Perform a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis of the program in the case study from the perspective of university leadership.

CASE STUDY:

1. Introduction The challenges associated with knowledge and information management can be significant in organizations of all kinds and in all sectors during a crisis. Obstacles to these processes are particularly notable within higher education (Rowley, 2000), where loosely-coupled systems, distributed leadership, decentralized decisionmaking, traditions of faculty autonomy, work-flow inefficiencies, and diverse role-based cultures magnify the usual organizational challenges (Birnbaum, 1988; Bueller, 2015; Cranfield and Taylor, 2008; Hendrickson, et al, 2013; Nuninger and Chatelet, 2016; Ruben, De Lisi and Gigliotti, 2021; Ruben, in press; Weick, 1976). Although universities are understood to be in the knowledge business (Goddard, 1998) and should be well positioned to lead other sectors in the organization and use of knowledge for administrative purposes, this is not necessarily an area of distinction within many colleges and universities (Bhusry, Ranjan and Nagar, 2012). Impediments to excellence in knowledge management arise from the absence of a culture of sharing, a lack of awareness of potential benefits, and a failure to integrate effective practices into work routines (Bhusry, Ranjan and Nagar, 2012). In such a context, the effective aggregation, curation, and communication of pertinent informationfrom both internal and external sourcespresent challenges at any point in time. These challenges are especially problematic during periods of disruption and crisis such as has occurred within higher education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Ruben, 2020a, 2020b). However, when the power of such a community of academic, administrative, and professional experts is effectively harnessed and focused on addressing a problem, such as the pandemic, the knowledge available with the institution becomes apparent. The result is a case history of how colleges and universities may address additional challenges confronting society if they are able to organize and leverage their resident knowledge. 1The authors are listed in alphabetical order and wish to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Andrea Conklin Bueschel, Morit Blank, Jonathan Holloway, Melodee Lasky, Damian Onwunka, and Kim Tuby. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 20, Issue 1 www.ejkm.com 2 The Authors Clearly, the impact of the pandemic has been pervasive and largely unprecedented for individuals and organizations worldwide. Like other organizations, higher-education institutions, and their faculty, staff, and students in the U.S. and internationally, have been confronted by life-threatening health and safety concerns. Wide-ranging disruptions have often been quite extreme, even existential. These circumstances instigated critical moments calling for thoughtful and expeditious decision-making in a context in which leaders, students, and others in the institutions were compelled to pivot rapidly to remote technology to support all interactions. This case history provides a snapshot of the leadership and organizational context that supported a bold and collaborative process at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (Rutgers) that harnessed internal expertise to overcome many of the usual impediments to effective, efficient, action-oriented, and informed decisionmaking. These efforts culminated in the decision to require vaccination of all students for fall 2021. Rutgers was the first university in the United States to make and announce this decisiona decision which was subsequently embraced by approximately 1,000 other colleges and universities and later by various public and private organizations (Thomason and O'Leary, September, 2020). The background, setting, and processes through which this occurred are profiled in this article, along with a discussion of insights that emerged and implications for effectively utilizing internal knowledge resources and collaborative leadership in other crisis settings within higher education and perhaps in a broader range of contexts. 2. Research Methodology This article utilizes a narrative approach, drawing on qualitative and quantitative data to provide a case history of events associated with the efforts of one large U.S. research university to address a life-threatening crisis confronting the community. The project analyzes public documents, media accounts, and interviews with selected university leaders and key decision makers to describe the manner in which internal sources of expertise and knowledge were identified and integrated to facilitate rapid, coordinated, value-based decisionmaking and execution. The study considers ways in which what Davenport, Delong and Beers(1998) and Rowley (2000, p. 327) describe as "explicit, documented knowledge, and tacit, subjective knowledge" were shared and collaboratively utilized to become vital organizational assets at a critical moment for the institution. 3. The National and State Context In late January 2020, many in the U.S. became aware of the novel coronavirus first detected in China when news arrived that a case had been confirmed in Washington state (New York Times, Jan 21, 2020). Within 10 days Wuhan, China and the surrounding communities were on lockdown, and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a public health emergency. As the virus spread, organizational leaders across the country took note of guidance as it flowed from the Centers of Disease Control and Infection (CDC) to state departments of health and then to local health departments. As one of the initial sites for extensive spread of the virus, New Jersey (NJ) along with New York were among the first to battle the pandemic. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the U.S. with one of the most diverse and global populations. These demographics coupled with the state's locale and centrality relative to significant travel corridors (New York, Philadelphia, District of Colombia, and Boston) and around major international airports contributed to its susceptibility to an airborne transmissible disease arriving from overseas.

