Kent State University
Network and Information Systems Study

PROBLEM STATEMENTS


This section of the report presents a series of problem statements for each of the categories along with a list of associated consequences. The problem statements are prioritized by their order of importance within each category.



    MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, POLICIES, PLANNING

  1. The role that information technology and network communications should play in supporting Kent State University in the achievement of its mission is not clearly articulated. As a result:

    Information technology and network communications systems are not systematically designed, implemented, and integrated in a manner that is consistent with the University mission.

    The information technology and network communications infrastructure is evolving and developing through individual initiatives without consistent understanding of and coordination with the University mission.

  2. The University has not clearly identified institutions that it considers peers or competitors. Bench marks from such institutions will provide the University with valuable comparative data. For example , how does Kent compare with Bowling Green, Miami, and Ohio universities? As a result:

    The level of services that Kent must maintain to remain competitive in the recruitment and retention of students, faculty, and staff is not clear.

    The extent that Kent needs to enhance its existing information technology and network communications infrastructure to be competitive with its peers is not clear.

  3. Computing and information technology plans are not developed, maintained and coordinated from a University wide perspective. As a result:

    The few plans in existence are fragmented and not updated systematically.

    Planning decisions often are made without considering the overall information technology needs of the University.

    Computing hardware, software, and local area networks are being planned and implemented without a University wide strategy for information technology. This practice inhibits hardware, software, and data integration on a University wide basis.

    Purchase of expensive hardware or software may take place without considering overall University needs.

    Private sector partnerships and grant opportunities are more difficult to develop and coordinate. This may result in missed opportunities.

  4. While there are many excellent departmental initiatives, the University does not have a coordinated plan for academic computing. As a result:

    There is no overall strategy for promoting the incorporation technology into the instructional process.

    There is no overall instructional or classroom strategy for integrating research and instructional technology with the network infrastructure.

  5. There is no formal process for involving and obtaining feedback from members of the University community when developing or establishing information technology plans, standards, and priorities. As a result:

    Members of the University community are not informed about plans, standards, or priorities under review or to whom they should present additional recommendations.

    Advice from members of the University community is not consistently incorporated into the development of plans, standards, or priorities.

    Academic and administrative computing support and service priorities do not consistently reflect University community issues and needs.

    Information technology plans, standards, and priorities are not well communicated or understood by the University community.

    Broad University community commitment and advocacy is lacking.

  6. The ability to gain access to needed information is hindered by the lack of a clear policy on data use and authorization. As a result:

    Many faculty and staff do not know how to request access to needed information.

    Many faculty and staff cannot readily get security clearance to access needed information.

    Faculty and staff do not have a formal route of appeal if requested information access is refused.

    The University's ability to provide information to support a distributed computing environment is impeded.

  7. There are no formal standards or policies that identify the products (e.g. local area network and work station hardware, software) that are supported by Computer Services. In addition, there are no published University network connectivity standards. As a result:

    Hardware and software purchases are being made that may not be readily integrated with the University wide network.

    Hardware and software are being purchased by members of the University community (who expect computer services support) that may not be supportable by the computer services staff.

  8. There is no comprehensive University wide disaster recovery or database backup and recovery plan. Although there is a plan in existence for the Computer Services operation, it does not include departmental or Regional Campus needs. As a result:

    The entire University (i.e. Kent as well as Regional Campuses) would be exposed to disruptions in service if a disaster occurred in any one of the data centers or communication facilities.

    Regional Campuses would be exposed to disruptions in service if a disaster occurred at their location.

    University departments with mini-computers or local area networks would be exposed to disruptions in service if a disaster occurred at their location.

    There is no coordinated plan or procedure for data base backups, off-site saves, or disaster recovery for user-based systems.



    INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION AND ACCESS

  9. The systems for Admissions, Registration, Student Accounts, Student Financial Aid, Housing and other student systems were developed in-house using the IDMS data base management system without full consideration for the system integration needs of the broad University community. As a result:

    Student satisfaction with University service suffers because of a lack of timely access to accurate, up-to-date, and integrated student information.

    In some cases, these systems serve the primary office well but do not meet the information needs of related offices or Regional Campuses.

    Many departments have developed Personal Computer based shadow systems to automate functions that are unavailable on the mainframe systems.

  10. The lack of an integrated student information system makes it difficult to respond to prospective student admission, financial aid, and housing requests in a timely manner as do competitor institutions. As a result:

    More students are lost to other institutions because of the inability to confirm financial aid and housing in a timely manner.

