Vol. XII No. 2 November/December 1999 · Vol. XII No. 2 November/December 1999 From The Faculty Chair — Page 4 d'Arbeloff Fund: Call for Proposals — Page 16 A Day in the Life

Vol. XII No. 2 November/December 1999

From The Faculty Chair — Page 4d'Arbeloff Fund: Call for Proposals — Page 16

A Day in the Life of CAES — Page 28MIT at Crossroads — Page 32

Y2K Team: The Horseless Carriage — Page 34Also: Letters; M.I.T. Numbers

Contents — Page 2

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MIT’s Reengineering Project – with capital letterson the “R” and the “P” – technically endedJune 30, 1999. The Faculty Newsletter has asked

me to write about whether Reengineering was a success, afailure, or something in between. I worked on the Projectfor its last several years as the head of the CommunityInvolvement team and have written regularly aboutReengineering for this and other campus publications.

My personal view is that although MIT’s Reengineeringeffort accomplished some critical work in improvingadministrative processes, we were not able to achieve allof the Project goals. I think it’s safe to say that everythingMIT tried to do in the Reengineering effort was harder andtook longer than anticipated. And even thoughReengineering is over, MIT is still very much in transition.Tools such as SAP have not been easy to use, and thelearning curve has been steep. In fact, some administratorswould probably tell you they have more work now thanthey did before Reengineering began. But it’s also importantto note that the various tools initially provided byReengineering continue to improve, and staff throughoutthe Institute are becoming more adept at utilizing them.

There is certainly more to be done to simplify andimprove the quality of administrative procedures at MITand some of that work, such as in Financial SystemsServices (FSS) and in the human resources area, continues.

Annals of Reengineering

Reengineering is OverBut Change is Not

Janet Snover

(Continued on Page 18)

FNL: There’s a perception at MIT that there has been adiminution in the quality of life. Years ago, the faculty had$800 towards travel to a scientific meeting once a year.That’s disappeared. We once had free parking on campus.There was a slight fee and it increased at one point, but nowthe subsidy has essentially disappeared. It was once easyto find a parking space. Now if you go away in the middleof the day and come back, forget about it. There’s someperception that building services have not been quite asgood as they used to be. Some of this comes under facilitiesand services, all of whose people report to you. So wewonder two things. One, what’s your general read on thisperception? Of course, you don’t have the history here, soit’s hard for you to make a comparison. And two, to whatextent does the quality of life of the faculty enter into yourdecision-making process?

CURRY: It’s got to be critical to that process in many ways.I have to think broadly as well about the quality of life forour staff and students on the campus, and how what we doaffects that. I have learned as much history as I couldabsorb in my 10 months here and can’t speak very well forhow the past was. I think we have some work ahead of usto improve the overall look and cleanliness of the campus.And parking is a tough issue. Our operating context is theCity of Cambridge, and I am just coming to understand

Interview with Executive VicePresident John R. Curry

The following Faculty Newsletter (FNL) interview withJohn Curry (CURRY) took place on September 23, 1999.

(Continued on Page 7)

MIT Faculty Newsletter Vol. XII No. 2

- 2 -

MIT Faculty Newsletter

Editorial Board

Nazli Choucri(Political Science)Ernst G. Frankel(Ocean Engineering)*Jean E. Jackson(Anthropology)Gordon Kaufman(Management Science & Statistics)Daniel S. Kemp(Chemistry)Jonathan King(Biology)*Lawrence M. Lidsky(Nuclear Engineering)*Stephen J. Lippard(Chemistry)*Fred Moavenzadeh(Civil Engineering)Merritt Roe Smith(Science, Technology, & Society)David Thorburn(Literature)

*Editorial Committee for this issue.

David LewisManaging Editor

Address: MIT Faculty Newsletter, Bldg. N52-419aCambridge, MA 02139; (617) 253-7303.

E-Mail: [email protected]: 617-253-0458Website: http://web.mit.edu/fnl

Subscriptions: $15/year On-Campus$20/year Off-Campus

Contents

Peggy Enders is Associate Dean and Co-Director,Office of Academic Services.Richard C. Larson is Professor of Electrical Engineering;Director, Center for Advanced Educational Services.Steven R. Lerman is Professor of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering; Faculty Chair.David Pooley is a graduate student, Course 8; Member,MIT Choice.Helen Samuels is Staff to the MIT Council onEducational Technology.Janet Snover is Special Assistant to the Executive VicePresident.Gayle C. Willman is a member of MIT's Y2K Team.

Authors

Interview with Executive Vice PresidentJohn R. Curry 1

Annals of ReengineeringReengineering is Over But Change is Not 1

EditorialYou're O.K. We're ??? 3

From The Faculty ChairPartnerships and Faculty Governance 4

The d'Arbeloff FundImproving the First-Year Experience at MIT:A Call for Preliminary Proposals 16

A Week in the Life of CAES(Center for Advanced Educational Services) 28

LettersEngineering Systems; Feedback; YourWonderful Meditations Article; A Sore Thing 30

MIT at Crossroads Over Housing Decision 32

The Year 2000 TeamThe Horseless Carriage Revisited 34

M.I.T. Numbers 36

MIT Faculty Newsletter November/December 1999

- 3 -

Editorial

The July, 1999 Report from theHASS (Humanities, Arts andSocial Sciences) Overview

Committee requested by the CUP(Committee on the UndergraduateProgram) is available on the HASSOffice Website, at: <http://web.mit.edu/hass/review/>.✥

We’re beginning to hit ourstride. This issue of theFaculty Newsletter

exemplifies almost everything wehoped to achieve when we started theNewsletter. We have an interview withan important new member of theadministration regarding matters thatwill affect the Institute (p. 1): aninformal, collegial conversation thatpresents new information and clearlyinvites further discussion. We have avery thoughtful analysis of thecontroversial Reengineering Projectby someone who had a key overviewof the whole project (p. 1). This willprobably not be the last word on thistopic.

The Faculty Chair (p. 4) has roomfor a discussion of the impacts oflarge-scale Partnership arrangementson the mission and culture of theInstitute. He bruits a proposal of a newcommittee to structure and monitorfuture partnership agreements. Theproposal is at an early enough stagethat concerned faculty can bring theircomments to the Faculty PolicyCommittee before the committee ischarged and staffed. We’ve got areport by one of our colleagues(Richard Larson, in this case) onsomething he thinks will be of interestto us (p. 28). We have a student usingthe FNL as a medium to reach thefaculty on an issue of interest to him(p. 32). At last, our Letters section(p. 30) is becoming seen as a usefulforum for debate and “correction” ona smaller scale than article length, aswell as an easy way to bring matters to

broader attention. Where else can yougripe about the photocopiers in ourlibraries and have a reasonable chanceto achieve at least sympathy, andpossibly even improvement?

There’s more in this issue and morethat was squeezed out for lack ofroom. Teach Talk, a very popularseries on the art of teaching, willreappear in the next issue. We can’tpredict the occasional essay, travelreport, poem, or rant. We print themwhen we get them, and our colleaguesare generally very appreciative.

There’s also more than meets theeye, at least in hard copy. The FNLnow appears on-line simultaneouslywith hard-copy distribution: <http://web.mit.edu/fnl>. The on-line issueoften has expanded content, via linksto original sources and data. We havealso archived the FNL, with all issuesback to September 1991 on-line.Issues dated May/June 1991 andearlier are available in hard-copy andsoon to be on-line as well.

We have unfinished matters. Weneed to broaden, or at least turn over,membership of our Editorial Boardwhile maintaining the open accessvoluntary nature of the Board. Wehave to find a way to attract moreunsolicited articles. We’d really liketo get a contributing artist or two. Allin all, however, we think the work weput into the FNL is well worth theeffort, and we think we have shownthat our unique form of governancereally works. Now we need to know ifyou agree. We’re conducting a surveyof the faculty, with responses solicited

either by e-mail or on our Website:<ht tp : / / tu te .mi t .edu/ fn l /www/faculty_survey.html>. A generale-mail distribution to the faculty willcome your way in a few days. Pleaserespond: it may be spam, but at leastit’s not about money or sex. Both thee-mail and Website will invite detailedcomments. We have two goals for thesurvey. The first is to demonstrate, ifwe can, that the FNL makes ameasurable contribution to theInstitute. The second is to tap thefaculty for good ideas.

Finally, we can not resist thetemptation to remind you that the mostcertain way to change the FacultyNewsletter is to do it yourself.Contribute an article or join the Board.You’ll be among friends.✥

Editorial Committee

You're O.K. We're ???

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

CUP Requested ReportNow Available


- 4 -

From The Faculty Chair

Partnerships and Faculty GovernanceSteven R. Lerman

(Continued on next page)

What do Amgen, Dupont,Ford, Singapore, Microsoft,Nippon Telegraph and

Telephone, Cambridge University,Merrill Lynch, and Merck have incommon? The answer is, us. Each ofthese organizations has signed eithera memorandum of understanding or acontract to form a major alliance withMIT. These alliances differ in variousways, but they all fund a variety ofresearch and educational initiatives.Our ties to Microsoft and CambridgeUniversity were announced thisacademic year, and it is safe to assumethat there will be more such agreementsin the future.

These new relationships differ from“business as usual” for MIT in severalways:

• scale – They are large scale, multi-year relationships, generally on theorder of $5 million per year or, insome cases, considerably more. Whilewe have had research funding fromgovernmental sources of this scale(and larger) in the past, most of ourearlier industry and foreign fundinghas been much smaller.

• external visibility – Eachrelationship links us with a partner ina way that is highly visible.

• senior administration involvement– Each involved substantial work ofthe senior administration, and manywere first initiated by theadministration. This contrasts withtraditional research funding fromsources such as NSF, which is grantedthrough peer review of proposals fromindividual or small groups of faculty.

• confidential negotiations – Ourindustrial and governmental partnersin these new relationships generallywant their negotiations with us to be

confidential before an agreement (orat least a memorandum of under-standing) is finalized. They areunderstandably concerned that thepublicity of a more public negotiationwould be difficult to manage and mightmake reaching any agreement withMIT impossible. Our partners oftenface sensitive political issues that mustbe carefully handled and that couldnot be realistically dealt with in apublic negotiation.

In the past, MIT has entered intoagreements with other organizationswhere some of the above has beentrue. The large number of recentagreements in which virtually all ofthese issues have been important,signals the emergence of a new modelof research funding, called strategicpartnerships. We at MIT have, in fact,invented a distinct, new mode forsupporting our core mission ofeducation and research.

But having invented something new,we, as a faculty, need to understandthe rewards and risks of strategicpartnerships, and, as importantly,invent the appropriate governancemechanisms that maximize the benefitsand minimize the risks.

Let me begin with the obviousbenefits of strategic partnerships. Inan era of flat, or in many fieldsdeclining, research support, strategicpartnerships offer an infusion of stable,large-scale funding. When appro-priately constructed, these relation-ships can engage us in important newareas of inquiry that might otherwiselanguish. The truth is that research isexpensive, and without funding it oftencannot be done.

In addition, there are considerablebenefits in diversifying our funding

sources. Any system totally dependenton support from a single source – theU.S. government – is arguablyunstable. It is unlikely that there willcome a time when our governmentisn’t the single largest source offunding for on-campus research.However, with some imagination, onecan envision a future in which asmuch as half of on-campus researchcomes from a wide range of othersources. In my view, as long as ourcontractual relationships with theseother sources are consonant with ourcore values as an educational institution,a more diversified set of sources wouldbe far better than our current over-dependence on the federal treasury.

Beyond the sheer monetaryadvantages of these partnerships, theyoffer the potential for working on newproblems of real relevance to society.Corporations are the means by whichdiscoveries and innovations aremigrated from interesting science toaffordable products and services. Thisis how new drug treatments becomeactual pharmaceutical products andhow electronics innovations becomenew computers and communicationstechnologies. Working collaborativelyon long-term ideas with industrialpartners can accelerate this process ofadoption of innovations. Our industrialpartners can provide real-worldexamples of product design anddiffusion that can enhance the qualityof our educational programs.

Our partnerships with foreignuniversities and the governmentalsponsors of those relationships reflectthe globalization of knowledge andresearch. These relationships offer ourfaculty and students real experience


- 5 -

with different places and cultures thatwould be difficult to obtain otherwise.The Cambridge University partnership,for example, will offer as many as 50MIT undergraduates the opportunityto study at Cambridge each year. Mostof the agreements involve informalexchange of visits and, in some cases,deep engagement of our faculty andstudents with counterparts in ourpartners’ organizations.

The risk side of strategic partnershipsis more complicated. By its verynature, industry wants to seemeasurable benefits from itsexpenditures. Funding research at MITrequires those companies to sustain along-term view of such benefits. Asan institution, we are not, and shouldnot be, set up to respond to quarterlyor annual profit measurements or rateof return calculations.

Our tradition of publiclydisseminating new discoveries isintegral to our mission and culture.Any relationship that undermines thiscore value threatens the very nature ofthe research university. Our currentagreements with our strategic partnersreflect this by ensuring complete rightsto publish our work and disseminate itwidely. However, in the future theremay arise forces that require us to bevigilant in sustaining that tradition.

The need for these relationships tobe negotiated in relative secrecy posesyet another threat. MIT makesdecisions through a complicatedbalance between administrativeleadership and consultation with thefaculty. We, the faculty, havetraditionally accepted that the senioradministration should have theauthority and flexibility needed tomove the university in directions thatserve our long-term interests. In turn,the senior administration historically

engages the faculty in seriousdiscussion whenever major decisionsare being made. This careful, andlargely implicit, balance of powershas served us well, and the occasionalfaculty-administration disputes thathave arisen have almost always comeabout when this social contract wasviolated.

Still another potential side effect ofstrategic partnerships, is that thefaculty’s involvement in them maytake time away from other activities,particularly ones focused on ourcurrent base of residential students.Faculty time is our scarcest resource,

and we should make sure it is beingdedicated to activities that best serveour mission. Some partnerships mayactually free up faculty time byreducing the resources we put intoseeking funding from other sources;others may divert attention from ourcore mission. We need to judge eachone separately on its individualmerits.

It is clear (at least to me) thatnegotiation of major strategicpartnerships will require a somewhatdifferent model of faculty-administration balance. Generally,these agreements reach the faculty as“done deals” rather than as “works inprogress,” with consultations limitedto the chair of the faculty (through

membership on the AcademicCouncil) and circumspect discussionswith small groups of faculty who aredirectly involved in the partnerships.Our more open style of consultation inthe regular faculty committee structureor in open debates at faculty meetingswon’t work particularly well in creatingstrategic partnerships. We need a newgovernance mechanism that strikes areasonable and realistic balancebetween the need for confidentialityin the early phases of partnershipformation and the legitimate role ofconsultation with the faculty in majordecisions.

I have discussed this issueextensively with members of the senioradministration, and they agree that weneed to build a better way of engagingthe faculty in these partnerships beforethey are finalized. I propose we do thisby creating a subcommittee of theFaculty Policy Committee that wouldbe part of any negotiation processinvolving strategic partnerships. Thegroup would operate as follows:

• The subcommittee would beappointed by the chair of the facultyand would consist of both members ofthe Faculty Policy Committee and othersenior faculty members.

