Brown University: What Presidents Should Know About the Integration of Information Technologies on Campus Background paper for HEIRAlliance Executive Strategies Report #1 "WHAT PRESIDENTS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE INTEGRATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ON CAMPUS" Prepared by representatives of BROWN UNIVERSITY Vartan Gregorian President Brian Hawkins Vice President for Academic Planning & Administration Merrily Taylor University Librarian _______________________________________________ Copyright 1992 by HEIRA. The Executive Strategies reports are published by the Higher Education Information Resources Alliance (HEIRAlliance), based on background papers prepared by teams of contributing editors from institutions of higher education. This material may be reproduced for noncommercial purposes with appropriate credit to the HEIRAlliance, which is a vehicle for cooperative projects between the Association of Research Libraries, CAUSE, and EDUCOM. _______________________________________________ INTEGRATING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES: A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY PERSPECTIVE Integrating information technologies on campus raises complex issues and challenges. We need to simultaneously work on many fronts if these challenges are to be met, if greater integration of information is to be achieved and knowledge created, and if we are to provide leadership in the creation of coherence and meaning in a time of profound change. We are moving rapidly toward the dawn of an information revolution that may well parallel the Industrial Revolution in its impact and far- reaching consequences. We are told that the total amount of collected information doubles every four years. On the other hand, the ratio of used to available information is decreasing all the time: we are unable to use 90 to 95 percent of the information that is currently available. Nowhere is this more apparent than at the university, where the always daunting arrival of information in the form of books and journals has recently been compounded by an accelerating electronic torrent from thousands of databases around the world. But undigested facts do not amount to knowledge. The current proliferation of information is accompanied by its corollary pitfalls, such as counterfeit information, and obsolescence of information. The greatest challenge facing modern society and civilization is how to cope with information and transform it into knowledge. Universities, colleges, libraries, and learned societies more than ever before have a fundamental historical and social task to give us not merely training but education; not only education but culture as well; and not just information but its distillation -- knowledge -- to protect our society against counterfeit information disguising itself as knowledge. The first step in coming to grips with this task is to cope with the disruption and stresses of information as they are found on our own campuses. We also face dangerous levels of fragmentation of knowledge dictated by the advances of science, learning, and scholarship. The university which was to embody the unity of knowledge has become intellectually a multiversity. The concept of an educated and cultured person has also become fragmented. The unity of knowledge has collapsed. We refer now to a multiplicity of literacies -- analytical literacy, computer literacy, mathematical literacy, geographical literacy, scientific literacy, civic literacy, technological literacy, and so on. There are simply too many facts, too many theories, too many subjects, too many specializations, to permit arranging all knowledge into an acceptable hierarchy. Today, universities face the challenge of re-synthesizing the compartmental knowledge of separate fields by promoting interaction and collaboration among the disciplines and their practitioners. THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES The new information technologies are a driving force behind both the explosion of information and the fragmentation of knowledge. Information technologies contribute to the explosion of information by shrinking the traditional barriers of time and space, giving us the ability to record, organize, and quickly communicate vast amounts of information. The entire corpus of Greek and Latin literature, for example, can fit on a CD-ROM and be carried inconspicuously in one's jacket pocket. If a friend in Paris would like to see an article you have just written, a copy of it can be transferred to him in seconds over the international "internet." Were any articles written on pituitary surgery last year? The answer, and the abstracts, can be available, again, in seconds -- with the article itself arriving by fax within the hour. Soon, we are told, any book, article, or the most abstruse bit of information will be instantly available from every networked computer. And these will be "compound documents" with photographs, "live" graphics, and "hypertext links" that will take the reader instantly to any other related book or article in the literature. That is the future (and probably nearer than we think), but our primary problem as universities is not engineering this future. We must rise above the obsession with the quantity of information and speed of its transmission, and recognize that the issue for us is our ability to organize this information once it has been amassed -- to assimilate it, to find meaning in it, and to ensure its survival for use by generations still to come. Information technologies contribute to the fragmentation of knowledge. They let us easily organize ourselves into ever more specialized communities. Are you developing an interest in an exotic insect, a