The Management of Information Access in Higher Education (166188583)

7/29/2019 The Management of Information Access in Higher Education (166188583)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-management-of-information-access-in-higher-education-166188583 1/7

The Management of Information Access in Higher Education

Copyright 1994 CAUSE. From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 17, Number 1, Spring1994. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material isgranted provided that the copies are not made or distributed forcommercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its date appear, andnotice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the associationfor managing and using information resources in higher education. Todisseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. Forfurther information, contact Julia Rudy at CAUSE, 4840 Pearl EastCircle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301 USA; 303-939-0308;e-mail: [email protected]

THE MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION ACCESSIN HIGHER EDUCATION

by Neil McLean

The application of information technology within highereducation institutions is now one of the key dynamicsinfluencing organizational change. While there is an endlessstream of literature explaining the importance of strategicplanning, the reality in most institutions is that the

strategic planning process almost always lags behind theapplication of information technology, hence the emergenceof a multitude of unresolved organizational tensions.

The aim of this viewpoint is to shed some light on certainaspects of the strategic planning process by looking at thechallenges of managing administrative support systems, andthen to explore the implications for the library strategicplanning process. Almost all higher education institutionsare engaged in formulating strategic plans to cope with theinformation technology explosion, and it is interesting tonote the range of terms used to describe these plans. WithinAustralian universities we have "computing" strategies,

"information technology" strategies, "information"strategies, "data management" strategies, "informationmanagement" strategies, to name a few, and very often theycover much the same ground and make the same kind ofgeneralizations. Many of these plans originated out of theneed to come to terms with the control of, and investmentin, computing equipment, and as such, they are one-dimensional in scope. The fact that so many different termsare used to describe the planning process is not just amatter of semantic confusion; there are in fact manydifferent facets of activity that are separate inoperational terms, yet increasingly interdependent in termsof serving the needs of the institution as a whole.

In concentrating upon the impact of the application ofinformation technology to organizational change, it isimportant to bear in mind other forces at work, which areequally potent forces in influencing the process of change.One of the most important factors is the steady move towardsdevolution of financial resources and political power overthe past decade. The reasons for, and the implications of,this phenomenon are beyond the scope of this article. It issufficient to observe, however, that this trend has had



paradoxical outcomes: while individual units or departmentshave felt liberated in handling their own affairs, at thesame time it has led to a certain isolationism, whichmilitates against the interdependence now demanded foreffective institutional information strategies.

Another growing force is the gradual application of qualityassurance mechanisms, partly through management initiativeswithin institutions, and partly because funding bodies (suchas Australia's Commonwealth Department of EmploymentEducation and Training) are turning their attention to thecomplex matter of quality assurance. The client-centeredthrust of total quality management principles has manyimplications for existing management structures, and theredoes appear to be considerable potential for facilitatingthe processes necessary to create effective IT strategies.

It is still true, however, that the existing informationparadigm governing most organizational levels withinacademic institutions is based on the concept of theprincipal players being discrete information providers inone form or another. Under the present regime, the provisionand control of information is a primary driving force behindthe political dynamics, whether it be in the library, the

registrar's office, the finance office, or the faculty ordepartment. In such an environment, control is defined interms of the ability to govern the supply and demand ofinformation, and it can often become bureaucratic andunfriendly to client groups. The organizational symptoms ofstress in this struggle for control include the constantstruggle to retain resources, the regular reminder ofoperational boundaries, an emphasis on hierarchicalmanagement structures, a custodial approach to themanagement of information resources, a personality-dominatedmanagement process, and a limited transformation of datainto information in response to client demand.

Administrative information systems framework

The principal thrust of this article is to explore thepossibility of an alternative information paradigm, whichsees the provision of access to information as the mostimportant concept, together with the practical skills inorganising, filtering, analyzing, and transforming theinformation according to the particular information need.The implications of the paradigm will then be tested againstthe information infrastructure of administrative informationservices. While the institutional examples are drawn from myown experience as a consultant, the suggested managementframework necessary to fulfil the demands of the alternative

information paradigm owes much to an excellent articlepresented at the 1992 CAUSE Annual Conference by Lore A.Balkan et al., entitled "Distributed Data Management: PeopleProcesses that Build in Quality." [1]

Up until recent times in most academic institutions,finance, personnel, and student record systems were distinctempires, and the associated computing systems were normallyquite separate developments. In other words, the control ofthe information and the system were relatively homogeneous.



