document resume ir 003 49 - eric - education resources
TRANSCRIPT
ED 125 657
TITLE
INSTITUTION
PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM
3DES PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
IR 003 49
Computer Center/DP Management. Papers Presented atthe Association for Educational Data Systems AnnualConvention (Phoenix, Arizona, May 3-7, 1976).Association for Educational Data Systems, Washington,D.C.May 7692p.; For related documents, see IR 003 748-756Association for Educational Data Systems, 1201Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036($10.00 for entire proceedings)
MF-$0.83 HC-$4.67 Plus Postage.Certification; *Computer Oriented Programs;*Computers; Computer Science Education; Costs; DataCollection; Data Processing; *Data ProcessingOccupations; Higher Education; *Information Centers;Information Processing; Information Systems; libraryCirculation; *Management; an Machine Systems; OnLine Systems; State of the Art Reviews; StudentRecords; Technological AdvancementAEDS 76; *Association for Educational Data Systems;Computer Security Problems; Transacticn Processing
Fifteen papers on computer centers and dataprocessing management presented at the Association for EducationalData Systems (AEDS) 1976 convention are included in this document.The first two papers review the recent controversy fdr proposedlicensing of data processors, and they are followed by a descriptionof the Institute for Certification of Computer Professionals. Alsoincluded is an article about the changing education of dataprocessing managers. Two articles deal with the use of computingservices for library circulation and assignment of students toschools. Five articles deal with the use of information systems andcomputer facilities by schools and organizations. Billing rates forcomputing services, computer security in a university administrativecomputer system, and the use of transaction processing for universityregistration are discussed. An article which describes ways in whichpotential computer users can prepare to utilize computer servicesconcludes the document. (CH)
***********************************************************************Documents acquired by EPIC include many informal unpublished
* materials not available from other sources. EPIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *
* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *
* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions EPIC makes available *
* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDPS are the best that can be made from the original.**********************************************************************
r,OMPUTER CCNTFR/DP Mq,AGEviENT. Papers presented at the
:,ssociation for rducational Data Systems Annual Convention.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
C. G. CasperJames P. AugustinePaul M. PairRichard A. DasslerEdward 0. JoslinGeorge E. MayRussell S. SchouestHarry L. GibsonRobert BaumbackLynn Bellamy0, Z. 1asoni1. 0. Drum
L. S. Hargis0. H. MillerC, N. RoselleLeslie 0. Ball
Don E. GardnerRaymond f. Roche
Peter ScovillF. C. DockG. P. PutmanT, C. Ripleylune HackerBernard Sidman
U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO.DIJCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED rROMTHE PERSON OR opoionzA oRrGNA TING IT POIN !SOF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OP POLICY
ASSOCIATION FOR EDUCATIONAL DATA SYSTEMS
The 1916 AEDS international Convention
Proceedings
TGION'S FIETRIMIPCOMPUTERS J.N EULICETION
May 3 - 7, 1976
Phoenix, Arizona
These Proceedings have been made possible by a grant from
the IBM Corporation as a service to the educational community.
rxU
THE LICENCINC CONTROVERSY AND IT'S MEANING TO PROFESSIONALISM
G. Gary Casper, Ph.D., CDP, CDE
Associate Professor of Computer ScienceBrigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
ABSTRACT: This paper reviews the recent licencing controversy instigated by the Societyof Certified Data Processors (SCDP). The rationale for proposing licencing legislationis evaluated as an intent to facilitate the creation of a legitimate computing pro-cession and as to the reaction received. The resultant discourse has focused attentionupon the development of Codes of Good Practice which will define the professional andhis conduct as well as provide the basis for cbtaining public acceptance as a legitimateprofession. The challenge is made for participation in this development effort.
The past year has seen considorablediscussion relatal,e to the questions ofprofessionalization, certification, andlicencing. The controversy has beenheated, emotional, demanding, and for themost part non-productive.
How could so much discourse and at-tention have produced so little sub-stantive effort and persuaded so few?There is a temptation to answer that thelicencing controversy initiated by theSociety of Certified Data Processors(SCDP) was ill-advised, self-serving,or a "hoax". (19)(22)
If such arguments were to prevail,then why has the controversy persistedfor well over a year, and why have someof the most responsible personalities inthe computer industry been moved to makepublic statements concerning metiersalleged to be so trivial? Why hasvirtually every major computer societymale a public statement on this matter?(9) (10) (14) (15) (18) (21) (22)
Although one could offer many expla-inations for these statements, it wouldappear to me that one of them could notbe that the topic was trivial. A re-sponsive chord has been touched and ithas set off serious introspection,doubt, fear, and concern among many.Any serious student of history could wellreflect that the sheer volume of dis-course and the level and quality of theparticipants, to say nothing of thelegislative bodies involved, is clearlydiagnostic of a major historical eventin the industry. Why, then, haven'tsweeping proposals and activities beenmade apparent?
98
May I suggest that the answer lies inthe fact that licencing was merely symp-tomatic of the real malady, and whilecapable of evoking uneasiness in the in-dustry, represents a mis-diagnosis of theproblem. Of course, such a statement begsthe question, what is the proper problemdefinition?
I suspect that the answer to thatquestion is to he found in the teemingvalue conflicts associated with our con-cepts of freedom from regulation, of pro-tecting individual rights, of free enter-prise, of competency, and of protectingthe public, to mention but a few. This Ihope will at least prove true of seriousmembers of the industry. Other negativereactions come in part from those who arethreatned by the possibility of havingtheir ignorance and lack of skill andknowledge exposed. The attendant loss ofjob potential due to constraints resultingfrom standards must certainly threatensome. I also suspect that until ve haveresolved such conflicts, little real pro-gress can be achieved.
For example, as long as we hold thatthe individual has the right, withoutregulation, to perform air, service forwhich he can find a buyer, it will remaindifficult to protect the buyer. Certainlymost data processors realize that a personmay be extremely competent in selling asystem yet prove wholly inadequate inattempting its implementation. I suspectthat most of the members of the industryactive in the societies have come to gripswith such issues. But I also suspect fromreading the licencing controversy lettersand articles, that many of our colleaguesin the field haven't. (12) (13)
Considerable reference is made amongour peers in the computing industry of adata processing or computing professional.The term itself is elusive, for most whouse it are extremely hard pressed to pro-vide distinguishing characteristic's al-though they feel they are professional andmany others are not, an interestingegotist reaction.
At the outset let it be perfectly clearthat the use of the term professional inour industry is merely a dream or hopefcr the future. In fact, currently nosuch creature exists. True, many areworking for the reality but the vast ma-jority are either apathetic or activelyopposed to the concept. It is this apathyand opposition which must command ourinterest, tor a lack of understanding ofthe motivcs of such opposition may wellspell out doom to the efforts to legiti-matize a computing profession. Since theAssociation for Educational Data Systemsis already actively involved in theefforts to create a profession, let's re-flect upon wnat is necessary to create alegitimate professional in our society.
Before gaining such status, it is clearthat the profession must exercise dis-cipline such that its members perform inacceptable and ethical ways which protectthe public interest and command its re-spect. Further, those who do not performin such a manner must be disciplined orthe profession faces the loss of publicrespect and support. Therefore, an el-ement of requlation is required.
The very concepts of professionalism,certification, and licencing involve anelement of regulation. I believe it tobe quite clear that most computer societiesand leaders favor some sortof regulation. Italready exists in that college degrees, onthe job training, and experience evalua-tions are being increasingly utilized inhiring and promotion procedures. I'mconfident that few, if any, of thisaudience would argue against some suchregulatory influence although greatdivergence might exist concernirg itsform. Therefore, no further argimentwill be made in defense of the concept ofregulation. Rather, attention to theform of such regulation is appropriate.
The simplest form of regulation wouldbe voluntarily imposed by the individualupon himself. He would exercise care toupqrade his skills, not present himselfbeyond the capability of his skills,exercise ethical conduct, and give hisemployer full value for dollars received.While such a position is it isalso dangerously naive. Yet, many ofthe criticisms made in the recentlicencIng controversy tend to promote
naivtte. rIr too many rsponsentrom the rield argued that such vol-
99
untarism is possible. As a matter of fact,the best arguments in support of the needfor standards and regulation come fromreading the ignorant, mis-informed, naive,emotional, and flagrantly erroneous state-ments made by many respondents to thelicencing controversy. (13)
Th ,. next level of regulation involvespeer and employer pressure by providingeducational opportunities and self-im-provement procedures such as the oftenmentioned self-assessment programs proposedby the Association of Computing Machinery(ACM). Other examples can be seen in themanagement training programs of Data Pro-cessing Management Association (DPMA).Another proposed program, the ombudsman,would give some coercive power in that anindividual could be subjected to review ofhis peers in the presence of a complaint.Historically, however, such programs haveaccomplished little in establishing re-gulatory controls and promoting the con-cept of a profession.
A more formal effort to achieve suchpeer and employer pressure to encouragevoluntary participation and adherence tostandards is the certification movement.Here is attempted a clear and comprehen-sive articulation of peer evaluation andapproval with attendant subscription to acontinuing practice of ethical behavior.At this level one finds most of the gen-erally mentioned and accepted attributesof the definition of a profession exceptenforceability. This of course is therealm of the Institute for Certificationof Computer Professionals (ICCP). Thiseffort is essential to the development ofa professional group of people and re-presents the most significant industryeffort to improve and regulate itself.
