Information Technology Planning: Letting the Users Take Over--A Federated Framework for Information Technology Planning This paper was presented at the 1995 CAUSE annual conference. It is part of the proceedings of that conference, "Realizing the Potential of Information Resources: Information, Technology, and Services--Proceedings of the 1995 CAUSE Annual Conference," pages 4-7-1 to 4-7-9. 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. To copy or disseminate otherwise, or to republish in any form, requires written permission from the author and CAUSE. For further information: CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301; 303-449-4430; e- mail info@cause.colorado.edu. Information Technology Planning: Letting the Users Take Over A Federated Framework for Information Technology Planning{1} Paul B. Gandel Ohio University Athens, OH Raymond F. von Dran Syracuse University Syracuse, NY Abstract The management of information resources at the University of North Texas campus is a shared responsibility between the schools and colleges and centralized service agencies, such as the Computer Center, the Library, and the Instructional Technology Center. Their roles, responsibilities, and services are coordinated through a representative university council: The Information Resources Council (IRC). The IRC is responsible for recommendations to the University's Vice Presidents and for participation in the university planning processes. The key to the success of this model is the cooperation and teamwork of all participants. Fundamental to the Council's organization is the role of the information technology user is the planning process. The Council is divided into program groups which have larger user components, and are often led by information technology users rather than information technology professionals. The UNT experience highlights how a user centered federated IT model can overcome traditional organizational barriers and boundaries, and be highly responsive to user needs. Introduction Colleges and universities are undergoing fundamental changes which will have direct impact on information technology services and structures. The demographics of higher education is changing with an increasing proportion of non-traditional learners entering university study. Expectations for services are rising, and students as well as faculty expect information and instruction on demand--any time and any place in a seamless information environment. The power of information, communication, and instructional technology is exploding and the focus of these technologies is converging. Although this experience is common across universities, there are many models for service delivery to users. Because of various institutional histories and traditions, information technology organizations range from highly centralized to highly decentralized, and provide for user participation to varying degrees--active participation in management to cursory consultations. Each model has varying degrees of costs and effectiveness associated with it. Ideally each model should addresses the specific needs and environments of a local institutions in the most effective manner. The management of information resources at the University of North Texas campus has evolved into a shared responsibility between the schools and colleges and centralized service agencies such as the computer center, library, and instructional technology center. Their roles, responsibilities, and services are coordinated through a representative university council: the Information Resources Council (IRC). The roles and responsibilities of the IRC have developed around two major features of the university: the concentration of information technology and the diversity of organizational structure. The University of North Texas is a doctoral degree granting institution of 26,000 students located in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Because of the need to keep staffing low at a state university, the university strategy was to trade people power for information technology power. Additionally, there was a strong commitment to the use and development of information technology in the research and teaching environment. According to some accounts, the University of North Texas had the highest per capita expenditure for information technology of any state assisted university in Texas. Needless to say, technology not only plays a strong role in the university but also represents a substantial investment. Unfortunately, while there was a clear vision to invest in technology, there was no consensus on how to managed this very sizable university investment. As was common in many other universities, there was a dispersion of information technology organizations throughout the campus. Responsibility for information technology included centralized agencies such as the Computing Center, the University Library, the Center for Instructional Services, the Office of Telecommunications, and the specific computing and instructional technology organizations located in the universityÕs eight schools and colleges. In addition, the university had a separate information technology structure at the Health Science Center in Fort Worth. The various information technology providers reported to different vice presidents within the university. The Computing Center reported to the Vice President for Fiscal Affairs, while the Office of Telecommunications reported to the Vice President for Administrative Affairs. The remainder of technology providers reported to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. History and development of the IRC and its user-centered program groups The IRC developed out of a transformation of a computer advisory committee whose scope and mission was much more narrowly focused. Although this committee had a long history of providing user participation and guidance to the central computing organization, it often narrowly focused on issues of central computing versus decentralized computing and academic computing versus administrative computingÐissues that by their nature created conflict and controversy. As the difference between these issues became more controversial and pronounced, it became clear that something needed to be done to refocus on the Òbigger picture.