challenges to its management: (1) technology expertise for the systems personnel, on the average, was limited to a mainframe environment utilizing COBOL, IMS, and other mainframe-based tools; (2) most staff members were using terminals or 286-based personal computers; (3) newer staff members from other University areas lacked an understanding of technology and analysis techniques; (4) understanding of concepts of new distributed computing environments was limited, and (5) the opportunities for working in a team-based environment were not understood. USAS management quickly assembled a list of short-term actions for creating a working environment favorable to change. These actions included the replacement of outdated hardware and software and the development of ongoing training programs to introduce new technologies and tools. The introduction of a "total" team concept and how it impacts work has been instrumental in helping the staff recognize different methods for achieving goals. The department has utilized University resources to provide training and assistance in process analysis and project management techniques. The list of short-term actions, however, is only an initial step. A total quality management program within the organization is essential if the staff is to receive the type of training necessary for success. USAS is emphasizing the need to expand general knowledge and, at the sametime, have staff members develop specific expertise in areas to enhance the "project driven" style of operation. Project strategies Although there is some reluctance to identify a specific methodology for reengineering efforts at Virginia Tech, the USAS staff has implemented guidelines in three areas to enhance project activity. Specific techniques to improve user involvement, project reporting, and project guidelines are being utilized to reflect a new style of doing business. User involvement A key component of change in the project strategy is user involvement. This does not mean that users were not involved in traditional methods, but their input has been refocused. The traditional development cycle at Virginia Tech was to address systems requests by analyzing needs, developing an in-depth proposal, writing code, testing, installing, documenting, and training. However, this procedure occurred in a vacuum, usually resulting in automation of existing processes and procedures. Users, normally consisting of internal departmental staff, were involved in the beginning and end but not through the entire process. In a recent human resources team meeting, one member indicated that "people don't resist change ... they resist being changed." This perception of change has promoted the importance of user involvement at Virginia Tech. The diversity of users involved has changed and the team concept promotes user involvement from the early planning stages through implementation. Not only are specific departmental staffs included in all project phases, but an attempt is made to include all personnel who come in contact in some fashion with the processes being reworked. A group session brings myriad users together and is one vehicle for obtaining a tremendous amount of information in a short time. Users are formed into groups, and group dynamic processes are used to uncover strengths, weaknesses, problems, and issues for the topic being discussed. An interesting by-product of group sessions is that people feel they have a role in the rebuilding and redesigning process. Traditional project teams normally consisted of technical personnel. Today, project teams also include internal operational staff, end users, and people who actually perform the work. These people work along side the technicians in developing working prototypes that stimulate additional thinking and, ultimately, a better finished product. Project reporting style Executive reports, scope-of-effort proposals, and white papers are often not fully read and understood because of their depth, detail, and computer jargon. Even though such documents are well written and researched, individuals do not have time to muddle through long, exhaustive reports. Roberts writes, "Written reports have purpose only if read by the king."[19] This statement may seem trivial, but lack of effective reporting is a significant problem in educating and informing individuals involved in the project. USAS has implemented a new style of information delivery that has initially proven successful and has drawn compliments from key executives and administrators. Simple, concise reports are now prepared, written in common language (no computerese). Quite often before general distribution, a draft is presented to management in a roundtable format, and the reporting style generally leads to a discussion rather than a formal presentation. Project guidelines No proven methodology exists yet for reengineering. In fact, DeMarco and Lester suggest that imposing rigid methodologies inhibits risk-taking and creativity, two important ingredients in reengineering.[20] In addition, guidelines currently in place proposed by the Commonwealth of Virginia are outdated and continue to use the 1970s mentality of traditional systems projects. However, some guidelines need to be available to present a project in a consistent manner. An initial set of guidelines has been initiated by USAS to ensure consistency for analysis and development of project plans. These guidelines are constantly reviewed and modified to increase their effectiveness and to adapt to the changing environment. A key aspect of the method is that senior management must "sign off" on each phase of the project guidelines before continuation to the next phase and before actual implementation begins. Thus, if management determines that resources (dollars and/or personnel) are not available to implement the recommended changes, USAS has not invested the time and effort, as was the case with traditional methods. Our guidelines have three phases: definition, analysis, and implementation. Project definition--The project definition phase of the guidelines involves taking a cursory look at the project to be undertaken, to estimate its scope. Executive interviews are held to set the boundaries, identify the extent of commitments, and define the goals and objectives of the project. Depending on the size and complexity of the project, this phase may last from three to ten days. A project definition statement will be given to higher-level management that identifies the description, justification, scope, initial resources (project analysis team), and the project analysis schedule (the next phase). The intent of this two-to-three-page document is to minimize misunderstandings, eliminate wasted effort, and establish expectations. Project analysis--The project analysis phase, to be completed within three months, describes processes and workflow and identifies strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. The initial focus is not to address technology issues but rather to determine how business is being conducted, and to consider alternatives for improvement. Interviews with various personnel provide the project team with a broad overview of problems, issues, and expectations. Group sessions have proven successful in identifying problems and issues with the status quo and are a quick method of gathering large amounts of information. Brainstorming sessions with project team members, as well as USAS staff and others outside the project, help generate new ideas and alternatives for change. Reengineering is expressed by Kriegel and Patler simply as, "If it ain't broke, break it!"