rare mineral, or an obscure poet? With no trouble you can use electronic mail and conferencing to find several others (in, say, Japan, Peru, and Bulgaria) with whom you can communicate every day, creating your own small self-confirming world of theory, technique, and methodology. McLuhan's prediction that electronic communication would create a global village was wrong. What is being created is not like a village at all, but rather something that promotes one of the worst aspects of urban life: the ability to retreat into small communities of the like-minded, safe not only from all unnecessary interactions with ideas or attitudes fundamentally unlike our own, but safe also from having to relate our interests and results to those of other communities. As well as encouraging the formation of specialist communities, the new information technologies contribute to fragmentation in another way. The new electronic formats and computer techniques, with their special terminology, equipment, and methodologies, nicely support the development of priesthoods and esoteric communities. This is not just a quarrel between traditional scholars and a generation with new ideas and new instruments; it is increasingly a conflict that is played out whenever any group uses the new technology to construct information formats or techniques that prove unnecessarily forbidding to any but the initiated. This need not require malign intent, only ignorance or indifference to the larger issues of scholarship and communication in a technological society. Paradoxically, information technology also presents us with the opportunity, and the tools, for meeting the challenge of the explosion of information and the fragmentation of knowledge. If on the one hand the new information technologies seem fragmenting, they are also profoundly integrative. Remember that these technologies are fundamentally technologies for communication and that their deployment at the university is as often as not an exploration of new connections among the traditional disciplines: new implications, new possibilities for explanation and understanding, and new ways of finding significance and meaning. The process of assimilating the new information technologies can, in the right setting, help us to think hard and deeply about the nature of knowledge -- and even our mission as a university. T. S. Eliot, commenting on Dante's Inferno, describes hell as someplace "where nothing connects with nothing." The condition of "absurdity" and anomie is often noted as a distinctive liability of modern intellectual life. Now, near the end of the 20th century, this threat may seem to have reached its epitome in the explosion and fragmentation of information caused by the new technology. In fact, while the threat is real enough, the new technology brings us new resources for the establishment of coherence, connection, and meaning. WHERE ARE WE IN THE REVOLUTION? Technologically, the continuing dizzying rate of performance improvements in computer hardware is matched only by the equally dizzying drop in costs. No one who reads the newspapers can have missed the comparisons between the expensive, massive computer of two decades ago which required teams of experts to operate and its equal in power today: a small, pleasingly designed, $1,000 appliance on the desk of a junior high school student. Advances in telecommunications technology also show a startling acceleration: there are now nearly 10 million users of the world-wide "internet" which connects over 500,000 host computers, with new hosts and users being added every day. Electronic mail, networked file transfer, and remote searching of databases are now a fact of daily academic life, thoroughly integrated into a faculty member's working routine. Software improvements are also impressive. While the difficult user interfaces of older software required a considerable investment of time and a certain temperament, today intuitive graphical interfaces and improved program design have made it easier for students to use a sophisticated computer program for the first time than it is for them to understand the structure of a dictionary entry. These programs give their users extraordinary powers, allowing them to pose and answer questions in minutes that might have taken teams of technicians weeks or months using traditional methods. While the rate of change of the technology itself is dramatic, equally dramatic will be the changes in our organizational structures necessary to accommodate the technological advances. The relevant organizational structures must change to adopt the new technology and until that happens the real revolution of technology in higher education will not have occurred. This was the case for printing, the industrial revolution, the automobile, air travel, and radio and television. The new technology per se is not a revolution -- the revolution is the difference that technology makes in how we organize, structure, and empower our lives. This is, of course, the source of many of our problems. How do we adapt our organizations and social structures to these technological changes? How do we exploit technological developments while subordinating them to our larger purposes? Today, it seems, we are too often putting new wine in old bottles. But discovering the new organizational forms that are required is hard, not just because it is hard to understand the nature and significance of the new changes in information technology, but, even more importantly, because organizational innovation requires a sure grasp of our mission and identity as an institution. And once these forms are recognized, implementing them requires ingenuity, commitment, and courage. Although the revolution is far from over there may be a lull of