Implementing A Culture Of Change: The Five-Year Transformation of The George Washington University Copyright CAUSE 1994. This paper was presented at the 1993 CAUSE Annual Conference held in San Diego, California, December 7-10, and is part of the conference proceedings published by CAUSE. 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, that the CAUSE copyright notice and the title and authors of the publication and its date appear, and that notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information technology in higher education. To copy or disseminate otherwise, or to republish in any form, requires written permission from CAUSE. For further information: CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301; 303449-4430; e-mail info@cause.colorado.edu Implementing a Culture of Change: The Five Year Transformation of The George Washington University by Walter M. Bortz Vice President Administrative & Information Services The George Washington University Introduction/Lead-in: For Centuries, people believed that Aristotle was right when he said that the heavier an object, the faster it would fall to earth. Since he was regarded as the greatest thinker of all times, he surely could not be wrong - and no one challenged his concept for almost 2000 years. In 1589 Galileo disproved that theory with his famous experiment at the leaning Tower of Pisa -- but the power of belief in conventional wisdom was so strong that professors denied what they had seen. They continued to say Aristotle was right, reinforcing the observation of Niccolo Machiavelli that, "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." The George Washington University: In 1988, the then 163 year old George Washington University announced the appointment of its fourteenth president. With that appointment, the forty-three acre campus, but two blocks from the White House, began what can only be called a rebirth, as reassessment and reinvention began to occur in every corner of the institution. Nothing was sacred -and nothing too small or too large - to escape some focus. Long held at bay, the winds of change - driven by ubiquitous information technology - were blowing across all facets of our organizational life. Leadership For Change It should come as no surprise that one of the areas receiving unusual scrutiny would be the institution's business practices, especially the processes and procedures emanating from its policies. Consider a scenario where major segments of the institution are attempting to make day to day decisions using different data from different sources -- the results are guaranteed to be less than satisfactory. To put it another way, if a university with a budget in excess of six hundred million dollars has units that cannot agree on enrollment figures, the number of funded positions, a given semester's financial aid commitments, or any other such fundamental information, then all the traditional collegial models of problem solving and participatory governance are but window dressing. While I do not propose that college or university presidents need to understand the finer points of TQM or re-engineering methodologies ... I do know that they will not accept excuses why something cannot be done. Those of us whose responsibilities include information collection and dissemination must meet the challenge of large scale transformations which span entire organizations and tax the limits of both our technological and human resources. We must be prepared to integrate our information systems into those changing organizations, to reengineer processes, absorb new technologies, in other words to facilitate the formation of a cohesive institution capable of delivering quality, innovation and customer satisfaction. And all of this usually means a fundamental change in how we meld computing and communication resources to create an integrated enterprise. We must seek synergy of technology and organizational process. But merely pursuing technological change is not enough -- we must implement a culture of change if we are to be successful in that transformation. Unfortunately, as we are all too painfully aware, change in general is not welcomed by most of our colleagues in the Academy. Those with long staff tenure embrace well entrenched, standing practices -- often with pride of ownership and authorship. It is that resistance to change, complicated by unaccommodating or unwieldy infrastructures, pressing financial necessity, and the ever present rhythm of the academic calendar that so challenge those who advocate and champion change. Recognizing the Need for Change I do not wish to suggest that prior to the current administration's arrival, former staff at The George Washington University had been sitting on their hands, ignoring the changing circumstance of technology and related data management. In fact, a student information system had been created in-house during the 80's, though by 1988 it had limited flexibility in addressing the growing needs of the community. The system was not distributed to users, though reports were readily available. Originally, it had been anticipated that an entire information system would be constructed using the student system as the backbone. A quick review of a possible timetable for this task - using past experience as prologue -suggested a completion date somewhere just shy of the University's 200th anniversary in 2021! Had the institution pursued this option, it was suggested that we might want to create a profit center, in the form of a museum of 20th Century higher education administrative system software. A fitting tribute for so heroic an effort. As you might imagine, proliferation of systems was rampant during the time the University was creating its student system. A mainframe based alumni and development software package had been purchased. The financial affairs folks were taking the better part of a decade to implement a finance software package. None of these systems addressed enrollment management needs, or financial aid packaging and modeling requirements, or procurement, or grants and contracts, or a host of other administrative systems ... all basic to the successful day-to-day operation of the University. Our systems - even payroll - were independent of one another and therefore filled with redundant data. They all required regular updates, as well as dumps from one to another. Furthermore, this potpourri of challenges was compounded by the verification that some costly upgrades to the systems mainframe hardware were but twelve months away. To add insult to injury, these upgrades were projected to be interim solutions at best -- they did not address the issues of integration nor improve access to information. It