The Management of Information Access in Higher Education Copyright 1994 CAUSE. From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 17, Number 1, Spring 1994. 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 Julia Rudy at CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301 USA; 303-939-0308; e-mail: jrudy@CAUSE.colorado.edu THE MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION ACCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION by Neil McLean The application of information technology within higher education institutions is now one of the key dynamics influencing organizational change. While there is an endless stream of literature explaining the importance of strategic planning, the reality in most institutions is that the strategic planning process almost always lags behind the application of information technology, hence the emergence of a multitude of unresolved organizational tensions. The aim of this viewpoint is to shed some light on certain aspects of the strategic planning process by looking at the challenges of managing administrative support systems, and then to explore the implications for the library strategic planning process. Almost all higher education institutions are engaged in formulating strategic plans to cope with the information technology explosion, and it is interesting to note the range of terms used to describe these plans. Within Australian universities we have "computing" strategies, "information technology" strategies, "information" strategies, "data management" strategies, "information management" strategies, to name a few, and very often they cover much the same ground and make the same kind of generalizations. Many of these plans originated out of the need to come to terms with the control of, and investment in, computing equipment, and as such, they are one- dimensional in scope. The fact that so many different terms are used to describe the planning process is not just a matter of semantic confusion; there are in fact many different facets of activity that are separate in operational terms, yet increasingly interdependent in terms of serving the needs of the institution as a whole. In concentrating upon the impact of the application of information technology to organizational change, it is important to bear in mind other forces at work, which are equally potent forces in influencing the process of change. One of the most important factors is the steady move towards devolution of financial resources and political power over the past decade. The reasons for, and the implications of, this phenomenon are beyond the scope of this article. It is sufficient to observe, however, that this trend has had paradoxical outcomes: while individual units or departments have felt liberated in handling their own affairs, at the same time it has led to a certain isolationism, which militates against the interdependence now demanded for effective institutional information strategies. Another growing force is the gradual application of quality assurance mechanisms, partly through management initiatives within institutions, and partly because funding bodies (such as Australia's Commonwealth Department of Employment Education and Training) are turning their attention to the complex matter of quality assurance. The client-centered thrust of total quality management principles has many implications for existing management structures, and there does appear to be considerable potential for facilitating the processes necessary to create effective IT strategies. It is still true, however, that the existing information paradigm governing most organizational levels within academic institutions is based on the concept of the principal players being discrete information providers in one form or another. Under the present regime, the provision and control of information is a primary driving force behind the political dynamics, whether it be in the library, the registrar's office, the finance office, or the faculty or department. In such an environment, control is defined in terms of the ability to govern the supply and demand of information, and it can often become bureaucratic and unfriendly to client groups. The organizational symptoms of stress in this struggle for control include the constant struggle to retain resources, the regular reminder of operational boundaries, an emphasis on hierarchical management structures, a custodial approach to the management of information resources, a personality-dominated management process, and a limited transformation of data into information in response to client demand. Administrative information systems framework The principal thrust of this article is to explore the possibility of an alternative information paradigm, which sees the provision of access to information as the most important concept, together with the practical skills in organising, filtering, analyzing, and transforming the information according to the particular information need. The implications of the paradigm will then be tested against the information infrastructure of administrative information services. While the institutional examples are drawn from my own experience as a consultant, the suggested management framework necessary to fulfil the demands of the alternative information paradigm owes much to an excellent article presented at the 1992 CAUSE Annual Conference by Lore A. Balkan et al., entitled "Distributed Data Management: People Processes that Build in Quality." [1] Up until recent times in most academic institutions, finance, personnel, and student record systems were distinct empires, and the associated computing systems were normally quite separate developments. In other words, the control of the information and the system were relatively homogeneous. Information for reporting purposes was generally supplied centrally, and there have been, and still are, very great difficulties in synthesizing information from the three databases for reporting purposes or for executive planning purposes. Various models are emerging to cope with the problems