Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 457–486 | Cite as

What facilitates and impedes collaborative work during higher education software implementation projects?

  • Sharon F. Cramer
  • Sheldon J. Tetewsky
  • Kelly S. Marczynski
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Implementations of new or major upgrades of existing student information systems require incorporation of new paradigms and the exchange of familiar routines for new methods. As a result, implementations are almost always time consuming and expensive. Many people in the field of information technology have identified some of the challenges faced by campuses that attempt to modify their student services. The work of Gardner et al. (Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. Basic Books, New York, 2001) was used as a model to examine the experiences of those involved in implementations and to explore how the values of staff members influence the experience of change. Analysis of student information system implementations at 10 institutions of higher education was conducted. Over a 2-month period, data were gathered from 74 people through a combination of online surveying, telephone interviews, and completion of a Q-sort instrument based on the published instrumentation of Gardner et al. (2001). Statistical analyses of the online survey and Q-sort results and use of the SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys 2.0 User’s Guide (SPSS Inc., Chicago, 2006) revealed trends that highlighted the overall perceived importance of communication, collaboration, and problem solving for implementation success. Analysis also highlighted campus members’ satisfaction level with the implementation process and how their satisfaction varied depending on if the implementations were completed or still “in process.” Discussion includes pragmatic recommendations for future implementations.

Keywords

Educational change Information technology Values Education Innovation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Louise Lonabocker, Louis Eppich, Paul Reynolds, and Michelle Reich for their assistance in preparation of this manuscript for publication.

References

  1. Allison, D. H., & DeBlois, P. B. (2008). Current issues survey report, 2008. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(2), 14–30.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, M. (2004). Illuminating patterns of perception: An overview of Q methodology. Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Camp, J. S., & DeBlois, P. B. (2007). Top-ten IT issues, 2007. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(3), 12–32.Google Scholar
  4. Cramer, S. F. (2003a). Challenging core assumptions: Integrating transformative leadership models into campus-wide implementation activities. College and University Journal, 79(1), 15–22.Google Scholar
  5. Cramer, S. F. (2003b, October). Using the improvement of student services as a tool for campus transformations: A preliminary qualitative study examining perceptions of priorities during and after technology implementations or service re-design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Kerhonkson, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Cramer, S. F. (2005). Student information systems: A guide to implementation success. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.Google Scholar
  7. Cramer, S. F., & Pfeiffer, M. J. (2002, October). Co-existing or collaborating? A preliminary methodological approach to develop a paradigm to examine working relationships involving information technology and education specialists. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeast Educational Research Association, Kerhonkson, NY.Google Scholar
  8. Cramer, S. F., Tetewsky, S., & Marczynski, K. (2007, October). What facilitates and impedes collaborative work during higher education software implementation projects? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeast Educational Research Association, Rocky Hill, CT.Google Scholar
  9. Cramer, S. F., Tetwesky, S., Marczynski, K., & Cooke, C. (2005, October). Is what is important to me important to you? Contrasting the values of importance and priorities of participants in student information implementations on ten college campuses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeast Educational Research Association, Kerhonkson, NY.Google Scholar
  10. De Lima, J. A. (2001). Forgetting about friendship: Using conflict in teacher communities as a catalyst for school change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(2), 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duderstadt, J. J., Atkins, D. E., & Van Houweling, D. (2003). The development of institutional strategies. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(3), 48–58.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, W. (2001). Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartman, J. L., Dziuban, C., & Brophy-Ellison, J. (2007). Faculty 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(5), 62–76.Google Scholar
  15. Kvavik, R. B., & Handberg, M. N. (2000). Transforming student services. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 23(2), 30–37.Google Scholar
  16. Laverty, C., Leger, A., Stockley, D., McCollam, M., Sinclair, S., Hamilton, D., et al. (2003). Enhancing the classroom experience with learning technology teams. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 26(3), 19–25.Google Scholar
  17. McLaughlin, M. W., & Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2(4), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  19. Pearman, R. R. (2001). Leadership: Lessons in the mirror. Bulletin of Psychological Type, 24(3), 21–22.Google Scholar
  20. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusions of innovation (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  22. Senge, P. M. (2000). The academy as learning community: Contradiction in terms or realizable future? In A. F. Lucas, et al. (Eds.), Leading academic change: Essential roles for department chairs (pp. 275–300). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys 2.0 User’s Guide. (2006). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Stunden, A. (2006). Viewpoints: Building IT community on campus. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(1), 72–73.Google Scholar
  25. Thomas, D. M., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Q-Sorting and MIS research: A primer. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 141–156.Google Scholar
  26. Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2001). Achieving school improvement through challenging and changing teachers’ schema. Journal of Educational Change, 2(4), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zaleznik, A. (1997). Real work. Harvard Business Review, 75(6), 53–63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon F. Cramer
    • 1
  • Sheldon J. Tetewsky
    • 2
  • Kelly S. Marczynski
    • 2
  1. 1.Buffalo State CollegeBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Buffalo State CollegeBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options