Niebaum Report

Review of Information Systems at Pittsburg State University
Jerry Niebaum - December 1999

Executive Summary

Observations and recommendations herein follow a two-day on-site visit to Pittsburg State University (November 11-12, 1999) and follow-up phone interviews with interested faculty/staff.

Problems identified by faculty/staff are in general not unique to Pittsburg State and have occurred largely due to very rapid expansion of computer use without concomitant changes in process, growth of staff, and budget adjustments to support new services. User expectations have grown with technology change and information systems staff are no longer able to meet some of the basic expectations of service. Frustration levels are high among the user community and also among Office of Information Systems (OIS) staff. Following are specific problems identified by one or more persons in the interview process. They are not listed by frequency or importance.

Problems or perceived problems:

1. Personal computers are not deployed promptly and often set in the central OIS office for several weeks prior to installation.

2. The "Help" desk staff in OIS often provide inadequate or no follow-up on problems reported.

3. The interactive distributed learning network and the video conference network are unreliable.

4. Faculty/staff are unable to access needed university resources from remote sites.

5. Some needed information resources are not available electronically, such as audit records for graduate students and current course catalog information.

6. Macintosh support primarily rests with one person, who may not be able to keep up with the demand for assistance.

7. It is very difficult to make personal contact with OIS staff via phone or e-mail.

8. New administrative systems cannot be deployed in an acceptable time frame.

9. The "Mr. Bulky" bulk e-mail system is a great idea, made less useful by controls on its use.

10. Faculty and staff are not getting sufficient training to support themselves.

The following are more perceptions than problems:

1. There is little input outside of OIS for setting priorities.

2. IS work could be accomplished by non-IS staff, but controlling policies interfere.

3. IS staff would be more responsive to faculty if reporting lines were through academic affairs rather than business affairs.

4. The Information Systems department may be understaffed.

5. All IS decisions must go through the Director.

6. Strategic thinking for future change is lacking.

7. Central control is limiting creativity in the development of Web pages by faculty, staff, and students.

8. Office of Information Systems staff are not adequately trained and often confidence in their ability is not high.

9. IS staff spend most of their time putting out fires, not in project development.

10. At times IS staff appear to be indifferent to user problems.

Observation 1:

The opportunities for formal dialogue between IS staff and other faculty/staff are few. Communications breakdowns are common.

Summary recommendation 1:

A new Information Systems Council should be formed as soon as practical consisting of the President, the four Vice Presidents, the Dean of Libraries, the Director of Information Systems, and one of the four academic deans to be selected by the deans and reviewed annually. The President may wish to add others. Among the purposes of the new council are to:

1. Receive and review support plans from IS and the Libraries
2. Prioritize IS related projects
3. Solicit planning and prioritization suggestions from faculty/staff
4. Create IS policy
5. Create long-range strategic planning and funding strategies for IS
6. Meet periodically (perhaps quarterly) with appropriate administrators to discuss IS plans and progress

Observation 2:

Faculty/staff could become more self-supporting if additional training were available. OIS staff need to shift focus from 1-on-1 problem solving to 1-to-many. The OIS user services focus needs to move to documentation and training.

Summary recommendation 2:

Following a needs analysis for training, possibly done by the Kelce College of Business, Pittsburg State should contract with an outside vendor to provide the training identified. The "help desk" function should become primarily a problem logging, dispatching, and tracking function, not problem resolution. A commercial problem tracking software system (e.g. Heat, TrackIt, Remedy, etc.) should be acquired and implemented. The name, "help desk," should be changed to reflect the new emphasis.

Observation 3:

Pockets of technology support have developed in several parts of PSU outside of OIS. These are important components for the overall support for technology and should be encouraged. Needs for such staff are outlined in the excellent and thoughtful Information Task Force Subcommittee Report of October 13, 1998.

Summary recommendation 3:

The fundamental recommendations in the Task Force report for Technical Support Specialists and Instructional Support Specialists for the four Colleges should be adopted. The technical staff positions should come from new staff positions identified by the President and from reallocation of staff from the Library, Office of Information Systems, and the Colleges. PSU Human Resource Services should prepare a salary study and salary recommendations for information technology positions to help insure equity and avoid internal competition for staff. Levels of staffing recommended by the report are reasonable, perhaps even conservative. With the creation of the Council in recommendation 1, a change in reporting lines for OIS is not recommended at this time.

