Being Lean and Meaningful in the 1990s Copyright 1991 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 1991. 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 dateappear, 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 BEING LEAN AND MEANINGFUL IN THE 1990s by Thomas W. West ************************************************************************ Thomas W. West is Assistant Vice Chancellor of Information Resources and Technology for the California State University System, responsible for strategic planning, coordination, implementation, and management of the information resources management program (computing, instructional technology, telecommunications, library, and media) of the twenty-campus CSU System. ************************************************************************ ABSTRACT: Information technology has the potential to transform higher education institutions in the coming decade, but the economy is threatening to prevent the infusion of necessary new resources to make this happen. What actions can information technology leaders on campus take in the face of this challenge? At last year's CAUSE National Conference, I remarked that the 1990s held great promise for information technology to make a qualitative difference in the higher education enterprise--even in the face of scarce resources, growing user demands, and increasing technological complexity. I went so far as to suggest there was an opportunity to do "more with considerably less" over the next decade. In the ensuing months I have been told by some of my colleagues that such a philosophy will have a detrimental effect on our ability to have information technology penetrate the institution's overall program. They may be right, so I will restate my approach with an aim at being "lean and meaningful" in the 90s. I doubt there is anyone who would not agree we are entering a new era in higher education and society. How many times in the past year have you heard statements such as: * A paradigm shift should take place, aligning higher education with the larger needs of the information/service economy. * Higher education costs too much and a need exists to find new ways of delivering the instruction of an institution without increasing costs. * We need to find opportunities to develop management strategies that will improve the productivity of our faculty and staffs. For those involved in the information technology function of an institution, the challenge becomes: while facing the prospect of no major infusion of new resources, what actions must we take to address these issues? From my perspective, there are a number of actions that we could take as information technology executives. First, we can pursue organizing the information technology support services at our institutions to optimize the limited resources. Second, we can concentrate on implementing a telecommunications infrastructure that will enable our institutions to alter their delivery of instruction, instructional support, and management structures. Third, we can enter into partnerships that will enhance the management effectiveness of our institutions and maximize our information resources. Making paradigm shifts A paradigm is a model or pattern of rules and guidelines which establishes the boundaries for our dealing with issues and problems. We all deal with a multiplicity of paradigms in our lives. To make a paradigm shift means everyone goes back to zero and past successes are put aside. A new pattern of boundaries must be established to deal with the new and emerging needs. There is very little evidence that any major paradigm shifts are taking place in higher education. Certainly, the basic means of delivery of instruction has not changed radically in recent years. The academic department-centered organizational structure reflects little change over this century. Finally, the faculty rewards system, based on "publish or perish," is deeply entrenched. As a consequence, information technology has not had the degree of penetration we believe essential for an institution to be effective in an information/service economy. As the information technology leaders on our campuses, we may or may not be able to cause sweeping paradigm shifts institution-wide. However, we do have the responsibility to present and argue for major changes that deal with the information technology support services on campus. These include making changes in organization and human resources deployment for the information technology function. Organizational transformation Richard Nolan urges college and university executives to transform their organizations to survive in the information/service economy. He suggests that the functional hierarchy is obsolete and the networked organization is evolving as the new form, and that the transformation is being driven by the underlying technology.[1] Given that information technology is the underlying technology of this era, de facto, we are thrust into a leadership role in our institution. In essence, it is up to us to take the first steps. Robert Heterick has recommended we begin the organizational transformation of an institution by bringing together the information service activities on campus under a common focal point. These services include the library, media/instructional development, telecommunications, computing, printing and reprographics, and campus mail. Planning and coordinating these activities as a cohesive whole will enable the institution to better leverage its resources. Heterick suggests that these services may make up 15 to 20 percent of the institution's resources, a significant start on change[2] In a CAUSE Professional Paper, I suggested a framework that might be used to view the information resources management function on campus as an integrated set of operations.