ED 393 401

TITLE

INSTITUTIONREPORT NOPUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEJOURNAL CIT

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

IR 017 736

The EDUTECH Report, 1995-96.EDUTECH International, Bloomfield, CT.ISSN-0883-13279697p.

EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Ave., Bloomfield,CT 06002-1634 (one year subscription, $97).Collected Works Serials (022)EDUTECH Report; v11 n1-12 1995-96

MFOI/PC04 Plus Postage.*Educational Technology; *Higher Education;Hypermedia; Information Technology; Newsletters;*Technological Advancement; TelecommunicationsAdministrator Involvement; Faculty Attitudes; *Roleof Technology; World Wide Web

This document consists of 12 issues, an entire volumeyear, of the EDUTECH Report published between April 1995 and March1996. The newsletter'spurpose is to alert faculty and administratorsto issues in educational technology. Each issue typically containstwo feature articles, a page of news briefs, a preview of theupcoming issue, and a question and answer column. The cover articlesinclude: (I) "Telecommunications Issues in Higher Education" (DavisJ. Ayersman and Daniel K. Anderson); (2) "Hypertext: Hyperware,Hyperchondria, or Just Hype?" (Howard

Strauss); (3) "Can TechnologySave Higher Education?" (Martin B. Solomon); (4) "You're Never ReallyEducated without a SMILE" (Howard Strauss);(5)

"Counter-Implementation Strategies" (Steven Gilbert); (6) "Hot Issues1995-96" (Thomas Warger); (7) "Advanced Technology Groups: Essentialor Indispensable?" (Howard Strauss); (8) "Retrofitting Academe:Adapting Faculty Attitudes and Practices" (LeAne Rutherford & SherylGrana); (9) "At the Crossroad: Higher Ed and Technology Development"(R. Grant Tate); (10) "Structural Principles for IT Organizations";(11) "Dear Webby--Advice for the Web Worn" (Howard Strauss); and (12)"The Productivity Paradox" (Paul Attewell). (BEW)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

THE L April 1995

PE-ERN

I ..11

0 R

Volume 11Number 1

The Education Technology New.-letter for Faculty and Administrators

Telecommunications Issuein Higher Education

by David J. Ayersman and Daniel K. Anderson

There are many questions raised by the use of computers andcommunications, particularly within education. What exactly is

the information highway as touted by the Clinton Administration?Does this technology broaden or narrow access to information? Arethere significant barriers that might limit an individual's access toinformation? How might it impact education? How much will accessvary from school to school? What will be some of the ethical dilem-mas presented by this new technology?

Our obligationIn September of 1993, the White House announced a plan to establishthe Internet as the starting point for the National Information Infra-structure. The Clinton administration has touted the Natiwial Informa-tion Infrastructure as an "information highway" that will redefinecommunications. As educators and administrators, we are obligated tobecome more informed of these electronic possibilities so that we mayavoid the potential downfalls associated with them.

The audio-visual mediaradio, television, and filmsbroadened ac-cess to information by maldng it cheaper and less demanding of skills,but reduced the opportunities for public input since the informationwas primarily limited to the presentation of information to a passivepublic. Telecommunications, on the other hand, offers the ability ofinformation exchange allowing the pubii:: to become active participantsin the flow of information. The role of the decision-maker is quicklychangingno longer is ht: or she shielded by clerical workers andstaff. Those once inaccessible now can be reached directly via an e-mail address or a fax number.

BEST COPY AVMLABLE

continued on page 3

2

"Intellectual honesty is afundamental value ineducation. It includes respectfor the intellectual creations ofothers. The onslaught ofcomputers in our lives has notchanged the rules, but it isputting our values to the testby making it easy toappropriate the works ofothers. While laws and policycondemn and ban suchactivity, in the world ofcomputers it will be individualswho decide the issue."

Frank ConnollyThe American University"Intellectual Honesty in the Era

of Computing"TH.E. j U Sournal ot Educational Research ano annroverreii

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

CI Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

April 1995

_ _ _ - _ - - -Points of view or opinions stateo in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial DERI position or policy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Linda H. Fleit

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

MIL

A RESOURCE FORCOMPUTING IN THEARTS ANDHUMANITIES

THE INTERNATIONALCOMMUNITYCOLLEGE

NATIONALEDUCATIONALCOMPUTINGCONFERENCE

Sponsored by PEINet (Prince Edward Island, Canada), CHORUS is an on-line,hypermedia resource for academic and educational computing in the arts andhumanities. Targeted primarily toward academics, educators, informationprofessionals, and students in higher education, CHORUS is a collaborativeventure which brings together an international team of academics andprofessionals. It features essays, reviews of software of special interest toacademics and educators in the humanities, and links to humanities-relatedresources on the Internet. CHORUS is accessible on the World Wide Web athttp://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorusthome.html.

Academics, educators and information professionals are welcome to joinCHORUS as section editors, reviewers, or editorial consultants. Software andbook publishers may submit copies of their publications for review. For details,contact Todd Blayone, Project Coordinator, McGill University, Montreal,Canada at chorus@bud.peinet.pe.ca.

The League for Innovation and Jones Education Networks have signed anagreement to explore the development of The International CommunityCollege, a worldwide extension of the community college concept throughdistance learning. Using satellite, cable, and emerging technologies, includinginteractive CD, the College will develop a broad range of learner-centeredscheduled and on-demand educational programs and services in multiplelanguages. It will include an on-line learning center, student support services,portfolio assessment and credit validation, assessment services, networkedlibrary services, and electronic services to permit student interactivity withinstructors, classmates, and an educational service center.

For more information, contact Terry O'Banion, Executive Director, The Leaguefor Innovation in the Community College, 26522 La Alameda, Suite 370,Mission Viejo, California 92691; (714) 367-2884.

NECC '95, "Emerging Technologies and Lifelong Learning," will be held thisyear at the Baltimore Convention Center on June 17-19. Hosted by TowsonState University, the conference will emphasize new ways of teaching andlearning using information technology. In addition to regular conferencesessions covering topics such as teaching with technology in higher educationand virtual communities, there will be a series of presentations anddemonstrations by the recipients of awards from the Division ofUndergraduate Education of the National Science Foundation, representing thefields of biology, chemistry, computing, mathematics, and physics.

For more information, contact the NECC '95 Office, Towson State University,Baltimore, Maryland 21204; (410) 830-2773; necc956toe.towson.edu.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit (LFLEIT@MCIMAIL.COM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1995,EDUTECH International. All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without thcwritten permission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription, S97.

2

Telecommunications Issues in Higher Education ...continued from page 1

It should come as no surprise thatnew technology offers both advan-tages and disadvantages. Unfortu-nately, when we fail to considersome of the negatives involved withchange, we often neglect to prepareourselves for the eventual impactthese negative outcomes mighthave. Our obligation as informationtechnologists is to identify anddescribe issues relevant to telecom-munications and education so thatthey can be considered, discussed,and resolved.

Obviously, the advent of computersfollowing World War H has signifi-cantly impacted our society, butteleconununications opens a newworld of information access andexchange. The Internet, establishedin the mid-1960s as a way to pro-vide communication alternatives totelephone, radio, and TV for mili-tary purposes in the event of hos-tilities with the Soviet Union, isadding a million users everymonth.

Information and DemocracyIn a video titled "Counting onComputers," Walter Cronkite ar-gues that computer use by its verynature leads to the development ofa scientific autocracya threat todemocracy that can be counteredonly by fostering greater scientificliteracy at every level in ourschools. As Ralph Nader has said,"Information is the currency ofdemocracy"; it is generally acceptedthat information is the source ofknowledge and knowledge is thesource of power. Within a democra-cy it is imperative that the citizen-ry have free access to information

David Ayersman is an assistant pro-fessor at SUNY College at Plattsburgh.Daniel Anderson is at West VirginiaUniversity. This artick is excerptedfrom their presentation at the 1994ASCUE Conference.

so that a government run "by thepeople" can be run "by an informedpeople."

There are essentially two aspects ofinformation within a democracy:the people's right to know andtheir rights to privacy Unfortu-nately, these two issues can beconflicting and are often misunder-stood. Educators and administra-tors should have a working knowl-edge of both issues for their ownprotection; the Freedom of Infor-mation Act (1966) and the PrivacyAct (1974) address these issuesdirectly.

When we fail toconsider some of the

negatives involved withchange, we often neglectto prepare ourselves for

the eventual impactthese negative outcomes

might have.

1

The t`Teedom of Information Act(FOIA) was passed in 1966 to as-sist the public in obtaining infor-mation from government agencies.Amendments have since been add-ed that have continued to facilitatethis information access to the pub-lic. With the passage of the FOIA,the burden of proof passed fromthe individual (who previously hadto justify a "need to know") to thegovernment (who now recognizesthat the individual has a "right toknow"). The FOIA applies only todocuments held by administrativeagencies of the executive branch ofgovernment; there is no right ofaccess for the public or the press to

judicial or other governmental pro-ceedings.

In 1974, the Privacy Act waspassed by Congress. The PrivacyAct is intended to provide individu-als the ability to acquire informa-tion about themselves and to pre-vent disclosure of this informationto others. This act gives the indi-vidual significant control over howinformation about him- or herselfis used. It requires consent prior tothe release of information abouthim or her and prescribes that nosecret record systems are to bekept on individuals.

Ethical DilemmasEducators and administrators areparticularly affected by ethicaldilemmas that come about from theapplication of these two pieces oflegislation. There are specificrights of protection provided by theFirst, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth A-mendments that raise importantissues for consideration.

The First Amendment says thatCongress shall make no law abrid-ging the freedom of speech, or ofthe press, or of the right of thepeople to peaceably assemble. Rele-vant to the freedom-of-speech is-sue, telecommunications provides abroader range of access for express-ing one's thoughts. Knowing Presi-dent Clinton's e-mail address, forinstance, I can advise him on is-sues of international significance.He can't stop my electronic mailfrom reaching him regardless ofwhat I might offer as advice norcan I stop the potential onslaughtof commercial "junk mail" thatmight be created as a result of theNSF removing commercial restric-tions from the Internet. Will therebe some balance between freedomof speech and freedom to ignoreeveryone's else's speeches?

continued on page 6

Veryone knows the joke aboutthe consultant who borrows

your watch and then tells you whattime it is. It's a good joke, but thereal joke is that the joke is not ajoke at all: it's a good definition ofconsulting. It's the way consultingis really donenot the bad kind ofconsulting, but the good kind.

The good kind of consulting iswhen the consultant actually lis-tens to the client and actually goesto the trouble of looking at theclient's watch; the bad kind iswhen the consultant comes to theproject with The Eternal RightTime and The Prepackaged RightAnswer.

For good consulting, you need agood client, a good watch, and agood consultant.

Of course, the best kind of consult-ing happens when the consultanthas a really good client. Thatsounds silly but it's true. It's remi-niscent of that sage observation ofa Georgia governor in the 1960swho, responding to a reporter whoasked when Georgia would havebetter prisons, said .that Georgiawould have better prisons "whenwe have a better class of crimin-als." Has anything truer ever beenspoken?

And so the consultant's first task isto find a good class of clients,which of course raises the question:What makes a good client?

The easiest way to approach thatquestion is to ask its inverse: Whatmakes a bad client? The answer isthat a bad client is someone with a

John Gehl is editor and publisher ofEducom Review.

MINIMINNION1=111111111111111111IP4

Good Client Seeking Good Coby John G

deep emotional need for a badcmsultantas in those books withtitles like Good Women Who LoveBad Men or ... well, you know allthe variations. Anyway, a bad cli-ent is a wounded person looking fora Fixer who bears the Secret For-mula for painlessly remedying allof the client's problems.

Well, there's good news and badnews for a bad client.

The good news is that the Secret

Bad clients are oneswho take no respon-sibility for their own

salvation. They want tobe delivered, but in-

stead of being delivered,they are taken.

Formula will be provided.

The bad news is that it will beprovided by a Bad Consultant.

Although there are a bewilderingnumber of Secret Formulas, atleast they're all short and easy tomemorize. In fact, most of themtake the form of a single word orphrase: "IBM!", *Macintosh!", "Nov-ellr, "Unix!", "Postscriptr, "Mosa-icr, "Internetr, "Client/Serverr,"Firewallr, "Warsaur, "Buggabug-ga!" and so forth. (Don't forget theexclamation point! We're talkingnow about Secret Formulas!)

I happen to know dozens of SecretFormulas but I'm going to continue

to sit on them, because that's whatintellectual property is all about.However, I'm willing to tell youthis much: today's Secret Formulais "firewall"with "buggabugga" aclose second. I'll also reveal thatthree other Secret Formulas wait-ing in the wings are: "All slogansare right"; "All slogans are wrong";and "All slogans are potential booktitles."

In my early years as a consultant("Gehl's Blue Period," as thoseyears are characterized in my scan-dalous and unauthorized memoirs),I did some work for a fellow consul-tant who specialized in organiza-tional studies for very small non-profit organizations receiving feder-al aid. The consultant's M.O."M.O." is consulting talk; if you'renot a consultant or a criminal youmight not be familiar with itwasto arrive at the client's tiny base-ment office in some little Southerntown, ask for the client's organiza-tion chart and official policy ring-binder, and return to his room atthe Holiday Inn to draft the finalreport. The final report would(surprise!) record the consultant'smost well-thought-out and profes-sional finding that the client orga-nization was remiss in havingneither an organizational chart noran official policy ringbinder.

After observing this process a num-ber of times, I asked the consultantfor a copy of his own organizationchart and official policy ringbinder,though, of course, the consultanthad no such things. Needless tosay, he laughed. I laughed, too. Sothere we were, the two of us shar-ing a hearty, conspiratorial laugh,as we were polishing up a finalreport recommending that the cli-ent's two- or three-person organiza-tion was in critical need of an orga-

5

4

isultant for Adult RelationshipEducom

nization chart and an official policyringbinder.

Oh, well. Everyone was happy. Theclient was happy to get a nice newringbinder and renewed federalfunding; the consultant was happyto have his insights rewarded withattention (and $$$); the feds werehappy to have a report to file away;and I was happy for The Experi-ence. (Of course, that was then andthis is now; I've had quite enoughExperience, thank you.)

I've sometimes wondered whetheror not the ringbinders actuallyhelped. Maybe they did. If nothingelse, I'm sure they added a certainelegance to the client's bookshelves.However, I don't think the neworganization charts helped muchexcept as comical demonstrationsof the manic resourcefulness ofpeople forced to perform absurdbureaucratic exercises. In fact, theorganization charts produced bythe executive directors of those tinyorganizations were works of art ...with dotted lines, boldface lines,lines with bi-directional arrows,lines composed of dollar signs, etc.,etc. The variety and quality ofdraftsmanship was truly amazingto behold (and this was even beforethe days of color copying and desk-top publishing!).

But these weren't bad clients; theywere brave and admirable survi-vors, who had enough sense toknow that when things get crazyyou need to look to your deepestinner selfand find The CrazinessWithin. Craziness then becomes asign of responsibility.

In contrast, bad clients are oneswho take no responsibility at all fortheir own salvation. They want tobe delivered ... but instead of being

delivered, they are taken.

Bad clients want to be deliveredfrom everything except projectadministrationa subject in whichthey exhibit a pathological inter-estand talk incessantly about"holding the consultant's feet to thefire."

I'm happy to report that I have nodirect knowledge of this strangephenomenon involving feet andfire. I've never personally experi-

Ifyou can.'tunderstand and

believe that this clientis a special case, then

you're the wrongconsultant for

the job

enced it with regard to my ownfeet or witnessed it with regard toother people's feet, so I have noth-ing to tell you about it. For all Iknow, it may not exist, or it maybe an everyday outdoor ritual,performed by crazed campersaround their campsites, somewhereout in the woods. Fortunately, Idon't spend much time out in thewoods.

In any event, the principal charac-teristic of bad clients is that theyhave low expectations and highdemands. They want simple an-swers to complex problems, andthey desperately want someone toblame (a consultant, a politician, aserial killer, it doesn't really mat-

ter, as long as it's someone besidesthemselves).

The good client is exactly the in-verse of the bad client. Whereas abad client is someone looking foran unhappy relationship with abad consultant, a good client has agenuine interest in explaining hisor her problem to an intelligentoutsider. And a good consultant isessentially nothing more than agood listener. No Secret Formulasor Magic Potionsjust an ability toask questions and (this is the mira-cle) actually listen to the answers.

One of the reasons that the con-sulting process (when it works) ismiraculous is that the client and/orthe client organization is usuallyoperating at cross-purposes. (Orwhy else would it need a consul-tant?) And so listening to a clientis like listening to a symphony oran opera: you need to hear morethan just the tunes. You need tohear the orchestration, feel thedrama, understand the motivationsof the characters.

And if you can't understand andbelieve that this client is a specialcase, then you're the wrong consul-tant for the job, because the clientdoesn't want or need to hear yourrecitation of platitudes. The clientwants coaching. The essence ofcoaching is to give specific correc-tive advice to speciac players. Thisis also the essence of good consult-ing.

Well, I could say a lot more aboutthis, but I think I've used up mytiznethough I'm not really sureabout that, because my watch is inthe shop.

What a nuisance. Do you suppose Icould borrow yours?

Telecommunications Issues in Higher Education ...continued from page 3

Regarding the freedom to assem-ble, the potential to gather en mas-se is an obvious advantage of tele-communications. I heard recentlyof a course offered on the Internetthat was attended by over 1700students from around the world.Will this right be in jeopardy asgatekeepers decide who gets accessto the network?

And in terms of freedom of thepress, despite the fact that thepress is charged with the duty ofinforming the people, votes havebeen cast on 'he basis of media-controlled information to the publicthat has not represented the entireissue. Less control over the infor-mation might be one advantage ofcomputer networking. Sorting outthe truth from the opinions mightbe the downside of this however.

The Fourth Amendment guaran-tees the right of the people to besecure in their persons, houses,papers, and effects. But there ispractically no security againstcomputerized invasion of one'selectronic communications. Usingsomeone else's password or addresscan enable someone to move aboutwith an electronic "disguise" thatwould be the envy of James Bond.I can access information belongingto others just as easily as otherscan access mine. Government agen-cies are no exception. The NSA,FBI, FCC, and possibly the CIAare all capable of monitoring theInternet. There are apparently norestraints preventing this round-the-clock observation. Will FourthAmendment violations become aproblem? Will the Fourth Amend-ment apply to government's virtu-ally undetectable intrusions viatelecommunications?

The Fifth Amendment states thatno person shall be deprived of life,liberty, or property without dueprocess of law; nor shall private

property be taken for public usewithout just compensation. Butwhat constitutes property withinthe realm of telecommunications?Software is made up of binary codeand Boolean logic that is furthercomplicated by units of informationso small (bytes) that there is noclear solution to defming propertyor establishing ownership. Tele-communication involves passingrough drafts and raw forms ofmaterials across great distances ina timely manner inconsistent withthe old-fashioned copyright andpatent processes. How will weascertain when property has been

There is practically nosecurity againstinvasion of one's

electronic communica-tions. I can access

information belongingto others just as easily

as they can access mine.

taken for public use without justcompensation?

The Sixth Amendment guaranteesthat in all criminal prosecutions,the accused shall enjoy the right toa speedy and public trial, by animpartial jury of the state anddistrict where the crime was com-mitted. The Internet involves send-ing information in multi-linearroutes consisting of circuitouspaths that cross state, district, andinternational boundaries in mereseconds without the knowledge ofthe sender or the receiver. Willtelecommunications crimes beautomatically classified as federalcrimes because of this? If so, the

seriousness of the crime wouldseem to be escalated simply be-cause of the jurisdiction. How willthe courts determine venue?

Access IssuesInformation Organization. As on-line information repositories cate-gorize, code, and sort in an attemptto meaningfully organize the infor-mation on hand, users will mostlikely continue to unintentionallyexclude information from theirsearch due to the organization ofthe information. Which words areto be used as keywords or subjectheaders to identify an article orbook? On-line systems may exacer-bate these problems as much moregoes on behind the scenes andinformation is more narrowly de-fined.

Geographical Inequities. In thepast, the public library system hasresponded to rural citizens' needsby taking the library to them (e.g.,bookmobiles and branch libraries).President Clinton's governmentappears to be following the sameapproach by suggesting that down-links and terminals will be avail-able in public buildings for similarreasons. Most rural areas lack theresources found in urban libraries;making information available on-line creates the possibility of solv-ing this crisis. But will rural areashave the same types of terminalsas the urban areas? Will librariansor resource personnel have similarabilities of providing assistance atthe two locations?

Socioeconomic Disparities. Tele-communications may prove to addthe lack of information to the tribu-lations of the poor. The cost ofaccessing information via telecom-munications and computers ishigher than many citizens canafford. Many lack the ability tomake use of these opportunities.Institutional access in the form of

6 7

computers in public libraries anduniversities may pose a solutionbut limiting information to a fewisolated terminals forces the publicto gain very specific access.

Physical Ability. The lack of abilityor skill to use the media is recog-nizably another barrier to informa-tion availability. There are manygroups of society that might havedifficulty using telecommunicationsjust as there are those that willbecome even more able. If mobilityis a problem, telecommunicationswill enable more people to over-come it since they can gain accessto information directly from theirhomes.

Legal IssuesThere are many legal issues thatarise as a result of telecommunica-tions. When new technologies areevolving far more rapidly than thelegal system can handle, there arebound to be problems. For in-stance, it is not difficult to mask

one's identity by using someoneelse's account number or password.This creates issues of libel anddefamation that the courts willhave to address. Proving thesedeliberate acts will be difficult.There are copyright and licen-ingissues created by the ease of trans-mitting and making multiple copiesof programs.

Specific professions will face theirown ethical dilemmas as a result oftelecommunication systems. Law-yers face issues of lawyer-clientcommunication security, problemsof nonlawyer access to the system,difficulties in abstaining from pro-viding advice to clients outsidetheir geographic area of expertise,and the anonymity of clients mayresult in conflicts of representation.One could extrapolate these prob-lems to other professionsmedicaladvice given by unqualified individ-uals and educators releasinggrades to individuals other thanstudents, for example.

"We are now in a period of time that is insistentlyre-inventing itself as something totally newbecause of information and electronic communi-cation. The library has posed a special challengeto the freethinkers who would appropriate thelibrary into a symbol of the dawning new age,merely by adding an adjective: electronic, virtual,new, information, digital, multimedia.... Whilethere is no agreement as yet on the single bestadjective, there Is agreement that the library mustitself be changed fundamentally if this self-consciousness about an information revolution isto be more than rhetorical labeling."

William PlaterIndiana University Purdue University Indianapolis"The Library: A Labyrinth of the Wide World"Educom ReviewMarch/April 1995

It is possible that more people willuse telecommunications to slanderand misrepresent the truth. If thelibelous information becomes thebasis for decisions, I foresee a movetoward a more litigious society aspeople seek recourse.

SummaryTo make information available toall requires an infrastructure link-ing the many electronic sourcesand the enabling of individuals touse the new te, iology The Inter-net begins to fulfill only one of thetwo requirements; the other re-mains to be addressed. Withoutadequate education or knowledgeof how to use the system, there willbe an inability to gather and orga-nize the available information allaround us. This will lead to a con-dition where, rather than benefit-ting, there will be specific groups ofpeople who will suffer from a reli-ance on telecommunications. Theneeds of these groups must not gounnoticed.

In Future Issues

- The QWFRTY-Dvorakkeybcard issue needsresolution

- "How Much is That Microin the Window?" and"Have I got a deal foryour

- IT's role in the NationalQuality Awards forhigher education

Need a consuttant? EDUTECHinternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

41111

Q. One ofour goals in computer services is to helpend users become independent, especially in the areaof report writing. Right now, we do all reports, some-times in COBOL and sometimes using fourth-genera-tion tools, depending on the application. Needless tosay, our backlog is huge, and we're getting morecomplaints about service. It seems to me that weought to be able to off-load at least the 4GL stuff toend users. Is this realistic?

A. The direction is realistic (and desirable), but youneed to keep several things in mind First, some userswill see creating reports as simply extra work thatthey are now responsible for (that you used to do forthem). You need to be really clear about why it is intheir best interests to take the time to learn new tools,learn the data structures, and actually do the work ofproducing reports. Second, not all users will have theskills necessary to take this ondespite all of our talkof "user friendlfness," most report writing tools todayhave not reached that goal yet. It is unrealistic to ex-pect that all users will have the wherewithal (includ-ing the time and the inclination) to be able to do re-port writing as well or as quickly as a professional

Al

programmer. Then too, not all users will have theright hardware and software to be able to do thisconveniently. All in all, it's a very good idea to fosteruser independence, but you need to tread carefully.

0. We are just beginning our first information tech-nology strategic planning effort. Are there certainoverall goals we should keep in mind?

A. The fact that you are doing this at all is a verygood thing, and yes, there are some broad goals thatwould be useful to guide you through the process.Plans should: 1) be based on a wide appraisal of userneeds done by the users themselves; 2) address userneeds specifwally, leading to an underlying technolog-ical foundation, rather than beginning with a specifictechnological platform and then fitting user needsinto it; 3) be based on a full analysis of the costs andbenefits of various alternatives; 4) have contingenciesand a change process built into them; 5) be practical,doable, and affordable; 6) support institutional goalsand objectives; 7) have a great deal of broad-basedinstitutional support; and 8) be communicated to theentire institution, with regular updates.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

t40 printed on recycled paper

Clearing House on Info Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse NY 13210

9

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

THE May 1995 Volume 11Number 2

EDUTECHThe Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

Hypertext: Hyperware,Hyperchondria, or Just Hype?

by Howard Strauss, Princeton University

t is not surprising that we'd want more than just text. Text hasbeen around for centuries and we're bored with it. We have

scratched it onto the walls of caves, chipped it into stone tablets, inkedit onto paper, written it in the sky, and even beamed it onto cathoderay tubes and LCD screens. One flaw in all this text, the experts tellus, is that text is always sequential. Whenever text appears it has a be-ginning, middle, and end. Each word is like a car on a long train. Andthe cars move by in a fixed sequence. Even if one were bold enoughto start reading text in the middle, there would be little choice but tocontinue sequentially from that point on, and one would always bepainfully aware that the beginning had been missed.

Hypertext has been defined as more than text, as non-linear writing,and as the future of text. Before Ted Nelson coined the term "hyper-text" and before Vannevar Bush"' in 1945 wrote' about the hypotheti-cal Memex with its association trail (which was functionally hypertext)was there simply no hyperteict? Were people forced to read everythingsequentially?

Of course not. Hypertext is not the future of text at all. It has beenaround for as long as text has been around and humans have gottenvery adept at using it. Most of the trouble that we get into using it(and we get into quite a bit) stems from our failure to take advantageof the great body of hypertext knowledge we already have, and ourfailure to build on that base.

continued on page 3

[1] President Franklin Roosevelt's science advisor.[2] In an article titled "As We May Think" in The Atlantic Monthly.

"The giddy promise for thefuture is that technology willprovide us all with moreinformation, under the premisethat more is better. Doesn'tanyone notice that there is noclamor for more information?The real wish is for lessinformation but more relevantinformation in a more rapidand assured environment. Thatrequires that we protectourselves, and our clients, fromthe garbage."

Herbert WhiteIndiana University, Bloomington"Is Anyone Still Training the

Circus Animals?"Library JournalFebruary 15, 1995

4

NEWSBRIEFSNEW EMAIL LIST Ted /V 11s, coordinator of the faculty resource lab at the University ofFOR FACULTY USING Connecticut, has started a new list devoted to supporting faculty efforts to useCOMPUTERS computers in their work. According to Dr. Mills, "a large proportion of the

faculty of each college and university is training itself to use computers inteaching, research and service. The magnitude of this self-training process canhardly be overstated, nor can the long-run consequences. We need a lot ofsupport from our schools to accomplish it well. That support has to besystemiccollege/university-wide, taking many forms, and available both atbeginning and advanced levels over a long period of time. That's one part ofwhat this list is about: mutual support among people charged with support offaculty in this computing-skills self-training process." The list is also meant tobe a way of sharing specific needs, experiences, ideas, and resources for theday-to-day support of faculty self-training.

CAUSE REGIONALCONFERENCE

To subscribe to the list, send a message to listserv@uconnvmuconn.edu withthe message SUBSCRIBE FACSUP-L firstname lastname.

The 1995 CAUSE Northeast Regional Conference focuses on a timely topic forhigher educationthe Open Software Foundation's Distributed ComputingEnvironment (OSF DCE) standards. There are two conference options: the firstis a two-day event (June 1-2) for those who want to learn more about DCE,and the second is a three-day conference (May 31-June 2) for those alreadycommitted to implementing DCE on campus and wanting more detailed andtechnical information. Both will be at the Penn Tower Hotel on the Universityof Pennsylvania campus and will include a mixture of tutorials, generalsessions, presentations from early implementers, and duns.

This regional conference is part of the CAUSE Professional Developmentprogram, and is meant for anyone whose job requires the management,implementation, operation, or use of distributed computing on campus. Formore information, contact CAUSE at 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E,Boulder, Colorado 80301; (303) 449-4430; conf@cause.colorado.edu.

EDUCATION The U.S. Education Department is offering 16 five-year grants, worth a total ofDEPARTMENT $27 million, to groups of schools, colleges, and community groups interested inCHALLENGE GRANTS the use of computer nAtworks to improve education. The grants will begin with

the 1995-96 acadern'.,1 year. These are challenge grants, and as such, requirethat applicants demonstrate a willingness and an ability to make a substantialcommitment to their projects' costs.

The deadline for applications is June 2. For more information, contact theInformation Resource Center at the Education Department at (800) USA-LEARN.

The EDITTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher. Linda H. Fleit (LFLEIT@MCIMAILCOM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 1995,EDUTECH International. All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without thewritten permission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription, S97.

2

Hypertext: Hyperware, Hyperchondria, or Just Hype?continued from page 1

Did you notice a footnote two para-graphs ago? A footnote is hyper-text. It facilitates a diversion from"normal* sequential reading to per-mit wandering off to learn an in-teresting, but often peripheral, factor two. Reading a footnote is non-linear reading. You can choose toread it or not. If you don't choose toread it, it is unobtrusively out ofthe way. Once you've read it, it iseasy to return to your sequentialreading.

That's the way hypertext ought tobe. There should be some simple,universally recognized indicationthat there is a hypertext link andit should not interfere too muchwith regular sequential reading.For a footnote, a superscript num-ber or character after a word doesit. In most world wide web (WWW)browsers, an underlined or coloredword indicates the hypertext link.Getting back from the diverzion isusually easy too.

Another common form of hypertextis a table of contents. You mightsee a table of contents in a novel,but one is more often foundandmuch more usefulin a technicalor reference book. But builders ofelectronic hypertext put just asmany hypertext links in novel-likeinformation as they do in moretechnical or reference material,cluttering otherwise readable textwith many gratuitous hypertextlinks.

In a table of contents, each entry isa hypertext link. With a footnotewe know to glance at the bottom ofa page (or at the end of a chapteror book in the case of endnotes)and locate the number that match-

Howard Strauss is Manager ofAdvanced Applications at PrincetonUniversity.

es the superscript on the refer-enced word. For a table of contentsentry, we simply go to the refer-enced page number. As with foot-notes, returning from a table ofcontents hypertext link is easy.Although we can read a table ofcontents sequentially from top tobottomand we often dolike allexamples of hypertext, a table ofcontents allows us to read thingsout of sequence.

The electronic hypertext equivalentof a table of contents is a menu orlist of items. The page numbers aremissing in electronic hypertext

Hypertext is not thefuture of,text_at all.:

It hae been around for' -aslOng as text

.tqiien -aro

mans hcib4e--.4i--::?:;tk..1,41.;44,-,*-t en very adept at._

Aw-ttik,

_

because the concept of pages is notrelevant and you really don't carewhat page something is on, youjust want to get there. Althoughthe University of Minnesota's net-work browser, gopher, is notthought of as a hypertext system,like any other system that useshierarchical menus, functionally itis. Like a table of contents, weoften read a menu sequentially tosee what's available. Then we se-lect an item and follow the hyper-text link.

With WWW it is common to see alist of underlined hypertext links.Although WWW cognoscente won'tadmit to supporting something as

archaic as menus, in fact WWWservers are rife with them, andthat's a good thing. Because WWWis a hypertext-based system andmenus are a common form of hy-pertext, gopher data maps verynicely into the structure of WWWThis is why gopher servers seem sofamiliar when accessed via WWW.

Indexes are another common formof hypertext. An index entry is likea table of contents entry exceptthat instead of a single hypertextlink it has many. For example, ifthe entry "Widgets" appears in atable of contents it will have asingle page number after it, but ifthe same entry appeared in anindex it might have many differentpage numbers after it. 'May, suchone-to-many hypertext links arerare. This is a case of one of themost useful forms of hypertexthaving no common electronic equiv-alent. How could such a mistakehave been made? That is, unfortu-nately, only one of many.

Hyperchondria: An AbnormalObsession With HypertextFor more information on hyper-chondria click here.

Have you ever seen a line like thison the web? It is ubiquitous. Is thishow hypertext is supposed to work?Instead of linking from the word"hyperchondria," the link is fromthe word "here"? If we were goingto put a footnote on this sentencewould it be on the word "here"?Furthermore, lines such as theseoften appear in great gaggles, try-ing to hide the fact that they arereally menus.

Years ago when laser printers andMacintosh computers first madefancy text processing possible, wewere all awed by the new dimen-sion this added to our writing.

continued on page 6

I IV

D erhaps the biggest obstacle towidespread and effective use

of computers in education andbusiness alike is not RAM, ROM,MHz or bandwidth. Rather, it isQWERTY, that darn keyboard,which frustrates beginners andliterally cripples experts.

Back in 1872, when the type-writ-ing-machine was "invented,"Shoales and Company laid out thekeyboard intentionally to make onetype slowly, lest the two-fingeredtypist jam up the hammers on thisnew-fangled contraption. A hun-dred twenty-three years later, thetypewriter is gone, ten-fingertouch-typing is in, but this contort-ed layout of the letters on the com-puter keyboard remains. The stan-dard keyboard layout is immortal-ized with the name QWERTY, forthe six letters on the top row of theleft hand.

In 1936, efficiency experts AugustDvorak and William Dealey real-ized the absurdity of this situationand redesigned the layout of thetypewriters, but this new layoutnever really caught on for variousreasons. Now it is becoming in-creasingly obvious that the lack ofadoption of the "Simplified Key-board" is perhaps the biggest ob-stacle to widespread computerliteracy. And computer literacy isincreasingly important in all as-pects of our post-industrial society.

Few students in my universityknow how to touch-type and manyare still positively afraid of coin-

Dr. William Grassie is with theIntellectual Heritage Program atnmple University. This articlewas originally posted to theAMIESGIT listserv.

A Low-Tech Obstacle tiThe Keybo

puters. The keyboard itself ac-counts for a large part of that dis-like of computers. Children now inelementary school and pre-schoolare beginning a lifetime of typingon a keyboard layout that willstunt their development and ruintheir hands with years of use.

The Dvorak keyboard is elegantlysimple: the five vowelsAOEUI--are under the "home" fingers of theleft hand and the five most used

.F -ew stuclents .in iny

univerSitY knoW hoili to ---

touch-type anc.1 many -,-

are still positivells..afraid of computers;The keyboard itselfaccounts for a large

part of that dislike ofcomputers.

consonantsDHTNSare underthe "home" fingers of the righthand. With this layout, 70 percentof typing occurs on the home keysand is evenly distributed betweenright and left hands. In terms ofthe distance that your fingers trav-el, the Dvorak typist will "le_ .L6rfingers do the walking" one mile forevery sixteen miles that a typicalQWERTY typist travels in aneight-hour day of typing. "Thequick brown fox jumps over thelazy dog" was never so easy aswhen Dvorak laid it out.

