The Committee on Computing & Information Planning Report (CCIP)

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

In preparing this report, the Committee found that Rutgers is seriously lagging in the computer revolution which continues to change and shape the world in which we live. Comparative data from other institutions and comments from all parts of the University support this view. To rectify this situation and help prepare Rutgers to meet the intellectual challenges of the next century, a transformation of the University is required. This report presents a policy and action agenda to effect that transformation. The agenda is part vision, part strategic plan. It outlines the development of computing at Rutgers into the next century; it touches on all parts of the University community and reaches out to other communities within the State; it depends for its success on the formation of a Partnership, a Partnership for Computing, in which all groups within the University -- faculty, students, and staff -- and the State of New Jersey share in and actively support the vision.

Transformed, the University will be a radically different institution. It will be one:

  • in which all students, faculty, and administrators have access to the computing and media services they need, be it in the office, the laboratory, in specially equipped classrooms, or in public access facilities;

  • in which communication is facilitated by a high-speed data network extending to all appropriate offices, to all dormitories, and to all libraries;

  • in which statewide information data bases, accessed electronically in libraries, schools, and colleges across the State, will facilitate economic and intellectual development in New Jersey.

It short, it will be a state university that recognizes effectively the central and critical role of computing and information technology for the success of the University and of the State.

The Partnership for Computing is the engine to effect the transformation. This group must support the vision and provide the wherewithal to make it a reality: faculty through curriculum development and grants involving computing; students through tuition and fees, service in learning centers, and work study assignments involving computing; administrators by making computing a top priority, by allocating new resources to computing, and where possible, reallocating existing resources to that end; and the State of New Jersey through its increased allocations to the University's budget for computing. Only with a substantial and sustained increase in the resources devoted to computing can this plan become reality: in dollar terms, a yearly increase of approximately $32 to $37 million is required. While the cost may appear large, the return is great.

The Committee urges the leadership of the University and of the State to take immediate and appropriate steps to cement the Partnership and to begin the required transformation of Rutgers.

CCIP Report - Introduction

Educational Computing

Computers have dramatically and irreversibly changed the way the world works. Computers have changed the goals and expectations for research, for instruction, and for service to the state. The revolution in computing and information technology which began a few decades ago has touched every aspect of daily life and its effects within the University can be seen everywhere.

A University is a community of scholars, whether professors or students, where learning is communicated to colleagues, students and to society at large. Computers have become the tool of the scholarly community of the 1990s just as printing extended the power of the word five hundred years ago. Computers are used to analyze information and record experiments; to keep track of students and to manage funds; to teach and to record thought; and to communicate with colleagues world-wide, and to send each other information at the speed of light.

The Universitas -- that collection of individuals who comprise the scholarly community -- is eager to use this invaluable technology to improve teaching, scholarship, and service. Rutgers faculty, students, and staff are sophisticated about what computing can do for them and about what they can do for Rutgers and the citizens of New Jersey with computers; in some parts of the University, they have already begun.

In this report the Committee urges that the University quickly take steps to effect this transformation for the entire academic community.

Rutgers, as befits the State University of one of the most economically diverse and dynamic states of the union, must take the lead in showing how information technology is the underpinning of economic and personal development in the 21st century. And Rutgers must be a competitive university, educating New Jersey's students using the tools of the new information and service society.

To do this, Rutgers must undergo a transformation. The University must change itself through its use of computers. This transformation implies a Partnership for Computing. The Partnership is an opportunity for all constituents of the University, from the State and the students to individual faculty and administrators, to gain jointly from the great advantages offered by computing and information technology.

This change has already begun. There are already islands of excellence in the use of information technology among the academic departments and admin- istrative service units. They give us glimpses of a vision possible for the entire University -- but without further support, even the achievements thus far will become overwhelmed by obsolescence and ineffective through isolation.

Rutgers is not alone. Across the nation, research university after university has found it must change the way it achieves its goals of teaching, scholarship, and service. The nature of computing in American universities has radically changed over the past ten years. To catch up with peer institutions, Rutgers must join in grasping the major implications of these new realities:

  • computing is a requirement of every discipline and campus unit;

  • effective use of computing is a requirement of every graduate;

  • the State has high expectations and requirements of computing within an information society;

  • to help New Jersey compete economically, and Rutgers to compete for the best students and faculty, Rutgers must provide computing support consistent with the international research university that it is.

A Vision of Computing At Rutgers

The Committee has a vision of what the new computing should be at Rutgers:

  • a student in a dorm uses her own computer to sign on to an electronic conference of her class in political science; she joins in a discussion critiquing another student's draft submission.

  • a chemistry professor in Camden exchanges electronic mail with a California colleague about how best to prepare visualization of the massive volume of data they each have obtained from the Pittsburgh supercomputer center.

  • an associate provost is on a tight schedule to prepare a campus budget. He downloads the working budget from a central administrative data base and distributes unit working budgets to deans and directors electronically. Shortly thereafter, he retrieves annotated unit budgets from them in like fashion; and after review, merges them and uploads the approved campus working budget to the central data base. Within a few days, the campus working budget has been distributed, prepared, approved and returned, all without need of paper or campus mail.

  • a Vineland high school counselor wants to tell a junior what the admis- sion requirements for a program at Cook College are and what economics courses are available this semester; he dials a local toll-free number, connects with the INFO system, and within 5 minutes has the answers (and has shown the student a new view of Rutgers).

  • a staff member in a research center prepares an electronic purchase order for laboratory supplies. That afternoon, the center's business manager calls up this order among others and approves it. The following day, the purchasing department and budget offices sign off; the order is also sent to the vendor and the center's account is encumbered on the same day.

  • a commuting student plugs his portable computer into an outlet at the student center, searches the catalogue, and finds that a desired book is out; he requests its delivery to Alexander library on the following day from Newark.

  • a professor begins her office hour by calling up the list of students she is advising to see which need to declare a major this semester but have problems with their grade point average. A student comes to consult, so she also pulls up his current standings and course catalogue information.

  • an art history scholar reviews a jointly co-authored text that was up- dated last night in Toronto. In disagreement, he transmits a detail of a commercially videodisked pieta and a suggested paragraph to make his point. Another colleague chimes in.

  • a graduate student in a sociology lab uses the network to continue searching the morbidity records for the entire United States population in the 1980s. She graphs the output and combines it with commercial map images of United States migration patterns to produce a report stored for later review by her adviser.

  • a scholar in French downloads the full text of Villon from the French language full-text data base in Chicago, checks a point on earlier verb formations in special combinations, discards the text, and continues writing.

  • a foreign student in a dorm, working on an engineering project, submits a calculation-intense job to a National Supercomputer Center; while he is waiting, he checks some word usage with the on-line English dictionary. On completion, he graphs the numerical output on his microcomputer and sends the paper to a dorm server for printing.

The new computing is no longer simply a matter of computation. It is for most users a matter of access to information and to the tools for its manipu- lation:

Access to data and information: chemical structures, departmental budgets, census data, course schedules, star maps, student grades, library catalogues, computer programs, financial aid summaries, classical texts, the products of high-performance calculation. Users need access to this information at their desktop workstation.

Access to computing power: flow visualization, remote printing, molecular modeling, campus budget reports, aggregate statistical reporting, mass student instruction, numerically intensive computing in a wide variety of areas. Users need access to computing power beyond what their desktop workstation can provide.

Access to people: colleagues on campus, colleagues nationally and inter- nationally, statewide research centers, student advisors and advisees, colla- borative authorship, computing support and consultants, electronic classrooms, newsgroups and bulletin boards, conferencing, university management, local schools, corporate partners. Users need access to people through use of net- works, powerful workstations, and communication tools.

Policy and Action Agendas

This report sets out some of the policy and action agendas we believe Rutgers must address to provide the computing access it needs. These include:

  • extension of the network to every building on every campus where it is needed, and to the offices and laboratories within; with sufficient staff for central support, monitoring and maintenance of the network as the fundamental utility service that it is.

  • increasing the quantity and kinds of computing available, ranging from provision of a workstation of appropriate capacity for every faculty member and all relevant staff, to substantial departmental capabilities where justified, to assistance in using the substantial national off- campus resources for high-performance computing.

  • increasing the availability of computing for students, both as tools within subject disciplines using specialized software, and to increase personal productivity using standard packages; this will require a balanced mix of increases in public facilities, compute and data base servers, and student purchases.

  • stimulating the use of teaching technology by equipping and wiring class- rooms, promoting faculty development and use of effective software, and providing student support.

  • allocating appropriate staff support for computing and information transfer in all units of the University, including its central computing organization, recognizing that effective use of technology requires knowledgeable assistance.

  • replacement of existing administrative computing applications with net- worked, distributed management information systems that allow widespread use of data wherever it may be in the University.

  • outreach to the citizens, commerce, and government of the State, to pro- vide increased access to the rich information resources of the Univer- sity, through video and data communications and computerized assistance.

  • shared data and information, and pathways to information and to people. Examples include census data, technical documentation, on-line diction- aries and bibliographies; personnel, fiscal and student records; course schedules, phone directories, campus calendars, local information, and computer programs.

  • carefully-developed funding plans for computing capital and operations so that the University can balance computing with its other priorities, choose among them, and where necessary make appropriate and informed requests of the State.

Computing has changed radically from being focused on mainframes available solely at central locations, and so have computing cost structures:

  • the cost of computing relative to performance has dropped enormously.

  • the costs of support personnel have grown substantially.

  • university-wide costs for computing have increased substantially because of the growth in total demand for computing: more people are using computing, and they use it more and more.

  • it is now possible for departments to use and fund computing at levels considered powerful for their discipline, whereas in past years central- ized mainframe computing was the principal mode. However, the reality at Rutgers is that only a few departments can do this, and they do it now only partially.

  • funding for computing must become consistent, long term, regularized, and operational to recognize the continuing support and maintenance needs, and because of the rapid obsolescence of equipment.

Conclusion

In preparing this report the Committee has found that Rutgers University is seriously lagging in the computer revolution. All parts of the University community have reported that they perceive substantial difficulties with computing at Rutgers, and all strongly desire change to avert Rutgers' decline from its achieved excellence.

The Committee believes that substantial gains for Rutgers and New Jersey will accrue from the implementation of computing and information technology. Achieving these gains will require computing leadership at the highest levels. The intent of President Lawrence to appoint a Vice President for Computing shows the way. Yet it is clear that for Rutgers to gain and use effectively the new computing, leadership will also be necessary at every level of the University. All who will gain from computing will need to re-think the ways in which they teach, how their scholarship is performed, how they serve the State, and how they make University information available to all constituents -- and how each can contribute to The Partnership for Computing to make it work.