• Once formed, the subcommitteewould develop a statement of principles

Partnerships and FacultyGovernance

Lerman, from preceding page


The risk side of strategic partnerships is more complicated.By its very nature, industry wants to see measurablebenefits from its expenditures. Funding research at MITrequires those companies to sustain a long-term view ofsuch benefits. As an institution, we are not, and should notbe, set up to respond to quarterly or annual profitmeasurements or rate of return calculations.


- 6 -

to guide the formation of futurepartnerships. This would be done inan open process and would involveboth graduate and undergraduatestudent representatives. The sub-committee would seek views of theentire community and present theresulting principles to the faculty as awhole.

• When a negotiation with a new,potential strategic partner is started,we would inform the potential partnerthat the subcommittee would beinvolved in reviewing the proposedrelationship. The subcommittee wouldwork under the same non-disclosurerules that anyone else involved in thediscussions would be bound to. The

involvement of subcommittee mem-bers would include discussions withthe senior administration well beforeany memorandum of understandingor contract is entered into.

• If there remain significantdisagreements between the sub-committee and the administration overthe acceptability of the proposed termsin the strategic partnership, then theentire Faculty Policy Committee wouldbe used to further discuss the proposedagreement. This would bring a widerarray of faculty, student, and staffviews into the discussion.

• We should periodically re-

examine our strategic partnerships todecide when each should be ended.Any partnership involves acommitment of the faculty’s time andenergy, and our priorities may shiftover time.

• The development of the principlesfor strategic partnerships wouldinvolve the entire MIT community.However, it is my view that workingwith confidential information inreviewing specific, proposedpartnerships may be one of those rareareas that should not involve studentrepresentatives. My primary reasonfor this has nothing to do with students’abilities to contribute to the discussion;in fact, having student input would be

extraordinarily useful. Rather, studentsshouldn’t be involved in specificnegotiations because I do not think itis healthy for them to have to signnon-disclosure agreements as part oftheir involvement in MIT governance.It places serious restrictions on theirability to work effectively for futureemployers who may be competitorsto, or regulators of, our strategicpartners. I fully understand that manystudents do sign non-disclosureagreements in various summer jobs.That is unfortunate, but it at least isn’tsomething that MIT directly requiresof them. The students I have spoken

Partnerships and FacultyGovernance

Lerman, from preceding page

with about this have widely varyingopinions, and further discussion mayprovide some compromise solutionthat retains the benefits of studentinvolvement without compromisingtheir future employment opportunities.

This proposal leaves open thequestion of how, after suchconsultation, irreconcilable differencesof opinion between the faculty and theadministration might be resolved. Thisisn’t a unique situation for MIT’sgovernance system, and it rarelycauses significant problems. As aninstitution, such issues are resolved inpart by good faith negotiations and inpart by a clear understanding that MITworks best when the administrationleads in directions that the facultywants to go anyway. Ultimately, anymajor divergence of views might beresolved through the involvement ofthe Corporation. One of MIT’s bestfeatures is that such mechanisms rarelyneed to be used, and everyoneunderstands that something has goneseriously wrong when they are needed.

In my view, we have alreadydemonstrated that we can createstrategic partnerships that are whollyconsistent with our traditions of openresearch and dissemination of newknowledge. MIT is uniquely positionedto create strategic partnerships, andour recent experience suggests thatthere is a wide array of opportunitiesfor us in this new arena. We alreadyhave invaluable experience. Withsome further fine-tuning thatinstitutionalizes governance processesto ensure we continue to remain trueto our mission, this expertise will bean enormous comparative advantagethat will allow us to continue our leader-ship role among research universities.✥[Steven R. Lerman can be reached [email protected]]

This proposal leaves open the question of how, after suchconsultation, irreconcilable differences of opinionbetween the faculty and the administration might beresolved. . . . As an institution, such issues are resolved inpart by good faith negotiations and in part by a clearunderstanding that MIT works best when theadministration leads in directions that the faculty wantsto go anyway.


- 7 -

through permitting processes, among other activities, justhow much focus there is on traffic and parking. And I mustsay that sometimes we were looked at by others as havinglow parking rates, and thereby encouraging traffic in thecity, when many people in the city would like to discouragepeople driving their cars and instead coming to work onthe T or another way. So I think we have a real balancingact in front of us in how we retain sufficient parking herefor our faculty and our staff and how we balance thepressing issues of the city. Coming from L.A., I’maccustomed to high institutional parking rates. I paidextraordinary parking rates, as did everyone. We need tothoroughly think through relationships among number ofparking spaces, how we charge for parking, and how wefacilitate other kinds of travel, perhaps through increasedsubsidies for T travel. At this point, I’m much more awareof the problems than I am of the solutions.

FNL: What precipitated a 20% increase in this year’sparking fee?

CURRY: Fairly simple. When Bill Dickson [former SeniorVice President] introduced the parking fee, (this is whereI do understand some history), he said that it should be heldconstant for a specific period, which was three or fouryears; after which one should expect an increase of 5% ayear cumulatively. And that time came. Let me mentionone other thing. We have very little capability through ourcharging mechanisms for parking to reinvest in and refurbisha parking garage. We have some great problems, forexample, with the East garage and the Albany garage. Andso one would like to see some resources available throughthe parking revenues themselves, not necessarily throughthe general fund, that would enable us to keep thosefacilities in better shape, and we just don’t have theresources to do that. So in fact our parking infrastructure,primarily the garages, is in a pretty sad state. There hasbeen a very thoughtful parking committee on the campusthat has taken a hard look at these issues. Frankly, Ianticipate a much larger agenda in the coming year to tryto pull many things together.

FNL: One of the prominent issues is the failure to recognizethat the salary disparity at the Institute is extraordinary. Wecharge heads of laboratories the same parking fee asincoming secretaries.

CURRY: This issue should be considered. One thing thatI have learned is that huge numbers of people who worknear the Kendall Square station use the T to get to work.And I do know, but I can’t quote the amount, that we havean incentive program for people who need to use the T, andthis came about some time ago. It’s certainly not foreverybody. It probably depends on things like the numberof changes between train lines that you have to make, andother factors. But we are under considerable pressure fromthe City to encourage the use of public transportation toreduce the flow of traffic into and out of Cambridge. Thisis also a function of the fact that development in the areais substantially greater than it used to be, especially as youlook to the north of campus. That, too, brought with ittraffic and parking issues that we have to deal with.

FNL: You mentioned the infrastructure of the garages, andthat brings up sort of a general, physical plant question. Inyour time here, what has been your assessment of theinfrastructure, particularly with respect to buildings andgrounds, and what are your plans? How are you attackingthe problem of finding out what buildings need to berepaired, replaced? Is the East garage safe? Are the buildingssafe? You can walk along the Chemistry building and seeexposed steel girders.

CURRY: I’ve seen them. Let’s say this: We have a significantproblem and I think we have a pretty good handle on it. Wehad, before my arrival, a very thorough study of all of ourbuildings and ratings of where they stand between optimumfunctionality and their present position. And it’s a seriousproblem, there’s no question about it. You can see it in theexterior of the Chemistry building, for example. You cansee it in many buildings’ interiors. You can see it lookingat the windows of the main group. So, yes, you can see it.I will say what has been done to date. We have the study.In the initiatives that Chuck Vest has announced, whichinclude the tuition benefit for Ph.D. students on grants insummer and the presidential fellowships, we have$20 million a year to contribute to the deferred maintenanceproblem, which is a serious amount of money compared towhat it was, which was very, very little.

FNL: What was the previous number, do you know?

CURRY: The previous number was $4 to $5 million.

Interview with ExecutiveVice President John R. Curry

Continued from Page 1



- 8 -

FNL: So it’s going up by a factor of four or five.

CURRY: Yes. And in fact we have supplemented that inthe present year with additional financing to kick startsome critical projects. One of the large projects, as youknow, is the Chemistry building. Also, we have ranked ourdeferred maintenance issues with respect to things likesafety, where we know, for example, that given facilitiesneed renovations in their fire safety programs or haveother safety-related issues. We are starting there first.

FNL: What about the mechanical safety of buildings? Hasthat been considered?

CURRY: It has been evaluated, yes. And from what I’veseen and what I’ve read, we are comfortable today, but wedo know where we need to put our first-order efforts. Sothe good news is we have comprehensively reviewed all ofthe buildings on the campus and have good documentationof what needs to be done. We have prioritized the work andkick started the deferred maintenance program. Nowthere’s more work that needs to be done, and sometimesit’s hard to get a feeling that you’re getting ahead of this,because some areas will not be treated immediately andwill continue to show their signs of age. The biggest singleproblem we saw in this study is how many of our buildingswere constructed in a relatively short period of time andturned 30 years old at roughly the same time, which isbasically the life cycle time for HVAC systems and all ofthe infrastructure supporting the buildings. One of theexamples is the Chemistry building.

FNL: Sort of changing the subject a little bit, what aboutvehicular traffic on campus? It has long been a problem,from the day in which Paul Gray was nearly struck by avehicle on his way from the President’s house to his office,until today, where there’s a constant battle to limit andcontrol the number of vehicles on campus. With theforthcoming renovations, it seems like that’s only going toget worse. Has there been a study of that?

CURRY: Yes. And we have not solved it, but we have avery active study under way of how traffic will flow whenwe have the Stata site, for example, under construction,and when we have another site to the west on Vassar Street,the undergraduate residence, under construction. We shouldalso note that we are not in total control of our destiny here.

The city and the state will be tearing up a major portion ofMassachusetts Avenue, probably during our constructionperiod, to replace the storm drains. It’s a much-neededreplacement, as you can tell by some of the flooding on thiscampus because the storm drains simply can’t carry thewater. When we include the fact that Massachusetts Avenuewill be under major repair, I think we will have a serioustraffic problem to try to manage and solve. Some of ourissues with parking and with each new building that comesonline are in the traffic studies that we have to review withthe city. Those traffic studies are as much for our benefitas they are for the city’s benefit in thinking through flowson the campus and in particular, in thinking through howwe cope through the construction periods. I don’t have ananswer for you yet. I can’t tell you what the traffic patternswill be, but we are painfully aware of the potential problems.

FNL: The delivery of certain supplies like compressedliquefied gases has brought 18 wheelers onto the campus.

CURRY: A lot of them are right out here, too. [LAUGHTER]You can hear them daily. BOC is a set of initials I’velearned to know well.

FNL: In other institutions and corporations they find waysto bring supplies in and store them in a central location –and this also includes waste, which is an increasingproblem – and then pipe them in and out, which would, ofcourse, require a huge infrastructure cost, but in terms ofeffectiveness it’s really spectacular. You don’t see peopledelivering individual tanks of gases to any individuallaboratories or liquefied gases or taking wastes out ofindividual laboratories. It all goes through piped areas tocentral storehouses.

CURRY: Let me say first order, that that seems like a dreamwe may not realize in the foreseeable future, because it’san extraordinarily costly one. Creating a whole newinfrastructure of its own, actually. But with the advent ofnew buildings on campus and traffic issues, we are lookingat materials handling in a serious way. First of all, it wouldsurely be desirable to get the large trucks off the malls. Andwe have to think about it systematically. It appears we mayhave thought about materials handling one location at atime. But the amount of construction that we wouldanticipate on the campus in the next several years and the


Continued from preceding page



- 9 -

frequency with which key areas are being developed,provide an opportunity to focus on the broad issues ofmaterials handling, everything from gases to paperdeliveries to chemical supplies.

FNL: What is the construction schedule for this? What arethe definite projects, definite go and then the order inwhich they’re going to come down? Which ones areconsidered on hold? Which ones are being eliminated?

CURRY: I gave a brief talk at the faculty meeting last weekon that subject. The things that are “go” right now, withoutperfectly precise start dates, are the undergraduate residenceon Vassar Street, which is about halfway betweenMassachusetts Avenue and where Vassar Street ends onMemorial Drive at the river; and the Stata Complex at thecorner of Vassar and Main.

FNL: And the residence will be to the south of the railroadtracks?

CURRY: Yes. To the south of the tracks, but north of andfacing Vassar Street. And that is a definite go.

FNL: How big is that building?

CURRY: It will house about 350 students and will havefive faculty apartments in it, as well as two suites for facultymaster and faculty associate master. And then it will havesome rather wonderful common spaces for students andfaculty to gather, and in fact for others around the campusto enjoy. And it’s scheduled to start late this fall and to openin September 2001. That’s a very fast track. And there’s alot of pressure around it.

FNL: We know why.

CURRY: Well, I guess we do. It’s very fast track, yet we donot control all of the components. I mean, on issues ofpermitting and traffic and those kinds of things, we dothem one at a time. Stata is the other project moving rapidlyforward; it is in, as they say, design development. We’veseen the schematic design, which is on the picture over atthe corner of Main and Vassar.

FNL: The question is, will the picture have faded beforethe first hole gets dug? [LAUGHTER]

CURRY: Well, it may. We’ve started the hole by taking thetop off the hole; we have one of the big gravel fields outthere now, and you’ll probably see the hole some timearound the dawn of the new millennium. This is a somewhatlonger construction project, looking more like 2002, 2003as an opening date. It’s a very large building, very complex.

FNL: Will there be any disruption for faculty parking in theEast garage during that construction?

CURRY: No. It won’t be quite as easy to get in, but thegarage will live through the construction. I’m thinking thatthis is a personally relevant question? [LAUGHTER]

FNL: For probably 400 faculty. . .

CURRY: That’s right. Now, those buildings are the twothat are right up front and center on our radar screen. Thereare attendant projects that go with that. We do not have thecapacity for steam and chilled water to serve the increasedsquare footage that these two buildings would bring, andtherefore we have some major work to do on the energycorridor on Vassar Street, where the co-gen plant is, thechilled water facility is. That’s probably going to causesome construction bother along that portion of the street.And that’s fairly major.

FNL: Can you take the co-gen plant off-line on December31st this year?

CURRY: Meaning off the grid?

FNL: Right.

CURRY: We’re thinking about it.

FNL: We think that would be very wise.

CURRY: We are thinking about it. I can tell you a couplethings —

FNL: I don’t know how many of us are going to drive inhere with our families in the hope of finding heat andwarmth. [LAUGHTER] We’re wondering how many peoplemight walk in.





- 10 -

CURRY: We do have a pretty extensive Y2K programunderway. We know that our energy facilities are compliant.We’ve run them with forwarded clocks; we’ve reviewedthe embedded chips; we’re confident that they’ll be workingproperly. We are told with confidence that our suppliers ofenergy are compliant, but it’s important to know, amongother things, that our co-gen plant will run on both oil andgas, and we want to be doubly secure so we will have amaximum supply of stored fuel oil for that time period.

FNL: How long will it run on the maximum supply?

