You are on page 1of 14

Concepts for Reengineering in Higher Education Copyright 1991 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 14, Number 2, Summer 1991.

Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its dateappear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu CONCEPTS FOR REENGINEERING HIGHER EDUCATION by James I. Penrod and Michael G. Dolence ************************************************************************ James I. Penrod, as Vice President for Information Resources Management at The California State University, Los Angeles, coordinates the University strategic planning process and functions as the policy officer for information technology for the University. His line management responsibilities include telecommunications, television, academic and administrative computing, office automation, graphics/photography, records and forms management, and institutional research and planning analysis. He holds a doctoral degree in education in institutional management from Pepperdine University. Michael G. Dolence is Strategic Planning Administrator at The California State University, Los Angeles, responsible for coordinating the implementation of the campus strategic planning process. Formerly, he was Director of Planning and Research for the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities in New York, where he coordinated the Independent Sector Statewide Master Plan and Progress Reports, and directed the New York State Public Opinion Poll and the Science, Engineering, and Research Campus Hook-up. Previously he was co-owner of S&D Computer Technology. ************************************************************************ ABSTRACT: Reengineering is the process of reexamining basic assumptions about the way we do things and rejecting those that do not fit the technological capabilities of today; redesigning work processes based upon new assumptions; and "thinking out of the box," that is, refusing to be limited by traditions of the past. This article examines the concept of reengineering as it might apply to a college or university campus with particular emphasis upon information technology units. The Japanese have a term, kaizen, which means a process of continuous improvement. Kaizen is an evolutionary philosophy where constant incremental improvements build from generation to generation to achieve quality, competitiveness, and success.[1] The Japanese have another term ishinsuru, which means to revolutionize. Taken together, the concepts of constant improvement and a predisposition to revolutionize when appropriate, provide significant insight into the management philosophy of Japanese business. This philosophy has helped to propel Japan to the forefront of competitiveness. These same concepts are finding wide receptivity throughout American industry as it seeks to reassert itself

as the world leader in innovation and productivity. This effort has been described in various ways but most often is called reengineering. This concept of reengineering was first introduced in the business literature in the late 1980s. Its stated purpose was to identify new strategic and competitive advantages through the creative, effective, and innovative use of technology. The concept emerged under a variety of names including transformation, restructuring, Process Design Concept (PDC), work or business process redesign, High Productivity Program (HPP), Managing Office Productivity (MOP), and organizational redesign.[2] This relatively new phenomenon in the evolution of information technology is evidence that we are entering the third of a three-stage path that the introduction of new technologies has followed throughout history. During the first stage, the new technology does what the old technology did, only faster (transition). In the second stage, the new technology begins to initiate modifications to old processes, resulting in greater efficiencies and enhanced effectiveness (innovation). Finally, during the third stage, new ideas that previously were inconceivable are made possible by new technology, resulting in major breakthroughs and significantly increased effectiveness and productivity (transformation or reengineering). To date the majority of changes brought about by computing and communication have resulted from stages one and two of this paradigm. Stage three takes organizations well beyond utilizing technology to automate or enhance existing processes. It demands that the processes and functions themselves be reconceptualized with information technology capabilities and functionality as a foundation. In short, the organization must be transformed to realize the potential of technology. "Technological change defines the horizon of our material world as it shapes the limiting conditions of what is possible and what is barely imaginable. It erodes taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of our reality, the "pattern" in which we dwell, and lays open new choices"[3] Shoshana Zuboff Nolan's Stages Theory illustrates the evolutionary path followed by new technology in computing and communications. Nolan's first stage was the data processing (DP) era (from 1960 to 1980), which served as the gestation period for computer technology. During this era, new technology was used to make existing organization structures more efficient. The mainframe was king, centralization predominant, and systems were "provided" for end users. The next stage, the information technology (IT) era (from 1980 to 1995), was founded upon three fundamental infrastructures: (1) IT departments, (2) college and university computer science programs, and (3) a diversified computer service industry. This era has enabled the computer to be brought out of the basement, to empower end users and make it possible to begin changing the way work is performed. The network era is the third stage (from 1995 to beyond 2010). It will serve an information/service economy where knowledge workers are predominant, organizational structures are networked, planning is visionary, intangible values are considered, the competition is global, and information technology is seen as an enabling force. It will be the period of the transformed or reengineered enterprise[4] Why Reengineer?

