There is no doubt we are witnessing a tech-nology revolution that is shaping impor-tant aspects of our society. Education is no exception. Even the staunchest advocates of traditional teaching methods are finding themselves using e-mail to supplement office hours. Desktop computers are showing up in faculty offices, class sessions are held in computer labs, software packages and simulators accompany textbooks, and homework often consists of Web searches. But merely using the techniques and tools afforded by computing and information technology is not itself the solution to fitting education to the demands of an information society. We must do much more than be caught up in technology. We must aggressively go after the skills and methods needed to produce designers of the complex information systems our society requires. If we do not, we jeopardize not only the future of our graduates, but also our overall ability to produce systems with increasing levels of complexity. In the past we asked ourselves if we needed to change. The question is no longer if, but how should we reengineer ourselves? What does such a proactive approach entail? As Stefano Russo points out in “Are We Ready to Scale Up Information Technology?” we must first examine whether or not our current infrastructure can support these demands. To what degree must we reengineer it? What stays? What goes? How much should industry influence or be involved in our reengineering process? As we see it, reengineering should have two primary goals. First, it should exploit the advances in computing and communications technology to improve the educational environment. For example, Bernd Krämer talks about “New Possibilities for Distance Learning” that will more closely capture the in-person interaction missing in current techniques and make cooperative work much more feasible. But again, simply using a technique is not the answer. These advances have rippling effects. Consider the grading system. How, as Lillian Cassel asks in “Blend of Old and New,” can we encourage cooperative work when our current grades are designed for individual effort? This is an example of how technology use is forcing us to look at our programs, as well as our curricula and teaching methods—to see what elements should be discarded, refined, or kept intact.

Our second reengineering goal should be to equip our graduates with the skills they will need as professionals. This is not a new theme, but we may for the first time be truly partnering with industry to solve the issues. But again, a simple agreement to collaborate with industry opens a range of complex issues. As Jimmie Haines points out in “The Case for More Relevant Computing Skills,” current graduates cannot lack important skills like systemic thinking and problemsolving. Both Haines and Gordon Stokes (“Rethinking the Current Formula”) see the need for this systemic view. In addition to existing disciplines in computer science, computer engineering, and information systems, Stokes visualizes a new discipline that would produce information systems engineers. These individuals would have a foundation in computer science, but not the depth of the computer science specialist. This is just one example of how we could change to keep up with technological advancements. Others may not see the need to introduce a new discipline, preferring instead to find ways of more rapidly updating the curricula in existing disciplines. But even that is no easy task, as Joe Turner points out in “Making the Structure More Flexible.” Traditional educational structures do not support rapid change, and institutional procedures and policies may need to …