    The admission and financial aid application processing workload is increasing because more and more students must be recruited and processed in order to reach enrollment goals.

  11. The University has not decided on a data base management system that is needed to facilitate the integration of its information systems. The IDMS data base management system, which was acquired approximately eight years ago, is being used to develop some modules in the student information system area. Also, there are not many application software packages available that run under IDMS. As a result:

    Three of the largest systems (e.g. Human Resources, Financial Resources, and Alumni Development) have been installed without using the IDMS data base management system.

    Users experience delays in getting the information they need when integrated access to data is required.

    More complex programming is required to respond to new and changing needs.

  12. Many departments find University in-house developed systems lacking in functionality and flexibility. They are not user-friendly enough to allow nontechnical users to write their own programs to satisfy ad hoc reporting and decision support requirements in a timely manner. As a result:

    Most basic mainframe ad hoc report requests must be submitted to computer services for scheduling and completion because of the high level of technical knowledge required.

    Computer Services has a long backlog of user requests for system modifications (as much as two years in some areas).

    Many departments have developed their own data bases and systems duplicating work and increasing the potential for data and reporting inconsistencies.

    Local decision support systems are being developed and integrated at the departmental level using personal computers.

    Staff productivity suffers because access to more efficient technological tools are not widely available.

  13. Some major areas of the University use outdated work flow processes and inefficient manual paper-driven systems to perform critical tasks. As a result:

    It is difficult for the University to compete with the responsiveness of peer institutions that have efficient automated systems.

    The ability of the University to respond to the information needs of students, faculty, and staff in an efficient and timely manner is impeded.

    Some staff resources are not utilized as efficiently as they could be because of the use of labor intensive and inefficient manual systems.

    The work flow processes and document handling procedures in many offices are outmoded and need to be re-engineered to effectively utilize current technology.

  14. The lack of adequate on-going data entry and maintenance support for some departments (e.g. alumni development and admissions) results in some data bases not being updated on timely and systematic basis. As a result:

    Some data base information is inaccurate, outdated, or missing.

    Some opportunities may be lost because of the lack of data accuracy and availability.

    In the Admissions Office, a significant amount of data on prospective student contacts has not been entered into the computer system. This situation inhibits the University's ability to respond to prospective students in a timely manner.

    The new Alumni Development System is not fully implemented because of the need for data entry support to complete the data conversion effort.

  15. Some critical data is entered in multiple systems because of the lack of an integrated database. As a result:

    Data entry resource requirements are higher than they need to be because the same data must be entered and maintained multiple times.

    The probability of data inconsistency increases because of data re-entry.

  16. The ability for faculty and staff to access up-to-date database information when needed is hindered by the lack of a coordinated schedule for maintenance and updating. As a result:

    Some departments who need access to data complain that they cannot get it in a timely manner.

    Departments input and maintain their own data using shadow systems.

  17. Regional Campus information systems needs are not adequately met by University information systems. Regional Campus system needs are more customer-driven. As a result:

    Local Regional Campus student information systems have been developed.

    Regional Campus student data is maintained in local data bases and forwarded to the Kent central regional office for re-entry into the University student information system.

    Regional Campuses have developed a technical support staff to handle the operating and maintenance needs of local systems.

  18. Local departmental and regional systems have been developed that do not necessarily interface with each other or central University systems. As a result:

    The information is not accessible to other systems or departments.

    Data is re-entered into departmental systems and therefore increases the chances for errors or data inconsistencies.

  19. There is no single point that controls and maintains demographic information (e.g., names and addresses, etc.) for all individuals in the University community. As a result:

    Individuals with name and address changes must go to multiple units to make corrections and changes.

    Data is entered and maintained in multiple systems and is not always consistent from system to system.

    The Alumni development system does not include names and addresses of all Kent State University alumni.

  20. University systems currently implemented or under evaluation require that students, faculty, and staff use multiple identification cards: As a result:

    Duplication of equipment and personnel is required to issue and manage multiple cards.

    Students, faculty, and staff are inconvenienced by having to use multiple identification cards.

    Security of identification card systems is more difficult to manage in a multiple card environment.

  21. The informal methodology used to develop and install information systems does not promote a University wide prospective, nor does it consistently consider all the necessary tasks for installing and maintaining a system. As a result:

    Project resource and time forecasts tend to be underestimated.

    Estimates are not consistently considered for on-going operating resources.

    Requests often are made for additional funding after project approval to complete system implementations.