Dvorak, however, found out that itis hard to teach new tricks to "lazydogs" or even to "quick brown fox-

by William Grasses." He had a hard time promotingthe new layout. The obstacles tothe new keyboard were the costs ofreplacing machines and retrainingtypists. (Dvorak, by the way, alsodesigned one-handed keyboard lay-outs for those with disabilities).

Fortunately, the computer key-board allows us to be of both per-suasions, QWERTY and Dvorak,though monogamously so. Simpleand inexpensive modifications canmake your PC or Macintosh dual-capable. Stickers are then laid overthe existing keyboard with both theDvorak and QWERTY keyboardclearly visible in different colorsand sizes. The switch between thetwo layouts is accomplishedthrough software installed on thecomputer. By adding shading todemarcate the fingering of keys, itis 'also possible to promote thepassive acquisition of touch-typingskills.

No one need retrain, who doesn'tchoose to do so. No one, however,should be encouraged to learnQWERTY either. This way, every-body is happy, especially the chil-dren who, like my daughters (ageseight and ten) and their friends,will not be compelled to conform tothis barbaric inscription technolo-gy. All of this could be accomp-lished at little or no additionalcost.

Any typist who is experiencingexcessive fatigue or repetitive mo-tion disorders should considerswitching to a Dvorak keyboardimmediately. Back in 1988, Ikicked the QWERTY habit withonly four hours of practice with atyping tutor program and twoweeks of my regular word proces-sing to get back my speed andproficiency.

4

) a Higher-Tech Future:ird Problem!, Temple University

The big payoff of Dvorak overQWERTY (assuming your keyboardisn't making you ill, in which casebetter health is the big payoff) is ifyou are just learning how to typefor the first time. The learningcurve for touch-typing on Dvorak is50 percent faster than QWERTY.Even if all you aspire to is hunt-and-peck typing, the Dvorak key-board will serve you far better. Andit is so clearly a better option forhigh-speed typing.

And that's the clincher for me inour increasingly computer-strati-fied society (increasingly dividedbetween the technological havesand have-nots), where education,whether it be in elementary schoolor university, often means draggingstudents to the keyboard for thefirst time. Bringing a first-timetypist to a QWERTY keyboard islike teaching infants how to walkwith snowshoes on.

Steven Jay Gould, the evolutionarybiologist, uses the example of theQWERTY keyboard in his 1991book, Bully for Brontosaurus. In achapter entitled "The Panda'sThumb of Thchnology," he arguesthat what gets fixed in evolution,in nature and in culture, does notnecessarily make sense over thecourse of evolutionary adaptation.Gould is fatalistic about our "in-denture to QWERTY.' In evolution,he asks, *why fret over lost optim-ality?" But you need not be so fat-alistic about yourself, your stud-ents, and your children; the com-puter allows us humans to be bothdinosaurs and mammals on thesame keyboard, if not in the sameperson.

Every keyboard manufactured,every computer sold, every work-station in schools and business

should be configured to offer theusers the choice between QWERTYand Dvorak. The Dvorak SimplifiedKeyboard: 1) is easier to learn, 2)causes less fatigue, 3) results infewer errors, and 4) offers morespeed.

Sometimes, low-tech and low-costare just right!

The final question that needs to beaddressed, however, is the survival

very keyboard. ;'.'inanufacturea, every .

--..vorizi*ter sold, every-w6rketationiri.schools

and business-Should beiCohf lu red to offer

userswIceno,...w ERTYoe?-oriberi,

, .

of the keyboard itself in our tech-nological futures. Does the futureof computing include a keyboard atall, or will our "writing" be in theform of dictation or video? Here wemust consider not only the realm oftechnological capabilities, but alsodiscuss the muddle of linguisticphilosophy.

Why do we often write, even whenwe can use the phone? Why is thebook "always" better than the mov-ie (even though we enjoy the mov-ie)?

Some philosophers argue that writ-ing, among other things, is a kindof "iconic augmentation" of an

otherwise entropic reality. Writingand reading provide a semioticsimplification which makes realitymore intelligible by its ability tofocus our thoughts and set free ourimaginations.

For instance, digitized video andaudio can embody imagination, butit is quite another thing to expressthe concept of "imagination.* Thetechnology of language, especiallywritten language, is enormouslypowerful through its capacity toproductively organize a meaning-filled life.

Computer-Mediated Dictation maybe qn option for the technologicallyprivileged in the not-too-distantfuture, but probably not in time forthe Hal-type interface of 2001: ASpace Odyssey. Dictation, however,has always involved creative tran-scription by secretaries or authors.Even with the possibility of directoral transcription by a computer,this technology of inscription willcontinue to require extensive edit-ing by somebody via some kind ofkeyboard.

So however exciting the gee-whizeffects of the new hypermedia andvirtual reality, the real of work ofintelligence, discovery, invention,and meaning will continue to bemediated through the inscription oflanguage. I'd place my bets on along life expectancy of writing andtherefore, of the keyboard as well.

So I end this piece as I began, bycursing that darn QWERTY Key-board and extolling the virtues ofthe Dvorak Simplified Keyboard.This low-tech, low-cost solution toa big-time computer problem holdsreal promise for a more technologi-cally accessible, healthy, and effi-cient society.

""t". 111-11.11MULaiAll

Hypertext: Hyperware, Hyperchondria, or Just Hype? ...continued from page 3

"Wow," we collectively gasped, "wenow have 64 fonts instead of justone!' And each of us, having these64 wonderful fonts, felt compelledto use every one of them on everypage of every document, makingevery memo that crossed my deskduring this period look like a ran-som note. Soon most of us learnedthat using our expanded quiver offonts sparingly was actually moreeffective than hurling as many aswe could at every document. Butwe have not yet learned this lessonwith hypertext.

A quick glance at WWW serverswill reveal that most web pagedesigners are still on the verybeginning of the hypertext learningcurve. It is hoped that they willsoon learn that: 1) making nearlyevery word and phrase a hypertextlink is not helpful (imagine a foot-note on every word of a document);2) a hypertext link should take thereader to someplace useful andexpected (a link from text aboutLincoln's Gettysburg addressshould not take you to a discussionabout some of the latest features ofFord Motor Company's newestLincoln automobile); 3) disguisinga menu as a paragraph does notmake it a paragraph nor does itimprove its readability (menus areok in WWW); and 4) it was intend-ed that when a footnote was read,the reader would return to fmishthe interrupted sentence, notlaunch off into cyberspace never toreturn.

With respect to that last point,with a footnote, you read sequen-tially, go off and read the footnote,and then come back to finish thesentence that was interrupted bythe footnote. With most electronichypertext links, we have lost sightof the idea that we might want tocontinue with the story once wehave goile off to read E footnote orfollowed a hypertext link. If foot-

notes were done the way mostelectronic hypertext is done, we'dbe reading along and in the middleof a sentence we'd spot a footnote.We'd stop reading that sentenceand start reading the footnote. In asentence in that footnote would beanother footnote which we'd go offand read until we found anotherfootnote which we'd go off andread. We'd never finish reading theoriginal sentence and, in fact,would leave many sentences half-read. It is not surprising that manypeople who read electronic hyper-text long for a map or something

Each of us, havingthese 64 wonderful newfonts, felt compelled touse every one of themon every page of every

document, making everymemo that crossed my

desk during this periodlook like a ransom note.

that will give them a clue as towhere they are and where they'vebeen. But the solution is not tohand a lost person a map. Thesolution is to produce documentsthat do not get people lost.

Hypenotism: BeingEn"trance"d by HypertextAn often-repeated myth about hy-pertext is that it frees you to reada document the way you want, in-stead of the way imposed upon youby the author.

Is reading text from start to finishimposed upon you by the author?Is this a bad thing? An author

starts out gathering bits of infor-mation and struggles to organizethe information into some coherent,logical format. The order that anauthor puts things in representsadded value, not an imposition onthe reader. You could read the lastchapter of a mystery novel first(and some people do), but an im-portant part of the story is theorder in which things unfold. Evenin a textbook, an author decides onsome logical way to develop theinformation. Information on Ptole-my might come before that aboutCopernicus which might be follow-ed by the theories of Galileo. Qua-sars and pulsars would be left for alater chapter.

Of course any good textbook willcontain footnotes, indexes, andtables of contents. All of these arehypertext links that let you readthings out of order, but they, likenearly all hypertext links, aredesigned by the author. The ideathat you can cruise along hypertextlinks of your own choosing, ignor-ing what the author intended, israrely possible and rarely veryuseful. The fact that hypertextlinks must be consciously added toa document means that you areconstrained to use just those linksthe author (or the author's surro-gate) chose to provide. While theauthor might not be able to tabu-late all the ways you might tra-verse the hyperlink highways thathe or she builds, there are few (ifany) off-the-road vehicles that letyou travel via a link that isn'tprebuilt.

In most cases and especially inelectronic books, hypertext is addedafter the document is done. This isexactly the wrong time to do this.An author starts with small facts,organizes them, and puts themsmoothly together in an article orbook. Then, someone who usuallyhasn't a clue as to how the infor-

6 1 5

mation was put together from itsearly components, attempts to linkrelated pieces of the work together.It is not surprising that this isalmost always done badly.

The insane thing about this is thatthere is a time when hypertextcould be added easily and effective-ly. It is at the point where theauthor has his or her facts togetherbut has yet to establish the orderof them. Then, as the author islooking at all the facts and tryingvarious ways to link them it wouldbe easy for the author to buildlinks that would make sense. Infact that is exactly what the authoris mentally doing.

"Let's see. I could put this stuffabout Siberia right after the inter-view with Joseph Feinstein or Icould put his escape to Americafirst", is the kind of thing an au-thor might be thinking. The authoris actually considering alternativehypertext links. For a real hyper-

text book, the book would neverreally be put together. Instead, thefacts would be gathered and theauthor would build many hypertextlinks joining them. Yes, the authormight give you a suggested waythrough the information, but you'dbe free to read ix many other ways.

Just Hype?In the past we learned how to usefootnotes, tables of contents, andindexes effectively, but in our elec-tronic formats we seem to haveforgotten all of that. We use toomany hypertext links, use themwhere they make no sense, ignorethe difference between footnotesand tables of contents, build linksto bizarre and unexpected places,ignore standard ways of linking,and confuse, rather than enlighten,with hypertext structures thatmake bowls of spaghetti seem likemodels of good organization.

We also need to implement newstandards and features for hvnpr-

"Studies by individual faculty of their own studentsand their own teaching methods and resourcesare necessary. But such studies are not enough. Isuggest the following hypothesis: Education canaffect the lives of Its graduates when they havemastered large, coherent bodies of knowledge,skills, and wisdom. Such coherent patterns oflearning usually must accumulate over a series ofcourses and extracurricular experience. Thus, tomake visible improvements in learning outcomesusing technology, use that technology to enablelarge-scale changes in the methods andresources of learning."

Stephen Ehrmann"Asking the Right Questions: What Does Research Tell

Us About Technology and Higher Learning?"ChangeMarch/April 1995

text, such as a real hypertext foot-note and a way to distinguish ahypertext footnote from a hypertextlink; a way to do hypertext indexentries; and a better way to esta-blish links from images, sounds,movies, etc.

Is hypertext just hype? No, it is animportant and vital way of struc-turing information that we willlikely use more every day. But inmaking the leap from printed hy-pertext to electronic hypertext wehave often failed to learn the les-sons of the past and to take advan-tage of the new technology nowavailable. That does not have to bethe case. Hypertext is just anothertool with which we can manipulateinformation. It has been around foryears and we have done wonderfulthings with it. Now in its electronicincarnation it is new, improved,more powerful, and more confus-ing. But as with many other tools,we can use hypertext to make amonstrosity or a Mona Lisa. III

144:'W1. rolTIn .eh. a ona.

higher eaacanon.,

Sitategic binigetcontpany.strai0 ic,

,,

,

,-. .

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

Q. We're trying to develop our plans for desktop mi-cros for the next three years, but we're hampered bythe divisions in our planning group. Some thinkeveryone should have a microcomputer of some kind;others think we can get by with dumb terminals fora lot of folks. Even if the latter position is correct,how long can we expect to be able to do this?

A. We have to come down on the side of micros foreveryone, as soon as possible. There are two main is-sues. The first is the rapidly increasing usefulness ofmicrocomputing at all levels of an organization.There was a time when many of us believed thatwhile micros were certainly appropriate on the desksof "knowledge workers* (executives, faculty, profes-sionals, researchers, etc.), the desktop intelligence andpower was not usually needed on the desks of supportstaff. We quickly saw the fallacy in this thinking withfaculty secretaries, who, if they are truly going to as-sist in making the faculty more productive, need tohave as least as powerful and versatile a computer asthe faculty member(s) they are supporting. We arenow seeing the same fallacy used on the administra-tive support staff side. Micros are rapidly becoming

as necessary a tool for doing our jobswhatever thosejobs may beas a telephone. The second issue is theassociated cost 1 benefit analysis. The costs of very po-werful and capable micros are declining rapidly.With the extremely limited capability of a dumb ter-minal (not to mention the likelihood of dumb termi-nals being completely unusable in a graphical-user-interface and client 1 server world), and the relativelysmall incremental cost of acquiring a micro, it justdoesn't make good economic sense anymore to acquiredumb terminals.

Q. We're looking for a new administrative softwaresystem, and the vendors are telling us it could takeas long as three years to implement a full system forthe campus. How can it possibly take so long?

A. It could be done in less time, but probably notmuch less. First, there is the complerity involved; to-day's systems are fully integrated and cover a tremen-dous amount of functions and purposes. Second, thereis an "absorption rate" for the campus to cope withsuch a massive changeit's not just new software, it'sa whole new way of dealing with information.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUE

LOOMFIELD, CT 06002

rrstof printed on recycled paper

Clearing House on Info Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse NY 13210

1 7

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

THE"11r,

ILA ULJJune 1995

111111111---

Volume 11Number 3

4111

The Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty andAdministrators

Can Technology SaveHigher Education?

by Martin B. Solomon, University of Utah

When people become quite good at doing something and findprocedures that provide quality results, they tend to zero in on

those methods and then use them regularly. This practice has led to avariety of slogans and phrases such as, "Don't get off a winninghorse," or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Higher education in the United States has had an exceptionally suc-cessful record. For example, U.S. scientists and professionals accountfor the vast majority of Nobel prize winners. The overwhelming recordfor the U.S.-206 prizes between the years 1901 and 1985, comparedwith the next largest number, 85, for the Britishis certainly attribut-able to the extremely high quality of our higher education system.

Further evidence of the quality of U.S. higher education is the at-traction to foreign students. According to the National Center for Edu-cation Statistics, from 1977 to 1989, the number of foreign studentsreceiving Master's and Doctor's degrees in the U.S. increased by 96%and 105% respectively and foreign undergraduate degrees increased by72%. Foreign student enrollments in U.S. colleges and universitiesshow a similar pattern; foreign undergraduate enrollments increased by21% and graduate and professional enrollments increased by 94%.

It has become a well-known fact that people who hold college degreeshave significantly greater earning power than those without suchdegrees. So the success of higher education in reaching so many of ourown citizens as well as citizens from around the world has beenmagnificent. Higher education has been one of the few uniquelyoutstanding products of this country.

continued on page 4

"It is not surprising that justone-half of 1 per cent of CD-ROMs are devoted to educa-tional software in the humani-ties. Until recently, those of uswho discuss works of litera-ture, history, and philosophywith students in classroomshave felt little need to gobeyond printed books. Now ...some of us recognize that thistechnology can extend what wedo by easily (and inexpensive-ly) juxtaposing text with art,photos, video, audio, andanimation. Even instructorswho never wander far frombooks have much to gain fromsoftware that, in effect, cancreate tutorials for students byhelping them think moreactively about books."

Leonard RosenHarvard University"The Way to Design Creative

Software for the Humanities"Chronicle of Higher EducationJune 2, 1995

BUSINESS SCHOOLCOMPETITION FROMTECHNOLOGY?

ELECTRONICJOURNAL ONCOLLABORATIVEUNIVERSITIES

LATEST DIRECTORYOF LISTS AVAILABLE

MORECOMMENCEMENTSON THE INTERNET

The Multimedia MBA, a CD-ROM from Compact Publishing Inc. and RichardD. Irwin Inc. is a complete, interactive management resource tool that includesadvice, training, and applications for employees at all levels in small tomedium-sized business organizations. Designed to help run retail, service,professional-practice, or not-for-profit organizations, the software runs underWindows and contains text, instructional videos, animations, photos, forms,and templates on a wide variety of business subjects. It also containsassistance for developing a business plan, learning the basics of accounting,and becoming familiar with legal matters. The CD-ROM is available in storesfor about $80.

The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication has announced itsinaugural edition, "Collaborative Universities," a special issue edited by SteveAcker from the Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications,Communication Department, Ohio State University. Volume 1, Number 1 is onthe World Wide Web at http://cwis.usc.edu/deptlannenberg/volVissuel. JCMCis a hypermedia publication; articles in this issue are accompanied by colorphotographs and diagrams, movies, and hyperlinks to other CMC-relatedresources. Readers may make annotations to the articles on-line.

Articles in this first issue include "Space, Collaboration, and the Credible City:Academic Work in the Virtual University," "Use of Communication Resourcesit., a Networked Collaborative Design Environment," and "A Framework forTechnology-mediated Inter-institutional Telelearning Relationships."

For further information, contact the editors at jcmc@usc.edu.

The fifth and latest edition of the Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters,and Academic Discussion Lists has just become available from the Associationof Research Libraries (ARL). The directory, which contains the addresses andinformation on how to subscribe for more than 2,500 Internet mailing lists, isavailable for $41 for association members and $62 for all others.

For more information, contact ARL's Office of Scientific and AcademicPublishing, 21 Dupont Circle, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036.

Increasing numbers of institutions have made part or all of theircommencement activities this year available on the Internet. Wheaton Collegein Massachusetts, for example, offered on-line event lists, full texts of speeches,pictures, and lists of graduates. Dartmouth College offered real-time audio andvideo of President Clinton's commencement speech there.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit (LFLEIT@MCIMAIL.COM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright (il) 1995,EDIJTECH International. All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without thewritten permission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

Getting the Most From the Software You've Gotby Arnold Dimond, Marymount Manhattan College

rr oday's economy and the com-I- petition for students is endan-

gering the survival of many smallcolleges. That, added to the highdemands on these schools' smallcomputing staffs and the widevariety of tasks end users are re-quired to perform, makes an easy-to-use and completely integratedadministrative system crucial tothe success of the institution. Byperforming administrative tasks asefficiently as possible with a fullyintegrated system, small schoolscan make productivity gains thatare directly reflected in their finan-cial results.

Many small schools installed ad-ministrative systems during the1980s as the "thing to do." Howev-er, because of small staffs and ageneral lack of computer literacy atthe time, these schools may nothave taken full advantage of whattheir systems offered, nor kept upwith new releases or upgrades. Ifound that to be the case at Ma-rymount Manhattan when I joinedthe school in 1990. I was facedwith a system the staff told me of-fered little benefit to the school.Having implemented two studentinformation systems during my 33-year career with the City Universi-ty of New York, I was brought toMarymount by a new president tohelp fix the many administrativeand financial problems that hadthe school on the brink of closing.One of my first targets was theadministrative system.

Marymount installed its system in1980 for use by a staff with limited

Arnold Dimond is the vice president ofadministration and finance at Mary-mount Manhattan College in NewYork City.

computer skills. After the systemwas installed and the users weretrained, the staff began to use itwithout any consultation or coordi-nation between offices. No one wasresponsible for overseeing the over-all use and maintenance of thesystem, much less enforcing thepolicies and practices that wouldmake its use worthwhile.

I contend many small schools maybe in the same situation Mary-mount was in four years agothey

'Many swill 'schOoli

currently may be bithe'same situatwn .

Marymount was in7ouryears agoC. ue a

"7:7 :ins=1-W, but 44\7,

don't know to'J;U.WOrkOrtheflZ

have a system installed, but don'tknow how to make it work forthem. At Marymount, we reimple-mented our system using the fol-lowing process that can be appliedto get more mileage out of anysoftware. lb date, we are seeingoutstanding results.

Step 1: Designate a "powerful"project leader. Most small schoolsdon't have the resources availableto form a committee to oversee thereimplementation process. Howev-er, a small school's reiznplementa-tion can be driven by one person, ifthat person is empowered to makedecisions, establish policy, and en-force use of the system.

This project leader must have anoverall view of the school, its ad-ministrative system, and the end-users' needs. In addition, the pro-ject leader needs the support of theadministration and the Board ofTrustees to make decisions in thebest interest of the school, as wellas the trust and confidence of thestaff who will eventually have touse the system.

Step 2: UnderstAnd what youhave. My first step was to call in arepresentative from our softwarevendor to take me through theentire system, module by module,function by function. 113 my sur-prise, I learned the system wasextremely easy to use with a menu-driven user interface and an inte-grated database structure thatallowed for on-line, real-time oper-ations: my overall goal for thesystem. In short, it was an out-standing systembetter than anyI had ever worked with.

Before deciding to reimplementyour current system, it is impera-tive to understand exactly whatyour system is capable of doing andif it meets your current and futureneeds. Your vendor's representativecan give you the beat understand-ing of your existing software capa-bilities, as well as the hardwareand peripheral equipment require-ments for optimum performance.

Now is the time to rekindle a part-nership with your vendor. A solidpartnership is especially critical forsmall schools that need to relyheavily on the vendor for assis-tance, consultation, and training.Our partnership with our vendorwas crucial to our success becauseof their product knowledge andeducational support.

continued on page 6

Can Technology Save Higher Education? ...continued from page 1

So Why Worry?Because U.S. higher education hasenjoyed such success, it is difficultfor people to think that anything iswrong. But look back to IBM in1987. IBM was riding high. It wasnumber one in personal computersand number one in mainframes.Some of IBM's customers startedtelling them that the prices weretoo high and that it was becomingmore unmanageable to affordIBM's systems. But IBM repliedthat those people simply did notunderstandIBM's quality was un-surpassed and that the quality waswell worth the additional cost.

As time went on, IBM's competi-tors began developing computersystems which were significantlyless expensive, just as powerful,and seemingly as reliable; in otherwords, competitors were deliveringcomparable quality but at signifi-cantly lower prices. Still IBM pro-claimed that the competition wasjust not up to the task.

Then one day the customers didnot show up! IBM suffered the firstquarterly loss in its history andslid deeper and deeper into confu-sion and disarray. How could thishave happened? IBM was the mostrespected company in the world.Every management class used IBMas a model. IBM's practices wereenvied and emulated worldwide.What was the failure?

IBM didn't listen! IBM had been sosuccessful that its leaders could notbelieve that the fantastic successthat had served them well from the1930s until the 1980s would notcontinue to serve them in the fu-ture. The president of IBM told the

Martin Solomon has just assumedthe position of Special Assistant tothe President for Information Thch-nology at the University of Utah.

employees that if they only soldharder as they did in the old dayseverything would be OK. Therewas not a realization until verylate that the indintry had changedstructurally.

Is Higher EducationFar Behind?Today, parents, legislators, andothers are complaining that theprices are too high and that it isbecoming more unmanageable toafford a college education. Highereducation officials reply that thosepeople simply do not miderstand

There are severalforces at work that willtend to radically changehigher education as we

know it. The publicis angry about the high

costs and will .

likely take steps todeal with it.

higher education's quality is unsur-passed and the quality is wellworth the additional cost.

There are several forces at workthat will tend to radically changehigher education as we know it.The public is angry about the highcosta and will likely take steps todeal with it.

Force 1: LegislationOn Teaching LoadsThe public's perception of highereducation faculty is quite poor.Some are calling the faculty TheNew Elite in our country Many seefaculty as working six hours a

week and "playing in the lab" therest of the time. At least one statehas already passed legislation thatrequires community college facultyto teach a minimum of five courses.Legislation in other states is pend-ing that would make minimumteaching loads mandatory

The truth is that this varies great-ly among institutions, but at majorstate universities and large pri-vates, the normal teaching load issix hours a week. And this is notnormally dependent upon the levelor quality of research being pro-duced. Research productivity doesnot affect teaching loads as muchas promotion opportunities. So thepublic sees faculty who producelittle or no significant research stillteaching six hours a week andconsider that to be disgraceful.

While it is not unusual for facultyat community colleges and smallerfour-year institutions to teach fivecourses a semester, it is the largerof our institutions that have re-ceived the most attention.

Force 2: Legislationon TenureAs U.S. industry has had to shedthe notion of job protection, thereis growing hostility to the idea of alifetime job. Faculty might be theonly protected class remaining andthe public cannot see why highereducation should possess such aunique inestimable perquisite.

Until recently, higher educationtook it. for granted that tenure wasrequired and that the public under-stood. That seems not to be thecase. The state of South Carolinahas offered a bill in the 1995 ses-sion to forbid tenure to all futurefaculty and to abolish all existingtenure over some period of time.With the high level of anger pres-ent in our society today, it is likelythat some state will soon pass such

4

legislation and this will precipitateincredible change in the presentsystem of higher education. Themain change will involve the hiringof more part-time faculty or short-term faculty with higher teachingloads.

Force 3: Cheap ImitationsGerhard Casper, the president ofStanford University, is concernedabout cheap imitations of our veryhigh quality services. As he said ina recent article in The Chronicle ofHigher Education, "Unless wemake the case for our work in itsentirety and pursue it rigorouslyand effectively, the world may tireof us and develop new approachesthat it will consider adequate sub-stitutes."

For some years now an audiotapeprogram called "Hooked on Phon-ic? has been making the scene asa program to improve substantiallythe reading ability of a typicalyoungster. It may or may not liveup to the claims but it is, neverthe-less, very popular. It is not veryexpensive, and for many children,especially those having difficultywith school-based reading methods,it is a viable alternative to privatetutors, special schools, etc. It mayeven be an alternative to publicelementary schools.

If you consider that the cost of aresidential semester at a typicalstate university costs a student (orhis or her parents) about $1,000 fortuition, $1,500 for room and board,and another $500 for incidentals,that amounts to about $600 for athree-credit course. Can people pro-duce videotape courses that can beviewed at home for a lot less? Ofcourse. Can they convince the pub-lic that these are equivalent to theinteraction that takes place on thecampus and in the classroom? Thatremains to be seen. But we knowthat many will try.

Force 4: A LessReceptive StudentI do not believe that the averagestudent today has the same atten-tion span, the willingness or theability to succeed at college workcompared to cohorts of fifteen yearsago. During the past two years, Ihave taught over 400 students. Ifirst found that most would notread homework assignmentsthrough casual questioning at thebeginning of each class period. Thenext semester, I decided to admin-ister occasional pop-quizzes to en-courage a more regular reading of

t.),:. :hen people feel their._'agencies are not.

responsive, then, out` Of '-. .. _ . ...,...........

*a.-Eien.§e of rrustraticin,, they begin to review the

JiiiZzii-i--- ---: -.;:.-1,,,,-_. - ._:- - ,operitingpraetkee itne'-'

4-1-44,44;diltv..,rtv,i"...,4,1.,,,,,.:,....5..i4re..i, ,.............,.P-PgP -1,---.".,-.,-.0e",-te-iii,,,...,:.:-.**44V r e the,

.-: IP:perfewn t :Ins es.--

aVi*Tiltt, AICS.'le a -''''41- --- ,...3,-,,:;;;;;04441,,.. '

assigned material. Having failedthat, last semester I conducted afive-minute written quiz at the be-ginning of every class period forthe firot seven weeks of the semes-ter. Even this did not receive theundivided attention of everyone.

My unscientific conclusion is thattoo many youngsters are unwillingor unable to perform the "tradition-al" work required to gain a collegeeducation. But this is not unexpect-ed. Education is a value-added pro-cess. You transform a student witha particular knowledge and abilitylevel into one with more knowledgeand ability. This delta is the value

added by the educational process.It is axiomatic that if the incomingquality level is poor then the outgo-ing quality level is likely to be pooras well.

Force 5: The Search forSimple Measures of QualityWhen people feel their agencies arenot responsive to their demands,then, out of a sense of frustration,they begin to review the actual op-erating practices and procedures tosee if they can better manage theoperation themselves. This is whatlegislatures are beginning to doregarding their state colleges anduniversities. Naturally, if you areto control some process, you mustbe able to measure the results.

But educators have known fordecades that nobody can easilymeasure the results or outcomes ofhigher education. Even if you couldmeasure them, people would notagree on the efficacy of the results.For example, if you found that astudent became more worldly inthinking, some would view that aspositive and others as a negative.

In an effort to find simple mea-sures of quality, legislators andcommissions of higher educationhave come up with the incredibleand astounding theory that gradu-ation rates somehow measure thequality of higher education. So nowwe see institutions being "graded"according to graduation rates. Butthere are many problems with this.First of all, no one can accuratelymeasure graduation rates. Somestudents transfer to other schoolsand then graduate. Some studentsdrop out for child rearing and fin-ish later. Many Mormon studentsregularly interrupt their collegecareers to participate in 'Missions"and finish later. These are all cur-rently counted as dropouts.

continued on page 7

5

Getting the Most From the Software You've Got ...continued from page 3

There's always a chance that, aftera thorough study of your system,you might find it is truly obsoleteand must be replaced. Over time,many vendors phase out particularreleases of their products, forcingclients to re-license a whole newproduct to get new features andfunctions. We were fortunate ourvendor is one of those who keepsup with the marketplace, providingupgrades and new releases to in-stalled clients as part of a continu-ing maintenance agreement.

Step 3: Train, retrain, andcross-train. Most vendors offer awide variety of courses for projectmanagers and end users. As theproject manager at Marymount, Itook more than 90 percent of thecourses our vendor offered, fromoverall system perspectives todetailed classes on specific modulesand topics. That's how I learnedhow the system works, as well asgaining a better understanding ofthe concerns that users from othersmall colleges face.

Once I was comfortable with thesystem, it was time to train thestaft Because of employee turnoverand the years that had passedsince the initial education wasoffered, everyone needed training.To encourage participation andbuy-in, I attended the classes withmy staff; this was not so much toenforce attendance, but to workwith them to develop an under-standing of what we were trying toaccomplish with the system.

We also cross-trained our staff so,in addition to classes most perti-nent to their day-to-day jobs, theytook classes not directly related totheir responsibilities. For example,we had a fmancial aid officer at-tend a registrar's class, a registrarattend an accounts receivable class,and so on. The classes gave every-one an appreciation for how the

different pieces of the system fittogether, what processes otherusers required, and the advantagesof on-line, real-time processing.

Step 4: Allow time for transi-tion. Despite the relative perva-siveness of computers in societythese days, some people are stilluncomfortable with one on theirdesk. In fact, during the process ofreimplementing our system, sever-al employees left the school ratherthan learn how to work with thecomputer. The process of trainingwas slow and involved a great dealof patience and persistence.

To help ease the transition of thedie-hard pencil pushers, we expect-ed and planned for a temporaryloss in productivity as people beganworking on the system while keep-ing parallel records. As usersgained more experience and beganto trust the system, we gentlypushed them away from keepingwritten records and toward totalcomputerization. Over time, moreand more people became excitedabout the system's capabilities andeven began making suggestions forother ways to use it.

Step 5: Prioritize pieces of theproject. Reimplementing some-thing as complex as an administra-tive system requires a significantamount of planning and time.Since it is impossible to reimple-ment a system of this size all atonce, we prioritized which pieceswere critical to have in place first.We also took into account the us-ers' willingness and ability to makea successful transition to the sys-tem.

Using the college calendar as ourguide, we scheduled implementa-tion of different modules accordingto the timeframe in which theywere most important. For example,the registration module was imple-

mented at the beginning of a fallterm and the financial modules atthe beginning of a fiscal year. Aswe continue to roll out the system,we balance the functions of onemodule against another to ensuredependencies between modules aremet and maximized while remain-ing flexible to respond to specificuser requirements.

This prioritization process lets thecomputing staff operate primarilyin a responsive (versus reactive)mode. As each module is scheduledto be reintroduced, it gives theteam the opportunity to drive re-engineering efforts that increasethe efficiency and effectiveness ofeach administrative operation. Theflexibility of our software allows usto customize modules to our spe-cific needs, while maintaining theintegration of the overall system.

Looking to the futureOur reimplementation project isrunning on target for completion.Seventy percent of the system is upand running, with the remainingportion scheduled for completion by2000. Our strong partnership withour vendor continues as we priorit-ize and schedule further enhance-ments.

The reimplementation of our ad-ministrative system has made anextraordinary difference for Mary-mount. The productivity of ourstaff has increased dramaticallyand the services we offer to ourstudents make use of the latesttechnology. After nearly shuttingour doors in the late 1980s, todayMarymount Manhattan College islooking to a bright future. Whilethe turnaround at Marymount canbe attributed to several factors, ourability to reimplement the adminis-trative system to take advantage ofan on-line, real-time operation gaveus the tools we needed to make ithappen.

6

Can Technology Save Higher Education? ...continued from page 5

But most dropouts are caused byother reasons, including financialwoes, drug, alcohol, and civil diffi-culties. It is probably true that asmall number of dropouts comefrom poor teaching or an institu-tion's uncaring attitude. But glom-ming onto graduation rates as aquality measure will inevitably en-courage some institutions to "dumbdown" the curriculum further.

Another problem relates to theevaluation of effective teaching.Easy evaluation methods are not athand, so in an effort to find simplemeasures, many colleges and uni-versities have used student evalua-tions as the primary, often sole,evaluation of an instructor. Thiscan have a corrosive effect on thequality of instruction by encourag-ing faculty to opt for good evalua-tions as opposed to more effectiveclasses. While often, quality teach-ing and good evaluations are high-ly correlated, holding to demandingand rigorous standards have resul-ted in many faculty receiving poorstudent evaluations.

Is Information Technologythe Answer?The pressures on higher educationtoday are so intense that one won-ders whether there is a way out.One thing is clear--the public willdemand that tuition costs stoprising. That, in itself, will demandentirely new paradigms. What arethey? How will they operate? Willquality education be possible in thenew world of higher education?Will a more structured, rigid orga-nization emerge? Will part-timefaculty become the norm? Willmost of college be taught by televi-sion? Will technical schools andcommunity colleges flourish at theexpense of megaversities?

These are all tough questions. Butthere is hopeand some answersin the rapid incorporation ofinformation technology into ourcolleges and universities. IT canmake our institutions more effi-cient, thus potentially lowering thecost of delivering education. At thesame time, IT can make our insti-tutions more effective by delivering

"Why is the pace of innovation in highereducation so slow? Why aren't institutions that failto innovate at a competitive disadvantage?... Itappears that colleges and universities are indeedinsulated from many competitive pressures... Thus,top administrators often operate reactively. Theiragendas are molded by whoever is sufficientlymotivated to demand their aftention. Short-runproblem solving erodes the time available tofocus on the 'big picture.' And administrators'ability to initiate change is constrained by theacademic tradition of collegial decision making."

John Siegfried, Malcolm Getz, and Kathryn Anderson"The Snail's Pace of Innovation in Higher Education"Chronicle of Higher EducationMay 19, 1995

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

better education through a morepersonalized, interactive approachthat responds directly to students'needs and styles of learning.

I believe that the new higher edu-cation community of the year 2020will either use information technol-ogy in very new and different ways,or else higher education, as weknow it, will die. Solving thiflemma will not be easy and it willtake the cooperation of the entireuniversity community to developnew paradigms and institute cre-ative ideas. But most universitypersonnel are so close to the treesthat they cannot see the larger pic-ture. The IT professional mighthave a special responsibility andopportunity here to play the role ofPaul Revere in trying to hiform thefaculty, the administration, and,especially, the president that the"cheap imitations" are coming.Since the IT professional often hasan earlier grasp on the future, heor she can play a vital part in help-ing to forge new directions, ideas,concepts, and paradigms.

