This is the html version of the file http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infoprov/itreport.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Barnard Report - 2003
Page 1
Barnard on the Review of Information Technology for Learning,
Research, and Administration at the University of Waterloo
February 2003
David T. Barnard
University of Regina
John Mather
Manulife Financial
Larry Symes
University of Regina
1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 3
2 Discussion................................................................................................................ 5
Comparative Position.............................................................................................. 5
Strategic Opportunities ........................................................................................... 7
Investment Level..................................................................................................... 8
Targeting Resources.............................................................................................. 10
Centralization and Decentralization...................................................................... 12
Central Structure................................................................................................... 14
Associate Provost.................................................................................................. 16
3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 17
4 Summary of Recommendations............................................................................. 18
5 Appendices............................................................................................................. 20
Appendix 1: Announcement of Review................................................................ 20
Appendix 2: Schedule of Visit and Meetings....................................................... 22
Appendix 3: Written Submissions........................................................................ 24
Appendix 4: Other Documents Reviewed ............................................................ 25
1
Page 2
February 24, 2003
Dr. Amit Chakma
Provost
University of Waterloo
Dear Dr. Chakma,
On behalf of the review team I am submitting our report. We were pleased to be able to
assist the University of Waterloo. It was a personal pleasure for each of us to visit the
campus again and to renew friendships with colleagues.
We want to thank you for inviting us to participate.
We also want to the staff in your office for looking after us during our visit, and all those
who participated in our meetings or who sent us written submissions.
The University of Waterloo is at an important stage in its development, and we hope that
our work will help you shape a future that will be as prestigious as the past has been.
Sincerely,
David T. Barnard
President and Vice-Chancellor
University of Regina
2
Page 3
1 Introduction
The document announcing this review (see Appendix 1) explicitly refers to one part of
the University of Waterloo’s understanding of itself.
The University of Waterloo's reputation as Canada's most innovative university is
based, in part, on its leadership in IT education and research. It follows, then, that
UW's IT strategy should build on this proud achievement, and position UW to
maintain this leadership among its peers.
These statements would be supported by the national and international academic
community, and by the Canadian public more generally. Waterloo is known for its
technology leadership. From the earliest days of the University, with the aggressive
development of computer science education, the integration of computing into other
academic disciplines, and the outreach to secondary schools across the province and the
country, Waterloo established itself as a leader. Early acquisitions of advanced systems,
and the development of software to support the use of information technology in
education, were important components in the developing reputation of the institution.
As the University has matured, it has developed a unique and productive internal culture
that has contributed to its academic success and reputation. This culture includes a strong
tradition of decentralization of power and resources into the faculties and, with perhaps
less strategic significance, the federated and affiliated colleges. The planning document,
“Building on Accomplishment,” in the section “UW’s Distinctive Characteristics,”
concludes its description of the culture with these words.
UW's vibrant and complex culture is the result, in large measure, of the creative
tension arising from the strong individual identities and autonomous relationships
of the various Faculties and colleges on the one hand, and, on the other, the
forging of a common vision and enterprise. It is this interplay between unity and
diversity that enables members of the UW community to realize their individual
and collective intellectual and social potential.
What has been an institutional strength, though, in terms of giving those with expertise
the resources with which to build strong academic units, comes with the entailed
difficulty of generating commitment to and assembling resources for common priorities.
This is true in many domains, we suspect, but is evident to us with respect to information
technology projects and priorities.
During the last few years there have been large forces brought to bear on the University.
Funding pressures in Ontario have resulted in operating stresses and an early retirement
program that left the faculty and staff complement reduced. In the same period,
enrollments and demand for entry have been growing. At the same time that the teaching
enterprise has been stressed, the University has been successful in growing its research
activities at a rate that has put pressure on facilities and people. Non-academic staff have
3
Page 4
been asked to provide more services while also providing more complete information for
Barnarding to external funding sources.
The context for this review thus includes a tradition and self-perception of leadership in
information technology use in post-secondary education, a mature internal culture with a
history of “creative tension” between the center and the units, and a turbulent external
environment. It was also clear that it was the explicit and widely understood intention of
the President and Provost to build on the University’s tradition of leadership in the use of
information technology.
It is important to note that what we were asked to undertake was not a unit review of
Information Systems and Technology (IST), but rather a more general review of the
University’s engagement with information technology. We state this explicitly here
because some of our interaction with members of the University community seemed to be
predicated on the contrary assumption, in spite of what is stated in Appendix 1; of the
seven specific clauses in the mandate we were given, four make no reference to IST, one
includes both IST and other components of the environment, and two refer to IST alone.
That said, much of the focus in this report, as was the case in our discussions, is on
aspects of the relationship between IST and other units.
We visited the campus in November of 2002; we met with a diverse cross-section of the
University community, as arranged by the Provost’s office (see Appendix 2). We also
received written communications (see Appendix 3), and had access to documents that we
requested or that were proposed to us by others for our consideration (see Appendix 4).
