Technology Implementation and the Resulting Impact on Student Services in Higher Education

Daniel P. Kennedy

ADMPS 3003 Core 1
Individual Folder Project 1
Fall Term 1998
______________________________________________________________________

Introduction

    Technology has rapidly come to be seen as a critical factor in assisting higher educational institutions meet the challenges of the future. Only a few years ago distance learning courses essentially involved situations where instructors travelled to branch sites or were comprised entirely of mail order or video courses. In the past, for most, distance learning was viewed with skepticism as courses offered on matchbooks and on television offering educational opportunities. With recent rapid and continuing advancement in both hardware and software programs and capabilities (the keys to being able to deliver more powerful and robust experiences to students) almost every college and university can now look at harnessing the internet and other technologies to offer students a rich instructional experience off-site.

    Many institutions, faced with the prospect of rising costs and diminishing real revenue look to internet technology and distance learning programs to better enable them to tap into new markets while at the same time more effectively managing internal hard costs (equipment, buildings, etc.) (Katz & West, 1992). In addition to saving hard costs in the short term, over the long term there also may be some long term savings in personnel costs (debatable). The instructional cost for a web based course that services 2,000 students may actually be less expensive than requiring 10 staff to instruct a traditional classroom population of 20 to 30 students. At the center of all of this implementation are the people to be 'enhanced' or in some cases possibly disenfranchised by the choice and the manner of the implementation. What we define as necessary to adequately express our views to programmers is similar to diplomats having to learn the language of those with whom they negotiate. To be successful it is important to understand the language and the tools of those you’re working with. With that in mind, I will examine some typical issues being raised by those who implement technology and hopefully raise some questions about how we currently are preparing student affairs practitioners for the world of the future.

Is Implementation Safe and Easy?

    As exciting as this new technology looks, much consideration should to occur prior to moving toward implementation. Implementation of major change should involve an understanding of the culture of the organization as well as the mission and the values of the school itself. Cultures of organizations are not static and frozen in time and typically move over time on a continuim from fastmoving Futuristic structures to slow-moving Traditional structures (Vanek in Baltzer, 1991, p.7). A good understanding of the current culture and what changes in technology will do to shift the organization can provide a great deal of useful information in addressing concerns and possible implications that may arise because of the implementation. Just as individuals in the organization play a key role in the success of an organization, they play a key role in the successful implementation of technology. In my experience implementing technology enhancements at Carnegie Mellon, I’ve found that it is very easy to forget the human element that is such an integral part of this type of process. The implication issues relate not only to the developmental needs of students but also to issues of internal staffing and how they are addressed in our current rush to automate and ‘put it on the web’.

What are the Reasons for Changing Focus?

    As mentioned earlier, the increasing cost of managing a total campus environment has caused institutions to look at more cost-effective methods for providing services (Katz & West, 1992). In higher education, that also may mean actually increasing outlays of capital because technology infrastructure is not initially without high overhead. At Maricopa Community College, a state bond issue provided a capital infusion of $35 million dollars which was earmarked for totally re-doing the entire campus network in 1986 (Baltzer, 1991). Obviously not every campus has an expenditure that is quite as high but this hopefully indicates that considerable dollars are being focused in this area.

    Coupled with this infusion of capital in upgrading technology, campuses are at the same time re-evaluating their core services. Business Process Reengineering (BPR) committees are focusing on ‘value-add’ items looking for ways to cut or reduce labor intensive steps to ‘provide better service to our customers’. Separate departments, which historically operated somewhat independently are finding themselves being reorganized, retrained, cross-trained, put into ‘one-stop shops’ and in some cases replaced by systems they don’t understand and are understandably reluctant to trust. Departments are becoming increasingly dependent on generalists (Katz & West, 1992). Individual staff members are being confronted with questions about the value and the number of steps in their specific function by programmers who are viewed as not understanding the nature of the business of the institution. Entry level and Mid-level administrators trained in classic student development theory and practice may not have the basic tools to be able to ask the right questions about the impact of these reorganization steps on students. Consequently real or imagined forces and outside organizations (outside departments) may be shaping the implementation decision making process.

Who are those IT folks anyway?

    Typically implementing technology means consultation of some type with the campus Information Technology (IT) professionals. This occurs differently from campus to campus. Some have departments developed to bridge the gap between implementer and implementee; others offer no ‘bridge’ departments. While truly dedicated individuals, the IT focus is typically much different than someone in student affairs or in the academic arena. Many IT workers have no formal training on teaching, advising or counseling a student or the possible long-term implications of changes to ‘off-line’ processes. At Carnegie Mellon, many enhancements and changes made during the last 4 years were only possible due to the interaction between the buffer department and programmers. However we were lucky due to our department being comprised of staff that previously worked in the affected departments and so had a fairly good understanding of the culture and the processes within those departments.