As the twenty-first century approaches, more and more is being written about the need for colleges and universities to develop a new paradigm to enable them to meet the challenges of our rapidly changing world. There are corresponding writings which make the point that productivity or the "bottom line" in higher education is almost impossible to define, quantify, or measure, and that academic culture makes it exceedingly difficult to engage in enlightened management[5] If we are to achieve greater effectiveness and meet the productivity demands of the next century, then we must recognize that there are significant forces reshaping the "bottom line" in higher education and driving the need to reengineer our organizations. First, there is uneasiness among policy makers, parents, and students regarding the increasing cost of higher education. These costs, which have risen faster than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), have confused many and angered others. The postsecondary community will continue to experience significant pressure to contain cost. Second, as the retail and business sector has had to increase the quality of customer service to stay competitive, it has established a new level of service expectations for colleges and universities. Third, integrated administrative systems are now widely available to higher education. These systems provide for a very different functionality than has been available previously. These three factors--cost, service, and functionality--form the "bottom line" for higher education. These factors emanate from outside academe and will continue relentlessly to mandate change.[6] Business and industry have recently recognized that capital and human resources no longer guarantee success. Service, quality, speed of response, and innovation are now the operative forces. The rapid changes with which we all must deal mean that actions based primarily upon past experiences may no longer be valid. We have entered a time where applying new knowledge first is key. It is analogous to a "permanent white water" river rafting journey.[7] These same pressures are being exerted on higher education, and must be recognized as emerging realities. Over the past decade, we have invested heavily in information technology. Much of that investment has focused on automation--using technology to mechanize "the business." This simply used computers to speed the time for completion, leaving existing processes relatively intact. Unfortunately, many job designs, work flows, control mechanisms, and organizational structures came of age in a very different competitive environment well before the advent of computing and digital communications. The processes were geared to support bureaucracy and to provide efficiency and control. For the most part, work has been organized as a sequence of separate tasks, and complex algorithms are used to track progress, discover mistakes, and subsequently correct errors. Such processes have not kept pace with the changes in technology, demographics, and institutional objectives. It is therefore necessary to reexamine outdated processes and, in many cases, to do away with them altogether and start over.[8] The Principles of Reengineering Reengineering has been described as: (1) the process of reexamining all basic assumptions about the way we do things and rejecting those that fail to capitalize on the technological capabilities of today; (2) redesigning work processes based upon new assumptions; and (3) "thinking

out of the box," that is, refusing to be limited by traditions of the past. Profound change is possible given the information systems infrastructure now emerging if these concepts are put into practice. Reengineering has also been defined as using the power of modern information technology to radically redesign organizational processes in order to achieve dramatic improvements in performance.[9] It requires a new organization-wide information strategy and a radical behavior change throughout the enterprise, not just in information resources units. To achieve these radical behavioral changes, a new organizational culture must be developed. According to Larry Ford, this culture must be focused upon a strategy derived from mission, with a market-drivenquality (MDQ) orientation. This involves: (1) meeting consumer desires, (2) aggressively moving to practically eliminate defects or errors, (3) significantly reducing cycle or response time, (4) dramatically increasing employee authority, responsibility, and participation in decision-making, and (5) creating new standards of measurement for evaluation.