the role of networked information in higher education (166180423)

7/29/2019 The Role of Networked Information in Higher Education (166180423)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-networked-information-in-higher-education-166180423 1/24

The Role of Networked Information in Higher Education

This paper was presented at the 1996 CAUSE annual conference.It is part of the proceedings of that conference, "BroadeningOur Horizons: Information, Services, Technology --Proceedings of the 1996 CAUSE Annual Conference," page 7-8-1+. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of thismaterial is granted provided that the copies are not made ordistributed for commercial advantage. To copy or disseminateotherwise, or to republish in any form, requires writtenpermission from the author and CAUSE. For furtherinformation, contactCAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite302E, Boulder, CO 80301; 303-449-4430; e-mail [email protected].

THE ROLE OF NETWORKED INFORMATIONIN HIGHER EDUCATION

James Estrada & Paul KobulnickyUniversity of Connecticut

A Presentation at CAUSE 96The 25th CAUSE ConferenceDecember 3 - 6, 1996, San Francisco, CA

Proposal: Participation in Fall 1996 CAUSE ProgramTrack: Networked Information

Presenters:

James Estrada,Assistant Director for Regional Campus Libraries andChairperson, Information Architecture Task Force, Universityof Connecticut;

Paul Kobulnicky, Director of University Libraries, Universityof Connecticut.

ABSTRACT:In February, 1996, the Information Architecture Task Force ofthe University of Connecticut Libraries completed itsexamination of the architecture that would support andenhance public and staff access to electronic informationservices. As part of its investigation, the Task Forceexamined the current status of information architectureplanning and the role of information technology within the

university, and contrasted this role through interviews withapproximately 18 institutions of higher education.

Both our literature survey and interviews revealed a numberof similarities among "leading institutions" that werefrequently mentioned as positive factors in the effectiveutilization of information technology and networkedinformation. In most, but not all cases, there was a strongcorrelation between the rate of progress in the respectiveuniversity libraries and the perceived value of information



and information technology on campus.

While the Task Force Report addresses many issues of localinterest to the UConn Libraries, it is the findings of ourinvestigation regarding the perceived value of networkedinformation, especially the similar and positive factorsamong institutions, that are presented. In addition, thesefactors are also analyzed with respect to their ability topositively effect design recommendations for informationarchitectures.

Length: Approx. 25-30 minutes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: THE CONTEXTA. Strategic planning process leads the wayB. Conservative server architectureC. Network connectivityD. Aging network topologyE. Building and campus constructions/modification

F. Reorganization of human resourcesG. An Aging integrated library system (ILS)H. Inter-relationship between content and delivery optionsI. Growing and vocal demand for independent access by end

usersJ. The Rise of full-text

PART II: THE PROCESSA. Matrix of deliverablesB. Options for deliveryC. Survey of benchmark institutions

D. Survey took us to broader viewE. Survey Results -- transition to the IATF ReportF. Caveats regarding the findingsG. Criteria for other institutions

PART III: THE REPORTA Institutional FactorsB. Library Factors- Desirable features of an information

architectureC. Comparisons to the University of Connecticut

PART IV: THE OUTCOMEA. Content and delivery decisionsB. Regional Campus LibrariesC. Library staff reorganizationD. Network, client, and server planningE. Current efforts for customer supportF. Broader campus issues



=============================================================

PART I : THE CONTEXT

Institutional Background The University of Connecticut is a Research I, Land Grant andSea Grant institution spread over eight physical locations.It is the only public research University in Connecticut withYale as the only other research university. The campus inStorrs Connecticut is the largest of the eight and theadministrative center of the institution. A major healthcomplex, which includes Schools of Medicine and Dentistry,exists at the Farmington Campus and is administrativelyindependent from the other campuses. The School of Law is ona separate campus in Hartford. Regional Campuses whichcontain various blends of graduate and undergraduate programsare in Avery Point, Greater Hartford, Stamford, Torringtonand Waterbury. The entire system is governed by a singlePresident who reports to a Board of trustees. In 1996 thereare some 24 thousand students and twelve hundred faculty at

all of the UConn campuses with Storrs accounting for 18thousand students and one thousand faculty. The university of Connecticut's libraries are organized intothree administrative units. The Health Center library and theLaw School library are both autonomous units reporting to theSenior Vice President for the health Sciences and the Dean ofthe Law School respectively . The University of ConnecticutLibraries, the libraries at the Storrs campus and those atthe five regional campuses, report to the University'sDirector of Libraries.

A. Strategic Planning Leads the Way

In 1995, the University of Connecticut Libraries, completed aStrategic Planning Process which identified ten strategicinitiatives. A significant number of those initiatives werebased on the existence of a robust network that wouldfacilitate the use of networked information both in supportof the university's missions of research, teaching / learningand service and also in support of a restructuring of thelibraries internal processes.

While strategic planning had identified positive drivers inthe development of new networked information infrastructures,

there existed a set of negative drivers that were equally aspowerful.

B. Conservative server architecture.

The University of Connecticut had developed as amainframe/terminal type service architecture and had remainedso long after other major universities had moved decisivelytowards distributed computing on multiple platforms. As such,



UConn's experiences with multiple servers, multiple operatingsystems, associated applications and the types of networkedservices used to integrate users and multiple platforms wasnot as strong as it should have been for the times.