This report is a result of our reading, our discussions while on campus, and our reflection
after the visit.
4
Page 5
2 Discussion
The body of the document contains a discussion of key points that arose from our work,
together with recommendations. We have been conscious of the specific charge given to
us by the Provost (in Appendix 1). We have chosen to structure the body of the document
around the specific clauses in our Mandate.
We have generalized the wording of the clause to a title for the subsection, with the title
sometimes allowing us to cover other matters than were explicitly anticipated in the
Mandate. On the other hand, sometimes the expectations of the Mandate clause are only
able to be addressed in general terms given the time we had for gathering information on
campus. While there is a narrative flow through these sections, some repetition of ideas
helps the sections be more self-contained.
Comparative Position
To evaluate UW's IT applications in learning, research, academic and
administrative support services, and outreach relative to UW's comparators.
Information technology is used in many ways in modern universities. Here are some
examples.
• There are academic programs and disciplines where the technology is a
fundamental object of study, such as computer science, computer engineering,
software engineering, cognitive science, and so on.
• There are many academic programs and disciplines where computers are crucial
research tools, being used for such tasks as textual analysis, visualization,
animation, numerical modeling, data mining and analysis, and so on.
• Increasingly, the design and delivery of teaching materials are being influenced
by the possibility of computer-mediated interactions between faculty members
and students, as well as among students.
• As in other enterprises, many basic operational aspects of the institution are based
on computer systems, such as financial processes, human resources management,
student records, control of physical processes in buildings, library automation,
and so on.
• For most faculty members, staff members and students, basic tools required for
daily work are based on computers, such as electronic mail, access to resources on
the internet, document creation and distribution, spreadsheet creation and
distribution, and presentation preparation.
The University of Waterloo has been a leader at various times in various aspects of this
complicated world. In the early days of the University, for example, the use of computing
in many programs, and the provision of affordable access for large numbers of students
was significantly shaped at Waterloo and many other universities by the design of the
WATFOR student compiler for FORTRAN. The University also led many others in its
5
Page 6
aggressive acquisition of large computer hardware configurations to support use by many
researchers and many students.
In that era, computers were not as widespread, there was less software available, and the
needs of universities differed form the needs of business and industry, so that the
development of customized systems for university use was expected. The University of
Waterloo was an important contributor.
In recent years, computers have become ubiquitous in the academy but also in the wider
society outside the academy. Many of the uses that universities make of computers are
not different in kind from the uses that many others wish to make. Of course, university
users are often early anticipators of what is possible, and sometimes developers of
technologies. But the relatively privileged position that universities enjoyed decades ago
in the information technology world has been eroded.
This extended reflection seems necessary because as one of our interlocutors said “there
is a fondness for the old days” still among some at the University of Waterloo. This
statement is consistent with what we observed ourselves. This nostalgia has at least two
distinct aspects. First, there is a longing for the recognition of the University of Waterloo
as clearly a leader in the use of information technology in post-secondary education.
Second, there is a longing for the development of “made at Waterloo” systems to deal
with local operational needs.
For most organizations – including most universities – the second longing is not
practically realizable. It would be in some sense akin to those who lived through the
pioneer era of the automobile continuing to want to build their own rather than buy one to
meet their transportation needs. Of course, there are some specialized needs for which
custom fabrication is required, but those cases are rare. The strategic orientation to buy
rather than make is a common one, and easily justified.
Some members of the community worry that this means the University of Waterloo can
not satisfy the first longing – that of leadership among universities. Using the same tools
as others, this argument goes, means that one can achieve only what others achieve. This
conclusion is faulty. Creative use of any set of tools – including purchased software
systems – can set one organization apart from others.
Against this background reflection, it is clear that the University of Waterloo is not
making the pioneering contributions to the use of information technology in post-
secondary education that it once was. Relative to other universities with whom it should
be compared, there are some positive indicators and some negative ones.
The University has done well in the development of its library system. There are many
areas of research where faculty members have used computers effectively to achieve high
standards of work, and international recognition. Many students use computers in a wide
range of academic programs.
6
Page 7
However, other universities have done better at managing the regular upgrading of
desktop systems, at developing wireless networking, and at integrating the various
components of the campus computing and communication environment into a seamless
whole.
Several of those with whom we spoke identified the desire of the President and the
Provost to make the University of Waterloo a leader again in the use of information
technology. In our view, this goal is achievable because the University has strong
traditions on which it can build, it has skilled and enthusiastic people, and it has the will
at the senior levels of the administration. But leadership among universities is not a fair
characterization of the current state of the University’s use of information technology.
Strategic Opportunities
To recommend how IT can enhance UW's core missions of learning (conventional
and life-long), research and service (including administrative support and
outreach) and identify strategic opportunities for IT applications to support these
missions.
There are several stances that universities can take with respect to the use of information
technology in achieving their key missions.
