Opportunistic Planning for Information Technologies: Upside-Down or Downside-Up? Copyright 1993 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 16, Number 3, Fall 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 OPPORTUNISTIC PLANNING FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES: UPSIDE-DOWN OR DOWNSIDE-UP? by Ellen F. Falduto, Reid M. Golden, William Beyer, Davis B. Conley, and Richard A. Detweiler ABSTRACT: How should liberal arts colleges plan for information technology? An alternative to traditional planning processes is the opportunistic approach--seeking non-technology priorities for which information technology investments can be justified. In this article, the cases of two liberal arts colleges illustrate such opportunistic approaches and outcomes. Liberal arts colleges frequently have difficulty justifying investments in information technology: they do not have the technology curriculum which requires a substantial hardware and software investment, and they are not large enough to require significant information systems merely to successfully administer the school. As such, opportunistic planning strategies (identifying non-technology goals of priority concern to the school for which information systems investments can be justified) are frequently the only way to build the information technology infrastructure. Opportunistic approaches can be characterized as "upside-down"--using information technology as a strategy to accomplish essential non-technology goals--or "downside- up"--relying on non-technology initiatives to build an information infrastructure. PLANNING STRATEGIES Information technology (IT) planning is typically seen as a formal process in which the first step is to have the institution commit to some form of a technology future for itself. The reasons for such planning are many and various.[1] These reasons argue for formal planning for IT in higher education institutions. "Formal" planning connotes adoption of a process with responsibility for planning assigned to a committee of faculty and senior administrators. Planning follows a traditional model with its roots in the corporate sector-- whether it be long-range planning, strategic planning, reactive planning, budget planning, or a mix of these--and a series of defined steps (as described by Cope or Bryson, for example[2]). In simplest form, such planning begins with the institution's mission, followed by identification of strengths and weaknesses, development of assumptions about the future, development of a vision of the future and goals consistent with the institutional mission, development of a timeline for achieving these goals (and specific timelines for implementation of various steps along the way), and a provision for assessment and feedback on the plan's progress. Opportunistic models recognize the limitations of these traditional approaches to planning in higher education, namely, that the products of traditional approaches to planning are often just that--traditional. Liberal arts institutions by virtue of their limited resources cannot be everything to everyone; thus, they first and foremost must identify and create a distinctive and coherent identity for themselves, and implement programs and initiatives, including those for IT, to establish and reinforce this identity. In opportunistic planning, people seek to identify and implement interesting programs that are likely to attract student (and other) interest in the college and that are related to overall institutional purposes. Opportunistic planning, however, runs the risk of creating a range of individual initiatives--including IT ones--which, although related to an overall institutional purpose, are not necessarily coherent with each other (e.g., giving all students and faculty portable computers but serving PC software via a network). Such instances point to the importance of a clear vision for the role of IT in the college. This vision is not simply in terms of educational purpose, which is the primary reason for IT in a liberal arts environment, but to maintain perspective and provide for the allocation of limited resources to appropriate IT initiatives. Ideally, this sense of need comes from within the campus community and is championed by the president of the institution with the support of trustees and other senior administrators. The approach a college takes to opportunistic planning can be either an "upside-down" or a "downside-up" one. An institution that embraces opportunistic planning from an upside-down perspective is one that plans and implements information technology initiatives because such initiatives make sense in terms of a larger, agreed-upon vision for the institution. Institution-wide commitment supports the IT initiative since it has grown from goals the college community has set for itself, and is consistent with the purpose of the institution. In contrast, an institution that comes at opportunistic planning from a downside-up approach looks to specific non-technology initiatives to justify expansion of IT services and resources. Since technology is a goal rather than a larger, agreed-upon vision, the IT initiative may not necessarily have institution-wide commitment and support. In fact, the downside-up strategy is characteristically employed to implement IT in the face of institutional apathy or resistance. LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES: CASE STUDIES Liberal arts colleges' experience with planning for IT following either traditional or opportunistic models is limited. Data on CAUSE member liberal arts colleges illustrates this point: of the fifty-four liberal arts institutions that responded to the 1993 CAUSE institutional database (ID) member survey, twenty-five have a plan for IT on their campuses. Further, only fourteen have included IT as part of their institution's strategic or long-range plan[3] While it is altogether possible that IT planning has not occurred at some institutions due to a lack of resources to undertake any IT initiatives or projects, another reason for lack of any planning for IT may be that institutions simply do not know where to start, since they are faced with a range of choices of planning processes.