Substantial and continuing investment in computing must be made to effect the transformation. The Partnership thus depends on everyone involved with the University, from the State and the students to individual faculty and adminis- trators, to contribute jointly in order to gain jointly from computing and information technology.

First and foremost in the Partnership is the State of New Jersey itself, investing on behalf of the citizens trained and served by the University. It is clear that the investment must be large and that, while the University must transform itself through the Partnership, it cannot do it alone. A substantial increase in Rutgers' expenditure on computing is the principal recommendation of the Committee. It is inescapable that much of this expenditure must come from new money. The Committee urges New Jersey's leaders to recognize the State's role in preparing Rutgers for its transformation to a 21st-century university.

The University's other constituents must also recognize their role in the Partnership from which they will gain. For example, academic and administra- tive officers must set computing priorities within their units and allocate resources from their budgets; individual faculty must participate in course development, in external fund raising (e.g. grants for research computing), and in the deployment of assistants; students should be expected to contribute through tuition and fees and by their service on committees; and the Office of the President should set the stage by asserting the development of computing and information services as a high priority of the University.

The Partnership for Computing requires that some of the expected costs of computing must come from a redirection of what is currently being done. At every University level, priorities must be re-examined and modes of operation changed. If this is properly done, Rutgers can justly ask the State to make the primary investment to transform the University.

The action agenda provided in the recommendations and by the Partnership is prologue to what Rutgers must do if it is to maintain its position among its peers. The Committee is grateful that President Lawrence has initiated this planning process. We believe we have fulfilled his intention of providing the University community with a common understanding of what must be accomplished. When this is done, the University shall have been transformed.

CCIP - Recommendations

Preface

Implementation of the recommendations which follow will make the above vision a reality, effecting the desired transformation of Rutgers. This trans- formation will be driven by the Partnership for Computing, the coalition of all elements of the University community gaining together from the use of computing and contributing jointly to make it happen. The recommendations are based on written and oral comments obtained from the University community, other univer- sity strategic computing plans, site visits to peer institutions, a self-study provided by Rutgers University Computing Services (RUCS -- the University central computing organization), and the Committee's collective knowledge. The recommendations focus on where Rutgers needs to be and on how to get there. There are no priorities save one:

There must be a substantial and sustained increase in the budget devoted to computing.

Information obtained from Rutgers and other institutions shows that expenditures for computing at Rutgers are generally below those at otherwise comparable flagship state universities by a factor of two or more. This is evident from the data in the figure presented on the following page, which compares central computing expenditures per student at Rutgers and 11 other public members of the Association of American Universities (AAU).

To bring Rutgers from its trailing position in the figure to the plateau, a doubling of current expenditures in the steady state is required -- to achieve premier status, a factor of three is required. Low funding implies less infrastructure. When account is taken of this, it is clear that funding for computing must more than double to reach the plateau until Rutgers has achieved an infrastructure consonant with that level. Stated simply, until the "catch up" phase is completed, Rutgers must have capital and related expendi- tures in excess of those institutions on the plateau. This phase is expected to last 5--7 years.

A transformation of this magnitude cannot be funded by any single source. A flexible, multifaceted approach with a variety of potential funding sources provides the best opportunity for attaining these goals. Potential sources include, but are not limited to, increased State allocations, private fund- raising, leveraging of existing resources to purchase equipment, equipment donation, reallocation of existing resources, priority in future capital campaigns, bonding, student fees dedicated to instructional computing, and incentives for faculty and students to purchase computers.

It is imperative that the University community and the people of the State recognize the critical importance of computing to the future of Rutgers and actively support this recommendation. Each of us must share in the responsibility for funding this initiative and bringing it to fruition.

Only if this first recommendation is accepted by all members of the Partnership, can this plan be implemented. The remaining recommendations are not prioritized; they are inter-related and each benefits from the synergy resulting from simultaneous implementation. The recommendations are made on the following pages; part IV provides detailed rationales for each of them.

Central Computing Expenditure Per Student

Rutgers and 11 Other AAU Universities

[Figure 1 goes here] [Figure not available in on-line versions]

Networking

A.1Timely completion of the University-wide, high speed data communications network, both between and within buildings, is essential, since it is the tech- nological foundation for most of the computing and information activities of the University in the 1990s and beyond. The campus data network backbone should be extended to connect all appropriate academic and administrative buildings on all campuses by 1997. Local area network connection (from the backbone to office workstations and other building equipment) should also be completed by 1997.

A.2A plan for networking the University should be prepared immediately and funds and staff for this purpose should be allocated on a continuing basis. However, while network growth is urgent, it must be held to a level that can reasonably be operated and maintained by the budget and staff available.

A.3A plan for networking all dormitories by 2002 should be prepared.

A.4The three major existing networks (academic, administrative, and library) must be merged.

Instructional Computing and Multimedia

B.1 Facilities

B.1.1 The ratio of students to publicly available microcomputers or work- stations should be 35:1 instead of the present ratio that is approximately six times as large. Achieving this ratio requires approximately 1400 additional workstations, which might be allocated as 200 workstations at each of the following locations: Camden, Newark, Busch, Livingston, College Avenue, Douglass, and Cook. The precise configuration of public laboratories at each location should be guided by the local user community, with due attention to discipline needs, space constraints, staffing, and hours of operation. In general, a goal of 24-hour, 7-day-per-week operation, with a minimal staff consisting of a monitor and a computer generalist to aid users, is recommended. Serious consideration should be given to using these facilities as the computer classrooms described in B.1.2 below, and as drop-in public laboratories on late evenings and weekends.

B.1.2 The public laboratories described in B.1.1 or alternative facilities to be provided on each campus should be equipped not only with workstations but also to allow large-screen multimedia presentations, videoconferencing, satell- ite transmission, the receipt and projection of centrally distributed video, and the use of interactive multimedia courseware.

B.1.3 At least one large lecture hall and three large (about 80 seats) class- rooms on each New Brunswick campus, in Camden, and in Newark should be equipped for large screen multimedia presentation, videoconferencing, and satellite transmission. In total, this would require seven lecture halls and 21 large classrooms.

B.1.4 Discipline-based clusters of computing instrumentation should be main- tained and enhanced where it can be shown that they are cost-effective and meet user needs better than would be the case if they were relocated to the public laboratories called for in B.1.1 above.

B.2 Individually Owned Computers

B.2.1 Students should be encouraged to purchase computers for personal use. Incentives to purchase computers should be devised and appropriate stores on campus established. Staff at these stores should include RUCS expertise. Consideration should be given to locating the stores at the public laboratories described in B.1.1 above.

B.2.2 Public laboratories should have network attachments available for stu- dents with portable micros. Access to the network by modem should be provided for non-resident students.

B.3 Encouraging Effective Use:

B.3.1 All members of the Rutgers community should have access to the network, with electronic mail conferencing and information retrieval actively supported.

B.3.2 Students and faculty must be encouraged to become computer and media literate. Each department or unit should develop a plan specific to its disciplinary needs. Incentives should be devised to accomplish this.

B.3.3 All public access facilities should have available a mix of discipline specific hardware and software, as well as general-purpose common software.

B.3.4 An Instructional Applications Group should be established to foster innovative use of instructional computing and media in the classroom.

B.3.5 Appropriate incentives, including internal grants to faculty, should be devised to encourage computer and multimedia applications.

B.3.6 In all of the above, due care must be taken for the needs of disabled persons. It is recommended that the Vice President for Computing develop a proposal to encourage access of disabled persons to computing and information resources.

Computing for Research and Scholarship

Throughout this section, it should be understood that much of the hardware, software, and staff simultaneously supports research, scholarship, instruction, and administration.

C.1 By 1995, an appropriate workstation or microcomputer (determined by academic priorities) should be available to all faculty members at their desks, with access to the University network. By 1995, all graduate students should have direct access to an appropriate microcomputer or workstation.

C.2 Significant new support should be provided to departments and individual faculty for equipment (such as compute servers and file servers), discipline specific software and data bases, staff, printers, and consumables. This support must continue on a consistent basis and include funds for the maintenance of equipment.

C.3 Large-scale computing in Computing Services should be restructured to support those computational tasks in the University which are ubiquitous and foundational, including sophisticated data base management, information systems, software services, and data archival and backup capabilities. Computing-intensive research should be supported primarily by departmental and college-based facilities (funded through the academic structure of Provosts, Deans and chairs), and by off-campus supercomputer centers (allocated by national peer review). This process will subject allocation of University resources for most computing-intensive research to normal academic review in the same manner as allocation of faculty and staff lines and other resources for research and scholarship. Departments and colleges should be encouraged to collaborate in the establishment and operation of facilities for computing- intensive research.

C.4 The High Performance Computing Program should be expanded to provide additional campus access centers and staff, and to support Rutgers researchers developing compute-intensive programs for massively parallel computers at the National Supercomputer Centers.

Academic Information Resources: The Libraries

D.1 The locus of academic information acquisition, management, and distrib- ution policy should be the Libraries.

D.2 The Libraries should pursue an aggressive policy in the acquisition and provision of electronic information.

D.3 Connection of individual libraries and of workstations within them must be established as an early part of the general commitment to networking.

D.4 Information as an institutional resource must be shared. A campus-wide information system must be developed, including access to a comprehensive data base for the Libraries and all their holdings, appropriate administrative data and departmental information resources, and other information resources of use to the Rutgers community.

D.5 Each of the six major libraries (Alexander, Library of Science and Medicine, Douglass, Kilmer, Dana, and Robeson) should have an information handling laboratory for instruction in the use of electronic resources.

Administrative Computing

E.1 Administrative computing should provide timely, integrated institutional information to all members of the University community who need it. This should be accomplished by developing networked, distributed management information systems, utilizing a common, comprehensive data base for administrative information, and one-time entry of data at the initial point of transaction. Development of these new systems must be accomplished in a manner which maximizes the University's financial investment in current systems and preserves the critical ongoing business services of the University. Development of systems that allow administrative transactions to take place wholly electronically should be encouraged.

E.2 The data downloading project, currently being implemented by RUCS, should be completed as soon as possible. User-friendly financial accounting screens for easy access to budgets by end users should also be provided.

E.3 Students should have read access to their individual files including transcripts, grade reports, registration materials, and student accounts.