CURRY: Maximum supply, seven days. You should knowthat we are already lining up suppliers and orders for stand-by trucks to get ourselves in the queue if there is an issuewith respect to electricity delivery or gas delivery to thecampus. That’s one of the things. So we expect that one torun. There are always worries if you’re running on a gridthat you could import somebody else’s Y2K problem, andthat’s been looked at pretty carefully. I think we’re nowfairly confident, though, that the local energy systems willbe up; but we will be there for the whole weekend. We’llstart early and we’ll stay through around the fourth with allkinds of technologically talented people. I did say somethingthe other day in a meeting, though, that is amazing to me.In the time in our lives when we will be among the fewpeople on earth ever to witness the turn of a century and theturn of a millennium, an awful lot of us are going to beworking on New Year’s Eve. [LAUGHTER] Rather thandrinking the champagne of a lifetime.

FNL: It appears the Institute has been very extensive in itsY2K preparation.

CURRY: We have been all over our enterprise systems. Wehave provided a service from an outside company to lookat the embedded chips in the equipment across the campus,and where they can, to do serial number match-ups withdata they have that tells them when the equipment wasmade, whether it’s compliant, etc.

FNL: If not MIT, then who else? Because if somethinghorrible happens here, the embarrassment factor would beenormous.

CURRY: It would be enormous, and the only thing aboutit is that surely others will have bigger embarrassments,

except they won’t have an IT at the end of their initials.We’ve also looked at 800 vendors who provide us withkey supplies and have done our best to get positiveaffirmation from them that they are Y2K compliant. It’sbeen an extensive effort.

FNL: Back to the construction: are there some old projectsthat you’d like to tell us about?

CURRY: We had considered starting, as early as lastsummer, a central athletics facility.

FNL: Wasn’t there a multi-million dollar donation for theswimming pool? I don’t remember the exact numbers.

CURRY: There is a key donation that seeded fundraisingfor that building but we put it on hold last year, althoughwe committed to going forward with design developmentbecause we wanted to take some time to raise more moneyfor it. Pending the fundraising success on that building, it’sscheduled to start next summer. Now, what else can wetalk about?

FNL: What about the concept of a teaching center?

CURRY: It would be good to talk to [Provost] Bob Brownabout that. Let me tell you my understanding, but I’m lessthan confident in what I’m saying. As part of the Stata site,where the garage is now, there is a site for a teaching andlearning center, as I’ve seen it named. And there’s even asketch of a design for it that’s a Lego block shape thatoccasionally you will see when you look at a three-dimensional mockup of the Stata Center. East garage isscheduled to come down after the Stata complex is finished.

FNL: Is the garage going to be reconstructed underground?

CURRY: There are two thoughts right now about thegarage. There’s an Albany site that has a garage designedfor it that could constitute the replacement parking. Andthere’s active consideration of the potential of parkingunder the Stata complex itself. And we haven’t reached aconclusion on the two. And there are important pros andcons of each. Although the proximity of the undergroundparking and the aesthetic character of it, which is to say itis out of sight, have some positive components to them.





- 11 -

The flip side, of course, is that underground parking isquite expensive to design and build. [Editor’s note:Underground parking has now been approved for Stata.]

FNL: Let’s make a big switch to MIT Medical. What doyou foresee in the future there? There are some quality oflife issues, such as long delays in getting appointments. Atremendously large increase in the number of people whobelong to MIT Medical has put pressure on the physicianswho work there. We know that the Lexington site hasrecently opened. Some physicians have left and not beenreplaced. What’s your sort of overview of the medicalservice here? It’s been one of those wonderful things thathas been available to the faculty and community. Somepeople are beginning to wonder, is that going to be able tocontinue under the current pressure on modern healthplans?

CURRY: I think the question is an important one, but I’mfar from an answer. Among the many things I looked intoin my early days here, that is not the first. I have had morethan one occasion to have direct appreciation of the benefitto people. Just in special ways, including a very minormoment for myself, which was just something very quick,a minor infection that got out of hand; but it got fixed,boom. And I just walked over there.

FNL: It’s a tremendous resource. They do report to you,ultimately, is that true?

CURRY: Yes, they do. Certainly, we’re coming tounderstand it as a service business model, which is importantbecause we need to understand and think about thebenefits versus the costs. Five years ago, I might havethought I knew more about the right health care model thanI know now, because it seems like we are trying to workour way towards possibly yet another paradigm. Managedcare is under serious attack. I have a very open mind aboutit and my first-order sense is to value enormously what theMedical Department provides locally. If there are serviceissues, and I’ve heard only a couple, then I think theyshould be addressed. And I think there’s a reason for thefact that it’s popular, meaning it’s local; it has goodconnections with Massachusetts General and with otherhealth care facilities in Boston, the superstar city in thehealth care world. And while in the past one might havesaid that this is a kind of local, expensive institution whose

time has passed, I wouldn’t be surprised if we prove thatwe’re just on the cusp of the moment in which its time hascome again. I think it’s extremely high quality care.

FNL: Has the new director been appointed?

CURRY: No. Arnie [Arnold Weinberg] is retiring at theend of this fiscal year and we are just starting to get thewheels rolling for a search. I should say this, however; itwill report again to the vice president for HR (HumanResources). The person we have recruited, Laura Avakian,was the senior vice president for HR for Care Group andfor many years the VP HR at Beth Israel. She is deeplyknowledgeable in the health care business; and is a world-class HR person. Beth Israel under her leadership had anational reputation as one of the top ten best places in thecountry to work, and that was no accident. So she knowsthe health care business, she’s deeply connected within themedical community, and I think she will bring an addeddimension of thoughtfulness about how we should thinkabout the future of the Medical Department.

FNL: Good. Hopefully there will be faculty input on thisissue.

CURRY: There absolutely will be, make no question aboutthat. We had strong input into the search for the VP HRfrom faculty, and this one is a benefit to all members of thecampus community, so we should have broad participationin the search and any thoughts about the individualcharacteristics we’re seeking.

FNL: One suggestion for faculty input is that, rather thanjust simply appointing some faculty members to acommittee, that one uses the power of modern computersand gets more invited input through e-mail. I can’t rememberwhen we were last asked by the central administration forour thoughts on this, that, or the other thing that mightaffect our everyday life.

CURRY: That’s a wonderful idea.

FNL: Faculty do read e-mail; they’re as hooked on it as thestudents.

CURRY: So that might be an interesting way to start the





- 12 -

search: a few constructive questions. I might ask some ofyou to help me with the questions; meaning, I need toknow the perspective before I know the stuff to ask.

FNL: The Medical Service is just one of a whole variety ofareas where, at least you get the faculty feeling they havethe opportunity to give input. Whether or not it’s listenedto depends on a variety of complicated factors, but it mightwork. You could even connect that e-mail to a site on theWeb where people could then offer their views.

CURRY: We did not necessarily use cutting-edgetechnology in the HR VP search. But we did wind up withbroader participation than anyone could ever imagine; thesearch committee had 23 people. And people told me itwas absolutely impossible, but it wasn’t. It turned out to bea wonderful committee partly because Bob McKersiechaired it and it was a stellar group. But I think e-mailparticipation is a terrific idea; and given that this affects alot of people very, very personally and directly, it wouldbe a good way to assemble the value, importance, andcharacteristics of the service that would help us write thejob spec, and do a better job of identifying the rightindividual.

FNL: Let’s turn to IS [Information Systems]. You may ormay not know from history, but that has been an area thathas caused some friction among the different operatingunits on the campus and the outside world. What’s the planfor improved quality of service?

CURRY: I’ve had three IT groups in my life reporting tome. From the standpoint of concentration of talent, it’sgood to be here.

FNL: Technical talent.

CURRY: Yes, technical talent. And that’s a hell of a start.The second part is that I am very aware that IS is growingself-aware, through some of their own querying of people,using standard questionnaires that the Gartner Group usesto help IT organizations evaluate their customer-friendliness. But they have some customer issues to dealwith. I was at a session yesterday in their strategic planningeffort and the service issue was very thoroughly looked at.I was gratified because it’s the kind of awareness you musthave before you can get at customer issues. We are also

very aware that rate structures involving voice/video data,telephones, and the network haven’t been looked at inyears and are undergoing a fundamental rethinking. Andthat will become the subject of a lot of conversation aroundthe campus in the coming months, because we need tothink it through, have a rational basis for the charging thatyou can understand. So there’s a lot of stuff going on. BobBrown and I both talked with Jim [Bruce] about the factthat we would all find it useful to examine IT. I think anappropriately constituted visiting committee is a fine wayto go; in part because we learn a lot, in part because webenchmark ourselves, and that can give us a real impetusto change where it’s necessary and important to do so. SoI would anticipate doing something like that in the relativelynear future. There is one initiative being developed at themoment that I think is useful to get a sense of, which is BobBrown’s Educational Technology Council and academiccomputing in the purer of terms – around the educationalside of it as opposed to just say software applicationdevelopment for enterprise systems. As the Council beginsto shape itself and begins to redefine aspects of academiccomputing, then I think it begins to look at the connectionsinside of IT or the IS organization, and the relationshipsand appropriateness of them. I think that would be an idealtime to engage in a review and I know Jim Bruce iscomfortable with it because I talked to him about it.

FNL: Does he report to you?

CURRY: Yes he does.

FNL: You may want at some point to do an independentevaluation of what the problems have been.

CURRY: I’d be happy to do that.

FNL: It has been difficult, financially, to support thehuman/computing service needs in connection to theoutside world when so much was being charged for everyindividual drop, etc.

CURRY: Well, that’s got to be part of a real pricingstrategy; meaning there should be some real recognition inpricing strategies of scale. And if you’re looking at the waythe outside world is going in just pricing telephone thesedays, and the way some of the network connections are





- 13 -

going, it’s a rapidly, rapidly changing world. Increasingly,you’re seeing companies with flat rates for a huge quantaof consumption, if you will, and then a stair-step kind of asystem. So it’s in that sense, I think, that this whole issueneeds to be deeply reexamined.

FNL: Let’s talk about safety and security.We talked a littlebit about the Y2K situation and transportation on thecampus, but other important issues include thefts, makingsure buildings are locked, and so forth. Lighting, inparticular, is one area that a large number of people,particularly women, workers and spouses, have beenconcerned about. If you walk, for example, from the T tothe Infinite Corridor in the evening, you notice that it’spretty dark as you come across those plazas. And there’slimited security in any of the parking garages. They’veimproved, and they’ve done the windows outside andthere are cameras; but there was a problem with a rapist lastyear, plus some questions about the route for Safe Ride. Sothere’s this whole issue of security.

CURRY: This has not, in fact, arisen, but I do knowsomething about considerations of lighting. In recognitionof the amount of construction that’s going to be going onand in recognition of the fact that the campus is in someareas less than congenial, which is to say not a garden spot,there’s work to do on some streets. Very serious work onjust Vassar Street itself, for example, which is from end toend an extraordinarily unattractive street. And in recognitionof making sure that as options for new buildings comealong through dreams and fundraising starts to matchthem, then we have siting issues, traffic issues, pedestrianflow issues, and common space issues. And we need to besure the solutions are attractive. We’ve engaged a greatplanner and landscape architect, Laurie Olin, and amonghis assignments is to look at lighting all over the campuswith two issues in mind, issues of safety, of course, butanother from the standpoint of consistency with design sothat we begin to integrate the campus through somecommon elements. We haven’t hired Laurie to be on ourstaff. He’s a consultant with a worldwide practice, but he’sbrought some real thoughtfulness to pulling the campustogether through preservation of sight lines, through achange in traffic patterns, through being sensitive tostrategically locating quads or parks. We’ll have a firstpass at that work in November, meaning a kind of what I’dcall a schematic design of the campus with those issues.

FNL: That’s sort of the physical plant architecture.What about the human architecture, the assurance thatthe police department, Campus Police, has sufficientnumbers of people on patrol? They’re very good afterthe horse is out of the barn. But, you know, when youwalk around the campus at almost any time you rarelysee a police officer.

CURRY: I’m never sure when you know you have enough.My initial impressions are that for the openness of thiscampus, it’s a remarkably safe place. Campus crime, as Isee it, is surprisingly low for being a city institution andbeing as open as we are without gates, fences, with manyof our buildings open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.I’m certainly willing to think through those issues. Ihaven’t thought much about them because nothing muchhas hit the radar screen yet.

FNL: You get blips from time to time. I think that the mostrecent blip that I can think of was the student who waskilled by Cambridge youths right in front of the library onMemorial Drive one evening. It was five years ago, I think.They had been walking from the graduate house, AshdownHouse, where there’s a pub, to the Muddy Charles, whenthey ran into a couple of kids. As luck would have it, thesekids ran on over to Kenmore Square and were caught byB.U. police, of all things, arrested, arraigned, charged inCambridge Court, and brought up on murder charges. Andso, you may want to do a little review of the history withthe chief at some point.

CURRY: Oh, I’m more than willing to do that.

FNL: A couple of other things because we’re runningclose to the end of the time. Coming from Caltech, how doyou see MIT versus Caltech from the viewpoint of yourposition at this institute?

CURRY: Wow, I’ve got to be careful with this one.[LAUGHTER] I still have friends there. One of themknows MIT intimately! In fact, many do. Well, the firstorder, is that it’s remarkable how many people I knew atCaltech who had gone to school as either undergraduatesor graduates at MIT. Let’s say this, there’s a difference hereI plainly like and I knew it when I made my decision. I likesome of the real-world feeling at MIT. It’s part of the





- 14 -

mission statement that says MIT deals with real-worldissues. It’s exciting to be around a business school again.It’s terrific to have the opportunity to interact with some ofthe finest economics and finance people and stay a little bitsharper as a consequence. I should note that one of thepeople who joined me as a newcomer at MIT is StevenRoss. Steve was a member of the Caltech board and camefrom Yale where he was one of the great finance people inthe country; he was on my investment committee atCaltech. Well, I can seek his advice now as a facultymember rather than as a trustee, and I like that. I like havingan architecture and planning school on campus and I likehaving a strong performing arts component here.

FNL: Are you a musician yourself?

CURRY: I play piano a little and used to play trumpet a lot.The chops are in sorry shape today, but I like the mixtureof discipline and professions here that are not part ofCaltech. Caltech is very, very concentrated as, I’m sureyou know, although the concentration is extraordinary. Igenerally am more at home in MIT’s kind of mixture ofscience and technology, which I’m very familiar with, andsome aspect of the professions. Many of them are quiterelated in important ways, so as you start to work throughthe humanities, you can come to linguistics and then youstart to migrate toward artificial intelligence and chemistryand biology. Those are exciting links.

FNL: Is there anything they do that you’d like to see donehere?

CURRY: There’s something that we have just begun to dothat they’ve done for a long time. Caltech has systematicallyinvested in its physical facilities to maintain them at arelatively high level, and we need to get into that mode. Ifyou walk on campus, inside or out, you can see a difference.Now, it’s a somewhat younger campus than this one,there’s no doubt of that, and on the other hand, it’s asomewhat more congenial climate . . . .

FNL: No argument. [LAUGHTER]

CURRY: But systematically, there was investment ininfrastructure and it was not just in the buildings themselves.It was in the landscape and interconnections. Caltech’skind of a garden spot that stays green year-round. I’m very

pleased with our new sensitivity to those issues at MIT.And it is certainly part of Chuck’s long-term plans to investin infrastructure, to focus on quality architecture, and toengage our campus planner to try to pull it together. AndI’m just pleased to enter that mix.