sorts ahead. It is about time for the enthusiasm and revolutionary fervor regarding the new technology to subside for a bit while the methods of exploiting the technology are evaluated and integrated into the historical identity of institutions. Although not a time of high drama, such lulls can in fact be the most crucial periods of revolutionary change. This is the time to separate the confusions and self-deceptions from the truths and insights -- and to effect the real information technology revolution: adjusting our organizational structures to discern, accommodate, assimilate, and exploit what is lasting and valuable in these technological developments. In short, these lulls are times of evaluation and integration -- and that is the business of the president. WHAT CAN THE PRESIDENT DO? The role of the president is not, of course, to lead the development of new information technologies, or even to herald their arrival, argue their importance, or warn of their dangers. If presidents are successful at their leadership and managerial tasks, then there will be plenty of others who will be doing these things within the university community. The role of the president is to establish a process that will promote the integration of these new technologies both with each other and with the mission and core values of the university. It is one of active moral and intellectual leadership. This is hard. On some days the president will be beset by the prophets of the new technology. They will grab you by the arm and feverishly press upon you the revelation that "things are completely different now!" Then on other days you will be dogged by the self- styled protectors of ancient wisdom and old ways. "What is good is not new and what is new is not good," they will whisper darkly. You will think your faculty and advisors have all become Pre-Socratics: "Everything is changing!" announce the breathless Heracliteans; "Nothing changes!" warn the gloomy Parmenideans. To both you will give the same Aristotelian answer: some things change, and some remain the same -- our identity, values, principles, and goals are the same; the technological accidentals we use to exemplify these values in the late 20th century will vary. In fact these must vary, for we cannot remain the same in our essentials unless we change, in our accidentals, to meet the new circumstances. The president must create a climate where risk-taking and innovative solutions are encouraged. But most of all the president must create a community that is thoroughly informed regarding the values and peculiar identity of his or her institution. If that can be achieved, and if all members of the university can trust each other to be motivated by the same shared values, then the community can move forward to address the problems of technology integration. Very few institutions will be on the so-called "bleeding edge" of the technology revolution, but none can escape the risk-taking and wrenching changes necessary to assimilate its results into their own mission and peculiar identity. Every institution will be the site of its own convulsion, each will have its own special solution, and each will contribute something unique to our collective effort to advance learning, education, and culture. BROWN'S APPROACH: FOCUS ON MISSION In the 1970s, Brown University made a conscious decision to use computing and telecommunications in academic life. Since then Brown has implemented a sophisticated technology infrastructure; made access to these technologies "a way of life" for students, staff, and faculty; developed support structures within both the computing organization and in the library to help users effectively utilize these resources; and made strides to make more and more information available electronically. Ruling all of our thinking, planning, and implementation during this period was the principle that technology must be fundamentally integrated and aligned with the mission and identity of the University. THE VISION Although the basic vision of building a network of scholar's workstations is now fairly commonly accepted, Brown introduced this model to the academic community in the early 1980s. Through the efforts of IRIS (the Institute for Information and Scholarship) and the Scholar's Workstation Project, Brown articulated a vision of a future academy where an electronic community of students and scholars would have the entire world of information "at their fingertips." They would be able to "navigate" through centuries of text, images, video, and sound with ease. Readily at hand would be intuitive tools for capturing and analyzing this information, as well as reference sources which would immediately satisfy even the most arcane query. Intense interaction of faculty and students would be supported by this information infrastructure and special interest groups would form both local and world-wide electronic "seminars." The vision promised not only new levels of effectiveness, productivity, and learning, but also a broader and more democratic access that would surmount barriers of distance, time, and economic advantage to bring the liberating resources of the world of learning to all who wished to participate. Our experiences thus far have confirmed not only our belief that our goal of a powerful network of scholars' workstations and an electronic library is within reach, but also that its achievement will require an integrated approach that supports an intimate interaction of content and technology. OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES We have been acutely aware that the heart of future information environments will be the information itself. If we do not adequately incorporate that component into our systems, then the telecommunications, computing