Service to the State

F.1 To facilitate access to electronic information, free state-wide phone access to the University should be provided. Every library in New Jersey should have the possibility of easy telephone-modem access to Rutgers Univer- sity Libraries' on-line catalogue, so that all citizens can know whether a particular item is available at Rutgers and exactly where. Access to other non-commercial information such as electronic texts and local data bases should be supported.

F.2 Rutgers must take the lead in developing a statewide information data base, with almanac-type facts and figures -- everything from state history to the names of current legislators to public transportation schedules -- again available by dial-up connection to the network.

F.3 Every high school guidance office in New Jersey, together with appropri- ate community college personnel, should have telephone-modem access to insti- tutional data at Rutgers -- what programs are offered, admissions deadlines, costs, whom to see, names of former graduates willing to tell about their experiences at Rutgers. Provisions should be made to respond to individual queries.

F.4 The President should appoint a University committee to explore issues of program development for a variety of television and other media outlets (WNET-13, New Jersey Network, the New Jersey Cable Television Network, among others). In particular, attention should be paid to the structural issues involved, the budgetary requirements necessary, the incentives available to faculty, and the benefits to be derived from a comprehensive plan of action.

Organizational Infrastructure

G.1 Establishment of Priorities and Distribution of Resources

G.1.1 Establishment of priorities and distribution of resources for computing and information services must be determined primarily by the appropriate user group(s). In particular, the faculty must be the source of priorities for the funding of instructional and research computing.

G.1.2 Substantial new funds for computing should be allocated directly to acad- emic and administrative departments through established budgetary processes.

G.1.3 A Computing and Information Policy Advisory Committee should be esta- blished to oversee the implementation of this plan and evaluate the effective- ness of computing at Rutgers. This high-level standing committee should be appointed by the President.

G.2 The Vice President for Computing

G.2.1 The Vice President for Computing must be an advocate for the needs of discipline-based computing as well as those of the central computer organization.

G.2.2 The Vice President for Computing must develop formal and informal mechan- isms for continuous advice, consultation, and direction from the University community.

G.2.3 A special focus on instructional computing should be recognized formally within the office of the Vice President for Computing.

G.3 Staff Support

G.3.1 Sufficient skilled staff support is required, both in the departments and in the central computing organization, for the University to make effective use of computing and information technology. The need is immediate as there are numerous computing investments now at risk for lack of proper support. Early and substantial staff increases should be provided both through new funding and through reallocation.

In many departments and units, increased staff are necessary to support network and workstation planning, configuration, installation, operation and management, and assistance in large-scale computing. In th central computer organization, increased staff are necessary to support the variety of services it is expected to provide, to plan and implement the infrastructure of networks and systems, to provide a cost-effective core of expertise and skills available for departments and users, and to provide a research and development center for how the University can best use new computing, information, and communication technologies.

G.4 Maintenance

G.4.1 Maintenance, replacement, and upgrading of equipment and software are continuing expenses, exacerbated by the rapid advances in technology, and must be planned for by every computer-using unit in the University. The Vice President for Computing should, as an early task, take the lead in developing a University-wide policy that will guide units and the University in planning for these necessary expenses.

CCIP - Rationale

Preface

The discussions and arguments that led to the above recommendations are presented here; they are the fruit of meetings, analysis of data, visits to other universities, and long experience of committee members with computing and with Rutgers.

Though topical distinctions are made, the discussions are interrelated. Workstations, for example, support both the research/scholarship and instructional work of a faculty member; a student uses the same network as does a campus administrator; software support relies heavily on the same people who plan and support the networks; and so on. As the computing and communications environment is interdependent, so are the elements of this discussion and its resulting recommendations.

Networking

The telecommunications network is discussed first since it is the essential support for the computing approach proposed in this report. For computing and information technology to be successfully used at Rutgers, the network must reach every appropriate office in every appropriate academic building, as well as being accessible through telephone connections; and in the longer term, it must reach every residence hall. Only through interconnection can the entire University community be enfranchised to take advantage of computing technologies.

Our vision, described earlier, takes the existence of a network for granted. And, over the next few years, a number of technologies that will require a high-speed network are expected to be implemented at Rutgers. For example:

  • Imaging technologies, allowing use and transmission of what is now paperwork at widely spaced locations: admissions information, or faculty hiring information, or detailed illustrated technical reports.
  • Massively parallel computing, requiring preparation of data and post-processing analysis at visualization workstations remote from the supercomputers that actually do the computing.
  • The transition of academic literature from paper to on-line form. Indexes and bibliographies are already in electronic form; the full text of journals and other information on-line is beginning to appear. True full-text provision will use either image copies of pages or mixed multifont text and graphic images for charts and pictures. Either will require high-capacity delivery systems and workstations.
  • Administrative systems that allow speedy, accurate, and flexible paperless transactions by students, faculty and administrators. For example: students will be able to retrieve course listings, grades, term bills, or assignments using computers from home or their residence halls. Faculty will be able to initiate purchase orders, get them electronically approved, and track them from their workstations. Deans and other administrators will transmit student or fiscal data, or check on its currency, at a moment's notice.

Buildings and the Network Backbone

All these technologies and more depend upon the interconnection capabil- ities provided by currently available high-speed data communications networks, now based typically on a backbone of leased, high-speed telephone lines between campuses, fiber-optic strands between buildings, and high-speed, twisted-pair copper within buildings.

It is essential that the University be fully networked, and that funds and staff for this purpose be allocated on a continuing basis, so that the vision presented by this report can become a reality.

Within five years, the network should extend the existing partial backbone on some campuses to all appropriate academic buildings throughout the University, and should extend local area network connections from the backbone to office workstations and other building equipment. Earliest priorities should be directed toward campuses where there is very little backbone at the present time -- College Avenue, Livingston, Camden and Douglass -- and to key University offices. A related and critical component of these plans is to network all the residence halls over the coming decade.

The technologically open and flexible fiber-based RUNet, begun on the Busch campus some years ago and now a presence on all three major campuses, is the basis for Rutgers' network growth. Steps have already been taken to begin merging with it the other two primary networks that have evolved at Rutgers over the past decade -- the administrative system network and the library network, each based on particular vendor equipment and protocols. This merger should be continued not only for cost-effectiveness, but to assure easy user access to each other and to all University data.

In administrative systems, as now in the Libraries, further vendor- specific terminals should not be purchased, but rather general-purpose micro- computers should be used for new installations; these will add functionality on the desktop and make easier and less expensive the transition from the vendor- specific network to the RUNet.

There exist several other smaller isolated networks at the University, such as those servicing the Rutgers Foundation and the health services. These too should migrate toward becoming part of the overall campus network both for savings in equipment and staff training, and for interconnectivity.

There are some areas too expensive for the backbone to serve: isolated buildings, for example. In addition, many students live off campus but will still, like their residence hall peers, require access to the University's information systems. Telephone systems can provide base-level access of at least two kinds. The Rutgers' phone system now provides ISDN (Integrated Services Data Network) capability to all numbers; while relatively expensive, it will be effective to use this for remote locations that the phone system serves. Dial-up modems, already in use, should be considerably increased in quantity, capability, and speed to allow off-campus access. Such improved access cannot now be provided, owing to lack of staff for the particular softwares and protocols involved.

Network Staffing -- Central and Departmental

Staffing is a critical component of network support. At least three kinds of staff are required: high-level network support staff, a specialized wiring and installation group, and generalists in units who also support other departmental computing needs.

As network traffic and complexity increases, so do the needs for over- sight, software maintenance, and hardware maintenance and repair. The network is far more than static cable laid in the ground and in the walls: complex routing electronics support a variety of protocols and computer types in an open university environment. Users come to expect high levels of reliability and integrity from the network just as they do from other major public utili- ties; these are achieved through the deployment of sufficient trained technical staff to work with the investment in electronic equipment and software. This central staff, to assure network integrity, must have responsibility for the planning, installation, and support of the University backbone, and for the routers that connect departmental networks to interbuilding links (and connect the University to the vast international network). The central computing organization must establish and enforce the policies by which units may become attached to the network.

Rutgers' central networking support is already severely understaffed owing to the four-fold growth in network complexity and traffic in the past three years. This growth is due in part to the enormous increase in demand and in part to the large number of new buildings now reaching completion after funding in the 1980s. Further backbone growth must take place, but at a planned pace which includes staff growth at a rate proportional to network growth, so that full staffing is reached when the network plan is completed. Since wiring a campus and all of its buildings is a multi-year project in itself, a reasonable pace might be to initiate one major campus and building wiring project per year. Because of special needs, certain high-priority buildings on various campuses should also be identified for early inclusion.

Network staffing support at the local, or departmental, level is also needed and is of a different kind. Local network support is typically not directed at the physical network (and its routing electronics) so much as at the configuration of departmental servers and at application software. There will be networking and wiring needs within units and departments, but this support should be provided by the same staff who support the department's computer systems and software. Such generalists should be responsible for all aspects of computer support needed at the departmental level (and they should, of course, have access to the specialized staff for help in planning new networks and in diagnosing specialized network problems).

Departmental needs for general support are great, as described elsewhere in this report, and network support is a major part of that need. Computing Services should work with appropriate departments, directors, deans, and provosts to develop suitable staffing plans for units and buildings that take into account network support as well as other departmental needs; the generalist staff will typically be part of departmental organizations, but in some cases may be central.

The Network and the Future

Technology is a continuing process. Once a network has been installed, it must not only be maintained, but periodically upgraded. Much of the initial outlay will have a lengthy lifetime: conduits and optical fiber between build- ings, and twisted-pair copper wiring within buildings, should last for several generations of network technology, or perhaps two decades. However, it will be necessary to replace the optical-electronic components such as routers, hubs, and terminal servers approximately every five years (much present equipment is now due for such an upgrade in order to use current network technology). Continued funding for maintenance will be required for the network as in other areas.

Future network technologies that will become widespread in the next few years include FDDI (fiber digital data interface) protocols that can increase the speed of present networks by a factor of ten, and wireless local area networks. Networking staffs at peer institutions are already researching these capabilities and initiating pilot projects. Rutgers has not, due to staff shortage, but must do so in order to manage the necessary transitions to come.

Instructional Computing and Multimedia

Any serious look at a major enhancement of computing technology and multimedia facilities at Rutgers must give great weight to instructional needs. This section begins with a concentration on computing itself, and then broadens the focus to include multimedia applications. There is good reason for this dual strategy, since the major investment in facilities required for one will also serve the needs of the other.