[10] By refocusing the culture on fusing strategy with function, an organization can create a climate where it can realize the full potential of the information age. Fulfilling this strategy requires a strong linkage between building quality into programs and the information strategy for the organization. This means that information systems can no longer be seen as a separate function, but rather the focus must be on the information that is needed to run the enterprise. It involves a change from managing information systems as a utility to managing information as an agent of change[11] Michael Hammer has set forth seven key principles of reengineering that form a sound foundation on which to build the concept and supportive processes. The principles focus on the need to: (1) compress linear functions, (2) reevaluate, realign, and redistribute the way work is done, and (3) reposition decision and control functions[12] To compress linear functions, processes need to be redesigned to capture information once and at the source. Relational databases and networks make it relatively easy to collect, store, and transmit information today. This eliminates any need to live with delays, entry errors, and overhead associated with different individuals, departments, and units repeatedly collecting the same information. Fundamental processes and job descriptions need to be organized around outcomes, not tasks. This is a purposeful movement away from the centuries-old notion of specialized labor and from the limitations inherent in paper filing systems. It often results in the collapsing of responsibility for a sequence of steps and the assignment of the total function, along with appropriate authority, to a single person or unit. Responsibilities need to be recast to ensure that those who use the output of a process perform the process. This is another example of moving away from specialized labor. Many opportunities exist to change procedures so that individuals who need the outcome of a process do it themselves. When people closest to a process perform it, the overhead of managing it is substantially reduced. In addition, coordination, liaison, and interface between those who perform the process and those who use it can be eliminated. It is important in the process of reevaluating, realigning, and redistributing the way work is done to subsume or meld the information

processing functions into the traditional functions that produce the information. This disputes yet another old rule about specialized labor and the assertion that people at lower organizational levels are incapable of acting on information they generate. It may require moving work from one person or department to another person or department. At the same time, every effort must be made to link parallel activities while in process rather than integrating their results. One kind of parallel processing occurs where separate units perform the same function. Another form occurs where separate units perform different activities that must eventually come together. This principle suggests forging links and coordinating between parallel functions while in process rather than at completion. Gone are the days that necessitated long delays to allow communication between distant resources. We must now treat geographically dispersed resources as though they were centralized. The arguments regarding the benefit and tradeoffs of centralization versus decentralization are long-standing in almost all organizations. Now databases, networks, and standardized systems allow for the benefits of scale and coordination provided by centralization while maintaining the benefits of flexibility and service traditionally attributed to decentralization. There is a profound need to reposition the decision and control functions within modern organizations in order to realize strategic synergies between organizational form, function, and practice. As a guiding principle, we must put the decision point where the work is performed and build control into the designed processes. This is facilitated by restructuring work flow and job descriptions around outcomes, and not tasks and department or unit responsibilities. In addition, it requires individuals to be empowered with the necessary authority and to be held accountable for results. Decision-making should be defined as an integral part of the job with accountability and process control built into the work flow instead of being an extension of it. This contradicts a basic assumption of bureaucracy--that people actually doing the work do not have the time or inclination to monitor and control it, and lack the ability to make decisions about it. If the doers become self-controlling and self-managing, hierarchy and the slowness and inflexibility associated with it begin to disappear. The Process of Reengineering As you can see, reengineering needs to go far beyond writing new operational parameters and protocols. For transformation to be effective, it must begin with a strategic assessment of fundamental organizational goals. With keen strategic focus as a compass, critical processes should be redesigned with the goal of improving consumer satisfaction by maximizing outcomes. To accomplish this, a strategic evaluation of the information technology capabilities available to the organization is necessary at the forefront. According to Davenport and Short, there are ten basic steps in the process of reengineering.[13] The first, and most important, is recognizing the need to reengineer. The need to transform organizations is apparent when we consider that, while over $97 billion per year (40 percent of all capital spending in the U.S.) is spent on information technology, U.S. productivity figures have not increased correspondingly. We also have to keep in mind that most processes in use today were never thoughtfully designed. They have been adopted from manual processes, overhauled to incorporate technological capabilities,