[4] Further, planning is thwarted by the fact that models for both planning and technology implementations which worked in larger, research or technical institutions, may not be appropriate for a liberal arts environment. It appears that successful IT initiatives in liberal arts colleges--those considered to have positive impacts on teaching and learning, that provide access, and where use is encouraged--emphasize consideration of institutional characteristics and trends (including culture), the potential usefulness of the technology, and users' characteristics. In other words, knowledge and understanding of people and conscious consideration of how technology can be effectively used (a purpose) are important ingredients in an IT implementation that has positive impacts on teaching and learning. Further, this approach leads to the perception that faculty, students, and staff are being supported in their desire to employ IT tools in teaching, learning, and educational program support activities[5] Both of the institutions profiled in this article began with a goal of furthering the use of information technology within their respective liberal arts environments. Drew University is an example of an upside-down approach to opportunistic planning, beginning with a formal institution-wide agreement, including faculty, senior administrative officers, and trustees, that information technologies could be used as a primary strategy to accomplish essential non- technology goals. Hartwick College followed a downside-up approach, taking advantage of curricular and technology needs and relying on individuals involved in technology operations and key faculty to lead the college's implementation efforts. Drew University: Pervasive IT through institutional initiative Drew University is an independent university of 2,100 students, including an undergraduate college, a theological school, and a graduate school, set in a 186-acre wooded estate in Madison, New Jersey. Drew's reputation is one of innovation in higher education, and its emphasis on "technology in service to the liberal arts" is one of these innovations. Through its initiatives, Drew has demonstrated that a university need not be a large technical nor research institution to effectively employ information technology in its educational program. Drew has been described as "militantly liberal arts." It may be surprising to some that in 1983 the College of Liberal Arts faculty voted overwhelmingly to institute a program which led to every undergraduate and graduate student and faculty member having his or her own complete personal computer system. This program was one example of the university's taking advantage of "opportunistic planning" with the support of its faculty, senior administration, and trustees to undertake pervasive information technology implementations. In 1988 the Drew community again seized an opportunity by implementing a campus-wide voice/data/video network. This pervasiveness resulted in technology becoming a part of everyday life at Drew, and the natural development of applications of this technology within Drew's educational program. The applications are as varied as the academic disciplines and the components of Drew's technology infrastructure, and these applications and initiatives have not been without significant outcomes which have been recognized within the campus community and outside its borders. The underlying non-technology goals Faced with a projected decline in first-year student enrollments through 1995 that would shrink Drew's College of Liberal Arts from 1,400 to 900 students, the university stood firm in its "commitment to an idea (the liberal arts for us)," as the dean of Drew's College of Liberal Arts wrote at the time,[6] and "ventured to the outer edge" by implementing distinctive programs that strengthened Drew's position against its competitors. Drew seized the opportunity of the demographic declines of the 1980s to: * strengthen its position against its competitors * exploit the strengths of its liberal arts program * develop a series of related, dramatically innovative programs. Planning for IT during the 1980s was based on these overall university strategies. However, a philosophy stemming from the purposes of liberal education and recognition of the potential for IT in support of these purposes guided Drew's efforts. In sum, given that the fundamental goal of a liberal education is to teach people to think and that a liberally educated person systematically, logically, and creatively assesses available information, Drew chose to focus on the integrated use of computer and networking technology to access, process, and communicate information. The goal was not to make liberal arts students technologists, but rather to make them capable, thinking people who can make use of technological tools in their everyday lives. Specifically, the objectives of Drew's technology initiatives were: * to provide access to IT resources (initially personal computers and software), and * to provide access to knowledge and information through a sophisticated campus-wide voice/data/video network. Information technology planning and implementation followed a consensus-based approach which involved hundreds of faculty, administrators, students, staff, and trustees. With the authorization of Drew's Board of Trustees, Drew's senior administrative officers, recognizing the importance of IT in a liberal arts environment and the opportunity to advance Drew towards achieving its strategic goals, encouraged the campus community as it undertook two major IT initiatives: the Computer Initiative (1983-84) and the Knowledge Initiative (1987-88). The Computer Initiative While Time was recognizing the IBM