power, and software applications are completely irrelevant. Recognizing this connection and putting it at the heart of our strategy has been crucial to integrating information technology into Brown's traditional mission of liberal learning. The following principles have guided our thinking at Brown University as we have tried to establish an architecture for making these visions realities. * Information resource strategies must be integrated into Brown's basic identity as a single community of scholars -- a "University- College" committed to traditional ideals of liberal learning and intellectual community. * The focus is not technology, but information and its associated methodologies of analysis, synthesis, and communication. * The real revolution in information technology is about communication, not computation. * We are committed to providing a basic level of resources and services to all members of the University community, not just those who have been the traditional beneficiaries of technology. Among other things this means that there is no charge to individuals or academic units for any computing or networking services; the institution has taken the position that information technology should be a basic common feature of university life. OUR GOALS The pursuit of our vision is, then, guided by the basic principles described above. These principles have helped us formulate our goals and objectives for the next five years. These have fallen into three broad interrelated categories: content, access, and guidance. Content. To provide a full array of machine-readable documents, reference materials, and serials, including scholarly texts, images, and databases, campus publications and documents, and materials which support teaching, such as course reserves and course syllabi. These resources may be maintained locally or accessed remotely over the network. Access. To make these databases and documents accessible to a variety of desktop platforms in the library, the Center for Information Technology, faculty offices, laboratories, classrooms, dormitories, and private residences -- wherever Brown scholars are at work; and to integrate these resources with the personal information management tools used by students and faculty. Guidance. To provide the consulting, training, and assistance necessary to guide students and faculty through the rapidly changing world of new information sources, formats, and methodologies -- to help transform information into knowledge. After identifying the goals and objectives that make sense for the institution, the next step is the process of developing and implementing strategies that will achieve those goals. These strategies will almost certainly require, among other things, supplementing the staffing of the library, the computer center, and individual departments. In an era of fixed resources this means reallocating existing resources -- growth can only be by substitution, not addition. In this process it is important to be ever on the lookout for the signs of magical thinking: the unfunded goal, the project without a budget, the new objective simply added on to the current responsibilities of a department. These are even worse than doing nothing at all, for they inevitably result in failure and demoralizing confusion. It is true that stirring phrases like "doing more with less" may sound heroic, but it is the heroism of the ignorant and foolish -- and an attitude that would be irresponsible in a leader of an educational institution. The technology revolution requires real substantial change, and real change requires reallocation of resources. In a fixed resource environment it is a simple but incontrovertible rule that if you are not eliminating old functions, services, and projects, then you cannot possibly be funding your new strategies -- and if you are not funding new strategies you will fail to meet the challenges of the future. This is not to say that you must bet the farm on risky ventures. At Brown we have found it very effective to encourage innovation and exploration with the judicious use of "seed money" and pilot projects. These will allow the institution to test hypotheses, acquire experience, and refine plans and tactics prior to more major efforts. SOME CHALLENGES Progress in the goal categories described above must cope with many problems and challenges. In this section we list a few of these that we think are significant or illustrative and indicate how we at Brown are attempting to meet them. TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT As difficult as it is to fund the initial purchase of the hardware, campus planners are now finding that the initial expense pales beside the huge ongoing cost of maintaining and replacing this equipment. In the 1980s, colleges and universities across the country started to equip their campuses with microcomputers, most of which were funded with one-time monies and gifts. Unfortunately, they did not look forward enough to realize the dependency that had been created, with no available means to meet those expectations. In fact, the failure to plan for replacement of the technological infrastructure closely parallels the enormous mistakes that our campuses made in not fully stepping up to the deferred maintenance crisis which faces our physical plants. Integrating a new component, complex and critical to the mission of the university, into the capital budgeting process is essential and must be accommodated at the same time we are facing national crises in the costs of higher education. For better or for worse, universities are discovering that the maintenance of desktop computing technology, unlike the maintenance of some other capital assets, simply cannot be deferred -- any deterioration or even relative obsolescence has immediate felt consequences for productivity and quickly raises complaints and pressure from faculty, students, and staff. Universities must recognize that desktop technology is a vital capital asset and develop a plan to fund its maintenance.