Enterprise System Development in Higher Education

2011 ◽  
pp. 388-406
Author(s):  
Bongsug Chae ◽  
Marshall Scott Poole
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
System Development ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Value Systems ◽  
It Management ◽  
Enterprise System ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Strategic Goals ◽  
Private Sector Organizations

“One system for everyone” has been an ideal goal for information technology (IT) management in many large organizations, and the deployment of such systems has been a major trend incorporate world under the name of enterprise systems (ES) (Brown & Vessey, 2003; Davenport,2000; Markus, Petrie, & Axline, 2000). Benefits from ES use are claimed to be significant and multidimensional, ranging from operational improvements through decision-making enhancement to support for strategic goals (Shang & Seddon, 2002). However, studies (Hanseth & Braa, 2001; Rao, 2000; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002) of the deployment of ES in private sector organizations show that the ideal is difficult to accomplish. This paper reports a case in which a major university system in the US attempted to develop an in-house enterprise system. The system is currently used by more than 4,000 individual users in almost 20 universities and state agencies. This case offers a historical analysis of the design, implementation and use of the system from its inception in the mid 1980s to the present. This case indicates that ES design and implementation in higher education are quite challenging and complex due to unique factors in the public sector — including state mandates/requirements, IT leadership/resources, value systems, and decentralized organizational structure among other things — that must betaken into account in planning, designing and implementing ES (Ernst, Katz, & Sack, 1994;Lerner, 1999; McCredie, 2000). This case highlights (1) the challenges and issues in the rationale behind “one system for everyone” and (2) some differences as well as similarities in IT management between the private and public sectors. It offers some unique opportunities to discuss issues, challenges and potential solutions for the deployment of ES in the public arena, particularly in higher education.

Enterprise System Development in Higher Education

2011 ◽  
pp. 196-221
Author(s):  
Bongsug Chae ◽  
Marshall Scott Poole
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
System Development ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Value Systems ◽  
It Management ◽  
Enterprise System ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Strategic Goals ◽  
Private Sector Organizations

“One system for everyone” has been an ideal goal for information technology (IT) management in many large organizations, and the deployment of such systems has been a major trend in corporate world under the name of enterprise systems (ES) (Brown & Vessey, 2003; Davenport, 2000; Markus, Petrie, & Axline, 2000). Benefits from ES use are claimed to be significant and multidimensional, ranging from operational improvements through decision-making enhancement to support for strategic goals (Shang & Seddon, 2002). However, studies (Hanseth & Braa, 2001; Rao, 2000; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002) of the deployment of ES in private sector organizations show that the ideal is difficult to accomplish. This chapter reports a case in which a major university system in the U.S. attempted to develop an in-house enterprise system. The system is currently used by more than 4,000 individual users in almost 20 universities and state agencies. This case offers a historical analysis of the design, implementation and use of the system from its inception in the mid 1980s to the present. This case indicates that ES design and implementation in higher education are quite challenging and complex due to unique factors in the public sector—including state mandates/requirements, IT leadership/resources, value systems, and decentralized organizational structure among other things—that must be taken into account in planning, designing and implementing ES (Ernst, Katz, & Sack, 1994; Lerner, 1999; McCredie, 2000). This case highlights (1) the challenges and issues in the rationale behind “one system for everyone” and (2) some differences as well as similarities in IT management between the private and public sectors. It offers some unique opportunities to discuss issues, challenges and potential solutions for the deployment of ES in the public arena, particularly in higher education.

Enterprise System Development in Higher Education

2006 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Bongsug Chae ◽  
Marshall Scott Poole
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
System Development ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Value Systems ◽  
It Management ◽  
Enterprise System ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Strategic Goals ◽  
Private Sector Organizations