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices xclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

EDUTECH RESPONDSQ. We are dealing with insatiable demandfiteral-lyfor technology services and resources. Whateverour users receive, it isn't enough. This applies to mi-crocomputers (this new micro is great, but there's anew generation coming out next week, and I wantthat one), use of the network (e-mail is great, but Iwant access to the World Wide Web), programmingmodifications (this change is great, but now I need anew report), and just about everything else. How dowe cope with this without going nuts?

A. Your institution is certainly not unique in thisregard, nor is insatiable demand necessarily a prob-lem in and of itself. The problem occurs when theinstitution has not devised mechanisms for dealingwith the demand. You need to begin with the assump-tion that demand will always exceed supply, nomatter how large or sophisticated or responsive thesupply is; that's just the way life is right now. Thenyou need to have processes in place which can fairlyand objectively evaluate the demands to see I) if eachone is *worth' satisfying and 2) which ones have to betaken care of before the others. In some cases, it ispossible to increase the supply of the service or re-

source, but in most cases, it takes some hard thinkingon the part of the institutionthis is not an ITjob!to determine how to prioritize requests forservices and resources. It can be done, many institu-tions are doing it successfully, but it takes realinstitutional commitment.

Q. We are looking for a new MIS director. How canwe be sure we will get the right one?

A. By defining "right" correctly. Theperson needs tobe every bit as skilled at communications and humanrelations as he or she is at technkal and technicalmanagement work. Communications includes a very-well develoPed service orientation, dealing with awide variety of end users, managing the programmersto derive maximum benefit to the institution, andfeeling comfortable talking with anyone at the institu-tion, including the President, the cleaning crew, thefaculty, and other administrators. The talent forbeing a good technologist and a good technicalmanager is a wonderful one indeed, but if it is notaccompanied by a parallel talent for dealing withpeople, it is worth far less to the institution.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFEELD, CT 06002

2 5

pnnted on recycled paper

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomliekl, CTPermA No. 117

THE July 1995

wanbamdli

op /StseVolume 11Number 4

The Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

You're Never Really EducatedWithout a SMILE

by Howard Strauss, Princeton University

Most of the time if you are present when history is being madeyou don't know it. Usually the press doesn't realize it either.

Did anyone ever see headlines that screamed "Vacuum Tube Invented!Talk Radio and MTV Bound to Follow Soon!"? Nope, most newspa-pers probably didn't even cover the story and those that did likelyburied it on page D24.

But page D24 needs to be watched carefully. If you had looked thereon Tuesday, April 4, 1995 in The New York Times, you'd have readthat J. Michael Orenduff was forced to resign as chancellor of theUniversity of Maine. If you missed that story, you missed as crucialan event in history as you are likely to ever experience.

Chancellor Orenduff was forced out because he wanted to create a vir-tual campusa campus in which students all over the state could en-roll without the expense or inconvenience of actually attending a uni-versity. Students would use the Education Network of Maine to takecourses. The network has provided students with one-way video andtwo-way audio since 1989, but previously the network had just verylimited use and generally could not be used to get credit for courses.Orenduff wanted to treat distance learning as the real thing! He'd evenallow students on real campuses to get credit for taking courses on thevirtual campus. A professor teaching a sought-after course would nolonger be limited to teaching however many students could becrammed into the biggest lecture hall. The whole state of Maine, andpossibly the whole world, would be able to attend the lecture. Andinstead of collecting $100 or so per credit hour from a hundred or sostudents, Orenduff stood to collect much more by charging less per

continued on page 3

"As we move into greaterreliance on technologicallybased instruction, I think weneed to keep track of results inways people can get theirminds around. I maintain thathigher education must increaseits learning productivity if it isto continre to enjoy publicsupport (the alternative iseither to decrease learning ordrive up costs, either of whichwill undermine support). Andif learning productivity =learning divided by cost, weneed to find a way to truckthat learning in publiclycomprehensible ways."

Peg MillerVirginia State Council

of Higher EducationAAHESGIT listservJune 26, 1995

NEWSBRIEFSA NEW INTERNET A World Wide Web site for arts educators is scheduled to go on-line from theSERVICE FOR ARTS Getty Center for Education in the Arts in September, 1995. ArtsEdNet is oneEDUCATORS of only a handful of Web sites worldwide that focus on providing art resources

to educators and is the only one designed for educators interested in theteaching approach known as discipline-based art education (DBAE). The newservice can be found at http://www.artsednet.getty.edu/ on the Web.

INDEX OF LISTS ATUCONN

The new interactive service will allow participants to communicate with eachother, including recognized artists, historians, and educators. It will alsoprovide access to curriculum materials, with more than 250 pages of free, well-developed lesson plans and other curricular resources that can be downloadedfor use in the classroom. Information will be presented in full-color images andmoving video clips, as well as in written text. For more information, contactLori Starr at the J. Paul Getty Trust, (301) 395-0388; artsednet@getty.edu.

A list of more than 100 Internet mailing lists of particular interest to those inhigher education is being maintained by Stuart Brown, an assistant to thedean of students at the University of Connecticut. The lists are for studentaffairs professionals, faculty, registrars, information technology professionals,undergraduates, and others involved or interested in higher education. Theinformation on each list includes the name of the listserv, a brief description ofits objective, the subscription address, the number of subscribers attached tothe listserv, and the average number of messages registered on a weekly basis.

The UConn list also provides information on how to subscribe to, andunsubscribe from, a mailing list. For more information, go to gopher.uconn.edu,then "Administrative Services,' then "Student Affairs." From the Web, go togopher://gopher.uconn.edu:70/00/admmenu/stuaff/stulist.wthy.

CAUSE'S The CAUSE Information Resources Library is a repository for documentsINFORMATION pertaining to the management of information resources in higher education,RESOURCE LIBRARY offering indexes and abstracts to help identify useful material from nearly

3,000 titles. With documents contributed by campuses and individuals,CAUSE / EFFECT magazine articles, conference papers and proceedings, whitepapers based on Gartner Group materials and reports, plus videos produced bymember campuses and other sources, the library is a wealth of information forthose in the field. Electronic access via the Internet allows on-line searches ofthe Library database and electronic ordering of documents via e-mail.

Most of the documents in the Library have not been formally published andthus are not easily found elsewhere. They include strategic plans, requests forproposals, system descriptions, policies and procedures, job descriptions, andmany others. Anyone may order documents for a per-page charge which coverscopying, shipping, and handling. CAUSE members receive all documents at areduced member price. Contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E,Boulder, Colorado 80301; 303-939-0310; orders@CAUSE.colorado.edu.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International. 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit (LFLETIVEDUTECH-INT.COM); Vice President: EmilyDadoorian. Copyright e 1995,EDUTECH International. All riens reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without thewritten permission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

227

You're Never Really Educated Without a SMILE ...continued from page 1

student from thousands of stu-dents. For trying to implementthese heretical thoughts, Chancel-lor Orenduff was shown the door.

James Gilbert, a professor atMaine said, "... we didn't wantaccreditation and we didn't acceptthe particular technology ...." BillScheurman at SUNY, commentingabout distance learning said, "We'llsupport it if it provides qualityeducation and doesn't put our posi-tions in jeopardy* Of course Pro-fessor Gilbert didn't mention thatit will be the faculty who decideswhat quality education is and whattechnology is right. And naturally,any thought of making facultymore productive, well, universitiesare not out to optimize facultyproductivity as they might be ifthey were, heaven forbid, crasscommercial establishments.

Galileo was chastised by the 17thcentury Aristotelian professors forhis look into the heavens. Orendufffaced the same fate from late 20thcentury professors for his 1^ok intothe future. The faculty at Mainewon this test between the past andthe future, and faculty membershere and there will likely win a fewmore. But the outcome of the con-test between traditional and dis-tance learning will inevitably be avictory for radical change to theway education is delivered. Just asthere was no stopping the Coperni-can theory (even if it lost a roundor two to the church), distancelearning and its brethren will be-come the norm in education, espe-cially continuing education andwhat we now call undergraduateeducation. And that outcome,though it will challenge the veryexistence of universities, will be

Howard Strauss is Manager ofAdvanced Applications at Prince-ton University.

extraordinarily beneficial and willdemocratize education to a degreedifficult to imagine today.

From a distanceOne reason we need distance learn-ing is that the cost of a qualitycollege education has become unaf-fordable and the situation seemsdestined to get worse. In its sim-plest incarnation, distance learningincreases the productivity of facul-ty. Instead of one faculty memberteaching a few hundred studentsper year (an optimistic estimate),many thousands of students can bereached. If a lecture is recorded,even more students can be reached.One problem with this simple mod-el is obviously the lack of interacti-vity, but that is changing. To beviable, distance learning must im-prove the quality of education aswell as improve the productivity offaculty. Students must learn more,learn faster, learn better, havemore courses to choose from, andhave more flexible schedules (e.g.,the ability to take Econ 101 onalternate Sundays at 3:00 am).

However, while having some narco-lepsy-inducing professor broadcasta lecture to millions of studentsmight improve faculty productivity,it would not improve education. Inthe many years I've spent inschool, I've found perhaps six pro-fessors that got me enthusiasticand excited about the material Inmost other cases I managed tolearn the material in spite of theprofessor's lack of ability to teach.

It is not surprising that few profes-sors are good teachers. In mostcases their careers are based onbeing good researchers, not ontheir pedagogical prowess. Select-ing just the best professors to pro-vide distance learning would be astart, but not enough. Even thatstep would alter the way manyuniversities operate, by putting a

premium on teaching ability. Butprofessors simply don't takeenough time or spend enough mon-ey to produce their lectures. Sure,they fuss a great deal about con-tent, but few put enough time intopresentation and pedagogy Does aprofessor about to teach Econ 101consider how different kinds ofstudents learn? Does he or she con-sider the visual and graphical toolsthat would best convey the basicconcepts of supply and demand?Does a professor make the best useof animation, sound, video clips,and the host of other tools that allof us take for granted on somethingas mundane as the evening TVnews?

Of course not. It would take foreverand would destroy any hope theprofessor had of getting any re-search done. Also, it would be pro-hibitively expensive and it wouldrequire skills that almost no pro-fessor has. If the best professors inthe best universities can't do this,how is it that it is routinely doneon the evening news?

Hollywood UniversityBecause of the economies of scale,the evening news (and Hollywoodand Madison Avenue) can afford tospend the money it takes to hirepeople with great information de-livery skills (actors, actresses,newscasters, et al) and providethem with the support staff neces-sary to produce information that iscompelling and entertainingun-like most university lectures. Thisis not the fault of our faculty. IfCNN were delivering the news tojust three classes of twenty sopho-mores it would likely be done simi-la rly to a typical college lecture. Anexpert on Bosnian studies wouldstand in front of a blackboard andspend an hour talking about thesituation in central Europe.

continued on page 4

to .

You're Never Really Educated Without a SMILE .continued from page 3

Distance learning can make educa-tion as compelling and entertainingas the best documentaries, the bestmovies, the best plays, and thebest that our huge multimedia in-formation and entertainment in-dustry can offer. This can be doneeconomically today while maintain-ing the serious content of college-level courses. But if universitiescan't afford to do thisor are un-willing to do thiswho can? Sonycan. AT&T can. MCI can. Disneycan. Nintendo can. And so canevery corporation that chooses toinvest in delivery hardware andsoftware. While keepers of the keysto higher learning may laughscornfully at the idea of Sony orNintendo conferring academic cre-dit for a calculus course, theyshould reflect on the time when thechurches, not the universities, werethe center of learning. The focus ofeducation could change again. Ifone can get a better education fromDisney than from Euphoric StateUniversity, then many people willtake their courses at Disney. Mostemployers will accept educationalaccomplishments, and not carewhether a university or UniversalStudios provided the instruction.

Universities have largely had theeducational market to themselves.They have decided what to teach,how to teach it, and what tocharge. They have decided whatconstitutes an education by spell-ing Gut the requirements for de-grees and have decided who isadmitted to try to get a degree,who of those admitted will actuallyget one, and who the next genera-tion of academics will be who willperpetuate this grand scheme.Thchnology now makes it possibleto offer alternatives to traditionalways of delivering education. Thepotential profit in competing in theeducation market makes it almostcertain that there will be fiercecompetition. Of course universities

can join thie competitive fray, butthey are badly structured to do so.

While faculty fear that distancelearning will reduce the number ofgainfully employed professors andincrease the amount of time spenton teaching, there are really muchmore fundamental changes thatdistance learning will bringif un-dergraduate education survives atuniversities at all. Among thosechanges are:

Faculty will rarely do any teaching.At very advanced levels, facultyw:11 do research and will work withstudents as apprentices. This mod-el is already seen in places such asthe Institute for Advanced Study.At more basic levels, faculty will becontent specialists who will workin teams to provide and validatethe content of distributed courses.The people who deliver the materi-al will be trained education broad-casters and actors. The broadcast-ers and content specialists will bebacked by multimedia specialists,graphic artists, and the normalcast of characters that would pro-duce a movie or TV special.

One-hour lectures by a single indi-vidual, now the norm for deliveringeducation, will be replaced by avariety of educational delivery for-mats. Mama of people, documenta-ries on the subject, simulations,and other formats will be used.Some of these might last a fewminutes, others a few hours. Sincethe material will be able to be re-played, long attention spans willnot be required.

Although many students will in-volve themselves in intensive educa-tion immediately after leaving highschool, many will do so for a yearor two instead of four. The idea ofgetting all of your education by thetime you are 22 is preposterous,yet that is what most people who

do not get advanced degrees dotoday. Education companies willwant people to view education as alifetime commitmentas theyshould. Taking a course or justlearning about something will beas routine as renting a video tape.In the future, your communicationsbill (it will replace your phone,cable, and on-line service bills) willlikely include charges for phonecalls, network shopping, movies,and sessions of a course you aretaking.

With education transformed into alifelong process, not a four-yearprocess, and with education comingfrom many sources, the concept of adegree will have little meaning andpeople will increasingly not botherwith them. Thday, a university de-cides what one must do to get adegree. Thmorrow there will be noone to decide. Universities will notonly lose their exclusive right to doundergraduate education (whichwill become lifetime education)they will also lose the power todecide what information consti-tutes an undergraduate educationand how that information will beconveyed.

Courses will not be graded. Tran-scripts will include the materialcovered and copies of the work astudent has done. Prospective em-ployers (and maybe prospectivemates) will, with a student's per-mission, be able to see what astudent has really done and nothave to rely on a single grade rep-resenting a professor's subjectivejudgement of hundreds of hours ofwork. There will be mentors' com-ments and comments by otherpeople who have seen a student'swork or who have been affected byit, but 4.0s aid As will become asirrelevaot as the hula hoop.

Bad GradesGrades are one of the worst ideas

4

our current educational systemimposes on students. This bad ideaisn't the fault of the educationalsystem. With the technologies andbudgets that were available, gradeswere the best that could be done.

In a course, three variables thatneed to be managed are: the mate-rial, the time to complete the mate-rial, and the level of mastery of thematerial. We can constrain anytwo, but not all three. If we decidethat ten facts are to be taught andthe level of mastery is that all tenthings are to be known perfectlythen we can't also specify the timeit will take to master those facts.Some people will learn the materi-al very quickly, others will learn itvery slowly.

In our current education system wehave chosen to constrain the mate-rial and the time, and let the mas-tery vary, even though we musthave known this was not the bestchoice. We measure the level ofmastery by assigning grades. Butwe cannot let mastery of the mate-rial continue to be the thing thatvaries. If our purpose is educationwe must ensure that it actuallytakes place.

What needs to be done is to fix thematerial and the level of mastery,and let the time it takes to learnvary The level of mastery willalways be what we'd call an A+today. The new educational schemeshould be that a student will takea course that covers a fixed amountof menial and will take as long asneeded to master the material. Ifthat happens in an hour then thestudent has completed the course.If after a long time, the studenthas still not mastered the materialthen the student can keep trying orgive up on the material notlearned. Since every course com-pleted will show total mastery ofthe material, grades will be unnec-

essary. All grades in all coursescompleted will be A+. Unlike today,completing a course will mean thatthe material is well understood.And having mastered Econ 101, astudent will be eminently qualifiedto take the next Econ course. Whata prospective employer will want toknow is not one's grades, but whatcourses were completed or whatparts of what courses were com-pleted.

When education required thatthere be scheduled, live interactionbetween a student and a professorthen we could not afford to haveevery student take a differentamount of time to complete acourse. With distance learning andsome readily feasible (but not yetavailable) software, however, wecan now afford to do this. We canalso get rid of the idea of a courseas the smallest unit of learning.

SMILE: your ownpersonal facultyWhile we can't afford to have aprofessor with us all the time forall the subjects we are studying,we can have software that I callSMILE (Software Managed In-struction, Learning, and Educa-tion). SMILE would allow us tomove through course material atour own pace. It would be backedby recorded, up-to-date, and some-times live multimedia lectures andother educational material whichSMILE would suggest we view atthe appropriate time. SMILEwould continually assess our mas-tery of material with quizzes anddrills, and offer additional reading,viewing, and other reenforcementin areas in which SMILE deter-mined we were weak. WhenSMILE couldn't handle a problem,we'd access the educational net-work and consult with peers orexperts on the network.

SMILE modules would have to be

customized for each course, butwould use common objects (as inobject-oriented programming) andalgorithms to allow a student tomove at his or her own pace. Stu-dents would either downloadSMILE modules from the networkor run them directly on the net-work. SMILE modules would beaware of each other and aware ofwhat the student had already done.Today, a student takes most of hisor her courses from a single univer-sity; with SMILE and distancelearning, a student would oftentake different courses from differ-ent places (e.g. IBM, Harvard, GE,Morgan Stanley, etc.). Of coursethese courses would last as long asit took for the student to masterthe material.

Back to the futureJ. Michael Orenduff was forced toresign as chancellor of the Univer-sity of Maine because he caught aglimpse of the future and tried tomove in that direction. His visionof a virtual university was actuallya very conservative evolutionaryidea, but even that was more thanthe protectors of the status quocould handle. As it has alwaysbeen, the future is more surprisingthan we can ever imagine and ittends to arrive before we are readyto give up the present. The way inwhich education is delivered isabout to change quite radically.Maybe not exactly as describedhere, but enormous changes are onthe way that will challenge tradi-tional concepts of university educa-tion. Will universities emerge as astrong force in the future of educa-tion? Only if they adapt to thechanges that are occurring andaccept a leadership role in guidingand promoting those chan-gessomething quite differentthan was done when history wasmade in Maine on page D24 of TheNew York nmes. Or did you missit?

5

The Need for Strategic Budgetingby Charles R. Thomas, NCHEMS

T n this time of rapid techno-1 logical change, strategic plan-

ning can provide great opportuni-ties in the use of information tech-nology to support the mission andgoals of colleges and universities.Strategic planning for informationtechnology must, however, be con-ducted within the framework of theinstitutional planning process andmust consider the institutional cul-ture, history, and resources. Itmust also be accompanied by anequally important activitystrat-egic budgeting.

While many institutions engage instrategic planning activities at thecampus level, few have extendedthose activities to the informationtechnology units, and even fewerlave linked them to budgeting andoperations. An effective strategicplanning and budgeting process en-sures policy-level attention to theresources required to achieve stra-tegic objectives.

Dimensions ofstrategic planningThe process described below isbased in part on "Strategic Plan-ning for Computing and Communi-cations," a chapter by James Pen-rod and Thomas West in the EDU-COM book, Organizing and Man-aging Information Resources onCampus, and generally follows themodel developed by Dr. RobertShirley. The following importantdimensions of planning for infor-mation technology are based on thelist cited by Penrod and West.

=IMP

Chuck Thomas is currently a seniorconsultant with NCHEMS, the Nation-al Center for Higher Education Man-agement Systems. This article is basedon a talk given at the 1993 CAUSEconference.

Information technology planningshould be an ongoing exercise,regardless of the current technolo-gy in use at the institution. Itshould also be a formal process,have the support of senior adminis-trators, use up-to-date planningmethods, and result in documentedoutput publicized to the institution-al community. It should be bothhighly participative and institu-tion-specific in its methods.

The process should involve theidentification of potentially impor-tant technological developmentsand recognize when those develop-ments make the transition from"state of the art" to "state of themarket.' It should be broad inscope but bounded by feasible solu-tions, both economically and tech-nically. Perhaps most important, itshould be driven by institutionalproblems and opportunities, not bytechnological developments.

The strategicplanning processAn ongoing strategic planning pro-cess for information technology forthe institution should include thefollowing activities.

Establish the planning parameters.Determine who does what and howthe planning process for informa-tion technology will relate to theinstitutional strategic planningprocess.

Assess the external and internalenvironments. Determine the levelof effort appropriate for the institu-tional culture. Analyze the externalenvironment to identify and assessmajor forces in the economic, so-cial, technological, political andlegal, demographic, and competi-tive areas that will present specificopportunities, threats, and con-straints to the institution. Identify

the strengths and weaknesses ofthe technology organization's hu-man, physical, technological, andfinancial resources.

Determine institutional and constit-uency values. Solicit and documentperceptions of and expectations forboth academic and administrativecomputing. Conduct interviewswith all of the major technologyclients and document their opin-ions.

Identify areas for strategic deci-sions. Typical areas are: organiza-tional mission, clientele, goals andoutcomes, service mix, service ar-eas, and comparative advantage.

Develop functional and operationalstrategies. Determine how each ofthe strategic information technolo-gy issues will be addressed, bywhom, and through what process-es. Discussion and suggestions fordescriptions of the functional andoperational strategies should bebased on successful models fromother institutions. Develop anddocument specific action plans foreach of the major information tech-nology organizational units.

Develop strategic objectives for theplanning year. Come to agreementon a set of strategic objectives forthe planning year, including devel-opment and/or acquisitions of newinformation technology productsand services as well as mainten-ance and improvements for existingsystems. Allow for iteration in theplanning process, since many timesother institutional units developobjectives that create informationtechnology objectives unbeknownstto the information technology unit.

The strategicbudgeting processExecutive and top-level policy corn-

6

mittee involvement with the typi-cal strategic planning process usu-ally ends at the point of agreementupon objectives, leaving operationalunits to accomplish what they canwithin limited or reduced resourc-es. A strategic budgeting processexplicitly focuses executive atten-tion on the activities and resourcesnecessary to successfully meet theobjectives. This is accomplishedthrough a series of steps that re-late resources required for opera-tional activities to agreed-uponobjectives. The process allows valuejudgments on resource allocationand trade-off decisions to be madeat a strategic level before opera-tional projects are undertaken,rather than being forced to makecostly midstream ackjustmentswhen resources will not stretch tocover overly optimistic objectives,or when in process, operationalfailures occur.

An Objective-Activity Matrix ap-proach works well. First, identifyand briefly describe all of theagreed upon strategic objectives forthe planning year. List these objec-tives across the top of a standard

spreadsheet. Next, list all informa-tion technology activities requiredto achieve those objectives and allon-going activities down the leftside of the spreadsheet. Then placea "1* in the spreadsheet cell undereach objective supported by eachactivity, and total the spreadsheetvertically and horizontally.

If any objective column indicatesno (zero) supporting activities,obviously that objective cannot beachieved, so it must either be elim-inated or have supporting activitiesadded to the list. If any activityrow indicates no (zero) objectivessupported, either there is an un-listed objective or there is somequestion why that activity exists.

Once all zero totals have beenresolved, identify the resources(dollars and full-time-equivalentstaff) required for each activity andestimate allocation percentages foractivity resources for each objectivesupported.

Sum the resources vertically toarrive at the estimated costs foreach objective. Value judgments

"The distance learning environment has changeddramatically. Educators increasingly seek newsolutions to a myriad of challenges includingrising costs, reduced operating budgets, over-utilized resources (from faculty to the physicalplant), and growing competition for a decliningstudent pool.... Distance learning has become acore educational strategy In the 1990s, with areach that extends to a broad cross-section ofInstitutions and curriculum providers around theworld."

John Walsh and Bob Reese"Distance Learning's Growing Reach"T.H.E. JournalJune 1995

can then be made as to the costsand benefits of each objective. Ifthe estimated total cost shown inthe Objective-Activity Matrix ex-ceeds what is available, value judg-ments can also be made as towhich objectives should be modi-fied, postponed, or dropped. Sever-al iterations may be required toreach agreement on a final matrix.

ConclusionRecent developments in both hard-ware and software present drama-tic opportunities for higher educa-tion, but planning and preparationare required to capitalize on them.The current emphases on campus-wide networking, client servercomputing, and the graphical userinterface require major changes intraditional institutional computingand communications environments,but these changes will not happenwithout executive involvement andleadership. The processes of strate-gic planning and budgeting canfocus institutional attention on theappropriate institutional issues,and with institution-wide involve-ment, foster a common vision forinformation technology.

Ifl Riture 1, ,. ',7-7k1..

s mediaeducational .

promise yet

Making smart .:

Using teclmolovto create

7;-:4'1V47frPt

sues

Need a consuttant? EDUTECHInternational provid-s consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

EDUTECH RESPONDSQ. Our institution is spending way too much ontechnology, and we are dealing with an increasinglyout-of-control situation. As a senior administrator,one of the things that really bothers me is thatoutside of the information technology unit, no oneknows enough about technology to challenge theresource requests put before us. Could we accomplishProject X with fewer resources? We usually can'tanswer that question. How do we deal with this?

A. Assuming you have some level of trust in your ITpeople, we would like to suggest that this is not theright question to ask. It sounds more as if you aredealing with priority issues, and better questions are,for instance, "Shoukl we be doing Project X at all? Ofwhat benefit is it to the institution? Is it in line withour identity and strategy?" These are not technologyquestions, nor are they asked of the technology people;these are business questions that every senior personat your school should be as comfortable dealing withas they are in any other area of the institution.

Q. You have in the past recommended a three-pronged committee structure for information techno-

logy made up of a high-level policy committee andtwo department-level advisory committees, one foradministrative and one for academic. That soundsfme as far as it goes, but what happens to network-ing and other institution-wide infrastructure issuesin this model?

A. Certainly broad resource allocation issues anddiscussion of major initiatives for infrastructure ar-eas, including networking, the data center, and so on,should be dealt with at the policy-committee level.Since basic networking strategies are already in placeat most institutions by now, as is the basic operationof the data center, it would not seem as if these areaswould require the same kind of substantive discus-sion and involvement at the advisory committee levelthat administrative and academic computing issuesrequire. If that's not the case, either a third advisorycommittee, parallel to the academic and administra-tive committees (with the chair similarly on the policycommittee to provide that linkage), or a task forcemade up of some members of both advisory commit-tees could be formed to deal with specific issues andconcerns as they arise.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

riktj printed on recycled paper.Clearing House on Info Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse NY 13210

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

THEAugust 1995

EDUPFSOL.

R E P

Volume 11Number 5

/1-1 imar- EPP

\molar.A16,

The Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

Counter-ImplementationStrategies

by Steven Gilbert, AAHE

n the early 1980s, Peter Keen of the Sloan School of Manage-ment at MIT was invited to give a guest lecture to the Wharton

Executive MBA program. He chose "Counter-Implementation Strate-gies" as his topic, and offered several examples in a memorable, witty,and valuable presentation. The one I remember best was "Let's get itjust right the first time."

The strategy goes like this: If someone offers an idea for your institu-tion that you want never to be implemented, you should jump in im-mediately. Praise the idea highly and give several additional reasonswhy it is so important for your institution. Explain how this idea canmake a significant contribution, so significant that we shouldn't riskgetting anything less than the full benefit from it. Say things like, "Infact, this idea has such enormous potential that we must not leap inwith an incomplete version and miss something valuable. Let's makesure we take every step necessary to get everything we can. Let's notbegin until we have everything prepared perfectly...." You are nowprepared for permanent delay. Each time someone is ready to actuallyimplement the idea, just point out one more bit of preparation thatshould be done.

In the spirit of Keen's presentation, I would like to offer my list ofcounter-implementation strategiesstrategies for avoiding improvingteaching and learning through more effective and widespread use ofinformation technology and information resources.

Strategy 1: "Let's get it right the first time." Just as Keen suggests,this is extremely effective. Convince the president and board that we'll

continued on page 3

"The workforce is demandingand receiving a say in howtheir organizations are run.Acceding to this is not altruismon the part of management,but rather a recognition thatthere is a better way of doingbusiness. By giving up controlof individuals, managers gainbetter control of the organiza-tion.... Those managers whoare control-oriented may notsurvive the transitionbuttheir days were already num-bered. Teams will only hastenthe process, as we transformour organizations into moreenlightened institutions thattreat people as adults whohave productive and innovativecontributions to make."

Larry Conrad and Sheila Murphy"The Manager's Changing Role

in a Teams Environment"CAUSEIEFFECTSummer 1995

Mk

GUIDELINES FOREVALUATINGCAMPUS ITRESOURCES

NEW EDUCATIONALFAIR USEGUIDELINES

NEW ON-LINE ACCESSFOR CHRONICLESUBSCRIBERS

The Higher Education Information Resources Alliance (HEIRAlliance) hasdeveloped a new set of guidelines for evaluating information resources thatcolleges and universities can use when doing institutional self-studies, andthat regional accrediting associations can consider as part of the accreditationprocess. The HEIRAlliance is a cooperative project of the Association ofResearch Libraries (ARL), Educom, and CAUSE, the association for managersof information resources in higher education. In late July, the guidelines weresent to presidents and chancellors of all U.S. colleges and universities, with aletter from James Applebee, president of the American Association of StateColleges and Universities.

Copies of the guidelines are available electronically by sending e-mail toheira@cause.colorado.edu containing the message GET HEIRA.GUIDE. Printcopies are also available from CAUSE for $5 each; call (303) 939-0310 inBoulder, Colorado.

New guidelines that clarify educational "fair use" rules for today's multimediaenvironment will be unveiled in a live satellite broadcast from the PBS AdultLearning Service on September 21, 1995. Designed especially for educators,trainers, instructional technology specialists, and library staff, the program canbe downlinked anywhere in the country. In the face of the need to clarify thelaw in a rapidly changing environment, the Consortium of College andUniversity Media Centers (CCUMC) initiated discussions with proprietarygroups, educational associations, and the U.S. Copyright Office. The resultingcommittee spent the last several months hammering out the guidelines thatwill be released to the public during the September telecast.

The event will run from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time and will betransmitted on both Ku-band and C-band. Organizations that wish to obtainpricing information for downlink licenses, including multiple site discountoptions, or that need other information, should contact the PBS Adult LearningService at (800) 257-2578.

"Academe Today* is a new on-line information service from the Chmnicle ofHigher Education for its subscribers. The new service, accessed through aspecial log-in and password, provides a daily summary of higher-education-related news, as well as government reports, statements from professionalsocieties, job postings, information about upcoming meetings, discussions ofscholarly books, and five years of article archives. There is no charge forcurrent Chronicle subscribers.

For more information, contact the Chronicle at 1255 Twenty-Third Street,N.W., Washington, DC 20037; todayechronicle.com.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit (LPLEIT@EDUTECH-INT.COM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1995,EDUTECH International. All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without thewritten pennission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN 40883-1327. Oneyear subscription, $97.

Counter-Implementationcontinued from page I

get a much better return on ourinvestment in information technol-ogy if we just wait six months forthe new _____. (Fill in the blankwith new technology of choice).

Strategy 2: Do not collect any-thing in one place for easy ac-cess. Don't collect the most rele-vant information about what kindsof support services (computing, lib-rary, faculty development, A-V) areavailable under which conditionsfor faculty and students. Don't col-lect information about who to con-tact for such support services.Don't include such information instudent or faculty orientation ma-terials, departmental offices, facul-ty manuals, or student handbooks.

Strategy 3: Retain traditionalreward structures. Don't men-tion faculty use of informationtechnology for instruction in pro-motion and tenure policies.

Strategy 4: Promise too much.Each spring, make unfulfillablepromises about the capabilities andavailability of technology for thefaculty and students next fall.

Strategies ...

Strategy 5: "We decided thatyou need to..." Schedule a meet-ing of your own section (office,department, etc.) of the college oruniversity. Discuss ways in whichtechnology can be used to improveteaching and learning. Developsome plans that depend on some ofthe services or resources from an-other group on campusa groupyou didn't invite to the meeting.The next day, drop in on the leaderof that other group. Casually men-tion the meeting you've just held,

Steven Gilbert is the director oftechnology projects at the AmericanAssociation for Higher Education.This article is based on a recentposting to his listserv, AMIESGIT.

your new plans, and the expectedrole of hisiher group. Begin sen-tences with "We decided that youneed to...."

Strategy 6: Maintain your vi-sion of your institution, no mat-ter what. Ignore data about thechanging composition of your stu-dent body and facultyespeciallyabout the proportion of part-timersin both groups.

Strategy 7: Talk publicly andfrequently about how "distanceeducation" is going to increase"faculty productivity." Don'tanswer questions about the impacton the number of faculty job&Don't explain what you mean by"distance education."

Strategy 8: Concentrate ontechnology products. Get yourinstitution to commit to new highband-width wiring for every dormroom and office, and for all thehardware and software needed.Don't budget any funds for trainingor maintenance Eliminate at leastone technical support position.

Strategy 9: Target junior facul-ty and put them at odds withtheir senior colleagues. Find acouple of young, untenured facultymembers eager to use interactivemultimedia. Provide some funding,training, support services, and avery small amount of release timefor their work on developing multi-media for use in their own teach-ing. Send a memo to their depart-ment chairs praising their initia-tive and dedication to teaching andto new technologyin contrast tothe rest of the Luddites in thedepartment. End with: "In the lon.run, I'm sure these two exemplaryfaculty members will get back totheir research, but I imagine it willseem rather dull and pointless af-ter this year's experience with in-structional technology.* [This one

is especially good for research uni-versities.]

Strategy 10: Act hastily to a-dopt new products. As a facultymember, require all your studentsto use a new CD-ROM you likebased on the 30 minutes you had toexamine the review copy. Don't askyour students about the kinds andcapabilities of the computers theyown. Don't tell them how to obtainthe software. Don't reaerve space inpublic computer labs. Don't checkthe capability or the capacity of thecampus computer lab.

Strategy 11: Replace teachingwith technology. Assume all ofyour students are eager to usecomputers as the primary meansfor all their learning. Assume theyare each highly self-disciplined andself-motivated. Replace all live pre-sentations with pre-recorded videosthat students can view repeatedlywhenever they want. Discontinuethose expensive small discussionopportunities. Replace all sciencelabs with computer simulations.Let them all use e-mail!

Strategy 12: Don't accommo-date any hesitation. Wheneveranyone questions greater instruc-tional use of information technolo-gy, laugh out loud at their naiveteand read this quote to them: "...ifthe growth of productivity in edu-cation had matched the growth ofproductivity in the computer indus-try, we would now be able to con-solidate twelve years of public edu-cation into ten minutes, costingfive cents per student. How muchlonger can higher education affordto offer inefficient instructionalprograms that do not meet the de-mand of the marketplace for gradu-ates?* [Melniek, "Education, Media,and the Future,* a paper presentedat Managing Media for Change In-stitute, San Francisco, May, 1990.1That should show 'em.

nce college presidents have- solved the problem of the day,managed the crisis of the week,and tended to the latest lawsuits,they turn their attention to howtheir institutions can be strength-ened for the future. Near the top ofmost presidents' lists of criticalissues is educational technology.

For all institutions, some type ofinvestment in educational technol-ogy is essential, and virtually all ofthem have made some purchasesalready. But in deciding what typesof investments to make for thefuture, presidents face a complexset of problems. They must decidewhat portion of their shrinkingbudgets should be allocated to thisexpanding domain. They mustdetermine, from the array of tech-nological choices, which options areappropriate for their campuses,distinguishing between the impera-tive and the luxurious, the essen-tial and the grandiose. 'What docampuses need to invest in now, tokeep them from falling behind in afew years? What sorts of technolo-gy will benefit students the most?

