Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/111663
and university lawyer informed throughout the process. Stakeholders raised two issues of particular concern: Con���dentiality. Some components of the P&T process are con���dential, and many faculty were uncertain that the electronic system would protect their privacy. We explained that, because the electronic process enables the ATC to block access, it actually offers more security than a hard-copy system. A paper-based system presents more opportunities for unapproved access to applications. This explanation allayed concerns about con���dentiality. Attitudes toward technology. Not surprisingly, some people expressed discomfort with abandoning the familiarity of the three-ring binders. Perhaps even less surprising, even more people expressed strong preferences for technologies that were their personal favorites. At one point, it appeared that the change might be derailed or delayed as people advocated for CDs, iPads, or other software and Web-based solutions besides Blackboard. In the end, detailed descriptions of the advantages and possibilities of Blackboard convinced most people that they could operate this system. With feedback from stakeholders in mind, we produced several drafts of the proposal describing the rationale for the change, as well as updates of the faculty manual, a mock-up of what the Blackboard sites for applicants would look like, and a calendar outlining when decision makers would have access to the sites. As we approached the Faculty Senate���s vote, two alternatives to full implementation of the new system gained many adherents among faculty. First, some wanted to give applicants the option of submitting either hard-copy or electronic applications. Second, many wanted to begin with a pilot program. However, both options would have resulted in a mix of paper and paperless applications, which the P&T Committee feared would complicate the review process considerably. They convincingly addressed the spirit of these alternatives by agreeing to fully implement the new system, but only for a two-year trial period. The P&T Committee also agreed to give a report each year to the Senate about the system���s effectiveness. Simple and Streamlined At the end of each stage of the electronic review process, we conducted an anonymous online survey of the relevant participants. The applicants universally found it to be a convenient way to assemble their materials and had no trouble working within the Blackboard system. The ATC provided technical support to those who needed it. Another bene���t: Special material, such as video content, was now accessible with only a click or two. In the past, CDs or DVDs included in hard-copy submissions often did not receive full attention, merely because of the extra effort it took to view them. The majority of reviewers noted that it was signi���cantly easier to review the applications electronically. We did make one signi���cant change to the process. In the ���rst year of the trial, we allowed applicants to work with the ATC to present their entire application as a single PDF ���le that mimicked the structure of the Blackboard site. We wanted to make it easier for reviewers to have a portable copy that they could access on their personal devices, even if they were not connected to the Internet. However, some were concerned that, because this was the only part of the application not under the full control of the applicant, it might not fully replicate the communication strategy that the applicant wanted. We monitored the use of PDF ���les in Blackboard and found that few people used this option. Therefore, we eliminated this feature the following year. We have found that the electronic system represents a vast improvement over our paper application process. The information is easier to provide and evaluate, and moving the application through multiple evaluation levels is as simple as changing access levels to the sites. Even better is that we accomplished this with standard software that faculty and administrators in many disciplines routinely use. Our experience suggests that other universities could easily transition their paper-based evaluations to a simpler and more streamlined electronic alternative. Charles Hadlock is trustee professor of technology, policy, and decision making, as well as professor of mathematical sciences, at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he was previously dean of the undergraduate college. Mary Jo Sanz is an instructional designer in Bentley���s Academic Technology Center, specializing in online programs and course management technology. Duncan Spelman is the chair of the department of management. BizEd March/April 2013 51