Some universities have chosen to characterize themselves by an explicit orientation
toward the use of these technologies. According to the Web site of Acadia University,
well-known in recent years for its visible commitment to the use of notebook computers
for students, “The Acadia Advantage is an academic initiative unique in Canada that
integrates the use of notebook computers into the undergraduate curriculum.” The Web
site for another university proclaims that, “Athabasca University is Canada's leading
distance-education and online university: Canada's Open University.”
Other universities have made information technology less evident but have strongly
committed to using it to support all of their key missions. One area of considerable
development at many universities is online learning, whether in the use of computer-
mediated delivery to augment traditional courses delivered on campus with traditional
student-faculty interaction, or as a primary delivery mechanism to students usually
located off campus.
In our discussions with members of the University of Waterloo community we asked
about the existence of a vision for the use of information technology at the institutional
level and at the faculty level. While there is clearly not uniformity of views on this
matter, the general consensus we perceived is that there is no explicit commitment at the
institutional level, the commitment at the faculty levels varies considerably, but it is
known that the President and the Provost are personally committed to making
information technology a key aspect of the next stage of the development of the
University.
7
Page 8
The Centre for Learning and Teaching Through Technology (LT3) is one highly visible
– but not widely understood – concrete example of a possible nucleus for a strategic
commitment by the University of Waterloo. The University might commit itself to a high
degree of integration of computer-mediated delivery techniques into its courses as a
strategic orientation.
Alternatively, the University of Waterloo might commit itself instead to an increased
level of investment in information technology to be used as determined in the various
faculties and academic units. Given the history of strongly decentralized control of
technology – and other resources – at the University, this would be perhaps easier to
achieve but also certainly less dramatic and less radically transformative.
In spite of the explicit invitation to do so in our Mandate, we believe it would be
presumptuous of us, on the basis of the limited exposure that we had to the University, to
suggest what strategic orientation the University should take on this matter. The strongly
decentralized nature of the resource control at Waterloo, together with the natural
evolution of the University from infancy to maturity with a concomitant satisfaction with
patterns of behaviour that have developed to support success, mean that a strong central
commitment might be harder to achieve than would be the case in some other
universities. Accordingly, we limit ourselves to this:
Recommendation 1: The Provost should initiate a consultative process
aimed at arriving at the development and common understanding of a
statement on the University of Waterloo’s commitment to the use of
information technology as a strategic component of the University’s next
stage of development.
Investment Level
To recommend the appropriate level of investment in IT commensurate with UW's
desire to become a leader in this area.
A number of projects have been identified by members of the University of Waterloo
community as having high priority. These include the management of job postings for
cooperative education students, combining voice and data and running a voice over IP
network, implementing a uniform active directory system, and delivering enhanced
support to faculty members using the LT3 technologies. There are doubtless others that
we did not learn about in our relatively brief visit.
If Waterloo is to retain a leadership position with respect to the use of information
technology in universities, additional resources should be allocated. However, it is not yet
evident to us where the resources are most needed.
8
Page 9
Both inside and outside IST there is a recognition that more resources could effectively
be used there, but there is also a recognition that other units need resources as well.
On the other hand, there was considerable agreement that the relatively small amount of
money allocated to the University Committee on Information Systems and Technology
(UCIST) was so small as to leave that committee essentially without any influence.
By the standards of many universities, there is a large resource base allocated to
computing at the University of Waterloo. However, this resource base is spread among
central groups and the faculties. The Mathematics Faculty Computing Facility (MFCF),
for example, is a substantial unit in its own right. This unit is currently being split to
provide a separate support unit for Computer Science.
The advantage of decentralized control of resources, of course, is responsiveness to local
needs. The disadvantage, from an institutional perspective, is that resources are not
available in a single pool to allocate for institutional priorities, which may not in all cases
be the same as the aggregate of the local priorities of all units. It is unreasonable to think
that the University of Waterloo’s successful use of a decentralized model of resource
allocation can be changed radically to provide more resources for the deployment of
information technology. However, care must be taken to ensure that the allocation
between faculties and central facilities is appropriate for the needs of students, faculty
members and staff members.
One particularly effective way to use central resources in an environment with many
resources under decentralized control is to create incentives. These incentives should
induce those with the control of other resources to allocate them to institutional projects
or priorities. For example, if it were desirable to provide incentives for faculty members
to develop course material for computer-mediated delivery, central funds might be
allocated for part of the cost of course development, to be augmented by money allocated
within the faculties.
We are not able to quantify the amount of money that would be required to make a
significant difference in the university of Waterloo’s information technology
environment. The amount should be determined by the Provost as part of the regular
budget process. However, we anticipate that an incremental allocation of at least $1
million a year will be necessary.
Recommendation 2: A significant additional budget allocation (at least $1
million a year) for enhancing institutional priorities in the use of
information technology should made. The money should be provided
centrally, and used to create incentives to induce units to cooperate with
central initiatives.
In addition to redirecting resources internally, consideration should be given to attracting
new resources from external sources. The reputation of the University of Waterloo can be
used to advantage here, with private sector partners being likely to respond positively.