Consider this scenario: The directorof academic computing presents hiscollege's president with a plan toupgrade the computers providedfor instruction and to link theminto a network to which all stu-dents and faculty members haveaccess. The proposal has a pricetag of about $1-million for hard-ware and networking costs, whichbreaks down to an average of $479

Robert Hahn is president of JohnsonState College. Gregory Jackson isdirector of academic computing atMIT This article appeared originallyin the May 26, 1995 issue of TheChronicle of HiRher Education and isreprinted with permission.

The Key to Wise Inve

per student. That's a bargain and awise investment, claims the direc-tor of computing. He then presentssome more specific arguments:

'Our enrollment has been growing,but our budgetsespecially oursalary budgethave not. An in-vestment in educational technologywill help us handle increased en-rollment without hiring more facul-ty members.

"Investments in technology bringquick results. We can be providingthe benefits of state-of-the-artinstructional technology to stud-

Near the top of mostpresidents' lists of

critical issues iseducational technology.

ents within the year.

"Our competitors are investingheavily in educational technologyIf we fail to keep pace, studentswill choose other institutions, andwe will be playing catch-up.

"As students gain access to theglobal Internet, their sources ofacademic information will broaden,lessening the pressure on our li-brary

"The total coat of gaining all thesebenefits is very modest. If we de-ploy one public computer for every10 students, a typical ratio, we willneed to buy 200 computers to serveour 2,000 students. A mid-rangePower Mac, well equipped for ourneeds, will cost us about $3,500 at

by Robert Hahn at

educational prices, or about$700,000 in all. Setting up a deluxenetwork connecting these comput-ers to students' rooms will costanother $24,000.

"This can be our entry ramp to theinformation highway. If we are notpart of the action, we may becomean academic ghost town. We needto decide soon, while supplies areavailable or before prices change."

Anyone hearing such a presenta-tion should be uneasy. Flying highin this proposal are several majorred flags:

The director makes sweeping, non-sensical financial comparisons andclaims. These include unsubstanti-ated, debatable claims concerningpossible reductions in what willhave to be spent for faculty sala-ries, libraries, and other traditionalbudget items.

The proposal concentrates entirelyon hardware, with insufficientattention given to software, train-ing, and personnel support. Theerror is compounded by the exclu-sive focus on a particular brand,neglecting alternative vendors andoptions. No mention is made ofother costs involved in educationaltechnology, including trainingusers and assisting them as prob-lems and questions arise. The costsof maintenance, depreciation, andperiodic replacement of equipmentalso have been ignored.

Key elements of institutional lifeare underplayed or forgotten. In-deed, it is unclear from the propos-al in what ways one can expectteaching to be improved or learningenhanced. It also does not takeadequate account of issues of insti-tutional and personal resistance tochange. What resistance will this

4

tments in TechnologyGregory Jackson

plan encounter from departmentsusing other equipment or fromfaculty members or administratorswho think this is an unwise use ofscarce dollars?

The proposal stresses the need for arapid decision. Beware of claims(supplies are limited, prices may goup!) designed to make decisionmakers feel guilty and act withoutcareful study.

Recognizing such warning signsand fallacious arguments will helppresidents and other administra-tors make better decisions, but thatis only half the battle. Presidentsand other top decision makers maybring their own myopia, misinfor-xnation, and bias to discussions anddecisions about educational tech-nology. For example, they may seeeducational technology as a one-time investment or believe thattheir institution's continuing needfor such technology can be filledthrough grants from private donorsor government agencies or by giftsfrom vendors, instead of realizingthat they must devote a portion ofeach annual budget to such expens-es.

They also may expect that invest-ments in educational technologywill automatically save them mon-ey in the long run. Along with thisexpectation, they may believe thateducational technology will some-how produce quicker, better, more-assured results than higher educa-tion can normally promise. Suchunrealistic expectations can lead,in turn, to setting unattainablebenchmarks for the success of aninvestment in technology Adminis-trators also may buy educationaltechnology without thinking abouthow to encourage faculty membersto adapt their teaching to incorpo-rate it.

Many of the stumbling blocks towise planning and investing can beavoided if presidents and otheradministrators, including directorsof computing, follow some impor-tant guidelines:

Be clear about the purposes tobe served by the technologyunder consideration. State theexpected benefits in the clearestpossible termsand in plain Eng-lish. Once the new hardware andsoftware are in place, who will beable to do what, and how will theydo it?

Be realistic about the outcome.This requires recognizing thatinformation technology does notnecessarily save time or money. Itmay enable us to do some thingsthat we cannot do now, such asprovide students with feedback ontheir work via electronic mail, or todo some things better and moreeasily than is now possible, such asattain access to library collectionsand conduct research. But suchbenefits should not be confusedwith economies. Furthermore, wemay be tempted to believe thatbecause technology is involved, thebenefits are easily measurable.But, in fact, technology providesjust another means of teaching andlearning, and its effects are nomore certain or easily assessedthan those of a reading or writing

assignment, a laboratory demon-stration, or a lecture.

Build the full costs into yourbudgets. They include the costs ofinstallation, training, and supportservices when new systems arepurchased, as well as those ofmaintaining and replacing equip-ment and of training new studentsand employees.

Design a program to encouragefaculty and staff members tomake full use of the technologyin their daily activities. Assignresponsibility for insuring that it iscarried out.

Take all the time you need. Notto be confused with delay, evasion,or obfuscation, this time should beused to investigate the availableoptions among vendors, brands,and systems. And allow for a fullreview of the proposed purchasesand operating plan by a represen-tative group of users, includingfaculty and staff members at alllevels.

If presidents and directors of com-puting, as well as other adminis-trators and faculty members, allagree to follow these guidelines,they should be able jointly to reachwise decisions about investing ineducational technology They canavoid getting stuck with systemsand equipment that fail to meetthe needs of many users or thatbecome obsolete too quickly. Theycan make decisions about technolo-gy with the same foresight theyuse in hiring a faculty member orplanning an academic program.After all, such decisions require notonly technological literacy but alsothe sound judgement, the probity,and the sense of purpose that,ideally, we bring to all of our deci-sion making.

;1+111M-

Two Separate Worlds And They Should Beifany colleges and universities

ivithese days are looking forways to reduce IT spending. At thesame time, many are also lookingto gain synergistic relationshipswhere they did not exist before,and even to provide enhanced ITservices (both in quantity andquality) to the user community.One of the most popular ways to dothis is to combine administrativeand academic computing serviceunits into a single unit, providing ageneric set of services based onfunction, rather than on user iden-tity.

On the surface, this has manyadvantages. Certainly, both seta oftechnical people have much tolearn from each other, and blend-ing them together, especially ifthey can share physical space, canproduce a good amount of cross-fertilization. In addition, if therewas any duplication of servicesbefore (often seen in the area ofmicrocomputer support or net-working), this restructuring offersthe opportunity to downsize byeliminating the duplication, oreven better, to redeploy scarcetechnical talent to cover more ser-vice areas.

But there are some serious down-sides to this as well. One of themost insidious of them is thatcombining the service needs foracademic and administrative usersoften ignores what those needsreally are. Of course it's true thatthere are many generic needs andnon-specific uses for IT, such as theprovision of a robust telecommuni-cations network. However, if onetakes a close look at what is mostneededand most valuedby eachset of users, one will find thatmany of the services are quitedifferent. What makes the situa-tion particularly difficult is thatusers will get their service needs

filled one way or another, even if itis not by the IT department. And,in fact, what we see happeningmore and more in institutions thathave combined their departmentsis the addition of user departmentstaff to provide the IT servicesformerly provided by either theacademic or administrative com-puter services group.

The point is that IT service depart-ments that define themselves as"utilities,* that is, responsible forproviding a generic, non-specializedset of services to all users (network

Ifone takes a closelook at what is mostneededand most

valued-6Y each set ofusers, one will find thatmany of the services are

quite different.

support, microcomputer trouble-shooting, basic training, etc.) maybe very efficient in terms of the ex-penditure of the IT department'sresources. But looked at morebroadly, it often ends up costingthe institution as a whole more toprovide IT services, because theusers, in their quest for effective,rather than efficient, services, findways to get what they need, suchas through hiring their own techni-cal staff members. What usersreally need from the IT departmentis for it to look and act not like autility company, but like a travelagency. Utility companies don'tcare who their customers are; trav-el agencies care very much, and goto great lengths to classify their

customers according to the custo-mers' needs and desires.

Are academic and administrativeusers different in their needs anddesiies? You bet they are. In fact,they are every bit as different fromeach other as business travelersand leisure travelers are. Yes, onecan take on the characteristics ofthe other under certain circum-stances from time to time. But forthe most part, their approaches,their attitudes, their perspectives,their tolerance levels, and theirwillingness to pay for certain ser-vices they value, are entirely differ-ent. And when they don't get whatthey think they need, whetherthat's an upgrade to a seat in thefirst class section of the plane or aquick desktop screen display oftoday's tally of incoming freshmandeposits, they go elsewhere.

Fortunately, many consolidated ITdepartments still have separategroups responsible for academic(usually classroom support) andadministrative computing (usuallyapplications programming). In fact,some consolidated departmentsreally don't look very different thanthey did before they combined,except that together, they report toa single person lower in the admin-istrative structure than they didseparately. Whereas once adminis-trative computing might have re-ported to the financial vice presi-dent and academic computingmight have reported to the provost,now they both might report to anassociate vice president or an exec-utive director. So what appears tobe consolidated on the surface isactually, in effect, as separate asbefore, very likely responding tothe forces that are keeping them(rightfully) separate.

What is far more problematic is thetruly consolidated department, the

6 39

one that has rewritten job descrip-tions, done away with previous setsof responsibilities, and eliminatedall distinctions among the serviceproviders. The IT staff in thesedepartments are often called "infor-mation specialists* or "technologyassistante or some such. Ready toleap to the aid of any user, con-vinced by their managers that itdoesn't matter whether the net-work problem they are trained tohandle technically is in the Regis-trar's Office or the chemistry de-partment, they are leaving usersfeeling more and more abandoned.What an IT staff member in thisposition does not necessarily appre-ciateonly because they're toldthat it doesn't matteris that if aperson in the Registrar's Office cantell someone in the computer cen-ter that her LAN is down rightnow and that she has a line ofstudents in front of her windowwaiting to register, and if thatsomeone really understands whatthat means and responds accord-ingly, then she is a happier cus-tomer. If, on the other hand, theresponse is one of a lack of under-

standing of the urgency of thesituation, or is insensitive to thecircumstances in any way, and ifenough of these incidents occur,eventually the Registrar's Office isgoing to get its own network sup-port person. And this is exactlywhat we see happening in institu-tion after institution.

The most successful service organi-zations, rr or otherwise, are theones that know their customersbest. One of the hottest areas forthe future development of commer-cial services is coming out of theincreasing ability to be able todifferentiate existing customersbased on information kept in thecorporate database. A recent articlein the Wall Street Journal dis-cussed whether American Expressis likely to survive the rapidlyincreasing competition in creditcards. Most analysts agree that itsbest shot at survival is using thevery rich data it has in its databas-es about its current credit cardcustomers and striking deals withvarious retailers to offer each cus-tomer a series of specialized promo-

"There is no mediated program that cannot bemediated by an alternative medium. Unfortun-ately, the battle between fashion and efficacyseems to have been won by fashion. Today it isfashionable to 'do a CD-ROM' with little regard forother less expensive methods of delivery (such asprint). What is puzzling is that the question, 'Can itbe done cheaper using other forms of mediation?'seems to be routinely overlooked by developers.Fashion seems to have won out even overeconomics."

Richard P. Lookatch"The Strange but True Story of Multimedia and the

Type I Error"TechnosSummer 1995

tions when the customer receiveshis or her bill each month. Whilethis may represent specializationtaken to its extreme, it is neverthe-less a good role model in terms ofcustomer attention and treatmentClothing stores distinguish be-tween suburban matrons and ur-ban teenagers. Banks distinguishbetween business depositors andChristmas Club users. And the ITdepartment should distinguishbetween academic and administra-tive users.

Yes, we have to keep in mind thatthere are some services that spanboth sets of users, just as with air-lines, everyone wants to fly safelyand on time. However, even inthese cases, providing a front-endservice person that is specialized tothe user, rather than to the func-tion, is more effective. We need toget rid of "the" single Help Deskfor everyone, we need to renamethe "information specialists," andwe need stop acting as if a micro-computer is a microcomputer is amicrocomputer, regardless of whomit serves.

-In Future Issuet

Hot Issuei:10.5-our annual suria''''

'"Is multimedia fuffillini

its educationalpromise yet?

- Using technology 0'e-re-atea studefit-frie us.

Need a consultant? EDUTECHinternational provides consultingservices xclusively to collegesand universities. Cal its at(203) 242-3356.

EDUTECH RESPNDSQ. So here we are, our new administrative systemhas been in for a couple of years, most of our usersare trained, fairly happy, and seemingly productive.Why, then, as we look around the institution, do wesee not only no new economies as a result of thesystem, but even some real 'diseconomies"? That is,the new system seems to have introduced the needfor new (additional) staff in each department whoactually understand the new system, can get reportsout of it, can train their department colleagues, andso on. We were expecting to end up with fewer, notmore, people when we were all done. Did we do thisbackwards, or what?

A. Probably not. But your concern is understand-able. It is also not unique to your institution. The cur-rent generation of information systems is character-ized by tremendous power and functionality, but alsoby great complexity. Many institutions are at thestage of dealing with the complexity either by addingstaff or by severely underutilizing the system. Thereal answer to the economic question seems to lie inwhat many are calling "reengineering." That is, rath-er than just employing the system to automate exist-

ing tasks and procedures ("paving the cow paths",using the power of the new system to rearrange, re-structure, and even redefine areas such as studentservices, institutional outreach, information access,and so on, is likely to be where the real payoff for allthe time, effort, and financial investment is. Evenwith reengineering, however, you may not see the eco-nomies you have been evecting, due largely to thefact that when the same number of staff are no longerneeded in certain areas (such as clerical support), theculture of higher education has resisted their outrighttermination, preferring instead to have the staff doother thingsthereby increasing services rather thandecreasing costs.

Q. I'm new to this business, so perhaps you canclear something up for me. is it a requirement in col-leges and universities for the computer science fac-ulty and the computer services department to not getalong with each other?

A. Yes, absolutely. In fact, ifyou find an institutionwhere this is not the case, you should report them im-mediately to their regional accrediting agency.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

Clearing House on Info Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse NY 13210

z4 1

"to printed on recycled paper

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

THE September 1995 Volume 11Number 6

PEUTECT-1The Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

Hot Issues1995-96

by Thomas Warger

s our readers know, each year we do a telephone survey of in-formation technology managers throughout higher education to

gain insight into what's on their minds for the coming academic year.This year's survey yielded a great deal of thinking around a widerange of IT issues, from reengineering to funding to rapidly rising ex-pectations.

Re-thinking. This is larger and stronger than just "reengineering"administrative processes, although that is the most widespread instancecited. In the widest-ranging sense, it is a matter of stepping back andtrying to take stock of the impact of IT on campus activities. For ad-ministrative work, it involves, as one respondent put it, "the re-defini-tion of what work is..., what it means to come to work." The new pat-terns of shared information lead to re-assessment of how services andoffices are organized: we need to be more fluid and less hierarchical.What has been learned about workgroups is worth investigating forwhat it might tell us about how to organize and equip workers in lightof IT. The inter-relatedness of workers needs to be understood andturned into effective peer support. Having done much to transform theworkplace, we now must understand it in its new configuration so asto be able to support those who work in it.

In instruction, classroom and teaching methods are being re-thought.Distance learning is starting to provoke serious thought about who willbe the students and how they will be reached. The Web and the Inter-net generally are sparking a new round of enthusiasm among facultyto look for ways to use these resources in their classrooms and to sup-plement their courses outside class sessions.

continued on page 3

"Liberal education isincomplete if it does notprepare educated people toaddress the presence oftechnologyand moreimportantly, the presence ofthe information products oftechnology in the modemworldin an informed andcritical way.... The dismissal ofcomputers as mere machinesby liberal education distractsattention from the fact that theinformation products oftechnology define modernity:mass communications mediatemost of the information in ourculture, and digital technologyproduces the images andinformation which saturateeveryday life."

Peter LymanUC Berkeley"What is Computer Literacy?"Liberal EducationSummer 1995

i

ACM/SIGUCCS 1995USER SERVICESCONFERENCE

SURVEY FINDSBARRIERS TOIMPLEMENTATION OFCAMPUSTECHNOLOGY

EDUC OM '95:LEADING THE WAY

"Winning the Networking Game" is the theme of this fall's ACM SIGUCCSconference, to be held October 15-18 at the St. Louis, Missouri MarriottPavilion Downtown. The fall conference features sessions relating to end-usersupport on university and college campuses. Specific focus includes: the Web,documentation, networking issues, training, student consultants, managingcomputer labs, and much more. An excellent selection of pre-conferencetutorials are also available on Sunday, October 15. The opening speaker isVinton Cerf, President of the Internet Society. Cerf is generally credited withsetting off higher education on this networking frenzy with his work on writingthe TCP/IP protocols in the 1970s under a DARPA grant while at StanfordUniversity.

For more information, contact Linda J. Hutchison, SIGUCCS '95 ProgramChair, Iowa State University Computation Center, 291 Durham, Ames, Iowa50011; 515-294-1578; lindaiastate.edu. The SIGUCCS '95 homepage is on theWeb at http://siguccsiastate.edu:8001/.

On the Brink, a recent report from the American Association of State Collegesand Universities (AASCU) on the use and management of informationtechnology in higher education, found that while many state colleges anduniversities have IT plans and increasingly use technology for teaching andlearning, most are experiencing barriers to meeting their IT goals, includingfinancial constraints and competing academic priorities. Other findings in thereport concern computing entrance requirements, computer literacy goals forgraduation, the use of e-mail, and distance learning.

Copies of On the Brink, a report on the survey results, and a directory oftechnology examples on AASCU campuses are available for $10 (members) and$15 (non-members) by sending a check to AASCU Publications, One DupontCircle, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036.

The futures of higher education and of technology are closely intertwined. Buthow can educators and institutions of higher learning best harness theinformation revolution? How should the vast sea of on-line information bemanaged, and what ethical issues does it raise? And what effect will theconvergence of learning, communications, and information technology have ontomorrow's scholarship? These are some of the central issues facing educators,administrators, policy-makers, and other participants in the EDUCOM '95conference, hosted by Reed College, to be held at, the Oregon ConventionCenter in Portland, October 31November 3.

For more information on the conference, contact Lynn Zempel, (202) 835-7475;zempel@educom.edu.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit (LFLEIT@EDUTECH-INT.COM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1995,EDUTECH International. All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without thewritten permission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN W883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

2

Hot Issues 1995-96continued from page 1

For IT support services, re-think-ing means being more thoughtfuland assertive about managingchange. It means "turning people'sattention to what is possible withwhat we have, and away fromworrying about what we don't haveyet," as one IT manager put it. Butit also means being realistic aboutwhat to promise or to lead peopleto expect, to be more attentive towhat users really need and want(as opposed to what the supportservices people think those custom-ers need), and to decentralize thoseserviceson the model of the tech-nology itselfto be closer to thecustomer, and more responsive toneeds.

Re-thinking also means gettingback to basics in education. Whatis it that IT can and should beaccomplishing? There is much thatis appealing in currently hot tech-nology, but are we ensuring thateducation is driving our interest inthe technology, and not the otherway around? Does learning need tobe re-invented in light of ITs em-powerment of those who use it andperhaps do not work in the oldpatterns and by the old rules? Ifpeople work in teams, does ourapproach to IT training and sup-port follow that model? We shouldbe ready to move beyond teachinghow to use a software package, andinstead teach how to use informa-tion in better ways.

Partnerships with industry, too,are in need of re-thinking. Compa-nies developing new productsshould think in terms of workingwith consortiarather than select-

Thomas Warger is the former directorof computer services at Bryn MawrCollege and is about to become theauistant coordinator for informationtechnoloo for the Five Colleges, Inc. inAmherst, Massachusetts.

ed, individual institutionsto bebetter attuned te whole markets ofpotential customers. Colleges anduniversities can listen better towhat employers say they need intheir graduates and also includelocal businesses in their instructionon current technology When cur-ricular development does not keepup with advances in technologystudents and their eventual em-ployers are short-changed. Onerespondent put it this way: "Someof the ways we do things on cam-pus have to change; we have to bemore responsive to the customer."

Funding. While no one claims tobe amply funded, this issue nowappears to be quite variable in itsexpression. Comments ranged from"We are broke, broke, broke" and"How do we convince [top manage-ment] to spend what is needed?" to"saying that we feel we need to dothis is no longer such a hard sell."Virtually everyone in campus gov-ernance acknowledges the coreimportance of IT; many report theyare now coordhiating IT planningwith general, strategic planning ontheir campuses.

Some are becoming concerned thatthe overall trends in the cost ofeducation and the ability and/orwillingness to pay are very discour-aging and pose serious problemsfor all aspects of higher education.

One person commented that it isironic that we have such limitedfinancial resources in IT just at thetime when unprecedented numbersof people are interested in its bene-fits. Those feeling the most severefunding pressures still find it achallenge to equip all faculty andstaff and to fund a reasonablereplacement cycle for that equip-ment. Keeping computer labs cur-rent, protecting and extending thelife of network bandwidth, andcoping with the soaring demand for

modem access to campus networksand the Internet rank as leadingsources of cost pressure.

It seems clear that the sources offunding will need to change.Chargeback for modem access isbeing considered, even where insti-tutions have no history of chargingend users for rr. Partnerships withindustry may need to become partof the means by which we fundreplacements. Without much doubt,funds will need to be re-directedfrom other areas of campus bud-gets and sources not yet tapped oreven identified.

One respondent noted, however,that as non-IT senior administra-tors become more experienced indealing with IT issues they *arebeginning to see the interrelatednature of their needs.' If there is asilver lining in the clouds of gloomover constrained financial resourc-es, this might be it.

Internet applications. Virtuallyeveryone commented on the enthu-siasm they are seeing for the Inter-net. Interest spans faculty, stu-dents, staff, and senior adminis-trators. The true value of the Weband Internet for higher educationis not yet settled (as one personsaid, "the depth is not there yet"),but most feel the potential isstrong, and the demand is nearlyoverwhelming.

Campus network infrastructurerisks being overwhelmed, however.The cost in staff support resourcesis worrisome, because the sheernumbers of people eager to set uptheir own home pages or to explorepotential new instructional appli-cations is so large.

Those campuses that have not yetestablished a full-fledged Web site

continued on page 6

rr here are seven (7) types ofI redundancy, each of which is

found frequently in organizationsof all kinds, and especially in high-er education. Some types of redun-dancy are relatively benign; someless so.

Type One:Defensive RedundancyThe purpose of defensive redun-dancy is to give auditors and suchpeople a security blanket. For ex-ample, your auditors will ask youwhether your institution's databaseis backed up. Do not give the audi-tors a flip answer, because auditorsare not flip people (except, azcord-ing to reliable rumor, when 9 p.m.rolls around and they are stillawake). You may think your infor-mation is backed up, but the audi-tors don't really want to know ifthe information is backed up; theywant to know if it is backed up inan underground vault in easternNevada. Welcome this line ofthinking! Never argue with an aud-itor, never resist an auditor, andnever, ever laugh at an auditor.Tell your auditors that you are ex-tremely pleased with their recom-mendation and that you will imme-diately ask your superiors to bud-get 30 million dollars to constructa redundant data center built un-derground inwhere was that?eastern Nevada.

Type Two:Rhetorical RedundancyThe purpose of rhetorical redun-dancy is to give assistance to ad-ministrators who wish to re-con-solidate power. The classic exampleis provided by the teaching of sta-

John Gehl is editor and publisher ofEducom Review and co-author ofEdupage.

Vstics in a college or university. Itis highly likely that your own insti-tution originally placed the respon-sibility for teaching statistics withthe Mathematics folks, but thatover the years various other facul-tiesCity Planning, Agriculture,Industrial Engineering, PoliticalScience, and so forthdecided thattheir best and brightest mAjorswere being systematically andslowly disemboweled by the Mathdepartment. These other depart-ments therefore came to the con-clusion that all mathematicians

The auditors don'twant to know if the

information is backedup; they want to knowif it is backed up in anunderground vault in

eastern Nevada.

(or, in statistical jargon, 100% ofall mathematicians) are crazedmadwomen. Of course, I use thetechnical term "madwomen" inclu-sively, to cover deranged mathe-matical persons of both sexes. Sowhat did those other faculties typi-cally do about this (possibly unfair)perception of the insane cruelty ofthe Math department? Quite un-derstandably, they created "Statis-tics for City Planners," 'Statisticsfor Agricultural Economy," "Statis-tics for Industrial Engineering,""Statistics for Political Scientists,"etc. Obviously, what that maneu-ver created was not a pretty pic-ture. You can see the problemimmediately: the word "statistics"appeared four times in that single

Seven (7) Types

unfinished sentence! Whoa! Whoa!Redundancy alert! Redundancyalert! Beep the Provost! Beep theProvost! Now, all (or at least many)provosts can count to four, andknow as well as you and I (or evenbetter than you and I, for they areprovosts, and we are not) that ifyou have four statistics courses youhave at least three statistics cours-es that are shockingly redundant.In fact, it doesn't even take a pro-vost to be shocked; any senior ad-ministrator who can count as highas four (and there are dozens ofthem throughout this great nation)will deplore this sad state of af-fairseven if the madwomen inMath don't themselves happen tocare one way or the other, and infact don't give a damn about any-thing but fractals (if they even careabout fractals, which is unlikely,because why should anyone careabout fractals, for crying out louddo you?). Well, a problem identi-fied is a problem solved!and thebastard Statistics courses (which,ironically, is also what the studentscall them) are then done awaywith. And so now a new generationof spoiled, ignorant, ungratefulstudents will soon find out whatReal Life is all about, when theyare made to take the Math depart-ment's diabolical "Statistics OfYour Worst Conceivable Night-mare" course.

Type Three:Turf RedundancyTurf redundancy has this in com-mon with rhetorical redundancy:it's entirely a matter of opinion.Entirely. According to one opinion(mine, for example), we are allredundant, each and every one ofus. God simply did not need thiscompletely ridiculous number ofspecimens of all races, colors,creeds, and athletic shoes to decidewhether His so-called "human

by Jot

445

f Redundancy

being experiment' was a success. Itwas obviously not a success, andthe experimental design was (for-give me, 0 Lord, but You reallyneed to try to be honest here for asecond) megalomanic "Big Science'overkill. Surely one human subjectwas enough to test Your inanehypothesisor maybe two or threeor four human subjects. But clearlyby the time young Cain came alongand he and his brother startedscTeaming at each other and start-ed hitting each other, for God'ssake, at that point You as PrincipalInvestigator should have declaredYour grand experiment a totalscrew-up--destined to bring forthnothing but television and skate-boarding. At least, that is certainlymy own humble opinion, thoughothers are free to have entirelydifferent opinions. For instance,others may perhaps feel that someindividuals (e.g., they themselves)are necessary and nonredundantwhereas other people (e.g., you thereader) should hit the road. Well,unfortunately, that rather hostileattitude suggests the existence of aproblem resolvable only with at-tack weapons. For if two people arereally doing exactly the samething, there is no logical reason tocall one of them redundant ratherthan the other. Do you see whatI'm saying? And since you are theone who's been identified as redun-dant, surely you understand that!Hey, where are they taking you?Will you be coming back, do youthink?

Type Four:Parkinsonian RedundancyI have named Type Four redun-dancy in honor of my hero, thegreat C. Northcote Parkinson (whodiscovered Parkinson's Law, whichstates that work will expand to fillthe time allotted for it). Parkinso-than redundancy is quite different

from turf redundancy. Whereaswith turf redundancy two or moreindividuals are fighting to do thesame job, with Parkinson redun-dancy there is no real job to bedone, and so it is impossible todeclare any particular worker re-dundant, because no one is doingreal work. They are doing "makework." They are creating confusionand blowing smoke. They are mak-ing mountains out of molehills.Frequently, they are high electedofficials. I and other redundancyconnoisseurs celebrate Parkinso-

than redundancy as a sublimeexample of redundancy in its mostaesthetically satisfying form. Ofcourse, jobs are not at stake in thistype of redundancy, because thereis no job to do. There is only scur-rying-around to do, and some peo-ple are simply superb at this. Su-perb! Have you ever known anyonewho can take an inconsequential,stale, paltry, pitiful, unoriginal,alleged "idea" and turn it into aWar 'lb End All Wars? I have.

Type Five:Mindless RedundancyMindless redundancy is, well,mindless, and it is ... everywhereyou turn! Whereas other types ofredundancy have some sort of gen-

eral lofty purpose (such as mollify-ing your auditors, turning yourinstitution into a shambles, orrouting your enemies), mindlessredundancy is simply blather. It isthe stuff of speeches that go on andon and project descriptions that goon and on. In its purest form, TypeFive redundancy is a 68-page com-mittee report that can be complete-ly and accurately summarized inthree simple declarative sentences.

Type Si.=Negative RedundancyI coin the term "negative redun-dancy" to define the result of avigorous organizational downsizingprogram that was so effective thatthe organization has been left with-out enough people to do the job. Ofcourse, no one cares about this,because getting the job done is notthe purpose of downsizing. Theonly purpose of downsizing is toreduce the level of office gossip inan organization. Unfortunately,this strategy is usually only par-tially successful. True, it reducesthe number of gossipeesbut thenumber of gossipers somehow al-ways remains constant, as does thepercentage of worktime hours de-voted to gossip and the ugliness ofthe gossip itself (as measuredquantitatively on the Newcomb-Pratt SGSV Standard-GossipSheer-Viciousness scale).

Type Seven:Recursive RedundancyType Seven redundancy is, as youmight imagine, exactly the same asType One redundancyword forword, sentence for sentence, ideafor idea. Rather than reproduce itsdescription here, I will omit it, inorder to save paper and ink, which,unlike information technologyvisionaries, are in short supply.Please go back now to Type One,and start re-reading.

Hot Issues 1995-96continued from page 3

are feeling pressure from top ad-ministrators to do so, primarily forpublic relations value. But in Website purpose and design, there issome tension on many campusesbetween an institutional impera-tive to have an electronic point ofcontact and presentation for thepublic (especially potential appli-cants) and the more individualisticor creative desire to let a thousandflowers bloom without guidelines orconstraints. On the brighter side,Web architecture may have finallyprovided an answer for questionsabout CWIS technology and design.

Access extension/capacity ex-pansion. It is rapidly becoming anexpectation that the campusLAN(s) and the Internet be accessi-ble from, as many of our respon-dents said, "wherever studentsare." Modem pools and SLIP/PPPsupport are under growing pres-sure to expand to serve ever largernumbers of users when not on thecampus network. Ubiquitous net-work connections on campus havenot alleviated the demand for dial-up access. In fact, the habit ofnetwork usage seems instead tofuel demand for connectivity fromwherever people work, live, ortravel.

Dormitory wiring has quickly ex-tended the scope of campus net-works without a correspondingincrease in support staff. Thereseems to be a never-ending needfor more jacks, hubs, and ether-switches. The period of grace before10mb shared ethernets will beoverwhelmed may in fact be grow-ing quite short.

Rising expectations. We may bevictims of our own success. One ITadministrator put it this way:"We've been selling technology forso long, and now that we don'thave toeveryone is knocking atthe doorwe can't meet the de-

mind." Three technological devel-opments have brought upsurges inequipment and support demands inthe past 15 years: word processingwith the advent of microcomputers;e-mail in the age of the minicom-puter; and now the Internet. Butonly the last of these presents itselfas intimately connected to curricu-lum and instruction and has grownwithout any real need for activepromotion. On a more philosophicalplane, we are burdened by theexpectation that there is a techno-logical component to the answer forevery problem people have. Wethe campus technologistsmayhave inadvertently contributed tothat perception.

We now need to presume that allstudents are likely to have hadsome Internet exposure beforecoming into higher education, andthat they will count access amongtheir basic expectations. But thisprior experience might also meanthey can be more self-suficientwith regard to net navigating thanfor other computing applications.

Another rising expectation is thatelectronic classrooms are in in-creasing demand by faculty andopen a new category of expensiveinfrastructural building and reno-vation.

At some point, we seem to havecrossed a divide after which every-one agreed that IT is essential towhatever it is that they do. Unfor-tunately, that demand has notalways txanslated into new or rede-ployed resources.

Technical currency. This issuehas both equipment/software andhuman expertise aspects to it.Keeping student and departmentallabs at technical levels adequate tomeet expectations is becoming anurgent challenge. The matter iscomplicated by the trend to decen-

tralization, which has moved manyof those labs out of the centralsupport services' domain of respon-sibility, knowledge, and control. Itis likely that a degree of "owner-ship" and sharing of responsibilitywith departments will be needed toaccomplish this goal. Campus com-puting facilities are now too dis-persed geographically and organi-zationally to be centrally main-tained. The traditional assignmentof responsibility for over-all techni-cal currency has been with centralcomputing services, but that modelneeds to be modified to includemore local ownership of the task.

The aging of equipment takes onadded urgency with the require-ment that every computer be asuitable Internet navigator, as thatcriterion now defines the minimumexpected at many institutions.Only a few years ago, an applica-tion with the platform require-ments of Netscape would have beena niche concern. That networknavigating (with multimedia capa-bility) should become so quicklyand solidly a part of the base-levelfunctionality expected of any com-puter and network connection leadsto unprecedented pressure fortechnical currency.

Return to training. Many respon-dents noted that a return to train-ing is needed. Faculty and staffskills require upgrading, particu-larly if' we are to realize any signif-icant change in how people do theirwork. Basic "how to" instruction isno longer enough. Training needsto be extended to link instructionon the use of applications softwarewith process and productivity is-sues. And in order to have a sub-stantial effect on the curriculumand on teaching methods, trainingfor faculty needs to include leadingthem to high-quality resources intheir various disciplines. It is notenough to give a quick lesson on

6 4 7

Netscape to a group of faculty fromdisparate departments; they eachneed to be directed to some excel-lent content-sites.

Computing center staffs also needto re-tool in order to be useful forInternet and multi-media applica-tions support. This need comes at atime when these staff are alreadyat or beyond overload.

Role of the CIO. It may be harderthan ever now to be a CIO. Caughtbetween limited resources andrapidly growing expectations, CIOsare expressing frustrations andtrepidation. One said, "I feel pres-sured from all sides... no relief insight." Another noted, "We can re-think how we are doing things, butthere is not much left to squeezeout in benefits." While none of theCIO respondents listed job distressas a hot issue, perhaps one in threevohmteered worries and even an-guish ("How long can I stand it?")about the nature of their jobs.

Generally, CIOs reporting strongcampus planning processes appearto be less beleaguered, with a moremanageable relationship betweenexpectations and resources. Whensenior administrators are well ac-quainted with the dynamics ofneeds and costs in IT, a lot of pres-sure it3 lifted from the CIO and thestafE But when that understandingis absent, the CIO is left to gaugejust how hard to push. Especiallystressful is the divided nature ofthe role: expected by constituentsto be an aggressive advocate for ITand by senior administrators torecognize the realities of limitedfunding.

Miscellaneous. The issue of whet-her to require students to owncomputers is again on the rise.Interest is being driven by severalfactors: the sense that academicand work-world use of the cornput-

er is now essentially ubiquitous;concern that not enough public-access computers are available orcan be kept current; and thethought that privately-owned e-quipment would leave campus,taking with it the problem of obso-lescence and replacement.

Acquisition and support of presen-tation graphics is growing urgent,particularly for faculty who wouldlike to have an electronic classroombut must instead make do with asingle computer and a projectiondevice.

