Ref: 030303

Concept of integrated university information system

High expectation of the university managers in a potential benefit offered by the information systems contradicts with a generally poor historical experience of using ?information systems" at universities. Understanding of the historical experience is an important factor for starting any new activities in this field.

Selection of some important notes (without any ambitions for completeness) will be listed here in order to mention reasons, why the problems in university management arise, to show possible solutions and to outline the way from the problem statement to its solution:

• Lack of relevant information concerning the mission critical activities of the university (e.g. education process, research, finances, etc.) is an obstacle of effective management in many universities. Because of this reason, effectiveness of the university management is not only reduced but it can be even disabled, in some cases.
• Relevant information is needed about global and detailed features of the managed unit should be available to managers for management regardless whether the university / faculty / department level.
• Availability The information delivered to managers of the should be up-to-date, accurate, reliable, etc., for an efficient management.
• Lack of the above mentioned information causes a reduced efficiency of the university management and may approach a collapse.
• A very important resource of management-suitable information can be gained from the administration of individual activities of the university mission: education , research, finances, public relations, library, etc.
• Properly designed information systems can enable an efficient administration which, in turn, makes an efficient management possible. Components of current information systems usually support individual isolated university activities, but these components should also communicate and co-operate to each other in order to assure a unique interpretation of data.
• The integrated university information system (IUIS) can only make this goal possible. It also makes the maintenance of the system and its further development easier. The data maintenance and update is easier, more reliable and cheaper, with the IUIS, too.
• Because of the same historical reasons, the situation in majority of universities can be characterised by these facts:
• There exist some isolated non-compatible modules of information systems supporting limited functionality of university activities.
• These modules arose spontaneously (not systematically), sometimes as a product of ?fans" who wanted to improve their small particular task.
• All these modules have just a limited scope from the point of view of the organisational, territorial and functional structure of the university.
• They don?t communicate to each-other,. tThere is little or no documentation to them which makes their maintenance and advancing difficult or impossible.
• Development was done without a basic professional knowledge in developing information systems and it reminds ?reinventing a wheel" very often.
• This is why many universities try to develop their IUIS in order to improve their management.
• Development and implementation of the IUIS should consider a set of rules and principles which influence a success or a failure. Many general conditions for success are often violated or simply neglected. Majority of these IUIS projects fail because of the lack of expertise in this branch. Besides financial losses and frustration of people such a failure also results in a considerably reduced effectiveness of management in a university, faculty and department level.

Where to start

The correct and honest answer to these questions (not telling lies into ones own pocket) is vital in order to avoid later disappointment and confusions.

From beginning, the university management should be aware that the project will be accompanied by problems: general & university specific. They should be also aware of risks of the project and of the high probability of the failure unless special measures are taken. That is why the questions

• do we really need an information system?
• are we aware of risks of such a project?
• are we willing to create adequate conditions for the project?

Control of the project

• Creating and (constant) defence of the concepts and principles. Project management should always expect plenty of attacks to the foundations of the project.
• Decisions about self development or external supplier of the system.
• Choice of a suitable life-cycle type: waterfall, iterative, prototyping,...
• Attention to early phases of the life-cycle (e.g. information strategy planning, analysis, etc.). Mistakes from these phases are very expensive later.
• Scheduling implementation of individual components according to priorities of the university.
• Co-ordination of suppliers with users.
• Organisation provisions (as deep as an operative control).
• Reliable system of checking and monitoring progress, problems and making corrections.

1. Project management is neither a part of the top university management, nor the top faculty management. It only has a position of some service unit.
2. Project manager is a member of the top management of the university in the post of a vice-rector.
3. Project management consists of a vice-rector at the university level and is extended by vice-deans at the faculty level.
4. The new control structure is created in parallel to standard (understandable) organisational structures (as in C), creating non-typical organisational structure at the university.

 The most critical aspects of success:

A lot of articles has been published concerning influence of individual aspects to the success of the IS projects. We shall mention those aspects which are typical for the university environment.

• Project management co-operates with well educated university managers and employees. This seems to imply a good understanding of general principles by managers, at least. But contrary, we must expect a bad understanding, resistance and little co-operation of managers and users in various posts. Introduction of a new system enforces introduction of an order to all activities concerned. It is necessary to clean the Augean stables before the system can serve. Generally, people don?t like order, regardless whether educated or not.
• Everybody should be aware that the magic system (supplier) doesn?t exist.
• A certain (high) priority must be assigned to implementation of IS within other university/faculty/department activities. University management must make everybody sure that building of IUIS is a short term priority though not being the long-term mission of the university.
• Some people play a key role for a success of the project in individual phases of the system life-cycle. It is a foolish mistake to expect serious results built only on enthusiasm of people. Motivation and responsibility of key persons is vital.
• Good planning and checking is important in order to make individual tasks co-ordinated and feasible.
• Selection of the suitable hardware, operating system, database management system and networking is vital from the point of view of security, reliability, robustness, etc.
• University as well as project management should expect problems - they will occur. Insist on a specific description of the problems; this is the only way for a quick recovery.
• Management must understand reasons for problems and resistance and try to foresee and avoid them.
• There exists many aspects which contribute to success or failure of the project of IUIS. Contribution of main individual aspects to success is given by a following Table 1:

; (1)

where

; i=1,2,....,9 (2)

for the feasibility of the control type A and similarly also for B, C and D. We denoted weights of individual factors by W, contribution of the model to an accomplishment of the factor by a (or b ,g , d , respectively), total impact of the given factor in the model by a (or b, c, d, respectively) and the entire feasibility by A (or B, C, D). The feasibility expressed in this way is also proportional to the ability to control the project.

 The following Table 2 shows how feasible the project is with respect to four typical alternatives of control. We can see that some models of control make the project more hazardous than feasible. We can see from this table, that ability of control is very sensitive on the way how control structures are penetrated to both: top management of the university as well as the top management of all faculties. Besides the fact that project managers should be a part of the top management of university and faculties, the form of this representation is also very important. The greater use of the standard control structures (vice-rector, vice-dean), the more legible such a control is for all academic environment and, as a result, the more influence and efficiency of control can be gained. At the other hand, any artificially created control structures prove themselves to be ineffective which reduces feasibility of the project and brings additional risks.
 

 Conclusion

 References

 

				Type of model: A		B			C		D
Factor	Weight %	Index	Weight	Contribu tion %	Total	Contribu tion %	Total	Contribu tion %		Total	Contribu tion %	Total
		i	W	a	a	d	d	b		b	g	c
Political willingness	40
University  management		1	0,16	10	0,016	30	0,048	50		0,08	70	0,112
Faculty management		2	0,2	5	0,01	5	0,01	10		0,02	70	0,14
Academic  senatus		3	0,04	10	0,004	30	0,012	50		0,02	70	0,028
Organisat. aspects	25
University		4	0,075	30	0,022	70	0,0525	90		0,0675	95	0,07125
Faculty		5	0,125	5	0,006	5	0,00625	20		0,025	95	0,11875
Network  management		6	0,05	30	0,015	40	0,02	50		0,025	95	0,0475
System quality	20	7	0,2	80	0,16	80	0,16	80		0,16	80	0,16
Interface	10	8	0,1	70	0,07	70	0,07	70		0,07	70	0,07
Others	5	9	0,05	90	0,045	90	0,045	90		0,045	90	0,045
TOTAL			1		0,348		0,42375			0,5125		0,7925

 

Table 2: The project feasibility with respect to four typical alternatives of control

Copyright EUNIS 1997 Y.E.