Discipline-oriented vertical organization in academic computing

It is by nowa truism thatone of the few constants in academic computing in the last years has been the rapid rate of change in technology and the scramble to change staffing arrangements in user services to keep pace. In these days of constrained budgets and an apparent end to large expansions of staffing, user sm”ce organizations have reorganized repeatedly to meet ever-increasing demands for user services. The results of these reorganizations have not always been happy, as by the time a reorganization is wmplefe, the circumstances that precipitated the change have often themselves changed again. This paper proposes an organizational model appropriate for teaching institutions that provides user serva”cesaccording to academic disciplines and methods of discourse, rather than along more typical expertise-, systemand function-specific lines. This “vertical” approach 13designed to: to keep pace with the rapid changes in computing technology and with the ever-increasing numbers of users. The most common complaint is the lack of adequate staffing to deal with the myriad tasks of lab and system management, training, and consulting. Items such as faculty resource labs and curricular computing are often considered luxury items in such strained environments. Users often end up griping about poor provision of “basic” services even in well-staffed organizations, while staff juggle a wide range of responsibilities and, hardware and software to support. How we got to this situation should be a familiar story. Most organizations grew out of a mainframe-oriented system of a few gurus providing highly personal and expert consulting advice to a relatively small number of users performing a small range of tasks. Computers, if integrated into the undergraduate curriculum at all, were used almost exclusively for programming classes and the odd science research project. ● establish organizational stability As the number of microcomputers grew in the ● align the organizatwn of computing services 1980s, the number of microcomputer users grew– with the academic misswn of the college and so too did the demand on the user services segment of campus computing organizations. ● integrate teaching, research, administrative, Instead of one computer and one operating system, and library wmputing concerns, and most institutions support at least three basic . provide qualify serzice at realkfic levels for computers and operating systems and a staggering the end users. number of associatcxl peripherals and system . . . modifications, and scores of sof tware programs, Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material k granted prorn”ded that the c~”es are not made or distributed for direct commercial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the title of thepublicafion and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the Assocktwn of Computing Machinery, To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee andlor specific permission. Copyright 1991 ACM 0-89791-454-6/91/0010/0411...$1.50 almost all beyond the control of computing center staff to maintain and upgrade in a comprehensive manner. Can’t Get There From Here Campus computing organizations during the 80s dealt with these problems in a variety of ways. First and foremost among these was to add staff to deal with the increase in demand. Users get DOS machines, users have problems with DOS, a DOS expert is hired or developed; student computer labs are installed, a lab manager is hired; etc. Most computing organizations more than doubled the number of staff during the 1980s to deal with this increased pace. Other (continuing) means of dealing with the increase in need and demand for user service have included a greater emphasis on training and self-support (the proactive approach), increased attention to support standards for both hardware and software, chargebacks and other schemes for funding services, and a general attempt to change user expectations by specifying limits to providing services. The salad days of the 80s have ended at most institutions with the cold fiscal soup of the 90s. At many institutions, staff increases are no longer a given, budget cuts have been implemented, and in a few cases staff positions have actually been eliminated. Yet the number of users continues to increase, and many of us can now see the time very soon when every student and faculty and staff member is a computer user to one degree or another. The typical small liberal arts institution has seen the number of users increase from a few score to a few thousand. The almost universal problem in user services now is how to match existing staff with institutional need. A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, OR THREE TITLES IN ONE YEAR The Reorganization Blues All of us have heard from some colleague who has reported to two different bosses, had three different titles, and four different job descriptions all in the past year. These extreme examples are symptomatic of reorganization-itis, the disease of computing organizations in the 1980s. Reorganizing (and re-reorganizing, etc.) the responsibilities and reporting structure of staff according to the changing technolo&y and for new staff positions is an almost universal experience in academic computing (and I’d hate to be working for the organization that didn’t change during the 1980s.) Most managers would probably agree that the disruptions to both staff and the user community attendant with a reorganization, as well as the many other difficulties involved, make it a step taken only when grave necessity dictates. Before proposing a model of how I think teaching-oriented schools in particular should organize academic computing services, a brief review of some existing orgatitional schema is in order. Rather than catalog stories of reorganization insert your own story here I’d like to describe common models for organizing staff. My basic premise is that none of these structures adequately deal with the issue of how to match staff with the institutional needs of a teaching institution, and specifically with the continuing and inherent change of technology support. WHAT DOES YOUR TREE LOOK LIKE? THE LARCH. Organizational Models There are different “centers” in the Computing Center depending on the underlying philosophy (or lack thereof) by which the center is organized. (The examples below are taken from actual current liberal arts college computing organizations.)