[21] Reengineering requires that people think differently about how things are done, and this includes encouraging project team members to view systems in a more open manner. The analysis must change from a focus on the primary user (registrar, comptroller, etc.) to one that goes beyond the boundaries, into areas where others are impacted. Penrod and Dolence refer to several key principles of reengineering, but only a few of them have been emphasized in the early stages of reengineering at Virginia Tech. * Compress linear functions--capture information only once. Delays, entry errors, and the overhead of duplication can be eliminated. * Analyze the way work is done--realign, redistribute, and consolidate the way work is done to enhance operations and reduce inefficiencies. * Reposition decision and control functions--restructure work flow to locate decision points closer to where work is performed, thereby improving most operations. * Implement appropriate technologies--evaluate processes based on the above principles to determine what (if any) technologies can contribute to improvements. The project analysis phase is generally broken into four separate but equally important areas, and stresses that solutions go beyond just technology. _Social analysis_ is often overlooked; however, proposed changes always impact people, and their acceptance and cooperation are essential for successful change. _Process analysis_ identifies and describes the major processes, inefficiencies in operations, and recommendations for improvement. _Organizational analysis_ determines whether and how the organization can be changed to eliminate unnecessary hierarchical lines of control, reflect more efficient workflow, and allow for better services to be provided. _Technology analysis_ addresses the needs of any current system(s) and determines how modern technology might be incorporated to increase system effectiveness. It is the coordination of all four types of analysis and their recommendations that provides the best opportunity for the project to be successful. The major findings (good and bad), critical issues, feasible alternatives, and the project team's recommendation are presented in the new reporting style as an executive briefing. This format allows for immediate comments and discussion and for any misunderstandings to be corrected prior to other presentations and general distribution. The emphasis is on the reengineering effort and not a presentation directed at technical solutions. The briefing focuses on social issues, processes, organization, and technologies to show how they collectively must be changed to address service, quality, productivity, and cost. There is some effort to define anticipated support services if changes are approved and implemented. Project implementation--Reaching the implementation phase is an indication that senior management (who initially requested the analysis) has agreed to all or part of the recommendation for change. Management works with the analysis team to determine the implementation team structure. Obviously, more resources will be required. Analysis team members may be reassigned and other resources brought on board. Remaining team members may take on different roles. Leadership, project management, technical, analytical, as well as other skills are needed to produce the right mix of talent on the project. The implementation team structure may recommend that process, design, and task teams be used for detail analysis and design efforts. This increases user involvement but also requires a commitment by USAS to develop a "readiness" or training plan. The USAS staff works closely with all project team members to prepare each individual for detail project activities. Team members must understand the proposed changes, they must be motivated to participate actively in the initiatives, and they must be empowered to get the work done. Each team will be assisted in understanding group dynamics, process analysis, and project management techniques, and will develop a clear vision with approved objectives. The implementation phase involves an indepth analysis using the four areas described in the project analysis phase. The analysis process and a team concept is applied to the overall (or global) project, and focuses on specific functional areas. For example, in a human resources project there may be "teams" assigned to work on leave management, benefits, payroll, personnel, application tracking, system interfaces, policies, and so on. A detailed implementation plan is developed within two to three months and addresses the modular development and delivery of a total solution. This scheme shows progress quickly and allows for incremental improvements throughout the life of the system. The use of project management software allows management to stay abreast of developments and imposes a structured schedule for the project. Initially, USAS has found the increased user involvement, the new reporting style, and the project guidelines to be successful. Several small projects have been completed and two larger projects, for Enrollment Services and Human Resources, are in the implementation phase. A migration plan for moving from the mainframe environment has been approved for Enrollment Services and initial steps for a new registration process will be implemented in summer 1993. In June or July of this year, the Human Resources team will issue a request for proposal (RFP) for a "core" human resources system. These two larger projects will be a better measure of whether the new techniques will allow the USAS organization to deliver better products and services to the University. Measuring project success How is the success of a reengineering project measured? One measurement tool of project teams is the basic cost/benefit analysis. current costs of an existing process (to include technology costs) compared to a proposed alternative results in meaningful figures for senior management. However, the cost/benefit analysis does not give a complete picture of every reengi-neering effort. For example, improved services, organizational changes, or quality of service cannot always be measured in dollars and cents. However, if current operations and costs are defined in the project plan, they can be used as a benchmark after the implementation of change. Good marketing strategies and a strong project team can result in developing a project plan that will ensure success. Part of the plan must be information that shows