FNL: Do you get involved in resource development?

CURRY: Not directly. It happens to report to me, but it’sreally kind of an administrative oversight wheremanagerial issues can arise and be debated, but certainlythat area receives its primary direction from thePresident.

FNL: There are some activities on the campus that havegenerated income, such as the summer program wherefaculty have brought people in from the outside, and I’msure there must be a program at the Sloan School that theydo with executives. Some people believe that more of thatsort of thing might be done, taking advantage of MIT’sresources in a way that would generate revenue and thatwould improve the quality of life overall. Is that somethingto which you’ve given thought?

CURRY: It is. In part, because through a significant portionof my existence I spent time developing revenue incentivesthrough various budget structures at other institutions. Ithink it’s important to focus on, and here’s my sense of it.MIT is, in significant ways, defined by its long-termfederal sponsorship relationship, all the way back toVannevar Bush, who invented the national model, ineffect through today. Now the kind of entrepreneurship ofindividual, principal investigators and the development ofprograms through partnerships with the federal governmenthas been enormously productive. At the same time, if youlook at MIT’s sources of funds over the years, the percentagethat’s federal is declining. The percentage that’s growingis private, and MIT is developing its sense of the privateside through both the fundraising campaign and ourincreasing awareness that there is a rebalancing broadlybetween private and public, not just at MIT but elsewhere.And there’s a significant opportunity for MIT to participatein that. Then we begin to look at other sources of revenue.I think that if programs are carefully done and are ofextraordinary quality, then there would be real revenueopportunities in this. I’ve seen them developed elsewhere.





- 15 -

FNL: Can you give us a couple of specific examples?

CURRY: Well, I don’t want to predispose anything withrespect to, say, the Sloan School, but I’ve certainly seenwhat high-level executive education programs do atmanagement schools. They can be very cost-effective andhelp provide resources to subsidize high-cost programslike the Ph.D. program, for example.

FNL: What about other than that, because that’s a fairlywell-known model.

CURRY: And it’s a fairly well-developed one.

FNL: What about for a physics department or for a mathdepartment, where some people can’t pay themselvessummer salaries?

CURRY: Let me think a little bit about that, but I’ll give youan instance, and I can’t define it perfectly, but it’s a neatidea. A couple of professors at my former institution wereapplied mathematicians and they had their own consultingrelationships with private enterprise that they mutuallybenefited from. They assembled a kind of focal point offellow travelers, broadly across Caltech, and made itknown that they were a small think-tank swat team totackle complex industrial problems. And when I’d left,they’d had some real successes. Now, they’ve involvedgraduate students in the work, to introduce them to this sortof thing and to get them doing some applied research.

FNL: It’s an interesting concept.

CURRY: And it was just beginning. I said I can go throughthe professional schools, what medical schools do and lawschools do and business schools do and they’re kind ofnaturals, but this one was unusual because Caltech has noprofessional schools at all.

FNL: There is a balance, of course, between the free spirit ofinquiry and the industrial strengths of proprietary research.

CURRY: Of course. And I think that the folks involved inthat were very, very sensitive to it. On the other hand, whatthey also recognized is that there were some really interestingproblems out there that, in fact, could lead to areas of purerinquiry, so there’s a kind of constant source of ideas.

FNL: One last thing. It’s a fairly localized question and hasto do with the Family Resource Center; the issue ofdaycare, the two-parent working family, etc. Workingroutines have changed, of course, as have the difficultiesfaculty face. We’ve tried to address it from the academicside, department heads and so forth, but the sort of generalquestion of a family resource center and a little broaderthan that, the dream of affordable faculty housing. Youknow, there’s a community at MIT that wouldn’t necessarilybe only a daytime community, but more full-time.

CURRY: Let me address the first one, the daycare. PhilClay has been chairing a committee or a task force that’sbeen looking broadly at that and as part of the capitalconstruction coming up, there are sites for development inparts of the new structure including, as I understand it,space for daycare programs. It’s certainly on the radarscreen, certainly known and understood as important, butI would urge a quick question to Phil with respect to wherehe stands and where that committee stands.

FNL: Maybe we can get him to write an article for us.

CURRY: I don’t know what’s in the pipeline specifically,but it’s a very active topic that he’s got the lead on andknows far more about it than I do, especially from a needsassessment standpoint. The second thing I’d like to add tothat is that when I mentioned our new HR VP, part of thereason her former institution was known as such a goodplace to work is that they developed an extraordinarysensitivity around family issues, recognizing specific needsof two-profession families, and how to work that out, andthat’s from one end of the spectrum to the other. She’d beworth talking to.

FNL: She may be a little gun-shy.

CURRY: Give her a couple of months. You were verygenerous to me giving me ten months. My honeymoon’sover. [LAUGHTER] I’ve no allusions any more.

FNL: Well, thanks a lot for your time.

CURRY: Well, thank you. This was really fun to do.✥

[John R. Curry can be reached at [email protected]]




- 16 -

Improving the First-Year Educational Experience at MIT:A Call for Preliminary Proposals

Peggy Enders and Helen Samuels

The d'Arbeloff Fund

This article was written on behalf ofthe Committee on the UndergraduateProgram and the MIT Council onEducational Technology.

Earlier this year, President Vestannounced a $10 million giftfrom Alex and Brit d’Arbeloff

to support educational innovation inthe teaching of science andengineering at MIT. “Educationalchange is in the wind at MIT andthroughout academia,” he said. “Thismagnificent gift will enable our facultyto translate into action the wealth ofnew pedagogical ideas welling upthrough MIT.”

The report of the Task Force onStudent Life and Learning, <http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/c/committees/sll/index.html>, paved theway for a number of discussions withinthe Committee on the UndergraduateProgram (CUP) and elsewhereregarding ways to strengthen ourundergraduate program. The recently-released report of the EducationalDesign Project (EDP), <http://w e b . m i t . e d u / f a c u l t y / r e p o r t s /edp.html>, as well as the findings ofan educational “charrette” held lastspring, reached similar conclusionswith respect to the need to improve thefirst-year experience. The Task Forcerecommended that a priority for MITshould be increasing the level ofexcitement in the first-year program,and the EDP found that “the currentcurriculum does not do enough tosustain student enthusiasm forlearning, or to leverage upon theirenthusiasm and sense of academicdirection to achieve better educationalresults.” More recently, the MIT

Council on Educational Technologyhas joined this effort by endorsing thisRFP and agreeing to serve as the grantsreview board.

In their recent review of thesefindings, the CUP identified a discreteset of goals for students during theirfirst undergraduate year. Among thesegoals are several that will require thecreative energies of faculty in newcurriculum initiatives and are thus thetarget for this request for proposals:

• Increase the level of intellectualexcitement in the first year program;

• Increase opportunities for“learning by doing” experiences inthe first year;

• Foster the development ofmentoring relationships betweenstudents and faculty.

The groups supporting this effortunderstand that two of the greatestimpediments to change are theconstraints on faculty time and theapparent intransigence of Instituterequirements, rules, and regulations.Through this grants effort we areprepared to buy out faculty time, andin collaboration with CUP, waive rulesand make change possible throughother substantive actions.

Preliminary Proposals forAmbitious Projects

We are writing to solicit yourpreliminary proposals for ambitiousprojects that would enhance andpotentially transform dramatically theexperience of our first-year students.

We can imagine the followingexperiments:

• Design a project-based programfor the entire freshman class that wouldinvolve students, faculty, and alumni.

• Revamp the freshman advising

and seminar systems. Involve thehousing system and alumni in thisnew model.

• Totally revamp the teaching of acore science subject.

• Integrate engineering and sciencecore subjects.

• Design a tutorial-based HASSexperience.

The preliminary proposals can utilizeone or more of the following:

1) Cooperative initiatives betweenSchools and departments, betweenfirst-year subjects, and/or betweenfirst- and second-year subjects. Anexample in this area would be acollaborative effort involvingengineering curricula and first-yearmath or science subjects.

2) Subjects that introduce real-worldsituations, hands-on activities, orlaboratory experiences in the freshmanyear. Proposals may includeeducational experiments as alternativesto the present Institute LaboratoryRequirement. Also welcome wouldbe proposals to develop UROP orUROP-like experiences appropriate forfirst-year students.

3) Ideas that promote one-on-oneand small group interactions betweenfaculty and first-year students,including ones that encouragementoring, better advising, and greaterinteractions between faculty andstudents, especially in residence hallsettings.

CriteriaIn light of the goals and target areas

outlined above, proposals are preferredthat include one or more of thefollowing elements:



- 17 -

• Projects that are sustainable, inthe sense that they can lead to a long-term commitment and are likely tobecome a regular part of the MITcurriculum (i.e., not dependent uponthe long-term involvement of one ormore key faculty);

• Projects that are scaleable, so thatthey are likely to affect a large numberof first-year students;

• Projects offering incentives forstudents and faculty to participate (e.g.,satisfying a requirement ordepartmental goal, providing teacherswith intrinsic or extrinsic rewards forparticipating, etc.);

• Collaboration among faculty inone or more departments or Schools,and among faculty and othercommunity members (alumni/ae,undergraduate and graduate students,senior research scientists, staff, etc.);

• Proposals that highlight andleverage those educational oppor-tunities that come from the fact thatMIT is a residential campus, i.e., aneducational community with learnersin the same place at the same time.

Requirements and Restrictions• Funds may be used for faculty

release time or summer salary,employment of graduate assistants and/or undergraduate research or hourlyemployees, compensation of technicalsupport staff, purchase of softwareand other materials, travel, hiringconsultants and ancillary equipmentpurchases.

• Since sustainability is a keycriterion, funds may be requested thatwould be used to develop and then tosustain a project over a period ofseveral years.

• The d’Arbeloff Fund is intendedprimarily for faculty-led initiatives,with the understanding that many suchinitiatives may involve non-faculty

participants. Non-faculty members ofthe MIT community who have aninteresting idea are encouraged tosubmit a preliminary proposal, whichcan lead to further discussions aboutappropriate faculty involvement.

Preliminary ProposalThe preliminary proposal must

include:• A brief description of how the

innovation will enhance MITeducation,

• How it will fit in with departmentaland Institute programs, and

• How its success will be measured.

Submission Details and TimelineIn order to make the submission

process as simple as possible, theGrants Subcommittee wishes toemphasize the preliminary proposaland to give applicants considerableassistance at this stage. Assistance willinclude staff consultation and mayinclude financial support in the formof seed money.

The Committee invites one- or two-page preliminary proposals submittedby e-mail to Helen Samuels, staff tothe MIT Council on EducationalTechnology ([email protected], x8-0310, E32-335) by January 15, 2000.

Applicants will be contacted by amember of the Office of AcademicServices, who will help in refining the

preliminary proposal and inresponding to more detailed questionsabout deliverables, evaluation,incentives, key participants, and thelike. In this stage applicants may beasked to contact others to encouragecollaborative development. Prelimi-nary proposal discussions will alsoprovide information about othersources of funding for educationalinnovation that might supplement thed’Arbeloff Fund, or that might be moreappropriate (e.g., Class of 1951/55/72Funds, or, for technology-intensiveproposals, the Microsoft-MIT Alliance).

Preliminary proposals will bereviewed by the Grants Subcommitteeby mid-February. Applicants who passthe initial screening process will becontacted and invited to submit moredetailed proposals, again with helpfrom the Office of AcademicServices. Awards will be appliedbeginning with the 2000-2001Academic Year. No decision hasbeen made in advance regarding theoverall pace and scale of thedistribution of the d’Arbeloff funds:these decisions will be guided by therange and scale of proposals submittedto the Committee.✥[Peggy Enders can be reached [email protected]; Helen Samuels canbe reached at [email protected]]

A Call for PreliminaryProposals

Enders and Samuels, from preceding page

The d’Arbeloff Fund is intended primarily forfaculty-led initiatives, with the understandingthat many such initiatives may involve non-facultyparticipants. Non-faculty members of the MITcommunity who have an interesting idea areencouraged to submit a preliminary proposal, whichcan lead to further discussions about appropriatefaculty involvement.


- 18 -

[FSS was described in the April 1999Faculty Newsletter.]

It is also worth noting thatReengineering has had an importantimpact on the ways people work atMIT, and this goes beyond the manyemployees who served on redesign,implementation, or support teams. Forexample, the idea of focusing on“customer service” was fairly foreignto the MIT culture when Reengineeringbegan. Now, many people know andunderstand that serving clients well isa basic part of their job. In addition,many staff members developed skillsin project management, runningeffective meetings, and collaboratingwith people whose expertise isdifferent than their own. These culturalchanges may be as significant, longterm, as the more tangible accomp-lishments of the project.

This article will review somebackground on the Project, the originalgoals, what we were able to accomp-lish, what wasn’t done, and why. Costsand savings estimates are alsoincluded.

BackgroundAs many of you probably remember,

Reengineering at MIT was begun inresponse to the growing gap betweenthe Institute’s operating income andits expenses. Even after the budgetcuts that were planned for fiscal years1994-96, the Institute was forecastingserious operating gaps. Since the vastmajority of our budget is spent onsalaries, wages, and benefits, MITneeded to become smaller in terms ofstaff. However, the senior admini-stration decided that simply cuttingpositions, as had been done in theearly 1980s, was not the best way toproceed. That experience had shownthat eliminating jobs without changingthe work resulted in a steady regrowth

of positions until, a few years later, weroughly matched the staff size beforethe cuts. Instead, senior leaders decidedto use the principles of Reengineeringto help us take work “out of thesystem.”

The Institute also wanted todemonstrate an organizationalcommitment to containing costs andmanaging resources carefully so thatwhen a parent, a donor, or a sponsorasks, “Are you managed well?” theresponse would be positive.

The Reengineering Project beganwith some fanfare. There was a specialedition of Tech Talk (on November22, 1993) and a community-wideTown Meeting the following week.The special issue of the paper focusedon the deficit and introduced theconcept of Reengineering as beingcentral to correcting the imbalance.Not surprisingly, what got the mostattention in the community were the“Goals of the Plan,” which were to“reduce the operating gap by $40million ($25 million net of indirectcost recovery) and operate moreeffectively with a smaller work force.”One estimate was that 400 positionswould be eliminated.

Looking back, it’s pretty clear thatthe announcement about savings andjob reduction targets created a varietyof problems and barriers for the peoplewho were ultimately asked to redesignadministrative processes. I believe thatthe senior administration hoped thatthe MIT community would pulltogether during Reengineering andwork for the collective good of theInstitute. However, when people feltthat their jobs and their livelihoodsmight be at stake, many were less thananxious to embrace the Reengineeringconcepts or the redesigns that mightput them out of a job. In a numbers-

oriented place like MIT, it’s notsurprising that the target goals wereannounced, but it’s important toremember that they had a seriousimpact on the work that followed.

Early in the Reengineering effort,Sloan faculty members wereapproached about assisting with theProject. But since they did not wantto consult “in their own backyard,”an outside firm, CSC Index, wasbrought in to help. This angeredmany in the community, but MITleaders believed that we neededsome guidance from people withexperience in Reengineering andmanaging change.