PC as the magazine's "Man of the Year," the Drew faculty was sensing the impending "information age." Acknowledging the importance the computer was beginning to assume in almost every aspect of life, the faculty redefined "liberally educated" to include the use of the computer as a tool--the PC would be an important tool for learning, and it would be important for an educated person of the future to be "computer fluent." The first evidence of this took a traditional form: a computer literacy requirement, the purchase of PCs for some faculty and the central academic computing center, and the creation of a computer science major. During the summer of 1983, university researchers (two psychology department faculty members) proposed a program called Countless Computers as one possible response to the impending demographic doom. The dramatically innovative program, later to be officially known as Drew's Computer Initiative (CI), had surprisingly few technological objectives. Viewed as a prime opportunity to counter the demographic decline and build Drew's reputation, the CI was expected to: * increase Drew's applicant pool and yield (estimated forty to fifty additional enrolling students per year) * attract more academically qualified students * increase net tuition revenues (to cover cost of computers and financial aid) as cost of computing equipment declined in the future (increases in tuition at Drew at the time were tied to specific improvements in educational opportunities) * give Drew national attention (as the first liberal arts college to provide its students with computers outside contract or required purchase programs) * introduce word processing and improve writing * have advantages in "hard" and social sciences * enable Drew to drop its general education requirement for a computer science course. The success of this program depended on: * making computers available to all faculty and staff who wanted them * student and faculty previous experience with computers (which was positive from the university's providing a limited number of personal computers in 1982) * this type of equipment not turning into "a dead end" within the next few years. With the enthusiastic support of the faculty and senior administrators, Drew's trustees authorized the CI program. The enthusiasm permeated subsequent implementation activities, as task forces of faculty, students, and administrators tackled issues of student access, student ownership policies, what personal computer to issue, security measures, training, dorm furnishings, locations of PC clusters (for sophomores, juniors, and seniors), curriculum development, and upgrading the central academic computing system. Computer Initiative implementation In the fall of 1984 the first CI-funded desktop computers and software were provided to incoming students, faculty, and administrative offices. The CI set a standard for hardware and software on campus and the university could support student PC use with training, documentation, and a no-cost hardware warranty as long as the student was enrolled at Drew. The overall CI plan considered the amount and type of staff needed to make it work. Students also would play a key role by working at the help desk and within offices supporting the technology on campus. The first CI-funded portable computers were provided to the incoming class in 1988. The university took a bold step with its plans to provide portable computers since at this time they were not considered "real" computers. The portables traveled to class, training sessions, the lab, and were used under the campus oak trees. Student and faculty reaction to the dual floppy system and "portable computing" was extremely positive--so much so that the university has continued to provide a portable computer, issuing notebook-size computers in 1992. The Knowledge Initiative The planning and implementation of Drew's next logical step--the connecting of the 2,000 personal computers on campus to information resources--built again upon the philosophy and purposes of IT at Drew. The opportunity to implement another innovative program in the form of Drew's Knowledge Initiative (KI) was provided by a second round of demographic declines, the community's desire for a library automation system, and an obsolete and inadequate telephone system. Interestingly, while the logic of having a campus-wide network was clear, there was virtually no campus support for investing the several million dollars that would have been required for a traditional data network. In 1987, two planning activities were occurring simultaneously. In the first, the campus community was undertaking a capital campaign needs assessment. In the second, administrators were considering alternatives to an obsolete telephone system. The initial outcome was that Drew would replace its telephone system in the near term, and in the longer term would install a campus-wide network and library automation system. As bids for a new telephone system were reviewed with vendors, it became apparent that Drew had an opportunity not only to replace its telephone system, but also to install a campus-wide communications system and switched data network. Again, Drew's senior administrators enthusiastically backed the project, and enlisted the support of Drew's Board of Trustees as well as corporate partners for the project. Drew recognized the importance of an active and ongoing relationship with IT vendors to develop system enhancements appropriately and keep the system reasonably current for the longer term. Practically, Drew could not afford to be supporting the needed development activities alone but wanted vendors who would be willing to use our system as a location to cooperatively develop and test software and hardware. Thus, Drew sought vendors for the project who were interested in forging a partnership with each other and a liberal arts institution to demonstrate not only the application but the importance of IT in a liberal