9
Page 10
One possibility would be to develop a University of Waterloo Technology Refresh
Program, as follows.
• In consultation with the faculties, develop a target list of private sector partners
whose products and services would be particularly useful in augmenting current
University activities with more applied technology courses.
• Approach these target partners, inviting them to participate in the program by
supplying products, services, teaching methods, and so on.
• A funding target of $3 - 5M annually of donated products and services might be
established.
• The program should run for 5 years, with multi-year participation expected from
partners.
• Portions of the funding could be directed to administrative computing
requirements, and to the support of faculty research initiatives, but the major part
would be used in support of applied technology teaching programs.
Recommendation 3: Develop partnerships with private sector technology
suppliers that would augment the available resources by $3 – 5M annually,
in support of applied technology programs but with spillover funding to
administrative and research computing initiatives.
Targeting Resources
To identify "core" and "non-core" IT activities so UW can target its limited
resources to the critical areas and develop and maintain in-house expertise to
support them.
The time we have spent at the University of Waterloo is so limited that it is not possible
for us to separate specific applications into categories of core and non-core. For example,
while at many universities a system to manage the job postings for cooperative education
student work terms would not be a core requirement, it may well be one at Waterloo
where the cooperative education program involves so many students. However, we can
offer advice on several more general aspects of targeting resources.
The first of these is the choice between making and buying applications software
packages. As we understand the current situation, IST has a preference to buy rather than
make, whereas in the past the usual option was to make rather than buy. This decision has
been somewhat controversial, especially in the case of the current Student Information
System, in that local practices are sometimes required to change in order to conform to
the operational possibilities of the new systems.
Custom built systems can be as flexible as it is desired to make them by the allocation of
people to the development team. The disadvantages that many enterprises have identified
with custom systems are the ongoing need to maintain systems in response to external
stimuli (e.g., when tax laws change human resources and payroll systems must be
changed no matter what other local priorities are taking the attention of staff members),
10
Page 11
the growing complexity of operational and Barnarding requirements for systems, and the
growing expectations of an increasingly sophisticated group of users – both the staff of
the enterprise and those whom it serves. On the other hand, unlike the situation that
obtained in earlier periods, there now are commercially available products that are good
matches to the requirements of most enterprises, including most universities.
These and other factors have caused many enterprises to make the decision to buy rather
than build most enterprise software systems. (Perhaps it would be more correct to say that
most enterprises assemble their systems from large components available in the general
market.) We believe that this is the appropriate choice in most cases. It is also apparent,
though, that the reasons for buying software have not been as well communicated as is
necessary to gain support from many of the users. Further, the users need to be involved
to the extent possible in establishing priorities for the local enhancements to commercial
systems that are a part of every major system installation, so as to make the fit of the
system with local modes of operation and expectations as smooth as possible.
Recommendation 4: The University of Waterloo should continue its
current policy of acquiring major enterprise software systems from
commercial vendors where possible.
A related issue that arose in some of our conversations was the possibility of outsourcing
some of the current information technology services or projects. There is not a strong
tendency to outsource among universities in Canada generally, and our review does not
lead us to recommend any specific activities to be considered for outsourcing.
One aspect of targeting resources is the choice of the number and range of different
computing platforms that will be supported. It is common practice to find relatively strict
policies about the platforms to be used, and a short list of approved and supported
platforms, in business and industry. It is common practice in universities to have less
strict policies and larger lists of supported platforms. Research-intensive universities, like
the University of Waterloo, tend to be at the extreme with respect to flexibility.
It must be recognized, though, that this flexibility to accommodate specialized needs
comes at a cost. Providing support for the interoperating of a diverse set of platforms, and
mounting new applications (e.g., active directory) in heterogeneous environments are
costly in terms of the support staff time that is required. Worse, if insufficient staff are
available, faculty members and students divert some of their time from their primary
activities to becoming systems maintainers.
The commitment to different platforms is often jokingly referred to as religious
commitments, and this terminology was used in our conversations. Any university needs
to be diligent about its policy and practice with respect to supporting a diversity of
platforms. Diversity is expensive so should only occur when it is truly needed – and not
simply preferred – or when those wanting diversity can raise sufficient funds form non-
institutional sources to support their eccentric choices. So say this another way, support
11
Page 12
for specialized research equipment should be viewed as a cost of the research, not as an
entailment for the institution.
Centralization and Decentralization
To recommend the distribution of tasks between central IST and faculty-based IT
operations.
A prominent theme in the submissions we received, as well as in the conversations with
members of the University community, was the ambiguity around the delineation of
responsibilities for information technology at the center and in the faculties.
We were told that this has always been an issue, which is not surprising given the
University’s tradition of decentralization of resources to the faculties. However, we were
also told that the situation has evolved to be worse than it has been in the past. This too is
not surprising, since information technology is ubiquitous physically and logically – the
University is dependent on the technology for all key activities, and the resource
constraints under which all parts of the University have been operating naturally lead
units to concentrate on what they perceive to be their key responsibilities, which are often
their unique and core responsibilities.
