Administrative Workstation Project at Indiana University Copyright 1993 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 16, Number 2, Summer 1993. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its date appear,and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission.For further information, contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu ADMINISTRATIVE WORKSTATION PROJECT AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY by Polley Ann McClure, Susan F. Stager, Norma Brenner Holland, and Cathy Smith ABSTRACT: At Indiana University the confluence of budget woes and an information explosion created a unique opportunity to sell an information technology vision three years ago. A grant from Apple Computer, Inc. enabled undertaking an ambitious project of technological integration into administrative life. The "Administrative Workstation Project" increased IT knowledge and use by key administrators, resulting in greater creativity and productivity in the management function, improved attitudes toward technology, and receptivity to continued investment. During the 1980s Indiana University experienced an information explosion similar to that experienced at other colleges and universities. Coupled with this situation was the physical growth of IU's eight campuses, and the increasing importance of University-wide administrative functions that were more cost-efficient. Together, these factors spawned an awareness of the need to apply technology to administrative intracampus and intercampus office coordination and administrative functions. In the spring of 1990, University administrators in the division of Finance and Administration chose to undertake an all-encompassing project, integrating technology into the daily routine of their administrative offices. Earlier piecemeal efforts to integrate technology had resulted in diverse and often incompatible computing platforms within the offices reporting directly to the vice president for finance and administration. Consequently, these offices were characterized by both a wide range of technical sophistication (from the technologically sophisticated to two-finger typists who described themselves as computer phobics) and a wide range of commitment to information technology as a viable solution to executive office management. University Computing Services (UCS) and Management Advisory Services divisions were charged with developing the "Administrative Workstation Project." The goals for the project included enhancing the computing environment for University executives, increasing knowledge and use of the technology by these executives, increasing creativity and productivity in the University administration function, and improving executive attitudes toward technology. In recognition of the potential costliness of this project, hardware vendors were asked to submit proposals and cost evaluations. Vendors were provided with both an overview of the goals of the project and an overview of the goals for Finance and Administration. Three proposals were obtained by July of 1990. The cross-unit project team met for the first time in early August. The core project team was limited to one or two staff members each from the educational, support, workstations, and information services units of UCS, a total of nine team members. It was agreed that the key to achieving the project goals was to sell the importance of information technology to the executives. In turn, by enhancing the computing environment in executive offices, and increasing these individuals' knowledge and use of technology, the status of information technology at Indiana University would rise. Functional roles were outlined for the team members and personnel resources estimates were calculated. The project team was instructed to solicit help from other staff members on an as-needed basis. Subsequently, a member of the network staff was added to the project team in recognition of the central role of network technology in the success of the project. By the end of August, the technical and financial analyses of the proposals were complete; a functional analysis of the computing needs of the administrative offices in Finance and Administration was also prepared (see Figure 1). Of the three responding vendors, Apple's proposal for the project was accepted because it was the best match with the specifications outlined in the functional analysis. The Administrative Workstation Project proposal was reviewed by senior management of the computing center, and twenty-nine executives of Finance and Administration and their assistants were selected as project participants. ************************************************************************ Figure 1: Desired functionality, grouped into general categories (X) indicates that functionality was achieved. ______________________________________________________________________ Communications (e-mail) _X_ Send and receive short notes and multi-page documents _X_ Filing _X_ Compose short notes and multi-page documents _X_ Draft and hold capability (return to draft) _X_ Draft from filed document * Seamless import and export of document with local editor (accurate formatting and conversion; off-line composition) _X_ Nicknames (aliases--translated to full name on document) _X_ Distribution lists (full names in document) _X_ Confirmation of reception and reading (EMMA mail provides this feature) _X_ Access to current VAX and EMMA users _X_ Access to current non-IU e-mail users _X_ Screen and document print ** Send and receive FAX from the desktop Online References _X_ IU procedures and policy information _X_ Access to external information resources (e.g., LEXIS, NEXIS, Dow Jones, Compuserve) _X_ Access to major IU systems (e.g., TOPS, TOSS, HRIS, BARS, SLS) _X_ Remote access to workstation (i.e., access to same applications and data via home workstation control of office workstation) Text Editing _X_ Seamless import of documents from current editor applications _X_ Consistency in use from other editor applications (e.g., WordPerfect) _X_ Import from other applications (e.g., e-mail, spreadsheet, database) _X_ Block copy, move, delete _X_ Find/replace _X_ Sizing and font selection _X_ Spell checker & thesaurus _X_ Scanning input (character recognition) Spreadsheet ** Bank of formulas _X_ Dynamic import of data from other spreadsheets and databases _X_ Concurrent graphical modeling and composition Graphics _X_ Import/export of graphic images & text with other applications _X_ Free