The 1982-83 Computer Committee discussed the new microcomputer technology and its role in management education. As a result of these discussions, two School-wide goals emerged: computer literacy for all GSM faculty and students and the thorough integration of computers into the MBA curriculum. By thorough integration we mean doing more than replacing a calculator with a computer, and introducing computers into courses where there was no previous use. Integration occurs when the computer is used to introduce concepts and provide insights previously difficult or impractical to achieve. These goals reflected the growing role and importance of computers in general, and the increasingly significant impact of microcomputers in particular, on the modern management environment.
During 1983-84, three committees addressed curriculum and implementation issues. An MBA Curriculum Task Force was charged with reviewing and recommending changes to the entire MBA curriculum. A major portion of its report focused on the role of computers. This committee recommended that. a computer orientation program be developed for entering students prior to the start of the academic year. It also reviewed the curricula and syllabi of all core MBA courses in an attempt to identify those aspects most amenable to computerization.
Two other committees also investigated the role of computing within the School. In recognition of the interdependent roles of research and instruction in a contemporary program of management education, the Research and Computing Committees were charged with jointly addressing implementation issues such as resource distribution to faculty and students, software acquisition and/or development, hardware compatibility, and space and facility requirements. Through numerous sessions, an allocation scheme emerged and equipment distribution priorities were established. Two proposals to vendors emerged from these various committees. Each was successful: one was part of a campus-wide grant awarded to UCLA by IBM, while the other gained additional equipment from the Hewlett-Packard Company.
In Spring, 1984, a new Computing Policy Committee was appointed. While previous computer committees were dominated by those with a strong interest in or knowledge about computers, the new committee consisted of the chairpersons from ten of the major curriculum areas of the School, as well as two additional Computers and Information Systems faculty. (The associate dean/department chairman and I were ex officio.) The Committee was charged with recommending resource allocations and software standards that would impact all areas of the School. (The hardware allocation process is discussed in Section 3 below.)
In Winter, 1985, the Committee approached the issue of software standards by assigning committee members responsibility for different software applications: one each for word processing, spreadsheets, database, graphics, communications, statistics, general modeling packages, and utilities. These individuals were to survey opinions and make recommendations regarding specific packages. Although these areas were identified, the focus during 1984-85 continued to be on acquisition of hardware. Software was to wait a year, at which time the Computer Policy Committee tackled the problem of software standards for both academic support (research) and instruction.
In Summer, 1985, based on the successful introduction of the microcomputers during the previous year, the Committee modified one of the strategic computing goals and added a third. The strategic goal of computer literacy was redefined to one of computer proficiency to reflect the changing nature of training and support services required by faculty and students. The new strategic goal was "to expand the use of computer modeling and simulation techniques where appropriate in the curriculum." This new goal reflected the growing awareness of the power of spreadsheet and linear programming packages. Although this goal may be seen as a subset of the second goal (thorough integration), it was added to call particular attention to modeling techniques. GSM's strategic instructional computing goals were:
* Computer proficiency for all GSM faculty and students.One of the major benefits of having three different committees, each comprised of 7 to 10 members, was that approximately one-third of the tenured faculty of the School were involved in discussions related to the implementation and use of microcomputers in the curriculum. This broad involvement was part of an educational effort to make faculty aware of the various issues surrounding the use of computers.
* Thorough integration of computer topics and usage into the MBA curriculum.
* Expanded use of computer modeling and simulation techniques.
Along with the HP 150 microcomputer systems donated to GSM in Fall 1984, one copy each of Lotus 1-2-3 and WordStar was provided for every two systems. However, WordStar was not well received. GSM attempted to obtain a site license or special purchase arrangement with Lotus Corporation, but failed. Hence, even though these software packages were the "first in the door," they were not universally used.
Support of faculty word processing emerged as the first area where the software incompatibility became a School-wide concern. With the number of faculty members with microcomputer systems in their offices and/or at home increasing rapidly, and with systems being installed in secretarial areas, the question of which word processing package would be generally supported became critical. Thus, in November 1985, a "word processing" assessment was conducted by the Computer Policy Committee. This process consisted of reviewing the various journal articles, obtaining evaluations of different word processing packages, and speaking with individuals about their needs and what they were currently using. In the course of the word processing assessment, it was suggested that an integrated package which would support word processing as well as other common functions such as spreadsheets and database applications be considered. The argument in favor of a broad integrated package was that it would meet many different needs without the need to acquire and learn new systems for each application. In an integrated package, the user only needed to learn one interface, one file system, and one set of functions.
From the pool of possible packages, three emerged for standards consideration: one word processing package (Word Perfect) and two integrated packages (Framework II and Enable). A software demonstration was arranged and representatives from each company were invited to GSM. Word Perfect was then selected as the official word processing package for academic support. Secretaries were trained on Word Perfect and consulting made available to them. Faculty members who chose to use another package and wanted secretarial support were responsible for making whatever adjustments and modifications were necessary to import and export the files to a Word Perfect format.