C. Network connectivity.

At the start of 1995, the University of Connecticut had widearea networking that connected the academic buildings of theStorrs campus and connected the academic and hospital unitsof the Health Center campus. The Health center campus wasconnected to the Storrs campus. Networking also extended toone, and only one, of the three buildings of the GreaterHartford campus and to the Law School campus. No networkingat all, either internal or external, was in existence at theother four regional campus. During 1995/96 networking wasextended to all facilities of three of the remaining fourregional campuses. The remaining campus and the other twobuildings at Greater Hartford are in process of networkcompletion as of 10/96.

D. Aging network topology.

The lack of network conductivity to the regional campuses hasalready been noted. In many cases, the wide area networkingthat had been installed on the Storrs campus during the1980's and 1990's was based on a traffic pattern that wasdesigned around the older mainframe architecture. Traffic wasinitially planned to be largely textual and based on equalaccess to and from a central (both logical and physical)service. As the 1990's moved forward, much of the networktraffic was being routed to remote servers whose physicalpositioning was based on space availability in campusbuildings but whose logical position on the network was basedon available network connections in the physical space, not

on the facilitation of network traffic flow. Much of this newtraffic was packet based, transmitting full GUI screens andimages. Most of the new servers were based on operatingsystems and or transmission protocols that had not beencommonplace on the UConn campus...UNIX, DOS, WINDOWS andNOVELL.

E. Building and Campus construction/modification.

In 1995 the major library facility within the University ofConnecticut libraries, the Homer Babbidge Library (HBL), wasslated for major renovation to repair external structural

problems. Taking advantage of the construction activity,funds were identified to upgrade the network infrastructurewithin HBL. This presented library and telecommunicationsstaff with the opportunity to rethink the network topologywithin a building that contained one of the largestconcentrations of servers and client workstations within theUniversity. This was also one of the buildings that had beenmost effected by the changes in server platform and userinteractions. Within HBL, servers and public access clientworkstations were placed where space and service functions



required, not where network topology indicated. At the regional campuses, networking was being extended butseveral more facilities projects were underway. The Stamfordcampus was in the process of planning to move from a suburbanlocation to downtown Stamford. A moderately new departmentstore building was being converted into a complete campus.Within this new facility, planning was underway for allaspects of library and computing services. Similarly at theAvery Point campus a new library building was being designedby architects for construction before the turn of thecentury.

F. Reorganization of Human Resources.

As mentioned above, one of the positive drivers was astrategic planning process. That process set, as one of ourhighest priorities, a review of our organizational structureand our use of human resources. In particular, and in commonwith the development of many academic libraries, staffrelating to networked information were split between thoseindividuals who were identified with the administration andservices of the integrated library management system and

those individuals who were associated with the administrationand delivery of direct information products based on CD-ROM,remote internet and, later, web technologies. With newgenerations of all products and with client workstations ableto access OPACs and web products alike, there was strong needto integrate these functional units in the library. Areorganizational plan brought them together into a unit whichwas eventually named Information Technology Services (ITS). At the same time other informational technologies with thelibraries were directed towards this integrated unit. Mediaservices, the library's public access computer cluster andcopy services were brought into ITS.

Overlapping efforts between the library and computing,specifically in areas such as user support, network planningand user training did exist. However, in this planningeffort, such reorganizational activities were limited to thelibrary staff.

G. An aging Integrated Library System (ILS).

The University of Connecticut Libraries were operating theNOTIS LMS running under IBM MVS. At the time of this planningprocess this system had no web interface nor Z39.50

connectivity. We were also running NOTIS's MDAS as ourprinciple terminal based, database server. This was an agingILS. A decision had to be made on replacing this system ortaking steps to upgrade it to extend its usable lifetime.Clearly, this decision would effect other decisions oninformation access.

H. Inter-relationship between content and delivery options.



Many of UConn's existing networked information products werebecoming available in multiple delivery options ... CD-ROM(networked and stand alone), tape loaded (local and internetremote), web based, telnet to remote server and others. Eachoptions had, and still does have, pricing and serviceparameters that must be considered. Moreover, for our users,integrating our networked information product line into oneobvious, menued, front end service for our users was a highpriority. Integrated into this desired front end would beauthentication and other issues of license compliance.

I. Growing and vocal demand forindependent access by end users.

Our users, both faculty and students, were increasinglydemanding access to our electronic products from remotelocations at all hours. Campus offices and residence hallnetworking was moving forward and access to the Universityfrom off campus via dial-up lines was increasingdramatically. As the regional campuses came on line, demandfor networked services grew throughout the state. Access hadto be increasingly fast, easy and reliable. Services had tobe user-friendly and easy to navigate. Interfaces had to be

consistent with one another. Success in user driven accessbred even greater demand for such services.

J. The rise of full text.

Here to fore, we had been used to most of our attentiongiven to networked access to bibliographic and othersecondary services. Increasingly, we were being asked toprovide access to full text data. Faculty were making use ofthe network to deliver course support through either UConn'sVirtual Classroom or Electronic Course Reserves projects.Data was flowing in many flavors. Clearly, we would have to

learn to integrate the delivery of all formats ofinformation.

PART II: THE PROCESS

Background

In June 1995, the Director of Libraries convened a smallgroup of staff for the purpose of discussing the nature of

_networked information_ and the future needs of the Library.From this initial meeting several preliminary conclusions

were made and these included the following.