“One system for everyone” has been an ideal goal for information technology (IT) management in many large organizations, and the deployment of such systems has been a major trend in corporate world under the name of enterprise systems (ES) (Brown & Vessey, 2003; Davenport, 2000; Markus, Petrie, & Axline, 2000). Benefits from ES use are claimed to be significant and multidimensional, ranging from operational improvements through decision-making enhancement to support for strategic goals (Shang & Seddon, 2002). However, studies (Hanseth & Braa, 2001; Rao, 2000; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002) of the deployment of ES in private sector organizations show that the ideal is difficult to accomplish. This paper reports a case in which a major university system in the US attempted to develop an in-house enterprise system. The system is currently used by more than 4,000 individual users in almost 20 universities and state agencies. This case offers a historical analysis of the design, implementation and use of the system from its inception in the mid 1980s to the present. This case indicates that ES design and implementation in higher education are quite challenging and complex due to unique factors in the public sector — including state mandates/requirements, IT leadership/resources, value systems, and decentralized organizational structure among other things — that must be taken into account in planning, designing and implementing ES (Ernst, Katz, & Sack, 1994; Lerner, 1999; McCredie, 2000). This case highlights (1) the challenges and issues in the rationale behind “one system for everyone” and (2) some differences as well as similarities in IT management between the private and public sectors. It offers some unique opportunities to discuss issues, challenges and potential solutions for the deployment of ES in the public arena, particularly in higher education.

Enterprise System Development in Higher Education

2012 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Bongsug Chae ◽  
Marshall Scott Poole
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
System Development ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Value Systems ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
Enterprise System ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
It Leadership

This chapter reports a case in which a major university system in the US attempted to develop an in-house enterprise system. The system is currently used by over 4000 individual users in almost 20 universities and state agencies. This case offers a historical analysis of the design, implementation, and use of the system from its inception in the mid 1980s to the present. This case indicates that ES design and implementation in higher education is quite challenging and complex due to unique factors in the public sector—including state mandates/requirements, IT leadership/resources, value systems, and decentralized organizational structure, among other things—that must be taken into account in planning, designing, and implementing ES (Ernst, Katz, & Sack, 1994; Lerner, 1999; McCredie, 2000). This case highlights (1) the challenges and issues in the rationale behind “one system for everyone” and (2) some differences as well as similarities in IT management between the private and public sectors. It offers some unique opportunities to discuss issues, challenges, and potential solutions for the deployment of ES in the public arena, particularly in higher education.

Enterprise System Development in Higher Education

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bongsug Chae ◽  
Marshall Scott Poole
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
System Development ◽  
Enterprise System

scholarly journals U.S. National Higher Education Internationalization Policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yovana Soobrayen Veerasamy
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
National Level ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
The Public ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Higher Education Internationalization ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Multiple Actors

Situated within the context of globalization, the purpose of this historical policy analysis study is to identify and describe the ways in which multiple actors shape national higher education internationalization policy within the U.S., and to capture the emerging direction in higher education internationalization policy at the national level between 2000 and 2019. Data will be collected from multiple sources at the national level essentially from organizations within the public, private and voluntary policy-making sectors. The guiding theoretical framework for this study will rely on horizontal and vertical historical analysis. The study aims to describe (1) how policy is shaped in a pluralistic policy-making process, (2) identify factors that influenced policy trajectory, and (3) outline policy rationales between 2000 and 2019.

“Private” and “Public”; Analysis Amid Ambiguity in Higher Education

1986 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Levy
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Public Universities ◽  
Private Higher Education ◽  
Alma Mater ◽  
The Public ◽  
Behavioral Criterion ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
Desperate Attempt ◽  
The U.S

When a well-bred Yale alumnus like William F. Buckley, Jr., sardonically suggests that his alma mater donate itself to the state of Connecticut (“To tell the truth, I don’t know that anything much would happen.”), some conventional assumptions require reexamination. Chief among these is the much ballyhooed distinction between “private” and “public.” Analysis reveals serious ambiguities. We lack an agreed-upon notion of what defines our types. Different observers define the private-public split by different criteria. In fact, criteria are usually implicit and fuzzy, but even when they are explicit and clear, they vary. What defines a private institution for one observer does not do so for another. And the problem goes beyond this definitional conflict. As will be shown at least for higher education, no behavioral criterion or set of criteria consistently distinguishes institutions legally designated private from institutions legally designated public. Surely this volume’s chapters, on both schools and universities, arrive at no such criteria; instead, as discussed below, several provide evidence of increasing private-public blurring. In a desperate attempt to reassert its distinctiveness, the U.S. private higher-education sector has recently rebaptized itself “the independent sector.” The new nomenclature, while it brings private higher education under a terminological umbrella widely used by the U.S. nonprofit world, contributes nothing to definitional clarity. It is simultaneously intended to legitimize the private sector’s claim to the public dollar (by downplaying privateness) and yet to distinguish that sector from the public sector by emphasizing its autonomy from government. The first aim, of course, undermines the second. Looking abroad seems to frustrate yearnings for clear definitional usage. England, for example, long noted for its paradoxical labeling of private and public secondary education, offers an ambiguous picture at higher levels as well. All the universities, even those financed over 90% by the government, form what is still frequently called the autonomous or private sector, distinct not from public universities but from the technical sector of higher education (which is consensually considered public). Increasingly, however, one hears England’s universities identified as public.