However, with an estimated half millionpractioners of data processing, andfourteen years since the inception of theCertificate in Data Processing (CDP)program, only 30,000 plus people have takenadvantage of the program while only 15,000plus have achieved CDP status. (17) Thiswould appear to be hardly a booming re-commendation or voluntary certificationand regulation.
It should be no surprise that the com-petent feel no necessity to prove theirabilities beyond their every-day perform-ance; and even more so, he incompetentcertainly aren't going to flock to demon-strate their status to the world. Onlywhen certification becomes legitimate andthe competent understand its role, willthey make the effort to comply. Then theincompetent will be identified and willfind it necessary to improve or acceptroles in keeping with their skill levels.Thus the public interest will he protected.
But the question now becomes, how long
will this process take? A corollary is howmuch time is available for completion? If
one decides that the time .equired exceedsthe time available, then the voluntarycertification approach becomes untenable.Why then might one come to this conclusion.
The anfmt.r depends upon projections ofcurrent and future events now evidentand believed to be inevitable. In Novem-ber 1974, this author presented what Ibelieved to be compelling arguments thatprivacy legislation wls necessary andimminent. Less than a month later theCongress passed the first public privacybill into law. (16) Projections ofprivate domain laws are readily availableand indicate need for immediate concern,since privacy laws are passing statelegislatures with increasing regularityand implications for the data processor.(l) (8)
If the computer industry is to par-ticipate in this regulation of computerrelated areas rather than perform as tech-nielanc under the guidance of other pro-fession: then we must establish our-selves as acceptable professionals and inshort order. Notice the movements ofother professions such as law and parti-cularly accounting to fill the void here.Already CPA firms are hiring DP personnelas technicians to deal with systems andprocedural audits. Furthermore,accounting education is changing to adaptto computer technology. Besides not beingcomprehensive enough to cover all computerapplications, are we going to accepttechnician roles to other professionals?Or worse yet, unionization as a technicalfunction only?
An additional concern that the publicinterest must be protected is causinglegislatures to become increasinglysensitive to the impact of computertechnology. How long are they going totolerate the technology without regulation?Do we have time for voluntary approaches?
If one accepts the inevitability ofsuch regulation within limited time frames,the argument becomes compelling for ac-celerating formation of the professionand the regulation within it. In fact,the passage of regulatory legislationcould make all the prior concerns emptyrhetoric.
It is in the belief that such wouldhappen, and especially that it would comein a relatively short time frame, thatprompted many in the licencing movement.Licencing legislation would provide im-mediate legitimacy for the profesSionand prompt accelerated development ofstandards within it. Contrary to theemotional attacks on the movement, itcertainly provides an alternative forthose who believe in and desire to
107
6
establish a data processing profession.And as such it is worthy of consideration.Again, I suspect the cooler thinkers re-aiize this and recognize the need toaddress the controversy. Further, itshould be noted that many public statementsof the leaders of the industry indicatetheir belief in the future inevitabilityof licencing. (4) (6) (10) (14) (18)
It should also be noted that licencingbills are still on the docket in at leasttwo states (New Hampshire and Florida),and that other states are considering such.Further, new activity in this area can beexpected. Passage of such a bill willmake all arguments moot and place the in-dustry in the position of having to reactrather than having the opportunity toprepare in advance. This may well happen,however, since few people seem inclinedto seriously prepare. for such eventualities.RattrIr many seem to want to deny the pos-sibility. Such seems naive and out oftouch, especially since legislaturessought the SCDP licencing proposal withamazing speed and persistence.
Therefore, far from being trivial,SCDP's lciencing effort (22) was anattempt to achieve accelerated developmentof the profession. The success of thiseffort has been significant in at leastcausing awareness and, in view of per-ceived time constraints, a valuable con-tribution to the industry. However, suchlegislation is not without peril and in-'adequte Rreparation must be avoided ifpossible.
Such has been my appeal in the past.(3) (4) I have been concerned that theindustry is faced with potential for theestablishment of the profession, andthink it would seem prudent to prepare forit. I have argued that certain thingsmust be done to prepare. In particular,that identification must be made of whowould be a professional,what he would dothat would differ from non-professionals,and how he would perform those activit4s.Subsequently ACPA, ICCP, ACM, DPMA andothers have accepted such a possibilityand the need for the same types of de-finitions in their public statements onlicencing.
The "who" question is being addressed,in my opinion, by such efforts as thecertification program of ICCP, which hasseen advances in its association with thePsychological Corporation, the announcedlong range planning project and the be-ginning of a Codes of Practice Project.Also efforts such as DPHA's new EducationFoundc.tion, ACM's self-assessment program,and AFIPS' job analysis for programmersand analysts are valuable in this area.
Therefore, the licencing controversyhas focused attention upon what a pro-
fessional will do and how he will do it.It is in this domain in whch all interestedsocieties might participate to define pro-tects, identify funding sources, and assigntask forces to accomplish the necessarywork. While it is proposed that eachsoc,ety be free to pursue its own in-terests, it is hopedall will cooperatewith one another for the common good. Theoutcome hoped for is the establishmentof a Cole of Good Data ProcessingPractices.
Such a code will then form the basisfor processional activities. Withoutsuch a code, professional status w.11remain meaningless, certification willcontinue to struggle, and licencing willremain premature.
There'ore, the real issue is thetormitior of a legitimate profession,regulated to protect the public irterest,to insure the ,,dality of the professional,and to r,ro.71(le him with the working toolswith which he will perform. Time andhuman nature argue against pruely volan-tary standards, yet the more powerful,and in my opinion ineitable, effects oflicencing appear premature until a Code ofGood Practices is developed. Further,when it (lops ln',ppen, I hope for an in-dustry Itc.,noe not federal control. (9)
Therefore, I see the Licencing con-troversy instriatod by SCDP as a valuablecontribution to the industry. It has(rerted ,ntrest, discussion, and focusupon our ..eds. It has enhanced thepossibilities for creatina a professionby tocusinu attention upon the realproblem of developing a Code of GoodPractice. This is the major challengenow facing the industry and the societies.'.ow is the time for enlightened commitmentof personal effort and resources to meetthe challenge. I sincerely hope we areup to it and.solicit your personal in-volvement and support.
PIBLIOGPAPH7
111 Berg, John, "Federal Pri?acy PotCountdown...ls tl Private :'actorReady:", Infosystems, p. 25,July, 1975.
(2) "Called Non-professionals: ProgrammersWin Overtime", Computerworld,Vol X, No. 6, February 9, 1976.
(I) Casper, G. Cary, "l'rivacy and theLicencing of Data Processing Per-sonnel: Social and Ethical Issues",Conference Proceedings SCDP-1,Society of Certified Data Processors,November 22, 1974. Also ConferenceProceedings ACPA-1V, Association ofComputer Programmers and Analysts,
November 27, 1974.
(4) Casper, G. Gary, "Professionalism: Re-gulation, Voluntarism, Lir,encing,and Legitimacy", Conference Pro-ceedings ACPA-V, AssociatiJn of Com-puter Programmers and Analysts,October 1, 1975.
(5) Eierheller, George, "The Newest Pro-fession", Unpublished SpeechPresented to the Quebec Chapter ofthe Canadian Information ProcessingSociety, April 1974.
(6) Glaser, George, AFIPS HeadquartersNewsletter, June 1975.
(7) Glaser, George, "Key Note Address",1974 National Computer Conference,AriPs, May 6, 1974.
(8) "Goldwater Lauds Privacy Act as StepToward Control", Computerworld,February 16, 1976.
(9) "Goldwater Pans Licencing Concept,Urges Recognition of DPers' Role",Computerworld, February 16, 1976.
(10)ICCP Stntement of Licencing of DataProcessing Personnel, Newsrelease,Institute for Certification ofComputer Professionals, January,1975.
(11)Ke1ler, Arnold E., "The Wrong Way toProfessionalism", Infosystems,p. 31, February, 1975.
(12)Keller, Arnold E., "The Licencing /Cer-tification Controversy", Infosystems,April, 1975.
(13) "Licencing: CW's Readers Response",Computerworld, April 2, 1975.
(14)Marrigan, Robert J., "DPMA Takes Standon Licencing In The Industry",Infosystems, p. 23, March, 1975.
(15)Morris, Martin A. Jr., "EDP Licencing?...Who Needs It", unpublishedpaper, November, 1974.
(16)Privacy Act of 1974, U.S. CongressPublic Law 93-579, 93rd Congress,S.3418, December 31, 1974.
(17)Project ICCP - 1976, Newsrelease, In-stitute for Certification of Com-puter Professionals, August, 1975.
(18)Sammet, Jean F., "Education, Certi-fication, and the CDP Exam",Communications of the ACM, Vol. 17,No. 10, October, 1974.
(19)Schoenian, Charles, "Licencing a Hoax",I.fosystems, April, 1975.
(20)"Stands on DP Licencing", Modern Datap. 12, April, 1975.
(21)Stewart, Ron, "ICCP Licencing State-ment", Thruput, newsletter of theAssociation for Computer Programmersand Analysts, Vol. VII, No. 2,February, 1975.
(22)The Society of Certified Data Proces-sors, "A Draft of Lec,islation toLicence Data Processing Profes-sionals", November 1, 1974.
(23)"Time to Face Facts", Editorial,Computerworld, February 16, 1976.
102
AEDS, An THE 1CCP - A PAhTNERSHIP 'FOR THE iUTURE
James Augustine, Jr.