First, the focus on investigating networked information andinfrastructure did not imply that the vast majority ofmaterials in print and other formats were less important butonly that the financial allocations for electronicinformation were directly related to the issue ofinfrastructure.

Second, while many changes were occurring in the marketplace,



it was clear that, in contrast to the past, new decisionsabout creating and distributing information throughout thelibrary system would not be driven exclusively by theexpansion, replacement, or acquisition of a new integratedlibrary system or Library Management System (hereafter LMS).For reasons of economy, timing, and especially the lack ofmature product alternatives in the marketplace at the time,an investigation of a successor LMS system would likely bethe focus of a separate task force in the future. In thisregard, the challenge to the IATF was to develop a frameworkthat would support both short term (6 to 36 months) andlonger term goals (greater than 36 months) and remainflexible enough to accommodate the acquisition of a new LMSat a later date.

Third, it was also fairly obvious that several departmentswithin the Library were eager to offer and/or developelectronic information services somewhat independently ofeach other. Continuation of these entrepreneurial efforts inan uncoordinated fashion would only energy and resources fromthe development of an infrastructure that could support asystem-wide distribution of most information products andservices.

Subsequently, the Information Architecture Task Force wasformally established to recommend a a computer networkingframework or information architecture that would support andenhance public and staff access to electronic informationservices during the next 24 to 36 months. Included in thisstudy would be the identification of "classes" of electronicservices "in relation to hardware, software, networking and acommon user front end.

A. Matrix of Deliverables

The IATF arranged its work into three phases. In its firstphase, the IATF developed a so-called "matrix of

deliverables" or list of electronic products and serviceswhich the Library makes available from both stand-aloneand/or networked workstations. In addition, the IATF alsoincluded those _types_ of resources and products that couldbe identified and defined by faculty, staff, and students asuseful resources. The list of deliverables appears in Table 1below.

TABLE 1: LIST OF DELIVERABLES

Staff Local Area Network files:Staff DirectoryDepartment descriptions and Organization chartsPersonnel Materials (e.g. Manager's Handbook)LC Classification SummaryCommittee Rosters & ActivitiesMinutes of meetings (archival copy)Planning Materials (e.g. Strategic Planning)



Technical Services Web:Cataloger workstation resources including LCSH,LCRI, AACR2,

authority files; Homer cataloging manual, plusaccess to OCLC,Homer, Spirit, Internet, etc.

Acquisitions workstation resources: BIP+,Folio/YBP, BNA databases, etc.Preservation workstation resources: ABLE, proceduremanualLibrary Systems resources: List of supportedproducts, list of departmental

liaisons, training schedule, and coursedescriptions.

Administrative Resources:Floorplans of the libraries, both public and staffareas.List of resource people

Various Information Databases:Homer (UCAT & JREF)CD-ROM DatabasesElectronic Text Archives

Graphic Image DatabaseMAGIC (Map & Geographic Information Center)ResourcesNumerical Databases

Bibliographic Catalogs & Indexes:Local MARC catalog (links to multimedia files)Local Non-MARC databasesRemote MARC catalogs

Text Files in multiple formats:ASCII files; Bitmapped page images; Text in Word-Processed Format;

Marked or structured text; SGML-marked text; HTML-marked text.

Multimedia:Combining Text; Audio; Images; and Motion.

B. Options for Delivery

Following the creation of this list, it was superimposed on agraphic which illustrated no fewer than eight computerinterfaces that patrons and staff faced in using the currentlist of electronic products and services (Tables 2A & 2B).

Table 2A

Examples of Library Access to Electronic Resources, 1995

Table 2B




This information was distributed to the staff and a hearingwas held to collect opinions and comments and the results arepresented in Tables 3A & 3B. The principal suggestionsincluded: the need to move to as few computer interfaces aspossible; specific ideas as to where products might best becollocated and arranged; the need to distribute as muchinformation over the library and campus network as possible;and the overall desirability toeduce, to the extent possible,the number of stand-alone and special purpose computers andinterfaces. Of particular interest was the desirability ofmigrating heavily used resources from the CD-ROM based stand-alone and CD-ROM local area networks to a robust library andcampus network that could distribute information systemwide.Following these hearings the Task Force reached consensusregarding the feasibility of reducing the number of computerinterfaces from eight to three.

Table 3A


Table 3B


C. Survey of Benchmark Institutions

While the IATF examined library and local campus options, we

also wanted to discuss options that were being pursued byother institutions who were similarly designing the frameworkfor library and campus information systems. To this end weidentified a list of 12 library and university settings thatwere very similar to UConn. Some of the factors that we usedfor selecting these institutions were the following:

* Nature of the integrated library system (type andversion)

* Nature of the library network(s);* Nature of the campus network(s);* Plans, if any, for moving to a new platform of

information delivery for networked based informationresources (e.g. Web-based);

* How were they organized to discuss & investigate theseoptions.

Please note that we were not comparing programmaticsimilarities as opposed to network and information deliverycommonalties. During this part of the investigation, the IATFcollected and examined descriptions of other universities and



university libraries' information architectures. In manycases, the individual who completed the survey contributedadditional comments and suggestions which explained thehistory and rationale for particular courses of action at aparticular department or university. Originally designed totake two months, August and September, this phase of datacollection lasted through the end of October. Initially, 10representative institutions were contacted and theirsuggestions and comments served as a point of departure forfurther investigation. Eventually representatives from 18institutions (Table 4) were contacted.