form drawing _X_ Graphic interpretation of data _X_ Bank of symbols _X_ Text insertion _X_ Block movement _X_ Text, image import _X_ Capability to share with group interactively (e.g., video projection) Database _X_ Access to developed applications (e.g., Budget Office DOS-based systems) _X_ New systems for document filing and extract report generation Project Management _X_ Task identification _X_ Resource identification _X_ Scheduling _X_ Tracking _X_ Impact assessment (including graphical mapping tools) Desk Tools _X_ Task list/calendar *** Concurrent read access by multiple, selected individuals _X_ Update access by selected individuals only _X_ Printout by day, month _X_ Dialer (automatic, from shared repository) _X_ Reference bank (e.g., how to use applications) ___ Clock Printing _X_ Immediate access to draft printing _X_ Easy access to formal/final printing _X_ Print screen from any application _X_ Multiple paper selection (e.g., letterhead, bond, memo, "blue draft," legal size, envelopes) _X_ Color (available at specialized sites) ______________________________________________________________________ * State-of-the-art technology is unavailable for seamless formatting. ** Judged as out of the scope of this project by project team. *** MeetingMaker was purchased by the project, and is being tested by advanced users. ______________________________________________________________________ ************************************************************************ Roughly eleven months later, the formal project concluded on June 30, 1991. Judging from the participants' evaluations, the project was quite successful. A number of executives who were once self-described computer-illiterates now expressed enthusiasm about their computing capabilities. Indicators like the aforementioned example suggest increased computer knowledge among the participants, the result of which was greater productivity and a more positive response to the information technology vision put forth by UCS. The sections that follow describe the strategy used by the project team to achieve project goals, progress toward those goals, an evaluation of the strategies with suggestions about how the project might be improved if replicated, and an overview of the future distributed computing environment envisioned for administrators at IU. Strategy Key components of the strategy used by the project team to achieve project goals and to promote the importance of information technology were ease of use, incremental, specialized instruction, consistency, access, security, and support. Ease of use Given the action-oriented workstyle of the executives, any technology introduced into the office environment had to be easy to use. An intuitive interface was critical in meeting this requirement. "Ease of use" also dictated that ergonomic principles be employed in the design of the environment. Apple Macintoshes provided the intuitive interface. Incremental, specialized instruction Executives are unlikely to attend mass training activities for the general staff. What was needed instead was an exclusive training program with incremental, specialized instruction. An "Administrative Workstation Education Series" was developed by the UCS education program staff, and throughout the late fall and spring, project participants attended a variety of weekly instructional sessions. Consistency Unlike Indiana University's computing center staff, the executives did not value or thrive on an ever-changing technology environment. Priorities and responsibilities in the executive environment are often in flux, and it is vital that support technology be reliable and consistent. The project team met the consistency requirement in four ways. First, the functionality that the participants achieved was equal to or greater than the functionality that they had at the start. In large part the increased functionality was a result of the equipment upgrades and software enhancements. Second, consistency with University technology standards was maintained so as not to leave the Finance and Administration executives "stranded" on a hardware and software island. Third, consistency was maintained between the computing environment of the senior executives and that of their staff by including key administrative assistants in the project. Fourth, consistency was maintained between the DOS environments found in the majority of the participating administrative offices and the new Macintosh environment through the use of server technology allowing users to access both DOS and Mac documents. Access Both administrators and their staff required access to the same data on a centralized resource. Consequently, the following steps were taken: (1) an Administrative Workstation Project server was purchased as part of the project; (2) a local area network (LAN) administrator was identified from one of the participating offices; and (3) project participants received training on server technology. By December, participants were creating their monthly reports using server technology. Security One of the first concerns that executives in higher education have about a new technology is security. It was important to demonstrate to the participating executives that security could be maintained at existing levels, or even enhanced. The security requirement meant ensuring that the accounts and data of project participants would be protected, by limiting access to designated personnel. This requirement also necessitated that administrators and their assistants have the ability to recover from any possible system and data loss that might occur. Support Project participants needed access to qualified technicians during the transition period between the old technology environment and the new. As part of the grant, Apple provided funding for part-time support personnel to assist the twenty-nine administrators during the typical 40-hour week. Every effort was made to hire support staff who were critical thinkers, who could verbalize technical problems at a level appropriate for a wide range of users, who were aware of technological alternatives, and who would allow the project participants to make their own decisions. The requirement that the hourly staff respect the confidentiality requirements of these executive offices was also of primary importance. Progress toward project goals The project goals were to enhance the administrative computing environment, technologically transform administrative office functions, increase