arts environment. Knowledge Initiative implementation With approval to replace the telephone system in late fall 1987, a consultant was selected to help in the RFP process and vendor selection. It was during this process that the opportunity to install a data and voice system through digital switch technology, at nearly the cost of voice service alone, emerged through convincing vendors of the possibilities at Drew. Vendors were selected during the spring term. A ten-week window in summer 1988 was a period of significant activity on the Drew campus as an Intecom digital PBX, Octel voice mail, fiber-optic cable, VAX network server, cabling, telephone billing system, phones, and data devices were installed. Student programmers put together network system menus and wrote the many network programs. (This provided the students with tremendous learning experiences and a feeling of ownership in the network.) That September, with systems up and working, about 1,800 phones and data interfaces were distributed to all students, faculty, and staff as everyone participated in network and telephone training sessions. Drew's network system continued to evolve and expand, with the addition of library automation and Internet access in 1989; a broadband cable system in 1990 with over 1,000 outlets in residence halls and classrooms; four satellite dishes and a video head-end for reception of educational and entertainment programming; and online services including a calendar program for Drew events, budget reports, a campus directory, committee reports, class and final exam schedules, catalog listings, office hours, software and documentation distribution, newsletters, TV listings, and a human resource policy manual in 1991. Similarly, applications of the voice mail system evolved to include job listings, babysitting service, directions to the campus, voice mailboxes used to order computers and request snow- closing and other emergency information, and other information mailboxes (office hours, weekend events). Impact of these initiatives What impact did the campus-wide network and these "countless computers" have on the traditionally liberal arts Drew campus? Applications for admission increased by 42 percent (and have remained at that level despite a shrinking pool of applicants and increased competition for students), entering classes increased by approximately forty students, and combined with other activities the average total SAT of entering students increased approximately 125 points as well. The use of these personal computers and the voice/data network was overwhelming. Faculty, students, and administrators believed in the value of these IT tools, and use became routine--so much so that "people were about as excited about PCs as they are about chairs--they are absolutely essential but unworthy of too much attention."[7] Educationally, four out of five graduating seniors reported a high level of satisfaction with Drew's computer services and facilities, and one out of two reported that his or her undergraduate experience has greatly enhanced his or her ability to use quantitative tools.[8] The Computer and Knowledge Initiatives continue to attract students to the Drew campus: admitted students for fall 1992 gave these programs the highest ratings as a distinctive feature of Drew[9] Hartwick College: Grass roots opportunistic initiative Hartwick College's scenic 375-acre campus located in Oneonta, New York, is home to 1,500 undergraduates. The college has a well- articulated general education requirement titled Curriculum XXI. Instituted in 1988, this curriculum was one of the first to identify the forces that will be operative in the 21st century and makes a conscious effort to prepare students to contribute to the world of their future. Clearly a major component in the preparation of students for the twenty-first century is an environment which promotes the use of information systems in accessing, processing, critically evaluating, and disseminating information of all forms. However, IT at Hartwick has been implemented through a series of carefully planned and negotiated stages. Planning and implementation efforts continue, although most faculty have PCs, students have access to PC and Mac labs, and a fiber-optic network provides faculty, administrators, and students with access to academic and administrative computing resources, electronic mail, library automation, and the Internet. At Hartwick, the impetus for IT initiatives wasn't declining enrollments--it was in two reports critical of the institution's IT function. The college's Curriculum XXI provided the opportunity to revamp IT at Hartwick. Employing a downside-up approach, a small group of faculty along with IS staff became the major advocates for the implementation of IT resources on the campus. These IT resources, the advocates argued, were critical in the support of the new curriculum and in keeping the college competitive with other institutions. The opportunities As Pennings notes, an organization's environmental uncertainty can lead to decision-making structures that are decentralized rather than formalized, opening the potential for opportunistic planning structures.