For these and probably other reasons,Reengineering became kind of a dirtyword at MIT. Anything that peopledidn’t like was attributed to it, and theProject divided the community ratherthan pulling it together. Despite ourbest efforts to involve people in thework and to communicate what wasgoing on, perceptions such as thefollowing were fairly common in thecommunity:

“Things were fine as they werebefore, so why do we need tochange?”

“I don’t understand whatReengineering is trying toaccomplish.”

“I can’t afford to lose my job!”“Who do these Reengineers think

they are, trying to improve how I domy work?”

“If they weren’t spending so muchmoney on consultants, then maybeMIT wouldn’t have to lay offanybody.”

“My department head doesn’tseem so keen on Reengineering, somaybe we can just duck and we’llbe spared.”


Snover, from Page 1



- 19 -

Genesis of the ProjectThe Reengineering work actually

began in March of 1994, as an eight-member Core Team started to identifyand map the Institute’s key admini-strative processes and recommendseveral for the initial redesign efforts.The Core Team analyzed majorprocesses on the basis of cost, impacton revenue, potential for improve-ment, significance of changes to MIT’sfuture, and the ease of implementingchanges.

The six areas initially selected forredesign included facilities operations,the mail service, supplier consoli-dation, management reporting,information technology, and theappointment process. The two othermajor areas that were added to theReengineering effort later were studentservices and human resources. Inaddition, there were “enabling” teamssuch as training and development,community involvement, and the helpdesk.

And What is Reengineering?Here is the definition of Reengin-

eering that MIT used: “Reengineeringis the fundamental rethinking andradical redesign of support processesto bring about dramatic improvementsin performance.” Good supportprocesses were defined as beingsimple, lean (with little non-value-

added work), results-focused, andconsciously organized to achievegoals.

The method MIT used in itsReengineering work was to appointredesign teams whose members eitherhad expertise in the area and/or whowere “customers” of the particularprocess. The teams were charged withanalyzing the processes and proposinga redesign that simplified theprocedures, reducing handoffs andthe possibility of error. In addition,customers and the bottom line shouldsee improvements from the redesigns.

Most people in the community wouldprobably agree that simplifyingadministrative processes whileimproving quality, enhancingcustomer responsiveness, andreducing costs was a tall order, butthat’s what MIT’s ReengineeringProject set out to do.

In order to evaluate the Project, it’suseful to have some context about theCore Team’s analysis of administrativeprocesses at MIT prior toReengineering. The table belowcharacterizes pre-Reengineeringprocedures in the “From” state andindicates where we hoped they wouldbe after the redesigns in the “To” state.

Though we’ve certainly madeprogress, we haven’t achieved the“To” state in every category.

What Specifically wasAccomplished?

Physical Plant (now Facilities)The most radical changes occurred

in Physical Plant, now called Facilities.In terms of the number of itsemployees, Facilities is the mostheavily unionized of MIT’s supportareas. And most of its operationswere reviewed and changed. In1994, before Reengineering began,the total work force in Physical Plantwas 587 employees, who wereresponsible for maintaining 7.47million gross square feet of MITspace. Today, the size of the totalwork force is 550 employees, whoare responsible for maintaining 9.3million gross square feet.

The redesign of Custodial Servicesresulted in the formation of 26 self-directed teams who are cleaning anadditional 300,000 square feet of newbuildings with no increase inheadcount. Weekday and weekendservices were increased, again withno additional employees. Servicemeasurements for quality, costs,communication with customers,timeliness, and safety were establishedand continue to be tracked on amonthly basis. Four supervisorypositions were eliminated.


Snover, from preceding page


From ToFragmented and redundant processes ........................................ Integrated and streamlined processesMost transactions treated as exceptions ..................................... Exceptions are rareNarrowly defined jobs focused on completing tasks ............... Broadly defined jobs focused on achieving resultsPolicies and procedures orientation ........................................... Customer-drivenInconsistent, ad hoc job training ................................................ Continuous professional developmentAdministrators who serve ........................................................... Managers who support and partnerCommand and control ................................................................. Empowerment and accountabilityAd hoc and anecdotal measures ................................................. Systematic performance managementNon-integrated, stove-piped information .................................. Integrated, shared, and accessible information


- 20 -

The redesign of Repair andMaintenance functions called formoving from a centralized to a zone-based system with teams of workersstationed in five zones on the campus.The resident team in each zone correctsproblems in the following kinds ofsystems: electrical, heating andcooling, structural and mechanical,and plumbing. Customers reportproblems or make requests for routineservice via a form on the Web.(Emergencies are, of course, reportedby telephone.)

The mechanics have become veryfamiliar with the buildings in theirzone, and often spot potential problemsbefore they become serious. Inaddition, the team members have agreater sense of accountability andconnection to their customers. Asurvey was sent last fall to 500customers who had requested Repairand Maintenance services. Of thenearly 300 surveys that were returned,93 percent rated the service they hadreceived as meeting or exceeding theirexpectations.

In the Grounds Services area, theredesign resulted in the formation ofan Athletics/Grounds zone with newjob classifications and descriptions,as well as four other Grounds zonesacross the campus. Staffing in each ofthe four other zones now consists of agardener and four landscapers.Ultimately, six Grounds positions andone management position wereeliminated in this section of Facilities,saving about $350,000 annually.

The Mail Services redesign,although initially unpopular, wasnecessary for the Institute in order toprocess our large volume of maileffectively, take full advantage oftechnology, and respond to bothchanging U.S. Postal regulations and

changing requirements of the Institute.The redesign began with the hiring ofa professional mail manager and thecreation of a centralized Mail Servicesoperation. In order to establish thenew organization, union jobresponsibilities were broadened,providing for three levels of mailworker positions. The number of full-time equivalent staff was reduced by10.5, with associated annual savingsto the Institute of approximately$511,000.

The following are some of thespecific changes in Mail Services. Anew model for distributing mail beganin the spring of 1995, and MIT nowhas 38 Distributed Mail Centers across

campus, where customers have 24-hour access to their mailboxes. Thismodel replaced an inequitable deliveryservice in which a portion of campusreceived desktop delivery, while atthe other end of the spectrum somebuildings received a single unsortedbag of mail. In July 1995, Mail Servicesimplemented a new centralizedoutbound mail processing service thathas helped MIT achieve a 2.5 centreduction per envelope in domesticpostage charges. (The department isnow handling about 95 percent ofMIT’s daily outbound mail fromoffices.) Mail Services also negotiates

cost and service-level improvementsfor international mail and overnightcarrier services. A new Central MailFacility opened for operation in March1996 in Building WW15.

The original redesign had shownthat if MIT wanted to reduce its costsby bar coding and presorting outgoingmail, then Mail Services had to get itsarms around that mail. This meant thatits employees needed to do differentwork – essentially less delivering andmore picking up and processing ofoutgoing mail. Some people in thecommunity, including facultymembers, have complained that askingcustomers to pick up their own mailfrom the Distributed Mail Centers is

simply shifting work from central tolocal departments, and there’s sometruth in that. However, the old “system”was broken. It consisted of aninequitable delivery service, more than140 postage meters used by staff withlittle expertise, no volume discounts,and no economies of scale becausethe mail operation was so de-centralized.

In addition to the $511,000 savingsfrom staff reductions, annual savingsof more than $490,000 have beenachieved through minimized costs forpresorted domestic mail, international




In addition to the $511,000 savings from staff reductions,annual savings of more than $490,000 have beenachieved through minimized costs for presorteddomestic mail, international mail, second class andbulk mail, the express courier contract, and the reductionof postage meter rentals.


- 21 -

mail, second class and bulk mail, theexpress courier contract, and thereduction of postage meter rentals.

Student ServicesThe establishment of the Student

Services Center (SSC) was one of themost visible successes of Re-engineering. Centrally located inBuilding 11, the Center offers studentsthe convenience of “one-stopshopping” for many administrativeservices, thus reducing the need tovisit numerous offices across campus.The SSC brought together staff fromthe Registrar’s Office, the Bursar’sOffice, and the Financial Aid Office,with technical support from StudentInformation Systems.

Those who staff the front desk at theCenter are cross-trained, so they areable to deal with a broad range ofstudent questions. Another importantimprovement is that many of thefrequent and basic student transactionswere changed to be self-service viathe Web, freeing staff to assist studentswith more complicated transactions.

Prior to the establishment of theCenter, Student Services Reengin-eering teams had focused on all thebusiness and administrative processesthat students encounter outside theclassroom. These included finding outabout MIT and getting admitted,orientation programs, enrolling,housing, dining, paying bills, andpaying students. Teams also reviewedacademic support systems for advising,social support, and help with jobsearches, further schooling, andsummer employment. Some of theReengineering successes in this areainclude automated access to studentfinancial and academic records,electronic pre-registration for courses,on-line graduate awards and

appointments, and major improve-ments in loan and financial aidprocessing.

Another effort, involving Dean’sOffice and Physical Plant staff,involved a facilities audit of all thespace in the Campus ActivitiesComplex, the Athletics department,and the residence facilities. The auditprovides a comprehensive tool formaking decisions about deferredmaintenance and capital renewal. Itdetails replacement value, provides arating of maintenance needs(including, for example, life-safety andmajor mechanical systems), and givesthe costs of repairs. All this information

is housed in a Facilities databaseavailable to the administrators whomake the decisions about maintenanceand renewal.

Supplier ConsolidationThe specific goal in Supplier

Consolidation was to reduce the costof purchasing goods and services whileimproving the buying process for theMIT community. The redesign calledfor eliminating steps and handoffs inareas such as finding sources,approving, pricing, ordering,

receiving, and paying for goods andservices.

When the project began, MIT wasbuying supplies and services frommore than 14,000 different vendors,with about half of those involved inone transaction per year. That largenumber was partially a result of thespecialized and often unique needs ofInstitute researchers. Nevertheless,purchases of routine goods andservices were being spread out amongfar too many suppliers. For example,MIT was using more than 20 differentagencies for temporary employees andconsequently we were not receivingany volume discounts.

Another issue that was found priorto the redesigns was that purchases ofunder $500 represented only threepercent of MIT’s business but 80percent of the resulting paperwork.This was clearly an area that needed tobe addressed in the subsequentredesigns.

MIT’s efforts in Supplier Consoli-dation include new ways of acquiringoffice and laboratory supplies, bottledgases, publishing services, temporaryhelp, furniture, computers and software.




When the project began, MIT was buying supplies andservices from more than 14,000 different vendors, withabout half of those involved in one transaction per year.That large number was partially a result of the specializedand often unique needs of Institute researchers.Nevertheless, purchases of routine goods and serviceswere being spread out among far too many suppliers.For example, MIT was using more than 20 differentagencies for temporary employees and consequentlywe were not receiving any volume discounts.


- 22 -

The Office of Laboratory Suppliesclosed in July 1995, and MIT beganpartnerships with Office Depot in theoffice supply area, VWR for scientificapparatus and supplies, and BOCGases for industrial gases. AlthoughLab Supplies had provided goodservice to the Institute community, thedepartment had to mark up its costs inorder to be self-supporting. TheReengineering teams who reviewedpurchasing in these areas had foundthat large and specialized outsidevendors could provide these suppliesand services more economically andoften with better delivery time.

As I noted in the November/December 1998 issue of the FacultyNewsletter, the Office Depotpartnership got off to a rocky start,primarily because the vendor wasn’tsufficiently geared up to handle theinitial volume of orders from MIT.However, once the start-up problemswere resolved, the partnership has beenworking well.

After thorough reviews by twoReengineering teams, MIT decided tochange the support services it providesfor publishing. As a result, the GraphicArts offset printing and bindingoperation was closed in August 1996,and Design Services was phased outof operation in fall 1996. (The CopyTechnology Centers, which had longbeen the most successful part ofGraphic Arts, continue as an Instituteoperation.)

The new organization that wasformed is called the PublishingServices Bureau (PSB). Opened inFebruary 1997, the PSB is an MITservice for coordinating the Institute’sprint and electronic publishingactivities. The staff of publishingprofessionals serves as advisors tohelp plan projects and as brokers

between MIT customers and outsideservice providers. Bureau staff alsowork with MIT publishers to help themimprove the effectiveness of theircommunications. In addition, effici-encies are achieved through morecareful planning and the use of “smart”design and new technologies.Partnerships with a small number ofoutside designers and printers reduceoverall costs through volumediscounts.

A redesign of the MIT ComputerConnection (MCC) changed theoperation from a retail storefront to aWeb-based electronic ordering and

direct-delivery mode for computer andsoftware purchases. MIT’s partnercompany is NECX. On-site pre-salesconsulting and a product showroomremain available to individual anddepartmental purchasers.

By consolidating the number ofexternal suppliers we use, negotiatingvolume discounts, and establishingpartnerships with outside vendors, weare reducing not only our costs butalso the paperwork involved inordering and paying for these productsand services. And, although theadministration prefers that MITcommunity members buy from partnercompanies whenever possible, theyare not required to do so.

The savings for fiscal year 1999 arestill being calculated, but in fiscal 1998,the direct savings from the five majorpartnerships (Office Depot, VWR,BOC, Olsten Staffing Services, andNECX) were more than $1.5 million.(And that does not include what weare saving as a result of processingsignificantly less paperwork forpurchasing transactions.)

It’s also important to note that thelarge MIT spaces formerly used forwarehousing and selling office andlaboratory supplies and for theGraphic Arts printing plant are nowbeing used for other Institute

purposes. The cost avoidance for allthe spaces that could be reused as aresult of Reengineering wascalculated at $1.2 million.

Other Purchasing OptionsAnother Supplier Consolidation

project was the development of ECAT,MIT’s electronic catalog. ECAT2 nowintegrates the partner companies’ Web-based catalogs and ordering systemswith SAP at MIT for quick, all-electronic shopping and requisitioningby MIT purchasers. The vendors’catalogs, with MIT-negotiated pricing,also have improved searching andbrowsing features.




The savings for fiscal year 1999 are still being calculated,but in fiscal 1998, the direct savings from the five majorpartnerships (Office Depot, VWR, BOC, Olsten StaffingServices, and NECX) were more than $1.5 million.(And that does not include what we are saving as aresult of processing significantly less paperwork forpurchasing transactions.)


- 23 -

Community members also have theoption of using the MIT VIP creditcard as another purchasing tool. Useof the credit card is helping to eliminatethe need for many small-dollarrequisitions and purchase orders,blanket orders, requests for payment,and petty-cash transactions.

Management Reporting and theInstallation of SAP R/3

The installation of MIT’s newfinancial system, SAP R/3, was thelargest, most expensive, and mostdifficult project associated withReengineering. It also was probablythe most critical. Even if MIT had notembarked on its Reengineering Project,it would have been necessary to replaceand integrate our financial systems.

Many of MIT’s “legacy” financialsystems were more than 30 years oldand needed to be replaced. They wereessentially a collection of minimallycoupled, separate applications thatoperated on different computers. Inaddition, transactions were oftenentered several times in various centraland departmental financial systems.This duplication of effort added toworkloads, slowed processing, andincreased the possibility of errors.

