2 The Social-Technical Environment
GSM Administrative Perspective
Faculty Perspective
Operational Perspective
Student Perspective
Campus Perspective
Allocation Objectives
Allocation Scheme
Allocation of Resources
Evaluation of the Initial Allocation
GSM's long association with computing created an organizational
culture and a set of values, expectations and attributes that were
influential in the microcomputer decisions. During the three
years prior to the introduction of the microcomputers in Fall,
1984, major changes in attitudes and values occurred. In this
section we will review some of these changes from five
perspectives: that of the School's administration, the faculty,
the operational personnel, the students, and the central campus
administration. The table GSM
Hardware Growth displays
the extensive growth during period, going from no internal
equipment to a large minicomputer and over 500 microcomputers.
In Fall, 1983, a new chairman/associate dean was appointed. He felt that the microcomputerization effort was one of the most critical and important events in recent GSM history, and hence, set out to better educate himself on the issues and alternatives and became an active member of the Computer Policy Committee. He was involved both in formulating and carrying out policies and discussing the use of the systems. With the large-scale introduction of systems looming on the horizon and faculty demand for such systems becoming more vociferous, the active participation of the Dean's office became a critical link between the implementation effort and the realities of available resources.
The active involvement and support of both the Dean and the Associate Dean has been and continues to be a critical element in GSM's ability to achieve its strategic computing goals. The Dean's office has conducted extensive public relations efforts with both Hewlett-Packard and IBM, as well as influencing the direction of the grant proposals.
Unfortunately, the initial equipment grant of a minicomputer and 15 terminals did not help to alleviate these feelings. The grant supported the instructional program and specified that the equipment was to be used by the students. Thus, all the terminals were located in a public location with common access for both students and faculty. In this environment, only a few faculty members developed programs and assignments for their classes. These faculty were primarily already regular computer users and for whom statistical and linear program packages were readily available. For the most part, the faculty viewed the new minicomputer in the same way as the central campus mainframe, rather than as a new opportunity to change their own work or their instructional approaches.
It was difficult for faculty who were not already computer literate to have an opportunity to use the system in an atmosphere closely related to their normal work environment. Coming to the computer center for an occasional workshop or demonstration showed the potential power of the system, but without being able to spend time alone, reflecting and exploring the system, nor able to use it easily and regularly to directly support their general needs, most faculty simply didn't use the computers.
In light of these faculty attitudes and the restrictions of the initial minicomputer grant, all efforts were focused on involving students with the use of the system. Faculty who were interested in transferring their work from the mainframe to the minicomputer were encouraged and supported.
Parallel to these developments was a drive for greater microcomputer involvement from a few key faculty in the curriculum areas of Management Science, Marketing, and Computers and Information Systems. These faculty members were extremely anxious to see GSM introduce microcomputers throughout the School, and provided leadership and guidance to their colleagues by sharing insights and ideas which helped to shape GSM's plans. They argued that for faculty to develop instructional materials they needed to use the equipment as part of their regular set of tools, which they had to become comfortable before significant progress could be made. Furthermore, there had to be sufficient equipment close to faculty offices so that they could use the system to meet research as well as instructional objectives. As outlined earlier, the various computing committees involved a large, broad segment of faculty and encouraged members to return and discuss the various options with their colleagues. This played an important role in helping to enlighten, change attitudes, and establish a base of values geared toward the computerization effort.
There was a new element in all of this -- the personal computer. The emerging plans indicated that faculty members would be responsible for and have access to equipment that they could control themselves, without competing with colleagues or students, or depending on a central computing facility. Given this new atmosphere, faculty appeared more willing to listen and more open to trying a variety of new options. There were also social forces -- media advertisements being aired and general "computerese" becoming prevalent -- creating a bandwagon effect and broadening the base of support.