The impact of regulatory require-ments on the programming work-load in administrative computingdepartments was also raised as aconcern. These have been buildingin number and severity over sever-al years, with most recent concerncentered on FASB changes. Thetrend is set against an alreadybusy agenda that includes: soft-ware systems replacement, accessdemands by faculty and students,and revolutions in the underlyingtechnical environment.

Past "Hot Issues": Less HotSome issues from the past threeyears have receded from crisisstatus. In some cases the needshave been met; in others at leastthe issue is well understood andnow amenable to management; instill others the concern has beeneclipsed. Library issues: afterseveral years of featured attention,these are less often mentioned ashot; administrative db systems:like library issues, less often men-tioned as hot but still on mostagendas; client/server: hardlymentioned; CWIS: "solved" by Webtechnology (maybe). Where have allthe kiosks gone? TQM: What? fo-cus on the customer: now downto specifics where it qualifies ashot; outsourcing: hardly men-tioned, and then without the fear

and trembling once evoked; andviruses: blessedly absent frommention, despite last winter's epi-demic of Internet hacking

ThanksMany people were kind enough tocontribute their thoughts to thisyear's survey. Of particular notewere the following: Charles Bau-meister, Alamo Community Col-lege; Dagrun Bennett, FranklinCollege; David Cossey, UnionCollege; Andrew Golub, Universi-ty of New England; Barbara Hor-gan, Seattle University; Al Le-Duc, Miami-Dade CommunityCollege; Mary Ellen Lyons, Ha-verford College; Charline Mahon-ey, Merrimack College; DonMedal, University of Minnesota-Crookson; Edwin Merck, Whea-ton College (MA); Bethany O-berst, James Madison Universi-ty; Claire Robinson, University ofSouth Florida; David Smallen,Hamilton College; ChandlerWhitelaw, Southern Utah State;and Dennis Witte, ConcordiaUniversity.

In Future Issues

- Current faculty attitudestowards technology andhow to help them along

- Is multimedia fulfillingits educationalpromise yet?

- Using technology to createa student-friendly campus

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

Aft

Q. We're building a new health science center onour campus and are trying to decide the technologyand media configurations for each of the spaces inthe building. We've pretty much narrowed down ourchoices for the computer clusters, the labs, and theclassrooms. What we're not sure about are the largelecture halls (seating from 120-150 students). Manyfaculty want to run data lines to each seat; othersthink that would be a waste of money. What's thecurrent thinking on this?

A. Data lines to each seat provide interactivity foreach student. You need to determine how importantthat will be for 120-150 students at a time. In similarsituations, most institutions have opted for the inter-active mode of instruction for regular-sized classes(say, 40 students at the high end), with high-qualitydisplay for lecture halls. Even with a large number ofstudents using computers during class, it seems moreeconomical to incur the cost of the wiring, the labor,and the network support in a setting where interactiv-ity can really make a difference to the learning pro-cess. You do, however; want to make sure that thedisplay facilities in the lecture halls are very versa-

tile, that is, capable of displaying computer screens,slides, video, and so on, from a variety of sources, allunder the control of the instructor. A very helpfulpublication on building technology-enabled instruc-tional areas is Campus Classroom Connections, pub-lished by the New Jersey Institute of Technology,(201) 596-8438.

Q. We're getting a lot of pressure from the comput-er science faculty to upgrade the campus to Windows95 right away. It's a clearly superior system to DOSand Windows 3.1, but I'm concerned about the costof the upgrade beyond just the cost of the software.

A. And rightfully so. There are some real supportcosts involved in upgrading, including proper instal-lation, training, and so on. And that's not to mentionwhatever hardware upgradesor replacementsyouneed to run the new Windows. You will, of course,have to upgrade eventually, but the decisions aboutwhen and how should be based on the answer to why.What are the specific benefits to be gained (other thanjust being technologically current), and at what pointdo they justify the total costs involved?

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

Clearing House on Info Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse, NY 13210

49

0 printed on recycled paper

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPennit No. 117

October 1995THEVolume 11Number 7

The Education Technology Newsletter or Faculty and Administrators

Advanced Technology Groups:Essential or Indispensable?

by Howard Strauss, Princeton University

They work in the Skunk Works, the playpen, and the sand box.Everyone knows they get the best hardware and software while

their colleagues make do with out-of-date discards. Their offices arepalatial. Their spending would bankrupt Bill Gates. They are tempera-mental and out of touch with users. Instead of doing hard work likethe rest of the IT organization, they have fun playing with their high-priced toys all day. And they get all the glory!

That's an all-too-common description of Advanced Technology Groups(ATGs). Despite such bad press, however, IT organizations keepforming ATGs. Unfortunately, ATGs are discarded almost as often asthey are formed. Clearly, there seems to be a need to address today'sexplosive growth and change in technology by having some specialgroup focus on coping with the problem, but somehow, most ATGs donot fulfill their promise.

Essential AND IndispensableWere it not for the fact that these groups are essential, IT organiza-tions could just stop trying to find the recipe for making them suc-cessful and get on with their pressing day-to-day problems. Many ITmanagers argue quite strongly that that is just what should be done.During a time of rapid technological change and very tight budgets,how can any organization justify allocating scarce resources that donot serve the immediate needs of users today? The answer, of course,is "tomorrow." Our users will be around tomorrow and if we plan tobe there to serve them, we had better have the tools and services readythat they will need. The groups that are busy putting out fires cannotbe planning the new more-fireproof homes to replace the ones that

continued on page 3

"Liberal education mustrethink the privileged status ofthe book. This will requirerecognition of the printed bookas a technology upon which theprofessional authority is builtand a recognition of masscommunication and digitalinformation as primarycultural subjects which requirecritical attention Is theprestige of the book in liberaleducation fully consistent withits goals and content, or is it ajustification for passivity andthe isolation of the individualstudent?"

Peter LymanUC Berkeley"What is Computer Literacy?"Liberal EducationSummer 1995

SMALL COLLEGECOMPUTING

EDUCOM MEDALAWARD WINNERS

ON-LINECONFERENCE FORTEACHING IN THECOMMUNITYCOLLEGES

NA4F

11-ffil

The 29th Annual Small College Computing Symposium, to be held April 18-20,1996 on the campus of St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, has issued acall for papers to enlighten its theme of "Making the Right Connection." Theconference is being sponsored by St. Cloud as well as the College of St.Benedict and St. John's University. Technical papers in all areas of computerscience, social science, academic computing, multimedia, and learning resourceservices are being sought, as well as reports describing new teachinginnovations. Topics include, but are limited to, networking, softwareengineering, computer center management, expert systems, computerarchitecture, parallel computing, and campus policies and issues regardingcomputer services.

The deadline for abstracts is December 1, 1995. For more information, contactRandy Kolb, Academic Computer Services, ECC 101, St. Cloud StateUniversity, 720 4th Avenue South, St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301; (612) 255-4711; SCCS96@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu.

Educom has announced three winners in the first annual Educom MedalAwards Program. The program, first announced at the Educom conference inSan Antonio last year, seeks to reward and recognize individual efforts toimprove the undergraduate learning experience through informationtechnology. This year, Educom partnered with three disciplinary societies todetermine winners: the American Chemical Society, the AmericanPsychological Association, and the Mathematical Association of America.

The winners are Dr. Paul Schatz from the Organic Division of the ChemistryDepartment of the University of Wisconsin-Madison; Dr. Alan Lesgold ofthe Learning Research & Development Center at the University ofPittsburgh; and Dr. David A. Smith, Co-Director of Project CALC at DukeUniversity.

Award winners will take part in an official awards ceremony at this year'sEducom conference, on November 1 in Portland, Oregon. For more information,contact Educom at (202) 872-4200; info@educom.edu.

"Innovative Instructional Practices" will be the theme for a fully on-lineconference to be held April 2-4, 1996 by TCC (Teaching in the CommunityColleges). Papers will be presented electronically, and participants will attendpresentations via the Web, gopher, and e-mail. Participants will also have anopportunity to join open on-line discussions with presenters. Papers acceptedfor presentation will be published in the TCC (Electronic) Journal.

For more information, contact Anne Flanigan, annf@hawaii.edu.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Reit (LFLEIT@EDUTECH-INT.COM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1995,EDUTECH International. All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without thewritten permission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

Advanced Technology Groups: Essential or Indispensable? ...continued from page 1

burn down. Even in the worst har-vest, or during the worst famine,some seed corn is saved for tomor-row.

ATGs, relieved of the necessity ofdealing with today's problems (asthey must be), have the time andbudget to solve or avoid the prob-lems that will hit the rest of the ITorganization and its users in thefuture. They also have the time tofocus on how to improve the servic-es being offered today. If ATGs dotheir jobs effectively, they makethe future easier to deal with forusers and IT support people. Sure,the current IT organization isswamped. But it got that wayandwill stay that wayby not antici-pating and planning enough for thefuture. Of course it didn't plan forthe future because it was too busydealing with the present. Butthough the claim is made that ifonly the IT support folks had moreequipment, more people, and moreof other resources they could keepup, that is a self-serving myth.Building fireproof homes will domore to allow fire fighters to keepup than hiring more fire fighters orsupplying them with more water.And users will be better served byhaving fireproof homes than byhaving the best fire fighters rescuethem.

The Skunk WorksHaving decided that the futuremust be dealt with, many organiza-tions form an ATG based on theSkunk Works model.

Decades ago at Lockheed Aircraft,a group of free-spirited engineersled by Kelly Johnson was formed todesign specialized aircraft for theU.S. military The group, informal-

Howard Strauss is Manager ofAdvanced Applications at Prince-ton University.

ly called the Skunk Works (thename was borrowed from the comicstrip Li'l Abner by Al Capp), pro-duced some of the most radical andadvanced aircraft of our time in-cluding the U-2, the F-117A stealthfighter, and the SR71-Blackbird,still the fastest airplane ever built.To techies, the Skunk Works is re-vered, thus many managers at-tempt to duplicate its free think-ing, creativity, and what seems likeits great productivity.

In reality, however, the govern-ment used the Skunk Works to de-sign a limited number of very ex-pensive special airplanes to meet

The groups that arebusy putting out fires

cannot be planning thenew more-fireproof

homes to replace theones that burn down.

national emergencies. Since thepremise was that not having theseairplanes would imperil the verysurvival of the U.S., cost and proto-col were not allowed to stand inthe way of producing them. Were itnot a question of survival, no onewould have spent the huge sums ofmoney and ignored all the regula-tions to build so few aircraft forsuch a tiny constituency. As acommercial venture, it would haveput Lockheed out of business.

An ATG is not formed to preventthe demise of a university. To anATG, cost must be an importantconsideration and normal universi-ty rules must apply. While theSkunk Works operated outhide the

structure of Lockheed and the U.S.,an ATG must work hand-in-glovewith the rest of the university. Itcannot afford to serve a narrowconstituency like the Skunk Works.'lb justify its existence, an ATG'smarket must be everyone at theuniversity, not just a few peopleinterested in some arcane corner oftechnology Every project attempt-ed by an ATG must have a clienton whose behalf the project is be-ing done and those clients musthave some stake in seeing the pro-ject completed. In addition, theremust be a high-level commitment(e.g., the VP of IT) to have ATGprojects supported by the IT sup-port staff. Without such a commit-ment, the ATG will produce orphansoftware or will be diverted fromits critical mission in order to mar-ket or support what it develops.

Many ATGB built on the SkunkWorks model act like they reallyare the Skunk Works. Their man-agers and employees regale in thecutting-edge technology that theyweave into incredible techno-gad-gets that serve just a few clients ornone. Those groups are irrelevantand doomed to failure.

The Two Faces of ATGsIf not a Skunk Works, what is anATG? An ATG's function is to as-sess emerging technologies andbased on those assessments, todesign innovative applications andprocedures which will improve theeffectiveness and productivity ofeveryone at the university. Thatobviously includes students, facul-ty, and staff, but also includes theIT organization, alumni, prospec-tive students, and other folks im-portant to the university.

An ATG should encompass twofunctions which should be imple-mented as two separate groups.

continued on page 6

1."

rr here is no evidence that corn-" puters and multimedia im-

prove learning. Once more? Re-search to date on the impact oftechnologies on learning has neverestablished that using a computeror any other technology improveslearning. I have closely monitoredthe literature on teaching technolo-gies since the bloom of computersin the classroom in the early 1980sand have yet to see a study thatwas without a fundamental flaw.It's called the "Type I Error," and itmeans the researcher has foundbenefits that aren't really there.Strange but true.

This Is Research?Multimedia has become such ascience that universities are nowgranting doctorates in what isessentially multimedia design andprogramming. Typically these de-grees are called something alongthe lines of "Instructional SystemsDesign." Unfortunately, their grad-uates appear so narrowly educatedthat they know little or nothing ofinstructional design outside of thatwhich is packaged in slick author-ing systems. These same universi-ties spend thousands of researchhours on background colors, textstyle, acceptable video compressionrates, etc.a significantly greater"dosage" than that provided forresearch on instructional strategiesexclusive of media.

Experimental design is a criticalcomponent of scholarly research. Italso appears to have taken a backseat to the latest fashions in me-

Richard Lookatch is an educationalpsychologist with the Agency for In-structional Technology. This articleappeared originally in the Summer1995 issue of Thchnos, and is reprintedwith permission.

The Strange but True Story ofby Richard P. Lookatch, Age

dia. When I hear paper presenta-tions, I am often puzzled by thefailure of the new Ph.D.s to usesuch basics as: true control groups;pre-tests that enable the research-er to equalize individual differencesamong subjects when crtmchingthe numbers; and failure to controlfor a whole myriad of confoundingvariables. Whatever happened totrue experimental design?

Case in point. Throughout the firstpart of this century, some misledpsychometricians revealed that, asindicated by a variety of instru-ments, members of lower socioeco-nomic status and members of cer-tain racial groups were of inferiorintelligence. The data was there;unfortunately, the design wasn't.Dangerous? Yes. These studiesproved nothing and could havebeen avoided had they been proper-ly designed. At best, they damagedthe perception of those identifiedas "inferior"; at worst, they fosteredracism and class envy. They werefundamentally flawed in that theyfailed to control for a host of envi-ronmental experiences and condi-tions that contribute to test perfor-mance of any kind, extraneousfactors that could account for theobserved differences.

The flaw in the research on multi-media's impact on learningfor itis flawedis much like that. Justas those misled souls failed tocontrol for environmental differenc-es (perhaps an impossible task),many multimedia researchers todate have also failed to control fora host of conditions that may ac-count for the observed impact onlearning. And this flaw leads totheir Type I Error.

A typical research design on theimpact of multimedia pits a video-tape version of an instructional

lesson and a non-media classroomversion against an interactive mul-timedia version. Comically, the tra-ditional classroom version is oftenreferred to as a "control group." Inreality, there typically is no controlgroupcertainly not one thatwould help assure that differencesare attributable to the treatmentrather than to some extraneousvariable. There is no pre-test toaccount for individual and result-ing group differences at the onset,differences that may influence thestatistics. Rather, the assumptionis made that because there are 20or so students in each group, anydifferences would "average out."

A Matter of DosageBut there is an even bigger prob-lem. The typical study described inthe multimedia research parallelsa pharmacological study in which anew drug is tested, with the excep-tion that the multimedia researchstudy often excludes a true controlgroup while the pharmacology in-dustry has the sense to includeone. A drug is tested at three sig-nificantly different dosages, thoughthe vehicles of delivery are identi-cal (for example, the same-lookingpill). Surprise: The group receivingthe highest dosage experiences thegreatest effects! Unfortunately, ourmultimedia researchers lack the in-sight to see that their dosages (ofcontent and instructional strate-gies) vary significantly from oneexperimental group to anotherinother words, from multimediagroup to classroom group. Typical-ly, the multimedia group receiveseither more content or content forwhich greater care was taken in itspreparation. And with averagedevelopment costs of CD-ROMs inthe $700,000 range, rest assuredthat the latter difference is com-mon. The difference in preparationof the teacher is glaring.

r 61w A "rut

:ultimedip and the Type I Errorfor Instructional Technology

To add to the confusion, the con-texts in which most media studiesare carried out are so complex thatresearchers cannot possibly control,and are likely unaware of, all thevariables in the environment thatmight affect the results.

The Myth ofMultimedia BenefitsThere are no unique educationalbenefits from multimedia or itsattributes. Once the informationcontent and instructional strategiesare controlled for, the differenceswill disappear. Such controls areabsent from multimedia studiesrevealing benefits of the medium.The motivational effects and pref-erences of multimedia often citedin studies are a charade as well.What occurs here is blind belief ina new and novel machine, a ma-chine that students find more in-teresting and easier to accept thana talking head in front of the class.It is not, however, the machinethat motivates. Rather, it is curios-ity, content, and instructional stra-tegies that motivate the learner.

Economics of Multimedia_There is no mediated program thatcannot be mediated by an alternatemedium. Unfortunately, the battlebetween fashion and efficacy seemsto have been won by fashion. '113dayit is fashionable to "do a CD-ROM"with little regard for other lessexpensive methods (such as print).What is puzzling is that the ques-tion "Can it be done cheaper usingother forms of mediation?" seemsto be routinely overlooked by devel-opers. Fashion seems to have wonout even over economics.

Clearly, there are applications forwhich multimedia has the mostefficacy. But even in these cases,the advantages are economic. Forexample, it may be a lot less ex-

pensive to use a flight simulatorthan hands-on flight training forpilots. But the advantages are eco-nomictime, cost, liabilitynotlearning-oriented. Conversely, Iseriously question the use of multi-media to supplant hands-on class-room science experiments or simpledissections in the biology lab. Acomputer simulation is clearlyneater. cleaner, and easier, but itis not an experience. The true ex-perience occurs on the lab table.

Dangers of the Type I ErrorThe Type I Errorfinding benefitsthat are not really therewouldseem to present education with apanacea: a path to equity, efficacy,and high SAT scores. The reality,in stark contrast, is that the TypeI Error will lead to inequity, eitherin lower scores or lower standards,and wasted financial resources.

Clearly, multimedia is not thegreat equalizer. The same groupsindicated by the IQ research of thefirst half of this century will beimpacted similarly by the multime-dia panacea. For example, access totechnology is clearly inequitableand will continue to be so for theforeseeable future; poor urban andrural school systems do not nowand may never approach the accessto technology resources affordedwell-financed systems.

A second consequence of the TypeI Error is the resulting misdirec-tion of resources toward applica-tions that may be better served bycheaper, less fashionable instruc-tional strategies such as field expe-rience, role playing, and print-based works. Furthermore, misap-propriating resources to multime-dia projects better or equallyserved by other instructional strat-egies leaves fewer funds for thoseprojects best served by multimedia.

Yet another outgrowth of the TypeI Error is the blind thirst for multi-media at the expense of instruc-tional design. The ultimate conse-quence will be poorly designed yetflashy, fashionable, and entertain-ing instructional materialsgreatbaby-sitters but poor teachers.

A Matter of SemanticsIs this treatise merely a matter ofsemantics? Some may view it assuch. However, careful reflectioncan only lead to the conclusion thatmultimedia and a host of othertechnologies are fast becoming thenew educational panacea. But wemust avoid the Type I Error.

Sonv3 instructional strategies arewell suited for multimedia andother technologies; simulated out-comes of decisions impractical toexperience live, literature review,and data collection are a few exam-ples. Though any of these could beaccomplished using other media,multimedia and on-line technolo-gies are clearly more efficient andeconomical with little if any experi-ential cost. However, for each well-guided application, there is a hostof misapplications.

Media clearly enables us to designbetter instruction. For the past 30-plus years, film and video havebrought the world into the class-room. Unfortunately, we relied onfilni and video to bring the commu-nity into the classroom rather thanthe class into the community. Mul-timedia provides the opportunity tointeract with the images behind aglass screen. Let's hope we don't letit replace interaction with eachother. Multimedia and other tech-nologies are simply tools that assistwith instruction. They have nomore influence on achievement andwholeness than a scalpel has onhealing.

RFST COPY AVAILABLE

Advanced Technology Groups: Essential or Indispensable? ...continued from page 3

One group, the Technology Assess-ment Group (TAG), studies emerg-ing technologies and assesses theirapplicability to current and futureuniversity needs. Of course theirconstituency is the entire universi-ty, but a very important client oftheirs is the IT organization itselfand particularly the InnovativeApplication Development Group(IADG), the other part of an ATG.

While the TAG looks at hardware,software, and protocols (e.g., OLE,Open Doc, https) it does not dupli-cate the services of the scores oftechnology publications that evalu-ate hardware and software andassess the future. The TAG exam-ines emerging technologies (e.g.,speech recognition) and decides if,where, and how they might be usedat the university. The TAG mightrecommend the technology be usedin an existing system, a futuresystem, that the technology shouldbe watched for future development,or that it be avoided. The TAG col-lects recommendations, informa-tion, and references to informationand disseminates them to its cli-ents. While the TAG must be pro-active, poking its nose into everycorner on its own initiative, it mustalso be responsive to requests fromany of its clients.

The IADGThe IADG develops applicationsthat are leading-edge, specificallyfor the university. It serves every-one at the university, though par-ticular applications might serve asmall subset of that market. Appli-cations developed by the IADG arecharacterized by providing higherlevels of utility, service, conveni-ence, performance, security, and/orcost effectiveness than were for-merly available.

The projects that the IADG takeson often alters university policiesand procedures. For example, the

IADG might explore charging forlaser printing, accessing trans-cripts remotely, giving field per-sonnel access to alumni gift infor-mation, extending fiber optic cableto dorm rooms, adding secure digi-tal signatures to forms so they canbe authorized on-line, or makingdistance learning more effective.

Who Does an ATG Work For?Of course an ATG works for theentire university, but it is almostalways part of the IT organization.Its projects must come from thecreativity of its own staff, the ITorganization, and university users.

An ATG must have avery strong user

orientation and mustbelieve that cutting-edge

service is far moreimportant than cutting-

edge technology.

Having any one of these groupsdominate the flow of projects willsink an ATG.

It might seem that university usersshould determine exclusively whatan ATG should do, but users arebetter at understanding their cur-rent problems than knowing howto solve them. And they are notori-ously bad at understanding theproducts they need for the future.Users did not demand microproces-sors, anti-lock brakes, ATM cards,fluoridated water, or the WorldWide Web, but there turned out tobe great utility and huge demandfor those things. ATGs must uncov-er those undiscovered products andservices that their users want but

don't know how to ask for, anddeliver them. As a result, ATG em-ployees must be creative, commit-ted, savvy, technical people thatare tuned into and sensitive tousers' needs. It won't do to hire abunch of stereotypical techno-nerds, put them in front of theirUNIX workstations, and see thesuper-cool hacks they turn out thatare only understandable and usefulto their peers. An ATG must havea very strong user orientation andmust believe that cutting-edgeservice is far more important thancutting-edge technology.

ATG members should serve on ITcommittees and task forces andshould be a resource to other ITgroups who find themselves strug-gling with technologies in which anATG has some expertise. Whatmust be resisted, however, is todistribute the ATG so that each ITgroup has an ATG person, or thatthe ATG gr,up is really part ofsome other IT group such as MIS.ATGs must also avoid being com-mitted to work on projects that arelittle more than helping other ITgroups do their day-to-day work.An ATG must not become a suppli-er of techno-temps.

Creative IndependenceAn ATG must have its own budget,its own equipment, and its ownpeople. Its budget and its chartermust commit it to building thefuture of IT at the university, notmanaging the store. The tempta-tion to not save or plan for thefuture is so strong that unlessplanning for the future is forced bystrong organizational structures, itwill not happen. Thmorrow will beraided to take care of today. In thelong run, the result is that the ITorganization will not survive.

An ATG must also have the budgetto fail. Not every project it buildsor technology it examines will have

great value to the university. Somewill have none. Edison did notdiscover the correct kind of materi-als to make the electric light bulbon the first try If he had been toldthat he had the budget to try onlythree different kinds of materials,you might be reading this by theffickering glow of a gas lamp.

Now and again an ATG will have aproject run into a wall. Maybe thetechnology isn't. quite ready orusers don't quite yet have the com-puting power necessary Is thismoney wasted? Almost never. Indoing such a project, an ATG im-proves its grasp of relevant tech-nologies and documents what itwas able to do, what it couldn't,and what it learned. The project isput on the shelf, not discarded. Ifthe conditions that prevented itssuccess change, it will be pulled offthe shelf and revived.

Having an ATG is not inexpensive.An ATG requires what often ap-pears to be excessive hardware andsoftware (but these "toys" are thepower tools that will be used tofashion the future). It also requires

talented people who must be nur-tured and rewarded. If they are theright people, an important part ofthat reward will be the opportunityto work long hours on differentkinds of equipment with greatsoftware tools building new appli-cations for grateful usersandworking with peers with the samevalue systems and expertise.

A Look Into The FutureIt seems to many skeptics that if auniversity had no ATG, the futurewould arrive anyway. Maybe thefuture would take a little longer toarriveperhaps a year or sobutis the expense of an ATG worthhaving technology sooner? And ifthe technology really does arrive ayear sooner, won't it be less readyand more difficult to deal with?

An ATG does not help the futurealong. 'Unfortunately, the futurealways arrives without our help alittle before we're ready to give upthe present. An ATG anticipatesthe future and enables us to bettercapitalize on what it brings. Bygetting technologies in place early,an ATG gives us more time to

"No objective observer will deny that theenvironment for higher education has changed andthat institutions have responded in a variety ofways. But many educators have acted as thoughthe only changes have been in the availability ofresources and eroding public support caused bydifficult economic times. They have failed to graspthe profound significance of the demands of theInformation Age and their impact on thefundamental patterns and cadences of learning."

Michael G. Dolence and Donald M. NorrisTransforming Higher Education: A Vision

for Learning in the 21st CenturySociety for College and University Planning1995

adapt and to change our structuresto meet the changing times.

Fortune CookieI recently opened a fortune cookiethat said "The greatest pleasure inlife is doing what people say youcannot do." In the sense that it is agreat joy to do new things thatskeptics think are impossible, thatis something that ATGs delight indoing. But many critics interpretthat fortune to mean that an ATGtakes great joy in doing things itshouldn't do, such as destroyingthe status quo and devaluing skillsthat took years to acquire.

That is the difficult role an ATGmust playit must be the agent ofchange. An IT organization will notsurvive if it does not change. Butchange is disruptive and unset-tling. An AM playa the essentialand indispensable role of challeng-ing us to do better even when weknow we are doing the best we can.It dares to question our basictruths and forces us to leave thesecurity of the past. Only by doingso will we be around to celebratethe future.

In Future Issues

- New information systems:don't pave the cow paths

- Top-level support: the singlemost critical successfactor

- Using technology to createa student-friendly campus

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

Q. We have a new president at our school, and shehas noticed that the state of our administrative in-formation system is rather dreadful. We are, there-fore, in a big hurry to acquire a new system, andhave even decided to hire a consultant to speed usthrough the process. How long should we expect totake on this?

A. A typical administrative software selection projectwill take anywhere from five or six months (usuallythe minimum) to over a year, depending on theavailability of folks at the institution to work on theproject. The best selection process is a highly partici-pative one, including both the faculty and the stu-dents along with what we think of as 'traditional"administrators. While this can make for a morelengthy selection process than if just one or two peoplewere to do the whole thing, it will lead to not only abetter result in the end, but also serve as a foundationfor the system implementation. Even working with anoutside consultant does not preclude the need to havecampus people substantively involved at every step.The president is, no doubt, fully aware that a newinformation system is a big step for the institution to

take, and if done right, will result in a solution thatwill last for many years. Both its cost and impactdemand a careful process, even if it takes a bit longerto accomplish.

Q. Our college is looking to start up a Web site, butI currently do not have anyone on my staff who hasthe time. t dedicate to this. It will also take themsome tirae to develop the right skills. Is this some-thing tha could be outsourced?

A. Yes, and many organizations, not just collegesand universities, are doing just that. In fact, theoutsourcing options range from designing and creat-ing Web pages to hosting the Web site itself, withmany other services available as well. The October 16edition of Computerworld had a good article aboutthis, and listed the names of several companies thatprovide these services. Given the extremely highinterest in the Web, along with the increasing necessi-ty of having a Web presence, for smaller institutionsor for those with very tight resources, outsourcing isan option worth exploring, even if it is just a tempo-rary solution.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

Clearing House on Info Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse, NY 13210

r4'

4re .top piloted on recycled paper

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, crPermit No. 117

THE November 1995 Volume 11Number 8

EDUTECI4The Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

Retrofitting Academe: AdaptingFaculty Attitudes and Practicesby LeAne Rutherford and Sheryl Grana, Univ. of Minnesota

The Chinese character for "risk" combines under one roof thesymbols for uncertainty and opportunity. If postsecondary edu-

cation is to succeed, it will have to take the risks, and overcome thefears and uncertainties caused by change to avail itself of unprecedent-ed opportunities presented by technology. Faculty, often gatekeepersof knowledge, must seize the moment. This means adapting their atti-tudes and remodeling their practices to retrofit academe.

Changes in the ClassroomIn many classrooms where emphasis has shifted from teaching tolearning, transformations have been occurring that take some adjust-ment. Learning is becoming more active and less authority-dependent.Pushing lecture to the side, other educational strategies that activelyinvolve students are being used to enhance learning: case studies, co-operative leakning, debates, peer projects, and collaborative endeavors.Technology both mandates active learning and assists it. No matter theform, the ultimate goal for these multi-dimensional methods is to cre-ate students who can function independently and think critically.

Reaching such developmental goals has never been easy. Students mayresist these new methods, preferring that faculty give them the "right"answers. Some faculty may resist because, never having had instruc-tion in how to teach, they teach only as they themselves were taught(which for many means exclusively lecturing). Vacating the stage tobecome a facilitator rather than the font of learning may seem counter-productive and rather bland. Finally, issues of control surface. How-ever, although many faculty have adapted, retrofitted, and remodeledtheir teaching, it is time to do more.

continued on page 4p-

"Early in this century, JohnDewey, the great Americanphilosopher, talked abouteducation as experience. Deweyidentified the two primarycharacteristics of an effectiveeducational experienceinteractivity and continuity.When he had the vision, wedid not have the tools toimplement that vision. But wedo have the tools today.... So itreally is incumbent upon all ofus now to take those tools andachieve a curriculum ofcontinuity and interactivitythat makes for truly effectiveteaching and learningexperiences for our students."

Judith BoettcherPennsylvania State University"Technology Classrooms,

Teaching and Tigers"SyllabusSeptember 1995

TRANSFORMINGHIGHER EDUCATION

WORLDCONFERENCES ONEDUCATIONALTECHNOLOGY

IN TUNE WITHTECHNOLOGY

IOW Elk

Mk

Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century, byMichael Dolence and Donald Norris, is a new publication from the Society forCollege and University Planning (SCUP). The authors, both of whom areconsultants for strategic planning and organizational transformation, contendthat the needs of learners are changing very quickly as technology becomesmore ubiquitous, and that higher education must adapt to these changingneeds or risk becoming irrelevant. The 100-page monograph containssuggestions for establishing a framework for transformation, learning vignettesfrom the Information Age, and a discussion of the importance technology andnetworks will play in the transition to a globally networked learningorganization.

The cost of the publication is $25 for SCUP or CAUSE members, $40 for non-members. Volume pricing is also available. Contact SCUP, 4251 PlymouthRoad, Suite D, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; (313) 998-7832; scupigumich.edu. Itcan also be ordered through CAUSE, orders@cause.colorado.edu.

ED-MEDIA 96, the World Conference on Educational Multimedia andHypermedia, and ED-TELECOM 96, the World Conference on EducationalTelecommunications, to be held June 17-22, 1996 in Boston, Massachusetts,are annual international conferences which serve as multi-disciplinary forumsfor the dissemination of information on the research, development, andapplications of these technologies for all levels of education. The conferencesare sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Computing inEducation (AACE) with local assistance from surrounding colleges anduniversities.

The conferences will have papers, panels, roundtables, tutorials, workshops,and demonstrations. For more information, contact AACE, P.O. Box 2966,Charlottesville, Virginia 22902; (804) 973-3987; aace@virginia.edu.

"In Tune With Technology" is the theme of the 1996 CUMREC conference, the41st Annual Conference of the College and University Computer UsersAssoci, ;ion, to be hosted by Vanderbilt University. The conference will be heldat the. pryland Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee on May 5-8, 1996 and is thelongest continuing conference devoted to promoting the understanding and useof information technology in higher education.

The purpose of the conference is to provide a forum for higher educationprofessionals to share their experiences and expertise with computer systems.It is an opportunity to share success stories and network with other higher edprofessionals. For more information, contact Wayne Brown at Vanderbilt, (615)343-8367; brown@uansv3.vanderbilt.edu.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit (LFLEIT@EDUTECH-INT.COM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1995,EDUTECH International. All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, repriuted, or republished without thewritten permission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN 40883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

TLTR: The First Year and Beyondby Steven Gilbert, American Association for Higher Education

rroday most colleges and uni-versities are already effec-

tively using information technologyto improve institutional operations,support many kinds of research,and increase personal productivity.Many institutions have alreadymade major investments in a tech-nological infrastructure and arebeginning to realize that this is anongoing or rising expense. There isa growing belief that a major com-mitment to attractive educationalapplications of information technol-ogy can improve the quality andaccessibility of education for manystudents and permit an institutionto compete more effectively forstudents and faculty members.

Most colleges and universities al-ready have at least one committeewrestling through a technologyplanning process. But these effortsoften lack a coherent conceptualframework, focus too narrowly onthe technology rather than theteaching/learning issues, and in-volve only those already closest tothe technology The usual campusfragmentationlack of communica-tion, coordination, and collabora-tion among the key support servic-esundermines the effectivenessand efficiency of efforts to encour-age faculty to develop and imple-ment new educational uses of infor-mation technology

The AMIE Thaching, Learning,and Technology Roundtable (TLTR)Program provides a compellinglysimple common-sense approachand the coherent conceptual frame-work needed to address these is-sues. Developing a local TLTR can

Steven Gilbert is the director oftechnology projects at the AmericanAssociation for Higher Education.

build better collaboration, commu-nication, and cooperation to im-prove planning, policy making, andimplementation. It can help insti-tutional leaders organize, thinkabout, and select among options,and develop strategies to improveteaching and learning through theintegration of technology

During the TLTR Program's firstyear almost 200 institutions beganthe TLTR process. In July, 1995,the first national AABE TLTR

Campus fragmenta-tion undermines the

effectiveness andeffwiency of efforts toencourage faculty to

develop and implementnew educational uses ofinformation technology.

Start-Up Workshop was held, withmore than 160 people in teamsfrom more than 60 colleges anduniversities. Based on the remark-able success of that event, regionalversions of it will be offered.

TLTR RegionalStart-up Workshops

.4A TLTR Regional Start-up Work-shop offers training for teams frominstitutions wanting to develop andlaunch their own TLT Roundtables.Plenary sessions introduce conceptsand examples. Facilitators withRoundtable experience work withpeer groups of teams on developingplans and materials tailored to thespecial needs and characteristics of

each institution represented. TheAAHE TLTR Institutional Plan-ning Grid and related materialsare distributed, and training intheir use is provided.

Each team will be helped to devel-op plans for its own TLTR goalsand objectives; the appropriatecomposition for its Roundtable andhow it will work with other organi-zations within the institution; a setof implementation strategies; effec-tive faculty support service com-binations; a directory of local "bestpractices" of faculty use of informa-tion technology, support servicesand resources to help faculty im-prove teaching and learning withinformation technology; and a sub-committee structure and workplans for the first year of the localRoundtable.

Options for ParticipationAn institution can choose to be a"host institution." to provide meet-ing space, related facilities andequipment, food services, etc. Espe-cially if the host is the site of an"experienced" Roundtable, individu-als from there are encouraged toparticipate as facilitators.