From “Liberal Professions” to “Lucrative Professions”: Bowdoin College, Stanford University, and the Civic Functions of Higher Education

2011 ◽  
Vol 113 (7) ◽  
pp. 1566-1596
Author(s):  
Charles Dorn
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Public Good ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Stanford University ◽  
Early National Period ◽  
Reform Agenda ◽  
The Public ◽  
Bowdoin College

Background/Context Over the past three decades, Americans’ conception of higher education has shifted from a public good to a private one. Wary of colleges and universities’ increasing commodification, proponents of higher education's civic engagement have responded with a reform agenda that, they argue, reflects an earlier era during which colleges and universities enthusiastically embraced wide-ranging public purposes. Using Bowdoin College and Stanford University as cases, this study investigates: (1) whether such an era ever existed, (2) how colleges and universities articulated and enacted their civic functions, (3) whether students’ reasons for pursuing higher education aligned with institutional priorities, and (4) how, if at all, those priorities influenced graduates’ career trajectories. Purpose/Objective Although their curricular programs differed greatly, Bowdoin College (founded in 1794) and Stanford University (established in 1885) sought to “qualify” students for “direct usefulness” in life. Nevertheless, these two institutions adopted contrasting civic functions, with Bowdoin officials emphasizing graduates’ “peculiar obligations” to exert their talents “for the public good” while Stanford University's founders asserted that the “object” of their university was “to qualify its students for personal success.” What led to this shift in higher education's central purpose? Research Design Historical analysis of two cases—Bowdoin College and Stanford University—during their founding decades. Conclusions/Recommendations This study contends that during the early national period, America's social ethos was infused by preferences and attitudes that rewarded civic virtue and a commitment to the public good—what political theorists and historians have come to collectively call “republicanism.” By the late 19th century, however, political, economic, and social forces, including the rise of commercialism and the development of an urban, industrial, class-stratified society, refashioned this ethos into one that emphasized citizens’ personal advancement at least as much as the common good. As a result, colleges and universities’ institutional priorities, as well as students’ reasons for engaging in higher learning, changed over time.

scholarly journals Students’ Perceptions of Public vs. Private Higher Education Institution Brand Value in Croatia

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (17) ◽  
pp. 9767
Author(s):  
Martina Ostojić ◽  
Mirna Leko Šimić
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Market Competition ◽  
Market Value ◽  
Education Institution ◽  
Transition Process ◽  
Private Higher Education ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Value Perceptions ◽  
Private And Public

Due to the transition process in Croatia that started about three decades ago, higher education institutions (HEIs) are forced to intensively involve themselves in market competition and become market and entrepreneurial oriented in order to keep up with new trends in higher education. The branding process in HEIs has become one of the major activities in creating value and gaining market position in many countries, including Croatia. The aim of this study is to provide a deeper insight into and understanding of differences in brand market value perceptions of students of public and private HEIs in Croatia. Altogether, 443 students (242 from a public HEI and 201 from a private HEI) responded to a questionnaire based on Aaker’s model of brand equity, from which a t-test and a correlation analysis showed that the public HEI was significantly better only in the dimension of other proprietary brand assets, while in the private HEI all other dimensions of brand market value were evaluated better. However, brand market value itself was significantly higher in the public sector HEI, mainly due to the perception of “value for money” and functional benefits, i.e., employability. The study identified several factors that need to be taken into account when branding private and public HEIs in Croatia.

scholarly journals Private And Public Sector Ethics

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clinton H. Richards ◽  
William Corney
Keyword(s):  
Private Sector ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Perceptions ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mba Program ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Private Sector Organizations ◽  
Public And Private Sector

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 34.2pt 0pt 0.5in; tab-stops: center 3.25in; mso-hyphenate: none;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Differences between public and private-sector organizations were proposed to lead to different ethical perceptions, principles and judgments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>As expected, employees working in the public and private sector and enrolled in a night MBA program did display significantly different ethical judgments that appeared to be partially, but not completely explained by significant differences in the ethical principles they reported emphasizing. Ethical decision-making models suggest, as we do, that differing ethical perceptions also played a part in the different judgments found.</span></p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document