Information for reporting purposes was generally suppliedcentrally, and there have been, and still are, very greatdifficulties in synthesizing information from the threedatabases for reporting purposes or for executive planningpurposes. Various models are emerging to cope with theproblems of developing effective information systems forprimary client groups, but the power play remains confused,and the roles of the stakeholders uncertain. In manyinstitutions the control paradigm is still dominant, and"bandaid" solutions emerge in response to increasinglycomplex demands. Invariably, staff and units at all levelsdevelop parallel systems to cope with their own particularrequirements, and this results in a great deal of duplicatedeffort.

In attempting to resolve the problems of the various clientgroups, the debate has traditionally focused on thecentralization versus decentralization issue, which hastended to oversimplify the problems associated witheffective data management. Balkan et al. present a differentapproach to data architecture, which potentially fulfillsthe paradigm of open access through the organizing,filtering, analyzing, and transforming of institutional datainto management information. They postulate an environment

that embraces a combination of decentralized, centralized,and distributed information. Their description ofdecentralized systems is the equivalent of our existingcentral administrative systems, namely"... a spiderweb of systems ... where data is passed fromoperational source systems to a variety of users orcustomers, who then develop their own systems and more thanlikely become suppliers to subsequent customers."[2]They go on to point out that these operational systemsproduce reliable information within their own particularframework, but they cannot perform as an organizationalinformation resource because their components are notintegrated or standardized. This analysis describes fairly

accurately the current state of administrative systems inmost higher education institutions in Australia.

The Balkan et al. paper rightly identifies the need for acentralized system with standards in place for data handlingand coding and provision of information. In the words ofthese authors, "This central store contains the criticalenterprise data in a standardized form," which is the key todata architecture where distributed data management meansthat "information is distributed to users with enterprise-wide content and form to support tactical decision-making ina strategic and coherent fashion."[3] In summary, theypostulate that such a distributed data management

environment requires that

"(1) the operational offices supply reliable data; (2) thecentral administrative function integrate and refine thedata into the usable form and produce internally consistentinformation; and (3) the customers have access and trainingsuch that they can generalize the information they receiveto their needs and situation."[4]

It is in essence a three-tier data management structure,



which depends for its effectiveness on a strong belief inthe importance of access and the value-adding to data byoperational systems. It is not sufficient, however, toidentify the levels of management necessary to achieve thesedesired objectives. Balkan et al. identify key stakeholderswho must be involved in the program of change to sustaindistributed data management, and it is necessary to quote atlength to make the point.

"1. Management Group. These are executive administrators whomust be advised of progress and major steps undertaken toimprove information quality. They should not be expected tobe wildly excited about the data management process.However, they will be very concerned about data consistencyand accuracy and excited about using the same data aseveryone else.

"to be brought together to discuss policies, to do strategicmanagement of the data resource, and to discuss issues withthe senior personnel in the management group.

"3. Stewardship Group. These are supervisors and systemsupport analysts for the operational source systems of theorganization. This group has a set of responsibilities that

are very likely embodied in numerous job descriptions. Theytranslate policy into practice, and as a group should beencouraged to consider procedures which produce standardizeddata.

"4. Central Data Management Group. This group provides thestimulus for identifying the need for change. It coordinatesthe interfaces between the operational level and the users,thereby establishing the position to recommend standards. Italso collaborates with the computer technology function onimplementing the tools needed for data management.

"5. Focus Group. This is a vertical slice of the custodian,

steward, operational personnel, users and other interestedindividuals who work with data from a major operationalsource system. This group starts the development ofstandards for the data in an area and then maintains anactivity with audits for sufficiency and relevance.Subgroups are sometimes formed to address specific problemareas.

"6. Administrative Systems Users Group. This is an opengroup of users, stewards, systems analysts, and operationalpersonnel from across the enterprise. It meets monthly ontopics such as new processes, changes in technology,developments in systems, and the like. Smaller task groups

are formed from the larger diverse group to work ondeveloping the standards that must cut across the entireorganization.

"7. Systems Group. This is the work group or project teamthat defines, develops, and deploys the underlying systemsand networking infrastructure for the organization. A subsetof this group is usually assigned to specifically supporteach of the major operational systems"[5]



While this may seem a complex array of teams, it offerspotential participation of all functional areas and itbrings a variety of skills to bear on the primary problem ofcreating linkages across functional areas and between clientgroups.

Lessons to be learned for the library

What then of the library as an information provider withinthe institution? And are there any lessons to be learnedfrom the analysis already applied to administrativeinformation systems?