Another option is to be a "collabo-rating (co-sponsoring) institution."Each regional workahop is struc-tured to match two to five teamsfrom "peer" or nearby institutionstogether as they work through thetraining tasks. In addition to devel-oping plans for their own institu-tions, teams also establish (or ex-tend) collaborative relationshipsand make specific plans to visiteach other's campuses and developother inter-institutional activitiesto enhance their local work.

Further information is availablefrom Ellen Shortill, (202) 293-6440ext. 38; shortill@clark.net.

Retrofitting Academe: Adapting Faculty Attitudes and Practices ...continued from page 1

Adjusting Roles,Redefining the DestinationTraditionally instructors have beenthe entrance to information. If notthe gate, then surely they were thegatekeepers. They have had controlover the terms and facts of thesubject matter. They have hadcontrol over the input, the through-put, and the output. Exit control.Enter technology

Enter access to so many facts andso much data that Solomon couldnot deal wisely with them. Enterthe Information Age. Enter chang-ing faculty roles and a burgeoningknowledge base pointing to theneed for information literacy in aninformation age. Faculty will haveto renovate attitudes, refurbishfrayed pedagogy, and rewire oldcircuits to accommoliAte all of thesetechnologically inspired changes.

All institutions are currently wres-tling with architectural questionsof what technology how muchtechnology which technology, forwhom, and at what cost. Electron-ics is the common denominator.

Faculty members, who will live in"this old house" through the chaosof retrofitting, understandablyworry They worry about gettingenough tools and equipment tofunction comfortably, enough timeto retool and reorganize, enoughtraining in technological mechanicsand methods to feel in control, andenough tolerance for change to getthrough this massive and messyalteration. Above all, faculty oftenhave fears that may prevent themfrom adapting.

LeAne Ruthcrford and Sheryl Granoare assistant professors at the Univer-sity of Minnesota-Duluth. This articleappeared originally in the September1995 issue of THE. Journal and is re-printed with permission.

What Can PreventFaculty from AdaptingThe following issues that concernfaculty, while not an exhaustivelist, illustrate what may preventinstructors from learning and usingnew technologies.

Fear of change: "I've come this farin my life without needing thistechnology, so why do I want tolearn now?" Explicit or implicit,fear of change is part of the humancondition; the unknown is frighten-ing. In the long run, however, notadapting is suicide.

Fear of time commitment: "How canI spend the time necessary to dealwith this stuff? I just don't havethe time to spare." Many simplyfeel they cannot afford the time tolearn new procedures or tech-niques. Others may fear that spen-ding a short period simply leadsdown a slippery slope to longerperiods, or that other work willsuffer. Committing time to learningtechnology means it is being takenaway from something else.

Fear of appearing incompetent:"What if I look like a fool? I don'twant my colleagues or students tothink I can't do this!" Human fearsof appearing incompetent or sillykeep many of us from doing a num-ber of things: singing in public, forinstance. Faculty may hesitate totry a new computer skill for fear ofbumbling.

Fear of techno lingo: "What's an`FTP' site? All those acronyms arebeyond me: TAPI, PCI, IDE....What is 'hypertext,' a 'home page,''native signal processing'? And'flaming,' what's that?"

Fear of lechno failure: "What if Itry technology and it fails me? Themessage I sent via e-mail cameback, 'host unknown.' Where do Iturn if I get stuck?"

Fear of not knowing where to start:"Where to start? How to start?What's most urgent to know? Mostimportant? Most significant?" Ret-rofitting for the new world of tech-nology is like thinking about re-modeling a house. Start in thebedroom or the kitchen? Rewire orreplumb first? With so many tasksto do, deciding where to start is amajor impediment.

Fear of being married to bad choi-ces: "What if I buy the computerequivalent of an Edsel? These choi-ces are big-ticket items." Whilemaking technological choices mayhave greater consequences thanselecting paint colors, not makingany decision at all makes a deci-sion by default. Moreover, waitingfor something better to come alongis futile. Something better is al-ways coming along.

Fear of having to move backward togo forward: "What good is a com-puter keyboard to me? I don'ttype." If faculty haven't learned askillone now necessary to effi-ciently use technology in academethen part of their fear of technol-ogy is really the lack of knowing aneeded skill.

Fear of rejection or reprisals: At allcornerstones of life, rejection canbe found. Not retrofitting due tothe possibility of backlalh is analo-gous to not searching for a mate.Those who don't look, often do notfind.

Tips to Help ShiftOne's Perspective"I've lived this long... I don't havetime... Where to start... What if...What if... What if...?" Overcomingfears, real or imagined, takes ashift in perspective. The followingsuggestions will aid in making thatshift.

Be Realistic. Technology is here.

Money is following it. The Annen-berg/CPB Project, for instance, hasset aside $2 million for two initia-tives, one of which is for researchon "how courses are changing inresponse to student use of technol-ogy and how faculty rethink cours-es accordingly" Job announce-ments now frequently contain clau-ses that indicate candidates mustbe attentive to the "rapidly evolv-ing incorporation of instructionaltechnology into the teaching/learn-ing environment" (excerpt from arecent ad for a faculty position).

Faculty who have access to techno-logical resources but do not usethem are stigmatized. Ludditesdidn't succeed in discouraging theIndustrial Revolution; faculty whorefuse to read their e-mail won'tsucceed in discouraging the Infor-mation Revolution either. Further-more, instructors who wait forinstitutional norms to change be-fore they incorporate technologyinto their teaching will have waitedtoo long. Jumping on the bandwag-on is harder these days because thebandwagon is a Concorde jet.

Being realistic means acceptingthat trouble and time are bothinvolved. Electronically mediatedaids to communication are notnecessarily labor-saving devices.They are labor-changing devices.Thchnology does not avert the task,but it can transform how it is per-formed.

Decide who's boss. Instructorsmust decide what it is they want toaccomplish in their classes. Thenthey can start to get their armsaround how technology can helpattain those goals. Contrasting therole of technology with the role ofinstructional objectives, the dichot-omy is message vs. medium, meansvs. ends, master vs. servant. Thch-nology is a medium, a means, anda servant. But keep in mind that

while certainly magical at times,technology is not an elixir for cur-ing all educational ills.

Ease into the technological flow.All instructors have used sometechnology in the past: test bankson disk, camcorders, VCRs, over-head projectors, etz. They can buildon that experience and the confi-dence it inspired. Instructors needto remember that what they will bedoing is an extension of what theyhave done before. Gaining techno-logical competence is truly gainingliteracyan incremental process.

Become familiar with techno-cul-ture. Read catalogs from softwarecompanies, ed-tech journals, manu-als, trade "rags," and instructionbooks even though they may not betotally comprehensible. Tune intoPBS "Computer Chronicles." En-courage your libraries to subscribeto publications with electronicthrust. Let the language wash overyou until it no longer seems for-eign.

Sign up for teleconferences, but betolerant when teleconferences aretoo long, too technical, too much.Learn about conferences, institu-tions, and institutes for teletrain-ing that address your instructionalneeds. Workshops held on-campus,too, can orient faculty to institu-tion-specific electronic facilities.

Play. Faculty are often too hard onthemselves. Many expect instantsuccess and total perfection in theirattempts at technological innova-tion. They need to give themselvespermission to try, fail, and tryagain.

Network with others. This is nottime to be the Lone Ranger. Bringup technological experimentationin conversationsover lunch, inthe corridors, on e-mail. Look tosee who has home pages on the

World Wide Web. Find out who isinnovating and activating theirclasses. Talk with them. Ask if youcan visit their classes.

Networking must occur personallyfaculty member to faculty mem-ber. However, other partnershipshave to be created and other linksforged. Compartmentalization hasto decrease. Tidy institutionalboundaries will have to blur anddisappear.

For synergistic effects to occur,more faculty must become involvedwith cross-curricular, pan-institu-tional committees such as our In-structional Technology or DistanceEducation Teams. Furthermore,faculty must work with administra-tion to gain their understanding ofresources needed for educationalremodeling.

Reverse roles. Students are oftenmore technologically sophisticatedthan instructors. Their expertisecan be tapped with dynamic resultsand doubled rewards. By reversingroles with the instructor, not onlydo students become involved withconquering the content in question,but their learning relationship withthe instructor shifts toward cooper-ation and egalitarianism, thus en-hancing learning.

Final ThoughtsMore than tweaking teaching withtechnology but less than using thewrecking ball for total demolition,retrofitting involves considerableturmoil. Back to Chinese, the char-acter for turmoil pictures three wo-men under one roof. In higher edu-cation, the ideograph for troublemight depict teaching, technology,and change under one roof. Since itis unlikely that any of these threeoccupants will move out, to achieveharmony, the academic residencemust be remodeled and practicesand attitudes adapted.

5

Picking the Right Administrative SystemT t used to be that picking a-1 new administrative informa-

tion system was easy. One personon campus, usually either the fi-nancial vice president or the com-puter center director, figured outwhat the campus needed, looked atthe vendor choices, did a littlenegotiating, and then picked one.Things are a lot more complicatednow. Not only are there many moreoptions to choose fromand notjust vendor options, but also tech-nologies, architectures, and fea-turesit is also now a more partic-ipatory decision on the campus,requiring much more communica-tion and coordination.

The process, however, does notneed to be overly cumbersome ortime-consumhig. And if done well,it can result in a cost-effectivesystem solution for the campusthat will last well into the future.The key is staying focused on theimportant issues and being wellorganized. The basic process shouldbe highly participative and consistof determining what the campusneeds are (including features, tools,and technology), establishing thecriteria for making the systemdecision, becoming as educated aspossible about the choices, andthen just doing it.

The first step is to begin by settingup a campus-wide common set ofexpectations. This can be done, forinstance, by holding an open meet-ing, offering an overview of theentire process of selecting a newsystem, including what the benefitsare likely to be, what the costs willbe, who should be involved atwhich stages, how long it maytake, and what challenges willprobably be met along the way.This sort of presentation is helpfulboth to institutions that have neverbeen through the process beforeand ones that do have experience,

although perhaps not a positiveone. The point is to get everyoneinvolved to have the same set ofexpectations right up front.

The next step is to form a commit-tee, or a task force, charged withthe responsibility of selecting anew system. The committee shouldbe made up of principal director-level administrators, faculty repre-sentatives, and possibly, a studentor two. Many campuses also forman Oversight Committee; thiswould be at the vice-presidential

Ifdone well, theprocess can result in a

cost-effective Aystemsolution for the campusthat will last well intothe future. The key isstaying focused on .theimportant issues andbeing well organized.

level and in place for the purposeof sanctioning and endorsing theselection committee's activities.The Oversight Committee wouldattend certain of the selection com-mittee's meetings and otherwise beon hand to provide support to theprocess.

Once the committees are in place,the needs analysis can begin. Thisis the most critical step, since theneeds analysis is the cornerstonefor a successful project. It shouldbe a widely participative process,although it can certainly be accom-plished quickly and efficiently.Needs should include not just sys-tem features and functionality, but

also the user interface; tools thatshould accompany the system, suchas a report writer and query lan-guage; support, including docuxnen-tation and training; and the under-lying technology. Once completed,the needs analysis will serve as theinstitution's basic criteria set forall of its subsequent system deci-sions.

The needs analysis can then beturned into a formal Request ForProposal, to be sent to vendors ofhigher education system software.It can also be given to the in-housecomputer people so that a determi-nation can be made at this stage, ifit has not been already, of therelative cost-effectiveness of thebuild-or-buy options. Vendors gen-erally need four to six weeks toprovide a good respcnse to theRFP, so during this perild of rela-tive quiet, the selection committeecan begin discussing Wiles thatwill affect the implementation lateron, such as data access policies.

The next step is to evaluate thevendor responses once they arereceived; this should be a fairlystraightforward and objective pro-cess, using, for instance, simplecriteria lists covering overall sys-tem functionality, end-user tools,underlyhig technology, stabilityand financial outlook of the vendor,and so on.

One of the key tasks at this stageis to arrive at a consensus amongthe committee members. This isnot as hard as it sounds, especiallyif the focus is on the institutionitself. Even though they are repre-senting specific departments orareas of the institution, the com-mittee members should be continu-ally encouraged to look at the sys-tem choices from the institution'spoint of view. This evaluationshould result in a ranking which

6

can be used by the committee toselect a "fmalist" group of two orthree systems.

The process now moves from objec-tive evaluation to a somewhatmore subjective process. Each final-ist vendor should be invited tocampus for three or four days todemonstrate the system beingproposed. Everyone on campusshould be invited to these demos,and the vendor should be given ascript to follow representing theinstitution's most pressing needsand concerns. Not everyone, ofcourse, needs to attend the entiredemo (although the selection com-mittee members should be there asmuch as possible); the vendors willwork with the institution to publi-cize the schedule beforehand togive campus people the opportunityto pick and choose.

Other information-gathering tasksat this stage should include peer-

to-peer reference checks, visits bycommittee members to otherschools using the same system, anda visit to vendor headquarters. Thegoal here is to become fully educat-ed about the various choices.

At this point, the committee, repre-senting the views of the entireinstitution, should have enoughinformation to make a solid, con-sensus-based decision. Again,broadly based criteria, such asoverall fit with the institution,total acquisition costa, supportservices quantity and quality, andso on, should be used.

And again, it is very important tomake this decision with the overallinstitutional best interests in mind.It may mean that the institutionwill acquire a system that is notthe absolute best for individualoffices; it will, however, ensurethat the institution's needs as awhole are met in the best way.

"In the past, people came to the information,which was stored at the university. In the future,the information will come to the people, whereverthey are. What then is the role of the university?Will it be more than a collection of remainingphysical functions, such as the science laboratoryand football team? Will the impact of electronicson the university be like that of printing on themedieval cathedral, ending its central role ininformation transfer? Have we reached the end ofthe line of a model that goes back to Ninevah,more than 2500 years ago? Can we self-reformthe university, or must things get much worsefirst?"

Eli NoamColumbia University"Electronics and the Dim Future of the University"ScienceOctober 13, 1995

Before the administration, or theOversight Committee, if there isone, puts its stamp of approval onthe decision, the institution shouldgo through contract negotiationswith the chosen vendol. It is im-portant to do this before the fmaldecision is made, especially if thedecision has to go before the Board,so that the institution has a fall-back position in case the negotia-tions don't work out. This is rare,but it does happen.

The whole process can take any-where from five or six months to ayear, and if followed as outlinedabove, almost always results in auniversally acceptable and accepteddecision. And not only has theinstitution thus assured itself thatit has made this very importantand expensive decision wisely, ithas also laid the most effectivefoundation for a successful imple-mentation.

In Future Issues

- New information systems:don't pave the cow paths

- Top-level support: the singlemost critical successfactor

- Using technology to createa student-friendly campus

Need CI consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

Q. We're a small college, with a very personalflavor that our students appreciate very much. Ourcomputer system does our basic data processing, butnot much else. We're beginning to hear about thingson other campuses like student information kiosksand faculty entering grades into the system directly,and are wondering if this would be appropriate forus to consider.

A. The trend on every campus today is to open upthe administrative information system. This is veryconsistent with the wider world of information; as weall acquire increasing electronic access to bankingfunctions, shopping, our credit records, our invest-ments, our consumer records, and so on, it is under-standable that campus people, including studentsand faculty, want similar access to campus informa-tion. While we certainly would not suggest that yourinformation system be wide open to all under allcircumstances, providing such things as access for thefaculty to the academic histories of the students theyare advising and access for the students to their ownacademic and financial records should be a highlyplaced agenda item for the institution. 0,' course,

there are security concerns here, and a set of policiesgoverning who can see, and who can change, whichdata under which circumstances will have to beworked out, agreed upon by all of the relevant parties,publicized, and enforced.

Q. We're about to begin a strategic planning pro-cess for information technology and we thought theright place te start would be to do an assessment ofour current IT situation. Any suggestions?

A. An assessment is a good place to start on theplanning process, but you need to do it right in orderfor it to be a really effective tool. The first thing towork out is the definition of just what you're going toassess. One of the traps that institutions often fallinto is in thinking that the only task in assessing ITat the institution is to give a performance review tothe department responsible for delivering IT resourcesand services. While that is one component, it is farfrom the whole issue. The real value in an IT assess-ment is the understanding it produces of how thewhole institution is dealing with technology. A thor-ough assessment should look at the whole picture.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Informatico Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

Clearing House on Info Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse, ITY 13210

0 prinied on recycled paper

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

THE December 1995t

Volume 11Number 9

EDUTECHThe Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

At the Crossroad: Higher Edand Technology Development

by R. Grant Tate

We are at another major crossroad of technology development,and, once again, education is a late adopter. Networked com-

munications have already expanded our access to vast sources of infor-mation and revolutionized person-to-person communications. Internet'sWorld Wide Web has given us a glimpse of how infonnation can beenriched by hypertexted, multimedia presentation. We are beginningto see the enormous possibilities opened to us as learners and teachers.Even at today's level of technology, the revolution is changing jobs asdiverse as pizza delivery and rocket science all over the globe.

In this century, we have experienced a number of technologies thatpromised to revolutionize education. Sages predicted that, in turn, rad-io, television, teaching machines, and computers would radicallychange the way that we learn. The primary impact of these technolo-gies would be educational. In a broad sense, they certainly changed theway we learnby giving us access to more information. But the edu-cational process, as practiced by the vast majority of schools, colleges,and universities all over the world, has changed little. When it comesto pedagogy, the teaching/learning process, education is a late adopter(or non-adopter) of these major technologies. But this technology revo-lution, accompanied by worldwide restructuring of organizations andjobs, cannot be ignored by education. It is time for higher educationto get its act together.

Commercial Markets Drive DevelopmentI recently managed a project sponsored by the European Associationof Distance Teaching Universities under contract from the EuropeanCommission to study the status of telematics for education and training

continued on page 3

"It's time for our investmentstrategies to move beyond thelaissez-faire, build-it-and-they-will-come approaches thatpredominate on campus today.What we need are academicplans for using technologyrather than academicsplanning to use technology. Wemust identify and solvesignificant learning problems.Only then will we realize areturn on our informationtechnology investments."

Carol TwiggEducom"The One Percent Solution"Educom ReviewNovember/December 1995

MICROSOFTTRAINING PROGRAM

CAUSE AWARDS

NACUBO/CAUSE ONFINANCIALINFORMATIONSYSTEMS

Microsoft Corp. is taking steps to ensure that college students, workingprofessionals, and high school students have access to the training needed tomeet the growing demand for experts to design, implement, and supportcutting-edge information systems. To help fill the thousands of technology-related jobs currently available, Microsoft has begun the MicrosoftAuthorized Academic Training Program (AATP). The program is available toany accredited academic institution that wants to offer vocationally orientedtechnical trainhig, leading to a designation as a Microsoft CertifiedProfessional (MCP) and likely employment at a Microsoft Solution Providercompany.

For more information, call Microsoft at 1-800-688-0496 and request theAATP brochure and the Road Map to Education and Certification, aninteractive tool offering details about MCP exams and courses.

At the 1995 CAUSE conference, held at the beginning of the month in NewOrleans, the annual CAUSE special designations were announced andawarded. A record number of attendees participated in the conference asCarole Barone, Associate Vice Chancellor for Information Technology at theUniversity of California/Davis, was awarded the 1995 CAUSE ELITE Awardfor Exemplary Leadership and Information Technology Excellence. Dr.Barone was recognized for her outstanding accomplishments in a career thathas spanned two universities (Syracuse and UC/Davis) and several nationalorganizations, including CAUSE, Educom, and the Coalition for NetworkedInformation.

In addition, the Award for Excellence in Campus Networking was presentedto Cornell University for a network that includes administrative supportsystems, library preservation and distribution projects, an instructional Webserver, and a real-time desktop video conferencing system (CU-See Me).

For more information, contact CAUSE at 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E,Boulder, Colorado 80301; (303) 449-4430; info@cause.colorado.edu.

A jointly sponsored program by CAUSE and NACUBO designed for bothsmall and large institutions, "Financial Information Systems: CriticalSuccess Factors," will be held February 5-6, 1996 in Houston, Texas. Theprogram will cover topics such as the importance of creating an informationarchitecture and strategy, the importance of institutional buy-in, anddeveloping an RFP.

For more information, contact NACUBO Professional Development, OneDupont Circle, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 861-2500.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit (LFLEIT@EDUTECH-INT.COM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1995,EDUTECH International. All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof', may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without thewritten permission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

At the Crossroad: Higher Ed and Technology Development ...continued from page 1

in the United States, Canada, andAustralia. (The term teiematics, asused in Europe, includes computerand telecommunications technolo-gies and associated software.) Oneof the observations from the studywas that the education communityhas had little impact on the specifi-cations for the generic technologiesthat affect education.

Although many of the broadbandexperiments involve education, de-signers are primarily concernedwith commercial rather than edu-cational requirements. The designpoint for most broadband networksand digital TV systems is enter-tainment and commerce. Thesecompanies are concentrating onways to deliver video movies on de-mand or real-time shopping intoour homes. The consumer's prima-ry feedback (or interaction) will beto select movies or products to buyby pushing certain buttons ortouching the screennot to inter-act with sophisticated education ortraining presentations. The needfor interaction is not well under-stood by designers or the educationcommunity.

Why? Commercial and consumermarkets are the primary drivers oftechnology developmenteducationmarkets are relatively small com-pared with consumer markets. Ofthe more than $80 billion thatconsumers spend on information-software products (including books,home video, cable TV, video games,etc.), only about $2.5 billion isspent on textbooks and educational

R. Grant Tate is president ofBridgewater Research Group, a global-ly networked firm headquartered inthe Netherlands that provides re-search, consulting, and training. Thisarticle first appeared in the Winter1995 issue of Technos and is reprintedwith permission.

materials. Further, education titlesmake up only about 10 percent ofthe $1.45 billion in U.S. CD-ROMsales.

Of course, consumers spend most oftheir education funds on public andprivate education through taxesand tuition. Little of these fundsare spent on educational technolo-gy. Only $6 billion of the approxi-mately $150 billion spent on highereducation went to technology in1994. Higher education has spentonly about $20 billion on technolo-gy in the last 15 years. As authorand technology consultant Lewis J.Perelman has noted, educationspends 93 percent of its output on

Higher educationcontinues to spend itsCapital on buildings

and physical plant, noton technology.

labor, or human resources. Highereducation continues to spend itscapital on buildings and physicalplant, not on technology. In thehigher education sector, buildingsare a sign of growth and prosperi-ty, andan important attractionfor well-to-do benefa,4orsbuild-ings can be named after people. Wehave not yet learned to name net-works (although the William GatesInteractive Broadband EducationNetwork has a good ring to it).

Higher Education's Ambiva-lence Toward TechnologyEducation is not fully committed tothe application of technology as ameans of providing better customer(learner) products and services.The relatively small investment in

technology reflects a number ofattitudinal and structural issues.

Faculty members are ambivalentabout, if not outright hostile to, theuse of technology in the teachingprocess. Administrators are morepositive about the need for change,but, faced with reluctant facultiesand budgets that overwhelminglygo to pay for staff and administra-tive salaries, they find it difficult toshift their organization's priorities.

The net result is that technologyapplication is managed as a periph-eral or experimental issue, not as amainline strategy for the institu-tion. This is reflected in the organi-zational structures of colleges anduniversities, which put technologyand pedagogy out of the academicmainstream.

Departments responsible for in-structional and technology designare isolated from the mainstream.In most countries, faculty depart-ments are responsible for curricu-lum and content, but responsibilityfor educational technology or in-structional design is assigned to aseparate department. Often theemployees of these departmentsreport to a vice chancellor of in-structional services or a similarofficial who reports outside of nor-mal faculty channels. This separa-tion is even found in the formalizeddistance teaching universities ofEurope, whose primary mission isto provide open and flexible learn-ing to learners at a distance.

These educational technology orga-nizations, separated from the facul-ty by organizational walls, are thengiven the responsibility for imple-menting the institution's technolo-gy and instructional design experi-ments. The structure helps breedproprietary systems and places

continued on page 4

At the Crossroad: Higher Ed and Technology Development ...continued from page 3

educational technologists in a posi-tion of having to convince recalci-trant faculties to use them.

But the faculty usually has otherpriorities. Faculty reluctance iswarranted, given the compensationand reward structure of most uni-versities. There is no incentive todevelop new pedagogical proce-dures or to integrate technologiesinto the process. Faculty membersget paid to teach a certain numberof student contact hours with "re-lease" time granted to participatein sponsored research. Most of thetime, there is no financial or timereward for participation in technol-ogy-based education or redesign ofa course for good instruction. Inaddition, papers written aboutinnovations in teaching methods donot boost the careers of professorsin fields outside of the educationdepartments. A chemistry depart-ment requires its professors towrite about research in chemistry,not about the use of networkedmultimedia as a better method ofteaching. And publication of video-tapes, CD-ROMs, or other alter-nate media materials does notcarry sufficient academic prestigein the tenure race.

How Faculties UseTechnologiesIn this environment, faculty mem-bers apply technology to maketheir jobs easier, not to improvelearning effectiveness or efficiency.As independent operators, facultymembers are highly motivated toconserve their own time. Overheadtransparencies make it easier forthem to prepare their classes, stu-dent papers prepared on computersare easier to grade, and e-mailmakes it easier to communicatewith students. Faculty membershave also been quick to use theInternet and other on-line databas-es. These, of course, representmajor efficiency improvements for

the realm from which professorsget their major reward: researchand research collaboration.

On the other hand, adapting acourse to a new delivery medium,integrating technology into thepedagogy, or designing a course tobe consistent with good instruction-al design requires a huge invest-ment of faculty time and effort.

Faculty members are ill-preparedto design courses for new media.Primary and secondary teachersare taught how to teach as a fun-damental part of their teacher

Achemistry depart-ment requires its

professors to writeabout research in

chemistry, not about theuse of networked

multimedia as a bettermethod of teaching.

education program. In higher edu-cation, however, subject-matterexpertise is the primary emphasis.Seldom are college and universityteachers taught how to teach; theylearn teaching the way that mostof us learn parentingby watchinghow they were taught. It is nosurprise that chalk and talk is stillthe primary method of instruction.Many colleges and universitieshave teaching and instructionaldesign programs for faculty mem-bers, but participation is voluntary.

We can never hope to make everyfaculty member an instructionaldesigner or educational technolo-gisttheir primary concentration

should be on their subject matter.Team-based course development isan effective approach to this issuewith a faculty member (rather,subject-matter expert), an instruc-tional designer, and an educationaltechnologist working together todevelop a course.

The Effect of CredentialismBecause they have a monopoly oncredits and credentials, universitieshave pushed poorly designed andexecuted courses on an uncriticalmarket. Most educational televi-sion in higher education today con-sists of "talking heads"simply atelevision transmission of a pro-fessor in a classroom, supplement-ed by some sort of feedback orinteraction. Learners endure suchpoor television quality because, ifthey want the three credits, theymust either watch television ortravel to a classroom, search for aparking space, and spend extratime. Without the incentive of thecredits, viewers would not toleratesuch poor quality television.

Industry has unwittingly reinforcedthe credentialism of today's system.In their zeal to downsize and reen-gineer, corporations have beenmoving responsibility for profes-sional development back to theindividual employee. The employ-ees, seeing their eroding job securi-ty, have moved into credited uni-versity-based courses rather thantake company-sponsored non-creditcoursesthus trying to guaranteethat their education will be recog-nized by prospective employers.

Without the credit system, highereducation would be forced to com-pete with better offerings of higherquality and better value for thelearners.

Education lacks the expertise andcritical mass to be a major factor indelivery systems in the new world.

4

In the past, higher education hadabsolute control over its deliverymechanisms. Students paid theirtuition and attended classes wherethe instructor could take the rollcall. Universities have tried to holdon to their delivery functions bydeveloping proprietary educationtechnology

The work of specifying and design-ing education technology systemsusually falls to the education tech-nology department. Although thetechnologists may use commercialcomponents, the system design isusually their own. These institu-tions diminished their influencewith commercial providers by con-centrating on proprietary systems.They would have had more clout,had they concentrated on needsand not on sandbox solutions, forfew universities are in the positionto design and implement modernsophisticated network solutions forlarge numbers of users. Educationshould concentrate on being a us-ernot a providerof telematicdelivery systems. In other words,education should provide content,not networks.

The Time for ChangeTo become major players in the useof technology higher educationneeds to make a commitment tochange, shift its prioritiris, becomemore marketing and customeroriented, unlock the "fixed expens-es" of faculty and staff salaries,change the incentive system forfaculty members, and change theattitude of large numbers of facultyand staff This is a tall order for asector that is so locked into tradi-tion. The change will no likelycome as a result of internal resolvebut from overwhelming externalforces.

The stage is set for this new play.Here is one scenario: New produc-tion, delivery and certification

organizations (PDCs) will invadedistribution of higher educationcourses. These PDCs will operateon a national basis, using the mostefficient and effective communica-tions media available. Courses andprograms will be designed andproduced to commercial standards.Professional hosts and teacherswill be chosen from among the bestand will tend to emulate commer-cial on-air talent. Local tutors willsupplement the process and beavailable to students for a fee.

These orgviizations will purchasesubject-matter expertise from many

ew universities arein the positionto design and

implement modernsophisticated network

solutions for-large numbers

of users.

sources, depending upon the degreeof expertise and the quality ofcontent preparation. The PDCs willprovide competence-based testingand certification services. Studentsmay participate in interactive test-ing at the time and place of theirchoosingand pay a fee to receivecertification upon successful com-pletion of the procedure. At first,credits awarded by the PDCs will"flow through" from the institutionthat provides the content. Later,independent accreditation agencieswill assess the process, content,and certification of the PDCs.

The PDCs will then move to pro-vide their own portable credits.

Colleges will begin to concentratemore on liberal arts and the social-ization of recent high school gradu-ates while emphasizing basic learn-ing skills and the development ofcritical thinking. Specialized curric-ula will be purchased from PDCs.Universities will concentrate onresearch and the development ofnew knowledge with a primaryobjective of working with PDCs todistribute that knowledge to theoutside world. An additional goalwill be to train new subject-matterexperts and researchers. A univer-sity's revenues will partially de-pend upon its ability to sell itssubject matter to the PDCs.

Business and industry will look tothe PDCs for on-the-job subject-matter training, delivered to theemployee's desk. Certified creditsawarded by the PDC will be "porta-ble" and recognized by all otherbusinesses or PDCs.

'lb some, this may seem an unlike-ly, radical model. Yet, some ele-ments of it exist today in placessuch as the National ThehnologicalUniversity.

Higher education's strategy shouldbe, "If you can't beat them, jointhem." They should join withPDCs, telecommunications provid-ers, companies, governmental agen-cies, and other universities to usethe new telematic technologies.Most states are developing theirown information highway initia-tives that include education as amajor component. Most includetelecommunications and othercommercial providers. By partici-pating in such efforts, educationcan increase its influence on theinformation highway's future direc-tion. Such activities, in turn, mayshock reluctant university constitu-encies sufficiently to force neces-sary internal organizational ar.c1procedural changes.

Using IT to Create a Student-Friendly Campusrr he name of the game at most1 colleges and universities today

is enrollment management: attract-ing and retaining the right numberand the right mix of students tomaintain the institution's viability.And to support enrollment man-agement goals, more and moreinstitutions are recognizing theneed to create student-friendlyenvironments.

How does a student-friendly envi-ronment differ from the traditionalcollege campus? It basically centersaround the realization that studentlife outside the classroom and thenon-academic activities that stu-dents engage in can and do have asignificant effect on the quality of astudent's collegiate experience.Academics is vitally important, ofcourse, but the more positive astudent's non-academic life is, themore likely he or she is to stay inschool. This means two things:removing, as much as possible, thenegative experiences and enhanc-ing, as much as possible, the posi-tive ones.

This is where information technol-ogy comes in. IT chn be one of themost important tools that an insti-tution can employ in creating astudent-friendly environment. ITcan make administrative taskseasier and more efficient, it canmake access to campus informationmore timely and useful, and it canbe both fun and enriching for thestudent, even while pursuing non-academic activities.

On the administrative side, provid-ing the highest level of studentservice has become so importantfor so many campuses, that it alonecan be the rationale for acquiring anew administrative system. Suchthings as touch-tone or on-lineregistration have become common-place; it is the rare school nowa-

days that requires students to gothrough the time and uncertaintyof arena registrations. But IT cango way beyond that. The ability todeal with exceptions is one of thetreasured characteristics of IT, andso it can become a most valuabletool in helping the institution treatstudents as individuals. For in-stance, sending a bill representinghalf of a student's tuition chargesto each of two parents at two sepa-rate addresses; accommodating awide variety of deferred paymentplans and third-party payers (notto mention accepting credit cards);

Contraiy toconventional wisdom,the true nature of IT

allows for each studentto be treated accordingto his or her own needs

and wishes.

mailing to adult students usingtheir own names instead of "lb theparents of..."; providing opportuni-ties to pre-register for next semes-ter's classes and to sign up forhousing while on Study Abroad;being able to handle a student'sadministrative difficulty, whetherwith fmancial aid, tuition, records,registration, or housing, all in onelocation; supporting orientationsessions geared specifically towarddifferent groupings of incomingstudents; creating individual ap-proaches to student support areas,such as career services and coun-seling; and on and on. These arejust some of the many ways inwhich technology can help makethe administrative environment for

students friendlier and easier todeal with.

Ironically, IT has a reputation incertain quarters for contributing tostudents "being treated like num-bers instead of people." In fact,often one of the major resistancepoints in implementing new admin-istrative information systems isthat student services folks feel thatthe school will lose its 'humantouch." Yet when properly employ-ed, the true nature of IT allows foreach student to be treated accord-ing to his or her own needs andwishes.

While it may be true that thesekinds of things are not so impor-tant in smaller schools that caterto a fairly homogeneous studentbody, by far the majority of institu-tions do need to be able to accom-modate a wider and wider varietyof students, each with his or herown characteristics, desires, andneeds. A solid information systemhelps an institution do that, andminimizes the run around thatstudents have to go through to getthings done.

In terms of access, IT again has animportant role to play. IT can en-able a student to see his or herown administrative records, wheth-er through a public kiosk or direct-ly through the student's computer.IT can also provide access to cam-pus information: which classes areclosed during rzgistration, who'scoming to campus next Friday togive a concert; what the officehours are for the student's advisor;which days the health services aregiving flu shots; and when classesare closed because of snow.

Perhaps most importantly, IT canprovide audents access to eachother and to the faculty. The use ofe-mail is probably one of the fastest

NMI"-

growing IT areas on campus. Stu-dents can communicate with theirinstructors, with their advisors,with their research directors, andwith the librarians. They can col-laborate on projects with otherstudents, they can arrange studentactivity meetings, and they canhave on-line chat sessions. And notonly can students communicate oncampus, but in those institutionshooked up to the Internet, thestudents can stay in touch withtheir Mends at other schoolsandeven with their parents if the par-ents have access of some kind ei-ther at work or at home.

Of course, using IT can go waybeyond just access to campus infor-mation and communications. It canprovide the conduit to a whole

world of information and tools forfun, entertainment, and education.Access to the Internet, especiallythe World Wide Web; access to thecomputers and to the resources atother educational institutions, re-search facilities, and libraries; andthe ability to communicate withliterally the whole world is some-thing that increasing numbers ofstudents are coming to expect aspart of their educational environ-ments.