    Departmental systems do not tend to consider University wide integration issues.

    Project team membership tends to be departmental rather than University wide in scope.



    COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING

  22. The current status of the University wide communications and network infrastructure does not facilitate quality instruction, research and sharing of institutional information among faculty, staff, and students. This is exacerbated by the lack of funding for the implementation of plans which already exist. As a result:

    The University may not be as competitive in attracting and retaining students, faculty, and staff as peer institutions.

    Faculty may be hampered in their ability to incorporate innovative teaching methods and technology.

    The use of current technologies, such as video conferencing within classrooms or among campuses, is limited.

    Access to institutional data by various persons and offices is impaired.

    Certain departments have no adequate access to University systems.

    There is limited ability to communicate electronically among departments of various areas.

    There is limited access to external resources such as the Internet.

    There is limited access to the Library system and other important internal resources.

    There is limited connectivity (i.e dial-up) from the dorms.

    Some departments with local area networks cannot afford to connect them to the University network.

  23. Although the University can access satellite broadcasts, it lacks the facilities to support necessary distance learning capabilities. As a result:

    The ability to attract and support nontraditional students is diminished.

    Faculty expertise cannot be utilized to the extent that would otherwise be possible.

    Distance learning capabilities that are available at competitor universities are not accessible at Kent.

    The University cannot take advantage of opportunities to offer specialized courses to local and regional industries.

  24. The current status of the university wide network does not facilitate the sharing of hardware or software resources. As a result:

    Some needed specialized or expensive resources, which could be cost justified on a shared basis, are not acquired because they cannot be justified on an individual basis.

    The University cannot take advantage of significant cost saving opportunities that are possible if software is shared over a network using a site license.

  25. Convenient access to the library's electronic data base services, such as CD-ROMs, is not available outside the Library building. As a result:

    Scholarship and research productivity is not maximized.

    Members of the University community do not make optimal use of library resources.

  26. As communication needs increase, departmental work station users are being connected using Local Area Networks (LANs ) without formal standards, support, or guidance. As a result:

    Many departmental LANs are inadequately planned in terms of hardware, software, and staff support.

    LANs are purchased independently without realizing potential benefits from volume discounts.

    Productivity is lost because solutions to common issues are not being shared University wide.

  27. The University does not provide dial-up access to local area networks in departments. Dial-up access to the central University system is constrained by the low number of available ports. As a result:

    Work that would have been accomplished is not completed in a timely manner and productivity suffers.

    Use of computing facilities, by faculty, staff, and students, from off campus locations is cumbersome and not dependable.

  28. Access to voice mail is not available on a University wide basis As a result:

    Potential productivity gains from the use of voice mail are not being realized.

    Voice mail is not available as an alternative or complement to electronic mail.

  29. The University lacks an adequate high-speed connection between the Regional Campuses and the Kent Campus. As a result:

    There is inadequate connectivity between the main Library and libraries on the Regional Campuses.

    The current system is unable to handle the higher traffic rates required in the future.

  30. The current status of University wide communications and network infrastructure does not facilitate communication among members of the University community. In particular, the absence of a user-friendly environment for integrated electronic mail from the desk-top to the campus and the world discourages widespread use. The lack of an electronic mail directory hinders widespread use. As a result:

    Communication is reduced and productivity suffers.

    Paper and phone usage is increased.

    The usefulness of LANs is reduced.

    FAX is often substituted for electronic mail.

    It is sometimes easier to communicate with external colleagues than ones on campus.

    It is cumbersome for Regional Campuses to access the Internet.



    TRAINING AND SUPPORT

  31. There is no overall coordinated strategy for providing students, faculty, and staff with timely orientation, training, and support on using existing facilities. As a result:

    Sufficient training opportunities are not available to faculty and staff.

    Many units have developed redundant programs to support internal operations.

    There is no orientation program for faculty and staff on available facilities.

    Faculty, students, and staff do not know what training is available to them.

    Faculty and staff are unaware of the information systems data that are available to them for support purposes.

  32. There is no formal policy for training faculty and staff on how to use/access information systems that are owned and maintained by other offices, The growing need for integrated access exacerbates this issue. As a result:

    Authorization to access a system that is owned and maintained by another office is not always followed up with training.

    Often users do not know how to use the full capabilities of their systems effectively.

    The movement to integrate information system access is impeded by the lack of training and support.

  33. Many faculty and staff do not understand how information technology can be utilized to improve the quality and productivity of their jobs. As a result:

    Currently available information technology resources are under utilized.