%crf-.;.e. Publie Schools, Norfolk, 7irginit
ABSTRACT: The Association for Educatientl Data Systems, in its attempt to serve the educational community,
has adopted as one of its objectives a hi,71 level of expertise on the part of practitioners in the field
of educati)nal data systems. An impo:ant elenent of such a level of expertise is some method o: certify-
ing qualifications. This paper will attempt to show how membership in the ICCP and support of the CDP
examination will aid the Association in its pursuit cf this objective.
Spice ASIV membership consists of professionaleducators as well IS computer technicians, many of:nu may be wondering why this crganization is a
member of the ICC? and is so supportive of the CDP
examination program. Some questions that you may
be asking are: How do these activities affect youas an individual member of AEDS? How do they af-fect you 19 1 technician, an educator, or an ad-
ministrator" Why does AEDS support the Institute,certification, and the CDP progrtm? During the
next few minutes, I hope to answer these questions
for you. r at least, furnish you with enough in-formation to figure out the answers yourselves.
Certification is nothing new to the educationfield; we all realize its purpose and its impor-
tance. It has essentially the same purpose and
ingortance in teaching as it ices in educational
data systems. According to the dictionary, tocertify is to endorse authoritatively as being oft standard quality, preparation, etc. Certifica-
tion is not to be confused with licensing, aslicensing is defined as formal permission by a
government body to practice in a particular area.Certificatcca, on the other hand, Is the endorse-ment by a peer group of an individual's having metpre-determined standards of quality in a particu-
lar area of expertise. You will hear more aboutthis from some of our other speakers today. As
important as certification is to AEDS as an organ-izttion, it is even more so to you is an Indivi-
dual. With all of our glamorous and sophisticatedcomputer systems and the related programmingpackages, we sometimes forget the Importance ofthe individual data processor. The competence
of that person is often taken for granted, and
therefore we often do not recognize those whohave become obsolete. Unfortunttely, we some-times do not even recognize it in ourselves.
Because of rapidly changing technical methodsaid techniques, the data processr must continual-
to maintain and improve his or her exper-
+Ise. Ieorge ,,laser, past president of AFIFS, has
sail, "Those who are now competent are becomingJets so every day as technological developments
193
continue at an overwhelming rate." In otherwords, they are becoming obsolete. The danger ofobsolescence faces all of us in the field of dataprocessing - from the beginning programmer to the
head of the department. It should concern no t
only the technician but also the educational ad-ministrator who relies so heavily on the informa-tion generated by the computer.
How can we protect ourselves and our education-al institutions against this danger? One way is
by taking it upon ourselves to maintain our per-sonal expertise at an up-to-date level. This can
be accomplished in several ways, most of whichare already familiar to us. Attending this AEDS
convention is a good example of how we can keep
ourselves abreast of latest developments. Forin depth training in new methods, we should attendspecialized workshops and seminars. Another way,
sometimes ignored, is reviewing technical publica-tions, most of which are obtain.ble at no cost.
Yo,,, we can do the things - if we recognizeour deficiencies! But what happens to those of
us who are busy in our own little worlds, feelingthat our present methods and techniques are the
ultimate? There's an old saying down south thatgoes, "It ain't the things you don't know thatget :pati in trouble; it's the things you know for
sure that ain't so!" At one time or another, we
have all been guilty of falling into this trap.Certitication and an examination program, like theCDP, could prevent such things from happening.
What better way is there to recognize ourdeficiencies than to take an examination on whatwe think we know? A wise man once said, "It'sstrange how much you've got to know before youknow how little you know." Testing to determineknowledge is one of the mainstays of our educa-
tional system. Isn't this, then, what the CDP
examination is all about? It offers us an oppor-tunity to discover what we actually know and whatwe do not know. Passing the examination is agreat achievement indeed, but we can gain manybenefits even if we are not successful. The
preparation to take the exuaination, by itself,forces the applicant to acquire useful informationabout a wide range of technical areas that he orshe may not have come in direct contact with in
his or her day-to-day work environment. The ap-
plicant who is sincere cannot help but improvehis or her expertise by experiencing this prop:4ra-
tion.
Most of us like to think of ourselves as pro-fessionals, irregardless of recent court decisions.
If this is the case, then we should be willing toassume the responsibility of being a professional.We have a responsibility to our employers, to ourstudents, to our public, and to ourselves to per-
form our services in the most efficient and in-telligent way possible. Before this can be done,
we must satisfy ourselves that we have the person-al ability to perform in such a manner. With more
and more emphasis being placed on privacy of data,security of equipment and data files, and account-ibility, the data processor is faced with greaterdemands for a tua<ti level of competency and exper-
tise than ever before. It is up to u., to equip
ourselves to meet these demands!
Let's look at the importance of certificationfrom the administrator's point of view. To the
administrator, the certification program (and inparticular the CDP examination) is important inthat he or she now has a "yardstick" with whichto measure the level of competency of personnel orof applicants for data processing positions. He
or she no longer has to take a shot in the darkwhen hiring these people. Certification sets a
standard by which the administrator can make vitalpersonnel decisions with some degree of certainty
that they are the right decisions. The impor-
tance of certification standards and the useful-
ness of the examination will increase as the pro-gram is perfected and expanded to include a widerrange of test areas, aspects of which are current-
ly under development by the ICCP. As a member
society, ADS is making a oirect contribution to
this development.
Included in the expansion of the examinationprogram are the eventual development of a seriesof examinations testing skill levels and a stan-
dardized set of Job requirements upon which suchexaminations can be based. Hero again, ADDS will
have the opportunity to make an important contri-bution to tn activity that will effect all of us
in one way or another.
There is still another benefit derived fromour membership in the ICCP. With our membership
in the ICCP, and in AFIPS, we have the opportuni-
ty to speak out on behalf of our members and theeducational community on issues of deep concern.You may be saying to yourself that AEDS couldalways speak out, whether or not it was a member
of the ICCP. That's true, but now this associa-
tion, through such affiliations, has assurance
that it's words will be heard! AEDS is now able
to participate in activities far beyond our capa-bilities if attempted alone, and the certifica-
tion program is only one example. Through our
officers and representatives and their meetingswith the representatives of other member socie-ties, AEDS has been able to make a significant
104
man" for all of educational computer technology.I
make a large contribution toward the development
when there will exist a specialized examination
both technicians and instructors. AEDS will be
greatest boost when it was publicly recognized by
much greater forum available to you.
able to use its influence as the representative
of such an examination.
groups, played a big part in bringing this public
will eventually becoMe an authoritative source of
pro-
gram to this association. If I had to condense
which to meet those needs, AEDS is able to reapmore benefits for its members and contribute more
bored into the apple- you can accomplish muchmore on the inside!
member societies with a forum for the exchange of
will permit AEDS to certify individuals in the
with related organizations in order to better mon-
itor
of the reliable professional role of theeducational data processing specialist and high
sin-
cerely believe that this is only the beginning,
society of the educational data systems field to
AFIPS as the certification group. I am i.roud to
and the importance of a certification program with
assistance to the educational community by takingan active pars in the development and maintenanceof such activities. Or as the worm said as he
relationship between professional organizations in
ideas. In turn, you as members of AEDS have a
Specifically, this organization has committed it-self
and install an organizational mechanism which
sharing of ideas with other organizations, to work
educational data processing, and to promote recog-nition
on the data proce-ssing community. I sin-
for we are fast becoming accepted as the "spokes-
foresee the time, in the not too dfstant future,
for practitioners in educational data systems,
the influence and status the.ICCP itself. The
status of the Institute has been continually on
say that AEDS, being a member society of both
recognition about. With its elevated status andits increased influence in the field, the ICCP
practitioners, and public officirls.
these words into only a few, I think I could say
the principal purpose of this organization - toprovide a forum for the exchange of ideas and
sys-
tems. This purpose is also applicable to the
serious need when we adopted our present set of
self to the pursuit of the following, objectivesrelevant to certification and the ICCP: to devel-op
and coordinate those activities which affect
ties for us to bear in mind, and that concerns
the rise since its inception, but it received its
information and expertise for employers, educators,
that realizing the need for qualified personnel
that groups like the ICCP and AFIPS provide their
long-range goals and objectives two years ago.
field of educational data systems, to promote the
level of competence required for this role.
Importance of the ICCP and the certification pro-
techniques in the field of educational data sys-
Here we have our own goals and objectives, and
There is another aspect of the ICCP's activi-
ties
words have been used to point out the
The officers and members of AEDS realized this
In conclusion, I would like to remind you of
X. 0
aJ I mentioned before, we are committed to pursue
these goals and objectives. Our membership in the
ICCP and our support of the certification activi-tieo are significant milestones in their eventuallohievment!
Before I sit down, I'd like to pass tIonis a
bit of philosophy that I ran across recently and
thought very appropriate. The author is unknown,
ts.* it sounds like something anyone of us might
bo
"fl, who knows not and knows not he knows not,
he is fool - shun him; he who knows not andknows he knows not, he is simple - teach him; hewho knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep -
wake him; ho who knows and knows he knows, he is
wise - follow him!" My wish for each of you is
tilat you know - and know you know!
Thank 7^A,.
195
INSTITUTE FOR CERTIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS
Paul M. Pair, SecretaryInstitute for, Certification of Computer Professionals
The Institute for Certification of Computer Professionals was incorporated in August 1973 as a non-profit,professional organization by eight sotieties in the field of data processing and information management.At that time the Institute assumed all responsibility for the Certification Program initiated by the DataProcessing Management Association in 19e2. Hence, the Institute "inherited" the more than 14,000 personswho had earned the CDP (Certified Data Processor) Certificate.