TABLE 4: List of Institutions Contacted during the Survey

Case Western Univ. of DelawareClemson Univ. of GeorgiaEmory Univ. of IndianaGeorgia Tech. Univ. of PennsylvaniaNorth Carolina State Univ. of South CarolinaRutgers Univ. of Southern CaliforniaStanford Univ. of Vermont

Univ. of Arizona Univ. of WashingtonUniv. od California, Berkeley Yale University

D. Survey Took Us to a Broader View

In order to ensure some form of comparability, the IATFdeveloped a survey which was used to form a baselinedescription of each campus and library. The results andespecially the comments regarding plans and directions werereviewed.The survey instrument was not designed to be adestination but rather a starting point for a conversation

with each individual that we contacted. More often than not,only some of the questions could be answered which reflectedthe fact that only a few institutions had completed their ownanalysis of their respective network design. Even fewerinstitutions had developed campus-wide strategies that theyhad already begun to implement. Another point worth noting isthat we used the information gained from the surveys andinterviews as a reference and referral point to otherinstitutions that were involved in similar investigations.Not surprisingly, the comments and suggestions fromcolleagues at other institutions were invaluable inconsidering other options. While several of the projects andplans were unique to individual campus situations, there were

also several common elements among the benchmarkinstitutions. These will be reported in the next section. Ona local level, the information collected help us identifycritical components for a further investigation within theUConn Libraries. However, instead of pursuing a theoreticalmodel for an information architecture, the IATF focused ondeveloping those components that would accomplish thefollowing:

* First, build onto the existing infrastructure,



workstation configurations, and user interfaces asopposed to developing something entirely new.

* Second, develop a framework that could deliver benefitsto users within 6-12 months.

* Third, develop a structure that would also best positionthe library to take advantage of new opportunities, aloneor in cooperation with other institutions, for deliveringinformation via the World Wide Web.

* Fourth, enable the library staff to gain experience withcomponents that will enhance our options to migrate to afully distributed LMS (Library Management System) at someappropriate time in the near future.

* Fifth, develop an efficient mechanism for the improvedmanagement, development, and funding of informationtechnology and the corresponding electronic informationresources whether available physically within the UConnsystem or accessible remotely.

E. Results -- Transition to the IATF Report

In the investigation, "Environmental scanning report,"prepared for the University of Connecticut's StrategicPlanning Committee, Professor William Massy identifiedInformation Technology as one of seven factors that areaffecting higher education nationally.[1] He states that"Institutions are investing substantial sums on network andother IT [information technology] infrastructure, to obtainthe benefits of connectivity and position themselves to takeadvantage of future developments. Connectivity provides thecapacity for "... resource sharing with other institutionsvia the Internet, and it is a prerequisite for distributedadministrative data processing and for making library

catalogues and collections broadly available."[2] Indeed,many librarians have noted the changing approach oflibraries, in the past 5-7 years, to utilize technology fordeveloping "access" in addition to or even in lieu ofownership of materials. Alas, information does not organizeitself and the electronic equivalent to printed sourcesdoesn't always exist. So, "while the hardware technology andsoftware already exist and can be utilized, the mereexistence of hardware and software does not point in anunambiguous direction for future implementation."[3]

Furthermore, while libraries and computer centers have longrealized the value of information technology, investment in

"technology competes for ever-scarcer financial resources,along with such essentials as salaries, financial aid,physical plants and library holdings."[4]

Conceptually, the potential for information technology inhigher education is that "IT eases the limits of time andspace for education activities .... and it also enables self-paced learning with sensitivity to different learning stylesand continuous assessment of student progress."[5] Both ofthese factors have led some to conclude that the investment



in IT is justified because it can enhance productivity in thetraditional academic environment where the flat or decliningresources have become the rule rather than the exception.[6]

On the other hand, "while information technology offers greatpotential for improving higher education's value for money,so far the result has been more promise than achievement."[7]For this reason it is important that as we recommend theutilization of information technology to improve services, wekeep in mind the need to measure their benefits andcommunicate the value of these investments in a meaningfulway. As one report noted, "perhaps the most important payofffrom the investment in technology will be found, not on thebalance sheet, but among more qualitative measures .... [suchas] How have technologies furthered the institutionalmission? .... or increased the ability to shareresources?"[8]Therefore, while it is not part of our chargeof responsibility or currently assigned to any existing taskforce, the IATF strongly recommends to the LibraryAdministration the importance of developing such benchmarksor measurements as soon as possible, perhaps in conjunctionwith aspects of the User Feedback Team, in conjunction withthe Systems Department, and other groups.

F. Caveats Regarding the Findings

As noted earlier, the IATF was asked to examine someinformation architectures and strategies at otheruniversities that had been successful in enabling the Libraryor the campus to make effective use of informationtechnology. We proceeded by collecting information fromthree areas: First, there were several published sources,both print and electronic, which identified key institutions.Second, we selected organizations which had similar librarymanagement information systems and were planning ordeveloping the next phase of information-based services; and

Third, we contacted colleagues and asked them forrecommendations as to which institutions might be goodcandidates for further investigation.