Ó To initiate this redirection, the computer advisory committee was reconstituted as the Information Resources Council and its role expanded to address information resource and technology needs across agencies and media throughout the campus. The intent was to create an information technology organization that would: 1.Coordinate IT activities across the entire campus 2.Be responsive to the needs of all users 3.Provide a framework for planning for the future 4.Recommend resource allocations to central administration As its purpose developed and was refined, the Information Resource Council became the sole ============================== University of North Texas Information Resources Council ______________________________ ============================== organization on campus for recommendations to the universityÕs vice presidents in the area of information technology and for participation in the university planning process. The cooperation and team work of all participants was key to the success of this model. Fundamental to achieving this spirit of cooperation was the restructuring of the Council to focus on broader issues and the expansion of the information technology user's role in the planning process. The Council is divided into program groups which are composed largely of information technology users and are often led by users rather than information technology professionals. The CouncilÕs structure includes five program groups; each focused on broad areas of university concernÐinstruction, research, administrative systems, communication systems, and promotion of standards and cooperation. Each group reports directly the Council and elects its own chair. Members are appointed from the Council and from representative agencies such as the universityÕs Faculty Senate. An overall Information Resources Strategic Planning Committee acts on behalf of the Council between regular meetings and approves all meeting agendas. Through its chair the Information Resource Council reports directly to a steering committee consisting of all university vice presidents. This steering committe is chaired by the provost. Program groups are directly involved in the planning process and in some cases may also be asked to implement decisions. As stated earlier, because they were intended to be broadly based, program groups include a mix of providers and users, staff and faculty, centralized and de-centralized organizations. Each group participates in the development of its own structure. Program groups do not consist solely of IRC members, but users outside the IRC also are included to provide fresh insights. A good example of diversity and projects addressed in the IRC is the Instructional Program Group. The goals and objectives of this group are to enhance teaching and learning through the use of information technology. Information technology includes such provisions as general access computing labs, computer enhanced video presentations, demonstrations, simulations, tutorials, video, distance learning, and access to libraries and knowledge bases. Using the instruction program group as an example, the following two cases illustrate how IRC program groups have created a more cooperative and effective approach to both the planning and management of information resources at the University of North Texas. Cooperative planning for technology Before the creation of the Instructional Program Group (IPG), planning for instructional technology to support instruction was problematic. Responsibilities for supported instructional technology were fragmented across colleges, the Instructional Media Center, Library, and facilities planning department. Communication among these various groups was limited. Faculty and students often had no mechanism for voicing their needs. This problem became most evident when the University remodeled its six largest lecture halls. The Office of Facilities Planning carried out the renovation of the lecture halls. While the university architect tried to involve the university community in planning this renovation, the fragmentation of constituencies and the lack of a ready forum made this difficult. As a result, an outside consultant was used who was more familiar with an industrial model of instruction rather than an academic model. Consequently the renovation failed to meet the needs of those that used the classroom and great deal of Òfinger pointingÓ followed. When the Instruction Program Group was created, one of its first charges was to ÒfixÓ the problem of the newly renovated large lecture halls described above. Because of its broad-based membership, the IPG was able develop very quickly the necessary dialogue that was lacking when the renovation took place. It organized itself into various study groups to carefully examine the problem and to gain an understanding of all the issues. These groups conducted intensive group studies with the user community. All the various campus technical experts were brought together to examine ways to improve the classrooms based on specific suggestions gathered from the user community. Soon accusations and conflict gave way to constructive suggestions. While all the problems in the newly renovated lecture hall werenÕt resolved, people began to feel more positive about the way in which the problem had been addressed. The development of a rational process for planning and dealing with classroom technology made them feel that this kind of problem would be less likely to occur in the future. Faculty and other users of technology now believed that they had an effective mechanism for airing their concerns and effectively addressing their problems. As a result of its initial experience with the renovation of large classrooms, the Instruction Program Group decided to develop a long range planning agenda to address the universityÕs instructional technology needs. In 1994 the committee undertook a multifaceted review of instructional technology on the UNT campus. This included a physical inventory of all major classrooms on campus to determine what facilities were in fact available in every classroom and what areas needed improvement. In conjunction with this physical survey, instructors were also surveyed to determine their perceptions of teaching in the various classrooms and what shortcomings the various classroom might have from their perspective. The group also reviewed the volume and nature of faculty requests for both equipment and media programs. This was done to not only get a sense of the changing trends in equipment and program usage, but also to determine areas needing increased support. The final component of this comprehensive review was a focus group study of faculty from across the university. This focus group study examined the issues related to instructional technology with a greater depth than is possible with simple paper and pencil surveys. Groups discussed the needs and barriers that prevented the optimal use of instructional technology in the classroom. They indicated concern about keeping pace with other institutions and more importantly indicated strong recognition of the benefits to the teaching process that technology can provide. Not surprisingly, faculty in these focus groups also expressed concerns about the large investment which can be required in the development and use of technology. Finally, a number of suggestions were made by the focus groups about how to facilitate the use of technology across campus but also cautioned the administration against seeing technology as primarily a cost-saving endeavor or as the answer to all instructional needs. The focus group component of the review was important for two reasons. First, it provided the administration a very direct, rich source of information about