Since becoming Director in July 1980, the role of Computing Services changed from a reactive, technical programming group to a proactive, multifaceted organization interacting with all aspects of the computerization effort. This included development of the School's computing plan as well as development of space and facility plans, general coordination of the incoming systems, and planning the training and support options to be offered to both faculty and students. Computing Services became an instructional support unit of the School, responsible for offering consulting assistance to students enrolled in courses in which computers were used as well as providing learning experiences to students with no previous computing background who wanted to enter the field. It should be noted that although during this period Computing Services reported to the Associate Dean for Administrative Affairs, it was charged with only supporting GSM's academic program. During 1983-84 a re-organization took place and Computing Services now reports to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.
With the introduction of the HP3000 in Spring, 1982, the Computing Services staff grew. A computer system/user services manager was hired, the key-entry position was upgraded to an administrative assistant, and student personnel were increased to three FTE. Besides the HP3000, Computing Services had the ongoing responsibility for providing programming consulting for the IBM 3033 users. This period was the beginning of the shift of almost all student computing to the HP3000 and reserving the IBM 3033 for faculty and doctoral students.
During the subsequent year, it became evident that a significantly larger computer staff would be necessary to successfully implement the computerization effort. Thus, a plan for increasing the computer staff was submitted to the Dean's office and was wholeheartedly supported. The Dean's office then presented the plan to the Chancellor's office for approval and funding. This effort was successful and in Fall, 1984, Computing Services staff was expanded to four FTE for career positions and seven FTE for student support personnel.
A measure of the student's perspective of the role of computing in the School can be derived by comparing the number of student applicants for positions in Computing Services in 1980 with those in 1983. In 1980, approximately 20 students applied for positions while in 1983, over 75 students applied. Currently (1986), approximately 80 students per year have the opportunity to gain direct computer-oriented experience from a "provider" rather than "user" perspective.
During the Summer, 1982, an entering MBA student came seeking employment. When told no funds were available, she said she would like to work simply for the experience. From this modest beginning a full-fledged volunteer program emerged. Currently, Computing Services receives approximately 40 applications per quarter for 20 volunteer openings. Paid student support is now drawn directly from the volunteer pool. The volunteer experience trains and orients new students, while providing an evaluation period to assess the volunteerís ability to contribute to the program. Paid computer consultants work 10 to 20 hours per week while volunteers work 5 hours per week (2 hours training and 3 hours as assistant consultants on duty the same time as a regular consultant). All computer support staff wear bright orange vests so that users can spot them in the crowded labs.
The students were extremely supportive of the computerization effort as evidenced by their queuing up to use whatever equipment and facilities were available. They signed-up for terminal access one, and sometimes two, days in advance. The graduating class of 1982 purchased a letter-quality printer as its class gift so that students would have the advantage of high quality output. Students constantly raised questions about the availability of more equipment. They attended workshops on the use of the equipment and software regardless of whether the workshops were directly tied to specific class assignments.
Student demand for increased computer support came mainly in the form of questions and complaints: "Why do we have to wait so long to get on the system?" "When are we getting more equipment?" "Why aren't their more workshops?" "Why can't we do more graphics?" "Shouldn't we have Lotus 1-2-3?" "When will we have microcomputers to work with?"
The second major outcome was the appointment of an Academic Computing Council consisting of several deans and other university administrators. The council was appointed by and charged with advising the Vice Chancellor for Research Programs (responsible for academic computing at UCLA) on issues related to the IBM grant. Each school or college at UCLA was to submit a computing plan specifying instructional and research objectives, equipment requirements, support dollars needed and the source of these dollars. Following negotiations between the campus administration and the relevant dean for operational funds to support computerization efforts, the Academic Computing Council reviewed the school's or college's equipment requirements and recommended the allocation of equipment from the IBM grant.
Since GSM has approximately 100 faculty and 1000 students, the more difficult question was: How should the equipment be divided between faculty and students? This decision had to be made in an environment characterized by the provision of only 55 available machines, a rapidly growing student demand, and a more interested and motivated faculty.
The introduction of microcomputers also presented entirely new opportunities for instructional development. Realizing the key to this success was through direct faculty involvement, we argued that the best way to increase meaningful academic student use of computers (i.e., beyond just word processing) was to increase faculty knowledge about and skills with computers, and to change attitudes towards the usefulness of computers as an instructional tool. Furthermore, this could be achieved more effectively through faculty use of the equipment in what was important to them, namely research, and in an atmosphere in which the computer was a natural part of their work environment, preferably in their offices. With this approach, we predicted we would have more student assignments requiring computing. This has proved to be generally accurate. In light of the experience with the minicomputer terminals, we requested that approximately half of the new microcomputers be allocated to faculty and half to students.