The extensive literature revealed a remarkable number ofsimilarities among institutions. However, before we describethe characteristics of these organizations, it is importantto state the following caveats. * First, there are few qualitative or quantitative measures

of success for the utilization of information technology.Ratios of publicly available computers to the number ofstudents, the number of data jacks per students, or the

number of multimedia classrooms per 1,000 students werenot uniformly available.[9]

* Second, in spite of the lack of measures, administratorsand authors appeared to have strong feelings about whichuniversities were making extensive and effective use ofinformation technology on campus.

* Third, administrators were convinced that, whiletechnology may not boost productivity, it does provide



new opportunities for service enhancements on theoperational side and on the educational side, and that itis an indispensable tool that should be acquired by allstudents.

* And fourth, we need to emphasize that the task force isnot recommending that we follow a specific model. Whilewe can learn from the success of others, every othercampus has a unique history, culture, and explanation forthe current status of their infrastructure. Instead, weprefer to identify characteristics or components ofprogressive campus network infrastructures which couldhelp serve as goals for UConn.

PART III: SELECTIONS FROM THE IATF REPORT

A. Institutional Factors

For the university in general, and the computing environmentin particular, the following characteristics were the mostfrequently mentioned as positive factors for the growth ofinformation technology:

* First, the leading institutions had strategic planningprocesses in place that recognized information technologyas a "strategic resource." As one author has noted, lesssuccessful organizations either view technology only "asan aide to operations" or "as a source of confusion."[10]

* Second, there appeared to be a recognition on the part ofsenior administrators about the roles and potentialapplications of computer technologies. Thus, there werelinkages between university strategic plans and those ofthe computer center and other information providers.

* Third, the university computer centers were keenly awareof the goals of the whole organization, uses of computingon campus, and funding limitations, and they providedcritical and clear long-range plans for use by campusadministrators. A good example of this was at ThePennsylvania State University where funding followedvisionary planning such that "over the past decade, PennState has won more than eighteen awards for innovativeuse of technology to enhance teaching and learning.[11]This is in contrast to most computer centers which merelycreate laundry lists of projects without relating them touniversity or departmental goals.

* Fourth, at the successful organizations there was also aculture of risk-taking or risk-management that viewedinformation technology as an enabling tool and not an endin itself. In general, there were also patterns ofexperimentation at these campuses. While others debatedthe pros and cons of centralized versus distributedcomputing, for example, most of these campuses beganexperiments with distributed client-server models ofcomputing in the mid-late 1980's.



* Fifth, there were numerous examples of cooperation amongvarious information providers and academic departments oncampus.

* Sixth, there was a governance structure in place whereend-users (generally faculty and staff) were able toprovide input into the planning process via well-informedand well-functioning advisory groups.[12]

* And seventh, there tended to be a commitment to improving"end-user computing and distributed processing" ratherthat asserting "strict centralized control."[13]

B. Library Factors: Desirable features of an informationarchitecture.

There isn't a cookbook or even a few recipes for the designof a successful campus infrastructure. Indeed, the design ofstrategies for a campus infrastructure are complex. As notedabove, there are several factors including the need forsenior staff, who are responsible for computing and thedelivery of information, to be excellent managers, planners,

and visionaries. Still, because we have so much ground tomake up, there are several components and features of anenhanced campus infrastructure that would provide the libraryand other major departments on campus with positive,immediate, and enabling networking and computing support.These include the following:

B.1. The Future Campus Infrastructure.

The installation of a high-speed (>100 Mbps) multi-protocolnetwork to handle both on-campus and Internet access,including the integration and activation of multimedia,

voice, data, and video.

* Access to networked information and computing facilitiesexists that enables the same services to the regionalcampuses and from remote locations as well as the Storrscampus.

* A distributed computing environment exists including

production-level implementation of file systems,directory services, remote procedure calls, and security.In addition, archival and backup systems are in placewhich support centralized computing resources.

* Message-enabled applications, electronic mail, groupware,and forms are in place.

* A campus wide information system is in place, using

widely familiar access tools that are easy to use andproviding an initial entry point to most of theinstitution's general information resources.

* Small, scalable computers built on open systems and

protocols are used as file, data, and cycle servers.



Table 5

Network Protocols

B.2. The Future Library Infrastructure

Similar to the campus network, the network servicessupporting the libraries should be enhanced to ensure thatsufficient data communication infrastructure is in place tosupport the transport and efficient delivery of a wide rangeof information services including bibliographic, text, image,and sound. Results of the environmental scan indicate thatthe following are critical to both our immediate and long-term services:

* Direct fiber-optic connections to all of the library'sservers with connections back to the high-speed campusbackbone;

* 100 Mbps capability to all of the library-supportedservers and selected workstations;

* Systematic migration from 16 Mbps token-ring to fastethernet wherever possible, especially at time ofworkstation replacement;

* Direct fiber-optic connections to the desktop forselective specialized servers and workstations (e.g. GISworkstations; image and sound archives).

* Utilization of latest E.I.A. recommended wiring standards(currently category 5 wire for data) whenever possible.

* Installation of voice/data/video jacks in all publicservice classrooms, offices, and meeting rooms.

* Installation of at least 1 voice/data/video jack in allstaff offices and areas. Areas and offices larger than10'x10' may require 2 or more of these jacks.

B.3. Server and Network Protocols

The library's servers provide search engines for locatinginformation in a wide variety of locations on and off campus,

both through its own catalog and through other finding tools.