restructured to fit within new organizational paradigms, and enhanced to trim waste or contain costs. It is time for a fresh look. The second step is the development and articulation of a broad strategic vision into which the process of reengineering is incorporated. The vision must embrace and put in context the values of the institution. According to Robert Haas, Chairman and CEO of Levi Strauss & Co., "A company's values--what it stands for, what its people believe in--are crucial to its competitive success."[14] If the vision of the future is to motivate people, it must be one that the employees of the organization feel and believe is inclusive. This means that the vision must be reflective of values that are important to them and that the rewards, both tangible and intangible, must be meaningful to them. The vision must be presented in a manner that compels both individual and group responsiveness and teamwork. For many institutions of higher education, particularly in the independent sector, values have been a critical component of their mission and sense of uniqueness. Beginning in the mid-1970s, values began to play a more profound role in the other sectors of higher education with the adaptation of formal strategic planning methodologies to academe.[15] In addition to embracing values, the vision must set the context for the organization, e.g.: "We will be the best teaching institution in the state, known for the highest quality service to students and as the best regional value in higher education ... ." The third step, development of process objectives, is derived from such a vision. These are reflected in statements such as, "If we are to be known as the best teaching institution in the state, we must continuously improve our teaching methods"; "If we are to be known for providing the highest level of service to students, then they must be able to get the courses they need and the services they require"; "If we are to be known as the best regional value in higher education we must offer superior programs and services in a timely and cost effective manner." These specific process objectives lead to the fourth step, identification of the discrete targets for reengineering. Following our example, in order to ensure that the highest level of service to students becomes a reality, a complete review of all processes that involve direct contact with students (i.e., registration, graduation certification, advising, and admissions) is appropriate. To redesign these processes, they must be understood and both qualitative and quantitative measures must be developed to guide the reengineering process. Let's assume that our evaluation finds that students have to wait in line three hours on average to complete their quarterly registration process and that this fact alone accounts for serious dissatisfaction among 70 percent of all students. Once the processes and problems are well understood, the fifth step in the process can be initiated. This involves identification of specific information technology levers with which to facilitate the reengineered process. Again, focusing upon our example, an institution might look at implementing a voice response registration (VRR) system to interface with the student records system. The sixth step entails prototyping and testing the solution. In the case of the VRR system, the concept of using a telephone to register students requires that existing policies and procedures be revised even before the test can occur. For example, registration periods might be

significantly increased, add/drop procedures might need to be rewritten, advisement processes might need to be reevaluated, and so on. The seventh step, initial implementation, incorporates the functions of final design, scheduling, and cutover. Implementation means more than simply turning on the technology. It also involves redesigning policies and procedures. For example, the policies and procedures redesigned to fit the VRR system would have far-reaching implications for other campus processes such as cashiering. A solution to the cashiering problem might be formulated by using the power of VRR and accepting credit card payment via the telephone. The eighth step is full operation. Obviously, the dramatic changes that are expected to result from the initiation of VRR have to be well publicized. What may not be evident is the potentially negative impact of the increased telephone traffic from VRR on both the campus and the local telecommunications company. Thus close coordination with both units is necessary. The ninth step is evaluation. To protect the interest of the campus, it may be prudent to perform the first full-scale implementation in parallel with the old system accompanied by detailed evaluation by students, faculty, and professional staff. Further development would continue to be guided by ongoing evaluation. The tenth step is modification, i.e., kaizen. Ongoing evaluation would inevitably point to further opportunities for improvement. It is absolutely essential that they be explored without prejudice to ensure continued enhancement of service. Organizational Change "Universities have stressed the training of critical intellect; they have neglected the training of imaginative intellect. In addition, universities in particular are said to be "loosely coupled" organizations. So the picture is one of confused, multiple-motivated people trying to advance loosely coupled institutions with bounded rationality while hoping to find ways to express themselves without sustaining any losses"[16] George Keller and Ann McCreery Colleges and universities are characterized by the "organizational model" of