administrators' knowledge of and comfort with technology, increase administrators' use of diverse applications, and promote a distributed computing environment. Enhanced administrative computing environment The project placed mid-range Macintosh computers with a suite of software on the desks of participating executives and their assistants. These Macs replaced an assortment of aging DOS microcomputers and terminals with unsupported software. The standard workstation selected was the Mac IIci with 8 MB RAM, an 80 MB hard drive, Ethernet card, and an Apple 13" monitor. Ethernet LANs were established in each office or series of offices with an EmPac 80486 Novell file server having 660 MB of hard disk and several LaserWriter IINT printers. Each workstation had access to the IBM administrative mainframe using TN3270 and the academic VAXcluster using Telnet. Macintosh PowerBooks were furnished for home use, and Timbuktu Remote with NEC 9600 baud modems were used to dial in to the mainframes and LAN services. Software was initially provided by UCS and later purchased by the project participants. Software included Aldus Persuasion, MacDraw II, Excel, WordPerfect, Access PC, FileMaker Pro, and Address Book. Technological transformation of administrative functions The project sought to create a positive technological environment by utilizing LAN-based technologies to transform the way that University business was conducted, and provide a stimulating environment in which to work. Participants were interviewed upon completion of the project to evaluate the success of this aspect. Many reported that their style of interacting with one another had changed, and that this had resulted in greater efficiency. For example, one administrator commented that use of the technology re-distributed the typical workload of his office, and that by using the server in concert with his assistant, participation in many projects increased. The application of technology clearly had the effect of reducing barriers to work-related interactions, e.g., diminishing the importance of physical presence. As communication could occur regardless of separation by distance or time, productivity under these traditionally prohibitive circumstances was now unhindered. One application cited as a significant time saver was the electronic telephone log. Assistants receiving phone calls replaced a paper telephone log with an electronic one, which greatly simplified searching for earlier calls. Another administrator enjoyed being able to work from home during evenings and weekends with the same tools that were available in the office. In both cases, greater productivity was the result. Both creativity and autonomy were greatly increased over the course of the project. One example cited repeatedly as a positive outcome was the ability to create material for papers and presentations using graphics. Other examples included the use of network services and an increased motivation to migrate from formerly non-standard software to strategic technologies. Prior to the implementation of the project, these technological innovations were little understood; as a result of the project, they became a way of life for those involved. There was, of course, some variance in opinion. A few participants commented on the richness of the Macintosh environment, but maintained a preference for the more familiar realm of Windows environments. In one case, server problems put a damper on use of the entire system for one week. Administrators also learned that they could create their own memos while their thoughts were still fresh, then send the draft to their assistants in preparation for a final copy. Both administrators and their assistants became more independent computer users, relying more on their individualized abilities and networking efforts with co-workers, rather than the UCS help desk. In all, the general orientation of project participants underwent what might best be described as a paradigm shift. This is well illustrated by the following executive's comment centering on the replacement of a Macintosh "desktop" for a physical desktop: "I arrive in the morning, set up my desktop with mail and applications, jump in and out of applications, and generally have shifted my focus from paper to the workstation." Increased knowledge of and comfort with technology Without exception, project participants reported that they were more knowledgeable about computing and information technology as a result of the project. One administrator commented that he felt his office was on the cutting edge of administrative computing. In general, attitudes about computing moved from trepidation or ignorance, to increased confidence and comfort in using the computer to accomplish more and better work. The associated Administrative Workstation Education Series was the primary vehicle for assisting the project participants with acquiring more knowledge about the technology. It was rated by the majority of participants as "outstanding," and as "satisfactory" by the remainder. Generally speaking, prior DOS users were impressed with the user- friendliness of the Macintosh. Many project participants felt that the educational series was key in enabling them to use a variety of technological applications more frequently, and with greater ease. Use of more diverse applications Another of our primary goals was an increase in the use of diverse applications by project participants. Initially project participants were primarily users of word processing and communications software. By the end of the project, many participants were using graphics software, calendar applications, presentation software, and other specialized applications (see graph on facing page). Enhanced distributed information environment Overall, users who were operating in a mainframe-based, terminal- oriented computing environment were able to migrate to a more user- friendly, workstation-based, network-oriented computing environment. Commitment to the technology continued after the project formally ended, as evidenced by the hiring of LAN administrators by several of the participating departments. Things we would do differently Looking back on the project after nearly two years, we have been able to identify a number of areas in which we would do things differently, were we to have an opportunity to replicate the project. Inclusion The vast majority of things that we would do differently fall under the heading of inclusion. In general, we would include as many