* In order to prepare the Library for the opportunities ofthe next 3-4 years, we need to have in place serverswhich supports the z39.50 protocol as a complement to itsLMS. Among the growing number of alternatives, the clearchoice is for the z39.50 software of Ameritech known asPacLink.

* A significant complement to PacLink would be the addition



of an ALS product called InfoShare.

* The Library will need to make a continuing and plannedfinancial commitment to sufficient mass storage capacityfor the respective library servers.

* A plan and timetable should be developed for establishingwhich databases can and should be mounted on theappropriate servers or local area networks for systemwide distribution, and which databases should bemaintained on stand-alone workstations.

* A long-range plan, covering 3-5 years, should also bedeveloped for upgrading, migrating, and/or replacing theLibrary's information servers and networks.

B.4. User Interfaces

Our data collection indicates that while a universalinterface may be desirable, it isn't practical or affordable.However, the creation of a few common interfaces to themultiplicity of information products is both realistic anddesirable from the perspective of the user. Here it's

important to note that we are not endorsing just the abilityto point to another information resource which requires theuser to learn new search commands. Instead, we are promotingthe full utilization of common search and retrieval protocolssuch as those provided by a Web-interface connected to az39.50 server. With z39.50, the user enters local searchcommands which are translated and applied by the searchengine across other databases.

B.5. Workstation Standards

The University Libraries need to support a number of

workstation configurations for public use. We acknowledgethat there is a fiscal reality whereby we will continue tohave an installed base of public workstations that isreplaced in stages, not all at once. Therefore, it seemsprudent to assess those electronic services and products thatwe deem to be "essential" or "core", then ensure that all"basic" workstations are able to accommodate thatfunctionality. Further, advanced functionality can beoffered on high-end workstations, and computational intensiveapplications can reside on a small number of SuperHomerworkstations. This strategy is based on the functionalityrequired of the workstation.

In this scenario, as we suggest products that need to beincorporated into the suite of core services, we can ensurethat the budget proposal includes any appropriate upgrades tothe basic workstations. It makes sense that over time, wewould replace the very high-end workstations, and those wouldtrickle-down and become the new standard for the basicworkstations.

HOMER Basic - Basic workstations would provide access toHOMER including JREF, InfoShare, z39.50 and non-z39.50



databases and resources that the library has paid for orpurchased outright. The products and services that we defineas "core" or "essential" should be available on theseworkstations, and should be the standard menu for users thatattach remotely to our systems.

Super HOMER - these advanced workstations would provideaccess to all of the HOMER Basic resources, and in addition,all of the relevant Internet-accessed resources. Thesecomputers run client software for specialized databases (e.g.on a SuperHomer workstation a person could run PUN, theUnCover client, whereas on BasicHomer, a person would TELNETto UnCover). Likewise, it is the SuperHomer workstations thatwill provide support for ECR (Electronic Course Reserve),Oracle(TM) or any other locally developed SQL databasesaccessed by a database front-end, and full WEB functionality.

Specialized Workstations -- While the concept of a singlescholar's workstation to support all types of users anduses is attractive from a service and support viewpoint, itis not realistic or affordable. Likewise, while we may striveto support two major categories of workstations, BasicHomerand SuperHomer, we recognize that this framework should notpreclude those cases when specialized workstations, with

unique components or client software, may be necessary.

B.6. Other Networked Access Points:

Electronic classrooms and other facilities have become anessential part of the infrastructure in support of libraryinstruction. Typically these facilities are located within oradjacent to libraries. In the latter case, they provideservice to both computer and library departments andfrequently are jointly operated. While there are manypossible configurations, a typical electronic classroomfacility will have the following features:

* Network-connected workstations

* Projection equipment that will support multimediapresentations including the delivery of graphics, sound,and full-motion video.

* Workstations with large-monitors in support of viewingspecial formats.

* Workstations that are designed to assist learning byclients with hearing or visual impairments.

* Computer laboratories that support database searching,productivity tools (e.g. wordprocessing), access to thelibrary's information databases, and connections to thecampus network.

In addition to classroom facilities, it will be extremelyuseful that a new infrastructure would also supportvideoconferencing and distance learning capabilities. Forexample, programs that are provided from one location (e.g.HBL, or Culpeper) could be broadcast to similar facilities



located at other campuses.

B.7. Staff Support

From the perspective of users of public and staffworkstations, it will be critical for the library to addresscomprehensively the issue of how best to provide technicalassistance. At the present time, two different departmentswithin the library provide support for staff and publicworkstations and there is additional technical assistance asfollows:

* The computing center and libraries have in place supportcenters and help desks to help faculty, staff, andstudents solve technological problems related to the useand manipulation of information.

* The support services of information professionals arereadily available, both in the computing, networksupport, and library areas, and training programs forthe use of new technologies have been developed andoffered.

B.8. Planning and Advisory Committee Support

In addition to the factors noted above, other organizationshave cited the need for the planning and coordination ofnetworked activities. The philosophies and functions of thesegroups can be summarized as follows:

* A commitment to and understanding of the importance ofinformation resources at the institution is evident atthe highest level and integral to the strategic planningprocess.

* Advisory committees for academic, administrative,library, access, and other services are in place to guideand advise the priorities of the information resourceareas.

* A user-survey and benchmarking process is in place to

assess the effectiveness of the information resourcesareas.