The general lay of the land seems to be this:
• Major administrative systems (student records, financial records, etc.) are a
central responsibility. Some of the central departments that are the custodians of
these data and processes consider themselves well served by IST.
Some administrative systems (e.g., in physical plant) are looked after in the
departments.
Some academics do not understand the processes by which priorities are
established for IST. In particular, there remains a legacy of dissatisfaction with
the Student Information System project that needs to be resolved.
• Teaching is a responsibility of the faculties and is the primary focus of the
assistant deans for computing.
• Research computing, where it is specialized, is primarily in the faculties – or even
in the departments in some cases – and the engagement of the assistant deans in
this domain varies from faculty to faculty.
• Computationally intensive research computing has some central support (the users
cross faculty boundaries).
• LT3 is a central function, but has a direct Barnarding line to the Provost.
• Networking infrastructure is a divided responsibility. It is a source of current
confusion in the building now under construction since two faculties and the
central organization could all have some role there.
• Directory support and consequently authorization and system access is
fragmented. This is especially significant for students since authorization can
occur at the faculty, department or individual laboratory level and students often
work in more than one environment. Staff and faculty move their locus of work
12
Page 13
around the campus less than do students, in general. Students are induced to
optimize for themselves rather than for the system, with some students locking
down specific machines that have certain pieces of software on them, so that
when those tools are needed they are available, thus precluding other students
from using the rare tools, while other machines are underutilized.
• Help desk support to users is not uniformly managed.
• There is no institutional responsibility for managing the turnover of desktop
computers.
• There is no clear management mandate for the development of the University’s
strategic direction with respect to information technology.
UCIST has some role here but it is variously assumed to be valuable, weak or
irrelevant so we conclude that it is not effective in this capacity whether or not it
should be.
IST is perceived by many to be reactive, and the senior management group
described their role as reactive rather than the source of innovation.
There is widespread agreement that this situation needs to be clarified and improved. We
concur. However, we are aware that rules do not in themselves lead to cooperation and
collaboration, which are surely needed in an environment with a number of strong players
(the central organization and the faculties). We suggest that the first thing to address is
the orientation of IST, which should be a service organization, not a technology
organization. The name of the organization should reflect this, and the reality behind it
should back up the implications of the name.
Recommendation 5: Information Systems and Technology should be
renamed, perhaps as Information Services, with an explicit commitment to
customer service in its mandate.
The broad outlines of the existing separation of responsibilities should be continued.
Frankly, in other universities we would suggest other delineations, but we are responding
to our perception of the local culture. Here we take the preferred orientation to be user-
centred rather than technology-centred, so that support is “support to users” rather than
“support of specific technologies.” Of course, the second underlies the first.
The fragmented and specialized nature of computing access for students, especially
undergraduates, seems counterproductive. There should be facilities easily available to all
students. Many universities have developed a so-called information commons, with the
library and the information technology group cooperating to provide the equipment and
the service. It seems to us that such a service would address some of the concerns
conveyed to us by students.
Recommendation 6: Information Services should be responsible for:
• Developing and maintaining enterprise information systems,
• Providing and supporting the networking infrastructure to the
individual workspace unless otherwise explicitly negotiated with
departments or faculties,
13
Page 14
• Ensuring that all faculty and staff members have computing resources,
including software tools, necessary to fulfill their roles in achieving
institutional goals and objectives,
• Coordinating with the faculties the provision of technical support (both
hardware and software) to users,
• Providing a seamless help desk service (or at least the coordination of
such a service with the faculties), and
• Providing an information commons, possibly in collaboration with the
library.
In a complementary way, the faculties need to continue to provide their unique services,
but also to collaborate to provide support to users.
Recommendation 7: Faculty computing support groups should be
responsible for:
• Selecting and provision of hardware and software to support the
teaching needs of the faculty,
• Supporting the specialized research needs of faculty members,
• Collaborating with Information Services to provide technical support
(both hardware and software) to users, and
• Collaborating with Information Services to provide a seamless help
desk service.
Given the dissatisfaction and mistrust that was evident in some quarters, collaboration on
the broader issue of general support of users, as well as on the narrower issue of
provision of a seamless help desk service, will require some attitude changes. As one
person said to us, what is needed is a generosity of spirit and a service orientation. We
concur – and these are needed on all sides.
There is interest among students in participating in the development of systems and the
provision of services. Some students are now hired for these purposes, but more could be.
While there are management issues around defining tasks of an appropriate scale for
students in cooperative education program work terms, more students should be involved.
Central Structure
To recommend an administrative structure for IST in terms of optimal function
and interaction with academic units, taking into account UW's decentralization
and academic IT administration.
Structure does not accomplish things. People accomplish things. However, some
structures are more conducive to achieving certain goals because they lead to patterns of
communication, delegation and accountability that are well matched to those goals.