[10] In Hartwick's case, the environment was that of selective liberal arts colleges and the uncertainty stemmed from the competition engendered by the demographic shifts of the late 1980s. In 1988, a small group of faculty on the Academic Computing Committee realized that constant, active advocacy at the faculty level was the only means by which change in the nature of Hartwick's IT resources would occur given the virtual absence of high-level advocacy for IT. Taking advantage of the political climate created both by a new curriculum predicated in part on the use of IT and consultants' and accrediting agency reports critical of the college's IT function and resources, the Committee convinced senior administrators that support for IT implementation was critical at this juncture in Hartwick's history. Following the Committee's initial advocacy, a troika consisting of the director of academic computing, the chair of the computing and information sciences department, and the chair of the Academic Computing Committee led the subsequent planning and implementation efforts. Each member of the team brought different forms of expertise that allowed for an efficient and effective division of labor. The academic computing director and computing and information sciences department chair focused on ascertaining and implementing the "best" and most cost-effective technological solutions for the college. The chair of the Academic Computing Committee, a sociologist, focused on garnering political and fiscal support from senior administrators, as well as on long-range planning. The team's success was due to detailed planning, the appeal of the vision of IT as it related to perceptions of quality at the college, and a political strategy that was simultaneously very aggressive yet sensitive to the fiscal state of the college. The strategy The process of implementing IT at Hartwick did not follow a formal plan. Rather, advocates of improvements in IT at the college found they were most successful in proposing IT enhancements on an incremental basis. The process of seeking and receiving funding for separate projects was essentially idiosyncratic and outside the normal budgeting process. Senior administrators were persuaded on the merits of each project, and then allocated funds to proceed. Further, approval for each stage of development came under widely varying sets of circumstances, depending on the parties involved and fiscal conditions at the college. Each project had a specific goal and a budget that reflected the specificity of each project's avowed purpose. Hence, any planning for system integration and institutional upgrade paths could only be an implicit part of each project. It was up to those responsible for implementing these projects to ensure compatibility and flexibility for future upgrades while maintaining separate financial accountability for each project. The implementation Implementation occurred in five stages. While each project was unique in its focus and explicit objectives, the overall goal of expanding Hartwick's IT resources, providing access, and establishing standards for computing and networking were advanced by each project. Project One (Summer 1989): The first opportunity resulted from two factors. First was the recognition that any credible implementation of a curriculum having the avowed goal of preparing students for the twenty- first century required significant improvements in the then primitive IT on campus. Reservations about the necessity of this by top administrators were overcome by citing both accreditation and consulting reports which were pointedly critical of the lack of IT at Hartwick. The specific objectives of Hartwick's first IT implementation project were to: * increase support for faculty research and existing classroom and computer lab applications * allow for additional and more sophisticated software applications * act as a network server * dramatically improve student access to current PC and miniframe technology. To accomplish this, the college replaced its central academic computing system, an IBM 4331, with a VAX 6410 minicomputer, added a 386 PC lab, and upgraded an existing lab of 8088 PCs. Although there was significant opposition, the project was approved. The updated PC lab was served off the VAX 6410 via a fiber-optic connection. The fiber-optic connection became the basis and rationale for establishing a campus-wide network. The immediate striking increase in use of IT by students and faculty for both instructional and productivity purposes clearly indicated that the explicit goals of this project had been met. Project Two (1989-90): The next opportunity appeared in the area of administrative computing. Here the neglect of IT was most apparent: parts of the college's IBM System/38 had been donated in lieu of being scrapped by a local bank. Administrative users perceived the dramatic improvements that had been accomplished in academic computing and became allies in the effort to upgrade the administrative system. Thus improving cost-effectiveness and capability of administrative computing systems was the objective of the college's second IT project. During the 1989-90 academic year, the inadequacies of the administrative computer (IBM System/38) became insurmountable in a cost-effective manner. There was a dramatic increase in requests for data processing capabilities far beyond what the system could handle. This led to an upgrade to an IBM AS/400 as well as the introduction of token-ring networking for some administrative offices. There were two outcomes to this second project. The first, of course, was improved performance in the administrative computing function. The second outcome had been unforeseeable. The increasing presence and employment of modern IT on campus produced a synergy which produced ever-increasing demands for IT across the campus. Project Three (1990-91): Long range planning had projected implementation of a library system in the 1992-93 fiscal year. But a newly launched capital campaign and increased enthusiasm among the campus community for IT of all types provided the impetus, and more importantly, the funding for immediate installation of a library automation system. The objective of Hartwick's third IT project was to improve the college's competitiveness through the implementation of an automated library catalog. During the 1990-91 academic year, a just-launched capital campaign provided the opportunity to advance implementation of this project. Considerable lobbying by the troika and faculty suggesting that more rapid installation of such a system would prove beneficial for the competitive stature of the college resulted in the release of capital campaign funds for the project. The library system demonstrated