Ref: 022703

Towards the re-integration of the University of Ljubljana
information system

Viljan Mahnic

1.Introduction

To a great extent the aforementioned conclusions also apply to the University of Ljubljana, which is the largest university in Slovenia. It has 26 member institutions (20 faculties, 3 academies, and 3 colleges), more than 40,000 students, the teaching and research personnel number more than 2,600, and the administrative staff about 1,250 (for details see Table 1). However, given the fact that in Slovenia (as well as in some other Central and Eastern European countries, e.g. in Slovakia) the faculties have substantial autonomy within their universities, and they often have their own policy regarding the usage of information technologies, the development of an integrated university information system is not only a difficult technical task, but requires a substantial organizational effort.

Table 1: Member institutions of the University of Ljubljana

Id	Faculty/Academy/College	Staff			Students
		Teaching & Research		Administrative	Undergraduate	Postgraduate
		Full-time	Part-time
F1	Biotechnical	187	74	177	2702	163
F2	Economics	84	53	48	6503	351
F3	Architecture	49	4	21	838	14
F4	Civil Engineering and Geodesy	70	21	53	989	31
F5	Social Sciences	64	28	28	2588	130
F6	Electrical Engineering	104	0	72	1480	91
F7	Computer and Information Science	42	0	11	819	49
F8	Mathematics and Physics	79	8	40	624	54
F9	Chemistry and Chemical Technology	89	23	62	1320	72
F10	Pharmacy	31	7	23	739	1
F11	Natural Sciences and Engineering	72	15	57	1079	48
F12	Machine Engineering	113	26	94	1543	60
F13	Sport	52	17	41	664	28
F14	Arts	293	53	109	4890	238
F15	Medicine	271	0	174	1442	126
F16	Education	115	50	43	2669	17
F17	Law	27	10	15	1725	23
F18	Theology	37	2	12	492	12
F19	Veterinary	54	10	59	360	37
F20	Maritime Studies and Transport	30	41	13	1562	0
A21	Music	45	57	11	334	26
A22	Theatre, Radio, Film, and Television	28	13	19	106	2
A23	Fine Arts	40	9	19	272	32
C24	Social Work	17	13	9	677	0
C25	Health Care	44	25	40	1192	0
C26	Public Administration	17	13	7	3324	0
T O T A L :		2054	572	1257	40933	1605
		2626
		3883			42538

The aim of our paper is:

• to supplement Mederly's investigation with certain details in order to show that there are great differences between faculties within a single university that render the development of an integrated information system more difficult;
• to point out some experience that has proved useful in overcoming these difficulties in the course of building a unified student records information system at our university;
• to make some recommendations on how to achieve the reintegration of different parts of the system.

2. Analysis of the present situation

• operating environment (basic information about computer equipment and operating system)
• network environment (whether the application is running standalone or in a network)
• the source of the application (who supplied the required software)
• implementation environment, if known (e.g. Clipper, Oracle, C etc.)
• the connection among applications (whether different applications running in a network share a common database)

It also became evident that most applications (except in the student records information system) were bought as standard packages from different suppliers. However, these purchases were not co-coordinated and, consequently, we have a great number of different, mutually incompatible applications that are probably appropriate for individual member institutions, but can not be integrated into a coherent information system at the university level. It was found that in the finance information system alone 26 member institutions purchased software from 26 different suppliers, while 7 different suppliers supplied applications for the personnel information system.

Details of the information systems under examination are given in the following subsections.

2.1. The finance information system

However, the diversity of suppliers and incompatibility of applications is most evident in this area. While 5 member institutions succeeded in integrating all applications into a unified information system using a common database, a great number of them still use standalone applications. Moreover, at some institutions these applications are purchased from different suppliers and are written in different languages, thus making integration into a coherent system difficult or even impossible.

2.2 The personnel information system

A detailed examination of 7 institutions that use special applications for personnel records reveals the same deficiencies as in the area of the finance information system. Each member institution has bought the application software from a different supplier, most applications are standalone, and they do not share a common database with other applications.

2.3. The student records information system

All these applications were written in co-operation between the Faculty of Computer and Information Science and the University Computing Center with the support of EU Tempus program (project JEP 1852 "Computerization of Administration and Management in Higher Education", 1991-94). They run in a local area network of personal computers sharing a common database. However, some member institutions with a small number of students still use only one standalone computer for this purpose.

Although the implementation environment (i.e. Clipper) of the student records information system is now obsolete, the system itself represents an important step towards the reintegration of the university information system:

• a unified data model was established which provides for the comparability and compatibility of data from different member institutions, and simplifies the task of data synthesis at the university level;
• a unified software was developed for all member institutions in spite of the differences in their organization, administrative procedures etc.

3. Some experience from the development of the unified student records system

We were aware that the success of the project depended not only on technical factors, but also on organizational and psychological ones. Therefore, besides a systematic approach using corresponding methodology and CASE tools for the analysis and design of the new system, special attention was devoted to the establishment of corresponding co-operation between member institutions and confidence in the development team. At the beginning, a group of 6 member institutions signed an agreement to participate in the project. The group was sufficiently small to be manageable, but sufficiently heterogeneous to be representative of the university as a whole. In later phases of the project, when the first tangible results were evident, some institutions joined voluntarily, while other institutions adopted the corresponding applications after the successful completion of the project.