was clear, therefore, as the new administration took stock of its environment in 1988-89, that a decision was imminent to redirect the University's effort in information management. Our intention was to move as far ahead in the utilization of new technology as possible -- setting a pace commensurate with the rate at which we felt the institution could absorb the change --while implementing organizational diagnosis to assess the underlying processes, and the gaps between actual and desired work dynamics. As with all such major decisions in large and complex organizations, there is some distance between the lip and the cup in declaring new policy and obtaining buy-in from the community. At the time of the decision, it was apparent that the institution could be faced with severe economic contractions as we addressed a host of issues concerning the quality of the student body and the faculty. More importantly, even though everyone would have a vested interest in our direction, we could not -- would not -- accommodate to everyone's individual satisfaction. Setting the Stage for Change The keystone of our plan was the creation of an "infostructure" designed to support the mission and goals of The George Washington University. Our first step: the development of a Computing Technology Master Plan. Its purpose: to provide a foundation and set the direction for the future of administrative computing, as well as to address the issues surrounding academic computing support, especially mainframe support. The process that eventually produced the Master Plan was time consuming but as participatory as possible. No segment of the community was ignored. It was important to have as many "creators" as possible for the new directions that would come forth from this document. A quick review of the table of contents of this more than 200 page product will attest to its thoroughness. Both voice and data were explored in depth, and networking issues along with other telecommunication challenges addressed. Because of this exercise, it became clear to the campus at large that it would not be enough to simply acquire new technology. Our university community was going to have to study and learn how the application of technology, in whatever form, could and would be used to transform, to reengineer if you will, the various administrative delivery systems of the institution. Success in such an undertaking can be benchmarked in a variety of ways: the ability to recruit and retain a desired quality of student, faculty and staff; a capability to provide the appropriate level of service to these constituents; the effectiveness of productivity improvements and their impact on the economic performance of the university; and finally - in the grander scheme - whether we have furthered the stature of the institution in its accreditations, ratings and rankings. In order to accomplish these objectives, a clear vision of computing at The George Washington University had to be presented, and a commitment to revisiting and updating that vision also had to be made. That represents a significant challenge when the pieces of administrative machinery - particularly those responsible for computing and telecommunications - reside in various vice president's portfolios. Therefore, following the recommendations of the Computing Technology Master Plan unveiled in early 1990, Telecommunications, the Center for Computing and Information Management (including both administrative and academic support elements), and the Computer Information and Resource Center/User Services (the faculty and student support unit), were placed under the direction of one vice president. This consolidation, and the recommendations of the study in which the entire community had participated, created the foundations and set the stage for significant change. Even as we set that stage, it was clear that the University should not exceed the current level of resources devoted to administrative computing. In fact, the University clearly wanted to rewrite the formulas to direct more of its resources away from administrative computing to academic computing. It was under such parameters that we began our search for a solution. Implementing Change: Creation of an Information Infrastructure One of the first orders of business was to make the long range, long term commitment to administrative software. In particular, the community needed to decide if the institution would "build or buy". Four primary issues drove the decision, all with financial import. First: the period of time we estimated it would take to achieve consensus on system functionality. Second: a consensus on the current level of IS staff proficiency and the training required to bring the resident analysts and programmers up to speed. Third: the need to rethink administrative processes and the challenging "pride-of- authorship" inherent to that exercise. And fourth: the reality that the last two systems the institution had implemented, finance and student, had taken a combined effort in excess of fifteen years -- and both were showing signs of instability. It was this last issue which drove a strenuous review of our "buy" options, and the resultant investigation of available providers of full range administrative systems. We desired a "partner", one who would consider bundling a package of services, systems, and hardware enhancements in a long term relationship at an attractive and predictable cost. To this was added the bottom line requirement that since The George Washington University was already spending too much for administrative computing, the annual expenditure for this transformation to new technology had to be less than our then current budget. A small GW group went to the market and reviewed the status and future directions of four higher education software vendors. The institution's ongoing experience and senior management's previous experience with Systems & Computer Technology Corporation (SCT) of Malvern, Pennsylvania, focused attention on them. It was the institution's desire to have a real-time distributed system, coupled with our perception of both what SCT's BANNER software was and would become along with BANNER's hardware independence as well as SCT's willingness to contract it's installation, modification and implementation to GW's standards. After months of contract negotiations, and both rigorous and vigorous internal discussion, a seven year, multi-million dollar per year outsourcing contract was signed in May 1991. The 123 page contract committed the institution to purchase the current version of the administrative software, and laid out an aggressive modification and implementation schedule. A comprehensive relationship was formed that laid