[3] Currently, I know of no such organization being in place, but several institutions have begun to migrate in this direction. Human resources strategy If you transform to a networked organization there are significant implications for type of staff and the nature of their assignments. A functional hierarchy organization is built upon individuals having specialized skills and carrying out very specific duties. A networked organization suggests that individuals will need a wider range of skills and more breadth of the knowledge of the industry, and their assignments may vary frequently. In a recently published report, the University of California, in planning for new campuses, is recommending they be structured as networked organizations. As networked organizations the human resources strategy will be based on: * Increased dependence on generalists * Expanded breadth and scope of job descriptions * Deeper delegations of authority * Broader supervisory spans of control * Formal recognition of non function-specific teams as organizational entities * Explicit and participative succession planning[4] As an example, the reference librarians and academic computing consultants of today will need to be the information management professional generalists of tomorrow. The organizational barriers, as we know them today, will have to give way to make such a strategy happen. In addition, existing staff will have to be retrained and cross-trained to cope with their broader assignments in the future. Institutionalizing new instructional delivery systems The classroom lecture has been the primary means for the faculty of our institutions to deliver instruction since the founding of Harvard in 1636. The laboratory was added as a supplement to the lecture in the late 1800s. Since the 1950s and 1960s, radio, television, and film have played marginal roles in the instructional process. More recently, computing has been used as an aid in instruction. Yet, none of these techniques has radically altered the faculty member standing in front of a group of students in a classroom lecturing. If we are going to deliver instruction and keep the costs down, we must find ways to fulfill our past promises that information technology can be a solution. James Penrod and Michael Dolence suggest the only way this will happen is if our institutions reengineer their instructional processes.[5] For them, reengineering is a process of reexamining and redefining the basic assumptions, redesigning the processes based on the new assumptions, and not being bound by past traditions. In essence, what is needed is a paradigm shift in the instructional processes of our institutions so we can transmit more knowledge to our students while increasing the productivity of our faculty. Theoretically, the information technology capabilities in existence today make it possible to transmit and to make accessible information at any time from any place. As suggested in a draft report by Cornell University, time and place no longer should be barriers to the delivery of instruction.[6] It is conceivable the faculty and students can engage in teaching and learning in a collaborative process through the uses of technology. There are two keys to this happening. First, the faculty must take a fresh approach to the means of delivering instruction. Second, we must put into place the infrastructure that will make it possible for the faculty to implement new ways for delivering instruction. As stated earlier, the future calls for networked organizations. Collaborative instruction is a form of networked organization. A successful networked organization is dependent upon the individuals having ready access to information and to each other to perform their tasks. This implies the development of a comprehensive telecommunications infrastructure throughout the campus as well as access to and from external locations. From whatever location, individuals must be able to communicate with others. For the past decade we have all been focused on this need. Unfortunately, there are still only a few institutions that have a completely networked campus for voice, data, and video. Just as personal computing was the top priority in the 80s, campus networking must be the top technology development priority in the 90s. A campus without a telecommunications infrastructure will not thrive and may not survive in the information/service economy. Managing by partnerships During the 1980s it was in vogue to establish partnerships with information technology vendors and other industries. Such arrangements have been beneficial to all parties. As the 1990s unfold, such partnerships will continue to be important. However, two other types of partnerships may be more important. First, we must give top priority to and vigorously pursue internal partnerships to enhance the management effectiveness of our institutions. As suggested in the Cornell report cited above, we must foster a broad understanding of the capabilities of information technology on campus to make a difference in how the faculty and staff members perform their various individual roles within the institution. Through such an understanding these individuals can take ownership in deciding how, when, and where information technology should be employed. To facilitate such an understanding, the information technology units must enter into meaningful partnerships with academic and administrative departments on campus. In such partnerships the role of the information technology professionals must focus on service, support, and cooperation. Second, we must enter into meaningful interinstitutional partnerships. These arrangements must go beyond the traditional interinstitutional cooperative efforts of the past and truly establish interdependency relationships; for example, a set of institutions might rely on another institution to provide a special part of their library services. In essence, we need to be able to pool our resources to maximize the benefit to the most people. Conclusion As society has suggested, changes are needed in higher education if it is to be a viable industry in the information/service economy. Making changes in a time of scarce resources is often easier because of the impending crisis. I suggest it is an opportune time for the information technology executive to promote and pursue organizational changes in our own sphere of activity. In addition, it is a time to concentrate on implementing a comprehensive telecommunications infrastructure. Also, it is appropriate to foster internal and external partnerships that will make a difference in the life of the institution. Only when these occur will we achieve the kind of penetration of information technology into the institution's overall program we have aspired to over the past decade. ======================================================================== Footnotes 1 Richard L. Nolan, "Too Many Executives Today Just Don't Get It," CAUSE/EFFECT, Winter 1990, pp. 5-11. 2 Robert C. Heterick, Jr., "Academic Sacred Cows and Exponential Growth," CAUSE/EFFECT, Spring 1991, pp. 9-14. 3 Thomas W. West, "Gaining Acceptance for an IRM Program," in Information Technology--Can It All Fit?, CAUSE Professional Papers Series, #2 (Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1989), pp. 12-15. 4 Sustaining Excellence in the 21st Century: A Vision and Strategies for the University of California's Administration (Oakland, Calif.: University of California Office of the President, March 1991). 5 James I. Penrod and Michael Dolence, "Concepts for Reengineering Higher Education," CAUSE/EFFECT, Summer 1991, pp. 10-17. 6 A Vision for the Nineties, an unpublished draft report of Cornell University, April 1991. ========================================================================