* Groups have been charged with looking into emerging newtechnologies and test beds have been established for themore promising of these.

C. Comparisons to other Universities

In contrast with the University of Connecticut, some otheracademic institutions have combined the decentralizedenvironment with a structured approach to resourceallocation. They have employed the concept of "right-sizing"which pushes computing and resources out to departmentalsupport centers. _In order to foster a culture of cooperativeand collaborative computing and sharing of computing



resources, these institutions prioritize resource allocationfor requests based on evidence of multi-departmentcollaboration_. Standardization is not mandated, but rather,funding is more readily available for projects and productsthat fall within established standards. Furthermore,centralized technical support is offered only for thesestandard products. Further differences exist in other institutions'administration and oversight of networked informationresources. These differences include: Steering committeescharged with planning, goal setting, technical evaluation andbudget recommendations; an administrative officer (ChiefInformation Officer) with oversight of all informationtechnology; and combined information units (library,computing center, media center).

The libraries at these other institutions participate incollaborative budget requests for networked informationresources such as commercial databases and numerical data(University of Michigan).[14] Further, there are examples ofcollaborative efforts whereby staff from the library andcomputing center visit academic departments as a team, toinvestigate the technical and informational needs of those

faculty (Yale). There are also examples of technical andinformation support centers that are staffed jointly by thelibrary and computing center (University of SouthernCalifornia) and/or examples where the computing center's"help desk" has been moved into the library's public servicespace (University of Pittsburgh).

While the examples above suggest that alternative structuresexist for fostering the development of collaboration andresource sharing on campus, this is not the primary point ofreviewing computing environments of other academicinstitutions. _The principal difference appears to be acampus history and culture which encourages collaboration and

resource sharing rather than administrative control from thecentral computing institutions. Clearly, some changes instructure can help but what is required is an administrativecommitment that such a culture is desirable and should besupported through rewards and incentives_.

There are literally dozens of college and university campuseswhich have invested significantly in building networkinginfrastructures to support a wide range of academic andadministrative computing needs.[15] They range in scope andsize from small colleges to large universities. Some offer 2-year associate of arts degrees and some are doctoral-degreegranting institutions. They include both privately funded and

publicly supported state institutions. Regardless of theirmission, scope, and size, these institutions have boldlycommitted to the use and integration of informationtechnology as an integral component of undergraduateeducation. Not surprisingly, the libraries and informationcenters which are part of these same institutions also tendto be at the cutting edge of supporting the electronic accessand delivery of information resources across the campus andbeyond. A dynamic infrastructure tends to serve as anenabling agent for information providers of all kinds.



PART IV: THE OUTCOME

The result of our investigations led us into two simultaneousdirections, the implementation of local plans toreconceptualize our information architecture and theidentification of strategies to address the institutionalfactors for success that have been previously identified. Theoutcome of our local considerations led us to the followingaction items:

A. Content and delivery decisions:

It became clear to us that while individual content issuesshould not drive delivery decisions for the entirearchitecture, and while delivery infrastructure should notforce us into one sided content decisions, if success were tobe strengthened, the two areas had to be coordinated. Weaddressed that issue by developing two cross functional teamswithin the University Libraries. The Networked Services Team(NST) focuses on content. Their charge was to begin managethe growing portfolio of library funded digital information

resources and services. NST makes recommendations for on-going and new products based solely on academic, collectiondevelopment criteria.

The Information Server Team (IST) focuses on networkedinfrastructure, gateway access to resources and user clients.The charge to IST was to develop and maintain an informationinfrastructure based on the integration of networktopologies, server platforms, server applications and clientworkstation applications. The job of IST is to create arobust and logically consistent whole that enables end-usersto easily identify resources available to them and then toaccess those services in as simple and consistent manner as

possible.

Both NST and IST share members who, while they primarilyrepresent one team or the other, have a responsibility tocommunication discussions that are important if content anddelivery are to function together smoothly. New products withdifferent file formats or new access clients are brought tothe attention of the IST so that delivery implications can beaddressed and potential problems communicated back to the NSTto assist in the final prioritizations. Changes in deliverypatterns (for example, Internet overload or the developmentof SilverPlatter remote access) are brought from IST toinform NST of opportunities or limitations to current or

prospective products.

B. Regional Campus Libraries:

Every effort has been made to integrate all regional campuslibraries into one virtual library. Regional Campusnetworking is being completed and the regional campuslibraries are being integrated into the University Librarieslibrary system. Most importantly, all networked information



systems are being developed and implemented to be deliveredconsistently to all campus sites. Saving from unnecessaryduplication will be folded back into content acquisition.However, the obvious result of the extension of networkedservices to regional campus libraries is to enable studentsat all campuses to learn to utilize a consistent set ofnetworked information tools.

C. Library staff reorganization:

As of August 1996, there is now one unit in the UniversityLibraries designated to directly manage technology,Information Technology Service (ITS). The function of ITS isto manage the development and on-going support of: the NOTISILS in cooperation with the University Computing Center; theLibrary's networking in conjunction with the University'sOffice of Telecommunications; the 400 installed libraryworkstations and public computing stations; all libraryservers including CD-ROM and UNIX based Web servers; allclient applications; all media equipment; all photocopy andprinting devices; direct user support and on-demand publicequipment troubleshooting.