Observation 4:

For many years PSU has enjoyed the luxury and curse of locally developed software to support administrative functions. Because of that, OIS has been able to implement administrative systems tailored for PSU needs. Increasing salaries for programmers and decreasing staff availability make this model no longer sustainable. Transitioning to commercial administrative software systems will be neither fast nor cheap. It is likely that some departmental needs cannot be met by commercial systems. In those cases it may become necessary to "cut the foot to fit the shoe."

Summary recommendation 4:

Begin the transition to mainstream administrative applications software. Confer and coordinate with Emporia State University and Fort Hays State University who face similar transitions over the next few years. The user community (e.g. Budget and Human Resources, Controller, Purchasing, Student Affairs, etc) should drive software selection. As much as possible, focus on the information to be stored and maintained rather than a specific software system. What information will be kept? For how long will it be kept? Who will maintain it? Who will have access to it? How will it be used and by whom? Who owns it (should not be OIS) and who has responsibility for its integrity?

Observation 5:

The most uniform and consistent complaint voiced was slow response by OIS staff to deploy new computer equipment after it arrived. An extension to this complaint was that OIS is very controlling, which sometimes inhibits use. Examples mentioned were Web development and the "Mr. Bulky" bulk e-mail system.

Summary recommendation 5:

As soon as possible (yesterday is not soon enough) eliminate central (OIS) receiving for new computer systems. User departments/divisions need to be responsible for deploying new systems using guidelines established by OIS and approved by the new Council. System security and integrity need not be compromised by user-installed systems. OIS staff need to give timely response to problems encountered by users during such installation. Installation guidelines can/should be made available on the PSU Web site.

OIS cannot serve both as implementers and guardians. Access and use policies and their policing need to be developed independent of, but supported by, OIS. The President should create a policy development team from Administration, Academic Affairs, and Student Affairs. Their first charge should be to address policy for electronic communication, specifically Web sites and electronic mail. This team should specifically develop processes for dealing with apparent policy violation. Student involvement in this policy development is essential.

Observation 6:

More than one staff member (outside of OIS) suggested that OIS might be understaffed and underbudgeted. Substitute (your department name here) for OIS and the same might be said. So, the issue is what is the appropriate staffing level and budget relative to the resources of the university?

Summary recommendation 6:

Create a small internal study group (outside of OIS) to make an independent study of OIS staffing and budget.

Observation 7:

The shortage in trained staff in information technology is acute. At a recent meeting in Kansas City it was reported that there are at least 5,000 vacant positions in information technology in the Kansas City metropolitan area. The shortage nationwide is several hundred thousand. It will require very creative strategies to continue to fill technology positions at Pittsburg State. Retaining quality information technology staff should be a priority.

Summary recommendation 7:

OIS should not be penalized or threatened with position loss for holding positions vacant waiting for candidates with the right qualifications. Some strategies to consider for staff recruiting and retention:

1. Telecommuting (especially for those with home care-giving responsibilities), including home-based university-owned computer systems
2. Supplemental travel funds (additional training, conferences, off-site visits)
3. Release time for work-related courses
4. Current desktop technology hardware and software
5. Quality office space and furnishings
6. Intentional celebration of successes, especially team successes
7. Recognition of excellence (employee recognition awards?)
8. Quick action and administrative support for targets or opportunity for hiring staff
9. Shared appointments with academic departments
10. Partial faculty appointments for qualified candidates

Observation 8:

Because of a growing reliance on technology for course delivery, any outage can threaten the quality of the academic program. Because many vendors may be involved in network service, any problem may result in finger pointing with no quick resolution. Network reliability should be a primary goal for OIS.

Summary recommendation 8:

OIS should be held accountable for network reliability. OIS should prepare written monthly reports on all network service interruptions, their causes, and ultimate resolution, including duration of outage and user base affected.