decision-making. The model consists of a network of semiautonomous small organizations (units) existing within a large organization. Each unit is primarily responsible for a limited number of specific tasks and functions within a fixed set of procedures[17] Few large-scale decisions can be made; rather, decisions work through each network and unit by prescribed procedures. The result is incremental (small) changes that are less disruptive to the status quo. This "disjointed incrementalism" fosters decision-making that nurtures parochial priorities and perceptions, and limits change[18] The process of reengineering a complex organization with such decision processes is a major and serious undertaking. It requires the development of a radically new organizational culture. Edgar Schein defines organizational culture as "the pattern of basic assumptions which a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which have worked well enough to be considered valid and,

therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems."[19] Peter Delisi describes the new culture that is required to ferment the process of transformation as a shift in focus from professional management to entrepreneurialism. This shift to an entrepreneurial culture will contrast with the professional management culture along several dimensions. The shift will be from: (1) external controls to internal controls, (2) conformity to rules to creativity within bounds, (3) central control to individual autonomy, (4) rational/logical decision-making to intuitive decision-making, (5) centralized systems to distributed networks, (6) vertical hierarchies to horizontal networks, (7) adult-child to adult-adult professional relationships, and (8) organization-centered to person-centered focus[20] The academic culture of collegiality provides a sound foundation upon which such transitions can be built. It is important, however, that the new culture rely heavily upon individual responsibility and accountability to both institutional mission and goals as well as discipline and division interests. As the entrepreneurial culture emerges, campus organizational structures will also change. They will have fewer levels of management and fewer staff functions. The performance of work will revolve around small teams where the membership changes depending upon the project. The entire organization will become much more "student centered." Information technology will be a facilitating and enabling force in the emergence of these new organizational forms[21] In reengineering, colleges and universities may have significant advantages over business and industry since elements of an entrepreneurial organizational culture are already in place in many institutions, particularly regarding academic processes. The organizational structure, especially in large or research universities, may resemble the new order much more so than correspondingly complex business enterprises. Certainly the idea of creating a learning organization should not require a "hard sell" in a college or university. However, it is important to reemphasize that despite advantages higher education might have, truly transforming a college or university will require significant commitment, consistency of action, and completely dedicated executive leadership with real vision. Leadership Leadership is perhaps the key issue in reengineering. The traditional view of leaders is one of stereotyped heroes, special people who set the direction, make the key decisions, and energize the troops. They are great individuals who rise to the fore in times of crisis. Most may well agree that this perspective is a myth, but as long as such myths prevail, they reinforce a focus on short-term events and charismatic personalities rather than on systemic forces and collective learning.[22] The leadership needed to facilitate reengineering is very different from traditional notions of the charismatic hero. Leadership, instead of being solely a function of position on an organizational chart, will be determined by an individual's knowledge and expertise on a project-by-project basis. Rather than being only at the top of a hierarchical organizational structure, leaders will be found throughout a networked organization. Leaders in a transformational environment are responsible for

building organizations where people are continually expanding their capabilities to shape their future. Such leaders are responsible for organizational learning and therefore must function as designers, teachers, and stewards. These roles require different skills from those possessed by most charismatic heroes. The ability to build a shared vision, to bring to the surface and challenge prevailing mental models, and to foster more systemic patterns of thinking is needed[23] In a decentralized, structured organization (such as a university), standard operating procedures determine the allocation of attention of organizational participants unless the leader intervenes. Thus one function of a leader is to capture the attention and focus of other organizational members. Richard Cyert has identified three methods of leadership that help perform this function: communication, role modeling, and reward systems. A leader must be able to communicate the vision broadly throughout the organization in a way that influences individual action on behalf of the goals articulated. Belief in mission and an honest dedication