Students require and are entitled to access to appropriate computing equipment and instruction as to its use. The goal must be to attain computer fluency for the entire student body. The dimensions of the challenge are well known: over 48,000 students, plus all their instructors and staff support personnel. At present, Rutgers has over 200 students per public access micro- computer. This ratio compares extremely unfavorably with those at otherwise comparable public AAU universities, where the ratios range from 20:1 to 50:1. How can Rutgers assure that everyone has access to instructional computing?

Large public access centers devoted to instructional computing must be considered. Such centers are a common feature at many AAU universities. They are cost effective, worth the cost of labor to keep them open on a 24-hour basis, and guarantee access to all students. At one of the universities visited during the study process, several such centers, filled with students actively engaged in various types of computing, were seen. This is a model that Rutgers should emulate.

Properly designed, these centers can serve two functions: (1) they can provide individual classrooms equipped with workstations and available for regularly scheduled classes and (2) they can serve as drop-in centers at other times. Each center might be divided into or consist of smaller subunits ranging from 20 to 50 stations. The mix of computers would vary according to best offers from vendors and, most of all, according to the computing needs at particular campuses.

Dual use of these centers as public laboratories and as classrooms dramatically reduces the total cost of providing instructional computing facilities. However, it also makes the ratio of students to public access computers less favorable than it would otherwise be, since classroom use will decrease the availability of public facilities to the general student population.

The centers could build upon existing facilities where that makes sense (such as at Hill Center) whereas in other places new construction may be required. Careful attention must be paid to location, and hard choices must be made. College Avenue at New Brunswick is a potentially troublesome spot. Network access obviously must be brought to wherever a large College Avenue center is located. There are several possibilities for locating such a facility, including: (1) the A and/or B floors of the Campbell river dorm, suitably refitted; (2) appropriate space in the expansion of Alexander Library; (3) the first-floor multi-purpose rooms of the student center or the entire ground-level; (4) the faculty-staff dining room of Brower Commons, along with the large hallway in front of it; (5) the upstairs rooms A, B, C, D of Brower Commons. An alternative to the above is to combine the proposed College Avenue computing center with the new Learning Resource Center by refitting the old bookstore between Brower Commons and the Parking Deck, or that facility plus Records Hall.

In making location choices, there is much to be said for attaching the recommended centers to or placing them within library or learning center facilities. Not only are there savings in the labor costs of keeping both open, but all three have instructional purposes that are mutually supportive. Whatever the final choices, handicapped access must be provided.

Once locations have been identified, certain structural requirements will have to be attended to in each of them: adequate ventilation, electrical capacity, telecommunication links, lighting, and appropriate furnishings, including the chairs and tables upon which the computer stations rest.

Security is a potential problem. The centers should remain open 24 hours each day and seven days each week. A monitor should always be present. Students should relinquish their ID cards to use the facility and should be assigned to a numbered workstation.

Each center should be equipped with the following facilities:

  • workstations intended primarily for word-processing and routine statistical procedures,

  • workstations with color graphics and imaging capacity to handle every- thing from engineering design to shapes of Mesopotamian pottery,

  • workstations with video-disc players and headphone speakers for every- thing from physics to French instruction,

  • high-speed, high-quality printers,

  • all workstations with RUNet connection,

  • file servers with both generic and discipline-specific software, and

  • all stations with capacity for central storage of work for use in a later session or carry-out on a diskette.

Personnel at the centers or in support of them should mostly be students hired on an hourly basis and should include: a monitor to limit access to authorized users and to direct users to an appropriate available station, and a hands-on assistant to load paper, fix jams, show new users how to sign on, report more complicated hardware problems, and instruct new users about generic software (such as telecommunication and introductory word processing). These staff members might also take on responsibility for developing small support systems for less adept users.

In addition to the above staff support, all of whom should be available around-the-clock, discipline-specific staff and faculty support should be accommodated at these centers as fully as disciplines are able to provide them; for example, the separate language laboratories, now closed for more hours in a week than they are open, would function more effectively and fully within the new centers, where expensive equipment could be put to good use even during the many hours when a language specialist is not present.

Finally, there is the need for software. It is anticipated that new and better software will continue to become available at a very rapid pace. Much of this software is discipline-specific, and judgments about acquisition and use require input from a discipline specialist. Such consultation with discipline specific users is absolutely critical. Inadequate consultation is the greatest risk in the fairly centralized model proposed. In many instances, software is not clearly instructional (as opposed, for example, to research) and therefore decisions about use may require a range of experts. Even where a centralized decision appears most appropriate, for example in whether to acquire a site license for a particular word processing package, provision should be made for diversity of needs at the local level.

Many units, ranging in size from entire colleges to very small depart- ments, already have in place clusters of computing stations for use by various people. A few are restricted to faculty only, but access by graduate students, majors in a discipline, students registered in particular courses, and the like, is the more common model. Some of these clusters were equipped several years ago and have only stand-alone machines. Others are networked, have modem or hardwire connections to the outside world, and feature graphic, videodisk, or CD-ROM enhancements. Some of these specialized clusters are not primarily for computing (however widely defined), such as the language laboratories, and yet they function increasingly with computers and in ways that parallel a computer lab. Just as the specialized clusters differ greatly in their instru- mentation, so also do their support staffs. Some have a microcomputer special- ist on hand for a regular work week while others depend on a teaching assistant or the good will of a faculty member to keep the lab open to some selected student population.

There are many reasons, some good and some not so good, for the historic development of specialized clusters at Rutgers as at other institutions of higher education. The positive side is that the better ones are creative in meeting the needs of a particular discipline and get high marks for user satisfaction. Location close to user offices is a great convenience. The negative side is that even the best ones have difficulty matching the cost effectiveness of a properly run large center. At Rutgers, the current balance between personal computing done in large centers versus that done in small specialized clusters is heavily weighted toward the latter. Historically, instructional units have been dissatisfied with what central computing offered in large centers and opted instead to fund their own specialized clusters. However, funding was never adequate nor steady enough, and more was available for hardware than for staff to support the clusters properly, leaving the majority of these clusters with no solutions to the very real problems they faced.

The needs set forth by the many instructional units whose representatives communicated with the Committee on all three campuses are certainly legitimate. The best way to meet these needs is with truly responsive, user-oriented large instructional computing centers. The balance in instructional computing at Rutgers should be shifted toward large centers. The numerous well-run and properly equipped clusters now in place should not be abandoned. But as they become obsolete and in need of upgrading, it is imperative that rigorous quest- ions be asked about their total student usage and cost-effectiveness versus fitting a section of the nearest large center with the same hardware/software and having whatever personnel that would have staffed the specialized cluster do the same thing at the center. Surely there will be instances in which this question will be answered by a decision to enhance the cluster (as appears likely, for example, with the New Brunswick Chemistry Department facility), but in other instances a more centralized approach may be advisable.

Classroom Enhancement

Instructors need to have available classrooms of varying sizes, and on every campus, that are equipped for large screen multimedia presentation, videoconferencing, and satellite transmission. This means as well that there has to be a computer on hand. Since the quality of workstation needed for many classroom applications is high, so is the cost. This suggests that the more efficient way to bring the capacity of a sophisticated workstation to the classroom is not to put in a workstation itself but instead to connect class- rooms to RUNet, with the terminal end concentrating less on computing power than on quality of color and graphics. Networking will make possible simultaneous sections of the same class involved with a single professor. The home site (where the professor actually is) would be connected with the remote sites via RUNet, allowing interconnectivity in real time. In addition to providing extended access to an outstanding professor, the availability of a sought-after class on a student's home campus would potentially have the benefits of reduced intercampus traffic in New Brunswick, and a strengthening of the residential collegiate identification. Although such classrooms need not be equipped with individual student stations, at least some of them should have networked keypads so that groups of students can do interactive tasks. The first goal should be to equip one large lecture hall and three large classrooms (80 seats) on each campus in New Brunswick and in Camden and in Newark.

Provision for classrooms equipped with individual student stations is made within the recommendation for large centers. If 1400 stations on seven campuses is not enough to meet our instructional need, then there should be more, but the optimum remains placing them in the context of large centers with around-the-clock access, something that is not feasible for individual classrooms.

Finally, a multimedia "cart" consisting of a personal computer, video- disc player, and speakers should be available in each major classroom building and on each floor of such buildings without an elevator. Portability remains an important requisite for proper instructional support for computing and multimedia.

Personal (One-person access) Computers

Notwithstanding the emphasis on using large, cost-effective centers on every campus to equalize computing access for all students, Rutgers should facilitate the purchase of computers for personal use by those students who wish to buy them. Computer stores should be established on appropriate campuses where students can purchase conveniently and at the lowest possible prices. Staff at these stores should include computer expertise.

Students who purchase their own computers will also want to have access to the Rutgers network, RUNet. They should make purchases only after free consultation with RUCS personnel about the equipment best suited to their individual needs and to the state-of-the-art at the public laboratories. This strongly suggests that the computer stores should themselves be located within the public laboratories, where RUCS personnel would naturally be on hand anyway, and where trial use of a potential purchase could easily be arranged.

Access to RUNet and to high-quality printing facilities for students who have their own computers should be encouraged. Public laboratories should have network attachments for students with portable micros. Access to the network by modem must also be provided for non-resident students.

Graduate students may find that the intensity and specificity of their research makes public access laboratories insufficient to meet their needs, and that the expense of the workstation they need is beyond their personal means. Each discipline should prepare plans to provide direct access to an appropriate workstation or microcomputer for its graduate students by 1995.

Encouraging Effective Use

All members of the Rutgers community should be on RUNet. Signing on should be as easy as getting a library card, indeed, even easier since the computer already knows whether an individual student has paid the term bill or whether a person is on the payroll. Permission or paper is not needed.

There should be no absolute limit on the amount of connect and computing time allowed for individual users, nor on the amount of printing that may be done. However, to guard against abusive use, stop points or holds should be placed on these kinds of use for each individual account. The individual should be required to get approval for use beyond established normal limits. Warnings of approaching limits should be built into the system and triggered at sign on.

As each term begins, the existence of a course and registration in it should proactively trigger a conference group consisting of the professor and the students in that class. Professors would use RUNet to access their class rosters. Students would use RUNet to obtain a copy of their schedule for the semester.