Once the equipment was allocated to faculty, how should they be supported? What types of support would be necessary? What kinds of workshops? What kinds of training? These and other allocation questions were battered about in hallways as well as in committee meetings.
From these encounters an idea emerged that rather than supplying individuals with equipment, entire curriculum areas should compete for it. Also funds should be provided to hire a doctoral student from each area who would be trained in the use of the equipment and could support the area's implementation effort. This student would be able to work on curriculum, faculty training and tutorials, and provide opportunities for area support. Furthermore, it was thought that providing equipment to academic areas rather than individuals would create a sense of synergy; the equipment would penetrate an entire curriculum area rather than a single class. The idea thus presented the opportunity not only for greater faculty education, but also motivated curriculum penetration.
In September, 1984, each of these areas received approximately five microcomputers and a quarter-time student assistant known as an Area Computing Consultant (ACC). The ACCs were assigned to help support the overall introduction of equipment and to train and support the area faculty. Although each of these areas had more than five faculty members, the area chairperson and faculty drew up a list of those individuals who seemed most likely to use the equipment and benefit from its ready availability. Within the areas, specific efforts were undertaken to develop faculty literacy and competence as well as alerting the faculty to potential classroom possibilities. Faculty members were encouraged to ask the ACCs for assistance as needed. In becoming comfortable with the equipment and using it for research, we expected faculty members would began to see spin-offs for use with their students.
During Spring, 1985, GSM submitted its master plan for computing to the campus-wide Academic Computing Council (discussed above) requesting equipment for faculty during 1985-86 and for student laboratories in 1986-87. This equipment would be from the campus-wide grant. The plan included course integration proposals, budget projections, and an allocation mechanism that specified that an equipment budget would be allocated to each curriculum area proportional to the number of ladder faculty and each area. Each area would then allocate resources to its faculty and decide whether each member got equal funding or if the area would pool resources to account for differences in individual needs and the benefits of resource sharing within the area (e.g., print and file servers).
The plan also indicated that the School would be standardizing on IBM PC/AT or AT compatible microcomputer systems. This decision followed from many discussions after the PC/AT introduction in Fall, 1984. The reason for the PC/AT standard was that, even though we would get fewer systems, they would provide the technological base needed to enable GSM to meet its needs through the end of the decade. This decision gained further support in August, 1985, when Hewlett Packard introduced its AT compatible system, the HP Vectra. Thus, through the combination of grants, GSM obtained sufficient equipment to meet its initial needs.
During the 1985-86 academic year, GSM received approximately 80 IBM PC/ATs and 40 HP Vectras. Twenty Vectras were installed in a student lab and the remaining systems were distributed to faculty members. Some areas chose to have HP equipment and some elected to go with IBM. This widespread distribution of equipment prompted the selection of Word Perfect as the word processing standard as discussed previously.
In Spring, 1985, GSM was awarded one of the thirteen IBM Management of Information Systems business school grants. This grant provided each school with up to $1 million in hardware and $1 million cash. The cash contribution by IBM reflects the corporation's deep understanding of and appreciation for the schools' need for resources that will enable the grant equipment to be more effectively used and objectives more readily achieved. GSM is using its hardware grant to acquire additional desk-top microcomputer systems for its general student lab, a few very sophisticated powerful systems for an advanced development lab for students specializing in Computers and Information Systems, as well as a 2.5 gigabyte (2.5 billion bytes) disk pack to be installed on the central campus mainframe and to be used to store the large databases used by GSM. The cash is being used for faculty and staff support. (See budget items in Appendix A for more detail.)
During Spring and Summer, 1986, space was identified and preparation of an additional student laboratory was begun. There was a considerable amount of discussion over tables, chairs, lights, air conditioning, and power requirements, as we wanted to take advantage of what we had learned from our experience with the initial labs to make the new lab a better facility. In Fall, 1986, student systems arrived (before the physical lab was ready) and the new lab came online in November, 1986. A fourth (and final) student laboratory is due to come online in February, 1987.