14
Page 15
We believe it to be important at the University of Waterloo at present to have a senior
position devoted to the strategic development and achieving of the University’s strategic
direction with respect to information technology. To this end, it will be important to
separate the roles of strategic leadership and of daily management of the central unit.
Accordingly, we believe, along with a number of those who communicated with us, that
it is appropriate to have two positions, a Director of Information Services (the renamed
IST) and an Associate Provost for Information Technology (APIT). The Director of
Information Services should report to the Associate Provost.
The APIT needs to have a clear mandate from the President and the Provost, to develop
strategic direction and to build partnerships to realize the strategy. This means that the
deans will need to work collaboratively with the APIT. The scope of this mandate should
be very broad, covering teaching, research, administrative systems and enterprise
infrastructure.
The APIT needs to work closely with senior leaders in the university. There should be a
senior committee that would involve the deans and possibly some of the directors of non-
academic units. Consideration should be given to including student representation on this
committee. This committee should infrequently, perhaps bi-monthly or quarterly, to
discuss strategic issues and major policy questions.
There should also be committees advising the Director on administrative issues, and
another advising on academic issues. Perhaps the existing committee structure could
serve these purposes.
The role of LT3 needs to be clarified. The unit itself has a twofold mission. It is
conducting research and development, attempting to provide sophisticated tools to help
faculty members use computer-mediated delivery of course materials. At the same time it
has a mission to engage faculty members in using technology and developing course
materials suitable for computer-mediated delivery. The unit does not have sufficient
resources to support large numbers of faculty members if large numbers were to become
involved. In the short term, there are some faculty members enthusiastically embracing
the approach, but we were told that many are skeptical.
A number of people communicated to us their concern about the potential conflict of
these two missions, and about their perception of ambiguity in the role and status of the
unit. It is known that the President and Provost want the University of Waterloo to be in a
leadership position with respect to the use of information technology, and LT3 is
perceived as being one important component in their vision. As a result, LT3 wants to
demonstrate change, but there is insufficient incentive for many faculty members to
become involved.
In our view, the best way to move forward would be to have LT3 report to the APIT. The
specific role of LT3, and the pace at which the technologies it is developing should be
introduced into the academic programs of the faculties, could then be determined as part
of the consultation that the APIT will have with the deans. The leadership position to
15
Page 16
which the University aspires may have LT3 as a fundamental building block, but there
may be other building blocks as well. In any case, the deans must be committed to
whatever role LT3 will play if it is to be successful.
Recommendation 8: Separate the role of Director of Information Services
from that of Associate Provost for Information Technology. Let the
Director report to the Associate Provost, and have responsibility for
managing the central organization. Give the Associate Provost a strong
mandate to develop and achieve the strategic vision of the University of
Waterloo with respect to leadership in the use of information technology.
Recommendation 9: Establish a University Committee on Information
Technology Strategy and Policy. This should be chaired by the Associate
Provost for Information Technology and have as members some deans,
together with some directors of non-academic units and possibly student,
faculty and staff representatives.
Recommendation 10: Have the Associate Vice-President, Learning
Resources and Innovation report to the Associate Provost for Information
Technology. Develop a shared vision with the deans of the role of the
Centre for Learning and Teaching Through Technology and the pace with
which its work will be integrated into the faculties.
Associate Provost
To identify key competencies of the next Associate Provost, IST.
The major role we see for the next Associate Provost will be formulating a vision and
gaining support for that vision. The person will need to be someone in whom the
community has confidence.
The primary requisites are not technical knowledge or technical skill, although there
needs to be technical credibility. The primary requisites are twofold.
• First, there must be an understanding of the nature of the academy and its
missions, and a sense of how information technology can be used to contribute to
those missions.
• Second, there must be an ability to work within the academic culture to generate
consensus and enthusiasm.
16
Page 17
3 Conclusion
In the scale of the history of universities, the University of Waterloo is relatively young.
A tremendous amount has been accomplished in the first few decades of its existence.
The University has a reputation for innovation and creativity, as well as for academic
excellence in a broad range of disciplines. It has been particularly noted for its
engagement with information technology.
It is a normal concomitant of growth and maturation to come to points in development
where change needs to occur.
The University of Waterloo has benefited from strong faculties that have responsibility
for matters sometimes handled centrally in other universities. The flexibility and
nimbleness that this allows within faculties has allowed the academic community to build
the reality and the reputation that has come about so quickly.
Decentralized environments have some relative advantages and they also have some
relative costs. If the University is to take a leadership role with respect to the use of
information technology in university education it must find a way to achieve higher
degrees of internal cooperation and collaboration over the next few years. This will be a
challenge, but it is achievable. Strong leadership, not autocratic but consultative and
inclusive, can bring it about.
17
Page 18
4 Summary of Recommendations
1. The Provost should initiate a consultative process aimed at arriving at the
development and common understanding of a statement on the University of
Waterloo’s commitment to the use of information technology as a strategic
component of the University’s next stage of development.