The conference would begin with the professor using RUNet as the preferred means of distributing a syllabus for the course, and for all other handouts as well. In many courses, exams could be handled the same way: they could, for example, be made available on the network to registered students exactly at 9:40 A.M. on a given day and then removed with answers sealed at 11:40 A.M. the same day. Grading and scrambling of questions is much simplified with such a system. Writing and rewriting of papers, transmittal of comments and suggestions, and similar instructional exchanges all could be done by networked electronic conferencing.

Conferencing, of course, is two-way, and instructors would not only send messages to students, but also receive and reply to messages sent by students. This can become very time-consuming, but the educational rewards are great, and it is expected that instructors will devise ways of handling routine requests for help (such as how to do the homework) in an automated, efficient fashion.

Peer conferencing can become a major source of support for students who need tutorial help, who wish to do better, or who are able to help others. This sort of peer support has always existed, but only recently have educators come to see clearly its enormous benefits in many learning situations and the need to encourage it actively. Rutgers is fully committed to facilitating peer learning. The new Learning Resource Centers should be actively involved in computer-based conferencing.

Computer Literacy

The student body and the faculty must be encouraged to become computer literate. Incentives should be devised to accomplish this.

Students

this is the group with whom the fewest problems are likely to occur. Many already use computers regularly when they arrive as first-year students, and others seem to learn quickly and easily, at least through the level of word-processing, electronic mail, and routine data base applications. Nonetheless, several specific suggestions seem worthy of consideration:

  • replace administrative paper handouts and mailings of vital information with availability on the network;

  • require use of a word processor for out-of-class writing assignments in English 101;

  • put homework assignments in large introductory courses, such as calculus, on the network, and not on paper handouts;

  • include introductory sign-on and use instruction as part of the orientation program for incoming students, to take place at the large centers themselves.

Finally, the general curriculum review now being initiated with a presidential committee, and expected to continue in the University Senate and appropriate faculty bodies, should give full attention to the need to integrate computer literacy into all aspects of the curriculum.

Faculty and staff

although other sections of this report deal more directly with faculty and staff, it is important to emphasize the need to encourage all faculty and staff to acquire the competence and comfort with computers appropriate to their role in the instructional program. As the level of computer expectation rises, Rutgers will become increasingly dependent on this technology. The largest investment Rutgers makes is in the faculty, and provision must be made to utilize fully the strengths of the faculty and instructional staff. Steps to enable the faculty to teach effectively in a higher technology environment include the following:

  • a networked computer or appropriate workstation in every office.

  • specialists situated in the new Teaching Excellence Centers on each campus to assist faculty in achieving at least entry-level computer literacy.

  • major efforts by the School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies (SCILS) and Libraries faculties, along with other experts in information science at Rutgers, to develop tools and in-house training programs for our faculty and staff; these will involve development of means for determining what information is where, as well as tools for handling information once retrieved.

  • encouragement of computer science and other appropriate undergraduate and graduate students to undertake projects working with faculty to develop new instructional strategies using computers. Where appropriate, such projects could carry academic credit.

  • teaching enhancement grants to support development of new instructional strategies using computers and multimedia applications; a single, specific grant program for the development of technology-assisted instruction should be established as a clear statement of the Univer- sity's interest in and support of these endeavors; such grants might be administered through the new Teaching Excellence Centers.

  • investment strategies at the departmental level linked to success in developing an appropriately computer-literate faculty.

  • establishing an Instructional Applications Group; the group would include membership from a wide variety of units. Participation would come from RUCS, SCILS, University Libraries, Mason Gross School of the Arts (MGSA), research faculty from the Department of Computer Science, and a broad spectrum of general teaching faculty. Such a group would naturally profit from its internal interaction, but should also serve as a planning and coordinating committee, with direct access to the Vice President for Computing. Faculty actively engaged with this group should be encouraged to develop on-site technology mentoring programs for their colleagues. Funding should be available to support faculty who develop extensive structured programs for work with less experienced colleagues.

Multimedia Applications

Multimedia within the context of computing planning is defined as the coexistence in digital form of full-motion video, audio, and textual material. The development of a network capable of supporting wide-area distribution of multimedia signals, as well as the strategic placement of equipment with which to use the technology is both a short and long term goal.

Multimedia applications in higher education are in their infancy, even in technologically opulent institutions. While multimedia presentation in the corporate sector is widely utilized, its potential as a learning environment in formal education is at an early stage of assessment. Preliminary assessment of the laboratory use of multimedia courseware suggests that such programs hold special value for traditionally disadvantaged minority students.

Specific applications of multimedia technology which would be useful at Rutgers include:

  • satellite reception of live broadcasts and documentary programs from all over the world appropriate to a variety of disciplines;

  • interactive multimedia courseware for self-guided instruction in many subject areas, such as languages, the sciences, music, and history;

  • video conferences which could help ameliorate the geographical disadvantages of dispersion of the Newark, New Brunswick, and Camden campuses for meetings, lectures, programs, and instruction;

  • distributed media from a remote site, such as the video collection in the Media Library sent over the network to classrooms on any campus;

  • production of digital sound and video recordings of and for a variety of artistic presentations;

  • projection of multimedia materials in large lecture halls for classroom instruction;

  • teaching the technology and application of multimedia to future information professionals.

Some of these applications are already taking place and others have been recommended by various user groups. While there are specific departments where multimedia applications are critical to the research and instruction being carried on, many additional departments could also benefit from its availabil- ity through classrooms equipped for distributed media, satellite reception, and teleconferencing, and through laboratories enhanced to include multimedia capabilities.

Although start-up costs are substantial for certain important applica- tions (about $50 thousand for a video conference room, for example), others, such as the enhancement of computer workstations in laboratories, are minor. What is required are faculty members committed to this mode of learning and genuinely interested in developing appropriate courseware. In the area of multimedia instruction, as well as in the larger campus-wide computing planning process, the dual, interdependent requirements of network and faculty develop- ment seem more immediately necessary than the acquisition of specific hardware and software. A particular aspect of faculty development to be recommended is a type of human-resource network. The efforts of this committee have again underscored our institutional need for cross-discipline communication as well as communication between academic, administrative, and service units.

Much has been said and written over the last decade about the inadequacy at Rutgers of classroom delivery services for media materials. While the availability of needed materials might be questioned, the real issue is one of distribution. Rutgers' geography suggests that central distribution over a network to permanently installed equipment would be strongly preferred to the moving around of a few televisions and VCRs. The opportunity that presents itself at this juncture is to ensure that all network plans and permanently installed classroom equipment allow for current and projected multimedia possibilities. In effect, each appropriately equipped and networked classroom can be state-of-the-art, while simultaneously correcting a situation which predated the current technology.

Conclusion

To improve education at Rutgers, especially undergraduate education, requires taking major steps to enhance computer and multimedia applications in classrooms and in public laboratories. To do so will cost a substantial amount, but this is an investment well made, and one to which all the participants should be willing to contribute.

Instruction heavily based upon computer and multimedia applications properly prepares our students for the future, both in their personal and in their professional lives. No matter what the student's major or career goal, effective use of computing will be essential. Long gone are the days when education depended solely upon the printed word. Tomorrow's textbook is as likely to be digital as paper-based.

None of what is proposed is frill or futuristic. Although reaching these goals necessarily will involve wiring one classroom before another, there are no meaningful priorities within the major recommendations being made. Unless the faculty are properly prepared to teach in a technologically-sophisticated multimedia environment, the equipment will stand idle. Without the equipment, students and faculty cannot be expected to use it.

If nothing is done, then the best potential students and faculty will choose another institution, one better able to meet their needs. Postponing what needs to be done only raises costs in the long run. The time to invest in education at Rutgers is now.

Computing for Research and Scholarship

Computer and information resources are ubiquitous in academic research. They are employed in virtually every discipline, although certainly not in an identical manner. Their usage in the physical, mathematical, and biological sciences continues to grow at an enormous rate, while new and important research applications have been found in disciplines which previously did not utilize computer technology. In history, for example, computer analysis of historical records has become commonplace in recent years, together with increasing use of quantitative techniques (Cliometrics).

While disciplines differ in their specific requirements for computing, increased connectivity and access to shared resources are common to all. Increasingly, the locus of research computing activity is shifting from central organizations to departmental units and individuals, and this shift must be recognized if effective research support for faculty is to be provided. Research computing has become a competitive advantage (or disadvantage) for universities. Faculty are nationally familiar with wired campuses, Internet access, schools that automatically provide a workstation for every faculty member, large-scale computing and data servers, intensive electronic information environments, and sophisticated support systems. Growing numbers of faculty expect access to extremely high-performance computing, whether locally on campus or (as is more common) via campus networks to remote sites with local support and assistance.

Computer and Information Resources Needed for Research

Outlined below are the computer and information resources needed for research and some recommendations regarding them. Many of these resources are not unique to research and scholarship, but are also used to support instruc- tion and administration.

  • All faculty require an individual microcomputer or workstation. The workstation has become an essential research tool and the initial point of contact for computing resources and access to information. Graduate and undergraduate students likewise need convenient access to work- stations or microcomputers. This should be accomplished by 1995. The technical specifications will be discipline-dependent.

  • Every workstation and microcomputer must be connected to the campus net- work. The necessary bandwidth and nature of the connection (e.g., direct connection to the Ethernet versus dial-in) will vary among disciplines and according to circumstances. The campus network provides worldwide communication with research colleagues through electronic mail, access to extra-university computing resources, and research information.

  • Appropriate software, data bases, library, and other information sources relevant to the field of study must be available.

  • Computer resources for numerical-intensive computation, data base searches, large scale social science data manipulation, and other needs beyond the level of, or in support of, the workstation or microcomputer must be readily available. These include local and departmental compute and file servers, printers, and funds for consumables. To facilitate the use of supercomputers located off-campus at Federally-sponsored facilit- ies, the High Performance Computing Program should be expanded to provide additional campus access centers and staff support. The High Performance Computing Program should be expanded to support researchers at Rutgers who are developing computing-intensive programs for the massively parallel computers which have recently been installed at the National Supercomputer Centers. This local support will enable our researchers to obtain significant additional supercomputer resources from these external facilities.

  • Adequate support staff and a sustained source of funding to purchase, maintain, and replace computers and software must be provided.

Since much of the research computing activity has shifted from the central computer organization to departments and individuals, significant new support must be provided directly to departments and researchers to acquire the computing resources listed above.

Emphasizing the close connection between research and instruction, it should be noted that computer hardware originally acquired for research needs often finds its way to instructional use. In addition, computer software ac- quired for research needs can in many cases be effectively used in instruction.

Explanation

An explanation of the need for these resources is given below.