CHARTER MEMBER SOCIETIES
ACM Association for Computing MachineryACPA Association of Computer Programmers and
AnalystsAEDS Association for Educational Data Systems
AlA Automation One AssociatinnCIPS Canadian Information Processing SocietyDPMA Data Processing Management AssociationIEEE Computer Society of the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers()CDP Society of Certified Data Processors
The membership of the eight charter societiesrepresents more than 65,000 professionals inthis field. Each society selects its two rep-resentatis,es to serve on the ICCP board. The
two AEDS Directors are:
Dr. Philip J. GenslerDepartment Head, School of BusinessWest Texas State UniversityCanyon, Texas
Paul M. PairSenior Education ConsultantControl Data Institute430 North Michigan AvenueChicago, Illinois
Following the incorporation of the Institute,the sixteen Directors elected officers andestablished working committees. Their firstresponsibility was to issue a brochure de-scribing tne Institute's purpose, programs andstructure, as follows:
PURPOSE
ICCP is a non-profit organization establishedfor the purpose of testing and certifying knowl-edge and skills of computing personnel. It is a
coordinated, cooperative, industry-wide effort.
A primary objective is the pooling of resourcesof constituent societies so that the full atten-
12
tion of the information processing industry willbe focused on the vital tasks of development andrecognition of qualified personnel.
The Institute will foster, promote and encouragedevelopment and improvement of standards of per-formance and of good practice. It will become
an authoritative source of information foremployers, educators, practitioners and publicofficials.
PROGRAMS
ICCP serves as the focal point for its constitu-ent societies which sponsor :elated programs sothat the results of their activities may beincorporated into that or the Institute. In
addition to testing and certification, ICCPplanned programs include job definitions,curricula, continuing education, self-assessment,
and codes of ethics.
During its initial stages, the Institute's high-est priority is the improvement of existingprograms and the establishment of new examina-tions for various specialties. A framework fora broad spectrum of tests, and the relationshipof these tests to job functions and curricula isunder development.
In parallel with the creation of new examina-tions the Institute is also concentrating onself-assessment programs.
The Institute acquired in early 1974 tho testingand certification programs of the Data ProcessingManagement Association (DPMA), including theRegistered Business Programmer (RBP) and theCertificate in Data Processing (LOP). The latteris offered annually in test centers in collegesand universities in the U.S.A. and Canada.
STRUCTUREThe Institute is governed by a Board of Direc-
tors to which each constituent society desig-nates two directors. The Board of Directorselect officers who serve as an ExecutiveCommittee to act for the Board between meetings.
Standing Committees that provide advice to theBoard and assist in the management of theInstitute are: (1) Program, (2) Public Informa-tion, and (3) Budget and Finance. As programs
are initiated by the Institute, Councils will beestablished to oversee them and to provide thenecessary guidelines to assure the highest
standards. Initially, there is one Council--the
Certification Council--which has jurisdiction
over the COP examination program.
CODE OF ETHICS FOR HOLDERS OF THE CERTIFICATE IN
DATA PROCESSING
"The holder of the Certificate in Data Process-ing, consistent with his obligatior to the publicat large, should promote the unders Anding ofdata processing methods and procedures usinavery resource at his command.
"The holder of the Certificate in Data Process-ing has an obligation to his profession to upholdthe high ideals and the level of personal knowl=edge certified by the Certificate. He should
also encourage the dissemination of knowledgepertaining to the development of data processing.
"Tne holder of the Certificate in Data Process-ing has an obligation to serve the interests of
his employer and clients loyally, diligently,
and honestly."
THE CERTIFICATION COUNCIL
Responsibility for policy-making, planning anddirecting the COP Program As vested in tne"Certification Council" which was created in
1963. To insure that the COP program is repre-
sentative of the entire data processing profes-sion, the members of the Council have continu-ously been selected for diversity, as well asdepth, in their knowledge of data processing.Five members, elected by the Council fromacknowledged leaders in the field, serve over-
lapping terms. The Chairman is appointed by
the ICCP Directors. The current Chairman is
Professor William Horne, Boston College.
The responsibilities of the Certification
Council include: establishing the rules govern-
ing academic, experience, and character require-ments for candidates; determining the scope of
the COP examination; and, annually, approvingthe contents of the examination. They are
responsible for continuously updating thecontent and subject matter of the examination.
THE C D P EXAMINATION
The COP Examination is offered once a year(currently the third Saturday in February) inover 90 locations in the U.S. and Canada. It
consists of five major sections as follows:
1117
-
Data Processing EquipmentComputer Programmina and SoftwarePrincipals of Management
Quantitative MethodsSystems Analysis and Design
Each section consists of 60 questions.
I C C P: CREATING A NEW IMAGE
As Corporate Secretary I included in my annual
report, January, 1974: "The incorporation of
ICCP as a non-profit, vofessional organizationappears to have created a broad appeal to newsegments of our data processing professionals.The response has indicated that MANY persons andorganizations are in agreement with our objec-
tives and programs. It is especially gratifying
to note the response from the academic communityas we answer our telephone calls and read our
correspondence. Inquiries from business and
industry also tell us there is a search for aprofessional association which will aid "Mr.Employer" in determining who is qualified for
employment in his computing organization.Comments and inquiries are literally coming from
"all over the free world."
ICCP SIGNS ,AGREEMENT WITH THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
CORPORATION
Following are excerpts from the Newsreleaseannouncing this important decision: "ICCP and
The Psychological Corporation have signed a long-
term agreement for the conduct of testing andrelated programs for personnel in the industry.Under the agreement The Corporation will provideICCP with psychometric consuitation and servicesand administrative support for ICCP's testingprograms, particularly the COP Program. Equally
important, the agreement provides for cooperativeefforts in the expansion of ICCP's programs toprovide broader, more effective certificationtest coverage for personnel in the computing
industry.
"The Professional Examinations Division of ThePsychological Corporation designs, develops, andadministers tests and testing programs for pro-fessional groups and organizations, for businessand industry, for educational institutions, andfor private and public agencies. It provides
complete services for entrance and admissionsexamination programs, as well as licensure,
qualifying and certifying examinations. It also
offers test scoring, processing, data analysis,and related services, in relation to its own orothers' tests, questionnaires, surveys, andother measurement instruments."
CHARTER MEMBER SOCIETIES COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
One of the major programs of the ICCP Directorsis PROJECT ICCP in which it prepares ample andpertinent information for the use of each of the
eight charter member societies. It has been
most gratifying to note that each society, inits own management of promotion activities with
its own members, has been highly cooperative.Each is to be highly commended.
Pertinent to the above, it is pointed out that
the number of applicants for the 1975 CDP exami-nation increased from the previous year by 12%
or 2363 applicants. In a recent Newsrelease it
was announced that the number of applicants for
the 1976 examination increased about 17% to
2876 applicants.
AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE
The ICCP Directors announced after the 1975examination that an AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE would
be made to: (1) The person making the highest
score on the entire examination of five parts,and (2) to the person who made the highest score
on EACH of the five parts of the examination.This recognition resulted in the creation ofgreat interest on the part of employers as well
as all those whr sat for the examination.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF INFORMATION PROCESSING
SOCIETIES
Four of the eight charter member societies arealso members of AFIPS (ACM, AEDS, DPMA and IEEE).
This is significant because it provides ICCP withanother opportunity to cooperate with the 16constituent societies of AFIPS whose membership
represents more than 200,000 professionalS inour field of data processing and information
management.
CONCLUSION
It is becoming increasingly evident that theoriginal concept of establishing a non-profitprofessional organization was sound. The breadth
and depth of ICCP programs and policies appear tohave produced high credibility. The positive
response from both the academic community AND
from career-minded young men and women in thefield indicates they are, indeed, interested in
professional advancement.
CERTIFICATION has become a synonym for many
persons interested in achievement recognition in
many occupational classifications. Just a few
examples indicate the trend and the urgency of
action:
CPA Certified
CDP Certified
CLU Certified
CPCU Certified
CAM CertifiedCPS Certified
CPM Certified
Public AccountantData ProcessorLife UnderwriterProperty Casualty Underwriter
Administrative ManagerProfessional Secretary
Property Manager
The increasing demand for well-trained profes-sionals in our field is evidenced by the survey
produced by "e U. S. Department of Labor:
ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR COMPUTER-RELATEDEMPLOYEES
ProgrammersSystems AnalystsComputer Operations
In 1968 In 1980
175K 400K
150K 425K
175E 400K
108
14
An editorial in the March 1976 INFOSYSTEMS maga-zine entitled, INFOWORKERS OUTNUMBER ALL OTHERS,
Robert Diamond states, "The importance of effec-
tive, economical information handling, storageand processing systems, cannot be overemphasizedif you are to believe the findings of a StanfordUniversity researcher whose report, 'The Informa-tion Sector of the Economy' was presented at the
Paris Conference on Computer/TelecommunicationsPolicies last year."
"According to Edwin Parker of Stanford's Center
for Interdisciplinary Research, informationworkers, as a group, now outnumber all other
workers."
The above illustrate the timeliness and, hope-fully, the effectiveness, of the Institute'son-going programs to provide "Mr. Employer" with
a uniform yardstick (the CDP examination) as
he/she requires more well-trained personnel inthis ever-expanding field of data processing and
information management.