During the design of the new system, the utilization of experience of other institutions and initiatives in foreign countries was very important. By closely examining the Mac initiative in the United Kingdom (McDonough [3], Powell [4]), the German initiative for administrative computing in higher education (Frackmann [5], Frackmann [6]), and the information policy of Dutch university management (Schutte [7]), we recognized the importance of the development of unified software for several higher education institutions.

Using the principle of non-coercion, it became evident that customer satisfaction is the main guarantee that the new system will be successfully put into operation. For this reason, the new system had to offer better functionality than the old one, and a smooth conversion from the old system had to be assured. To retain user satisfaction we were sometimes forced to incorporate certain institution-specific solutions that had not been agreed by all the partners in the project. However, through the use of special installation parameters we achieved a degree of flexibility that enabled us to develop unified software for all member institutions in spite of differences in their administrative procedures, organization etc.

4. Recommendations for future activities

Although the new legal framework laid the foundations for the reintegration of the university and gave the university management more authority, it has proved impossible to change the peculiar organizational structure in a short time. In such a situation it is difficult to take adequate political decisions and obtain necessary support. Therefore, we are lacking some important factors that affect the success of such an endeavour. Nevertheless, using the positive experience from the development of the student records information system and the contemporary information technology infrastructure, some substantial improvements can be achieved in the three information systems analysed.

From the technical point of view we recommend gradually replacing the present PC-based systems by a modern client-server architecture, and to start the development of the unified software that will use a common database for all member institutions. The necessary infrastructure was established last year by building an optical network which connects all member institutions. On the other hand, the University Computing Center has at its disposal the required development tools and hardware equipment (viz. Oracle 7, Alpha workstations).

This goal can be achieved most easily in the personnel information system. Compared to the student records and finance information system, the personnel information system is less complex and therefore easier to implement. Additionally, at present only a few member institutions use computer applications for personnel records. Based on experience from the development of the student records information system, we suppose that it would not be difficult to establish a group of 5 to 8 member institutions that would act as the initiators of a common project with the aim of:

• developing unified software that would later be adopted by other institutions, and
• establishing a unified database of all university staff that will also later be used by applications from the new student records and finance information systems.

The main problem seems to be the finance information system not only because of the great diversity of applications at different institutions, but also because of the vaguely defined relationships and responsibilities between the university management and individual institutions. It seems that the individual institutions see these applications as vital to their autonomy, and they are suspicious of all change. Nevertheless, the situation can improve by counselling individual institutions on which software to buy, and by purchasing software for several institutions together. In this way, substantial savings can be obtained through negotiations with suppliers and quantity discounts, the number of different suppliers will decrease (only the best will remain), and the member institutions will gradually start to use mutually compatible applications. All these factors will facilitate the introduction of an integrated information system in the future.

5. Conclusions

However, using positive experience from the development of the student records information system, some substantial improvements can be achieved in the three information systems analysed. Given that only a few member institutions use computer applications for personnel records, it seems that reintegration can be most easily achieved in the area of the personnel information system. The reintegration of the student records information system is also feasible, since the main effort in building the unified database and unified software was already done during the development of the present system. The most difficult problem is the finance information system: in this area we propose the gradual replacement of existing applications with standard packages from carefully selected suppliers.

International collaboration within EUNIS (European University Information Systems Organization) and the utilization of the experience of universities with similar problems (e.g. Comenius University from Bratislava, the Czech University of Agriculture, Prague) may also contribute to the success of reintegration.

Acknowledgement

References

1. Mederly, P. & Mederly, P. University Information Systems in Central and Eastern Europe, http://www.lmcp.jussieu.fr/eunis/publications/
2. Mahnic, V. & Vilfan, B. Design of the Student Records Information System at the University of Ljubljana, in Trends in Academic Information Systems in Europe (ed J. Knop), Proceedings of the EUNIS '95 Congress, Dusseldorf, Germany, 1995, pp. 207- 220.
3. McDonough, R. The management and administrative computing (MAC) initiative, Higher Education Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, November 1992, pp. 284-292.
4. Powell, I.H.C. The Mac initiative in the United Kingdom, CRE-action, 1991/3, pp. 19-28.
5. Frackmann, E. Information for institutional administration and management in German higher education, CRE-action, 1991/3, pp. 29-46.
6. Frackmann, E. HIS - The German initiative for administrative computing in higher education, Higher Education Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, November 1992, pp. 317-328.
7. Schutte, F. Information policy of Dutch university management, CRE-action, 1991/3, pp. 53-82.
8. Vrana, I. An Integrated University Information System, presented at the EUNIS '96 Congress, Manchester, United Kingdom, December 1996.
9. Bajec, M., Krisper, M. & Rupnik, R. Central applying at the University in Slovenia, to appear in Proceedings of the EUNIS '97 Congress, Grenoble, France, 1997.

Copyright EUNIS 1997 Y.E.