Workstations have become an absolutely essential resource for research in virtually all disciplines. They are the contact point for sending and receiving electronic mail, for access to library and other information, and for searching and utilizing a variety of data bases. They are extensively employed for text processing (e.g., preparation of manuscripts, books, proposals), development of software (e.g., computer programs in science, engineering, etc.), visualization of complex phenomena (e.g., architectural renderings, molecular models), composition of musical scores, analysis of data bases, and many other functions related to research and scholarship. For example, the entire body of ancient Greek texts is available on CD-ROM from the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. This technology has transformed the nature of research for scholars in this field, and has established a technological "entrance requirement" (i.e., a workstation) for participation.

The campus network is essential for research. The list of network functions in research is extensive, including connectivity of computer systems, distribution of software and software upgrades, access to high performance computing, electronic communication with colleagues, access to information in large data bases and libraries, and many others. The explosion of knowledge has greatly expanded the requirements for access to information by researchers, making access to a high-speed network essential.

Continuing rapid advances in computer technology are paralleled by extra- ordinary changes in library services. As an example, the on-line catalogue of all Rutgers libraries is now readily accessible through the campus network. The nature of scholarly publication is also being transformed by computer technology. One example is on-line journals. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently announced the establishment of a major journal in biology, The On-line Journal of Current Clinical Trials, which will be available in electronic form beginning April 1992. The electronic journal Psycholoquy, whose international submissions are refereed within days of sub- mission through the Internet, is becoming an important means of scholarly communication in psychology. Access to Psycholoquy requires a workstation. Clearly, the paradigm of a scholarly literature search will shift from the faculty member reading bound copies of journals in the library to viewing papers on a high resolution workstation which have been transmitted over a high-speed network.

Electronic mail has emerged as a critical aspect of research collabora- tion between individuals at different institutions within the United States and throughout the world. The ability to rapidly transmit letters, drafts of papers, and proposals is essential to the conduct of modern research. As recently reported in the New York Times, a significant mathematical problem was solved through cooperative discussion and criticism using electronic mail. The solution took days, instead of months or years, owing to the inherent high speed of electronic mail communication. Currently, participants in thousands of "electronic mail forums" are actively exchanging information on topics ranging from relativity to rare books. It is now expedient for researchers to tap into this new means of scholarly communication. It will soon become essential.

Concomitant with the expansion in computer hardware technology, the range and sophistication of computer software for academic research has grown enormously. The principal focus of users is on applications software.

  • Languages such as Fortran, C, and Smalltalk enable the creation of software ab initio based on mathematical theories. Examples include simulation of fluid flow using cellular automata, and the evolution of galaxies based on Newton's Law of Gravitation for a large number of objects.

  • Symbolic manipulation software provides powerful tools for the creation and manipulation of complex mathematical expressions. Examples include Mathematica, Macsyma, and Maple.

  • Scientific and mathematical libraries perform specific mathematical functions and are utilized in a broad range of disciplines. Examples include the IMSL library which provides Fortran subroutines for the computation of Bessel functions, and the use of statistical packages, such as SAS.

  • Data visualization software displays the structure of complex physical phenomena using modern, high-resolution color workstations. For example, PLOT3D creates streamlines of fluid motion past an aerospace vehicle.

  • Desk-top publishing software facilitates preparation of papers, books, proposals and reports incorporating multiple fonts, tabulated data, complex mathematical notation, and figures. Examples include Ventura, PageMaker, and TeX.

  • More and more disciplines are dependent on access to large data bases for research. For example, the decennial United States Census, essential for researchers in sociology, political science, medicine, and many other fields, includes hundreds of millions of records of data in electronic form. These large University-owned and widely-utilized data bases require central, large scale management and storage on sophisticated, reliable systems. Furthermore, researchers need convenient and effective access to the data, the capability for intuitive and declarative searches, and the ability to incorporate the information into documents in graphical and in textual form.

The extremely rapid progress in computer technology has yielded a broad spectrum of computer resources useful for academic research. The terminology of microcomputers, workstations, minicomputers, mainframes, and supercomputers has become familiar. In fact, these distinctions are rapidly disappearing, and it is more useful to describe computers in terms of function, power, and need rather than simply in terms of physical size, e.g., as compute servers, file servers, and visualization workstations. The differing functions of various computers underscores the need for a communications network that allows data to be processed at the appropriate point and with immediacy.

Compute servers provide the compute performance essential for a variety of tasks including numerical-intensive computing. Particularly in the science and engineering disciplines, access to the highest performance computers (currently supercomputers) is essential in many fields, and enables the solu- tion of problems which would otherwise not be feasible. Rutgers provides this capability through the High Performance Computing Program (HPCP) which supports Rutgers' faculty and graduate students in accessing supercomputer resources at the National Supercomputer Centers and other Federally-sponsored facilities. For example, a Cray Y-MP (1 processor), a modern supercomputer readily avail- able to researchers at Rutgers through the HPCP, is approximately 100 times faster than the Sun Sparcstation 1+, a commonly used workstation in science and engineering. Recent developments in new computer architectures (e.g., massive parallelism) will lead to startling improvements in performance, will enable exciting new problems to be solved, and will open new fields for scientific inquiry. To post-process the substantial amounts of numeric data generated by supercomputers at federally-sponsored facilities, local compute servers, sophisticated color visualization workstations, and expanded file servers are essential.

File servers provide common storage of data and software, making possible the easy exchange of information, the acquisition of software which is too costly to acquire for individual workstations, and the storage of data sets too large to store on an individual workstation. File servers also archive files to insure data integrity. For many departments, workstations connected to file servers will be the standard mode of operation. A specific example of this type of use occurs in social science analysis of large data bases. Although the computation requirement is typically provided by workstations, data manage- ment requirements are quite high, as often hundreds of thousands of records must be stored, subsets extracted, complex searches undertaken, and archives maintained. Large data base servers (historically mainframes), working in tandem with faculty workstations, probably offer the most cost-effective means of computing support in this instance.

To provide effective computing and information resources, it is critical to have an adequate number of support staff with the appropriate technical skills. Although part of the staff needs to be assigned to a central computing organization to provide support for the many important duties of such an organ- ization, it is also crucial to assign staff to support the extensive array of decentralized computing facilities in departments, colleges, and schools. Such a hybrid approach is commonplace in the academic community and permits opti- mized use of staff resources. The responsibilities of the support staff are extensive. Acquisition, installation, and maintenance of systems ranging from microcomputers to mainframes requires trained staff. Software maintenance can require an extensive amount of staff time. By their very nature, information data bases require continual updating. Network monitoring, maintenance, troubleshooting, and upgrades represent substantial responsibilities.

A severe problem affecting research computing at Rutgers is the lack of a consistent source of funds for the purchase, maintenance, and replacement of software and computers. The life cycle costs of computer systems, including initial capitalization, annual maintenance and staff support, must be incorpor- ated in all future plans.

Academic Information Resources: The Libraries

The transformation of the University described in the Introduction depends on the ability to use computing power to record and retrieve informa- tion, and to represent and manipulate data to expand the current horizons of knowledge. The creation of new knowledge, however, always progresses from a firm foundation in the recorded knowledge of the past. In the current Informa- tion Age, recorded knowledge of the past may be no more than minutes old.

Computing has both increased the information overload while at the same time enhancing our ability to locate, organize, and present it. Advent of the Internet, a precursor to the National Research and Education Network (NREN) with links to the catalogues of libraries here and abroad, discipline-oriented data bases, local campus-wide information systems, news and weather services, statistical, financial and census data, electronic journals, and full-text resources among others, has made it possible to contain the resources of a small academic library in a faculty office.

Access to information resources is critical for Rutgers to remain competitive as a higher education institution in a high technology society. The University community requires access to an increasing amount of information obtained both on and off campus to facilitate learning, research, and critical decision making at all levels of the University. Some of these resources are free. Others must be purchased. And still others must be developed. Oversight responsibility for the acquisition, maintenance, organization, and distribution of these resources to the University community requires the collection- development expertise and information-handling skills of the Libraries.

Acquisitions Policy

To meet the information needs of students and faculty, the Libraries should pursue an aggressive policy in the acquisition and provision of elec- tronic information in consultation with the academic community. This includes such materials as full-text, CD-ROM, bibliographic data, statistical data, graphics, and electronic journals. Unfortunately, electronic resources do not always replace or render print resources unnecessary, and both continue to grow rapidly. Often, the electronic resource is the only format of publication. To account for this growth, the acquisitions budget of the Libraries must be increased specifically for the addition of electronic information.

Networking

While it is critical that the Libraries provide the informational resources needed by the University, these resources cannot effectively be shared across all campuses unless the Libraries are connected to the campus network and through that network to resources outside Rutgers. A stand-alone CD-ROM workstation in Camden is of no particular value to a student in Newark, but a networked CD-ROM can be accessed from a departmental or public microlab, a faculty office, another library at Rutgers, or from home. This networking capability mitigates campus geography and eliminates unnecessary duplication of expensive resources on all campuses. It ensures that these resources are available 24 hours per day, whether or not the Libraries are open. Networking also expands the complementary services that the Libraries can provide, such as electronic reference and consultation, materials delivery, and inter-library loan, services which extend access both to traditional print as well as electronic information.

Within the general commitment to networking recommended in this report, connection of individual libraries and workstations within them is essential as an indication of the value placed on access to shared information within the University.

Online Catalogue and Campus-Wide Information System

The continued development of IRIS, the on-line catalogue, as the main access point for determining the location and availability of published, organized academic information resources at Rutgers must be accelerated. While IRIS contains records for many books, journals, reports, and compact disks with read-only memory (CD-ROMs) in the Libraries, all materials are not yet listed. This is a considerable drawback to students and faculty who search the cata- logue from their offices, departments, or public access microlabs, and only see a percentage of the total library collections. In addition, these materials are excluded from electronic materials delivery because requests are limited to items appearing in the on-line catalogue. A concerted effort must be made to convert manual records to machine-readable records and have the entire Libra- ries holdings available in IRIS. In addition, other library resources (the law libraries holdings, for instance) not currently included in IRIS should be added. The development of a common data base must occur as quickly as possible.

Parallel to the expansion of IRIS, attention must be paid to the organi- zation and enrichment of the campus-wide information system, INFO. While IRIS contains catalogue records for published or "organized" information acquired by the Libraries, INFO serves as a menu or window to the totality of information resources publicly available to the University community. It provides the link to remotely accessible data bases, local campus information, full-text data, news and weather reports, University forms, and a myriad of other valuable information. Contribution of appropriate administrative and departmental data to INFO should be encouraged.