Because MIT departments areresponsible for managing their ownbudgets, many areas had developedindependent financial systems tomonitor their expenses anduncommitted funds. While often veryefficient in meeting the needs of aparticular unit, the systems were notcapable of interacting effectivelyacross the organization. And, as boththe central and local systems aged,they would have required significantupgrading of hardware and software.Rather than maintaining our old modelof many distributed systems, the senior

administration decided instead to focuson using a single, integrated financialmanagement system.

Following an extensive reviewprocess, SAP’s R/3 system was selectedto replace our general ledger, accountspayable and receivable, andprocurement systems. Functions in thenew integrated system also ultimatelyreplaced EREQ and SumMIT.

The Management Reporting team’srole was to devise a process that woulddeliver to each Institute manager theinformation – financial, personnel,

property, space, etc. – needed tooperate the manager’s organization inan integrated, relevant, accurate, andtimely manner. The idea was that MITcould improve decision making byproviding consistent data andadministrative processes throughoutthe Institute.

Difficulties in Implementing SAPIn the first few months after the

central financial offices began usingSAP in September 1996, there weresome significant problems and delaysin processing invoices. For the most

part, these were caused not by SAPbut by the methods we used to bringdata over from existing systems. Forexample, in our old financial systemsa vendor’s name was often entereddifferently by the various officesinvolved with invoices; in SAP, avendor’s name must be the samethroughout the system. Resolvingdifficulties such as this one becamethe primary task for the team, whichdelayed the rollout of SAP to theacademic departments, laboratories,and centers.

Another issue that affected the rolloutschedule was the concern raised withinthe MIT community about the visibilityof purchase order data. The senioradministration therefore askedManagement Reporting team membersto explore and present options forshielding such data. They found thatMIT would either have to build anauthorization structure outside SAP orbuild a significant modification toSAP’s structure to performauthorizations from within thesoftware. Either of these shielding




Some in the MIT community have expressed theopinion that SAP was not developed for decentralizedorganizations such as universities, and is therefore notas conducive to our work as some other system mightbe. However, the original decision to purchaseSAP R/3 was made after a thorough review of ourexisting capabilities, our long-term requirements, andthe systems available to ultimately meet those needs.We are working as a partner with SAP, which has furtherdeveloped its funds module in response to ourrequirements.


- 24 -

alternatives would have required agreat deal of system maintenance,removed important SAP functionality,carried a risk of incompatibility withfuture versions of the SAP software,and increased the cost of the project.Furthermore, since SAP gives usersthe ability to get at certain data from awide range of paths, we would neverbe sure that we had restricted access toevery possible path to purchasing data.

Discussions with other universitiesthat have “open” purchasing systemsindicated no problems from openaccess. In March 1997, MIT’sAcademic Council decided that wewould move forward with SAP’sstandard authorization system, whichdoes not restrict access to purchaseorder data but does restrict access toaccounting statements.

Some in the MIT community haveexpressed the opinion that SAP wasnot developed for decentralizedorganizations such as universities, andis therefore not as conducive to ourwork as some other system might be.However, the original decision topurchase SAP R/3 was made after athorough review of our existingcapabilities, our long-term require-ments, and the systems available toultimately meet those needs. We areworking as a partner with SAP, whichhas further developed its funds modulein response to our requirements.

An aspect of the SAP project thatcaused considerable upset in the MITcommunity involved organizationalstructures. Team members were askedto look at how the variousadministrative roles in the financialareas of departments, labs, and centerscould be restructured for more effectivework processes. One idea that wasannounced somewhat prematurely wasthe concept of an administrative

“cluster,” in which a team wouldprovide relevant services to more thanone department. Many administratorsand some faculty members were veryupset by this suggestion, because itraised both the specter of job loss andof radical change in workrelationships. I believe the “clusterconcept” was a major factor incommunity opposition to SAP.

As it turned out, simply getting SAPup and running was an extremelycomplicated endeavor, and the idea ofredesigning how financial work wouldbe done was postponed. (A variationof the cluster model is being tried inMIT’s Administrative ServicesOrganization, ASO. This group wascreated by the dean of Engineering,then Bob Brown, when theadministrative officers in theDepartments of Chemical Engin-eering and Materials Science andEngineering both elected to retire earlythrough the retirement incentiveprogram.)

The complexity of SAP – like that ofthe other enterprise resource planningsystems – created anxiety in thecommunity for a variety of reasons.People had to learn new financialterminology in addition to learningthe software because there wasn’t aneffective way to retain MIT terms inthe SAP system. However, theInstitute’s development of the moreuser-friendly SAPweb applicationmeant that the majority ofrequisitioners could use the Web ratherthan having to navigate the SAPscreens to do purchasing. SAPweballows authorized users to create,change, and display requisitions forboth internal and external purchases.

Some community members in thedepartments, labs, and centers (DLCs)felt that the concerns of central areas

were given a higher priority than theneeds of DLCs as decisions weremade about implementation.Although the DLCs wererepresented on teams consideringseveral aspects of using SAP, thefinal decisions did not always followa team’s recommendations. Clearerexpectations, as well as bettercommunication throughout thatprocess, would have helped.

The pressure of the Year 2000computer problem contributedsignificantly to putting technologysolutions out ahead of peoplesolutions. The Management Reportingteam was pushing to meet deadlineswhile the DLCs wanted them to meetdepartmental needs. This resulted in aserious breakdown between keyplayers on both sides.

How We’re Using SAPThe SAP software is now used in the

MIT community for creating andapproving requisitions (for outsidepurchases), journal vouchers (fortransferring internal charges), and tomanually set aside funds for anticipatedfuture expenditures. A majoradvantage of an integrated system likeSAP is that data entered once bysomeone making a purchase can beused simultaneously by all of thefollowing: the outside vendor orpartner company taking an order, theProcurement Office, AccountsPayable, and the general ledger. Arequisition in SAP creates acommitment and a purchase order;the order is placed with the vendor;the goods are received at MIT; theinvoice is paid; the account debited,and the account’s projected balance isupdated – all without using inter-departmental mail.





- 25 -

The SAP software also is used forproducing a variety of reports. Agrowing number of departments, labs,and centers are using the LaborDistribution System to analyze andmanage labor and related effort costs.In addition, MIT’s Data Warehousecontains all the current SAP data andprovides standard and specializedreports to authorized users. Forexample, a report called “FundsAvailable” shows cumulativeexpenses and revenues as well asauthorized totals by principalinvestigator for a specific profit centeror group of profit centers. Anotherreport called “WBS Hierarchy”displays fiscal year-to-date andcumulative activity for a multi-levelsponsored project.

Information TechnologyAll of the redesign teams used

information technology (I/T) to helpsimplify work and improve service,but two of the teams concentrated oncomputing. They were called I/TTransformation and the I/TInfrastructure Readiness teams.

The Transformation team looked atchanging how I/T specialiststhroughout MIT work together tooperate and support the redesignedtechnology for administrativecomputing, help others use it, and addnew features to it. As Professor DavidLitster said back in March 1995, “Theguiding principle for administrativeI/T is a partnership committed to ashared I/T mission of ‘Great SystemsFast,’ where ‘great’ is defined by thecustomer.” Dr. Litster, MIT’s vicepresident and dean for Research, wasthe sponsor of the I/T Transformationteam.

The new framework that wasdeveloped has process leaders

coordinating the five major phases ofI/T work. These include the followingareas:

• Discovery – helps customersevaluate processes and discover howI/T can improve them;

• Delivery – takes the work ofdiscovery and delivers a functioningI/T system for the customer’s use;

• Service – operates the Institute’scentral I/T environment including thetelephone system, the computernetwork, and the academic andadministrative servers;

• Support – helps the MITcommunity acquire, access, and useinformation technology;

• Integration – maintains a cohesiveI/T infrastructure incorporating eachnew product or service.

The Infrastructure Readiness teamwas charged with implementing theunderlying computing softwarenecessary to run the redesignedbusiness applications both securelyover the campus network and easilyon administrators’ desktops.

The Appointments Process (TAP)The TAP team looked at ways to

enable MIT departments to newlyappoint, extend an appointment,change appointment status, promote,transfer, place on leave, or terminateacademic, administrative, support, andservice staff. Goals of the redesignwere to eliminate redundant work andunnecessary approval steps, eliminatepaper and paper handling to thegreatest extent possible, design anautomated appointments system tosupport the process, and providedepartment access to data onappointments in process as well as tocurrent and historical data.

However, the new process was stillfar too complicated and it didn’t

integrate with our informationtechnology architecture. MIT decided,therefore, not to implement thisredesign. I have heard that the decisionnot to proceed contributed to somedistrust of the process by team membersand others in the community. However,a number of lessons were learned fromthe hard work of TAP team members,and they are being consulted by thediscovery team that recently beganwork on investigating MIT’srequirements for a new HumanResources-Payroll system.

Human ResourcesDuring the Reengineering effort,

President Charles M. Vest stated thatas one of the most vigorous researchuniversities in the world, MIT’scontinued success will depend on itsability to attract and retain not only thebrightest faculty and students but alsothe best staff. Forces such as changingdemographics, rapidly evolvingadvances in technology, anincreasingly competitive labor market,and difficulties in juggling personaland professional commitments allcontribute to making our work livesmore complex. For that reason, MITconvened the Human ResourcePractices Design (HRPD) team in June1996 to look into the issues andchallenges of our work environment.

The team identified areas of commonconcern across the Institute throughbroad outreach to many in thecommunity, including faculty, supportstaff, administrative staff, and seniormanagement. Basically, the Designteam found that current humanresource practices no longer alignedwith the Institute’s changingenvironment. In partnership with thePersonnel Office, HRPD then worked





- 26 -

to define, test, and recommendappropriate HR practices. The scopeof the work involved the followingeight areas: HR practices applicableto teams; job design andclassification; hiring procedures;compensation; employee recog-nition and rewards; effectiveperformance evaluation; assessment,development, and training; andstrategic planning.

The Reengineering SteeringCommittee then charged HRPD withforming project teams to developspecific programs on the followingfive topics:

• Orientation about MIT• Generic Roles and Competencies• Training Policies and

Administration• Performance Management, and• Recognition and RewardsHRPD has made recommendations

on ways to improve our HR practicesthrough an integrated, competency-based system. Some of this work isalready being implemented and otherprojects are expected to be launchedas pilots in the near future. Forexample, HRPD’s findings providedthe foundation for the Classificationand Compensation project inPersonnel, which will reclassify alladministrative staff positions oncampus into a new classificationmodel. The new model has six levels(down from 42 in our currentclassification system) and six“compensable factors.”

As a result of the Reengineeringefforts in the training and developmentarea, MIT established the PerformanceConsulting & Training (PC&T) team,which is part of Personnel. The missionof PC&T is to work with departments,labs, and centers to enhance theirabilities to achieve business goals.

Services include the following: needsassessment, planning and measure-ment, process improvement, teamdevelopment, custom-designedtraining, meeting facilitation, andresource referrals. The team also isresponsible for offering a wide varietyof courses for employees to developperformance skills.

During Reengineering, PC&Toffered several workshops on ChangeManagement and identified andprepared a curriculum for the coretechnology training that employeeswill need. The team also presentedworkshops on both giving andreceiving a performance appraisal, andmore than 1,000 staff membersparticipated.

In spring 1996, MIT opened itsProfessional Learning Center, whichis a multipurpose employee trainingfacility in Building W89. The Centeris being used for core technologytraining and other computer courses,



SAP classes, and professionaldevelopment seminars. Compre-hensive training facilities like ours arerare in higher education. For example,of the 11 schools in the BostonConsortium (Babson, Bentley, BostonUniversity, Boston College, Brandeis,Harvard, MIT, NortheasternUniversity, Tufts, Wellesley, and

Wheaton), MIT is the only one withsuch a facility.

What did we Spend andHow Much are we Saving?

The total one-time costs forReengineering over the six years theProject ran (fiscal 1994-1999) were$65.2 million, with $41.8 million ofthat spent on upgrading our financialsystems. Annual savings for the manyprocesses and the reduced staffingthat fell under Reengineering beganto be realized in fiscal year 1996 at arate of $3 million, and grew to $6.49


The total one-time costs for Reengineering over the sixyears the Project ran (fiscal 1994-1999) were $65.2million, with $41.8 million of that spent on upgradingour financial systems. Annual savings for the manyprocesses and the reduced staffing that fell underReengineering began to be realized in fiscal year1996 at a rate of $3 million, and grew to $6.49 millionin FY 1997, and to $11.4 million in FY 1998. In fiscal1999, the savings rate exceeded $15 million per year.Although we would hope that the savings numbercontinues to grow, even if it remains at $15 millionannually, we will have paid off the one-time costs ofthe Project by the end of fiscal 2001.


- 27 -

million in FY 1997, and to $11.4million in FY 1998. In fiscal 1999, thesavings rate exceeded $15 million peryear. Although we would hope thatthe savings number continues to grow,even if it remains at $15 millionannually, we will have paid off theone-time costs of the Project by theend of fiscal 2001.

Why Didn’t we Accomplish Moreand Save More Money?

Again, these are my own opinions,but with the exception of PhysicalPlant, Information Systems, and thePublishing Services Bureau, we didnot reorganize areas. Instead, we putnew processes back into oldorganizations. And though we installednew tools for doing financial work,we did not significantly change theway the work is done.

Particularly in the financial areas,we did not understand all the basicelements of our existing processes,many of which had becomeextremely complex over the years,and that led to errors and delays inimplementing changes. In somecases, there wasn’t enough attentionpaid to the details.

It’s difficult to get people to dothings in new ways when there arevirtually no mandates. For example,efforts in Supplier Consolidation ledto several partnerships (Office Depot,VWR, Olsten, and NECX) that MITstaff are encouraged – but not required– to use. The Institute could be savingmore money if use of the partnercompanies was mandated because ourvolume of business with them wouldbe higher.

There was uneven support fromleaders throughout the Institute thatresulted in a lack of alignment andconfusion about whether MIT was



really serious about wanting to change.Another serious problem was that

MIT didn’t do a good job ofcoordinating all the new initiatives –both from Reengineering andelsewhere – that were coming at thecommunity simultaneously. Forexample, in addition to SAP, therewere other new systems to learn likeCOEUS from the Office of SponsoredPrograms and Brio Query for usingthe Data Warehouse. And, there werechanges in how services were providedby Physical Plant and Purchasing, aswell as a reorganization of the Officeof the Dean of Students andUndergraduate Education. Conse-quently, many people feltoverwhelmed by the number and thetiming of all the new efforts.

Reengineering wasn’t a perfectmethodology, but the senioradministration believed that wecouldn’t wait around until the perfectone was developed. As even its“inventors” have admitted,Reengineering didn’t pay enoughattention to the people issues. If wehad understood that better when webegan, we might have started withredesigns in human resources, sopeople would have felt moresupported before they were asked toundergo other administrative changes.In any case, we should have ensuredthat the early efforts were clear“winners” with the majority of thecommunity.

What’s Still to be Done?We are not using SAP’s full

potential. For example, staff in somedepartments, labs, and centers are stillrekeying data and creating their ownspreadsheets for financial reportingrather than using SAP reports or thosein the Data Warehouse. A goal of the

ongoing work of the School and AreaCoordinators in Financial SystemsServices is to assist the DLCs in utilizingthe new tools effectively. In addition,the Data Warehouse must be able toprovide both the data and the kinds ofreports that DLCs need. Work toachieve this is underway, andcommunity members can contact ScottThorne or Gillian Emmons to learnmore about the Warehouse or todiscuss their reporting needs.