faculty concerns and views concerning instructional technology in the classroom. Second, it gave faculty an opportunity to consider the issues important to them in an in depth manner as well as a chance to get those views broadly disseminated. Besides this multi-faceted review, the Instructional Technology Program Group activities addressed a number other critical planing concerns. They developed comprehensive guidelines for minimum technology standards for all classroom environments. They also developed a proposal for funding campus-wide innovative technology programs. This program was endorsed by both the IRC and the university vice presidents and at the time of this writing is in the process of being implemented. The group also developed a plan for funding the systematic replacement of outdated media equipment, which is pending university approval. While not all the problems planning and developing the technology resources to support instruction have been solved by the creation of this program group, a much more positive and cooperative environment has resulted. More importantly, given the freedom and autonomy to operate as team brought together for a specific purpose, this group has proven to be remarkably dedicated and productive. And, as the case below will show, this federated approach to empowering teams to address problems has even been successful in the actual management of technology facilities. Cooperative management of information technology--General Access Labs The general access computing labs at UNT are operated by individual schools and other service providers under the direction of the General Access Laboratory Committee, a sub-committee of the Instructional Program Group of the IRC. The General Access Laboratory Committee is unique in that it has direct control of an annual budget in excess of a million dollars. This budget is distributed to its constituent laboratories for campus-wide laboratory operations. The General Access Laboratory Committee assumed operations of these laboratories when the University introduced a campus-wide student computing fee. At the time the fee was implemented it was originally thought that there would be a single laboratory, centrally administered by the universityÕs computing center. Although some consideration was given to this model, it was clear the lab's need for new space might be insurmountable, and that there would be some duplication of lab activities already taking place in the schools and colleges. By creating a General Access Laboratory Committee with representation from each of the schools and colleges,the IRC was able to convince each of the school's deans to participate in a coordinated lab concept for the benefit of receiving central university support. The first responsibility of the General Access Laboratory Committee was compiling standards across the university for lab administration. Sub-committees were formed to deal with issues ranging from equipment, service and software standards to security. Specific protocols were developed, as well as basic hardware and software configuration, hours of services, limitations of assistance, and related matters with the idea that a student could walk into any lab on the university and find a base line of common equipment, service, and software. Each individual school or college was also expected to emphasize both the software and services unique to its particular programs and missions. Thus, the laboratory in the College of Business Administration would have a larger group of business related software applications available, with lab monitors appropriate for its use while the College of Education would have greater concentration of equipment, software and services related to education and presentations. The General Access Committee is an example where management of computing facilities is a shared responsibility between users and providers, and centralized and de-centralized organizations. The success of this model for coordinating diverse laboratories was successful as a result of leadership as well as the cooperation of its membership. The ability to share experiences among members, the efficiencies achieved by common practices, and the continued allocation of resources from the central administration acted as major incentives for this cooperation. Other examples of cooperative efforts The two examples above show how one program group, the Instruction Program Group, under the general umbrella of a university-wide council has been able to very effectively mount both a technology planning effort as well as take part in the management of technology resources. Other program groups have been able to achieve equally effective results. The Standards and Cooperation Group developed a proposal to equip all faculty and staff with at least a minimum base-line desktop computer. This proposal was approved, funded and scheduled to begin in the 1996. An even more dramatic example of the kind of cooperation that has developed out of the program groups is a recent joint proposal from the Research and Administrative Program Groups. Together they proposed the purchase of a new mainframe computer for administrative needs and additional centrally managed high-end computers to meet the needs of the research community. In the past, major computing upgrades had been contentious affairsÐoften creating a confrontation between academic and administrative interests. From the reports of those who had been involved in this process in the past, it was clear how well the groups had worked together to build a common solution and how quickly the decision was able to be made and endorsed by the entire university community. Summary of UNT experience: A Òfederated" approach The University of North Texas Information Resource Council and its associated program groups provide a model for cooperative activity for both information technology providers and users. Its capacity for high participation within a decentralized environment, unification of purpose and strategic planning stems from both the effectiveness of its organization and the dedication of its individual members. With information technology formally organized across three vice presidential units, and with the traditional divisions between administration and academia and between faculty and staff, a union of these forces around a common objective within the Council and its program groups serves to provide both meaningful user input and effective planning and decision-making functions. While there are clearly inefficiencies in such a model of organization, these need to be weighed against the value of direct user guidance and campus-wide support. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge the work and support of all the members of the University of North Texas community who were an integral part of the success of this federated approach to information technology planning. FOOTNOTES******************************** {1}This work was undertaken while the authors were at the University of North Texas.