    The quality of service to the University community is not what it could be.

    Faculty and staff resources are not as productive as they could be.

    Faculty and staff are not enjoying the full benefits of the current information technology.

  34. There is no central source for on-site follow-up training available for faculty and staff. As a result:

    Faculty and staff do not have the benefit of training reinforcement on actual problems in their work environment.

    The effectiveness and value of training is diminished and opportunities may be lost to significantly improve productivity.

    There are no self-paced instructional programs available to learn or reinforce training.

    There is little opportunity for hands-on application during training.

  35. Some staff who need training do not attend the sessions offered. As a result:

    Productivity may suffer because some staff who need critical training do not receive it.

    Opportunities offered by information technologies are not implemented to full potential.

  36. There is no hands-on facility for training users on personal computer software (e.g. WordPerfect, lotus 123, etc). As a result:

    Training sessions are not as effective as they could be.

    After attending training sessions, attendees need more follow-up support when they return to their work locations.

  37. There is no centralized office or policy that promotes personal computer or network software site licensing. As a result:

    The total dollar amount expended on software may be greater than it should be because site license quantity discounts are not negotiated.

    Some departments need access to certain software but cannot afford to purchase individual copies.

    Current attempts at negotiating site licenses are not timely and are difficult to coordinate.

  38. There is a lack of adequate, complete, and accessible systems documentation for users throughout the University. As a result:

    User productivity suffers because many users are self-taught and unaware of the full capabilities of the technological tools they are using to do their jobs.

    Support staff productivity suffers because many devote more time than needed to answering basic questions from users.

    Local and departmental systems documentation is inconsistent and in some cases, nonexistent.

  39. There is no formal system for networking important human resources to facilitate information technology support and training. As a result:

    Peer-to-peer support and training is not facilitated or supported.

    Individuals who want to share their expertise with others have no established procedure for doing so.

    The breadth and depth of information technology expertise is not understood and utilized.

    Human resources are not utilized as effectively as they could be.



    RESOURCES AND EQUIPMENT

  40. Lack of staff assigned to key functions such as data entry, database maintenance, equipment service, and support is an issue. As a result:

    Critical data is not been entered into some existing on-line administrative systems in a timely manner. This results in some unreliable and incomplete databases.

    Some departments needing access to these databases are obliged to create duplicate in-house records and systems which significantly reduce overall University productivity.

    Computer Equipment Services has a backlog in service requests that tend to extended the down time of some departmental systems and provide an inadequate level of centralized support.

  41. The existing level of staffing for information technology and network communications is challenged in its effort to support the current environment. As a result:

    Some important information technology and network communications needs remain unmet despite the excellent efforts of current staff.

    The time to complete some projects is longer than normal because only minimal technical staff can be assigned.

  42. The existing IBM mainframe computer does not have the capacity to accommodate the data base, integration, and access requirements of the proposed network and institutional information systems. As a result:

    System response time will deteriorate as components of the new integrated information system are installed.

    Providing users with access to system information on a University wide basis through kiosks, touch-tone telephones, and personal computers will be severely restricted.

  43. There is an increasing demand for hardware maintenance because of the age and number of systems in use. As a result:

    Maintenance costs and down time are increasing.

    Up-to-date software cannot be utilized on some of the obsolete equipment. This renders some systems within the same departments incompatible.

  44. There is no overall plan/strategy for funding equipment maintenance or replacing obsolete equipment. As a result:

    A few academic departments are directly passing on some of the costs to students for the use of equipment and software.

    There is no central coordination or formal procedure for recycling used computer hardware to appropriate areas.

    Ad hoc funding from state and federal grants has provided the vast majority of support for the development of academic computer facilities.

    There is no program for systematic amortization or maintenance of equipment obtained from ad hoc sources.

  45. Many departments in the University do not have funds to acquire the additional work stations and peripheral equipment they need to function effectively. As a result:

    Office productivity suffers as employees struggle to work without modern computers and without adequate peripherals such as laser printers, scanners, plotters, FAX machines, and other devices.

    Funds are reallocated from other critical budget lines such as personnel, research travel/colloquia, and maintenance in order to acquire needed equipment.

  46. The DEC VAX hardware and software environment is obsolete and over burdened during peak periods. As a result:

    Maintenance expenditures may be higher than necessary.

    Taking advantage of new software applications is impeded.

    Response time is slow when these systems are needed the most.

    [continued]

    [ Table of Contents | Next page | Previous page ]