Getting The Dialog Started

Being real about the outcomes of the decision

For me to make the following statements about the various outcomes of the decision to shut down the CS major, I make these assumptions: 1) technology cannot exist today, and will not exist tomorrow without computer science, 2) the CS major will no longer be offered after the close of the current school year, and 3) the CS major validates and is at the core of viewing WWU as a well-rounded and viable technology center.

The outcomes are grouped by the likelihood, or probability of occurrence.

1. Certain Outcomes:
   • all CS majors will leave immediately
   • some CE majors will leave immediately
   • future engineering CE enrollment will drop
2. Likely Outcomes:
   • WWU's engineering reputation diminishes, driving an overall drop in engineering enrollment
   • competent technical workers for local SDA institutions get even harder to find
   • all technology majors see a drop in enrollment -- why attend a school that does not even acknowledge, much less value, the importance of technology incubation?
3. Possible Outcomes:
   • all science majors see a drop in enrollment -- Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics are all affected

Looking at the actual problem

1. Is it really just a numbers game? -- is enrollment really the core issue?

   How much is the shortfall? How many majors would it take so that there is enough enrollment? Would computer engineers switching majors solve the immediate problem of "my excel spreadsheet shows the cs department in the red, time to send the closure notice"

   PROPOSAL: Approach each department under the microscope on a case by case basis -- engaging the department, current students, and the alumni. Play to the strengths of the department.

2. If the true issue is financial, why are solutions that affect the revenue stream considered before solutions that only affect overhead? Shutting down the CS major is a quick action which begs the context of a cash flow problem, and does not correlate with normal budget forecasting procedures.

   There are 2 types of financial hardships: 1) Cash flow and 2) Budget forecasting. You must deal with the problems very differently.

   Cash flow problems are mostly short term but extremely high priority and will always end in disaster if the are not addressed quickly. They require immediate action. Think of it as trying to keep the boat afloat after hitting an iceberg.

   Budget forecasting problems are more complex, but also ultimately more manageable due to their more extended timeframes. They do require attention, but the problem solving involved is best when drawn out over a longer period of time to allow context to mold the solution. Think of it as taking steps to avoid icebergs in the first place.

Considerations

1. Consider collaboration as a viable solution

   I worked at and was pivotal in the success of INHS and have a good deal of experience getting the machinery of business working more efficiently. Here are some bullet points to consider:

   • A LOT of money and time is wasted on actions duplicated, sometimes 20-50 times, between different segments of the organization. [For example: Printing a report, sending it to another department, who enters it into another system so that someone else print a report, which is sent to another department, who enters it into yet another system so that yet another person can print yet another report.]
   • Most workers don't have the perspective to see their inherent inefficiencies, much less come up with valid solutions. That is, even if their boss would listen, the likelihood of actual change is slim.
   • An organization's management structure is ultimately responsible for the inertial stasis, directly proportional to the organization's size, that both opposes change both directly and indirectly -- changes that are necessary to improve both overall and localized efficiency.

   Why isn't there a discussion about core collaboration with other schools like what the hospitals have figured out:

   1. Why does each institution have to duplicate spending money implementing REALLY expensive management software?
   2. Why does each institution have to duplicate spending money on maintaining mission critical information systems?
   3. Could there be any benefits to having data sharing be standard operating procedure instead of an exception?