of developing effective information systems for primary client groups, but the power play remains confused, and the roles of the stakeholders uncertain. In many institutions the control paradigm is still dominant, and "bandaid" solutions emerge in response to increasingly complex demands. Invariably, staff and units at all levels develop parallel systems to cope with their own particular requirements, and this results in a great deal of duplicated effort. In attempting to resolve the problems of the various client groups, the debate has traditionally focused on the centralization versus decentralization issue, which has tended to oversimplify the problems associated with effective data management. Balkan et al. present a different approach to data architecture, which potentially fulfills the paradigm of open access through the organizing, filtering, analyzing, and transforming of institutional data into management information. They postulate an environment that embraces a combination of decentralized, centralized, and distributed information. Their description of decentralized systems is the equivalent of our existing central administrative systems, namely "... a spiderweb of systems ... where data is passed from operational source systems to a variety of users or customers, who then develop their own systems and more than likely become suppliers to subsequent customers."[2] They go on to point out that these operational systems produce reliable information within their own particular framework, but they cannot perform as an organizational information resource because their components are not integrated or standardized. This analysis describes fairly accurately the current state of administrative systems in most higher education institutions in Australia. The Balkan et al. paper rightly identifies the need for a centralized system with standards in place for data handling and coding and provision of information. In the words of these authors, "This central store contains the critical enterprise data in a standardized form," which is the key to data architecture where distributed data management means that "information is distributed to users with enterprise- wide content and form to support tactical decision-making in a strategic and coherent fashion."[3] In summary, they postulate that such a distributed data management environment requires that "(1) the operational offices supply reliable data; (2) the central administrative function integrate and refine the data into the usable form and produce internally consistent information; and (3) the customers have access and training such that they can generalize the information they receive to their needs and situation."[4] It is in essence a three-tier data management structure, which depends for its effectiveness on a strong belief in the importance of access and the value-adding to data by operational systems. It is not sufficient, however, to identify the levels of management necessary to achieve these desired objectives. Balkan et al. identify key stakeholders who must be involved in the program of change to sustain distributed data management, and it is necessary to quote at length to make the point. "1. Management Group. These are executive administrators who must be advised of progress and major steps undertaken to improve information quality. They should not be expected to be wildly excited about the data management process. However, they will be very concerned about data consistency and accuracy and excited about using the same data as everyone else. "to be brought together to discuss policies, to do strategic management of the data resource, and to discuss issues with the senior personnel in the management group. "3. Stewardship Group. These are supervisors and system support analysts for the operational source systems of the organization. This group has a set of responsibilities that are very likely embodied in numerous job descriptions. They translate policy into practice, and as a group should be encouraged to consider procedures which produce standardized data. "4. Central Data Management Group. This group provides the stimulus for identifying the need for change. It coordinates the interfaces between the operational level and the users, thereby establishing the position to recommend standards. It also collaborates with the computer technology function on implementing the tools needed for data management. "5. Focus Group. This is a vertical slice of the custodian, steward, operational personnel, users and other interested individuals who work with data from a major operational source system. This group starts the development of standards for the data in an area and then maintains an activity with audits for sufficiency and relevance. Subgroups are sometimes formed to address specific problem areas. "6. Administrative Systems Users Group. This is an open group of users, stewards, systems analysts, and operational personnel from across the enterprise. It meets monthly on topics such as new processes, changes in technology, developments in systems, and the like. Smaller task groups are formed from the larger diverse group to work on developing the standards that must cut across the entire organization. "7. Systems Group. This is the work group or project team that defines, develops, and deploys the underlying systems and networking infrastructure for the organization. A subset of this group is usually assigned to specifically support each of the major operational systems"[5] While this may seem a complex array of teams, it offers potential participation of all functional areas and it brings a variety of skills to bear on the primary problem of creating linkages across functional areas and between client groups. Lessons to be learned for the library What then of the library as an information provider within the institution? And are there any lessons to be learned from the analysis already applied to administrative information systems? It is now widely accepted that libraries, as major providers of information in published form, are undergoing