to the people who must carry it out are crucial to good communication. Role modeling is actually another form of communication. We must recognize that an individual's actions and behavior exert influence on organizational behavior whether or not it is the individual's intent. Leaders must use their own actions and behavioral patterns as a means of articulating their vision, values, and objectives. Rewards aligned with organizational strategies, goals, objectives, and behavioral expectations can be used effectively to reinforce appropriate attention and focus[24] Effective leadership is also guided and informed by meaningful evaluation. Measurement of what we do and periodic evaluation of goals and objectives are important now (although neglected) and will be even more so in a reengineered organization. Much current measurement reflects the form of existing job description, i.e., we measure whether or not, or how well, we complete tasks--not how well our individuals and organizations function. In the future, we must focus upon measuring desired outcomes--not tasks--and set up work expectations in the same way. Many colleges and universities do a good job in setting and evaluating broadbased goals and objectives. However, evaluation must also assess how well individuals transform institutional objectives into personal action and outcomes. Reengineering the Information Technology Unit Information technology units must be among the first units in the institution to make such transformations. Information technology leaders or chief information officers (CIOs) will need to exhibit leadership characteristics as described above. In addition, a significantly greater proportion of information technology managers will need to provide leadership both within the information technology unit and across the campus in order for transformation to be successful. As managers in all units assume greater information management responsibilities, information technology professionals will find themselves fulfilling roles of designers, consultants, teachers, stewards, and facilitators of change. One of the basic assumptions underlying reengineering is that information technology planning will become an integral part of institutional strategic planning. CIOs will continue to coordinate campuswide information technology planning and have primary responsibility for information technology tactical and operational

plans, but the most senior institutional executives must move from being spectators to full participants in strategic information planning. They must engage in the process of creating opportunities to strategically apply information technology[25] Finally, information technology systems design must employ reengineering principles. This will occur in many ways, and the following examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive. * An open systems model is important, as are widely communicated and agreed-upon standards. * The design must support broadbased access to all organizational levels and varied constituencies with either the need or the right to know. * Integrated relational database management systems (that are truly distributed when possible), coupled with state-of-the-art development and inquiry tools, will be a necessity. * The fundamental design criteria must change from a basic focus on functionality for the primary user (registrar, comptroller, etc.), to recognize that the system must also support the executive user and the individual end user. These concepts have major ramifications for all levels of software, hardware, and networks. Both vendors and systems professionals must understand and begin to accommodate them. Critical Success Factors for Reengineering Higher Education Winston Churchill once said that "empires of the future are empires of the mind." Today that observation has come true. What has not yet been appreciated is the degree to which raw, elemental power--at the level of private life as well as at the level of empire--will be transformed in the decades ahead as a result of the new role of "mind."[26] Alvin Toffler Colleges and universities are institutions of learning, and those in the United States are generally regarded as the best in the world.[27] However, the time has come when the question must be asked, "Are U.S. colleges and universities learning institutions?" The transformed, reengineered, or "informated" organization of the twentyfirst century will be a learning institution. One of the principal purposes of such organizations will be the expansion of knowledge. This will not be knowledge for its own sake, as in academic pursuit, but rather knowledge that resides at the core of what it means to be productive in a global economy and world society. Learning can no longer be a separate activity that occurs before one enters the work place or later in classroom settings. It cannot be an activity preserved for managerial or elite technical groups. The behaviors that define learning and those that define being productive have come to be one and the same. Learning does not require time out from productive activity--learning is the heart of productive activity. It is the new form of labor that is now building the "empires of the mind."[28] How do colleges and universities become learning organizations? The following ideas are offered as further points of discussion regarding what it will take for campuses to be transformed.