MIT’s current procedures forreconciling accounts need to besimplified, and a pilot project to test aneasier and faster reconciliation processhas begun.

Centrally, we need to bring up othermodules of SAP, such as the HR-Payroll system, once we have a clearunderstanding of our needs. Adiscovery team has begun work onthis project. (However, as I mentionedin my April 1999 Faculty Newsletterarticle, the Administrative Systems andPolicies Coordinating Council willensure that the timing of projects likethis one will be carefully considered.)

And, everyone in the communityneeds to know that periodic upgradesof software will be part of the normalcourse of business at MIT.

Now that the new Vice President forHuman Resources has joined MIT,more of the recommendations fromthe Human Resource PracticesDevelopment team could be put inplace.

Changes in the future may not be asradical as the cultural upheaval weexperienced during Reengineering, butthere’s certainly a need to continueimproving how we do administrativework and to systematically measurethe results of the changes we make.✥[Janet Snover can be reached [email protected]]


- 28 -

“As I stood in the foyer of theKaufman/Ford suite, I looked inon the control room operating at

max capacity. The cameras capturingthe student’s faces, the screenprojecting intricate, animated slides.Here was technology at its finest. MITstudents receiving a state-of-the-arteducational experience in a virtualclassroom, sharing it with futurecolleagues who live on the other sideof the world! Incredible!”

- a CAES staff member on the firstday of the Singapore-MIT Allianceprogram

Tuesday, September 7, was MIT’sRegistration Day, a type of New Year’sDay for academia. But that day waseven more significant than justmarking the commencement ofanother year for the Center forAdvanced Educational Services(CAES). Not only was it the fourthanniversary of the Center, it alsomarked the start of the most intensefour days in our brief history.

In less than a 24-hour period, wekicked off two new major educationalinitiatives and expanded another, usingthe latest in Java, Enterprise data-baseserver integration, high-quality videoconferencing, streaming video formatsand Internet 2; as well as satellitebroadcast and live Web-casts withsynchronized graphics. We broughttechnologies together in ways theirmanufacturers had never envisioned.As one Center staff member put it, we“not only pushed the envelope, wepushed THE envelope!”

Internet Commerce II, part of MIT’sstrategic alliance with PBS/TheBusiness Channel was the first out ofthe CAES gate. On Tuesday afternoonwe broadcast live to over 90 lifelong

learning students from suchcompanies as Ford, IBM, and Polaroid.Courses developed for the BusinessChannel are now delivered simul-taneously in three formats (satellitebroadcast, video tapes, and videostreaming over the Internet) all withactive Websites, created andmaintained by the HypermediaTeaching Facility within CAES.

The influence of these courses hasmade a dramatic impact on the wayprofessionals continue to learn theircraft. A student attending the broadcastof Internet Commerce sent this e-mailto the producer, “This course is great!I manage a large IT group at Ford. Itreally changed our thinking andstrategic approach. The session withJohn Williams and Abel Sanchez wasoutstanding!”

The week was now moving at warpspeed. On Wednesday afternoon,Walter Lewin kicked off the PhysicsInteractive Video Tutor (PIVOT) byrecording his first lecture that wouldlater be digitized and put on the Webfor student viewing.

One year in preparation, the PIVOTteam has created a video-rich,interactive learning, Web-basedenvironment that can be used to supportthe teaching of 8.01 Physics I(Introductory Newtonian Physics).Click on the gyroscope on the PIVOTWebsite and you’ll receive thisgreeting: “Hello. Welcome to thePhysics interactive video tutor. I’mWalter Lewin, your virtual tutor. I willtry to answer all your questions andteach you Physics as we go along. Ifyou’re ready, I’m ready.”

Our goals for the PIVOT project arehigh. We plan to use several of thenewest technologies: streaming digital

video, the Web, and search enginetechnologies to simulate an officehour’s conversation between a studentand his/her physics professor. Thison-line tutor model is one we hope toreplicate for other MIT courses.

Courses such as 18.06, LinearAlgebra with Gil Strang, were alsotaped on Wednesday. All 18.06lectures will be recorded anddigitized this semester. A Web-basedplatform will be created to housethese lectures along with the sameFAQs, textbook resources, andsimulated tutoring sessions for studentstaking 18.06.

To prepare to meet the needs ofthese technology-enhanced coursesand projects, staff from CAES andAcademic Computing met onWednesday afternoon with Bob Brownand Vijay Kumar to officially launchthe new Educational Media CreationCenter (EMC2). This has been 12months in the planning stages. It is anexciting virtual center merging theeducational media production parts ofCAES and Academic Computing. Itwill be a one-stop-shop for MITfaculty, staff, and students needingimportant services in this domain. Staytuned for more news about this Center.

The Singapore-MIT Alliance (SMA)kicked off its five-year program at8:30 am (Boston time), 8:30 pm(Singapore time) with 16.920,Numerical Methods for PartialDifferential Equations, team-taught byDimitris Bertsimas, Tony Patera, andJacob White. This new graduateeducational initiative in engineeringwith MIT, the National University ofSingapore, and the Nanyang Techno-logical University, brings graduate

A Week in the Life of CAES(Center for Advanced Educational Services)

Richard C. Larson



- 29 -

students together in one virtualclassroom, live, crossing twelve time-zones using an Internet2 connection.This particular morning found 50 MITgraduate students in attendance.

Many of these highly inter-disciplinary classes developed for theSMA program are offered to MITgraduate students as electives. Thisfirst morning, we hoped to comfortablyfill the classroom with MIT students.To our great surprise and delight, wenot only filled the classroom tooverflow capacity, but then proceededto fill an additional distance classroomin Building 9.

The evening was even moredramatic. For 6.336J/16.910J,Introduction to Simulation andOptimization, students began to arriveat 7:00 pm for a class that began at8:00. By 7:30, the classroom was filled

to capacity. By 7:45, our secondclassroom was standing-room-only,and by 8:00, when the class began,our third classroom was filled tocapacity. By the end of the evening,we had 30 students attending the classin Singapore and 90 students attendingfrom MIT!

By Friday evening (96 short hours),we had launched a new educationalsupport organization, brought into onevirtual classroom dozens of studentsfrom the world community andrecorded, digitized, and delivered 14lectures, via the Internet and the Web,to approximately 700 undergraduatesand 300 graduate students across MIT,the country, and the globe. What anincredible week of firsts it was!

Distance Education and“Webified-courses” have taken a lotof hard knocks from the learned

A Week in the Life of CAESContinued from preceding page

Author’s Note: The new CAES, Center for Advanced Educational Services, was born onSeptember 1, 1995. We are in Building 9, from basement thru the fourth floor. Come and visit!Our new focus is on technology-enabled teaching and learning, for both on-campus and off-campus learners. We have an R&D lab, CECI (Center for Educational Computing Initiatives,directed by Steve Lerman), with student research opportunities for freshmen thru Ph.D.students. Our Web-oriented production facility, HTF (Hypermedia Teaching Facility) hasWebified over 25 MIT subjects and has completed numerous other Web-based projects. HTFis now melding into a new virtual center, the EMCC (Educational Media Creation Center) co-directed by Vijay Kumar and yours truly. The EMCC is your one-stop shop for Web-baseddesign and production for education and research at MIT. MVP (MIT Video Productions) hastripled the volume of educational video it has produced in the last four years. MVP can producevideo for your course or lab. Much of their produced video is digitized, compressed, and storedon CAES’ unique “Video Farm,” a 5 terabyte video storage facility run by David Mycue thatcan support up to 600 simultaneous video streams. That facility is now serving the on-campusstudents in 8.01 and 18.06, the on-campus and off-campus students in the SMA program, andthe off-campus learners of MIT’s offerings to PBS/The Business Channel. Come on down!

community. Nay-sayers claim that itweakens the educational experienceof our on-campus students and offersinferior education to distant learners.Projects such as PIVOT, InternetCommerce, and SMA are examplesthat counter that argument. Distanceeducation is not about taking awayvaluable resources from our students;it is about expanding their globalperspective. It is about leveling theeconomic playing field around ourplanet, pushing the envelope andpushing ourselves to ask how can wedo this better.

(I am grateful to Melinda Cerny forcollecting the exciting vignettesdepicting one week in the life of CAESand committing them to a first draftrendering of this article.)✥[Richard C. Larson can be reached [email protected]]


- 30 -

Engineering Systems

To The Faculty Newsletter:

I am somewhat confused by theessay by Professor Roos in theSeptember/October issue of the

Faculty Newsletter. To begin with, theidea of systems needs someclarification. In the days of theRadiation Lab, I worked in a“components” group. Each suchgroup was responsible for the designand even the production of a specificcomponent: antenna, magnetron,duplexer, display, etc. These were theelements that the “systems” groupsused to design and build specific radarsystems. The systems were, bydefinition, more complex than theindividual components. The systemsengineers had to produce somethingthat would work, that would satisfythe needs of the user (the armedservices), and would operate withinthe users organizational constraints.(A “big” radar system might have atotal of several hundred vacuum tubes.)From the description by Roos, I gatherthat these were not the kind of systemspresently under discussion. Later on,in the 1950s, Lincoln Lab set out todesign a radar network that wouldcover all of the Northeastern U.S. Withits multiple radars, communicationsystems, and computers, these lookedmore like the big systems now underdiscussion. Again, the customer wasthe Air Force, and there was little or nodirect interaction with the civiliansociety.

In the 1960s and 1970s under theleadership of Professor Corbato, theEE Department designed and built theCompatable Time Sharing System, andthen the Multix computer system.These required the coordination of

engineers and programmers at MITand at other participating companies.None of the latter felt that they wereworking for MIT, and it required a fairamount of diplomatic skill to keep thewhole thing together. These weresystems by any reasonable definition.Today’s processor chips have morethan a million diodes and transistorson a single chip – they are indeedcomplex. However, they are onlycomponents of a desktop or a laptopcomputer. Somehow, they do not seemto fall within the purview of theEngineering Systems Division.

I believe the focus of the Division ison socio-technical systems – trans-portation systems, communicationsystems, airports, Big Digs, etc.Designing and building a complexsystem, and keeping it on time andwithin budget is complicated, and therehave been many new tools andmethodologies developed to preventa grand plan from turning into a towerof Babel. However, I am concernedthat MIT might produce the equivalentof the World War II 90-day-wonderSecond Lieutenants, who were oftenkept alive by their more experiencedNCOs. To run one of the BIG systemsmany sorts of skills are needed. Thereare lawyers who are needed for theirexpertise, there are businessmen whounderstand how to keep theappropriate number of books, thereare professional lobbyists who knowhow to get the approval of a statelegislature, there are labor relationsexperts, there are spokespersons whocan and will explain what someoneelse really meant, etc.

Some years ago, several of us(Professors Bruce, Fano, Siebert,Smullin) wrote a report about LifelongEducation, pointing out that the rapidchanges in science and technologies

required constant re-education of theengineering workforce. The com-plexity of socio-technical systems callsfor mature leadership. If MIT is seriousabout making a difference, it shouldplan a program to educate experienced“working” engineers into the arcana(legal, financial, political, etc.) oforganizing and running big systems. Iwould hope that an MIT, newly minted,systems engineer could be trusted toknow something substantial about therelevant engineering, by virtue of atleast a departmental degree, andseveral years of work in industry orthe equivalent. The worst thing thatcould happen would be to grantundergraduate degrees in SystemsEngineering.

Louis D. SmullinProfessor Emeritus

EECS

LettersLettersLettersLettersLetters

Professor Roos Responds

Professor Smullin provides threeexamples of different systems:Rad/Lab, CTSS/Multics, and

socio/technical. Although the threesystems differ, they have a commoncharacteristic: complexity. The Rab/Lab example focuses on technicalcomplexity; CTSS/Multics hasorganizational, as well as technicalcomplexity; and socio/technicalsystems feature technical, organi-zational, and societal complexity.

The Engineering Systems Division(ESD) is interested in a range ofcomplex systems. The balancebetween technical, organizational, andsocietal complexity will varydepending on the particular system.Analyses and design approaches willvary as well. ESD’s objective is toestablish Engineering Systems as a



- 31 -

new field of study. As such, ESD willdevelop new approaches, frameworks,and theories to better understandengineering systems behavior anddesign.

Professor Smullin describes theemergence of socio-technical systemsand the implications for engineeringeducation at MIT. He asks “if MIT isserious about making a difference” byplanning programs that prepare leadersto develop these socio/technicalsystems. ESD incorporates successfuleducational and research programsdeveloped at MIT over the past twodecades which have achieved thatobjective. For example, theTechnology and Policy Program(TPP), does as Professor Smullindesires, “educate experienced‘working engineers’ into the arcana(legal, financial, political, etc.) oforganizing and running big systems.”The theme of TPP is “engineers with adifference” since TPP requires thatstudents have a technical background,and the program combines engin-eering with social and managementscience.

TPP is but one example of theexisting MIT professional practiceprograms in engineering systems.Other ESD programs, such as Leadersfor Manufacturing and System Designand Management, also broaden thetraditional engineering science basededucation. An objective of ESD is tobuild upon these successfuleducational programs and providemore educational and researchopportunities for students inengineering systems. Many of theinitiatives will be undertaken inpartnership with the EngineeringSchool departments.

Professor Smullin does not advocategranting undergraduate degrees in

system engineering. We agree; ESDdoes not plan an undergraduate majorin engineering systems. However,several MIT departments haveexpressed an interest in working withESD to develop an engineeringsystems minor.

After World War II, MIT pioneeredin developing engineering science andtransforming the engineeringprofession. We believe the develop-ment of engineering systems will havea similar impact on engineeringeducation and practice in the twenty-first century.

Daniel Roos

Letters Letters Letters Letters Letters (continued)

Feedback

To The Faculty Newsletter:

I like the Newsletter and think thatyou folks are doing good work onbehalf of all of us.

I would like to see a little morecontroversy in the articles:

• what do faculty think of these bigmega partnerships that are developingbetween MIT and companies such asMicrosoft, Ford, Merrill Lynch, etc.?

• a discussion to close the gapbetween the administration's decisionto require all freshmen to live oncampus and the thinking of the facultywhich is either not focused on theissues or is opposed.

I am sure there are many more "hot"topics to deal with in the Newsletter.

Robert B. McKersieProfessor Emeritus

Society of Sloan Fellows[For one perspective on the new MIT/company partnerships, see "From TheFaculty Chair," page 4. Ed.]

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Your Wonderful"Meditations" Article

Dear Professor Hildebidle:

I try to make sure the FacultyNewsletter does not stay in the"still to read" pile very long. Now

you have given me a further impetus.Although the September/OctoberFaculty Newsletter contained severalarticles on issues that, as anadministrative staffer, I am personallyvery involved in (e.g., Y2K,administrative computer systems,academic support) and much othergood information, none of thiscaptured my attention like your"Meditations" did. My congratulationson an entertaining and educationaleffort. Your perspective is enriching.