Another area is in distance learn-ing support. A great deal of atten-tion is being focused on distancelearning itself these days, but wealso need to recognize that studentsupport services at a distance areequally important. The ability to beadvised, to register for classes, to

"Higher education in the 1990s is moretechnocratic and entrepreneurial than ever before.Computing-across-the-curriculum, a 1980s visionnow achieved on most campuses, has hardlyinfused scholarship or pedagogy with a strongerimpulse to reflect critically on the cuttural missionof higher education. If anything, campuses nowfunction more like industrial parks than ivorytowers; even faculty In the arts and humanitiesmust think like entrepreneurs in an era of scarceresources.... The solution? Do 'more' with less byreplacing instructors with machines and programsin distance learning 'departments' of vIrtual, on-line universities. Teacher resistance scuttled theinstructional television movement in the Sixties. Willfaculty in the Nineties have the foresight to resistbudget-driven administrative strategies to networkthem out of their jobs?"

Mark ShieldsUniversity of Virginia"Academe Enters the Age of Anticippointment"TechnosFall 1995

pay tuition bills, to receive tutoringand other support services in re-mote locations is greatly enhancedthrough the use of technology

The debate may be raging on theacademic side about whether tech-nology makes a difference in stu-dent learning. There is a great dealof research being done on this atthe moment, and it's fair to saythat the jury is still out. But out-side the classroom, looking at therest of a student's campus experi-ence, the picture is clear: IT canmake for a very student-friendlyenvironment, and can, therefore,contribute significantly to one ofthe most important goals at manyinstitutions today: a stable andreliable recruitment and retentionpicture.

In Future Issues

- Tying IT into the goals ofthe institution

- Case study on an IT PolicyCommittee gone wrong

- Why governance is moreimportant than hardware

Need a consultant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices xclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

EDUTECH RESPNDSQ. We've just recently combined our administrativeand academic computing departments and are nowivfaced with how best to organize the new informationtechnology services department. We don't want tomaintain the old divisions, but we also want to re-main sensitive to the needs of our end users by de-signating some specialists. Any ideas how to do this?

A. There are as many ways to organize a highereducation IT department as there are colleges anduniversities. However, there do seem to be some pre-dominant patterns. Orie we favor is a back room 1front room approach: the highly technical, non-user-oriented folks are on the 'Technical Service? side ofthe house, including programming and support foroperating systems, database management, networkingsupport, hardware operations, microcomputer hard-ware setup and troubleshooting, telephones (if that'spart of the department), and research and develop-ment. There is not usually any specialization in thisarea with respect to clientele; everyone needs theseservices. The other side of the department is 'UserServices,' the folks who work directly with end usersfor applications programming support, public labs,

help desks, desktop software support, training, and soon. Specialties can be maintained in this area forboth administrators and faculty, as appropriate, buta great deal of what goes on here too will be for every-one. The two groups work together to provide solu-tions to end users; Technkal Services supports andinteracts mostly with User Services, who, in turn, in-teracts mostly with the users. The other advantage tothis kind of organization is that it can be constructedto be fairly flat, and therefore, quite flexible.

Q. We're installing a new administrative systemand have decided to take a "plain vanilla" approachso we can get it in as quickly as possible. Many folksare complaining, though, because it's not giving themenough time to think about how they want to changetheir office procedures. Should we slow it down?

A. The desire to reengineer during implementationis a worthy one, but the problem is that stretching theprocess out too long has its own risks, including thepossible loss of key people. Most institutions reach acompromise, with a commitment for a Phase II afterthe initial implementation.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

to printed on recycled paper

Clearing House on Info Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse, NY 13210

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 11.7

THEJanuary 1996 Volume 11

Number 10

The Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

Structural Principles ForIT Organizations

Many higher education IT groups are going through the agony ofreorganization right now. Whether brought about as the result

of combining administrative and academic computing, because of theestablishment of a new Chief Information Officer (CIO) position, im-pending retirements in key positions, or just a general re-thinking ofwhat IT means for an institution these days, there seems to be an enor-mous amount of restructuring (not to mention downsizing) going onin campus IT organizations.

Although usually very stressful, especially for the people involved, re-organizing can be a healthy thing to do. It is likely to be most produc-tive and worthwhile, however, if every person in the role of decision-maker or contributor (with luck, that's a lot of people), keeps in mindfive basic structural principles.

Principle #1: The organization structure should be based on theneeds of the users and the institution. The functions, services, andproducts provided by the IT department should be organized in sucha way that the users can get what they need efficiently, with the leastamount of frustration and run-around and the maximum amount of sat-isfaction (for the service providers as well as the users).

This principle may seem so obvious that it doesn't need to be men-tioned, but it is not always used to the extent it should be. For onething, there may not be agreement on what the needs are. Do the usersneed an advanced technology guru (or more than one) in the depart-ment? Do the users need COBOL programmers? Batch report decolla-tors, bursters, and distributors? A Unix support person? Instructionaldesign experts? What about infrastructure things that are largely trans-

continued on page 4

"It is easy for informationresources professionals to becaptivated by the allure of thebrilliant advances and thefrenetic pace of technology.The fun and excitement of ourbusiness can easily cloud thecore essence of who we shouldbe. We need to sustain bothvalues and moral courage. Wemust remember that a majorpurpose of higher education isfor students to compose a senseof meaning to their lives. Let'schallenge ourselves to buildinto our systems and our per-sonal and professional behav-ior the mentoring capabilitythat supports the making ofmeaning by the students of thisnew era."

Ronald Bleed and Polley AnnMcClure

"What Information ResourcesManagers Need to UnderstandAbout the Higher EducationEnterprise"

CAUSE/EFFECTWinter 1995

NEWSBR I EFSCONFERENCE ON ITIN THE CURRICULUM

Syllabus '96, to be held July 20-24 at Sonoma State University in California,will cover a range of higher education IT topics, such as technology andpedagogy, classroom technologies, Web-based learning environments, andinfrastructure and implementation. The conference will also feature casestudies, tutorials, pre-conference workshops, and vendor exhibits.

For more information and a conference brochure, contact Syllabus Press,1307 South Mary Avenue, Suite 211, Sunnyvale, California 94087; (800) 773-0670; sy1196@syl1abus.com.

PROJECT MANDARIN According to the organizers of Project Mandarin, the project is "about usingcomputers, networks, and point-and-click interfaces to get information fromdatabases to the hands of students, faculty, and staff who need it. Itsmission is to help solve common, information-based problems experienced byuniversities everywhere."

NOT NECESSARILYTHE NEWS

Organized as a consortium of more than twenty-five colleges anduniversities, Project Mandarin has produced a tool kit and a full suite ofinfrastructure services that permit the quick development of applicationsand underlying services. These applications and services are for the purposeof permitting secure access by non-technical campus users to data kept in awide variety of database management systems, including Oracle and Sybase,as well as older data structures such as VSAM. Products from ProjectMandarin can also support a gradual migration to client/server technologywithout sacrificing current systems.

For more information, including background documents and a list of currentmembers, contact Project Mandarin, Inc., 400 CCC, Garden Avenue, Ithaca,New York 14853; (607) 254-2947; mandarin-mailbox@cornell.edu.

In an article entitled "Good Help Gets Harder To Find" in a recent (11)13/95)Computerworld, author Brian McWilliams tells us that the demand for ITprofessionals is running well ahead of the supply. Especially in the case ofthose with certain skills, the lack is showing up in many IT departments;chronic understaffing, or being forced to hire lower levels of expertise thanneeded or desired, is becoming the norm. One person quoted in the articlesaid, "You try to build a culture that people want to be part of, but it's hardwhen someone else is offering them a 30% jump in salary."

This, of course, came as a great surprise to those in the higher educationcommunity, who have been finding it extremely easy to attract and retaintop-level IT professionals willing to work for lower pay for years.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Reit (LFLEIT@EDUTECH-INT.COM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 1996,EDUTECH International. All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without thewritten permission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is fccbidden. ISSN N883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

WO

Memor andumTO: My Colleagues at Other Institutions

FROM: Jim Stevens, CIO at The University of the Deep Southwest

SUBJ: The Information Technology Policy Committee

Friends, I need your help. Two years ago, on the advice of a consultant,we set up an Information Technology Policy Committee for the purposeof advising us on broad-scope IT matters at the institution. Before we didthis, there was a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with thequantity and quality of IT services, due mostly to the fact that mydepartment, Computer Services, was severely underfunded andunderstaffed. Setting up this committee made a lot of sense to me at thetime because I saw it as a way to get more resources, and therefore, itwould give me the ability to correct our problems.

Unfortunately, it hasn't turned out that way at all. For one thing,although the committee is made up of all of our Vice Presidents and theChief Librarian, most of these folks never show up for meetings. Many ofthem do send representatives, but sometimes, no one from a particulararea is there at the meeting at all. I chair the committee, of course, andset all of its agendas, and I just can't understand why the VPs don'twant to be there.

The other major problem is that the topics I want to talk about are notthe topics they want to talk about. Even with agendas sent aroundbeforehand, once the meeting begins, we get off onto all sorts of tangents(like why a microcomputer is still sitting in its packing box on the floorof the VP for Resources' secretary's office after three months). I want totalk about mission, values, and resources, and they want to talk abouttrivia! As a result, I haven't had any increase in funding or staffing, sothere are still complaints about my department from all over campus.

I know many of you have this kind of a committee in place. Are any ofthem working well? Do they serve any really valuable purpose? I'm atthe point of just disbanding mine, unless I hear from you that I can turnit around somehow and get it to do what needs to be done. I appreciateany help you can offer.

Structural Principles for IT Organizations ...continued from page I

parent to the users? Many of theseservices are ambiguous or contro-versial, and the users may wellhave one point of view and peoplein the department another. A clas-sic example is the department thatwill not or cannot provide Windowssupport on a campus in whichalthough perhaps a minoritythere is a substantial number ofWindows users. The departmenthas mandated that this will be aMac campus, and regardless ofwhat may be best for many users,is trying like heck to stick to thisposition.

Another reason to explicitly consid-er this principle is that there couldwell be functions and services be-ing provided in the departmentnow that are holdovers from yes-teryear. Certainly few departmentstoday need to provide, for instance,keypunch services (although it'snot zero yet), yet there are somethat still have a box for this func-tion hanging off their organizationchart somewhere.

Before a new organizational struc-ture for IT can be designed, a full,realistic inventory of user needsshould be compiled, taking intoaccount infrastructure, products,and services. This will point theway to a rational and responsivestructure.

Principle #2: Change is con-stant. Now that you have an in-ventory of user needs, keep inmind that it will change in thenext few minutes. That may be anexaggeration, but not really bymuch. Let's just look around usand consider what has changed insay, the last five years: the wildgrowth of microcomputers amongpeople who are not "technologists"(in 1995, PCs outsold TV sets inthe US for the first time), group-ware, relational databases withgraphical user interfaces, electronic

mail, the World Wide Web, just toname some of the more obviousones. Now let's consider what islikely to change in the next fiveyears: anytime-anywhere-comput-ing, anytime-anywhere-100% reli-ability-telecommunications of any-thing that can be digitized; newdatabase structures, object-orientedprogramming, fuzzy logic, expertsystems, new kinds of code genera-tors, and on and on.

We can't predict what's going tohappen (the oft-cited example ofour failure to predict well is thefamous 1943 quote by Thomas

In the current era offlat organizations,team-building, and

distributed decision-making, the pyramidalhierarchy seems out-of-

date as a structuraloption.

Watson, chairman of IBM: "I thinkthere is a world market for maybefive computers."). We don't knowwhat our users are going to needfrom us a year from now; we barelyknow what they're going to needfrom us tomorrow.

What does this imply for organiza-tional structures? Most of all thatwe have to be flexible. Further-more, that flexibility needs to ex-tend to each of us as informationtechnology professionals, as well asto our organizations. Willingness tolearn new things, adaptability tonew situations, lots of ambiguity,and so on, are all parts of an ITprofessional's life these days. So,

too, our organizations have to benimble, responsive, able to meetchanging demands quickly, and notlocked in by artificial definitions.One of the most important valuesthat the organizational structureneeds to promote, and that weneed to subscribe to as individuals,is open communications. The onlyway we're going to get through thisis by keeping each other well-in-formed and up-to-date on every-thing.

Principle #3: Hierarchies havetheir advantages and disadvan-tages. The traditional pyramidalhierarchy has gotten a lot of badpress these past few years. In thecurrent era of flat organizations,team-building, and distributed de-cision-making, the hierarchy seemsout-of-date as a structural option.But before We disband the notionentirely, it could be useful to con-sider what's good in a hierarchicalstructure; it has, after all, been theoption of choice until recently for avery long time. And for some goodreasons.

For one thing, the lines of authori-ty and responsibility are very clear.Which box on the organizationchart is responsible for which set oftasks (and which people) is veryapparent from first glance. Whothe boss is is never in doubt (as itcan be with cross-functional teams,for instance).

Likewise, the pyramidal hierarchytends to lead to an efficient divi-sion of labor; lopsided conditionsshow up immediately. There arealso very clear career pathsthehigher up in the chart you go, thebetter the job is: more people tomanage, more responsibility, high-er pay. All laid out in neat littleboxes, layers, and lines. The valueof that sort of clarity should not bediscounted , especially in times ofconstant change (see Principle #2);

k.)

it can provide people with a lot ofsecurity and comfort.

But the disadvantages must beconsidered as well. Especially in ITorganizations, all those neat littleboxes and lines can lead to a rigidi-ty which works very much againstthe tides of change. The hierarchycan also lead to lots of turf battles,and when working together is im-portant (when isn't it?), these bat-tles can literally destroy an IT or-ganization. Just think of all thethings that can (and do) fall intothe "white spaces" on the chart.

On the all-important matter of flu-id communications, the hierarchydoesn't da very well at all. Thevery clarity that makes the organi-zational chart appealing worksagainst openness and rapid infor-mation flow, especially as levelsproliferate and the distance bet-ween the highest and the lowestlevels increases. (The chain of com-mand prohibits, for instance, "goingover the boss' head" with anythingimportant). This can be deadly foran organization that has to reactquickly to changing circumstances.

What we want to end up with,therefore, is an organization that,as much as possible, incorporatesthe virtues of the pyramidal hierar-chy of clarity and efficiency whileminimizing the disadvantages ofrigidity and lack of free-flowingcommunication.

Principle #4: We don't necessar-ily have to do everything our-selves. Time was, of course, whenthe Not Invented Here (NIH) syn-drome ruled the IT world. If wedidn't do it ourselves, it just didn'tget done. From applications pro-gramming to hardware operations,from Help Desk support to micro-computer maintenance, there hasbeen an on-going reluctance for theIT department to let go of any of

its tasl If you listen well, you canstill hear it: "There is no commer-cial software out there that fits ourneeds well enough" or "No oneknows our users as well as we do."

That's changing. Commercial soft-ware is getting better, vendors arebecoming increasingly knowledge-able and understanding about whata higher education environment isall about, and certain IT taskshave become sufficiently transport-able and transparent to be able tosupply them externally. It turnsout that selective, judicious out-sourcing can be a good thing, both

Especially in ITorganizations, allthose neat little

boxes and lines canlead to a rigidity which

works very mithhagainst the tides of

change.

economically and from a servicestandpoint.

Another aspect of this is distribut-ing tasks out of the IT departmentbut within the institution. Forinstance, it has become quite ac-ceptabledesirable, evenfor endusers to write their own reportsusing data kept in the institutionaldatabase. Retail computer salescould best be handled through thecampus bookstore. Network wiring,and even microcomputer setups,might best be done by PhysicalPlant.

In these times of increasing work-load and demands, without a corre-

sponding increase in staff (veryrare now), an IT department needsto consider all of the opportunitiesto offload itself so that the depart-ment's people can leverage thelimited time they have to providemaximum benefit tc the users. Itonly makes sense to consider waysto reserve IT staff time for themost important, tailored, and val-ue-added work.

Principle #5: Some things wecan control; some things wecannot. Of course, we want to livein an ideal world, or at least, workat an ideal college or university.Deep down inside, we know thereis no such thing, but many IT pro-fessionals think that if they couldonly get their ideas across in theright way to the right people, theinstitution would be, if not perfect,at least a lot further down theroad. Unfortunately, however, a lotof important things in the institu-tional envirOnment are simply be-yond the control of the IT depart-ment.

Yes, we want the users to be ourpartners, but we also have to re-member that as hard as rapidchange is on us, it's even harder onthem. They may not participate oncommittees the way we want themto; they may not do enough plan-ning in their own areas to make iteasier to our job in servicing them;they may not understand what ITis all about. There is little we cando to control that.

But we can be understanding andpatient. We can be role models ofadaptability. And we can structureour IT organizations so that wehave every opportunity to showleadership and influence.

In an upcoming issue: How toget from here to therefittingexisting people into a new or-ganization structure.

Why Distance Education?

D istance learning is ubiquitous.1-- As you read this article orwatch the Discovery Channel, youare learning things prepared at adistance. If we change the locutionto "distance education," by implica-tion an educational institutionenters the picture, but we are stilldealing with something that's beengoing on a long time, all over theworld. Correspondence courses, forexample, were an innovation of the1920s; courses by television becamecommonplace in the 1960s.

In the past two years, Americanhigher education's interest in dis-tance education has exploded.Suddenly, the technology seems tobe there; the economics look attrac-tive; we're supposed to serve morestudents, especially adults, andfind new markets and revenuestreams... many roads, it seems,lead to distance education.

The new interest in distance educa-tion arouses both unrealistic hopesand unfounded fears. On the hopesside, the claim is that instructionmediated by telecommunicationswill bring new gains in productivi-ty, that somehow we'll hike accessand quality while reducing costsaclaim for which there yet is pre-cious little evidence. Or we hearthat technology is the route to newpopulations of learners in whosewallets there sits a financial bo-nanzaanother unfulfilled hope.

On the fears side, there are reason-able concerns about quality and the

Steven W. Gilbert is the director oftechnology projects at the AmericanAssociation for Higher Education(AAHE). This piece appeared originallyas a foreword to the December 1995AAHE Bulletin a special issue focus.ing on distance education.

by Steven W. Gilbert, AAHE

personal side of education, andunrealistic ones about the immi-nent replacement of faculty bymachines.

Most broadly, distance education isany form of teaching and learningin which teacher and learner arenot in the same place at the sametime, with information technologytheir likely connector. Of course,faculty members have known for along time that students don't haveto be together all the time with ateacher to learn effectively; stu-dents can and do learn indepen-dently, in groups, from reading andprojects, and so on.

Once the hegemony of an in-per-son, here-or-nowhere-else view oflearning is broken, new possibili-ties open up. lbday, for example,we've begun to grasp the educativepower of groups; but we've justscratched the surface in under-standing the options for faculty informing and interacting withgroups or in knowing how the workof a group is affected by the mediait uses for interaction.

Distance education, then, requiresthoughtful attention to pedagogyand to the settings in which learn-ing can occur. The sheer power andrapid improvement of telecommu-nications options make it impera-tive that we identify how to usebest combinations of face-to-face,independent, and "distant" learn-ing. As we do so, we'll find insightsthat help us rethink what we do in"non-distant" educationwith orwithout technology.

The following is only a beginninglist of questions for discussion.

Fundamental research andpolicy issues. For which purposesand under what circumstances is it

important to have learners andteachers together in the same placeat the same time? What specialresources or beneficial conditionsare available only to those who canparticipate in person on campus?Only to those who participate else-where? For which purposes andunder what circumstances is it justas goodperhaps even bettertohave people interacting via tele-communications? Working indepen-dently? What is the right balanceamong face-to-face, telecommunica-tions, and individual work? Whatkinds ec face-to-face interactionscan or should be replaced by tele-communications options?

Student participation and ben-efits. What portion of students atyour institution are already partici-pating in which forms of distanceeducation? With which benefits, forwhom? How many students whocurrently cannot access your offer-ings would be enabled to do so viasome form of distance education?How would such students gainaccess to the necessary technology?(For example, if e-mail is the vehi-cle, how would students who can-not get to campus get access to e-mail?) lb what extent are 'regular"students requesting access to "dis-tance education" materials to en-hance their own learning (e.g.,students with learning disabilitiesrequesting the use of videotapes asa supplement to live lectures)?

Faculty participation and bene-fits. How many faculty at yourinstitution are already participat-ing in which forms of distanceeducation? What are the benefits tothem? What kinds of incentives canbe offered to faculty for teachingvia distance education? How willfaculty get compensation and/orrelease time for such teaching? If afaculty member is audio- or video-

taped as part of teaching a dis-tance education course, who ownswhat intellectual property rights tothat tape? Who decides when andunder what conditions that record-ing is used? Who gets what fees?What about "derivative works"based on that recording? What ifthe faculty member subsequentlyleaves the institution, or laterchanges his/her mind about some-thing that he/she said? Who, ineffect, owns the course "syllabus"?

Infrastructure to support dis-tance education. What specialfacilities and equipment (at boththe teaching and the learning ends)are needed for given versions ofdistance education? What specialtraining and support services areneeded and available to faculty andstudents engaged in distance edu-cation? How are related instruc-tional materialsbooks, articles,laboratory specimensdelivered todistant students in a timely lash-

ion? If demand for use of scarcedistance education resources (e.g.,specially equipped classrooms)increases faster than their avail-ability, how will the resulting con-flicts about priority be resolved?

Institutional costs and benefits.Can your institution use distanceeducation to reach more studentsand provide the same or betterquality learning? Can or should itdo so with fewer faculty? Withchanges in faculty responsibilitiesand the roles of TAs and adjuncts?With new pay scales? Can yourinstitution identify another likeitself that has already been able tooffer coursework of acceptablequality (by that institution's stan-dards) via distance education thatreduces institutional costs and/orincreases institutional revenues?What methods can usefully assessthe quality and impact of the formsof distance education you are usingor considering?

"As human beings we have been conditioned tobelieve that external forces control our being, andin order to make changes in our lives, we mustchange our outside circumstances. As many of usknow too well, there will always be people orforces that can disrupt our work, threaten our jobsand our role in the industry, or make what we sayone day irrelevant the next, no matter how muchpower we may think we have accumulated.Additionally, there are usually limits to how muchwe can do to change things or resist certainchanges within our Institutions, even if we have alot of power and influence."

Margaret G. Massey and Deborah W. StedmanMiami-Dade Community College"Emotional Climate in the Information

Technology Organization: Crisis or Crossroads?"CAUSE / EFFECTWinter 1995

Long-term impacts. If an institu-tion "succeeds" at replacing facultywith distance education technology,what will the ultimate result be? Ifyou don't need the faculty, do youneed the college? Could the "edu-tainment" industry do a better jobthan your institution in mountinga particular offering? Will mosteducation eventually include theuse of telecommunications as afacet, the way most education nowincludes the use of books?

For acklitional information, and theopportunity to "discuss" distancelearning and related topics ofteaching, learning, and technology,you are invited to subscribe toAAHE's highly moderated Internetdiscussion listserv AAHESGIT. 7hsubscribe, send the e-mail messageto listproc@list.cren.net. (with itssubject line left blank): subscribeaahesgit yourfirstname yourlast-name.

In Future Issues

ing IT into the goals ofthe institution

-- More on organizationalissues: when and why toreorganize

- Why governance is moreimportant than hardware

Need a consuttant? EDUTECHInternational provides consultingservices xclusively to collegesand universifies. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

EDUTECH RESPONDSQ. We have always considered ourselvesthe com-puter services departmentvery "customer-friendly"We try as hard as possible to accommodate every-thing the users want or need from us while main-taining an open, cheerful attitude. Lately, though,with rising demand levels, this service attitude iswearing very thin and creating a lot of stress. Theusers' demands seem to be endless and increasinglydifficult to satisfy. We're quickly getting beyond thepoint where any of us feel like being cheerfulwejust want to snarl when any user approaches. Anysuggestions?

A. Yes. Start by working out some new definitions of"customer service" that take into account the fact thatyour human resources are limited. This is such acommon problem because IT folks do tend to be soservice-oriented and somehow, many of them havegotten the idea that this means always having to say"yes" to every user that walks in the door. The reasonthe demands seem to be endless is because they areendless, and it is completely unrealistic to expect tosatisfy them all. One definition of customer serviceyou might try out is this: 'Meeting or exceeding the

realistic expectaaons of an educated user' Thatdefinition implies that IT has helped to both educatethe user about costs and value and has contributed tothe setting of realistic expectations. For those whothink that definition may be too stringent, considerthis: To keep on the way you are will inevitably leadto a collective nervous breakdown, and then wherewill the users be?

Q. We want to institute a student technology fee,but state regulations require that we put this to astudent vote first. Is there a way to "sell" this idea tothe students?

A.:Absolutely. For one thing, initial proceeds shouldbe- used to upgrade the equipment in student labs(we're assuming you need to do this; if not, you areunique), so that the students can see direct benefitvery quickly. Promising modern and powerful com-puters in sufficient quantity to handle the load can bea major selling point. Other, more philosophical, dis-cussions can also be held that compare having qual-ity computing on campus with having a quality lib-rary. The students will support this idea.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

tOprinted on recycled paper

Clearing House on Info Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse, NY 13210

n

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

THEFebruary 1996 Volume 11

'Number 11

R E P 0 R TThe Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

Dear Webby Advicefor the Web Worn

by Howard Strauss, Princeton University

Dear Webby: I've read that some universities are making theirlegacy systems available via the web. In fact, I've been told

that we could even take our regular green-bar paper reports and dis-play them with a web browser such as Netscape or Mosaic. I thoughtthat web documents had to use HTML (FlyperText Markup Language)for formatting, yet I know that our legacy systems were all writtenbefore FITML was even invented. Can our users really find happinesson the web without HTML? Can we really change our stodgy old leg-acy systems into slick web apps without forcing our programmersthrough the culture shock of learning HTML and URLology? Can Itrust someone who says I don't need HTML? Dreamily, R. V. Winkle.

Dear R. V.: Web browsers are quite capable of displaying text withoutHTML, no matter how ugly the text is. So you do not have to addHTML to your text, unless you want to please your users.

It is not enough to do something better for your users. If they pre-viously could not get reports on-line at all, you might think that givingthem 132-column green-bar on the web would be a big step forward;and it would. But that is not good enough. In fact, if you plan to stayin business, that should not even be acceptable. As a web publisher(which is what you are when you put things on the web) you are notcompeting with the green-bar reports that are a legacy of 1960s tech-nology, you are competing with Levi's home page (at www.levi.com),SGI's home page (at www.sgi.com), and the thousands of other slickhome pages that your users see every day. The web can do things thatgreen-bar cannot do and you are obligated to take advantage of thefeatures of the web that have made it the runaway success that it is.

continued on page 3

"IT will change teaching andlearning profoundly, no matterwhat the response of tradition-al higher educations institu-tions. Just as the developmentof the printing press foreverchanged the teaching enter-prise, IT represents a funda-mental change in the basictechnology of teaching andlearning. The transformationwill take a long time, longenough for critics to claim thatperhaps higher education canthrive without fundamentallychanging itself in response tothe new technology. If tradi-tional colleges and universitiesdo not exploit the new techno-logies, other nontraditionalproviders of education will bequick to do so."

W. Massey and R. ZemskyUsing Information Technology to

Enhance Academic ProductivityEducom1995

TECHNOLOGY USE According to The 1995 National Survey of Desktop Computing in HigherJUMPS ON COLLEGE Education, the use of information technology in college coursesincludingCAMPUSES electronic mail, multimedia, CD-ROM, commercial courseware, and

simulationsgrew dramatically this past year, as did the number ofstudents and faculty routinely using the Internet and World Wide Web."Something very significant is happening," says Kenneth C. Green, directorof the national survey and a visiting scholar at the Claremont GraduateSchool. "Following several decades of great aspirations and more than adozen years of significant institutional investments, information technologyhas emerged as a permanent, respected, and increasingly essentialcomponent of the college experience.' Data from the sixth annual survey,says Green, indicate that the use of information technology across all typesof institutions is finally moving past the early adopters and breaking intothe ranks of mainstream faculty.

CAUSE'S DCE PAGEON THE WEB

1996 LEAGUE ITCONFERENCE

Copies of the report are available for $25 (pre-paid) by ordering from:Campus Computing, P.O. Box 261242, Encino, California 91426; (818) 990-2212; cgreen@earthlink.net.

At their meeting in December of 1994, the CAUSE Board of Directors passeda motion to strongly encourage CAUSE member institutions to investigateadopting the Open Software Foundation's DCE technology as an institutionalstandard, to promote interoperability across heterogenous systems withinand between institutions, to aid in the transition to client/server computing,and to facilitate sharing and leveraging campus technology investments. Tosupport this endeavor, CAUSE has created a DCE page on its web server,which links to selected DCE-related resources on the web that CAUSEthinkr will be valuable to campus information resourcvs managers. CAUSEplans to create a section on this page to identify DCE-related products andservices in the marketplace, from which a user can link directly to corporateweb pages describing those resources.

The address of this page is http://cause-www.colorado.edu/issues/dce.html.For more information, contact CAUSE at 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E,Boulder, Colorado 80301; (303) 449-4430; info@cause.colorado.edu.

The 1996 Conference on Information Technology, sponsored by the Leaguefor Innovation in the Community College, will be held November 13-16 inPhoenix. Themes include Access and the "At Risk" Student, ManagingTechnology and Change, Model Programs and Partnerships, end ApplyingTechnology to Teachhig and Learning. Proposals are now being sought.

For more information, contact the League for Innovation Conference onInformation Technology, 26522 La Alameda, Suite 370, Mission Viejo,California 92691; (714) 367-2884; http://www.league.org.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 06002-1634;(203) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit (LFLEIT@EDUTECH-INT.COM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1996,EDUTECH International. All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without thewritten permission of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, is forbidden. ISSN #0883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

Dear Webby Advice for the Web Worn ...continued from page 1

One person, enamored by our abili-ty to put green-bar reports on theweb, suggested that we create aweb background that actuallylooked like green-bar paper. I sup-pose we should also add the sproc-ket holes and perforations, anddisplay smudged carbons as well.We certainly could. But the web isa technological paradigm shift. Atfirst, TV newscasts were just aradio broadcaster standing in frontof a TV camera reading the news.Later, we learned that TV wasreally different from radio, andlearned what it could really do.The web is hypertext, interactivity,and multimedia. We have to atleast consider using those featuresand not to do the best simulationof archaic technology.

While it might seem like bad newsto have to add HTML to everythingyou put on the web, the good newsis that with just a little HTML,things look a great deal better. Andwith a little more HTML, and someplanning and standardization, youcan have pages that your users willthink are great, rather than onesthey will just put up with.

Your programmers will not experi-ence any culture shock over HTML.Adding Irma to legacy output isjust a matter of inserting a fewconstants in the right places. Someof your programmers will learnhow to do that on their own. Forthose that can't or won't, your localHTML guru will be able to providethem the HTML tags and theirlocation. Don't forget that no onereally liked green-bar. In the pastthere just was not an alternative.Now there is and your users knowit. They are counting on you to dothe right thing. Don't let them down.

Howard Strauss is Manager ofAdvanced Applications at PrincetonUniversity.

Dear Webby: I've heard that Hot-Java will revolutionize informationtechnology, solve the problems ofdistance learning, replace all oper-ating systems with free web brows-ers, and make it possible for facul-ty, staff, and overburdened IT pro-fessionals, such as me, to deliverdazzling web applications in nextto no time for practically no cost. Ican't wait to embrace the HotJavarevolution. How can I get togetherwith HotJava? Warmly, KwonValdez.

Dear Kwon: Java has certainlycaused quite a stir. However, even

ne person, enamoredby our ability to put

green-bar reports on theweb, suggested that we

create a webbackground that

actually looked like-green-bar paper.

if Java turns out to be right foryou, HotJava is not the Java youwant.

Thday Java comes in three varie-ties; Java, HotJava, and Java-Script With things changing sorapidly, more Java flavors couldappear at any moment. In fact,many programs such as InternetSuite, Latte, and others claim to bethe Java of your dreams. It's notclear today which of these will winyour heart, but Java and Java-Script have an early lead.

Java is just another programminglanguage. It was developed by SunMicrosystems and is closest to C++,

a language used effectively only bythe most technically proficient pro-grammers. Even among them, few,if any, know and use the entirelanguage and take full advantageof ita rich but confusing syntax andstructure. While Java is simplerthan C++, it still is so technicallydemanding that only a very few,very skilled people will be writingprograms with Java.

Making matters even worse is thatJava is in its infancy. Many of theJava tools, libraries, and supportutilities are either currently invery crude form or non-existent.While many companies (includingSun) are rushing to improve thefeatures and development environ-ment of Java, even under the bestcircumstances, Java programmingwill remain the domain of prog-rammers, not the users who havemanaged to learn enough HTML tothrow together a basic home page.

Java does have some features thatmake it particularly suitable foruse in creating programs that canbe used with the web and otherInternet applications. Normally, itis very dangerous to obtain pro-grams via the Internet because ofthe possibility of obtaining a viru-lent computer virus along with thefree software that you willinglydownload onto your computer. Javaprograms written for the web(called applets) are safe to obtainover the Internet. They cannot con-tain viruses and cannot do badthings to your computer. However,by limiting the bad things thatapplets can do, some of the goodthings that an applet might do arealso eliminated. Applets still re-main quite versatile, but don'texpect them to solve all of yourweb problems, especially those thatinvolve the use of files and data-bases.

continued on page 4

Dear Webby Advice for the Web Worn ...continued from page 3

Another nice thing about Javaarmlets is that they can be writtenonce and will run on most comput-ers. Of course each of these typesof computers needs a specially de-signed Java interpreter, but thoseshould soon be available for mostcomputers and operating systems.A single version of a Java appletwill run on a Mac and look like aMac application should. The sameunmodified applet running on Win-dows 95 will look like a Wmdows95 application. This feature has thepotential to speed up applicationdevelopment and to make applica-tions universally available over theInternet. But only if your applica-tion is something that a Java app-let can do. And only if you have orcan hire someone skilled enough towrite Java applets.

While most web documents todayare static (you can fill in a form,but you don't really interact withit), Java applets let you put anima-tions and true interactive applica-tions on a web page. You can actu-ally poke your mouse at somethingon a web page and have it respondon the spot. You can drag an imagearound on the screen so that youcan see the back of it. You can turnoff the valves on a diagram of anuclear reactor and watch thereactor vessel turn red andif youdon't take corrective actionseeand hear it explode.

Java applets are also attractivebecause they are small (so theymove across the network quickly)and they integrate well with webbrowsers and with the HTML withwhich web documents are written.While typical web users will not becoding their own Java applets,anyone who can handle the basicsof HTML can use the Java appletswritten by the techno-mavens ofthe world. lb web authors, a li-brary of applets would be a collec-tion of tools for going beyond what

one might normally expect the webto do; currently, there is no libraryof general-purpose Java applets.

There are good alternatives to Javaarmlets for many things. A "plug-in" (a program that works closelywith Netscape browsers) such asShockWave can do flashy anima-tion, sound, and user interactionwithout the challenging technicaldemands that Java makes of itsauthors. Before getting too involvedwith Java, you might want to con-sider one of the plug-ins.

HotJava is a web browser written

ur users will not beamazed that they canaccess pictures in New

Zealand in secondswhen what they need isto get budget projections

from an office in thenext building.

by Sun that can process Java arm-lets. When HotJava was writtenthere was no other way to use Javaarmlets. The Netscape and Mosaicbrowsers couldn't deal with app-lets. But that has changed. Mostweb browsers today can or soonwill be able toprocess applets.Once your web browser can handlearmlets, if you are otherwise happywith it, there is no reason for youto use Sun's HotJava browser.

JavaScript is a language similar toJava, but an order of magnitudeeasier to use. Someone comfortablein any programming language,even Basic or Hyper/Falk, couldprobably quickly learn to code in

JavaScript. While Java applets areseparate applications that interactwith a web page, JavaSeript scriptsare extensions to HTML that allowweb pages to interact with usersand the browser environment.Scripts are part of the HTML. Ascript typically consists of a fewfunctions that react to mouseclicks, mouse moves, data beingentered, and other things thatmight happen to a web page. Forexample, a script might perform acomputation or table look-up as auser entered data into a field. Ascript could check the range of dataand ensure that social securitynumbers, for example, were theright length and were numeric.While applets can do much moredramatic things than scripts,scripts are much easier to write.