individuals as possible to avoid any sense of exclusionary practices. We failed to recognize that the project would be perceived as a high-status project because it involved top executives in the University. As a result of this perception, more individuals sought to be included in the project than our personnel resources could handle. In retrospect, we would begin the project by identifying any computing support staff from the departments participating in the project, and inviting them to join the project team. We would also include computing center staff members who believed they were making a major contribution to the project. Timing Another area in need of improvement involved timing. First, we would spread out the installation time period. The hourly assistants worked 80-hour weeks during the installation period, as did many other members of the project team. In addition, we were forced to ask Communication Services to put our project ahead of others in order to get data jacks installed in a timely manner. Communication Services graciously agreed to assist, but we would not ask that of them again. Second, we would change the timing of workshops. The workshops should be bi-weekly or monthly, but not weekly. It was our experience that project participants cannot assimilate the new tools and maintain their current workload if the workshops are scheduled too closely. Third, we would change the timing of the introduction of specialized functionality. Project team efforts were wasted on providing instruction on "bells and whistles" prematurely. The time to introduce bells and whistles is after basic functionality is achieved. Negotiation Another set of things we would do differently involves negotiations. Next time, rather than have a project team goal stating "make the administrators more independent computer users," we would negotiate with the project participants to have a personal goal of becoming more independent users. We would also negotiate with the participants about support issues for the year following the project before the project starts. This would allow administrative units sufficient time to budget for any additional personnel costs they might incur. We would also negotiate with support team members in advance as to what constitutes a "crisis." Team members and project participants had different definitions of a crisis. In the future, we would advise project team members that University officials at the vice-presidential staff level expect the project team staff to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to handle support issues. The vice-presidential staff routinely work evenings and weekends, and must have project team support available to fix the LAN when it goes down Saturday morning (which it did, and we did), for example. These were very special customers and we provided very special support. Vulnerabilities and obstacles All projects have obstacles. If we had it to do over, we would identify our potential points of vulnerability from the onset, that is, we would attempt to predict the obstacles to project success. In retrospect, we recognize that the newest technology will be our greatest area of project vulnerability, regardless of the technology and regardless of the project. The newest technology introduced to the group was local area network (LAN) technology. LANs There are many things we would do differently in the LAN area. We would identify a LAN administrator from the participating offices at the beginning of the project. Moreover, we would assign a project team member to help the administrator develop policies and let the LAN administrator enforce the policies from the beginning. We would then work with the LAN administrator to develop an organizational structure for the server prior to placing participants on the server. The server environment served ten different departments, all with different notions of a filing structure. Consequently, the server took on a structure analogous to allowing twenty-nine library patrons to organize the shelving scheme of the public library. We would develop a LAN/server policy early on in the project. Political considerations dictated server policies in the early days of the project because a policy did not exist. Once the "de facto" policy took shape, it was difficult to implement new regulations. Training Still another area in need of revision is that of training. First, we would group the participants in the mandatory introductory classes, basing the grouping on past computing experience. An individual who is new to computing is very different from an individual who is new to a platform. We knew that, but we thought that keeping the group of executives together was more important than ability grouping. It is not. Second, if we had it to do over again we would provide classes in one dedicated, state-of-the-art training site. This would make it possible to have more stable training in a real classroom environment with much less effort on the part of the education program staff, as well as give executives a better impression of our campus computer classroom environments.Third, we would plan differently for the training component. We would have the training coordinator meet with representative(s) from the participating offices to clarify their training preferences, to be sure the right questions are asked and right answers given for rationale behind the training. Oversights Finally, there is the category of oversights. If we had it to do over we would include network support factors in the platform decision. Given the campus goal for distributed computing, a platform cannot be evaluated outside the context of network support issues such as the state of the deployment of the network. In future projects, the network support staff of the computing center would be involved in the original evaluation of vendor proposals. Further, we would resolve the workstation platform compatibility problem head-on and make this an objective for a project team member. Our executives did not work in isolation. As a result of the grant from Apple, many of our executives now had platforms that differed from the majority of their staff. We would provide training and/or documentation on the subject of successfully migrating from one platform to the other. Future executive workstation environment Meeting the project goals--increasing administrators' knowledge of and comfort with technology and promoting a distributed computing environment--was instrumental in achieving a secondary