the increasing value of a campus network as a significant component of a Hartwick education. Project Four (1991-1993): The opportunity presented by the planning for a new academic building by fall 1992 enabled the troika to advance a model for networking the entire campus. Although initial plans called for the facility to house academic computing, networking issues were peripherally dealt with by those most involved in planning the building. During the early months of 1992 several meetings were held suggesting the value of extensively networking the building as a demonstration of how the whole campus could be networked. To achieve this, the cost of networking was included in the capital costs of the building. Further, to acquire additional staff to assist in implementation, a personnel line for a network manager was included as part of the capital costs of the building, rather than as a regular personnel item in the college's operating budget. The development and installation of the network in this building provided a replicable model for networking the college. Also, the faculty who moved into the new academic building were all connected into the network via 10BaseT Ethernet, as were the classrooms. This led to a substantial increase in the use of IT both within and outside the classroom. At this point IT on campus had advanced to the extent that the college could make a valid claim that it was truly preparing students for the twenty-first century. Project Five (1992-1993): Besides new construction, the troika had concluded that any major renovation provided opportunities to extend the network to other areas of the campus cost-effectively. Taking advantage of this, the network was expanded on the campus to a dormitory, an additional academic building, and the student center. Funding was allocated to connect the dormitory, provide limited connections in the academic building, and run cable to the student center. In effect, this set a precedent that any further renovation or construction must incorporate IT within the scope of the project. The outcomes By emphasizing the implicit goals of a series of distinct computer acquisition projects, particularly those goals dealing with network connectivity, a troika of faculty and administrative directors succeeded in laying a substantial foundation for a campus-wide network at Hartwick College, in placing personal computers on virtually every faculty desktop, and in providing up-to-date, public-access microcomputer laboratories connected to mid-range academic, library, and administrative servers. Because of a strict mandate that no project be allowed to go over budget, the college benefited from a number of cost-effective measures, including limited use of outside contractors. By performing most of its own work, the college has built many new skills into its full-time maintenance and computer center staff. Long-term support is made considerably easier when the maintainers were also the installers and are thus intimately familiar with the workings of the entire network. The explicit goals of various stages of building the network have focused on hardware needs. Long-range strategies and mission impact have been buried in the implicit goals. As such, the impact of the computing facilities on the college mission have only been sampled casually. Recent first-year seminars have introduced over three- quarters of entering students to computerized word processing. The new IT facilities and "user-easy" interface have made one-hour introductory sessions feasible and sufficient to start new students using Hartwick's computing facilities. The assigning of permanent student accounts has allowed all students to use computing resources for any class, and computer lab usage counts have shown dramatic increases. In summary, computing at Hartwick College started out as an activity strictly limited to a few computer science and similar courses as well as a limited research tool for faculty. There was no massive groundswell of demand that IT be implemented on a large scale. Yet the completion of each project fueled an ever-increasing demand for access to hardware, software, and networks by students, faculty, and administrators alike. This increasing demand has consistently paved the way for cross-campus implementation of IT.[11] PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER Both Drew University and Hartwick College made use of opportunistic planning strategies for IT. Drew, based on its institutional positioning and admissions needs, employed an upside-down approach and committed to IT with a formal institution-wide agreement. This was a proactive strategy which required that many people be "sold" on the notion that the institution would be stronger (viewed as a higher education leader and more attractive to students) if a major IT implementation was undertaken. Hartwick, with no articulated, mission-related need for IT, employed a downside-up approach: a reactive strategy in which people reacted to specific frustrations which could be solved by technology. Planning at the college instead began with the identification of specific technical needs (e.g., update equipment to lower costs, link two buildings for computer access, etc.). The implicit goal of a broader IT implementation was accomplished by including as much additional functionality as possible within the contexts of the specific technical need. Both of these strategies are viable, depending on the unique opportunities represented in an institution. Each method has advantages. The advantages of the upside-down approach include: * Institutional commitment to the project is possible * Major campus-wide implementations are possible * Total costs are lower * Connectivity/compatibility problems are minimized * The institution is better positioned competitively * It is easier to justify the additional staffing required to fully support implementations * It is easier to solicit and receive significant vendor support