While it is clear that Java haspermanently raised expectations ofwhat the World Wide Web shoulddeliver, it is not clear that Javawill be the primary way in whichthat is done. Scripting languagessuch as JavaScript, and a Multi-tude of plug-ins, add-ons, and pro-grams from every software vendorwill become a part of every out-standing web page in the nearfuture. While this may dazzle,entertain, and educate users morethan anyone might have thoughtpoesible, web publishing will be-come much more complex andexpensive. Better tools, far moretechnical expertise, and more seri-ous design and layout skills will berequired to produce outstandingweb pages. It will no longer beenough to know even the mostarcane corners of HTML. HTML-generation programs that couldn'tquite keep up with how feet HTMLwas changing will be hopelesslyinadequate in the face of Java,JavaScript, and their ilk. Justwhen it seems that the web freedon-line publishers from their de-pendence on programmers (with

whom they shared no commonexperiences), Java and its brethrenhave conspired to force them to re-unite. At least for a while.

Dear Webby: Our students, facul-ty and staff keep using unsupport-ed software that they get free fromthe web or just buy from somemail-order catalog. They also keepusing unsupported features of pro-grams that we do support. It hasgotten so bad that our users fre-quently call us with questionsabout things our help desk hasnever even heard of. We publish alist of software and features thatwe support. How can we get ourusers to stick to the software thatwe have determined is best forthem? Sternly, Jill Bligh.

Dear Jill: As you no doubt see,your users have access to oceans offree software which they can obtainfrom the web. The time has passedwhen you made all the announce-ments of new software and fea-tures. Now those alluring an-nouncements appear on the weband you and your users get to seethem at the same time. The con-cept of supported web software ishopelessly out of date. In the past,you always supported the criticalsoftware that your users used.That shouldn't change now. Whathas changed is that you no longerdetermine which software yourusers use. Now they decide. Thisdoesn't mean that there isn't betasoftware, recommended software,and software for which you haveextra expertise. But you have tostay close enough to your users toknow what software they are us-ing, and then you have to learnenough about it to help them.

Beta versions of free web browsersregularly appear, as do free copiesof plug-ins and other software.Users even start up their own webservers and use new web features

before you've even read the an-nouncements for them. Your usersare using this stuff because theyare convinced that it improvestheir productivity (it's also easyand possibly even fun). By insistingthat your users use only the soft-ware you have deemed "supported*you will either be ignored or youwill have a mutiny on your hands.Your users will not change. Therules have changed and yo't haveto accommodate your users or youwill be forced to abandon ship.

Dear Webby: The Internet andthe World Wide Web changes ev-

Lis easy, eventempting, to become sowrapped up with thisneat new technology

that we expect our.usersto applaud us just formaking it available to

them.

erything. I would have thoughtyou'd know that by now. All therules of information technology areout the window. The road ahead isso different than where we've beenthat we will have to invent totallynew ways of doing everything.Your old fashioned, conservative,puritanical advice just doesn't ap-ply to this new era. Modestly, Wil-liam Greats.

Dear Bill: No, Bill, the web andthe Internet are evolutionary notrevolutionary Just last week, us-ing my $9.95 Home Depot USPS-approved mail box, I received 15catalogs and magazines consistingof 2610 pages and including over

3000 high resolution color pictures.While it would have taken me mostof a week to download this infor-mation using my 14.4 modem,retrieving it from my mailbox tookjust minutes. And using my $18telephone in conjunction with thesecatalogs, I was able to conduct elec-tronic commerce over the net (thetelephone net, that is).

The Internet and the World WideWeb certainly allow us to do thingsa little differently than we couldbefore, but they don't change whatIT organizations should be tryingto do for their users or even thebasic rules of how they should doit. It is easy, even tempting, tobecome so wrapped up and enthu-siastic with this neat new technolo-gy that we expect our users to ap-plaud us just for making it avail-able to them. But our users reallyneed us to help them get theirwork done. We cannot compromisethe reliability, security, integrity,efficiency, accuracy, effectiveness,and timeliness of what we do forour usersno matter how neat thenew thing is that we give them.Our users will not be amazed thatthey can access pictures in NewZealand in seconds when what theyneed is a budget projection from anoffice in the next building. Thecries of adulation will come onlywhen we do not compromise theservices we provide.

Standards, planning, documenta-tion, attention to detail, under-standing the real needs of yourusers, and exceeding their expecta-tions are just as important withthis new technology as with anytechnology. The web and the Inter-net are only new tools that willhelp your users get where they aregoing. Their destination has notchanged. As you travel the roadahead, you must not lose sight ofwhere you are taking your users orwhy they are going there.

Human Dimensions in the LT Support Crisisby Ken Friedman, Norwegian School of'hlanagement

IT here are a number of diraen-i sions in the computer support

crisis. Financial and technical is-sues are at the front, but humanand political issues come closebehind. My comments come fromthe viewpoint of a faculty member.

We have a good IT deportment atour school. I'd say they are general-ly outstanding seen from my view-point as a faculty customer. Likemany IT departments, they areoverworked. The demands on theirtime and services go a little fartherthan the available resources. Likemany faculty, I'm just barely com-puter literate. I couldn't work witha computer until the Macintosharrived with "a computer for therest of us." Even with the Mac, I'vesometimes had to struggle, but Iget by fairly well today. The com-puter has become an indispensabletool for writing and now the Inter-net has become a mAjor tool forresearch and communication.

In private life, I've had to rely onsupport from suppliers of comput-ers or software. Now that I'm at aschool with superb support servicesand a completely wired environ-ment, I have a number of choices.When I have a problem, I weigh itin an intuitive fashion to decidewhom I should call for help.

If it's a hardware problem, a con-nectivity problem, or the need fornew softwai e, I call on the IT peo-ple. There was an initial phasewhen I had a bad machine. WhileI waited for a new machine I was a

Ken Friedman is an associate professorin the Leadership and Strategic Designdepartment of the Norwegian School ofManagement in Oslo, Norway. Thisarticle first appeared as a posting tothe AAHESGIT listseru.

regular and troubled customer.When I got my new machine, Ineeded help making things work,especially since I needed softwarethat was common in the US andhard to find in Norway. As Igained skill and knowledge, Icalled on the IT department lessand less. Now, it's only the needfor something new or help in anemergency that leads me to callthem.

One thing I observed was that oneof the computer staff failed to seethe difference between stages in auser's development. As a result, heoften lost patience with me. Eventhough he was also an undergradu-ate student at our school, he didn'tseem to recognize that he was ateacher for those of us who neededto learn to use computer resources.He didn't seem to understand thatI was as bewildered and as muchat a loss for what to do with com-puter problems without his coach-ing as he would be in an advancedresearch project designed for post-doctoral scholars in managementwithout social help.

It seemed to me that he lookeddown on me for the inability tosolve my computer problems with afew words over the phone. Hefailed to see that what he saw assimple things were difficult for me.Good teachers show students howto recognize patterns and helpthem to see how the parts of thingsfit together. That's an importantand conscious step in coachingpeople toward independent exerciseof judgment in any field. He wouldoften give curt, cryptic instructionsthat would be fine for an educateduser but made little sense to me.As a result, I'd be back again andagain and he lost patience with me.For my part, after two or threedays of visits and polite requests, I

occasionally became sharper thannecessary when desperate. Whenyou've got deadlines, when every-thing depends on your computerand your printer, and when themachines aren't working, it's anunfortunate human tendency topush a bit and to remind the ITpeople that they're there to makethings work. He was an extremelyintelligent, skillful computer per-son, but he failed to recognize thatan IT department involves bothtechnology and people.

Our other IT person saw the dis-tinctions. As it happens, rvelearned a lot more over the lastyear, and I've moved from beingboth a learner and a customer tobeing a customer. Now, I only comefor help in emergencies, usuallyhardware or connections.

When it comes to software, thefaculty and research fellows prac-tice self-help and mutual support.I have three expert users withintwenty meters of my office, and Iturn to them whenever I need help.In turn, I help colleagues in man-aging some of the programs that Ihave become reasonably good atusing and I help them with thesimpler rudiments of making theirMacs work. This is an excellentsolution. It seems to me that theconscious development of facultyself-help teams can free IT depart-ments to concentrate on dangerpointsand can help them to real-ize that people who come to themdo need help.

The area where I'd say faculty andIT need to understand each otherand work together more carefully isin the transition area for new userswho have just got their machinesor set-ups on-line. Even thoughfaculty help each other with soft-ware and making things tick,

there's none of us who know themachines well enough to handlethe trickier parts of initial set-upsand making things fit together.Even when it finally makes senseas we witness the experts handleproblems, we just don't workenough with equipment or operat-ing systems to keep the knowledgefresh and explainable to others.

The allocation of resources in anysystem is a matter of priorities,politics, and people. This kind ofissue affects many departments,particularly in a European schoolwhere sometimes antiquated no-tions of faculty status get in theway of a school that sees itself as asingle community of knowledgeand service. The slow growth ofcommunity between faculty andlibrarians is an example of this.Library services have only recentlybeen given the respect and impor-tance they deserve at our school.Some of us believe that librarystaff are an important part of the

faculty, but generating a consensusfor that view takes time.

This is related to several otherissues. One is the growth of ourschool from having a primary mis-sion as a direct teaching institutionto having an enlarged mission asan institution dedicated to researchand to research-based education.We have had many faculty mem-bers who are not productive re-searchers and who therefore neveruse the library. I don't know how itis in other schools, but I suspectthat the growing status of thelibrary staff is directly proportion-ate to the growing research produc-tivity of faculty members. I suspectthat within a few years, this willalso be true for members of the ITstaffat least those members ofthe IT staff who have interface andeducation functions toward facultyand administrative staff.

My suggestion for those of youconcerned with the IT support cri-

"Technology provides more flexibility than tradi-tional teaching methods once one moves beyondminor changes that can be instituted by individualprofessors. The 'career' of a workstation may wellbe less than five years, whereas that of a professoroften exceeds 30 years. Workstations don't get ten-ure, and delegations are less likely to wait on theprovost when particular equipment items are 'laidoff.' The 'retraining' of IT equipment (for example,reprogramming), while not inexpensive, is easierand more predictable than retraining a tenuredprofessor. Within limits, departments will gain alarger zone of flexibility as the capital-labor ratiogrows."

William F. Massey and Robert ZemskyUsing Information Technology to Enhance

Academic ProductivityEducom, 1995

sis is to talk things through on themany levels where you have towork. IT is reshaping education, soyou'll have to do this sooner orlater. AAHE (American Associationfor Higher Education) is helping anumber of local wrearhing, Learn-ing, and Technology Roundtableeto address these issues in teamsthat include members from each ofthe stake-holding constituencies. Igather they've been very productivefor those who have taken part, andI'm hoping that we can eventuallyhost one here for schools in theNordic nations. In the meantime,broad dialogue goes a long way.

Even in schools with the mostup-to-date equipment and com-pletely staffed IT departments,crises will conthme simply becausethe support crisis is a matter ofhuman interaction and the politicalallocation of resources. Good dia-logue among all parties helps inareas where no amount of newfunding can make a difference.

In Future Issues

- When doing strategicplanning for IT Ls not f.a good idea

....-

- What, if anything, IT hasto do with institutionalquality

- New system implementation:basic guidelines forcuccess

Need a consultant? EDUTECHinternational provides consultingservices exclusively to collegesand universities. Call us at(203) 242-3356.

Allk

Q. As the head of one of the largest administrativedepartments on campus, and one that is heavilydependent on technology, I have found that the onlyway to succeed is to do s for ourselves. If wehad had to wait for the IT department to get aroundto helping us, we would not be as far ahead now aswe are. We've used our own budget to get anddevelop what we need, and we've done a lot of verygood work. Now the IT department wants us to joinwith them to work together with other departmentson a new project that will supposedly benefit thewhole campus (a smart-card system). I'm not reallyinclined to do this, but I don't want us to look likewe're standing in the way either. Any advice?

A. You need to weigh two different sets ofcosts andbenefits: ont for your department and one for thecampus as a whole. (We're assuming you haven't beengiven a directive to participate in the new projectfrom the upper administration and that the decisionis totally yours to make). Consider also that while youmay have achieved great success in the past withthings that were for your department only, a smart-card project really does have campus-wide potential

1

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

k

and your participation is likely to make the results ofthe project that much better. It's possible that in thisproject, you can be a role model for other departmentsin terms of coming to grips with technology andemploying it effectively. It may be just the right timeto be a good soldier and let the campus benefit fromyour experience.

Q. We are considering the possibility of outsourcingour entire IT area. But what happens if we want tobring it back to campus in a few years? Will we beable to do this, or i8 outsourcing a "forever" decision?

A. It doesn't have to be, but there are some thingsyou will need to do to ensure you have the flexibilityto make this choke in the future. The most importantis that the top adminiation needs to stay (or be-come) involved in IT arid ,,ot look at outsourcing asa way to stay out of the fray, c to speak. From thepresident on down, there meds to be a good, welleducated understanding of the costs, benefits, andpotential of IT on campus and that even with out-sourcing, they need to fulfill their responsibilities bystaying informed and involved.

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

Clearing Hoit4e oifilnio Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse, NY 13210

FIRST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

THE March 1996Ar6

Volume 11Number 12

EuLTT:CriThe Education Technology Newsletter for Faculty and Administrators

"The ProductivityParadox"

by Paul Attewell, City University of New York

Despite years of investing in computing systems designedto handle administrative tasks and to control costs, manycolleges and universities find that their administrative

staffs continue to grow. This parallels the experience *of corpora-tions, where even larger investments in information technologyhave failed to stem the expansion of managerial staffs or thecosts of administration.

Scholars in recent years have tried to understand this "produc-tivity paradox"why spending huge sums on new informationtechnologies has not raised white-collar productivity very much.In a book published by the National Research Council's Commit-tee on Human Factors, Organizational Linkages: Understandingthe Productivity Paradox (National Academy Press, 1994), otherscholars and I summark. the research on this question.

For several decades, computer manufacturers have asserted thatthe technology they were selling would produce major break-throughs in productivity, allowing a given volume of administra-tive work to be done by far fewer workers, at much less cost.Instead, as we are coming to realize, information technology hasled to a displacement of efforts; many new things are being doneby a work force of the same or larger size, rather than the oldwork's being done by fewer employees. Often, no money is savedat all.

One example of this displacement is that people use technologyto enhance the appearance of documents, rather than simplyproduce paperwork more quickly. Two decades ago, typists fid-dled with correction fluid and margin settings. Today's word-

continued on page 3

"What sort of 'informationliteracy'an often-used butdangerously ambiguousconceptshould we bepromoting, and what shouldit accomplish? Is it merelysomething that will reducethe number of tech supportcalls we have to deal with?...Or is it, should it be, some-thing broader, somethingthat enables individuals notonly to use information andinformation technologyeffectively and adapt totheir constant changes butalso to think critically aboutthe entire informationenterprise and informationsociety?"

Jeremy Shapiro, Shelley Hughes"Information Technology as a

Liberal Art"Educom ReviewMarch/April 1996

NEWSBRI-EFSGRANTOPPORTUNITY FORTEACHING WITHTECHNOLOGY

SUMMER PROGRAMIN MULTIMEDIA

ISSUES INNETWORKEDINFORMATION

The National Endowment for the Humanities Division of Research andEducation Programs has announced a special, three-year opportunity forthe support of Teaching with Technology. These projects are designed tostrengthen education in the humanities by developing and using newinformation technologies, including digital audio, video and imaging,hypertext and hypermedia, videoconferencing, speech processing, and theInternet. The Endowment seeks to increase the number and usefulness oftechnological resources with high-quality humanities content; to improvethe effectiveness of such resources by basing them .3n sophisticated,creative, and engaging approaches to teaching and learning and toincrease the number of teachers who can integrate these materials intotheir daily teaching.

The initial deadline for receipt of applications for grants is April 5,1996.For more information, contact the Division of Research and Education,Room 302, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 PennsylvaniaAve. NW, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8380; education@nehled.us.

The Summer Program in Multimedia for Higher Education will provide acreative and stimulating environment for faculty to foster the creation ofacademic multimedia. The Program, to be held at the Tisch School of theArts at New York University, is seeking faculty whose ideas for multi-media promise to become exemplary works in their field. Up to eightacademic faculty will spend June 1-30 mastering appropriate techniquesand vocabulary as they develop innovative and pedagogically soundprototypes. The agenda will also include guest lectures, critiques of otherworks as examples of good (or poor) design, and trips to exhibits andcultural events. A stipend of $5000 will be provided to each facultyparticipant.

Interested persons should submit their application and a c.v. by April 1via e-mail to Susan Saltrick, Executive Director, at: spmp@voyagerco.comwith the following information: name, institution, departmental affiliation,and a brief (up to three pages) description of the idea. For moreinformation, contact Susan Saltrick at (212) 877-0840; saltrick@inch.com.

Networked information issues in higher education will be the focus of aregional conference sponsored by CAUSE and the Coalition for NetworkedInformation this May 30-31 at the University of Pennsylvania. Speakerswill describe how their campuses deal with network infrastructure andaccess to scholarly information. Topics will include telecommunicationslegislation, information discovery and retrieval, and administrativecomputing.

For more information, contact CAUSE in Boulder, Colorado at (303) 939-0315; conf@cause.colorado.edu.

The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by EDUTECH International, 120 Mountain Avenue, Bloomfield, CT, 06002-1E34; (860) 242-3356. President and Publisher: Linda H. Fleit (LFLEITGEDUTECH-1NT.COM); Vice President: Emily Dadoorian. Copyright 0 1996, EDUTECHInternational. All rights reserved, This publication, or any part thereof, may not be duplicated, reprinted, or republished without the writtenpermiuion of the publisher. Facsimile reproduction, including photocopying, I. forbidden. ISSN 00883-1327. One year subscription, $97.

"The Productivity Paradox"...continued from page 1

processing software makes suchediting child's play. But the timefreed up by the software now isused to create elegant layouts,striking combinations of fonts, piecharts, and other graphic innova-tions.

Another example of this displace-ment is in the mix of face-to-faceand written communications inorganizations. Laboratory studiesshow that written communicationstend to be more detailedandtherefore to take longer to pro-ducethan spoken communica-tions, even when the purpose ofthe message is the same.

The current explosion of electronicmail, though enormously helpfulin certain ways, is neverthelesspushing communication towardsthe slower and more wordy medi-um of written messages, ratherthan toward the faster and lesswordy channel of telephone orface-to-face conversations.

More interactionsThe problem of communicationgoes beyond this, however. Re-search in the corporate sectorshows that information technolo-gies offer more ways to communi-cate and add to the already heavyvolume of interactions that eachemployee handles.

It is not unusual to find white-collar employees receiving a com-munication (electronic, paper, ororal) every five minutes. This canfragment their work day and lead

Paul A. Attewell is a professor ofsociology at the Graduate Schooland University Center of the CityUniversity of New York. Thisarticle first appeared in VigChronicle of Higher Education andis reprinted with permission.

to a sense that there is never afree moment to get one's "realwork" done.

For example, researchers studyingthe productivity of different soft-ware-programming teams expectedto find differences in productivityassociated with different program-ming languages. But, to their sur-prise, the strongest predictor ofproductivity was whether the teamhad a support person to answer

The current explosionof electronic mail,though enormously

helpful in certain ways,is nevertheless pushingcommunication towards

the slower and morewordy medium ofwritten messages,

rather than toward thefaster and less wordy

channel of telephone orface-to-face

conversations.

the phone and shield other mem-bers from interruptions.

More informationFurther problems occur because,as computer systems have madeinformation much cheaper to col-lect and manipulate, the demandfor information has skyrocketed.Leaders of organizations, includingcollege and university administra-tors as well as corporate execu-tives, expect the costly electronicsystems they purchase to providean ever-finer picture of what isgoing on.

For instance, are more studentsenrolling in large lecture coursesthan in previous years? Are recentgraduates contributing as much totheir alma mater as graduates ofurlier classes did? Thus, informa-tion systems create escalating de-mands for data and fuel thegrowth of a "management by num-ber? culture, emphasizing quan-titative data and spreadsheet mod-eling as central to good organiza-tional decision-making.

Unfortunately, as Fred D. Davis,professor of information systemsat the University of Maryland atCollege Park and his collaborators,Jeffrey E. Kottemann and WilliamE. Remus, reported recently, thecurrent penchant for numericalmodeling often is wrong-headed.In their studies, they found thatmanagers often overestimated theaccuracy and superiority of com-puter models, creating what theresearchers called "the illusion ofcontrol" and "cognitive conceit?Administrators felt that computermodels generated better decisionseven when this was not reallytrue. But this assumption spurredthem to demand more and betterinformation systems.

This management by numbers alsoplaces greater burdens on admin-istrators, who must spend hours(often at home) preparing spread-sheets as rationales for requeststhat, a generation ago, might havebeen made in a simple memoran-dum.

Savings offseth onically, the one personnel cate-gory in which employment hasbeen reduced because of informa-tion technology is that of clericalworkers, such as secretaries andtypists. But, unfortunately, the

continued on page 6

IVO

A s a reader of this newsletteryou probably recognize the

potential for technology to en-hance the learning process andincrease the productivity of oureducational institutions. The vi-sion of these tools becoming inte-gral to the curriculum is finallybecoming a reality. The .1995Campus Computing Survey con-ducted by Kenneth C. Greenshowed the first significant in-crease in curricular use of comput-ers during the past decade. Forinstance, th ase of commercialcourseware in the classroom in-creased nearly 50% to around 18%of college courses.

Still, the fiscal policies and proce-dures by which most institutionsacquire computers and relatedcourseware is now a greater im-pediment to progress than thetechnology itself. The purchaiingprocess, based primarily on inile-quent and unpredictable capitaloutlay, is increasingly out of syncwith the needs of educators andstudents, and is in fact counter towhat most institutional and statefiscal policy attempts to accom-plish.

The need to stay currentDuring the past few years, thepower per dollar-value of comput-er hardware has accelerated at adizzying pace, and this trend willcontinue with advancements inmicroprocessor design, manufac-

Glen McCandless is president ofFocus Marketing, a consulting firmthat helps technology companiesmarket their products to schools.He has been involved with thepromotion of electronic technologyfor over fifteen years, and has aspecial interest in computer-basedlearning solutions.

Acquiring Classroom Techby Glen IV

turing efficiencies, and increasedcompetition. Desktop systems ca-pable . of running power-intensivemultimedia courseware are nowavailable for well under $2000, afraction of the cost of only a coupleof years ago. At the same time,software, especially multimediasolutions incorporating graphics,video, and sound, continue to ex-ploit the available power.

VVe are constantly ina catch-up mode,

usually years behindthe curve, with

needs and budget-dollar availability at

odds with one another.Everyone loses here...

our students, ourinstitutions, andultimately our

country.

We know the trend toward distrib-uted multimedia and related tech-nologies will continue with theproliferation of CD coursewareand the World Wide Web.

So, on the hardware side, we haveprecipitously falling pricing andrapid obsolescence. On the soft-ware and content side, we haveever-increasing power require-ments to take advantage of th::new technologies. In this environ-ment, it is easy to understand whyinfrequent cash outlays to acquirepersonal-computer-based learningtechnologies will not enable our

institutions to provide the best forour students and to stay as cur-rent as they need to be with tech-nology.

An old paradigmJust how did we get into this pre-dicament? A look back at the be-ginning of the desktop revolutionoffers some insight. When the per-sonal computer first appeared onthe scene in the early 1980s, com-puting was centralized and pri-marily to support large batch pro-cessing needs of our institutions.At that time, mainframe comput-ers were leased. Personal comput-ers were not taken seriously forthe most part (certainly not astools for the classroom). Becausethe whole category was new, themachines were inexpensive whencompared to mainframes, andthere was no way to predict thelong-term viability of the technol-ogy, purchasers simply paid cash.Certainly, at the outset of the shiftto desktop systems, that seemedlike a good decision.

Now, we know betterbut for themost part we continue our oldhabits. For the past six years, theCampus Computing Survey hastracked institutional plans to dealwith technology budgeting. Duringthis period, among the 1000 insti-tutions surveyed, there has beenlittle progress made toward devel-oping capitalization plans to ac-quire and retire computers, soft-ware, and related technology re-sources. Most institutions continueto buy on an ad hoc basis whendollars are available. Less than20% have any plan for retiringand acquiring technology over thelong term.

Unfortunately, even with signsthat technology is finding its wayinto the classroom, personal com-

olo : A Case for Changemdless

puters remain primarily produc-tivity tools in most of our institu-tions, and classroom teaching re-mains very much the same as italways was. Major changes in in-structional activity have yet to beaccomplished. Buying computersoutright that are to be used asproductivity tools can sometimesbe justified, especially if they arebeing used as electronic typewrit-ers. Let's face it, many schools arestill using the mimeograph ma-chines they had when I was a kid!(Could it be the wonderful smell ofthe duplicating fluid?)

For acquiring the learning-supporttools that are computer-based, thecurrent paradigm just doesn'twork. Typically, the faculty be-comes aware of new technology,enters into a lengthy process ofdecision making, begins a politicalprocess to justify the investment,and then sometimes meet withsuccess in prioritizing dollars topurchase new computers and soft-ware. From the recognition of theneed to the cutting of the pur-chase order commonly takes ayear, sometimes two. In the mean-time, technology marches on, andby the time the acquisition ismade, the solution is well on itsway to being obsolete. The dollarsexpended are thus devalued imme-diately.

We are constantly in a catch-upmode, usually years behind thecurve, with needs and budget-dol-lar availability at odds with oneanother. Everyone loses here... ourstudents, our institutions, andultimately even our country.

The traditional response to thistechnology budgeting crisis is totry to find additional sources offundingnot a bad approach, butcertainly a band-aid on a large

wound. There are millions of dol-lars of grant money availablethrough public and private founda-tions that support acquisition oftechnology in our institutions.There are consultants who make aliving helping educators find andget their piece of the pie. Otherspursue vendors for donations anddeep price discounts. The outcomeof all this activity to find money isstill the samethe purchase of

0ur institutionsmust prioriti,ze the

resources necessary todevelop a long-range

technology planthat includes

capitalization based onthe reality of

technolog7. Withoutsuch a plan,

we remain in areactive mode.

soon-to-be obsolete technologywith the funds. Then the processbegins over again. This is terriblyunproductive for everyone con-cerned. Yes, we need to fmd moremoney, but even more important,we need to spend it more wisely!

Time for changeIt is time for change. Several stepsmust be taken by the stakeholdersto break our bad habits and get uson the right track.

First, we must collectively do ev-erything we can to elevate theseverity of the problem and articu-

late its consequences to the finan-cial policy makers in our institu-tions. Until the stakeholders (fac-ulty, administrators, governmentalpolicy makers, and vendors) recog-nize the price we pay by followingour current purchasing methodol-ogy, there is no hope of change!

Next, we must change the fiscalpolicies for acquiring technology.The zero-based budgeting modelby which funds evaporate on June30 does not accommodate long-term financial commitments fortechnology. This policy runs ppcosts which get passed along toparents and students through tui-tion increases.

The costs for personal computers,courseware, and related network-ing technologies must be reclassi-fied as ongoing operating expensesand supply items, just like thetelephone, electricity, and othercommon essentials. Technology forour classrooms is not a luxury. It'snot a one-time expense. It must bebudgeted for and paid for as anyother necessity.

Our institutions must prioritizethe resources necessary to developa long-range technology plan thatincludes capitalization based onthe reality of technology advances.Without such a plan, we remain ina reactive mode, scrambling tofind money to buy things we needto get the job done.

Finally, the vendors of softwareand hardware and their financialpartners must find ways to delivercustomized subscription and leas-ing programs that will get us out-of this unproductive and costlyparadigm by which we now ac-quire learning technologies.

continued on page 7

EItCTOOPYAVAILAPLV

"The Productivity Paradox"...continued from page 3

saving often has been offset by thehiring of more professional andmanagerial workers, at far higherrates of pay, who produce theirown reports and correspondenceon personal computers and answertheir own phones. Thus, govern-ment data show that the propor-tion of the work force employed inmanagerial and professional posi-tions has grown continually in thepast several decades in almost allsectors of the economy.

Enhanced serviceDespite these problems, the infor-mation revolution has been agreat success in one areaen-hanced services for individuals.

Who does not enjoy the conven-ience of 24-hour banking at auto-matic-teller machines? What col-lege student is not happy to selectcourses and register by phone,using electronic technology?

But even these successes have re-sulted in a displacement of ener-gies, a new set of priorities, andadded costs, rather than an in-crease in productivity or financialsaving.

For example, it has been shownthat customers using automatic-teller machines tend to makewithdrawals more frequently, andin smaller amountsthus increas-ing the total volume of processingwork for banks.

Similarly, students at ColumbiaUniversity eagerly embraced theregister-by-phone technology whenit was introduced there recently.But they particularly liked thefeature that searched for unfilledclasses in a specified time slot.Their heavy use of this capabilitybrought the computer system toits kmes. Members of the com-puter staff had to disconnect that

feature to preserve the registra-tion system.

What such examples teach us isthat computers, even as they pro-vide better service, generate anincreased volume of work, de-mands for more computers, andnew costs. The directors of collegewmputer centers are likely to ap-proach administrators each yearwith requests for more-powerfulmachinesneeded to handle new

What such examplesteach us is that

computers, even as theyprovide better service,generate an increased

volume of work,demands for more

computers, and newcosts. The directors of

college computer centersare likely to approachadministrators eachyear with additional

requests.

registration software or greaterelectronic-mail traffic or additionallinks to the Internet to meet bur-geoning demands for access to theWorld Wide Web.

Thus, while the new services pro-vided by information technologymay be a boon for individuals,they cannot substitute for the ori-ginal promises of increased pro-ductivity and lower administrativecosts. If technology cannot providea silver bullet for containing coststhroughout higher education, whatwe are faced with is, unfortunate-

ly, a much less palatable alterna-tive.

Academic administrators mustscrutinize their own staffs, deter-mine how employees spend theirtime, try to understand why thestaffs have grown so large, andbegin the painful task of settingpriorities and cutting back theiractivities to focus on what is abso-lutely necessaryrather thanwhat would be interesting or pos-sible to do. And in doing so, theyshould avoid the well-worn, butmisdirected, path of reducing thenumbers of secretaries and clerks,while increasing the ranks ofdeans, assistant deans, and otherhighly paid professionals.

Editor's Note: For another slanton "the productivity paradox," werecommend reading the newlypublished Administrative Comput-ing in Higher Education. Edit .1by Les Lloyd of Lafayette College,the book is made up of contribu-tions from a wide spectrum of in-stitutions, including Bryn MawrCollege, California State Univer-sity Stanislaus, Franklin College,Rutgers University, Kenyon Col-lege, and the University of Massa-chusetts.

Topics include everything fromchoosing a new system using aselection committee, campus-widenetworking, and distributing datathrough client/server models toproviding data access to faculty,adapting legacy systems, reengin-eering administrative processes,and, of course, planning.

The book is published by Informa-tion Today, Inc.; 143 Old MarltonPike; Medford, NJ 08055, andcosts $39.50 in the hard-cover ver-sion.

Acquiring Classroom Technology: A Case for Change...continued from page 5

For a variety of reasons, commer-cial leasing programs have hadlimited acceptance in our institu-tions. Progranui ;.;ould be devel-oped rfllatively easily which wouldallow colleges and universities tobudget a regularly scheduled out-lay for information technology.This would serve to ensure thatthe institution's students andfaculty have access to the bestand the latest tools to improvelearning and to increase produc-tivity by providing for continuousbuilt-in upgrade, support, andtraining programs.

With the relative costs of thesetechnologies decreasing over time,the prospects for steady, or evendecreasing, outlays are quite real.Vendor sales representatives needto understand and be able to com-municate the benefits of new fi-nancial approaches, including the

possibility of leasing, and offerthese as the standard purchasemethods, not just possible alterna-tives.

Act nowtChanging the system isn't easy,but sticking to the status quowhen it comes to providing ourstudents access to exciting multi-media learning technology that isnow available will have devastat-ing consequences to the currenteducational system in this coun-try.

We all have a stake in pushing forchange. Raise this issue with yourcolleagues, both faculty and ad-ministrators. Write letters to yourstate legislators and federal repre-sentatives. Get the help of yourtechnology suppliers. And by allmeans, enlist the support of yourfiscal and business officers to

"The thought of changing administrative softwareis daunting at best, and the more automated theadministrative process already is, the morefrightening it becomes to think about a totalconversion of the existing system. Computers andsoftware affect the way people work infundamental ways, and unless change isperceived to mean improvement, it is notwelcome. We are all familiar with the stubbornresistance that can undermine good projectsbecause key people feel excluded from theplanning and decision process.... For a change tobe successful, people at all levels of the organiza-tion need to feel involved, their ideas must beheard, and they must accept responsibility for theproject."

Dagrun Bennett"The Administrative Software Evaluation Committee"Administrative Computing in Higher Education1996

change current policy. Let yourvoice be heard!

If we all understand and recognizethe benefits to be derived fromongoing fimmcial support for tech-nology acquisition, we will seemajor changes: increased institu-tional productivity, improved stu-dent retention, a better learningenvironment, and cost savings to01 1r embattled budgets. As a re-sult, the students we graduatefrom our technology-enhanced in-stitutions will help put our coun-try in a much improved positionwith respect to global competitive-ness.

In Future Issues

What, if anything, IThas to do withinstitutional quality

- When doing strategicplanning for IT isBa a good idea

- New system implemeni-ation: basic guidelinesfor a successful prctject

Need a consultant? EDUTECHinternational provides consultingservices xclusivly to collegesand universities. Call us at(860) 242-3356.

Q. One of our high-level managers is a technologywhiz, and his expertise is both known and appreci-ated far and wide. The problem is that everyonereally hates this guyhis social skills are abysmaland over the years, he has managed to alienate justabout everyone on campus at one time or another.That didn't used to be as much of a problem as it isnow, with resources shrinking and users expectingbetter treatment from us. I have to keep asking my-self if his technical skills are worth the price we'repaying.

A. An excellent question, especially if "prke in-cludes the damage being done to your department'scredibility and reputation. As you point out, therewas a timenot long agowhen we not only 6sA totolerate the prima donnas because their numberswere so few and we needed them so badly, but wealso wanted to tolerate them in some ways as well.After all, some part of us admired them. And theywere idiosyncratic (weird?) enough to provide someentertainment value, at least once in a while. Nowthey're just annoying, and worse, they contributemightily to the perception in the community of corn-

puting types being aloof, condescending, unapproach-able, and just generally strange. Not exactly theimage that most IT managers in higher educationwant to project these days.

Q. Last month, you talked about the need forinstitutional management to stay involved in IT,even if the whole area is to be outsoureed. I agreewith this, but since one of our concerns is main-taining the ability to bring the operation back in-house someday, doesn't our outsourcing vendor havea responsibility here too?

A. Yes, absolutely. The company that provides youwith outsourcing should have a process that allowsyou bring the operation back in-house at the end ofthe contract, should you choose to do so. This wouldinclude creating a plan, recruiting a staff (especiallythe managers), transferring knowledge, and trans-itioning services so that the change is not disruptive.Outsourcing vendors certainly tend to emphasize thevalue of their activities at the beginning of the rela-tionship; their activities need to be just as strong andhigh-quality at the end.

EDUTECH INTERNATIONALProviding Information Technology Services to Higher Education

EDITORIAL OFFICES120 MOUNTAIN AVENUEBLOOMFIELD, CT 06002

Clearing House on Info Resources030 Huntington Hall, Sch. of Ed.Syracuse UniversitySyracuse, NY 13210

F1RST-CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDBloomfield, CTPermit No. 117

1,4

%.5 I

to printed on recycled paper