goal, that of generating executive receptivity to the overall information technology vision of UCS. This receptivity did materialize, and it facilitated University movement in the direction of this vision and a new executive workstation environment. The ability to access the information and services of a variety of computers is quickly becoming a necessity in higher education. University Computer Services' vision is that utilizing the workstation as a service portal is the best way to provide services from a wide array of sources. Delivery through a single, familiar local environment featuring graphical user interfaces (GUI) with point-and-click service selection allows for complete personal access to services, regardless of the placement of services on the network or the user's location. The client-server model supports the implementation of "workstation as service portal" by allowing a workstation, as the client, to request and receive the information and services of a network of computers. In this model, the client workstation moves beyond the stage of terminal emulation to the maximum utilization of all capabilities. This is especially critical given the tens-of-millions of dollars institutions like Indiana University have invested in desktop computers. As described earlier, the project resulted in the establishment of vigorous and widely used network services at the workgroup level, i.e., through the use of Ethernet LANs and a NetWare server, and project participants systematically shared applications, data files, and printers among themselves. Participant access to University computing services--including applications, data, and peripherals--was obtained through traditional timesharing. This project experience well illustrates the bi-modal nature of Indiana University computer service delivery in recent years. Personal and workgroup applications and services have evolved as local and native workstation applications, often facilitated by a LAN server; University applications and services have remained mainframe-based, with access typified by terminal sessions and file transfer. During the latter stages of the project, the University began a deliberate effort to shift away from this dual mode of computer service delivery to a single unified mode through which central services are provided as network-based, client-server applications delivered transparently to, and fully integrated with, the desktop computing environment. In addition to the Macintosh computers used in the project, DOS/Windows and Unix/Motif workstations are also targeted as client workstations. The present and future environment includes some significant changes: * Whereas project participants accessed electronic mail, electronic bulletin boards, and our campus-wide information system (CWIS) through terminal sessions with mainframes, these services have subsequently been deployed as workstation-based client-server applications. The participant user of the new executive workstation environment, therefore, has these services directly and immediately available as Macintosh applications integrated into her/his desktop. * Whereas project participants accessed administrative applications such as those supporting budget transactions through terminal sessions with mainframes, these services are now being implemented as workstation-based client-server applications. A new financial information system is being so implemented, the client-server model having the additional benefit of supporting an end user's "work flow model" of business rather than the traditional systems analyst perspective of "transaction processing." * Whereas project participants gained access to the institutional ad hoc query environment through terminal sessions with mainframes, these services have begun to be deployed as workstation-based client-server applications. Client query tools not only provide remote data access through a known, local interface, but also feature unequaled capabilities for integrating query results into local documents, spreadsheets, and databases. With appetites whetted by the positive experiences of network services at the workgroup level, project participants were open to being among the first users of University-wide services deployed as network applications. One example of this was workstation-based electronic mail, which participants actually began to use during its test deployment stage. They proved to be excellent testers--game to try, and articulate about functionality requirements--and they subsequently promoted the application among other groups of users. The participants were also among the first to use workstation-based "news" reading programs. More important than stress testing the application was the perspective gained by the executives on the range of news groups. Their prior exposure put in abeyance questions of censorship which might otherwise have arisen when full news service for students was later implemented. These experiences reinforced one another, and the executives' comfort with the network-based distributed technologies produced significant support for the not insubstantial funding initiatives required to complete the deployment of a ubiquitous high-speed network, and to acquire the development and deployment technologies required to move the administrative applications and the ad hoc query environment into the distributed realm. ********************************************************************** Polley Ann McClure is Associate Vice President and Chief Information Officer at the University of Virginia. Previously, she held a similar position at Indiana University, where the work described here was done. Dr. McClure is also a professor of environmental sciences. Susan F. Stager is University Director of Planning and Policy in the Office of Information Resources at Indiana University. Dr. Stager also holds the position of Adjunct Professor in the School of Education at the University. Norma Brenner Holland is Associate Director of Information Systems at Indiana University. Her career in computing spans fifteen years at Indiana, including serving as Associate University Registrar and Director of Admissions. Prior to her career at Indiana, she was a chemist. Cathy Smith is Director of Academic Computing and Networking Services at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. Previously, she was Director of the Program for Distributed Computing at Indiana University. **********************************************************************