Because INFO is publicly accessible via the network, the information resources on INFO can be made available throughout the State, giving any New Jersey resident access to the Library's catalogue, Rutgers' course schedules, and any other informational source which may be added.

Information Literacy

A plan to provide the most and the best information resources the Univer- sity can afford would be remiss unless it included an instructional component which facilitated the use of these resources to the fullest. Even the most seasoned information professional must constantly stay attuned to this ever changing and expanding environment. The need for information-handling skills including hands-on training in access to, and manipulation of, electronic information resources for faculty, students, and staff seems self evident. Instruction should include methods of access to locally-created information (library catalogue, campus-wide information systems, etc.) as well as remote data bases such as RLIN and UnCover, full-text and statistical resources, and others still in development; boolean searching, controlled vocabulary, indexing protocols; downloading and bibliographic file management, among others. The Library faculty, along with other information professionals in the University, such as those at SCILS, can assist in providing user education programs appropriate to the needs of the community. To accomplish this, each of the six larger libraries (Alexander, Library of Science and Medicine, Kilmer, Douglass, Robeson, Dana) requires a microlab of approximately 35 stations with group and individual instructional capabilities networked to the University backbone with projection capabilities suitable for class demonstration. Five of these six libraries already have small public laboratories. These could be expanded and rearranged to provide the necessary facility. The value of their location in the library is their proximity to the complementary print resources requiring the use of similar information handling skills, and the availability of refer- ence librarians for consultation. These laboratories can also be used for the development and demonstration of computer-aided hypertext instructional tools for using the library, its services, and collections. When not in use as a classroom, they can serve as additional public microlabs.

Staffing

The skills required to analyze the information needs of the Rutgers community, to acquire the necessary resources, and to organize, distribute, and maintain them are the ongoing responsibility of the Libraries. However, the acquisition of hardware and software for the electronic environment, and the subsequent maintenance of publicly accessible workstations in the Libraries, have stretched the current staffing levels beyond the limits of quality service. The addition of electronic resources cannot grow at a rate greater than the ability to support them. An aggressive acquisitions policy for electronic information demands an appropriate level of staffing. This includes staff to evaluate, select, acquire, and catalogue the resources; staff to design, install, and maintain the network and workstations in the Libraries; and staff to design and offer educational programs and provide reference consultation. Student staffing can be used to monitor the laboratories when classes are not using them.

Administrative Computing

Throughout the world, computing has become an increasingly essential part of administrative work and has transformed the nature of office tasks. Comput- ing is found in virtually every office and its effects have been overwhelmingly positive. What is now possible with office automation enhances services, improves accuracy, and speeds processing time. Taking best advantage of these technological changes is a challenge for Rutgers in the next decade.

Administrative computing at Rutgers has traditionally had a low institu- tional priority and few resources. Administrative processing has never been considered a resource priority, and as a result, computerization of core data and reporting has occurred in stops and starts. Systems were developed whenever resources permitted, but not within the context of a general plan for computing. Consequently, these systems lack integration, consistency, and efficiency.

Twenty years ago, when technology was still emerging and investments in administrative computing were large, the decision to get into electronic data processing slowly and carefully was the right one. However, the technology has stabilized, costs have been reduced substantially, and Rutgers can no longer afford to be a reluctant member of the administrative computing community.

Given Rutgers' size and complexity, it is all the more imperative that the University community communicate easily and quickly, and that business be conducted smoothly and with a minimum number of bureaucratic hurdles. The new administration's emphasis on a service orientation for its operations doubly underscores the importance of efficiently run administrative computing systems.

What are the choices? First, Rutgers could continue a catch-as-catch-can approach to computing support. While appearing to require a more modest financial investment, this approach will inevitably result in further inconsistencies, delays, equipment breakdowns, and ever-increasing constituent frustration, translating into higher costs in the long run.

Preferably, Rutgers should invest in a multi-year, comprehensive plan for administrative systems. This will quickly result in increased efficiency which will translate into greater service for constituents and higher morale for staff involved with administrative processing. Most important, the second option will result in a shared ownership in Rutgers administrative systems if this is based on a distributed model which makes access to information a partnership rather than a control function.

Current Capabilities

Administrative computing support within Computing Services (RUCS) provides major system support, hardware, application development, and technical expertise to various administrative units throughout the University. It is budgeted at approximately $5 million, employing about 100 staff (exclusive of networking). It currently maintains 16 major systems applications on the central mainframe computer. Ten of these applications were developed in-house (i.e., Student Information Management System (SIMS), Financial Accounting System (FAS), Payroll Master File, Students Accounts Receivable (SAR), Graduate Admissions, Undergraduate Admissions, University Parking, Career Assessment Research System, Student Health On-Line Tracking, and Telephone Equipment Inventory) and six applications were purchased externally (i.e., PBP System (1971), Financial Aid Management System (1981), Financial Accounting System/ Accounts Payable (1983), INSITE (1988), Rutgers Automated Purchasing System (1989), and Touch Tone Telephone Registration System (1991)). Updates for administrative systems have not been uniformly developed or purchased, and as a result, in-house maintenance and modification now require significant staff and financial resources. While updating tasks are an up-front financial demand, they lead to a savings of countless hours of staff time in the future.

Another application, the Human Resource System, was purchased and devel- oped outside of RUCS. RUCS will maintain this new relational data base (DB2) system once it is operational in 1991/92. While DB2 will provide end users with on-line access to view personnel and payroll data, it will still run in batch mode because funding is not yet available to allow update of the system in real time. Whether about student employee records, billing information, or alumni records, the new DB2 system is unable to respond because it is fundamentally a stand-alone system.

Administrative units throughout the University have made major invest- ments in computing hardware, software, and staff training in part out of frus- tration with access to central system data. Major computer and software appli- cations were implemented at Cook College (VAX Computer -- CAESAR system), Rutgers Foundation/Alumni Affairs (WANG Computer -- EARS system), Parking Department (IBM AS/400), Dining (System 36), Housing (SYSNET 1000), Health Center (PRIME 4050), Waksman Institute (AT & T 6330), Camden Campus Center (Mac Network) and Athletic Office (IBM System 36). In addition, 23 departments have purchased the "Claude Houston" budgeting/purchasing/accounts payable application, the Waksman Institute has purchased a similar external software package for administrative computing, and many other units have developed ad hoc data reporting systems for administrative expedience. These "shadow" systems have provided end users with management tools to posit questions, formulate solutions, and make decisions. However, they have led to redundant system development, duplicative data entry, and uncoordinated data element definition.

Accomplishments

By operating a central, batch mode, mainframe computer, the University is able to manage large quantities of data in a cost effective manner. While transparent to the university community, this central computing system main- tains an annual gross payroll of over $365 million, generates 25 thousand W-2 forms per year, accommodates 75 different types of payroll deductions and gen- erates over 16 thousand biweekly payroll checks; it generates 180 thousand student registrations per semester, processes 300 thousand admissions transac- tions annually, generates 50 thousand financial aid award letters per year; it records over $205 million in tuition and fee charges per year and maintains 19 thousand financial accounts totaling funds in excess of $700 million per year. In addition, central computing executes 800 batch transactions daily and prints approximately 12 million pages of output annually in response to specific requests from central clients and end users. This busy administrative system is acknowledged to be reliable and stable, and the integrity of data has been maintained.

In recent years, significant progress has been made in the registration system. An old manual system is now an on-line system with data entered and accessed by authorized personnel at remote locations. The latest component of the registration system will include touch-tone registration in 1992, eliminating the need for students to stand in long lines to register for courses.

In its self-study document, RUCS expressed a strong desire and willing- ness to offer end users assistance in accommodating their administrative compu- ting data requirements. It recently conducted a University-wide user survey wherein 30 departments/units groups, consisting of 180 faculty and staff, were asked by RUCS staff to evaluate computing services and user satisfaction with these services. This was a major outreach effort to the user community and the first of its kind conducted by central computing.

RUCS has demonstrated its commitment toward end-user needs with its data downloading project. RUCS has invited and secured participation from end users, from all three campuses, to assist in the evaluation and selection of a user-friendly data-downloading product for application throughout the University. The 1991 User Survey, the downloading project, the user-friendly interface project and the technological support given to link administrative computer users into RUNet all demonstrate effort on RUCS' part to engage end users in planning and development, and to accommodate their information needs.

Problem Areas

Important problems have arisen from the way in which administrative computing has developed within the University. The following examples are representative, not exhaustive, of major problems which must be corrected:

Lack of University-wide data administration policies: Rutgers lacks a clear set of policies and principles regarding how data are defined, manipu- lated, formatted, retrieved and secured. There is no common data dictionary for systems development; there are no standards for data documentation, there are no protocols for accessing data; and, there are no guidelines for formatting data. Major systems have been developed without the benefit of these standards, protocols, and guidelines. Owing to resultant conflicts, the configuration, downloading, and uploading of data and its use between applications will require considerable funds and staff resources to implement in the near future.

Limited end user access to data: Central University administrators are responsible for developing, maintaining, and preserving administrative data (e.g., Admissions, Financial Aid, Registrar, Controller, Alumni, Personnel, etc.). These individuals serve as data administrators for their respective data bases. End users, whether they are faculty, administration, staff, or students, need access to administrative data in order to manage operations, advise students, balance budgets, schedule classes, register for courses, access payroll information, collect payments, procure equipment, and/or analyze data. Where appropriate, end users are permitted to access administrative data provided they have secured the necessary security clearance from data administrators.

While security protocols have been developed to provide certain end users with access to administrative data, major technological impediments still exist which limit, and in many cases preclude, end users from accessing data.

Redundant Data Entry/Untimely Reports: Given the lack of integration among major systems, data are entered separately within each system. Redundant entry is costly, labor intensive, and wasteful. Computer-generated printed reports are untimely, of minimal utility to end users, and are often incomplete given the limited production runs executed in batch mode. For instance, the financial accounting system generates the monthly budget status report at the end of each calendar month. Once they are produced and printed centrally, they are burst, collated by unit, packaged, and mailed to users. Typically, users do not receive their monthly detail reports until the tenth working day of the next month. If a user initiates a purchase requisition and encumbers funds on the first day of the month, the user will not receive a printed record of this transaction until the monthly budget report arrives six weeks later via campus mail. A similar situation exists for the monthly telephone inventory and toll- call reports, which typically arrive three months late. These untimely reports are wasteful in their current format and provide little utility to end users.