[1] PRINTING Printing and publishing are, of course, vital university activities. Our business is the creation and dissemination of knowledge and the education of students -- and the dominant medium for all of these things remains the printed page. Universities consume printed matter as raw material (arriving via libraries, bookstores, and, now, networks); generate vast quantities internally as the principal medium of operation (in course papers, problem sets, research notes, data, reports, article drafts, etc.); and then finally generate still more printed matter as finished products: books, articles, theses, dissertations, and so on. Printing is also a major university expense, although few realize just how expensive it is. We suspect that even restricting our focus to the relatively easily measured costs of equipment, supplies, and outsourcing, printing accounts for 5 to 10 percent of the operating budget -- more than energy (electricity and oil) at most campuses. If the somewhat harder to estimate, but even more important, costs of document preparation, management, and delivery are included, this share is easily more than doubled. And, indeed, industry analysts have estimated that as much as 15 to 20 percent of the corporate revenue of a typical service organization is spent on printing. Printing, then, is varied, expensive, and critical to our mission. In the 1990s two technological changes will have very serious consequences for managing this important activity. (1) In the mid to late 1990s there will be an explosive increase in volume of university printing as internet services mature and we begin to realize the goal of having the world's information "at our fingertips." And if electronic document delivery begins to replace traditional serials circulation, as hoped by the Coalition for Networked Information,[2] then the volume may be enormous. The 1990s will probably see a steady progress towards an information distribution system where most incoming information arrives electronically and is printed locally. It is likely that by the late 1990s there will be a reversal of the current distribution of tasks and costs in publishing with the information purchaser, not the publisher, becoming responsible for printing. (2) Today there are a variety of printing technologies on campus: computer-driven impact printers, computer-driven laser printers, offset presses, photocopiers, etc. But in the mid to late 1990s there will be only one imaging technology that makes economic and functional sense -- networked digital electrophotography (laser printing). This will replace, or at least relegate to a minor role, almost all other imaging technologies, including (solid optical) photocopying, offset printing, and phototypesetting. Most importantly, this single printing technology will be tightly integrated with its allied information technologies, computing and telecommunications. But despite its importance, its cost, and the rapid rate of related technological change, printing at most universities is poorly planned and managed, representing a serious liability for expense and confusion in the 1990s. Universities should begin now to initiate the analysis, planning, and coordination necessary to manage such an important and costly service. INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY How do we integrate the new technologies into the classroom? This is one of the most discussed and agonized over integration problems. It is one that goes to the very heart of who we are and what we are. Here the university president must hold a very steady role between the zealots of the utopian information future and the guardians of the old order, recognizing that both have truths to tell us. He or she must also encourage the university to develop structures that can integrate these new technologies, but this requires both sensitivity and caution. As Peter Lyman states, " there has been considerable experimentation at the margins, by young faculty, by a few innovators, by faculty seeking career renewal. But thus far, few curricula have been fundamentally rethought and reorganized."[3] It is the rethinking of curricula, and the reshaping of the instructional paradigm, that must be encouraged, and technology is merely a catalyst that encourages this function. To provide this encouragement, a number of strategies must be pursued simultaneously. We must not only capitalize the replacement of desktop computers, as was suggested earlier, we must also capitalize the networks and projection equipment necessary to bring the technology into the classroom. Although computer laboratories are important, more important is the opportunity for the faculty to be able to reach the network, the world's libraries, their own research data files, and other reference materials in a real-time capability, and share these resources with students in the classroom. This requires a sophisticated network and the appropriate projection equipment so that students can see the demonstrations, and experience the process of inquiry first hand. When this type of classroom environment becomes ubiquitous, our concerns about instructional use of the technology will be far less. At this point, we are asking much of our faculty, but not providing them with a viable means of delivering this "new instruction." Much has been written recently about the schism between instruction and research. When the research capabilities of scholars are made available to faculty in the classroom, via these