Learning to live with technology management systems

By Daniel Gursky

Anyone who has seen the movie “2001: A Space Odyssey” will remember HAL, the humanlike computer that takes control of the spaceship against the crew’s wishes. When the Oklahoma City public schools spent millions of dollars on a new computer system a few years ago, it was as if they’d bought HAL, says David Gray, president of the Oklahoma City Federation of Classified Employees. The system—sold by a company called SAP—seemed to have a mind of its own, at least according to administrators’ explanations whenever something went wrong.

As intelligent as HAL was, today’s technology has capabilities far beyond anything imagined in the 1968 film. Like the less-than-perfect computers in Oklahoma City, elaborate new systems are being introduced in schools and universities across the country, and AFT classified staff are often among those most immediately and directly affected when those systems don’t live up to the grand promises of the companies that sell them and the administrators who purchase them.

For lack of a better term, “eAdministration” is moving into educational institutions in new and more ambitious ways, covering everything from human resources to payroll to grading systems to student records. Some of the more comprehensive systems promise to combine many of these functions.

Mind-boggling costs

If these technological advancements are so great, why do references to HAL come to mind so quickly? One problem is that some companies promise so much—typically greater efficiency at lower cost—that there are bound to be letdowns when the results fall short of the promise. Cost overruns are alarmingly routine. At Palomar Community College in California, the AFT classified staff union has been dealing with problems related to a PeopleSoft system introduced there in response to concerns over Y2K. (Anyone remember that?) The cost was “way, way over and above what was initially estimated,” says Ernie Carson, former president of the Palomar College Council of Classified Employees, who works in information technology at the college. “The actuals versus the estimate were mind-boggling.”

Finally, almost five years later, the PeopleSoft system is running with fewer problems, but a new uncertainty has arisen now that technology giant Oracle has purchased PeopleSoft. Reports indicate that Oracle plans extensive layoffs, so “we’re waiting with bated breath to see what impact that might have on us, as far as support,” adds Carson, who is president of the California Federation of Teachers’ Council of Classified Employees.

Another problem is that some systems being introduced in colleges were designed for business and are not flexible enough to meet the diverse and sometimes unique needs of public college systems. Debbi Covert’s description of the new system at Portland (Ore.) Community College is typical. “It’s supposed to make life easier but it doesn’t,” says Covert, a classified employee at the college who is also president of AFT-Oregon. “We’re always trying to figure out ways to work around it.”

One thing the changes haven’t done at Palomar or Portland is reduce workload. If anything, the systems create more work for existing staff, especially those in information technology, and can lead to hiring additional staff for support once the system is up and running and company consultants leave. The unfortunate IT staff who have to work on the systems often find themselves putting in extra hours on weekends and holidays to finish vital tasks, such as payroll.

Learning from experience

One obvious lesson is that decisions about what system to adopt and how to implement it can’t just be left to upper-level staff. “Managers don’t have to work with the system, so they can’t say what we need,” says Covert in Portland. “End users have to be involved.” Along with that goes adequate initial and follow-up training, as many systems are upgraded and revised as often as twice a year.

Through collective bargaining or other means, unions should address the whole range of issues that can accompany huge technology management systems, including guarantees against job reductions and limits on outside consultants. More intrusive systems, such as satellite monitoring, bring up obvious issues of privacy for employees and students.

In the end, employees really just expect the new systems to live up to their promises. No one is going to complain about something that makes their jobs easier and helps them serve students better.