1GT
yowl out/tit:1st!) a plvmol yollolty sum suotIvintoutit000J at-out jo 1sI1J111 0111
1=J1i0Jd a1PULIPJ11(1014111 JO olvnpvtli ICUJOU
01U1 111 louuro 4snr ptJoluw polinhoJ pur popuotuw000J j0 wtitloods proaq 311.1 so1r
oat lent) liutinoS sa3,.0/dwa ul yInf
sluopnls 01 oAtsuodsoi cltn)JIioJd dol000y 02 aritlini 341 III al (pm I lytin unoid s POli
popuottuwooJ nql j0 411nti '.1-m3mo1I 'Xupol
1?0110 u '.lit vino/.l-Inn 0111 loop; suotlsoli
-tins 3sott4 U0 pasrq sit:XI-10.1d put:
jo Jnqunu e .q yold0yr uanq owq tiuolleyttow
-moo)J ql 10 :mos sIstlourd poustrOiutl
-sty jo smato 31j2 luasaJdaa slusodoJd von .f.tolinoA Jaqmooaq tit 'swolqA; uotIewojul tit stmlioJd 31enyttAtiJ3yuo
Joj suotlupuommooau tan/flown), 'Joglo
0111 pur 411sJuquogsv) 4_6I Nrh tit "'so)! -szs toultuaJojut ut smvJlioJd truotssoloJd
3lunprJ9 Joj suotInpuomuolnm uninotJJo.; uo 3110 4s1J1d3J osott1 polnpoid 3ol4tutwoo
sm .1timuolirum Joj 110111,,nvi J.1211(1410,)
110 3nlI111110A uninotJAn) ;K'1\ , Nlanturi, Ii11;ndmod Jo; 110111010sst oq) ;0 .l into.!
041 no po:,po 011! 1-111)110l pur sot1tsJolt1111
.utro 10 nluotos o1nJu0, out
IsPd 39I poi ill+, N.)111
3.1110', , ) 1111 )11 nI o (II I s I I s
-10 \I 1111 ,);i' I 0 .1110 10 .'til,}
13 -,1-1,1 ,;01 irttot IL 011
..r.q>1 ooilPipX3 4110pI 1. olf1 ;01 I,1,-"0 oI10l3111 {')01 pur o,n Jaludwoo jo 1)odsr 3loA0
110 pantpold ;otion st sluoq 10 Joqunu (Pold 10 mnuoods yroJu 0111
,13' 01 -11111; )1rtot.tdoJd 13.131 10 -...1110o
j0 ,Ittouo)int0Jur 31(1 proJ 01 .i1110 silt ouo
1*-r1 ArP 1!01(3 03 :,3011UAllr os3q1
jo 'Ito, ',0,11NIddr io Injodou 11.1A.) 0.11' pint )311.11 Iii" 1v,t;oloutpol Jtatil :ititutrlutvw
10 ,roJI---ep :sou 4sluotadololoy mou dn doo 01 yo.,.sotd pm; oJr
Nt1npui loithluo) .,111 tit -.11tuol,o1014
sIttnudolvtoy trot
I t.titi tali ; ,11(1
J..) J 'Ur') 1:1 k .3.11;41 It), 111 .-11111,I1t
-111'11 11.111 t.1 P) Ittomootinouur Ag p.),v(1114*;
1 1111 ..4Jrnptuti tit so.mrlisr 11:w4,01
-outpol 1,,01 .1g1 mom 3111 01 ad s/ru
-Allot 111101- ;01k1 yur opril 111 tus,o.:),00,
ut t1ndwo3 9IitI polulfmsr -o 10 itr 0mool 11,44 3t0,orui 1,11!-I
1.)01 )11; ;0 lnIru )1601;:p out
'protir ttt 11,ur; p111'
.11391 poltooJod .intp mot/ 0111WA313r 01 pottonh o1 )'1 Ittowolluttru \tn. 0
- tiro do Iwo' I unq mil kg p.); ,nptio t 13310 II <Lt.,1 I' 110 r
S! l tjttJ .):)111 01 .,110d :it) ; rif Id II Urn
Iiut-,53.)0Jd rlep ,,901J0w01 10 cttomunj pur .podu 11 10,1 01 ,1111,113p,,,1' 10, u st It ''..)141,J31/1111 PUr 11+0 111 ritr'qLut-.) .)91 II! popt0Ir ill.,y oil' si.,of
-qns -Isn't! It' )1110*:, t. 0.%0 I Ili: II' )0 id 0'11 p to Hot 111,1 :/til ; .11th'
uooq owl/ inul 1srd IroldNJ .1Jr 11,N1J3unt,u01 jo Tqtr .1(,(/ 10
31(1 ut 4n.')Joi Il'I30S 'jloslt 3ti0i011g,o1 nql 3,041 ur41 1.1111t, dI lu,W1u,d;T
1
111,'
olonvi st lot s,JoIiuurm do 'til
Isou utultm tusnal p01d000r tut
J0 ninlvu oul tiologoo 1:1 '. ;+.A1'0!'13
bl oIioloutpol oIWuto ul soliurip.) ti r-; 1:1 dool
01 Ittoo4rurw j0 p)ou oqj 'ynttlurvo 1110130:i1'HIT! 1:111,01d Pm) jo ,uomurt
oql uoqm IttoJuddr mop oJout st AJI.,nput Joindwol .'III 10 oJnittu -1twruoy out
oJul(nocJZik jo luomilvdoo 's 'n
Jolvutp.1003 liututrJt
\ IiI 4111 lt:0r 0 pirmpi '
AlIsJoAtuo ur:tiJout 1111
wrili0Jd -.114011,7st/tidy tZWaISX,-; .1311110(+) '101InJtO
0114 4-13it-114r13 'V PiliPid
;I in\ '0.1. di! 010:RiOl'ill 1 It' 11 ';Ic; t Iii!
, itn nises as part of programsoffered by mathematics or computer sciencedepartments in some schools. in keepingwith current trends, a distinct shift awayfrom the computer science flavor of programswas announced by Harvard and the Universityof PAiusvIvania in early 19-S. theseschools have developed informations systemsprograms in an attempt to close the gap be-tween the needs of business data processingand the courses offered in traditionalcomputer science programs (Holmes).
other schools have been working in thisdirection for some time. In MS The Amer-ican University's Center for technology and\dministration began with course offeringsleading to graduate degrees that followedtraditional computer science paths. theseprograms hate evoled into very sophisti-k tted .lid carefully balanced curriculaleading to the Bachelor of Science and tothe Master of science in technology of Man-agement. these programs are more pragmaticthan they were at the outset. Changes havebeen directed by the forces of the market-place, the needs of the students themselves,and the needs of the potential employers ofthe graduates (Bassler F, Kennevanj. Butthese changes have generally been academi-cally oriented for the rank-and-file em-ployee. Lqually important considerationsshould be the educational needs of the DPmanager and an examination of how educa-tional institutions can respond to theseneeds.
h1111 MA\\GIRS Sit. ASIHL DIRICIION 01 tHL vitorEssioN
the authors of this paper examined themarketplace by sending out questionnairesto 1,ouil information processing managersand asking them to respond to a structuredset of questions and to comment on theirmanagement functions Basslerl.:her thirty percent responded with usablematerial.
In the structured portion of the ques-tionnare (figure 11, respondents identifiedthe relative importance of the work theyare doing and predicted the importanceof these activities five to ten years intothe . rho tabulated respoises areshown in ligure 2.
PIIRPoSiS 01 I111 SURVIN
one purpose of the survey was to de-termine what subject matter should be in-cluded in the authors' new book, 'n.,;!*,,./
published in early 19-o.\no her purpose was to look for disparities
Puhli,hed h t,ollege Reading -, Ink,
P.o. Box 11244Ale\andria, Iirginia 22312
QUESTIONNAIRE ON OATA PPOCESSING MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
" ". , - ".", .04 00.A.A.111. A If ...$1,,..1.1 'AA,
i 1 0AC1IONAI. 011GANIZAI.ON^, so...
0,111MICASOFTMIZAM,
L s,
SOFTWAOlt'0,11.
1
S.SIiMS Otis Cs*
I ,
ANTSIcA1 AN,A*1'OVN ??
s ws, s ss
0. B O.V.AO AAv***41..VA* A
00 2101$
110
FIGURE 1
Trends in Information Processing FunctionsImportance
Present FutureFunctional Organization very ,,orr, tit alit nut Acquisition
ImportancePresent Future
very some not very come not
; " 44 1' ¶2 71 It3 3 Hardware 29 44 24 31 49 17
63 28 8 6' 24 7 Software 27 53 17 46 43 8
Pr ,*,-t n+ tr,lgerrent 43 39 16 ct 37 tO Altero,nwes 23 52 21 43 41 12
t 26 50 30 52 13 Methodology 16 53 28 33 .19 14
User Relationships Floanorg 21 38 37 `31 41 25)
17 6 3 2 n s Operations Optimization18 46 30 42 41 14 Downtime 33 38 25 47 26 22
,ir, 16 42 36 33 38 26 Intelligent terminals 18 42 37 60 28 98 35 5R 33 39 24 Bottlenecks 32 46 18 35 45 16
t , r' 8 36 -2 31 39 27 Hardware software monitors 12 37 46 33 38 23
).' (1U 9 39 49 18 49 30 Cost performance tradeoffs 30 50 17 59 31 6C,,r( vr; 23 48 :7 20 53 25 Operating costs 47 .4'1 8 64 29 4
Plans and Finance Muffs- vendor shop 8 34 51 31 35 26
36 42 20 56 31 10 Physical Plantearl, 38 51 12 69 26 4 Env tronment 20 49 28 32 49 16
.14 38 16 73 21 3 Support systems 20 52 25 38 47 12
Peopleware Software,r iii, it r 50 37 10 67 27 4 Maintenance 38 44 16 41 41 17
t .t.,r.
