The evidence from the section above provides a clear picture that each of Hakken’s (2003) four technical explanations for knowledge management fatigue syndrome manifested themselves during the implementation of the student information system at Southwest University. Beyond these four expla- nations, there is evidence of a conceptual explanation at Southwest as well. The need for input and cooperation from all members of the university community was stressed throughout both the historic documents and unit e-mails. The planning stages of the project were highlighted by numerous university-wide committees that were intended to work cooperatively together to create a description of a single information system that would meet the needs of all units.
These cooperative workgroups themselves would certainly be an example of Birnbaum’s (2000) management fads, but more importantly they demonstrate how disparate and sometimes competitive units were expected to define and solve problems together throughout the entire process. The historical docu- ments present technical reasons for why this needed to happen, but there was no suggestion as to how members from these units would be able to work together to accomplish the project’s goals. The complex social interactions required of such a process are virtually ignored in the historical documents, leaving one to assume that it was a matter of faith that the promise of an advanced knowledge management system would unite all units of the university with a minimum of problems.
By the spring of 2004, one method of achieving unification became clear. In an e-mail, the director of the department in this study explained to all of its members that the systems personnel from the study’s department along with their counterparts in both the financial aid and the curriculum and registration offices were “being merged into one Enrollment Management Information unit.
In an effort to improve life for all of the systems people and to improve the service [the student information system] provides to the offices.” So, what had originally been envisioned as a means to increased cooperation and information distribution between units finally had become a wholesale reorganization of student services departments at Southwestern University. While all data indicates that this was not an intended result of the new student information system, the system itself had caused the reorganization and redefinition of key student services units.
Ironically, the explanation given for the reorganization of the systems personnel emphasizes the centralized power of experts (as in a technocracy) over the independence and interconnectedness of individual units at the university. In the same e-mail, the unit director explains that “the new unit will expand the resources available to address any one problem in any of the units to a group of 20+ people instead of the limited personnel resources of each unit.”
Essentially, the use of technology and the information available to each unit would now be controlled by one central group whose individual members would have no direct connection or allegiance to any particular student services unit. It is possible to imagine that without personal ties to the needs of individual units, this new systems unit might be concerned with what it deems best from a technological standpoint without considering the human needs of the various student services units it is intended to serve—a serious sociological conse- quence of the implementation of the new student information system.
Conclusion
In this study, I was concerned with two central questions. First, can Hakken’s (2003) concept of knowledge management fatigue syndrome be used to analyze and understand the implementation of the student information system at Southwest University? And, does the implementation of the system show evidence of technological bloat and academic technocracy? The data from this study clearly present evidence of each of Hakken’s (2003) descriptions of knowledge management fatigue syndrome and those descriptions provide a means to interpret the long process of the student information system’s implementation. Given this evidence one other question arises: Why continue with the project if there is knowledge management fatigue syndrome? The answer to this question is at once simple and complicated. The university is heavily invested in the technology infrastructure demanded by the project—
there are tremendous sunk costs. They cannot simply ignore the project; they must forge ahead. At Southwest University, as at other higher education institutions, there may be fatigue, but such labor and capital intensive projects must be completed. Interestingly, there has been little fanfare about the project during the last two school years. A project that was heralded as a means to achieving prominence for the university is now quietly nearing completion.
Although understated, the project’s implementation has led to a complex reorganization of several student services units into a single enrollment manage- ment systems unit.
The new enrollment management systems unit shows evidence of technological bloat and academic technocracy. This new unit is centered on ever-changing advanced technology, and many of its positions which were originally defined as temporary for the project have become institutionalized—clearly a form of bloat. With this new unit, technocrats have assumed an increasingly important role in student services and administrative strategic planning. This increased prominence of “experts” will increase their influence at Southwest—a precur- sor of academic technocracy.
It is possible to view this technological bloat and academic technocracy as a consequence of knowledge management fatigue syndrome. Because the project has taken an inordinate amount of time to complete, the resulting fatigue has caused institutional stakeholders to be less concerned about efficiency and long-term consequences of decisions than they are about finding ways to complete the project—at 10 years and counting, it is easy to understand why.
References
Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from. What they do. Why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carnevale, D. (2004). University of Florida’s software upgrade delays payday for teaching assistants. The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 1, A35.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hakken, D. (2003). “Knowledge management fatigue syndrome” and the practical importance of the cyberspace knowledge question. In D.
Hakken, The knowledge landscapes of cyberspace (pp. 55-69). New York: Routledge.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1989). Designing qualitative research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Olsen, F. (2003). Giant Cal State computing project leaves professors and students asking, why? The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 17, A27.