* Have a recognition of the need for broadbased, institution-wide change to achieve new levels of strategy, commitment, and service. This may not be a widely held perspective and, even where it is, some "initiating spark" will probably be needed to overcome organizational entropy before any serious consideration can be given to reengineering. That spark might come from a crisis, a new leader, or an external person or event. * Set forth a well articulated information strategy that is synergistic with institutional decision-making. This is not a glorified information systems plan! It is a strategic direction set forth by executive leadership that recognizes information as a critical resource. It necessitates access by all levels of the organization and the ability to use information immediately in decision-making as fundamental to providing acceptable service to constituents. Such a strategy requires the information technology plan to be integral to the institutional strategic plan. * Build a critical mass of innovative people and information technology. Rapid, major change within comfortable elements of the work environment is not easy for anyone, yet that is exactly what reengineering requires. Thus innovative individuals capable of handling the change and helping others to do so must be in place during the transformation. An existing information technology infrastructure capable of supporting and sustaining the transformation is also necessary. * Have an information technology staff who see the vision and know that they must plow new ground. It is all too possible to have an IT infrastructure capable of supporting reengineering but not have IT leaders, managers, and technicians who can do so. "This way has always worked," "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," and pride-of-ownership attitudes simply will not mix with a transformation orientation. Information systems people must be in the forefront of any reengineering endeavor, and they must begin within their own unit. * Make a commitment to examine, reorient, and redesign--without prejudice--all policies, procedures, and position descriptions to emphasize outcomes. The magnitude of change discussed in the literature points to a complete overhaul of standard operating processes and allocation of attention by organization members to different things. Leadership intervention may cause a change of focus for a while, but permanent change to embrace the principles of a learning institution requires very different standard operating procedures than those existing at most colleges and universities today. * Gain acceptance of a holistic approach to resource allocation. The primary reason to engage in reengineering is to achieve productivity breakthroughs. Positioning an organization to enable transformation, however, will involve considerable time, energy, education, and expense. By and large, the expenditures will have to come from existing resources, which means elimination of that which is unnecessary. The institutional focus must be upon mission and the long-term good of the organization versus nonaligned unit goals and short-term perspectives. * Create an organizational structure that accommodates a learning organization. Metaphors such as a symphony, an adhocracy, a permeable membrane, a collapsed pyramid, and a spider's web have been used to describe structures that will replace bureaucracies.[29] Whatever

descriptor prevails, the networked organization will have fewer levels, better communication channels, quicker decision-making mechanisms, an outcome orientation, and more flexibility. It will combine the benefits of both centralization and decentralization. * Design an entrepreneurial organizational culture. Basically this is a recognition that institutions of the future will produce, learn, communicate, innovate, and behave only as well as the sum of the organizational participants. An orientation on values and a focus on the importance of the person must be evident. Objectives of the organization, the group, and the individual must be better aligned and coordinated. * Emphasize different leadership characteristics. Vividly articulating a shared vision is crucial to reengineering. It is an ongoing process that requires leaders to continually share their own vision and ask, "Is it worthy of your commitment?" Although fear is a powerful short-term motivator, aspiration must endure as the continuing source of learning and growth. The shared vision, therefore, needs to be powerfully positive. Balancing inquiry and advocacy are important skills for leaders of learning organizations; they need to do both well. Transformation leaders must be able to discern between espoused theory and the theory that individuals really put into practice, and they must be able to defuse defensive routines. Leaders of the future must be able to see interrelationships and not focus on detail complexity. They must avoid symptomatic solutions and be able to move beyond blame. Finally, such skills must go beyond a few individuals at the top of the organization. They need to be distributed throughout.[30] All of these factors emphasize change, in several instances very significant change. More people will have far greater access to information in our new workplace; thus managerial status will be lessened. Knowledge workers will be required to do more conceptual thinking, abstract reasoning, and so forth--and this is a very different result from what is normally thought to be brought about by automation. In general, as more people in the workplace gain empowerment, recognition, and opportunities for development, traditional boundaries all break down--between management and staff, white collar and blue collar, specific work space and many work spaces (anywhere there is access to a workstation), decision-makers and non-decision-makers. Indeed, reengineering does not result in more automation, it results in "informating"[31] and in jobs that require more education and greater mental discipline to perform. As higher education is called upon to produce graduates who can function successfully in such a world, we must carefully weigh our own need to transform our working and learning environment. Reengineering requires "thinking big," extraordinary commitment, and absolute dedication to the accomplishment of organizational mission. It is not a consideration for the timid, but it may well be the path for maintaining the most successful system of higher education in the world. ======================================================================== Footnotes 1 Leland A. Russell, Handbook for the Future (Irvine, Calif.: Innova Group, 1990), Section 1E, p. 23.