for current and continuing needs. The advantages of the downside-up approach include: * Coordination of planning and priority-setting is easier since fewer people are involved * Equipment selection and installation is simpler because projects are more technical in nature and small * It works within the annual budget * It has a lower first-year cost * It is possible to use current staffing for installation because the projects are smaller and more focused * It doesn't require convincing the entire organization to support IT. Two final observations are worth note. First, both strategies require a champion--a person or persons who will take upon themselves the responsibility to make it all happen. Without this, little is likely to happen. Second, the way one evaluates the success of the implementations is different. With an upside-down approach, the question to be answered is: "Is the institution's mission being fulfilled better by the implementation?" When a downside-up approach is employed, the questions to be answered are: "Is the technical problem solved?" and "Does the technology work?" Upside-down or downside-up? The answer depends on the challenges facing the institution. Either way, the first step in planning for IT in a liberal arts environment must be a thoughtful decision as to the purpose of IT for the institution, not just an assessment of the institution's current technological status. Unless the liberal arts institution aspires to become more like the research and technological institutions, it is likely that this purpose will be derived from the fundamental goal of a liberal education, which is to teach people to think. The IT implementation, then, will focus on the integrated use of computer, video, and networking technology to access, process, and communicate information with the goal of making our students capable, thinking people who can make use of technological tools in their everyday lives. ======================================================================== Footnotes: 1 See J. Badagliacco, "Planning for Information Technology Resources: The Methods," in M.D. Ringle, ed., Computing Strategies for Liberal Arts College (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1992), pp. 29-67; Coopers & Lybrand, "Strategic Planning for Technology," a presentation at the meeting of the New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium, Chemical Bank, and Coopers and Lybrand, Newark, N. J., February 1990; J. W. Johnson, "Liberal Education and Information Technology: Today and Tomorrow," in D. N. Layton, ed., Integrated Planning for Campus Information Systems, a series of conferences for undergraduate institutions sponsored by OCLC and the Association of American Colleges (Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, 1989), pp. 57- 71; E. L. Boyer, College: The Undergraduate Experience in America (New York: Harper & Row and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987); and R. Ferrante; J. Hayman; M. S. Carlson; and H. Phillips, Planning for Microcomputers in Higher Education: Strategies for the Next Generation, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7 (Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988). 2 R. G. Cope, Opportunity From Strength: Strategic Planning Clarified with Case Examples, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8 (Washington, D.C: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1987); J. M. Bryson, Strategic Planning for Public and Non-profit Organizations (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1988). 3 Data were obtained from the CAUSE ID Service. To use this member service, contact Randy Richter at CAUSE: 303-449-4430 or rrichter@cause.colorado.edu 4 For a discussion of these alternatives, see E. F. Falduto, Implementing Technology in the Liberal Arts: What Really Matters? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University, 1993. 5 Ibid. 6 Robert K. Ackerman, (former) dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Drew University, memo to CLA faculty, December 7, 1983. 7 J. W. Mills, E. Domber, J. O'Kane, and J. Reader, Research Report on the Impact of Campus-wide Computing at Drew University: Final Report (Madison, N. J.: Drew University, 1988). 8 Senior Survey Report, Office of University Research, Drew University, 1991. 9 Admitted Student Survey Report, Office of University Research, Drew University, 1992. 10 J. Pennings, "The Relevance of Structural Contingency Models for Organizational Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly, September 1975, pp. 393-410. 11 In the past year, Hartwick College has undertaken a comprehensive institutional planning process that, among other strategic initiatives, has resulted in the college providing every faculty member and every first-year student with a computer, and the installation of a campus-wide network. ==================================================================== Ellen F. Falduto is Chief Information and Planning Officer at Hartwick College. Until spring 1993, she was at Drew University, where she served as assistant to the vice president. Reid M. Golden is Associate Professor of Sociology at Hartwick College. He is currently on leave from the faculty to serve as Coordinator of Educational Technology Initiatives at the College. William Beyer is Director of Technology Systems at Drew University, where he is responsible for voice and data communications, and personal computer and campus-wide information system support. Davis B. Conley is Director of Computing and Networking Services at Hartwick College. His current responsibilities include oversight of user, programming, and operational support services for Hartwick's information systems initiatives. Richard A. Detweiler is President of Hartwick College. Until 1992, he was vice president with responsibilities for information technologies and university planning at Drew University. ************************************************************************