It is not my usual custom but I didwant to thank you for this enjoyablearticle.

Robert FerraraDirector, I/T Delivery

Information Systems

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

A Sore Thing

Gentlesouls:

Why is it that the copiers inthe libraries are AWFUL?One can't take out journals

to make good copies and the copiersin most/all of the MIT libraries aresome of the worst machines I've everexperienced. Outsourced andforgotten? Who's responsible? Doesno one complain? Thanks and have anice day ;).

Edwin L. ThomasMorris Cohen Professor of

Materials Science and EngineeringPolymer Physics Lab


- 32 -

We are at a crossroads in thehistory of MIT. Theadministration is currently

seeking to force all freshmen to liveon campus beginning in 2001. This isa fundamental change to a housingsystem that, for over a hundred years,has given freshmen the right to makean informed decision about where theywish to live.

One would think that such a changewould be made with overwhelmingevidence to support it, but little suchevidence exists. As the proposals ofthe RSSC (Residence System SteeringCommittee), the SAC (StrategicAdvisory Committee to theChancellor), and other groups havebeen finalized, it has become clearthat implementing this decision in anyform will have many adverse effectsand is inconsistent with the findings ofseveral well-balanced committeescomprising students, faculty, andadministrators.

The RSSC, the SAC, and the TFSLL(Task Force on Student Life andLearning) have stated that, despite itsfaults, MIT’s current housing systemis one of the best in the nation atfostering diversity, strongcommunities, and unprecedentedstudent satisfaction.

According to the Cycles surveytaken at colleges across the nation,86.6% of MIT students said they were“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with theresidential system here. Over 50% saidthey were “very satisfied.” At peerinstitutions, an average of 76% saidthey were “satisfied” or “verysatisfied” with only 34% saying they

were “very satisfied.” See <http://counterpoint.mit.edu/v11/n4/4-3.html>. One of the main reasons cited,is the unique opportunity at MIT forfreshmen to make an informed decisionabout housing after having seen theliving groups and meeting the peoplein them. Many of you may take forgranted the fact that you would never

rent an apartment or buy a house sightunseen, but this is a luxury amongcollege freshmen and one of the greatstrengths of the MIT system.

This system allows students to takean active role in shaping their livesfrom the moment they arrive oncampus, preparing them for the adultdecisions that await them in the worldoutside MIT. Taking away thisfreshmen choice removes one of thefirst opportunities for students to begintaking responsibility for their ownlives. It will also have a more directeffect on campus communities. Themission of all living groups will begin

to move away from supporting first-year students. Many of the inde-pendent living groups that rely onfreshmen for their spirit and viabilitywill be forced to disband and shutdown. In fact, the SAC predicts thatabout 30% of the current FSILGswill close in the near aftermath offorcing all freshmen into dorms.

Strong, supportive communitiesthat have helped thousands of youngmen and women become mature,self-sufficient adults, will cease toexist.

This void will not be filled by simplyadding more beds to the system. Withthe mission of supporting freshmennow gone, the more stereotypical“fraternities” will thrive by catering tothe lowest common denominatoramong sophomores. Students whocome to college looking for that typeof experience (and many do) willsurely find it.

MIT at CrossroadsOver Housing Decision

David Pooley

This system allows students to take an active role inshaping their lives from the moment they arrive oncampus, preparing them for the adult decisions that awaitthem in the world outside MIT. Taking away this freshmenchoice removes one of the first opportunities for studentsto begin taking responsibility for their own lives. Themission of all living groups will begin to move away fromsupporting first-year students. Many of the independentliving groups that rely on freshmen for their spirit andviability will be forced to disband and shut down.



- 33 -

It is important to realize, however,that the dorms have cultures as strongand as unique as any FSILG at MIT.When freshmen choice is taken away,these cultures will quickly becomehomogenized. Without strongcommunities with which to identify,students will feel more alone andisolated than they already do, and,frankly, this is dangerous in the highstress environment of MIT.

Perhaps the most distressing aspectof the whole situation is the way inwhich the decision was made.According to his letter to the MITcommunity, President Vest based hisdecision in large part on the finalreport of the TFSLL (Tech Talk, 26Aug 1998). This report, however, wastainted. As Jeremy Sher, a member ofthe Task Force, later stated at a rallyagainst the decision: “In fact, the TaskForce did no deliberation on the[Freshmen on Campus] issue, exceptfor a couple of hours in the fall, afterwhich we decided not to talk about it.

“Then, in mid-July, one of the co-chairs of the Task Force called me intohis office and told me the followingthing. ‘The decision was inevitable,’he said. ‘It would be made with orwithout the Task Force’s consent.’ ”(Public Statement, 8 Sept 1998). Inthe wake of President Vest’sannouncement, student and facultyopposition was overwhelming.Students held protests and pleadedwith the administration to reconsider,and the faculty did not vote to supportthe decision. However, nothingchanged.

In my six years at MIT as both anundergraduate and a graduate student,I have never seen such polarization of

the students and administration. At aCommunity Meeting during this pastFamily Weekend, President Vestresponded to a question about studentopposition to the decision with, “I’llprobably get in trouble for saying this,but it’s a fact of life. I will guaranteeyou that if you go to any campus onAmerica, students would vote to havethe current system remain.” (PublicStatement, 16 Oct 99). Actually,students have devoted a great deal of

thought to this issue and are genuinelyconcerned about the future of MIT. Formany of us, the places where we go tosleep each night are more than just bedsin a hall; they are our homes and ourcommunities. We are not opposed tochange; we are opposed to potentiallyharmful and destructive change.

The characterization of our concernas some stubborn adherence to thestatus quo has understandably upsetmany of us. There is a definite rift inthe MIT community that needs to bemended. The only effect of the decisionso far has been to create antagonismbetween the students and the

MIT at CrossroadsOver Housing Decision

Pooley, from preceding page

The characterization of our concern as some stubbornadherence to the status quo has understandably upsetmany of us. There is a definite rift in the MIT communitythat needs to be mended. The only effect of the decisionso far has been to create antagonism between thestudents and the administration. Students have lostconfidence in the administration, and a feeling of distrustis growing. This will continue until students feel thatthey are being taken seriously.

administration. Students have lostconfidence in the administration, anda feeling of distrust is growing. Thiswill continue until students feel thatthey are being taken seriously.Please urge Chancellor Bacow([email protected]) to delay thisdecision for further study. It is not atall clear that moving all freshmen tocampus is in the best interest of MIT,and there are many more pressingproblems, such as graduate housing,

that simply cannot be put off anylonger. Most importantly, no housingsystem will work without the supportof those who live under it, and studentswill not support a system that has beenforced upon them.

You can visit <http://mitchoice.mit.edu> to get moreinformation about student resistanceto the decision. Please take a look atthe open letter to President Vest andChancellor Bacow and show yoursupport for a student voice by signingit.✥[David Pooley can be reached [email protected]]


- 34 -

The Year 2000 Team

At its first public appearance,the Stanley brothers’ horselesscarriage dazzled crowds. The

“Stanley Steamer” made its debut atthe Charles River Park bicycle track –site of the present-day MIT campus.Within a week, there were 100 ordersfor Stanley vehicles. Within a year,their steam-powered “Locomobile”became the first car to climb Mt.Washington.

Few working models of these turn-of-the-century cars remain, so it was apuzzle recently when the number ofCertificates of Title for “horselesscarriages” in Maine dramaticallyincreased. The culprit: a computerthat interpreted the “00” for 2000model year automobiles as 1900,and categorized the new cars asantiques.

Y2K-related computer errors havebeen surfacing all year, some moreserious than others. When this columnwas initiated a year ago, there wasalready a fair amount of hype relatedto Y2K, as well as serious concerns atMIT. That hasn’t changed.

The presence of hype is not thesame as absence of risk. Because thereis a subjective element to theperception of risk, the task ofcommunicating Y2K concerns hasbeen complicated. Researchers, forexample, tackle laboratory failures asa matter of course – so any potentialchallenge related to Y2K is oftenviewed as “business as usual.”

How might Y2K differ? Two aspectsfocus our concerns. The most seriousis the reduced availability ofemergency services during the NewYear’s weekend. An estimated 3million people are expected to attendfestivities in the Boston/Cambridge

The Horseless Carriage RevisitedGayle C. Willman

area on New Year’s Eve. This is acrowd roughly 6 times larger than thatat any recent fourth of July event. Thesecond impact is likelihood of multipleY2K-related failures, further strainingavailable resources.

Y2K represents potential risks thatmust be taken seriously. Risks affectnot only computers, but also laboratoryand building systems. Many peoplethroughout MIT have been andcontinue to work on achieving andtesting compliance. About 300enterprise computer systems havebeen evaluated and updated for Y2K-readiness. In addition to issues relatedto computers, there are concerns aboutembedded systems. These non-programmable microchips control ahuge variety of devices in facilitiesand laboratories on campus, and mayfail in a variety of ways.

In spite of the extensive effortsalready made at MIT, you could stillexperience unanticipated problems iflocal Y2K-readiness has not receivedadequate attention.

The 4-day WeekendThe Institute will observe a 4-day

holiday weekend, and will be closedon Friday, December 31 throughTuesday morning, January 4. MIT’sBusiness Continuity ManagementTeam (BCMT) has been appointed toaddress potential issues during thatperiod.

Preparations to Make NowBegin preparing for the Y2K

weekend now. Emergency prepared-ness makes good sense anytime. Theinformation below is a partial list ofthe recommendations being made bythe Year 2000 Team, the BCMTTransition Team, the MIT SafetyOffice, and the Procurement Office.

Contingency Planning• Update contingency planning to

protect your experiments and research,and to prevent potential problems. Inyour plans, assume reduced emer-gency response services. Review andverify that the Emergency Action Planfor your department, lab or center(DLC) is up to date. Here are somesuggestions:

Consider the impact of a loss of:- power (how long?)- heat (how long?)- A/C (how long?)- refrigeration/freezers- waste treatment or removal- ventilation/hood exhaust- chemical reactors and/or processors• Evaluate any and all continuous

processes for their potential to fail.• Review TAVA reports. Over 6000

pieces of equipment with embeddedchips were tagged by MIT’s consultantTAVA Technologies. If your area hasTAVA-tagged equipment, youradministrative officer has a TAVAreport on its Y2K-readiness. Evaluatethe impact of this information on theoperation of your laboratory.

• Consult with your ChemicalHygiene Officer, Safety Coordinator,or Emergency Action PlanCoordinator and plan a walk-throughof all key areas before the close ofbusiness on Thursday, December 30th.

• It may be safest to curtail the morehazardous experiments during thetransition weekend when safetysystems and emergency responseresource capabilities may be stressed.

• Determine what level of staffingis necessary, and who the personnelwill be. Determine if the personnelwill actually be “on duty” or “on call.”



- 35 -

• Ensure that MIT’s “green cards”are up to date with the appropriatecontact names and phone numbers,and that they are properly displayedon the doors of your laboratory. Thegreen card emergency contact list forlaboratories has been updated to reflectthe transition into the year 2000. The“new” card has a neon green color. Itis extremely important that labs reviewthe contact names listed on the existingcards, and transfer – or update – theinformation onto the “new” card andsend a copy to the Safety Office,room E17-207. For furtherinformation, contact the SafetyOffice at x3-4736.

• Plan resumption of normalactivities when the Institute reopenson January 4: what systems orprocesses will need to be checked?who will perform the checks?

Services and SuppliesWithout resorting to “stockpiling,”

make sensible precautions and ordergoods and services now, especiallylong lead time purchases, or thosescheduled for December delivery.Remember that the last week of theyear is a popular time for vacations,and normal deliveries and servicescould be delayed.

• Conduct an inventory of suppliesand reagents, and order reasonableamounts (110% recommended) forcritical operations.

• Order supplies for printers, copiersand other “show-stoppers.”

• Don’t stockpile hazardousmaterials (gases and chemicals).

• Consider whether your lab needsto acquire dry ice. If you suspectstorage issues related to hazardousmaterials or potentially infectiousmaterials, order dry ice now forDecember delivery.

• Call for hazardous waste pick-upahead of time.

• Check the supplies and materialsin your spill kits.

[For a checklist of recommendedY2K preparation activities for desktopcomputers and for actions to take onDecember 30th, see back page.]

For further information:• MIT Y2K Team

The Horseless CarriageRevisited

Willman, from preceding page

When Does the Millennium Start?

Officially, the United States will enter the nextmillennium with the dropping of a time ball atthe U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington,

DC on the eve of 2001. (The Gregorian calendar hadno year zero.)

In 1830, the Navy introduced time balls to enable shipsto check the timepieces used to determine longitudeat sea. On the east coast of the United States, the year2000 will be ushered in by the dropping of a similar,new Waterford crystal time ball in New York’s TimesSquare.

Year 2000 will arrive in New Zealand at 7 am easternstandard time on December 31, 1999, and eventsthere will be monitored for early indicators of Y2Keffects. Of special interest to technology professionalsis the transition to 2000 at Greenwich Mean Time(GMT), 7 pm eastern standard time on December 31,1999. Because many computer systems depend onGMT, it is possible for Y2K-related failures to propagateseveral hours in advance of the chronological arrival ofthe New Year.

<http://web.mit.edu/mity2k/>[email protected]; 253-2000

• BCMT Y2K Transition Team<http://web.mit.edu/bcmt/>[email protected]

• MIT Safety Office<http://web.mit.edu/safety>[email protected]; 253-4736✥[Gayle C. Willman can be reached [email protected]]


- 36 -

M.I.T. Numbers

A Y2K Preparation Checklist

OfficesPerform backups.Shut down desktop systems.Shut down local servers not required over the New Year’s weekend.For servers that will be running over the millennium boundary, recheck the recommendationsWeb page at: http://mitvma.mit.edu/mity2k/mitonly/recomnds.html.

LaboratoriesVerify that processes that can be shut down for the weekend, have been shut down.Store all hazardous materials properly and ensure that all containers are closed or sealed.Close shutters on lab hoods.Conduct a walk-through of all key areas before the close of business on December 30th.

Preparations to Make December 30th

❏❏❏❏❏

Assess and update desktop hardware. Links to hardware manufacturers can be found at:http://mitvma.mit.edu/mity2k/y2kcomp.html.

Make decisions about backups. If local backups will be done, make sure you have anadequate supply of backup media; if the online ADSM service will be used, sign up now:http://web.mit.edu/is/help/adsm/.

Change desktop computers to display 4-digits for the year. Instructions can be found at:http://mitvma.mit.edu/mity2k/dtsteps.html.

Obtain new Web certif icates if you haven’t within the last 3 months:http://web.mit.edu/is/help/cert/.

Update Kerberos software: http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/www/index.html.

Install recommended Service Packs for Microsoft Windows and Office software, and checkother commercial software Y2K readiness: http://mitvma.mit.edu/mity2k/y2kcomp.html.

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

Documents

Vol. XII No. 2 November/December 1999 · Vol. XII No. 2 November/December 1999 From The Faculty Chair — Page 4 d'Arbeloff Fund: Call for Proposals — Page 16 A Day in the Life