electronic connections, this schism is reduced, as the processes of learning and of teaching approach each other. While the hardware and software environments to support such a classroom environment are important, they must be paralleled by a dramatic increase in the information available electronically on the network. The access to electronic information is far less a technological problem than it is a set of business and legal problems, as the owners of information sort out how they must work in a new distribution environment. Efforts such as those of the Coalition for Networked Information must be encouraged and nourished, if these dreams are to be achieved. The integration of knowledge, which we have been defining as desirable, depends on available electronic information, in any format, including images, animation, sound, film and TV footage, etc., as well as the hypermedia tools to effectively integrate these resources. In essence, all of these dreams to achieve a greater integration of knowledge ultimately revolve around the core of information, not the technologies of information processing. Thus logically, if we are looking at integrating information resources, we must look to the unit which has been historically charged with this mission, namely the library. THE HEART OF THE UNIVERSITY: THE LIBRARY The next step, a crucial one, is to further integrate our basic information infrastructure of computing and communications with the university's traditional source of information resources and human information expertise -- the library. For Brown University this is a crucial phase in the process as we have resolutely emphasized that information technology must be thoroughly integrated into the traditional mission of liberal learning. Universities are knowledge engines: information is the fuel they consume, knowledge the product they produce. The primary information resources of a university are in its libraries. The library is where we find the thoughts that people, over thousands of years and from all over the world, have found worth saying and recording. In addition, librarians provide the expertise needed to intelligently navigate these vast seas of knowledge and thought. Despite what one hears, the problem of "information overload" is not something new and peculiar to modern information technology; it is in a sense the fundamental and permanent subject matter of academic librarianship. THE LIBRARY OF THE FUTURE The library of the future will differ greatly from the libraries of today. It will continue to provide access to information and guidance for navigating the informational seas -- but it will no longer do this solely by acquiring and archiving information. The library of the future will not only be a place where information is kept, but a portal through which students and faculty will access the vast information resources of the world. To provide information and services effectively, libraries must bring together users and information resources without the constraints of a physical environment. The scholar may be at home, in a laboratory, or in a classroom, and the information may be in Kyoto or Bologna or on the surface of Mars. Librarians of the future will have the daunting task of helping scholars discover relevant information anywhere in the world, in any format. The library of the future will be about access and knowledge management as well as about the acquisition, organization, and preservation of scholarly information. As we look ahead to the year 2000, it is clear that information has become increasingly diverse and complex, and that this trend is unlikely to change. Scholars will continue to work with information in a multitude of formats, supported by a variety of technologies. In this environment of choice and complexity, computing centers and libraries must work closely to ensure that students and faculty are provided with the technological tools and information resources needed to support education and research. University library directors are committed to this vision and are surprisingly consistent about the direction in which library services must develop. This degree of agreement about these goals is in fact quite striking and decidedly contrary to some of the popular myths about librarians' intransigence and technophobia. In 1991, the Research Libraries Group (RLG) sponsored a series of workshops for provosts and library directors from forty-one major research universities. The subsequent summary of the results of these workshops reported: Provosts and librarians share an image of the future of information resources on their campus. They all strongly prefer a future in which there is universal access by faculty and students to multiple information sources in all possible media via a single multifunctional workstation.[4] The RLG report goes on to conclude, The unanimity of support that the universal workstation environment found in every workshop indicates that the problem is not in choosing the path, but rather in which step to take first.[5] REALIZING THE NEW LIBRARY Which step first? Why should this be so difficult and the source of so much agonizing? Not, as we have seen, because librarians are suspicious of technology or are irrationally wedded to the old ways. In fact, university libraries have historically been early adopters of new information technology. Certainly the vast complicated -- and very effective -- structure of global bibliographic networks (such as OCLC and RLIN) and data format standards (such as MARC) could not have been designed, implemented, and maintained by technophobes! Moreover, today librarians are visibly in the forefront of exploring the frontiers of these new technologies, leading the development of information processing standards. Major library conferences such as those of the American Library Association and the American Society for Information Science, as well as specialist meetings on manuscripts, rare books, music librarianship, and so on all devote enormous attention to developing the potential of the new information technologies. The reason taking the first steps along the path we know we must travel is so difficult is because those steps ...require basic cultural changes in the academy beyond the control of the library director or chief academic officer ...leadership in the articulation of campus priorities, innovation in demonstration projects, and long-term strategic reallocations of resources from various sources ...