It is now widely accepted that libraries, as major providersof information in published form, are undergoing a radicalrethink of service objectives. Libraries are moving towardswhat is commonly called an "access" policy, but theramifications of implementing such a change are not yetwidely understood. It is my contention, however, thatlibraries are still firmly in the grasp of the controlparadigm because they remain wedded to the concept of thelibrary as being the primary provider of commerciallyproduced information resources. There appears to be a basicdifference, however, between administrative information

systems, which produce and control information resourceswithin a specific institutional context, and libraries,which acquire and control a broad range of informationresources. The paradigm, however, of providing access andvalue-added information services would seem to have equalforce to both areas and the concrete suggestions for actionoutlined by Balkan et al. may well be equally applicable infurthering library strategic plans.

The boundaries for libraries, however, are far less clearbecause of the complexity of the information-seeking processand the relationships to the teaching and research programs.Most library managers are now taking a relatively

adventurous course in applying information technology totheir operations and services and this has tended to bringthem into potential conflict with their colleagues incomputing services. It is important to distinguish betweenthe technology infrastructure required to deliverdata/information services and the actual servicesthemselves, because the two missions often become confusedin practice. It is an increasingly difficult distinction tomake because the issues of networking, interfaces, andworkstation provision are essential prerequisites for anyform of electronic information provision. It is, however,important that the two issues be seen as separatestrategies, so as to avoid needless rivalries and misguided

effort within the institution.

The main difficulty is with the strategic planning processitself. While there is a lot of rhetoric about the need forstrategic planning within higher education, the actualoutcomes are relatively meagre in terms of strategic plansthat are "owned" by the participants. In reality, librarieshave been fairly autonomous, both in management andstrategic planning terms, and any application of a Balkan-type approach may seem hazardous, or even irrelevant, to



some library managers.

Having made these observations, I believe it is imperativethat libraries become involved in the strategic planningprocess, and that they do produce a plan that is promulgatedwithin the institution as a whole. In most cases this willbe produced initially from within the library, as aperceived response to the information needs of theinstitution. The main challenge, then, is to test itsvalidity by seeking input from the various stakeholders whomit claims to serve. This objective can be facilitated byapplying the client-centered process embodied in the totalquality service approach, embracing primary client groupssuch as senior executives, researchers, teachers, post-graduate students, and undergraduate students, as well asclient groups within the service itself. But in doing so,the complexities of the interactions required betweenstakeholder groups to arrive at sustainable business plansmay end up being underestimated. This is particularly truein the area of electronic information provision where, asalready explained, the boundaries of activity are becomingincreasingly difficult to define. Consideration needs to begiven, therefore, to the possibility of applying thestakeholder categories, as defined by Balkan et al., to the

strategic development of the library's electronicinformation infrastructure. It is unlikely, however, thatthis could be done by the library in isolation from otherkey support areas.

This raises the possibility of having a Balkan-typestrategic planning process for oversight of all the keyoperational areas, including administrative services,library, and computing services. Such a suggestion may upsetthose still wedded to the control paradigm. It isimperative, however, that more participative organizationalstructures be developed, where expertise is drawn togetherfrom across traditional organizational boundaries to address

client-centered information management. Within such a model,control becomes of secondary importance as an organizationaldynamic. The commitment to clearly articulated client-centered strategies based on open access becomes the drivingforce, and I believe it may be equally applicable toadministrative support systems, libraries, computingservices, and teaching support within our institutions.

========================================================================

Footnotes:

1 Lore A. Balkan, Richard D. Howard, and Gerry W.

McLaughlin, "Distributed Data Management: People ProcessesThat Build in Quality," in Grasping the Momentum of theInformation Age: Proceedings of the 1992 CAUSE AnnualConference (Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1993), pp. 559-570.

2 Ibid., p. 560.

3 Ibid., p. 560.

4 Ibid., p. 560.



5 Ibid., p. 564.

========================================================================

Neil McLean is currently Deputy University Librarian atMacquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Previously, he wasHead of Library Services at the Polytechnic of CentralLondon for ten years, where he was also Director of theLibrary and Information Technology Centre. Apart from hisconsiderable experience in academic library management, hehas had extensive involvement in the application ofinformation technology to library and information servicesthrough research programs and consultancies.

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

A version of this paper was first delivered at the CAUSEAustralia-New Zealand Conference, 4-7 July 1993, in Hobart,Tasmania.

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

03/30/94 (meh)

The Management of Information Access in Higher Education

Documents

The Management of Information Access in Higher Education (166188583)