2. A significant additional budget allocation (at least $1 million a year) for
enhancing institutional priorities in the use of information technology should
made. The money should be provided centrally, and used to create incentives to
induce units to cooperate with central initiatives.
3. Develop partnerships with private sector technology suppliers that would augment
the available resources by $3 – 5M annually, in support of applied technology
programs but with spillover funding to administrative and research computing
initiatives.
4. The University of Waterloo should continue its current policy of acquiring major
enterprise software systems from commercial vendors where possible.
5. Information Systems and Technology should be renamed, perhaps as Information
Services, with an explicit commitment to customer service in its mandate.
6. Information Services should be responsible for:
18
Page 19
• Developing and maintaining enterprise information systems,
• Providing and supporting the networking infrastructure to the individual
workspace unless otherwise explicitly negotiated with departments or faculties,
• Ensuring that all faculty and staff members have computing resources, including
software tools, necessary to fulfill their roles in achieving institutional goals and
objectives,
• Coordinating with the faculties the provision of technical support (both hardware
and software) to users,
• Providing a seamless help desk service (or at least the coordination of such a
service with the faculties), and
• Providing an information commons, possibly in collaboration with the library.
7. Faculty computing support groups should be responsible for:
• Selecting and provision of hardware and software to support the teaching needs of
the faculty,
• Supporting the specialized research needs of faculty members,
• Collaborating with Information Services to provide technical support (both
hardware and software) to users, and
• Collaborating with Information Services to provide a seamless help desk service.
8. Separate the role of Director of Information Services from that of Associate
Provost for Information Technology. Let the Director report to the Associate
Provost, and have responsibility for managing the central organization. Give the
Associate Provost a strong mandate to develop and achieve the strategic vision of
the University of Waterloo with respect to leadership in the use of information
technology.
9. Establish a University Committee on Information Technology Strategy and
Policy. This should be chaired by the Associate Provost for Information
Technology and have as members some deans, together with some directors of
non-academic units and possibly student, faculty and staff representatives.
10. Have the Associate Vice-President, Learning Resources and Innovation report to
the Associate Provost for Information Technology. Develop a shared vision with
the deans of the role of the Centre for Learning and Teaching Through
Technology and the pace with which its work will be integrated into the faculties.
19
Page 20
5 Appendices
Appendix 1: Announcement of Review
Review of Information Technology for Learning, Research, and
Administration at the University of Waterloo
Commissioned by Vice-President Academic & Provost Amit Chakma
October, 2002.
Background
The University of Waterloo's reputation as Canada's most innovative university is based,
in part, on its leadership in IT education and research. It follows, then, that UW's IT
strategy should build on this proud achievement, and position UW to maintain this
leadership among its peers. Our goal, therefore, will be to enhance research, teaching
and administrative processes through strategic application of IT, thereby enriching the
quality of education and experience we provide our students and extending our outreach
to pre-university students and lifelong learners at home and abroad.
This review should serve to inform UW's IT vision for the next decade, clarifying the
integration of IT into learning, research and outreach, while maintaining emphasis on
high quality, innovation and efficiency.
Terms of Reference
General
The review will examine the current applications and adoption of IT at UW and identify
strategic opportunities to use IT to enhance the core missions of the University. Current
IT use and level of investment in IT will be examined, as will the administrative structure,
operation and policies governing IT at UW, leading to recommendations, as appropriate.
Mandate
• To evaluate UW's IT applications in learning, research, academic and administrative
support services, and outreach relative to UW's comparators.
• To recommend how IT can enhance UW's core missions of learning (conventional
and life-long), research and service (including administrative support and outreach)
and identify strategic opportunities for IT applications to support these missions.
• To recommend the appropriate level of investment in IT commensurate with UW's
desire to become a leader in this area.
• To identify "core" and "non-core" IT activities so UW can target its limited resources
to the critical areas and develop and maintain in-house expertise to support them.
• To recommend the distribution of tasks between central IST and faculty-based IT
operations.
• To recommend an administrative structure for IST in terms of optimal function and
interaction with academic units, taking into account UW's decentralization and
academic IT administration.
• To identify key competencies of the next Associate Provost, IST.
Reviewer
David Barnard, President, University of Regina
Assisted by: Larry Symes, University of Regina & John Mather, Manulife Financial
20
Page 21
Timeline
The review team will conduct a site visit during November 11-12, 2002 and will meet with
various groups. The community at large will be invited to make written submissions to
Dr. Barnard. The final report is expected to be available by January 2003.
Agenda for Visit, November 11-12, 2002 (attached)
Meetings are currently being organized for the review team with senior administration,
faculty, staff, and students. In addition, individuals from the UW community are invited to
provide written submissions in advance to Anne Wagland, Office of the Vice-President,
Academic and Provost, NH, by November 8, 2002.