[6] Of course librarians are protective. But this protectiveness is not technophobia, it is commitment to the fundamental values and mission of the university: we are protecting not our books, but the very possibility of understanding who we are and what we can become. No one is more eager to realize the future than are university librarians. After all, it is to a large extent a future that librarians have been instrumental in envisioning. At the same time, we cannot ignore the responsibilities which all of us have, and which we have specifically entrusted to our librarians, to be responsible to the past and to the preservation of information which has been generated over the centuries, at the same time our attentions are being focused on the future. But absent of the support of the university leadership, a climate of commitment to innovation, and a commitment to the reallocation of existing resources, librarians will only move toward that future with deliberate and measured steps. HOW THE PRESIDENT CAN HELP Those who believe that a faster pace is necessary if the leadership and relevance of the university in society is to be maintained, must begin now to work to develop a climate in our universities that will make more effective progress possible. Not only will that climate include leadership, innovation, and resource reallocation, even more importantly it will make fundamental academic values the center and touchstone of all university planning and decision-making. That is what will give us the reassurance to move forward with hope and confidence to make the far-reaching changes that need to be made. CONCLUSION These brief thoughts only touch the surface of the complex issues facing the integration of information resources on our campuses. Our institutions are entering the information age with organizational structures that haven't changed all that dramatically for decades. We need to simultaneously work on many fronts if these challenges are to be met, if greater integration of information is to be achieved and knowledge created, and if we are to provide leadership in the creation of coherence and meaning in a time of profound change. FOOTNOTES 1 For a discussion of the issues involved in technology replacement, see "Capital Budgeting and Lifecycle Planning for Desktop Technology," by Ronald F. E. Weissman, in Brian L. Hawkins, ed., Organizing and Managing Information Resources on Campus, EDUCOM Strategy Series (McKinney, Texas: Academic Computing Publications, Inc., 1989). 2 The Coalition for Networked Information, sponsored by CAUSE, EDUCOM, and the Association of Research Libraries, is exploring ways to use the new information technology to cope with the exploding costs of scholarly publishing and library acquisitions. 3 Peter Lyman, "Computing, Libraries, and Classrooms: Organizing and Planning Campus Services," in Hawkins, p. 219. 4 Richard M. Dougherty and Carol Hughes, Preferred Futures for Libraries: A Summary of Six Workshops with University Provosts and Library Directors (PLACE OF PUBLICATION: Research Libraries Group, Inc., DATE), p. 3. 5 Ibid., p. 17 6 Ibid., p. 3. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING ---Documents Expanding on the Themes Discussed in this Paper Brian L. Hawkins, Ronald F. E. Weissman, and Don C. Wolfe, "Prescriptions for Managing Information Resources on Campus" in Organizing and Managing Information Resources on Campus, Brian Hawkins, ed., EDUCOM Strategy Series on Technology, Academic Publications Inc. 1989. Ronald F. E. Weissman and Brian L. Hawkins, "Academic Computing: Issues for the 1990s" in Organizing and Managing Information Resources on Campus, Brian Hawkins, ed., EDUCOM Strategy Series on Technology, Academic Publications Inc. 1989. Ronald F. E. Weissman "Capital Budgeting and Lifecycle Planning for Desktop Technology" in Organizing and Managing Information Resources on Campus, Brian Hawkins, ed., EDUCOM Strategy Series on Technology, Academic Publications Inc. 1989. ---Documents Providing General Information on Brown, the Libraries, and CIS "Computing and Information Services," Brown: Catalogue of the University, 1991-94 "Libraries", Brown: Catalogue of the University, 1991-94 ---Documents Describing Strategic Planning of Information Technology at Brown Excerpts from Looking Toward the Year 2000 -- A Status Report on Long- Term Planning Process at Brown University, February 1992. "B. Library" and "C. Computing and Information Services" Task Force Report on the Brown Internetwork and Internetwork Services, Final Report, [1987]; See especially the "Introduction" and "1. Description of the Proposed Network Environment" (pp 1-8). Available through the CAUSE Exchange Library, 303-449-4430, fax 303-440-0461, as HEI-1011 (43 pages, $8.60) "Information Resources for the Year 2000: Taking the Next Steps," the Brown University Libraries and Computing and Information Services, November 1991. Available through the CAUSE Exchange Library, 303-449- 4430, fax 303-440-0461, as HEI-1012 (13 pages, $2.60) Brown's Library and Computing Services, 1992