323
5816
5
7t,,
613
4535
7
47DocunkintahonDatabase systems
4130
4344
3624
6371
2920
87
30 50 19 49 40 9 Programmer productivity 33 44 20 54 '30 13
S1,111a 32 53 1.1 42 49 7 Progrorn delivery 30 12 23 45 37 13
34 5t1 14 ;"-i8 33 Advanced techniques 20 47 30 52 31 13
Systems Design Security15, n, 32 45 21 74 20 4 fraud 13 33 50 37 35 24
51 43 6 61 '33 Data seciirity 20 47 24 64 20 7
,++tiirr 36 49 14 55 36 H Intornitl 23 42 33 53 3fi 10
33 44 22 6', 2g 5 On 26 42 29 66 26 7
C (imputor i.br,try 18 43 36 40 40 16
P. r, , r 1,1. , ;,, 100' o.
th 1,,ana;ers' perception of theirtnttar 1,1' and the .chools' olleling, in
rioc--,In: course,. X third reasonLa, to e%aluate not onl> the p-ogiv,, ofIII cour,e offerings undel emplo%er1+on,01.4 educational prorams, hut the1,2t1 tat tal.en art tmplo\ee in
mole- .ioral enlialik(ment progianiti.Alt to5:1th iel,on ua to detimine uhat thepi ictitionei, of the art are conceined withtoll\ tnd to ekaluate hots the,.e concerns
,/11 .-Linye in the future. 1-Nuih inlicated- 4)11 d .-ontrivatsI be re!Ietted in
tit / as t11a In meet t he need- 01 t he Indand ti,r ii enl of ers.
PA,1 1,1 P0R110% ml '1111t1I1
1t,o1,1inc, to the response,, ,everalt, i fand out a, area, of ,pei. IJI concein,,,th 11111. 'So the years ahead, of tho,e,
t is I add! f 1 . , 'io 1 t
if e, Ind i';. tat loll- opt fitt7,at ft/n.
1 161111 2
111
Security
Lvery subcategory under Security shot.,.1 significant increase in the number of revondents uho thought these topic, Asouldbecome "xery Important" parts of thell man-agement functions in the future (see Seen-ill!. tabulation in ligure 2). tiff a feu
colleges and universities are currentlyoffering specific courses about fraud, in-
ternal audit, on-line systems security, andcomputer library protection (four of thesubtopics). Numerous institutes on thesesubjects have been offered mostl by pro-prietary firms catering to the education ofcomputer professionals. Local chapter; ofnational professional societies lime alsobeen offering intensive short courses onNome of these subjects. Certainly thetrade and professional literature ha, beenfeaturing' these topics in their recentalticies, there are indication, that data
leceiving some attention too,but usually as part of some other course.
ti,
It seems that .oute olferthgs shouldinclude these subject, at least to the extent that they arc adequately covered inexisting courses, if not in dedicatedcouises. On the other hand, short coursesof the seminar type might protide the need-ed cotelage of the subject matte), hitt:the)for creJlt or not.
Ilthough these 1, a cleat distinctionbetween privacy and security, these twosubject, are often mentioned together. hithall the attention given tc prIvace thesedays, thi, might well be selected for acourse to be repeated every two Years or sobecause the subject matter is so dynamic.The relattonship of security to pritacy, asa method of guaranteeing the right of theindividual, evokes all sorts of ideas re-lated to hardware, software, and policy'topic,. III of these are interrelated, andcannot be separated from each other in theoterall subject of Security.
Software
Programming, a basic subject, is cover-ed adequately in most academic curricula.The more advanced and complex areas ofSoftware, due for greater future attention,consist of database systems, programmerproductivitt, program delivery, and ad-vanced progLammIng techniques. (here isetidence that some of these subjects arereceiving the attention the) deserve atthe universtty and college level. Some ofthem are offered at community colleges.I number of these subjects can he adequately catered bt greater emphasis in existingcourse,. Others, such as database systemsand advanced sefthare techniques, are cer-tainly worthy of Independent course-1 and,to sortie cases, of several courses at dif-
ferent levels or complexity. Seminars andinstitute, offered be proprietary group,are providing thorough coterage of theseiubject. A look at ligure 2 will shotsthat there is considerable concern on thepart of management about all the topicsunJel iolthare.
Multi-tendor shops and cost/performancetrade-offs appear to be items of increasinginterest. 1111, suggests a course combiningthe selection of computer systems from astandpoint of technical characteristics andof related financial and managerial factor,.Practices that consider only technologicalcapabilities are no longer suitable. Sih,.
few UP students are cognizant of the sarious financial factors of the coMputer market-place, a course covering the business as-pects of this would he suitable for compute-people as hell as for business studeqts.
OTHER OBSLRVATIONS
As interesting as they may seem, thosefindings already discussed are what man-agement is most concerned with. the realarea in which PP managers need education didnot come thriugh in the structured portionof the questionnaire, but was made very clearin comments about the importance of theirdaily functions in managing.
Many respondents did express their opin-ions. Some did so in great detail, providinggreater insight into their concerns thancould be obtained from only a tabulation ofthe items in the structured portion of thequestionnaire.
The following are some of the commentsreceited. see if you get the same messageas we gtt:
ctiotton, optanm
significant sill Its in management's con-cerns appear in this category. Igain, mostof the subjects are covered to some extentin existing courses. but it appears thatthe emphasis is going to be such that someof these subtopics can no longer be relegatedto a minor role hitilin a course. lake the,lbytt of intelligent terminals. This ap-pears to he a minor item, but in the contextot the future use of computers, it can be-come a major one. hidespread use of inlet-iltlent terminals is suggested in
by Rein turn. He also discussesrainy technlogical advances and related con.,ern, 01 nanagvMent that paiallel this,tudt flurnl, 0
112
the most important lesson I'te learned in mytwenty years in data processing is to take the
time to make sure I understand what my customers
and managers want and need, and to make surethey understand what I can deliver.
One of the problem areas is in the understand-tng of the purposes of information for manage-ment, particularly top management. This is a
problem not only with computer people, but withtop management itself. There seems to be some
blind acceptance by the computer people thamanagement knows what it wants and needs.there has to be more dialogue concerning thekinds of decisions that management ha. to make,how often, and the impact of these decisions,rather than the almost automatic supplying of
any data requested.
In my company, we spend too much time preparingfor and presenting proposals to top management.Too often, follow-up presentations are required.Too much emphasis is placed on where we are inthe project and reporting it. Project manage-
ment is required, but the Win oblectite shouldcompleting the project, not reporting its status
tar too many applications, techniques, etc.,tail simply because top management failed toadequately involve themselve-, in operations.
I do not suggest that the President of Westing-house involve himself with every application,but it the application being considered is an
41'4 application, and he 1,1 going to be a prin-
cipal user of the system, then his involvement1, mandatory.
ILe most Important and continually pressingproblem I experience is the lack of understand-
ing of the data processing environment and theneed for training tof users) and understandingon their part of the expense involved inchanging current systems to meet their inter-
mediate needs.
1 full chargeback of costs to the ultimateu.er of computer processing provides the con-trol at the right level. the user determines
hi, need,, and justifies his costs. this tends
to inhibit such advancements as data base con-,tt., but does control shat sas an ever-
Met, 1,Ing ,omputer processing budget.
lo us, those six quotations, and onehundred others like them, pointed to onerrincipil problem human communications.kini human communications is a problem to bemet at the university level. But can youthink ot a single computer-oriented coursethat 1-; really directed toward this chal-
lenging communications problem? Before he
can educate DP managers, we must educateourselves about their needs.
WERLNCES
Robert L. AshenhursE, ed. "Curriculum Recommenda-
tions for Graduate Professional Programs in
Information Systems." Communications of the
ACM (May 1972), 363-398.
Richard A. Bossier and Walter J. Rennevan. "Uni-
versity Alleviating Shortage of Business DP
Grads." Computerworld (April 16, 1975), 9.
J. Daniel Couger, ed. "Curriculum Recommendations
for Undergraduate Programs in Information
Systems." Communications of the ACM
(December 1973) 727-749.
Edward 0. Joslin and Richard A. Hassler. "Systems
Managers Speak Out can Profession's Directions."
Journal of Systems management (Febilary 1976) ,
18-21.
Edith Holmes. "Two schools Planning Programs to
Boost Business DP." Computorworld (FeLruary
26, 1975), ).
Rein Turn. Computers zn the 1980s. Columbia Uni-
versity Press, New York, 1974.
113
NEW TECHNIQUES IN ESTABLISHING
BILLING RATES FOR
COMPUTING SERVICES
ByRussell S. Schouest
andGeorge E. May
ABSTRACT: During the development of a new computer center billing system at ClemsonrhicoWity, the authors found that procedures generally employed for rate calculationsdid not provide the degree of equitable cost allocation or repeatability of chargesdesired. The design criteria, costing philosophy, and selected rate calculations ofthe new system are discussed to illustrate the more interesting and unusual of thetechniques employed.