2 Richard L. Nolan, "Too Many Executives Today Just Don't Get It!" CAUSE/EFFECT, Winter 1990, pp. 6-9; Michael Hammer, "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate," Harvard Business Review, July-August 1990, pp. 104, 107; and Shigeyasu Sakamoto, "Process Design Concept: A New Approach to IE," Industrial Engineering, March 1989, p. 31. 3 Shoshana Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart Machine (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1988), p. 387. 4 Nolan, p. 7. 5 Karen Grassmuck, "Some Research Universities Contemplate Sweeping Changes, Ranging from Management and Tenure to Teaching Methods," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 September 1990, pp. A1, A29; Milton G. Glick, "Integrating Computing into Higher Education," EDUCOM Review, Summer 1990, p. 36; William F. Massy, "A Strategy for Productivity Improvement in College and University Academic Departments," Paper given at the Forum for Postsecondary Governance, Santa Fe, N.M., October 1989, revised November 1989, p. 26. 6 Rosabeth Moss Kanter, "Summaries from the Planning Forum's International Conference in Washington, D.C., April 29-May 2," The Planning Forum Network, July 1990, pp. 1-2. 7 Larry J. Ford, "Using Information Strategically: IBM Roadmap for the 1990s," IBM Customer Briefing, Beverly Hills, Calif., November 1990. 8 Hammer, pp. 104, 107. 9 Ibid., p. 109. 10 Ford, IBM Customer Briefing. 11 Ibid. 12 Hammer, pp. 108-112. 13 Thomas H. Davenport and James E. Short, "The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign," Sloan Management Review, Summer 1990, pp. 11-27. 14 Robert Howard, "Values Make the Company: An Interview with Robert Haas," Harvard Business Review, September-October 1990, pp. 133-144. 15 See the work of Robert C. Shirley and John M. Bryson on strategic planning. 16 George Keller and Ann McCreery, "Making Difficult Educational Decisions: Findings from Research and Experience," Paper given at the Society for College and University Planning, Atlanta, Ga., July 1990, pp. 14-15. 17 J.G. March and H.A. Simon, Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1958); J.G. March, ed., Handbook of Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965); H.A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: Macmillan, 1957). 18 D. Braybrooke and C.E. Lindbloom, A Strategy of Decision (Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1963). 19 Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985); Peter S. Delisi, "Lessons from the Steel Axe: Culture, Technology, and Organizational Change," Sloan Management Review, Fall 1990, p. 84. 20 Delisi, p. 86. 21 Ibid. 22 Peter M. Senge, "The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations," Sloan Management Review, Fall 1990, pp. 8-9. 23 Ibid. 24 Richard M. Cyert, "Defining Leadership and Explaining the Process," Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Fall 1990, pp. 32, 36. 25 Nolan, p. 11. 26 Alvin Toffler, Powershift (New York: Bantam Books,1990), p. 10. 27 Nolan, p. 9. 28 Zuboff, p. 86. 29 Delisi, p. 86; James B. Quinn and Penny C. Paquette, "Technology in Services: Creating Organizational Revolutions," Sloan Management Review, Winter 1990, p. 73. 30 Senge, pp. 13-15. 31 Doug Stewart, "Interview: Shoshana Zuboff," OMNI, April 1991, p.68. "Informating" is defined as "taking three-dimensional objects and events and then translating and displaying them as data." ========================================================================