In summary, as a result of its grant efforts, GSM will have approximately 250 workstations distributed in faculty offices and five student laboratories. Two student labs have Hewlett-Packard equipment: one consists of 30 HP150 microcomputers that also double as terminals to the HP3000, while the other has 30 HP Vectras. The Advance Development Center, consisting of six-advanced IBM microcomputer based systems (AT/370, 3270 PC AT/GX, and 4 PC/ATs), and the newest microcomputer lab opened in Fall, 1986. This new lab consists of 30 IBM PC/ATs with a video display system which, when finished this Spring (1987), will enable the instructor to display the output of any workstation to any other workstation, to the entire class, or any combination. Also, cabling for a token ring network has been installed and the ring should become operable as soon as the network hardware arrives. A second lab of 30 IBM PC/AT and video display equipment is scheduled to open by Summer, 1987. All the labs have laser and dot matrix printers and numerous plotters for the preparation of quality presentation graphics.
However, one major problem was that some faculty received equipment and then didn't use it.(5) During the initial few months (when hardware was still scarce), I met with each faculty member who had received a micro and discussed his or her individual needs and objectives. Based on these interviews it became clear that three faculty members had decided not to invest the time and energy to learn to utilize the computer at that point in time. Even though consultants were available to help, the faculty chose not to take advantage of their services. Since there were requests from other faculty, these systems were reallocated to the Business Economics area, and the faculty who received this equipment became extremely adept developers of Lotus programs for their classes. The lesson we learned was that it is important to be flexible in identifying individual innovators and supplying them with the equipment they need.
With respect to the allocation of hardware to the student labs, it seems that the more equipment made available, the greater the demand. One wonders if the saturation point will be reached only when every student has his/her own system? This is a very positive indication of the overall growth of computers within the School, but a major source of frustration for many students. In response to the student needs, lab hours have been extended going to full 24-hour availability during the last weeks of the quarter.
Our Area Computing Consultant (ACC) concept initially seemed very fruitful in helping to get equipment set up, but we did not fully utilize these student assistants. Furthermore, management of the ACCs was difficult since they reported to "area faculty" rather than a specific individual who could be held accountable. Being assigned to a whole area rather than an individual, they seemed to slip through the cracks, rather than actively seeking out and developing material. Some faculty used them for research support and not classroom support, or let them just work on their dissertation, not on class material.
Even with these difficulties, the concept of a computer-trained person assigned to an area for faculty support was important enough that plans to expand the program for the 1985-86 academic year were approved. Part of this resource was used to set up a faculty "hotline," a special phone number where faculty could call for immediate help, with the remainder allocated to areas that submitted plans to use an ACC. The "hotline" met with mixed success, with the faculty preferring to call our full-time professional HP3000-oriented staff, rather than the student consultants, even though the students at that time, were more knowledgeable about microcomputer hardware and software. By the middle of the year, the hotline was discontinued and the allocation was shifted to developing microcomputer training and workshop materials.
The 1985-86 ACC program was more successful than the previous
year, however we found, for both the hotline and ACCs, that we
again lacked sufficient management supervision of the students.
There were however, three very significant projects completed by
the ACCs, two microcomputer based and one mainframe based. For the
microcomputers, a set of exercise modules using Lotus 1-2-3 were
developed for an economics course and a set of ten laboratory
exercises using Framework 1.1 were developed for a computing
course. (6) The mainframe project was in the finance area and was
made possible by installation of the large 2.5 billion byte disk
on the campus computer. Two major databases used by finance
faculty, Compustat and CRSP, which have the financial statements
of organizations and daily stock returns, respectively, were
previously stored on tape and required extensive programming to
access. The project involved the installation of these databases
on the new disk pack and the creation of a menu-based access
program. Our plans are to create a subset of the data to be
installed on the School's minicomputer and create programs for
student access and downloading of data to microcomputers for
analysis.
Return to Table of
Contents
Return to Timeline