I. INTRODUCTION
Among the many problems of the seven-ties with which College and UniversityBusiness Officers have had to cope, per-haps the most frustrating have accom-panied the growth of campus computingfacilities. Next to the library, thecomputer center has become the majorcentral academic support facility atmany institutions. One of the problems,which of course is not unique to com-puters, is finding the funds to payfor what seems to he never ending re-quests for newer, faster, larger, andhopefully better, equipment. Unlikethe library's new books, which augmentrather than displace existing stocks,computers appear to become obsolete infrightening short periods. One recentstudy concluded that the expected liceof the typical college computing systemwas three years: When this is comparedwith typical rental or lease-purchasecontracts of five or six years, one
114
appreciates the on-going nature ofthe problem. While such financingproblems resulting from technologicalobsolescence and escalating demandwill probably continue, there are otherareas of growing importance of whichimproved computer costing and billingsystems is one.
Whether the approval body for com-puter funding be University Administra-tion, Trustees or Regents, all willwant some assurance that the appropria-tion is justified in the first place,and with increasing frequency, that amechanism exists for equitable alloca-tion of the resources and their costson an on-going basis. If computingfacilities are utilized in sponsoredresearch projects, whether in federalgovernment contracts or by other thirdparties, a comprehensive and zuditablecomputer billing system becomes anecessity rather than a nicety. Infact, full'and timely reimbursementfor services may soon depdnd upon it.
While the Federal government doesnot yet prescribe the precise method tobe employed in the direct costing ofcomputer facilities usage, one require-ment is that any method used providesfor full cost recovery and be non-dis-criminatory, that is, the governmentpay no more than other users. Thereare strong indications that in the nottoo distant future, government auditorswill be giving computer rates an evencloser scrutiny and review, once gov-ernment expertise in this area becomesestablished.
II. DESIGN CRITERIA
We mentioned above that a computerbilling system should be equitable to allusers, comprehensive in scope, and audit-able. In addition, it should not be socomplex or esoteric that it requiresspecial training in mathematics to com-prehend; in other words, it must beunderstandable to the users and to theaccounting staff and not just to special-ists in the computer center. Finally,the system must retain sufficient flex-ibility to permit subsequent adjustmentsas changes in resources or utilizationmay dictate. On multiprogrammed andmultiprocessing systems, where resourceutilization such as the CPU time to exe-cute a program varies with the job mix,the additional requirement of repeat-ability must be included.
To summarize, the ideal computer us-age costing system should satisfy sixdesign criteria:
A. Comprehensive
The cost system, to be comprehensive,should consider all Computer Center re-sources which a user may require, whetherowned or leased by the center. Computerresources not owned or leased by thecenter, such as RJE equipment or ter-minals owned or leased by Administrativeor Academic departments, should not beincluded in center resources.
B. Repeatable
Users should not be liable to signi-ficant shifts in charges unrelated tothe nature of the user's job. In amultiprogramming, virtual storageenvironment, it is difficult to obtainperfect repeatability. However, theuser who reruns an identical job shouldbe assessed essentially the same charge,irrespective of the job stream mix.
C. Equitable
Charges to users should reasonablyreflect the costs of resources employed.Charging users for the consumption ofComputer Center resources actually re-
quired encourages users to manage theirdemands and to design applications forefficient operation.
Ideally, the usage of every resourceis measured, and a cost is assigned.This, however, could be very expensiveand accordingly usage is generallymeasured for the more significant re-sources only.
D. Understandable
The method of costing servicesrendered should be simple and straight-forward to encourage user acceptance andcomprehension. 'Although the center mayuse complex formulae to compute chargingunits, the user should be presented withthe number of units of resource used, thecost per unit, and the total charge.
It is essential that users receivesufficient information to satisfy them asto the justification for their chargesand to permit them to make modificationswhich could reduce their charges in thefuture.
E. Flexible
The system should be flexible enoughto permit the center to change rates andto establish special rates, if required,without extensive reprogramming.
F. Audi table
Sufficient data must be available toallow a user or others to investigate thevalidity of charges.
Before describing how the new systemwas developed at Clemson University, itmight be lseful to point out that thesecriteria are to some degree interdepen-dent, that is, there are trade-offsamong them, so that emphasizing one fac-tor will tend to diminish the impact ofone or more of the others.
For example, greater equitability canonly be gained at the expense of under-standability, since greater equitabilityrequires that a greater number of ratesbe employed and understood. The mostflexible system is at the same time onewhich has been generalized to the degreewhere the history of past usage and ratescan become quite difficult to audit.Thus, flexibility and auditability areconflicting criteria as well. A fewexamples should make this clearer.
The oldest and most commonly utilizedcomputer costing system emplOys CPU timeas the sole unit of measure. It is easilyunderstood and highly auditable. A morerecent and somewhat more sophisticatedapproach employs five or six computerusage or resource units, which equate
us
21
costs to additional measurable units ofresource consumption such as memory occu-pancy time, tape and disk use, and punch-ed card and printing volumes. It iscertainly more equitable than the "CPUtime only" method, but sacrifices sim-plicity and understandability in theprocess. The design goal then becomessome ideal trade-offs between pairs ofcompensating factors. We have yet tofind anyone clever enough, however, todetermine in advance just where theoptimum point lies.
OBJECTIVES AND METHODS OF THESTUDY
At Clemson,"it was agreed at a pro-beet kick-off meeting that all six ofthese design criteria would be considered.A task force comprising members of theUniversity's Business Administrationstaff, Computer getiter Management andmanagement consultants from AlexanderGrant & Company specializing in Uni-versity computing and cost studies, wasformed. At this point the Center hadbeen using a CPU time only approach, buthad been investigating a five-resourceusage method, but on an experimentalbasis only and with no bills sent tousers. Some questions, howeve,, hadbeen raised by Center personnel, Busi-ness Office personnel and by the costspecialists in Alexander Grant & Companyas to the completeness and validity ofthis method as compared with alternatives.Fur example, Center personnel doubted ifthe five-resource method would providethat much greater repeatability andequitability than the CPU only method.The University's contract accountingstaff expressed reservations with re-spect to auditability and AlexanderGrant personnel were concerned withboth the flexibility and auditabilityof the contemplated system.
It was agreed therefore that thetask force should adopt a study planwhich would identify all possible re-source cost centers and prepare "ten-tative" billing rates for each, recog-nizing at the same time that somecombining of these "lowest level"rates into a smaller number of"composite" rates would most likelybe necessary in the interest of under-standability. In addition, the costof measuring and billing a resourceshould not exceed the costs recovered.
Cost data for all equipment, per-sonnel, supplies and allocated Univer-sity expenses was collected and analyzed.Estimates of utilization for approxi-mately thirty separate facilities/resources were developed. Subsequentanalysis and feedback eventually re-duced the list to seventeen rates,which were consolidated into four groups.
In the remainder of this article weshall discuss some of the more inter-esting conclusions reached during thestudy and which we believe would be ofinterest to other institutions.
The Clemson Computer Center uses anIBM 370'158 with 3330 and 3333 diskstorage and 3 megabytes of core, and isrunning under the OS/VS 2 operatingsystem. HASP and the TSO option arealso employed.
IV. COSTING PHILOSOPHY
A, Time-Sharing Versus Batch Users
For many classes of problems, theacademic community may access the com-puter via either time-shared terminalsor batched input at the Center or re-motely. To maximize system utilization,the University encourages the use oftime-sharing and therefore a costingsystem which would discriminate againsttime-sharing users was deemed undesir-able.
We considered two alternatives: (1)charging both groups for Center resourcesused for input and output and (2) notcharging either group. We concluded thatboth groups should be charged.
B. Rate Setting
Rates may be applied either on afluctuating basis to recover all costsactually incurred (generally monthly) orat a predetermined levels based on bud-geted levels of cost and utilization.
1. Fluctuating Rate
This method uses a rate which iscalculated relatively often to ensurethat the total costs for the period are
'recovered. Unfortunately, such rateswill change frequently reflecting fluc-tuations in demand. Rates during aperiod of lower demand, such as thesummer, could be much higher than ratesduring periods of high demand.
22lib
2. Predetermined Rates
This method charges users a ratewhich does not fluctuate over an esta-blished period, usually one year. Therate would be established at the begin-ning of a budget year using total Centercosts and forecasted demand.
This method has the advantage of nothaving rates fluctuate because of demandfluctuations.
It, however, also has disadvantages:
rates will not change to reflectchanges during the budget yearunless the changes are allowed forwhen the rate is established;
it is often difficult to forecastdemand for a twelve month period;and
at the end of the year, there willbe variances reflecting changes inresource costs or demand variances.
3. Conclusions
We concluded that the use of prede-termined rates which would be reevaluatedonce per quarter was preferable. A quar-terly reevaluation has been recommendedby HEW for costs of similar facilities.At the end of each quarter, the actualvolumes and costs would be computed onan annualized basis and actual ratescalculated. If the rates vary signi-ficantly (in excess of 10%) from therates in effect, the rates would bechanged to recover (by the end of thefiscal year) the total costs of the cen-ter.
V. COSTING METHODS AND RATE CALCULATIONS
A. Use Charge
A use charge for fixed assets wasemployed and was calculated at 6-2/3% peryear of the acquisition cost of usableequipment. This is allowed by FederalManagement Circular (FMC) 73-8 -- "CostPrinciples for Educational Institutions."A use charge, unlike depreciation, doesnot expire after a period of years, butcontinues as long as the fixed assetsare usable.
Although the use charge method hasbeen adopted for the purpose of prepar-ing rates, the University could applyin the future to use the depreciationmethod. The depreciation method gen-erally allows a write-off of the costof fixed assets, net of salvage value,over their usefdl life; resulting inhigher rates than the use chargemethod. However, the use of the de-preciation method would require thatthe University significantly modifyits fixed asset recordkeeping system.