End of Executive Summary The Consulting Process

I was contacted by President Tom Bryant in early October about reviewing information systems and related technology at Pittsburg State University and make recommendations to improve services in that area. A specific area of concern was reporting structure i.e. should OIS continue to report through Administration or should it report through Academic Affairs. My planned visit in October was postponed to November 11-12

(Th.-Fri.) at my request. The President's office arranged the itinerary for my visit which I followed with only two additions. The academic deans requested an opportunity for further discussion following our dinner discussion on Thursday evening. We met again on Friday morning, which was not part of the planned itinerary. At my request, Director Jeff Russell and I met on Friday afternoon for an exit interview, also not on the schedule.

Thursday, November 11, 1999

9:30 President Tom Bryant
10:00 Council of Deans
Peggy Haller, Rob Hefley, Phil Halstead, Bob Walter, Ron Clement,
Chris Fogliasso, Terry Mendenhall, Oliver Hensley, Lee Christensen,
Tom Baldwin
11:30 Vice President Jim Taylor (Student Affairs)
12:00 Lunch with Vice President John Patterson (Administration)
1:00 Director Jeff Russell (OIS)
2:00 Development staff
Jim AuBuchon, George Pickell, Connie Kays, Ken Bateman, Ellen Carter,
Don Hartshorn, Jolene Selvey, Ron Womble
3:30 Administration and Finance
Butch Herring, Dana Edwards, Larry Nokes, Laura Weiner, Michele Sexton, Jan Woody
6:30 Dinner with academic deans
Tom Baldwin, Orville Brill, Ron Clement, Rob Hefley (for Steve Scott)

Friday, November 12, 1999

8:00 Vice President Bob Ratzlaff (Academic Affairs)
9:00 Academic deans
Tom Baldwin, Orville Brill, Ron Clement
10:00 Student affairs
Pam Ehlers, Tammy Higgins, Lizza Trenkle
11:00 OIS staff
James Gray, Linda Grilz, Dwayne O'Brien, Scott Sesher, Eban Schachter,
Kathy Sanley, Mike Brennan, Paul Simon, Elizabeth Shannon,
Laura Makowski, Larry Weaver, Scott Parish, Becky Krause,
Theresa Vaughn, Don Bigelow, Mike Smith
12:00 Lunch with President Tom Bryant
1:30 Director Jeff Russell (OIS)

In addition to the above interviews I received comments from R.B. Wilkinson, Director of Institutional Research, written to President Bryant prior to my visit, because he knew he would be out of town and unable to meet with me in person. I also had telephone interviews with Steve Scott, Dean of the College of Education, and with Joanna McCormick, Director of Financial Assistance, both of whom were out of town during my consulting visit. My personal notes during the interviews have been transmitted under separate cover and are not part of the public document.

Thanks to all who participated in making my visit a very pleasant and interesting time. Special thanks to Joan Cleland in the President's Office for her special attention to details that helped make my work time efficient and enjoyable.

Concluding remarks

The interview process was intentionally focused on problems, not successes. Hence, this report is not a balanced assessment of the work of OIS. Though sometimes intense, the interviews were cordial and quite positive. The overwhelming attitude was one of problem identification and solution rather than seeking persons to blame. To the best of my notes and recollections no one suggested staff replacement or even radical change in structure. There were differing views on whether OIS should report to Administration, Academic Affairs, or to the President. Some said that reporting lines matter little.

Improvements will be incremental and not likely to happen quickly. Steps must be taken to improve communication and accountability to the academic stakeholders.

The following observations were made by a PSU faculty/staff person in written remarks dated November 3, 1999 prior to my campus visit.

"The whole realm of information technology took the campus by storm. As with most institutions, we were quickly overwhelmed by the information tsunami and started the endless task of trying to keep pace. But this is impossible without an information technology plan which ties back to an institutional strategic plan. Given this situation, OIS finds itself in the same situation that many of us do Ü what are we to do when there is no clear sense of institutional purpose. What are the institutional goals, priorities, objectives and strategies? This lack of clearly articulated institutional goals coupled with rapidly changing technology set the stage for many of the issues surrounding OIS. Many of the problems we are now facing can be traced back to a lack of detailed strategic planning and oversight."

It is indeed this high level view of the ground level problems which should receive the greatest attention. A strategic planning process for information technology coupled with an overall institutional planning process is essential for success by OIS. Any plan resulting from the process must have broad-based support by the user stakeholders. The planning process should be as visible as the orange barrels on a highway project. Like highway construction, planning is a never-ending process which may lead to smooth riding for relatively short periods of time.