    What about those colleges without the financial ability to fund such a 'buffer' department? How can a small institution or any institution with limited resources better situate itself in order to be able to make the best decisions on technology as well as information? In the 90's and into the future, institutions will find themselves not in a situation of information drought, but in a 'data deluge' (Ernst, et al, 1994, p. 9). In addition the knowledge needs and requirements will extend further beyond typical departmental or college requirements and those seeking information and technology changes will include students as well (Ernst, et al, p.10). As the future looms ahead, what kinds of things can be done now to provide for the needed administrative knowledge base to help make implementations of technology more open and the solutions more robust?

Student Affairs Training Programs

    The fact that knowledge is power has never been truer than it is today. Many individuals when faced with technology are unable or unwilling to understand that is a very elemental power relationship. Not understanding the implementation leaves those involved with no ability to affect the process. A basic problem is the desire to provide as much grounding in developmental theory as possible in student affairs programs. The effects and practical uses of technology don't appear to be a part of the accepted curriculum. To check the accuracy of this assertion, I reviewed the course descriptions of a selected number of student affairs programs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts and Indiana. The purpose was to uncover how many, if any, were providing instruction related to technology in Student Affairs programs. Table 1 lists those institutions reviewed and indicates that source data was obtained through data published and available on the internet listing course requirements. As I reviewed the course descriptions on-line, I looked for information on courses related to systems, technology or some other title that would seem to indicate that individuals signing up for those courses would receive instruction on technology. The seven programs reviewed showed, as one would expect, that a large part of the core curriculum centered on student development issues. Yet none offered a course specifically related to technology and methods to implement it to enhance service. Graduates of these programs typically are directly involved in day-to-day student contact and are often the essential element in providing services to students on campus. With so much contact with both students and other staff, these professionals are also
 

School Name
Technology Course as Requirement
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
No
Kutztown University of Pennsylvania
No
Penn State University
No
Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
No
Bowling Green University
No
Indiana University of Bloomington
No
University of Massachusetts
No

Table 1
(all data viewed via individual institution home pages as of 10/01/98)

advantageously positioned to be able to offer input on the possible implications of changing processes. On the one hand we know that the trend in administration of colleges has moved or is moving to implementations of technology to enhance services, yet at the same time it appears that schools that educate those providing the services are not including training on these issues in their curriculums.

Why Student Affairs Professionals?

    With the proliferation of on-line or distance learning courses and programs and automation of services how can colleges ensure that students are able to enjoy the entire educational experience being offered? What about the student developmental issues that are so important in the educational process? How do we provide counseling, tutoring, needs assessment, financial aid advice and housing assistance to students? I would suggest that as schools are looking to expand their reach to claim additional customers for their services and to reengineer processes they must also be constantly reminded of the nature of the product ultimately being produced. Students who are dialing in from Cleveland to take coursework at Carnegie Mellon or the Community College of Allegheny County should expect that their needs are serviced as well as those students attending courses on campus.

    Student Affairs professionals are unique in their background training in development issues related to higher education and can provide meaningful assistance in the transition to a more technologically advanced campus. As I mentioned earlier, the nature of their contacts, both with students as well as with staff coupled with their training in counseling may enable them to shine a different light on these issues. However, to be able to effect change, these professionals need to have an understanding of the changing nature of the environment within which students are developing. As the campus we currently know shifts and evolves, the knowledge needs of those providing services must also change.

Conclusions and Next Steps

    As we have seen from this brief review, higher education institutions appear to be focusing  substantial resources on the investigation and the implementation of technology.  While in some instances these implementations are being made to better position the institution to compete in the future for students or to widen their market, in other cases it may also be directly related to cost containment issues.  With diminishing real revenues due to increases in 'hard cost' items such as buildings and physical infrastructure, technology can provide institutions with a way to do more with what appears to be less.  With the restructuring of departments that provide services to students into departments consisting of generalists, student affairs professionals are in a unique position to be able to make a positive contribution to these reorganizations and technology implementations.  However, in order to be effective and to become a player in shaping the future of the institutions they serve, student affairs professionals need a basic understanding of technology and it's implications.  As we have seen from the example institutions, many student affairs programs may not be addressing the issue in their current curriculums (none of our examples).  While I find myself in a somewhat unique situation at Carnegie Mellon having been and still considering myself a student affairs practitioner, I have personally recognized the value of this type of knowledge in assisting others.  I think that it is incumbent on our profession to be able to investigate, understand and to be able to promote any opportunity to ensure that the services we provide to students are the best possible.  With that in mind, I would suggest strongly that student affairs programs make available to their students an opportunity to learn about technology and how it can both act as an agent for growth as well as an agent to stunt growth.

References


 


Baltzer, Jan A. (1991). People and process: managing the human side of information
     technology application (Professional Paper Series, #7). Boulder CO: The Association
     for the Management of Information Technology in Higher Education.

Ernst, David J., Katz, Richard N. and Sack, John R. (1994). Organizational and technological
     strategies for higher education in the information age (Professional Paper Series,
     #13). Boulder, CO: The Association for the Management of Information Technology in
     Higher Education.

Katz, Richard N. & West, Richard P. (1992). Sustaining excellence in the 21st century: a
     vision and strategies for college and university administration (Professional Paper
     Series, #8). Boulder, CO: The Association for the Management of Information Technology in
     Higher Education.