Although both Framework II and Enable were found to have significant breadth of application, the primary concern was a high quality word processing package which secretaries would be able to master and use extensively with the mix of equipment available. Although both have now been enhanced, at the time of the decision in December 1985, neither integrated package had word processing capability that matched the power of Word Perfect.
The Computer Policy Committee identified seven application areas in which software for curriculum development and instruction seemed appropriate. These Student Software Requirements were:
* Word ProcessingThe general consensus was that although no one package could do all of these functions, an integrated software package would meet most of the typical MBA student's computing needs. The advantage of such a package would enable GSM to use its limited resources to support one system with one vendor rather than incur the costs of training students, supporting multiple packages, and dealing with multiple vendors.
* Modeling tools (including spreadsheets)
* Statistical tools
* Graphics (business and presentation)
* Database ´
* Idea processing (outlining)
* Communication (file transfer)
As part of the debate, the question of requiring students to own a microcomputer was raised and rejected. Some other schools (most notably Harvard in 1984 and Wharton and Chicago in 1986) were strongly recommending or requiring student hardware acquisition. However, the general feeling at GSM was that the courseware, (defined as the software, data, and procedures to achieve a specific instructional objective), justifying such a move was simply not available. However, the School was responsible for providing adequate hardware in support of the instructional program. Thus it was appropriate to focus on a software standard to guide faculty in courseware development and students in selecting and learning a package.
Another point discussed was current software acquisition and distribution policies. Some software had been obtained from our grants, but both the number and selection were limited; for example, the School could obtain only IBM logo software via the IBM grant. To meet our software needs, other software had to be purchased. Software was distributed to students in the management library using the same procedures as for book checkouts. However, problems of lost, stolen, and damaged diskettes made this less than an optimal alternative. Hard disk network versions of the software as well as the networks themselves for the distribution were not yet available. Thus, in the discussion of software it was felt that the students should become responsible for obtaining and monitoring their own software, and that they could use generic systems to do their analyses. GSM's responsibility was to provide the hardware, training, and support that would enable the students to complete their assignments.
Second, in December 1985, GSM was contacted by a senior manager from Ashton-Tate, the developers of dBase and Framework software. He indicated that Ashton-Tate was interested in discussing the possibility of a "strategic relationship" with the School. A series of meetings were held during the winter and spring of 1986, which provided opportunities for GSM to present its computing goals and plans, and for Ashton-Tate to explore ways in which to work with GSM for mutual benefits. The dialogue led to an agreement between GSM and Ashton-Tate whereby Ashton-Tate would provide assistance to the School in the form of software, discounts, training, and support, and GSM would provide Ashton-Tate the opportunity to meet and discuss on a formal and informal basis with our faculty and students to obtain information regarding business and management uses of their software. GSM also agreed that anyone obtaining Framework II under the agreement would receive at least a two-hour introductory training session.
Third, parallel to the discussions with Ashton-Tate, the Computer Policy Committee began debating the acquisition of an instructional software standard. There was concern that we had adopted Word Perfect for word processing and that to select another package for students would put an unfair and unnecessary burden on the faculty to learn yet another package. Also, Lotus 1-2-3 was the standard spreadsheet in the corporate world and it would be to our students' advantage to learn it. On the other hand, if Word Perfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were adopted, given the University purchase agreements and lack of site licenses, the cost of one copy of each of the packages would exceed $400, and there would still be the need for additional packages. The unanimous agreement was that an integrated package such as Framework II appeared to be adequate for the typical student's basic requirements outside of the more advanced statistical and mathematical modeling requirements. Furthermore, it was not GSM's responsibility to teach a particular package, but rather the concepts underlying generic systems. The students could make the transfer to other packages when appropriate.
As a compromise position, the Computer Policy Committee recommended the adoption of Framework II as the integrated software standard for instruction for a one-year trial period. Other software such as Lotus 1-2-3 would still be used if more appropriate, or if cases or material were readily available in that format. But for material developed within the School and for the training provided to our entering MBA students, Framework II would be used for the next year.
In June 1986, a faculty meeting was called to discuss the recommendation. The overall response was positive and supportive. However, a few faculty who had invested considerable time in both learning Lotus 1-2-3 and developing instructional materials with it felt they could not afford the time to re-invest in Framework II. It was decided that the Framework II approach was not to be seen as excluding other packages if they were more appropriate, and some assistance with conversion to Framework II would be available if there was an interest.
Following the Framework II decision, the faculty teaching
statistics
courses at GSM decided that a single package would also facilitate
their
program. Hence, in Summer, 1986, SAS/PC was selected and installed
on approximately
40 hard disk microcomputer systems. (2)
Return to Table of
Contents
Return to Timeline