21
Page 22
Appendix 2: Schedule of Visit and Meetings
Sunday, November 10
7:30
Dinner
David Johnston and Amit Chakma
Monday, November 11
8:30
Arrival and orientation
Amit Chakma
9:00
Deans'/Executive Council
Mike Sharratt (Applied Health Sciences), Bob Kerton (Arts), Sujeet
Chaudhuri (Engineering), Geoff McBoyle (Environmental Studies), Alan
George (Mathematics), George Dixon (Science), Michael Higgins
(Federated & Affiliated Colleges), Paul Guild (VP, University Research)
10:30
Other Executive Council members
Gary Waller (Assoc. Provost, Academic & Student Affairs), Dennis Huber
(VP, Administration & Finance), Catharine Scott (Assoc. Provost, Human
Resources & Student Services), Bud Walker (Dir., Business Operations),
Lois Claxton (University Secretary), Bob Truman (Dir., Institutional
Analysis & Planning)
12:00
Lunch (University Club)
with Centre for Learning and Teaching through Technology "Innovation
Team": Tom Carey, Les Richards, Dianne Salter, Andrea Chappell
1:30
Other UCIST members
Richard Wells (AHS), Hector Budman (Engineering), Brent Hall
(Environmental Studies), John Beatty (Math), Jeff Chen (Science), Tom
Carey (Assoc. VP, Learning Resources and Innovation), Mark Haslett
(Assoc. Librarian, Systems & Services)
2:45
Senior IST staff
Bill Futher (Administrative Support), Carol Vogt (Electronic Workplace),
Paul Snyder (Client Services), Martin Timmerman (Production Support),
Roger Watt (Systems), Bob Blackburn (Application Technology; SC HR),
Roy Wagler (Strategic Consultant, Admin & Finance), Dave Kibble (SC,
Academic & Student Affairs), Dave Mason (SC, Student Information
Systems)
4:00
Other senior UW staff
Ken Lavigne (Registrar), Murray Shepherd (Univ. Librarian), Bruce
Lumsden (Co-op Ed. & Career Services), Mark Murdoch (Food Services),
Ann Williams-Gorrie (Finance), Jim Frank (Assoc. Dean, Grad Studies),
Don Kasta (Distance & Continuing Ed.), Maryann Gavin (Development &
Alumni Affairs)
6:00
Dinner
Amit Chakma
22
Page 23
Tuesday, November 12
8:30
Jay Black (Assoc. Provost, Information Systems & Technology)
10:00
Student Senators
Adrian Chin (AHS), Jesse Helmer (Arts), Jenny Lin (Engineering), Nayan
Gandhi (Environmental Studies), Stephen Skrzydlo (Math), Jesse
Waltman (Arts), Douglas Stebila (Math), Igor Ivkovic (Math), Jeannette
Byrne (Applied Health Sciences), Justin Wozniak (Math), Brenda
Koprowski (President, Fed. of Students), Shannon Puddister (President,
Graduate Student Assoc.)
[actual attendance: Chris Dilullo, Angela Garolt, Shannon Puddister,
Steven Skrzydlo]
11:30
Closing meeting with Amit Chakma and David Johnston
12:30
Lunch (University Club)
senior admin: Jay Black, Gary Waller, Lois Claxton, Bud Walker, Dennis
Huber, Alan George, Laura Talbot-Allan, (VP, University Relations)
2:30 - 4:00
TBA
At the discretion of the Review Team
6:00
Dinner with Board Audit Committee Members
[Peggy Mulligan, Executive VP Operations & Systems, Bank of Nova
Scotia; unable to attend], Gerry Sullivan, President & CEO, Priiva
Corporation, Amit Chakma
23
Page 24
Appendix 3: Written Submissions
• Black, Jay; written notes for meeting with review committee
• Blackburn, Bob; IST Experiences and Challenges (PowerPoint presentation)
• Budman, Hector; letter
• Campbell, Bruce; electronic mail
• Campbell, Colin; electronic mail
• Fraser, Roydon; copy of letter in Faculty Association Newsletter
• Haslett, Mark; written notes for meeting with review committee
• Le Roy, R.J.; memorandum
• Neglia, Vic ; electronic mail
• Schreiber, Paul; electronic mail open letter
• Stebila, Douglas; electronic mail
• Walker, Bud; memorandum
• Woodside, Simon; open letter plus postscript
24
Page 25
Appendix 4: Other Documents Reviewed
• Jamie C. Cavalier, The Forgotten Question in Information Technology Strategic
Planning
• Centre for Learning & Teaching Through Technology, brochure; About LT3
• Commission on Institutional Planning, Building on Accomplishment: A Plan for
the University of Waterloo’s Fifth Decade
• Information Systems and Technology, Strategic Plan
• TRELLIS Project, Guiding Principles
• University Committee on Information Systems & Technology (UCIST), 2002
Directions Statement
• University Committee on Information Systems & Technology (UCIST), 2002
Strategic Directions
• University of Waterloo, Information Technology Architecture Directions
• University of Waterloo, Organizational Charts
• University of Waterloo, Schedule of General Operating Expenses (extracts)
25
Page 26
26