the foundation and made possible the institution's transformation to an integrated data, open systems architecture, distributed computing technology. In addition, the annual 7 year level payments of the contract resulted in an immediate and continuing savings to the University's bottom line. Thus we met the challenge of investing, while spending less. The implementation of the financial aid module began immediately. On it's heels followed the Student Information System, Alumni/Development System and the Human Resource System. A decision on the Finance System was postponed for two reasons, number one: the newly arrived vice president for finance needed some time to become familiar with the landscape; and number two: the financial system software then in use had to be "stabilized". A delayed decision also allowed the financial affairs staff to carefully review their processes and procedures, and determine appropriate protocol in a distributed, rather than a highly centralized environment. Redefining the Business Approach Through Technology The results of that decision in 1990 and 1991 are obvious in 1993: The George Washington University is transforming itself. Perhaps the most significant outcome of the change to date is that decisions no longer equate to independent action. Student accounts, financial aid, registration, housing and a host of other operations having myriad processes are now inextricably linked in an integrated information system dependent upon and owned by all. No doubt you will not be surprised to learn that the process of transformation has not been easy nor trouble free. Large scale organizational transformations of culture, resources, and strategy seldom are. Should you visit the campus or otherwise have contact with any of the hundreds of staff and faculty who have been involved with the activity, you will find various levels of enthusiasm for the software, the manner in which the "plan" has been implemented, and the speed with which the process has been accomplished. What you will find is a community with more information available to them than ever before and still in the midst of struggling with the learning curve of new software. You will also discover an institution that is actively redefining the way it approaches its clients and how it chooses to do business with them. Unfortunately, the fundamental synergy of new technologies and processes are sometimes lost on a host of middle managers who would rather remind us of the list of yet-to-be- accomplished tasks! But I can report to you that the majority of the campus now recognizes that the change accomplished, and that which is still underway, is worth the thousands of hours of staff time. More and more, users are willing to accede that they -- and our clients -- are enjoying vastly improved service levels and information access. Immediate access to information, on both individuals and transactions, has caused us to rethink how we collect the original information used to populate those data bases. An entire user subculture has arisen that spends time researching direct data entry. They search for methods that allow students, applicants, and prospective employees (as well as a host of others) to provide information directly to the system. Students now use touch-tone telephones to register. They obtain copies of their class schedule from information kiosks located around campus (called "GWiz") and they meet with faculty who can advise them on their academic histories with up to the nano-second accuracy. At the end of the 1989 fiscal year, seven hundred users were connected to the data systems of the University. Last week, we connected our three thousandth user as we also announced a major effort to seek a partner for a significant telecommunications project, one that we anticipate will permit the institution to take a giant step in connectivity, and in the distribution of data, voice and video both on campus and throughout the world as we press the boundaries of the envelope outward to further explore interactive long distance learning and the administrative's challenges it presents. Summary: A Culture of Change I am satisfied that we have successfully influenced our culture within many areas of the University. We have done it through the establishment of strong links between the enabling technology, organizational processes, and our human resources. Today, every campus renovation carries a connectivity budget and includes input from a committee charged with technical enhancements. All new construction enjoys representation on planning committees from both telecommunications and academic computing support. E-mail abounds, software site-licenses are proliferating. The institution is now in the enviable position of trying to keep up with an accelerating campus learning curve and demand. More and more, The George Washington University recognizes technology as an integral part of the infrastructure rather than an added benefit of "automation". We are beginning to see a return on investment. Fewer letters of complaint from students and parents on registration, financial aid processing, or student accounts is a welcome sign that the business operations are receding into the background -- where they belong! There is every reason to believe that future implementations (the Human Resource System later this academic year and the Finance System during the next two years), will be gentler transitions and provide even more significant benefits to a growing list. In the midst of the institution's "coming of age", in an era of enterprise integration, the general population is becoming more computer savvy. Anticipating future directions, The University is spending more of its resources to address the convergence of communications and computing technologies. High speed networking, off-campus network access, on-line library enhancements, networked software depositories and expansion of faculty access to additional learning based technologies and training are receiving more and more of our attention and resources. New faculty and staff arrive on campus each year with more computer sophistication. Computer literacy and training will begin to fade as a resource issue as new elements replace them. Bringing the entire community along in this enterprise is much like the task that the school teacher faces with a classroom of multiple intelligences and abilities. Holding everyone's attention and maintaining support campus-wide will continue to challenge us into the foreseeable future. I look forward to reporting to you again in two years when, if our calendar has not failed us, we will be able to share with you additional good news of how we have further learned to leverage people with technology.