Isolated, Outdated, Uncoordinated Systems: With the exception of two newly developed relational data base (DB2) systems (Human Resources and Purchasing), major systems are hierarchical (IMS), batch mode, and are not sufficiently integrated, causing major problems:

  • lack of an efficient interface between Student Accounts Receivable and Registration causes major problems and delays in confirming student registrations;

  • lack of an efficient interface between Student Accounts Receivable and the Financial Aid System causes unnecessary delays in the delivery of financial aid to students;

  • lack of interface between Financial Aid and Registration causes delays in the re-authorization of financial aid to upperclass students based upon satisfactory academic progress; and,

  • lack of interface between Registration and Personnel systems requires collegiate/school units to prepare the annual faculty workload report manually from course analysis reports.

These are but a few examples of the costly and labor intensive conse- quences resulting from developing and maintaining major systems in isolation.

Conclusion

Information technology is a management tool which should be directed and deployed to support management objectives. In the past, the University oper- ated within a highly centralized organizational model with most decisions being made at the top. Administrative computing resources were allocated accordingly to support the central administration. As the University's management style and objectives shift toward a more participative management style with emphasis on teamwork, service and open communication, administrative computing resources must be directed and allocated to support these goals. Information technology must be responsive to an organization's management philosophy both in terms of systems architecture and data delivery. As decision-making authority and responsibility are increasingly assigned to first-line administrators, and as the administration directs greater attention toward user services, computing resources must be redirected to support those end users with responsibility for decision making and delivery of services. Therefore:

  • administrative computing should provide integrated institutional information to all members of the University community who need it. This should be accomplished by developing networked, distributed management informa- tion systems, utilizing a common, comprehensive data base for administra- tive information, and one-time entry of data at the initial point of transaction. The development of these new systems must be accomplished in a manner which maximizes the University's financial investment in current systems and preserves the critical ongoing business services of the University. Development of systems that allow administrative transactions to take place wholly electronically should be encouraged.

  • the data-downloading project, currently being implemented by RUCS, should be completed as soon as possible. User-friendly financial accounting screens for easy access to budgets by end users should also be provided.

  • students should have read access to their individual files including transcripts, grade reports, registration materials, financial aid, and student accounts.

Service to the State

If a commitment to build a new partnership for computing at Rutgers is to emerge, it must do so, in part, on behalf of the people of the State of New Jersey. Increasingly, the future of New Jersey will be defined by the quality of its intellectual capital, of which Rutgers is a major part. A failure to invest in those resources, systems, and programs which will make Rutgers' students, staff, and faculty less than competitive with those in other states and regions only increases the economic vulnerability of all New Jerseyans, even those less directly touched by developments on the Rutgers campuses.

While the enhancement of computer and information resources will not guarantee prosperity, it is abundantly clear that without these our options grow fewer and our horizons ever more limited. Further, up-to-date computer technologies and resources have the potential to enhance the nature and texture of civic culture throughout the State by bringing people and communities closer together through greater accessibility and increased communication. As other institutions and places have been quick to understand, the effective use of computer technologies holds the potential to reduce the friction of distance, unifying communities and individuals geographically dispersed throughout the State. Opportunities for more effective communication, understanding, education, and service are plentiful should the University recognize the essential need for the modern state university to extend itself beyond campus boundaries. Rutgers must, through its commitment to innovative uses of computer technolo- gies and information resources, assume responsibility and leadership for extending and broadening the range of opportunities for the larger community of which it is such a vital part.

An essential first step in providing broader access to the University is the development of low-cost communication linkages from locations throughout the State within the next budget year. Availability of such a network of low cost communication linkages would have many distinct advantages to the University.

First, scholarship can be facilitated through direct access to information resources from off-campus locations. It is often assumed (and usually without articulation) that the University is a collection of communities generally located on each of the main campuses. It is also assumed that dormitory students will gain access to University resources at one of many campus locations, and that commuting students might access campus networks from "plug-in" locations at Alexander, Dana, or another of the library or computer laboratory locations. In fact, a majority of the University's graduate and professional students matriculate part-time, and many work during the day. Demographics indicate that this population will represent an increasing component in the higher education market as we approach the year 2000. The University must facilitate ways in which education and scholarship can be enhanced through the use of computer and communication technologies. Providing easy (i.e., low cost telephone) access to University information resources such as IRIS to both faculty and students will enhance the educational process and help maximize the benefit of the on-campus experience.

Second, Rutgers' public service mission can be enhanced through the provision of information to the public via the mechanism of low cost communication. The Rutgers libraries represent an enormous resource within New Jersey. General accessibility of the IRIS system to public and school libraries throughout the State, for example, not only provides an opportunity for better service to the State, but also enhances the value of these resources through a broader public understanding of their nature and importance. Access to other non-commercial information, such as electronic texts and local data bases should also be supported.

Rutgers should take the lead in developing a statewide information data base, with facts and figures in everything from state history to the names and addresses of current legislators, results of various polls conducted by units of the University, to public transportation schedules, and beyond. Much, though not all, of this information is available in electronic format in various departments within the University. Development of a dial-up system that would be easy to use by the public and University community would enhance Rutgers' public service mission.

Third, Rutgers service to the public can be enhanced through outreach possible with low-cost access to selected electronic resources. It seems appropriate, for example, that every high school guidance officer and community college advisor ought to have telephone/modem access to institutional data at Rutgers: what programs are offered at each of the campuses; what are the admissions deadlines, scholarship requirements, and costs; and so on. There should also be electronic mail access to various admissions representatives.

Fourth, Rutgers' mission can be enhanced through a more enlightened use of computer, information, and media technologies. Although the University does have an office for television and media applications, its current structure does not encourage curriculum-based programming. As a complement to the recommended electronic data base, educational programming aimed at a variety of media and multimedia formats should be encouraged. Educational programming for television at Rutgers is significantly underdeveloped relative to other major state universities. It is an area that holds considerable promise, particularly with information resource outreach efforts (televised courses, for example, might have electronic examinations and network-based teleconferencing between faculty and students). The President should appoint a University committee to explore issues of program development for a variety of television outlets (WNET-13, New Jersey Network, the New Jersey Cable Television Network, among others). In particular, attention should be paid to the structural issues involved, the budgetary requirements necessary, the incentives available to faculty, and the benefits to be derived from a comprehensive plan of action.

Organizational Infrastructure

Establishment of Priorities and Distribution of Resources

Computing and information services at Rutgers have historically been funded at levels well below those of other research universities, as noted in other parts of this report. Lack of funding has impeded the establishment of a stable structure for budgetary decisions and long term planning, and has given rise to a crisis management or reactive approach to decision making. Put simply, there have never been sufficient funds to meet immediate needs, and therefore, the primary order of the day has been to "put out the hottest fire." While significant new funds are essential to improve matters substantially, it is also important to have an appropriate planning and budgetary structure to govern the flow of resources. Below are outlined some basic principles to provide the framework for such a structure.

First, the establishment of priorities and distribution of resources for computing and information services must be determined primarily by the appropriate user group(s). For administrative computing, the appropriate group is the academic and administrative unit heads and the officers to whom they report. For instructional computing, the corresponding group is the faculty and academic leaders (department chairs, deans, provosts), augmented by the student body. Since faculty are responsible for the initiation, performance and publication of research conducted at the University, they must be the source of priorities for funding of computing and information resources specifically budgeted for research. The faculty's means of expression should be through normal academic channels (composed of provosts, deans and department chairs), specific advisory committees, and the University Senate.

The priorities determined in the manner described above should direct the application of funding both to activities best managed by departments and individual faculty members, and to activities and resources which are generally and most commonly used within the University, and are therefore best managed by the University's central computing organization (RUCS). Sources of funding will normally include both central allocations and assignments from within unit funds of departments, schools and campuses.

In determining the application of funding between RUCS and academic units, the important distinction is between the general and shared computing and information infrastructure, and the additional computing and information requirements of units of the University (e.g., individual faculty or departments). The former is properly the responsibility of RUCS for the management of funds, while the latter is the appropriate purview of the academic units.

Specific computing and information resources widely shared by the academic community should be managed by RUCS. Examples include the University-wide network, specific central computers, consulting services, microcomputer laboratories, certain hardware and software support for decentralized computer systems, expertise for new computer purchases, site licenses, and other services best organized centrally. Management in this instance must include appropriate input from the affected communities. It is important that the user services division of RUCS and the academic community be closely linked.

Each provost's budget should include specific funds for academic computing to meet the computing requirements of academic units above and beyond the general University-wide services provided by RUCS. Such resources should support capital, operating, maintenance, and staff expenses for decentralized computing within the academic and administrative units. This type of budgetary allocation is a natural extension of other provostial decisions regarding resources for instruction and research, including allocation of space, staff, and faculty and support lines. These resources would be distributed on the basis of criteria established by the provosts through consultation with the faculty and disseminated to the faculty. In research, criteria would include the level of outside funding in the academic unit, recognizing that opportunities for outside funding are discipline dependent.

Opinions and recommendations of the University need to be solicited in an effective and continuing manner through various formal and informal means. In the past environment of insufficient computing and academic direction, there existed a plethora of user committees, system-wide bodies, provosts' committees, and ad hoc groups. These groups suffered from a lack of real influence, insufficient cross-articulation, and conflicting guidance from their leaders.

The University's chief academic officers, including those of the central computing services, need advice and guidance from the University community. The community needs assurance that responsible views on its behalf are effectively transmitted to the administration. To help accomplish this, University or campus-wide committees should be broad-based to include members of all appropriate user groups. Further, computing committees should be charged to work in consort, to share information, and to reduce duplication of effort. To improve efficiency, issue-based task forces or working groups with deadlines should be used as appropriate instead of committees with no fixed time period.

Role of the Vice President for Computing

Last July, President Lawrence created the position of Vice President for Computing. The Committee applauds this decision which recognizes the need for a chief information officer at the highest level of the University. Creation of this office is an important step in the development of a strategic plan.

  • The Vice President for Computing must represent the entire University community with regard to computing and information technology. This includes the three campuses, Camden, Newark, and New Brunswick; the major personnel groups, faculty, students, and staff; and the several areas to be developed, including instructional, research, and administrative computing, as well as library and networking applications. The Vice President for Computing must be an advocate for the needs of discipline based computing as well as those of the central computer organization. Owing to its importance, a special focus for instructional