benefits to the institution. Whether techniques include a cost/benefit analysis, a statement of objectives, or a five-year vision, senior management must understand the benefits of its investment. Some areas of change at Virginia Tech worth noting follow. * Parking System--Eliminating the registration of vehicles and registering only individuals provided savings in operations, eliminated the need for wage positions, and improved services. * Enrollment Services--Combining four offices (admissions, registrar, financial aid, and student systems) into the Enrollment Services operation required some up-front investment, but this project will result in future savings and greatly enhance services to students and their families. * Human Resources--Operating personnel and payroll systems in the mainframe environment requires considerable support from central computing. Initiating a comprehensive human resources system in a distributed environment will reduce costs of hardware and software, improve services to employees, and enhance system interfaces. * Leave Management--Reporting monthly leave is currently accomplished on optical scanning forms. Eliminating the forms and manual intervention in the controller's office will produce annual savings and reduce the time it takes employees to report leave. People want to know what they are getting for their money, and they usually want to know before making a commitment. Whenever possible, project teams must provide information that will assist management in making these difficult decisions--even though such decisions may appear straightforward to the project team. EMBRACING CHANGE This article has provided some insight into reengineering efforts at Virginia Tech. The USAS organization was established to deal specifically with administrative systems and to ensure that a new, aggressive, innovative approach is used in this area. The personnel involved with reengineering efforts are "having more fun" than they have experienced in years. They are working in teams (not being restricted by traditions of how to solve problems), utilizing their expertise in different areas, enjoying management support, and realizing positive results. USAS staff and those involved from other University areas are seeing the impact they are having on their institution. These activities give them a sense of accomplishment and foster the idea of pulling together in difficult times. They are actually becoming "the change agents" for Virginia Tech. Word of the USAS mission and the idea of reengineering is permeating campus. Departments are calling weekly to have USAS work with them on improving operations. Resources are limited, but with a priority procedure in place projects (both large and small) are regularly added to the lists. USAS management and staff are being asked to talk with groups, from student government to the special commissions, to discuss change. People throughout the University are interested in becoming part of the "change team" and are being encouraged, with appropriate team training, to be part of the new direction for administrative processes and systems. Change is inevitable, and it is important that change be viewed as positive. Information systems professionals can be the revolutionaries who get this moving and "sell" the concept that change is necessary for survival. However, it will be a slow process; there are no overnight solutions. We are involved in a culture change, and patience is important. Gordon Davies, director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, emphasized the need to rethink higher education and how it operates: "We should face up to the hard reality that higher education has to change if it is to continue its central role in American Society."[22] Do we have a choice? ===================================================================== Footnotes: 1 A. W. Donald, "Coordination of Distributed Activities," Proceedings of the CAUSE 1990 National Conference (Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1990), pp. 523-533. 2 J. I. Penrod and M. G. Dolence, "Concepts for Reengineering Higher Education," CAUSE/EFFECT, Summer 1991, pp. 10-17. See also by the same authors Reengineering: A Process for Transforming Higher Education, CAUSE Professional Paper #9 (Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1992). 3 J. McIntyre, "Spinning Into The 1990s," NACUBO Business Officer, January 1990, pp. 24-30. 4 R. L. Nolan, "Too Many Executives Today Just Don't Get It!," CAUSE/EFFECT, Winter 1990, pp. 5-11. 5 "Where Do We Stand and What Might We Do?" A report from the President's Office, Virginia Tech, March 1993, p. 10. 6 "Business Reengineering: What, Why and How," InformationWeek, 8 June 1992, pp. 1A-8A. 7 J. King, "Rip it up!," Computerworld, 15 July 1991; and Penrod and Dolence. 8 Penrod and Dolence, p. 12. 9 "Business Reengineering: What, Why, and How," p. 5A. 10 "Transforming Higher Education in the Information Age: Presidents Respond," CAUSE/EFFECT, Fall 1991, pp. 6-12. 11 Penrod and Dolence, p. 15. 12 T. H. Davenport and J. E. Short, "The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign," Sloan Management Review, Summer 1990, pp. 11-27. 13 A. E. Alter, "The Corporate Takeover," CIO, December 1990, pp. 32- 42. 14 Nolan, p. 11. 15 "Business Reengineering: What, Why, and How," p. 6A. 16 Alter, p. 34. 17 Penrod and Dolence, p. 16. 18 Fax Forum, "Fad or Phenomenon?," Information Week, 15 July 1991, pp. 36-37. 19 W. Roberts, Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun (New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1987), p. 101. 20 T. DeMarco and T. Lester, Peopleware (New York: Dorset House Publishing Co., 1987), p. 8. 21 R. J. Kriegel and L. Patler, If It Ain't Broke ... Break It! (New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1991), pp. 63-78. 22 G. Davies, "Changing the Script--Rethinking Higher Ed," Roanoke Times, 12 April 1992. ********************************************************************** A. Wayne Donald has been associated with Virginia Tech since 1969, and during that span has held a number of positions within the area of computing and information systems. In January of 1992 he assumed responsibility for a new department, University Systems Analysis & Services, which provides direction and leadership for reengineering initiatives in administrative areas and works closely with University departments in defining and managing change. Mr. Donald holds a B.S. degree in physics from Lynchburg College and an M.A. in higher education administration from Virginia Tech. Michael Naff has worked with administrative systems at Virginia Tech for fourteen years. He is a project analyst with the University Systems Analysis & Services department. Currently, he serves as project manager for the purchase and implementation of a human resources information system. Mr. Naff's activities in CAUSE include serving on the CAUSE Conference Program and Information Exchange Committees and as a presenter at CAUSE92. **********************************************************************