1

Paul KimChief Technology Officer

Stanford University School of Education

Does Academic Does Academic Technology Competency Technology Competency Make CIO 2.0?Make CIO 2.0?

2

Discussion TopicsDiscussion Topics

* Transformation of CIO roles in the higher education space

* Parallelism paradox in academic technology R&D

* Creating new traditions

3

Traditional Foci (CIO1.x)Traditional Foci (CIO1.x)

Connectivity Legacy systems E-mail service management File servers, computer labs, desktop

support

4

Traditional Foci (CIO1.x)Traditional Foci (CIO1.x)

ERP Designing (More of dreaming) Too busy putting out the fire Getting the best systems engineers

(Network/Server)

5

Evolved Traditions (CIO Evolved Traditions (CIO 2.x)2.x) Productivity Security & IP Protection A/VOD/ Wireless coverage/Web

portals

6

Evolved Traditions (CIO Evolved Traditions (CIO 2.x)2.x) ERP for E-Learning and U-Access

CMS, Classroom Technology, Mobile Learning

Too busy trying and learning new solutions

Get the best systems developers (Application development and integration)

7

Emerging Challenges Emerging Challenges (CIO 3.x)(CIO 3.x) Accountability

Intelligence-based tracking in all areas Resource Virtualization/Streaming

Apps/Fast backup & restore/Just-in-time stuff

Learning Outcomes as mROIE-portfolio system, Learning outcome

matrices

8

Emerging Challenges Emerging Challenges (CIO 3.x)(CIO 3.x) ERP to best accommodate teaching

and research while maximizing learning

Too busy convincing the Faculty Senate

Get the most experienced academic technology specialists

9

After all, it is an academic enterprise we are working for.

How is your IT relevant to what students demonstrate as competencies and what your faculty publish?

10

Parallelism Paradox Parallelism Paradox in Academic in Academic Technology R&DTechnology R&D

11

Research TrendsResearch Trends

High tech innovations Tend to work with schools that have

well developed infrastructure ICT research too often follows

technology innovations, not vice versa

12

Research Research OutcomesOutcomes

13

Positive Outcomes

InstructorsMore technology enthusiastsBetter adopters

Well controlled experiments Smaller sample populations Stakeholder support

14

Disappointing Disappointing Outcomes (One-size Outcomes (One-size fits none)fits none)

15

Replications Not FeasibleReplications Not Feasible

Large and real settings Multiple complex dimensions Highly heterogeneous learners Less technology enthusiasts Instructors with much administrative

tasks Not enough support

16

What might have made a difference…

Large and real settings Need more in-depth situation-specific needs analysisNeed more in-depth situation-specific needs analysis

Multiple complex dimensions Tackle one dimension at a timeTackle one dimension at a time

Highly heterogeneous classes Class management technology and Self-remedy solutionClass management technology and Self-remedy solution

Less technology enthusiasts Build a community of support firstBuild a community of support first

Instructors with much administrative tasks Unbundling rolesUnbundling roles

Not enough support No learning curve solutionNo learning curve solution

Overall, they were in need of simple, highly adaptive and flexible technology that is most relevant to the learning context

17

Creating New Creating New Traditions Traditions In Academic In Academic TechnologyTechnology

18

Early Interests (AT 1.x)Early Interests (AT 1.x)

Cognition Learn better

Metacognition Better manage learning

Retention Better remember what was learned

Transfer Better apply what was learned

Motivation Better chances to do all the above

19

Evolved interests (AT Evolved interests (AT 2.x)2.x) Situation Specificity Cultural Sensitivity Practical Usability Theoretical Applicability Economic Scalability Viable Sustainability

20

Emerging Interests (AT Emerging Interests (AT 3.x)3.x) Educational entrepreneurship

Tangible impact (Either for-profit or non-profit)

Bridging with social innovationsLocal, regional, and global community

needs

21

Why AT3.x?

Supports the ultimate role of higher education in multiple aspects

Much more visible outcomes In the future, there will be only two kinds of

leaders in the higher education space: Highly visible leading universities in at least one

academic specialty area or Highly accessible, efficient, and convenient education

providers

22

ConclusionConclusion

23

No update, no gainNo update, no gain

Technology gets old too fast Need to learn to learn better

24

No transformation, no No transformation, no chanceschances Make time to examine the changes

and patterns in the education space Become adaptable to the new

environments Respond to the new needs

25

Questions for you:

What are the new competencies for today’s CIOs?

What do researchers do and say about academic technology?

Should Academic Technology be lead by CIOs?

When people take 99.9% uptime for granted, what happens to the IT department?

What are you? Are you CIO X.X?