D. Network, client and server planning:

The Information Server Team with members from many libraryfunctional units and the Information Technology Services Unitas described above have reviewed the integration of thelibraries servers with campus network topology and withrespect to local and remote client access and have developeda plan to enhance information delivery. This plan calls forservers to be centralized at a node of the University's(BANDWIDTH???) telecommunications backbone with switchedethernet connectivity. Primary feeds directly from theethernet switch will carry information to the libraries'

client workstation clusters to reduce external traffic.Clients will be populated with a standard suite of softwareadministered via Windows NT servers.

E. Current efforts for customer support:

Specific efforts to improve the delivery of networkedinformation or information over the network are focused onthe following:

Domain Name Serving. With network traffic more important,there must be easy and reliable access to a domain name

server to provide accurate and timely network addressing.

Distributed printing. As more information becomes availablein full text or image formats, users must be able to directfiles to high resolution printers strategically locatedaround campus or otherwise geographically dispersed.

Authentication. As more faculty and students enter thecampus network via ISPs, and as the library wishes torestrict even in-library access to the University Community ,



access to networked information services must be controlledby a robust authentication system.

Client application upgrades. A system of software licensingand distribution must enable faculty and students to acquire,configure and utilize client software that enables optimaluse of available services.

Electronic Course Reserves or the Virtual Classroom. Facultymust be trained and supported to make course relatedinformation available over the network in support of studentlearning. In addition to the technical skills of mounting andserving such information, faculty must be instructed toadhere to an articulated university policy on intellectualproperty and fair use.

Document delivery. As the library continues to move from aninformation ownership to an information access model, theinformation architecture must facilitate direct end useridentification of needed information and subsequent deliveryto the users desktop with appropriate accounting ofassociated costs.

F. Broader Campus Issues:

The institutional factors for success mentioned above arestill the keys to success in any of the library's or theUniversity's efforts to build effective informationarchitectures. The library must be able to make successfulstrategic investments in networking, hardware, software,information licenses and, most importantly, in employees tomake the architecture work. Good strategic investments beginwith a notion of one's overall level of strategic investment.The investment and expected outcomes must match. One canintend a low level of strategic involvement in informationtechnology and still be successful if one appropriately

scales infrastructure investments and expectations to match.However, success is more likely if there is a recognition ofthe long term, transformative benefits in a high level ofinformation technology investment. It is crucial forinstitutions to articulate their investment level and to seethat investment level through over the long term.

The University of Connecticut has had a poor record inadhering to the above factors but we are aware of what isahead of us. The University is in the implementation phaseof a strategic plan, Goal 2000 that was crafted under thedirection of the University's Board of Trustees. That plandoes not in and of itself articulate a strategic investment

level for information technology. A new Chancellor / Provostand a new President are implementing that plan.. The senioradministration does individually recognize the strategicimportance of information technology but we have notidentified an accountable individual for a strategicimplementation. Without such an individual, and in a periodof constrained finances, coordination and prioritization ofIT efforts are very difficult. The University is attemptingto refine its goals in order to leverage limited funds .There is not yet a climate of cooperation among the IT



providers but the lack of close cooperation is spoken ofopenly and we are working towards improvement. Governancestructures in information technology are still weak and theroles of those structures that exist are often unclear.There is a recognition of the importance of strengtheningend-user computing but we have a mainframe tradition and weare behind the curve.

The University of Connecticut is working diligently toimprove our effectiveness in the application of informationtechnology to our primary missions. Clearly, networkedinformation is one of the key enablers to redefining theprocesses of research, learning and service in today'stechnology rich environment. We recognize our own weaknesses.We do so not to criticize our own University but torecognize, through the observation of the converse, theimportance of the institutional success factors identified inour survey.

=============================================================

REFERENCES:

[1]. Massy, William F. "Environmental scanning report,"[prepared for the] University of Connecticut StrategicPlanning Committee, July 1994, pp. 1-14. [2] Ibid., p. 5.

[3]. Ibid., p. 7.

[4]. Ekman, Richard H. and Richard E. Quandt, "Scholarlycommunication, academic libraries, and technology," _Change_,Jan./Feb., 1995, pp. 34-44.

[5]. HEIRAlliance Executive Strategies Report #4, "Whatpresidents need to know ... about the payoff on theinformation technology investment, May 1994.

[6]. Massy, William F. and Robert Zemsky, "Using informationtechnology to enhance academic productivity," EDUCOM, 1995. [7]. Ibid.

[8]. Massy, William F. "Environmental scanning report," p.7.

[9]. Dolence, Michael G. and Donald M. Norris, Transforminghigher education: a vision for learning in the 21st century.Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning,1995.

[10]. Fleit, Linda H. "The Myth of the computer czar -revisited," In: Organizing and managing information resourceson campus, Brian Hawkins, editor: Texas, Academic ComputingPublications, c1989, pp. 191-204.



[11]. Rudy, Julia. "Campus Profile: The Pennsylvania StateUniversity," In: _CAUSE/EFFECT_ , vol. 18, no. 3, Fall 1995,pp. 28-31.

[12]. op. cit.

[13]. Ibid.

[14]. Dolence, Michael G. and Donald M. Norris, Transforminghigher education: a vision for learning in the 21st century.Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning,1995, pp. 33-40.

[15]. Best practices in computing, [Boulder, CO]: CAUSE,1993.

the role of networked information in higher education (166180423)

Documents