The COVID-19 pandemic created extraordinary crisis conditions for organizations in various sectors, including higher education (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2020b). In a matter of days, colleges and universities had to confront organizational challenges related to instructional delivery, campus openings and closings (temporary and permanent), long-term financial stability (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2020a; Associated Press, 2020), employment (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2020b), campus governance, faculty engagement in decisionmaking, confidence in administrators (Flaherty, 2020; Murphy, 2020; Paquette, 2020), and many other issues (Fernandes, 2020; Furstenberg, 2020; Nadworny, 2020; Ruben, 2020b; Vedder, 2020; Zahneis, 2020; Zwickel, 2020). The crisis for higher education is defined by four conditions that have been extremely difficult to resolve: 1. Social distancing in an industry where social interaction and physical presence are central to the work done, whether in the classroom, dormitories, and fraternities or sororities, or in the laboratories, libraries, clinics, and field sites where students and faculty conduct their research. 2. Fiscal emergencies in a sector that has confronted financial challenges for some time, especially- but not exclusively- at schools that receive state funding, and at small private institutions that were struggling financially. The unpredictability of demand/tuition revenue as well as the impact from auxiliary services; such as housing, athletics, facility rentals, campus stores, and restaurants, etc., coupled with increased financial need among students, also contributed to the strain on the university. Loss of international students, most of whom pay full tuition, could exacerbate financial challenges. 3. Increasing demand for health care services delivered in hazardous conditions for those schools with medical schools, other health professional schools, or hospitals, while simultaneously losing revenue from delayed elective surgeries contributed mounting strain on already pressured leadership to produce more, with less (Lawrence, 2020). 4. The lack of a human or technological infrastructure to pivot to an all-remote environment. Rutgers is a large and complex teaching-research institution with campuses and satellite facilities located throughout the state of NJ. Collective senior-level governance of the institution is provided by a Board of Governors, the university president, the president's cabinet which is composed of academic and administrative leaders, and four chancellors that oversee the institution's three regional and one united health sciences campuses. The State, and the university specifically, are highly unionized. The university is home to more than 28,000 faculty and staff and 66,000+ students. Its largest campus, both in size and population, is Rutgers-New Brunswick. Rutgers-Newark and Rutgers-Camden also host sizeable academic and research programs, and Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences (RBHS) - which includes health care providers, instructors, researchers, and medical residents and fellows in addition to undergraduate students, graduate students, and academic faculty - has a major presence on each of the campuses and at numerous locations throughout the state. While the functions described above are common to many if not most large universities and systems, the combination of Rutgers' size, organizational complexity, geographic dispersion, and urban campus settings were important considerations for leaders in planning and implementing COVID-19 policy. Administrators at all levels were involved in the process. Along with the university president, members of the university cabinet played important leadership roles in this regard, representing these critical functions: academic affairs, general counsel, human resources, IT, and communications. Each had a vital role to play in their respective area of expertise. The Office of Information Technology focused their efforts on preparing technology and providing technological support for faculty. Human Resources efforts centered on workforce policy, support, and labor relationships. Communications coordinated information dissemination from and to administrators and the community. Chancellors, their provosts, members of their leadership teams, and other unit's functional leaders provided.

A key asset to the university during this period was the expertise and leadership present within its own academic medical centers. Dedicated to advancing medical research, education, outreach, and clinical practice, RBHS employs renowned experts throughout the varied fields of health and wellness and is led by physician and epidemiologist Brian L. Strom, a long-term member of the National Academy of Medicine, with special expertise in the effects of drugs and vaccines. More than 1,300 health care professionals including dentists, nurses, psychologists, pharmacists, and other allied health providers comprise RBHS's clinical care division, Rutgers Health. Each year Rutgers Health delivers 2.8 million patient visits and performs 470 clinical trials. Additionally, Rutgers University and RWJBarnabas Health, NJ's largest and most comprehensive health care delivery system, recently partnered to create one of the largest academic health systems in the U.S., and the largest in the state of NJ. The collaboration between the two entities supports the training of more than 1,500 medical residents and interns and includes substantial investments in research. RBHS's Chancellor and Senior Vice Chancellor of Clinical Affairs also guide universitywide health services as Executive Vice President of Health Affairs and Vice President of Health Affairs, respectively. Along with a former NJ Health Commissioner as the Executive Director of Health Systems and Population Health Integration and the Assistant Vice President of Student Health, Rutgers Health Affairs organized the institution's historically siloed, campus-specific student and occupational health offices into a coordinated and agile team that could quickly advise university leadership and guide the Rutgers community as a whole. This valuable expertise also supported the university's clinical partners, as Rutgers served a key role in coordinating practices among its multiple health system partners and the university provided subject matter experts to the state government, lending critical expertise during a period when best practices were not yet known or confirmed.