a radical rethink of service objectives. Libraries are moving towards what is commonly called an "access" policy, but the ramifications of implementing such a change are not yet widely understood. It is my contention, however, that libraries are still firmly in the grasp of the control paradigm because they remain wedded to the concept of the library as being the primary provider of commercially produced information resources. There appears to be a basic difference, however, between administrative information systems, which produce and control information resources within a specific institutional context, and libraries, which acquire and control a broad range of information resources. The paradigm, however, of providing access and value-added information services would seem to have equal force to both areas and the concrete suggestions for action outlined by Balkan et al. may well be equally applicable in furthering library strategic plans. The boundaries for libraries, however, are far less clear because of the complexity of the information-seeking process and the relationships to the teaching and research programs. Most library managers are now taking a relatively adventurous course in applying information technology to their operations and services and this has tended to bring them into potential conflict with their colleagues in computing services. It is important to distinguish between the technology infrastructure required to deliver data/information services and the actual services themselves, because the two missions often become confused in practice. It is an increasingly difficult distinction to make because the issues of networking, interfaces, and workstation provision are essential prerequisites for any form of electronic information provision. It is, however, important that the two issues be seen as separate strategies, so as to avoid needless rivalries and misguided effort within the institution. The main difficulty is with the strategic planning process itself. While there is a lot of rhetoric about the need for strategic planning within higher education, the actual outcomes are relatively meagre in terms of strategic plans that are "owned" by the participants. In reality, libraries have been fairly autonomous, both in management and strategic planning terms, and any application of a Balkan- type approach may seem hazardous, or even irrelevant, to some library managers. Having made these observations, I believe it is imperative that libraries become involved in the strategic planning process, and that they do produce a plan that is promulgated within the institution as a whole. In most cases this will be produced initially from within the library, as a perceived response to the information needs of the institution. The main challenge, then, is to test its validity by seeking input from the various stakeholders whom it claims to serve. This objective can be facilitated by applying the client-centered process embodied in the total quality service approach, embracing primary client groups such as senior executives, researchers, teachers, post- graduate students, and undergraduate students, as well as client groups within the service itself. But in doing so, the complexities of the interactions required between stakeholder groups to arrive at sustainable business plans may end up being underestimated. This is particularly true in the area of electronic information provision where, as already explained, the boundaries of activity are becoming increasingly difficult to define. Consideration needs to be given, therefore, to the possibility of applying the stakeholder categories, as defined by Balkan et al., to the strategic development of the library's electronic information infrastructure. It is unlikely, however, that this could be done by the library in isolation from other key support areas. This raises the possibility of having a Balkan-type strategic planning process for oversight of all the key operational areas, including administrative services, library, and computing services. Such a suggestion may upset those still wedded to the control paradigm. It is imperative, however, that more participative organizational structures be developed, where expertise is drawn together from across traditional organizational boundaries to address client-centered information management. Within such a model, control becomes of secondary importance as an organizational dynamic. The commitment to clearly articulated client- centered strategies based on open access becomes the driving force, and I believe it may be equally applicable to administrative support systems, libraries, computing services, and teaching support within our institutions. ======================================================================== Footnotes: 1 Lore A. Balkan, Richard D. Howard, and Gerry W. McLaughlin, "Distributed Data Management: People Processes That Build in Quality," in Grasping the Momentum of the Information Age: Proceedings of the 1992 CAUSE Annual Conference (Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1993), pp. 559-570. 2 Ibid., p. 560. 3 Ibid., p. 560. 4 Ibid., p. 560. 5 Ibid., p. 564. ======================================================================== Neil McLean is currently Deputy University Librarian at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Previously, he was Head of Library Services at the Polytechnic of Central London for ten years, where he was also Director of the Library and Information Technology Centre. Apart from his considerable experience in academic library management, he has had extensive involvement in the application of information technology to library and information services through research programs and consultancies. ************************************************************************ A version of this paper was first delivered at the CAUSE Australia-New Zealand Conference, 4-7 July 1993, in Hobart, Tasmania. ************************************************************************ 03/30/94 (meh) The Management of Information Access in Higher Education