B. General Procedures
Development of all rates entailedthe following procedural sequence:
The determination of the totalcosts to be allocated.
The allocation of fixed assetcosts to each resource, and theassignment of all other costsDither directly to a resource
or, if not assignable to a resource,to an overhead cost pool.
The calculation of an overhead rateand its application to all rates.
The estimation of utilization vol-umes for each resource.
The computation of rates.
The development of composite ratesby combining costs for card read-ing, card punching, and printing.
All costs and utilization figureswere monthly. All rate calculations, ofcourse, follow the general calculationof Cost Volume Rate.
VI. SELECTED RATE CALCULATIONS
A. Introduction
We have selected from the rate calcu-lations, those where the approach andmethodology should be of special interestto Centers with IBM 370/145 through 370/168 systems running under virtual storageoperating systems, although many of thetechniques employed would be applicableto the systems of other vendors as well.The selected utilization methods, to theauthors' knowledge, have not previouslybeen employed. They were designed toachieve a degree of equitability andrepeatability previous approaches did notprovide.
It was important that the chosenbilling units also be a good yardstickfor measuring the availability of thecommodity which the resource is intendedto provide. For example, it would beimproper to recover the cost of resourcesmade available for time-sharing throughreal time, since real,time has no rela-tionship to the physical limits of theresources to provide time-sharing, Foreach rate, the single best indicator ofthe physical limits of the resource wasused as the billing unit.
It should be noted that the systememploys direct machine measurement ofutilization wherever possible and doesnot rely upon manual recordkeeping orcalculation.
The remainder of this article willdescribe some of the more interesting andunusual rate calculations.
The complete rate schedule precedesthe discussion of the selected rates.
B. Rate Schedule
The following table reflects the Com-puter Center rates by resource/service,billing unit, and unit rate.
RATE SCHEDULE
RESOURCE/SERVICEBILLINGUNIT RATE
1. Processor
CPU One CPU Hour $94.00I/O 1,000 I/O's .13
Core Storage 100K Hour 24.00
2. Peripherals
Tape 1 Allccation Hour 7.46
Card Reading 1,000 Cards 1.94
Card Punching 1,000 Cards 4.24
Printing 1,000 Lines .75
Special Forms Per Job 1.92
Supplies Per Unit At CostDigital Plotter One Real Time Hour 24.79
3. Time-Sharing
TCAM SubsystemMessages 1,000 Messages 2.72
Dedicated Polling One CPU Hour 94.00
Public Dial Lines One Connect Hour 1.05
TSO Subsystem 100 Carriage Returns 1.69
4. Fixed
3705 Front EndDedicated Ports One Port Per Month
9600 BAUD 41.11
4800 BAUD 36.39
2400 BAUD 34.03
1200 BAUD 21.74
Dedicated Disk 1 Track/Month .07
Date Base Manage-ment System Per User per Month 57.00
24118
C. CPU Time and General I '0 Rates
1. Costs
CPU use charge, maintenance charge,and applied overhead cost.
Since IBM did not break out costs forthe CPU between the CPU itself, core, the3 block multiplexor channels or the 4650ISC (Integrated Storage Control) unit, wecalculated these costs as proportional tothe purchase price of the components.This seems appropriate since these unitsare all electronic and contain no mech-
anical components. Only CPU cost wasused for this rate.
2. Utilization
cpr hours were projected from his-torical data, excluding that con-sumed by the center for internaluse.
CPU hours for lrAm and dedicatedpolling were extracted from SMF oruTF data.
An I'0 constant of 5 millisecondswas used as best representing theimpact which an I/O operation wasfelt to have on the system.
110 time was then estimated at 83hours (60 million 110's at 5 milli-seconds each) per month.
The 5 millisecond constant usedfor I'0 was also intuitively"right" and supported by histor-ical data which indicated that CPUprocessor costs had accounted forabout 2/3 and I/0 processor costsabout 1'3 of the total.
3. Rate Calculation
CPU hourly rate was calculated bydividing the total cost by the sumof CPC and I/0 hours.
The rate per 1,000 110's wasdetermined by multiplying theCPU hourly rate by the estimatedI "0 hours and dividing this by theestimated number of I'O's.
4. Comments/Rationale
It was concluded that this approach,which employs separate CPU time rates andone for l'O operations generally, is morereflective of actual resource utilizationthan a composite or general CPU time ratealone.
P. ('ore Storage Rate
1. Costs
Core use charge, maintenance charge,and applied overhead cost allocation.
Clemson purchased their CPU with 1.5MB of core from IBM. The cost of thecore, however, is not broken out by IBM.In addition, Clemson purchased an addi-tional 1.5 MB from anot'aer supplier. It
was necessary, therefore, to calculatethe cost of the IBM core and subtract itfrom the IBM CPU cost. This was done bylooking up the costs of 370/158's withvarious core capacities from IBM pricelists, determining the incremental costfor 0.5 MB, and multiplying by 3 to getthe cost for 1.5 MB. This was added tothe cost of the 1.5 MB obtained from theother supplier to get the cost of 3 MB.Of this total, .375 MB is dedicated toTS0 and .125 MB to TCAM. The remaining2.5 MB cost was allocated to the corestorage resource.
It is not critical that the preciseamount of storage used by TS0 and by TCAMbe recovered through each subsystem.Rather, because of the changing nature ofthose systems, it is more important thata good estimate be used in combinationwith intent. For example, at Clemson, anadditional 0.5 MB of storage was acquiredto implement time-sharing. Since thestorage was acquired to implement time-sharing, its cost was most appropriatelycharged to time-sharing users.
2. Utilization
Metered CPU use in hours times thenumber of 100K virtual storage regionsrequested by the user was determined tobe the most appropriate figure to employ.Metered use is the CPU time plus I/Otime as estimated in the CPU time and I/Orate calculations (c above).
3. Rate Calculation
The cost of 2.5 MB of core was di-vided by the estimated product of metereduse in CPU hours times the estimatednumber of 100K regions which will be re-quested.
4. Comments/Rationale
The employment of the metered usehours as well as using a net storagefigure for core available to users seemspreferable to the simplistic but commonlyemployed gross CPU time/gross core usagemethods usually employed.
E. Dedicated Disk Rate
1. Costs
Equipment use charge, maintenancecharge,\and applied overhead cost allo-cation.
IBM's prices do not break out thecost of the 3333 disk control unit fromthe disk drives as they do with the 3330units. It was necessary, therefore, tocalculate this cost.
It was also necessary to separate thedisk storage and costs dedicated tosystem overhead and which is not avail-able to users from that which is. Of the14 drives, 4 are dedicated to systemoverhead and utility work space, leaving10 for users.
In addition, it was necessary to cal-culate the cost of the block multiplexorchannels assigned to disks, since thiswas not supplied by IBM. This was doneby averaging the costs of the pricedthird and fourth channels to get the costof the unpriced first and second channels.
2. Utilization
It was estimated that users wouldoccupy 76,000 tracks for one month in adedicated fashion (as contrasted withtemporary use). The track/month wasdeemed the most appropriate billing unit.
3. Rate Calculation
The monthly cost was divided by theestimated utilization to derive the ratefor a track/month.
4. Comments/Rationale
The rate utilized for dedicated diskstorage is preferable to that employedelsewhere where no distinction is madebetween dedicated and transient storageor where no calculation of systems over-head occupancy is included.
F. Card Reading, Punching andPrinting Rates
1. Costs
There are three card readers, twoprinters, and one card punch in Clemson'sconfiguration. One card reader is partof an RJE terminal as is one of theprinters. The punch 1.3 part of a 2540read/punch unit in the center which alsohas a 2501 card reader and two 1403printers. The costs utilized in devel-oping these rates included not only theequipment use charges, maintenancecharges, rentals and ,pplied overheadcost allocations, but also handlingcharges which are the costs of the per-
120
2 4-1
sonnel assigned to operate these devices.
Several allocations were required.First, an allocation of the cost of the2821 control unit between printing andcard operations was made based upon therelative rentals of the controlled units.Second, an allocation of the processor,storage, and communications costs of theRJE terminal was made to reading andprinting based upon the cost, of therespective read and print components.,.Third, the cost of keypunches exclusivelyassociated with card readers was includedin the cost of those reader functions.
Finally, a weight was assigned to thepersonnel time (4nd cost) associated withthe functions at each location.
2. Utilization
Utilization volumes (in 1,000 cardsor 1,000 lines) were developed from his-torical data for each function at eachlocation.
3. Rate Calculations
Seven rates were developed for eachof the seven function/locations by di-viding the associated costs by the esti-mated utilization.
4. Comments/Rationale
It was necessary to determine indi-vidual rates for all locations initiallyto ascertain the reasonability and trade-offs possible in combinations. Threecomposite rates were then calculated asillustrated on the following page.
COMPOSITE RATE SCHEDULE
UnitCost
TotalCost
MR CARD READING, PUNCHING AND PRINTING
Resource/Service Volume
CARD READING
2540 Computer Center 850M $ .38 $ 3272501 Front Office 1,504M .13 198Martin Hall 832M .27 225
Composite Rate 3 186M .24 750
Handling
Operations 1.632Front Office
Personnel 2540 Reader(2000 Jobs) 1,140
Equipment 291Martin Hall
Personnel 1,103Equipment 1,260
Total Handling 5,426
Total Composite Card Reading 3,186M $ 1.94 $ 6,176
CARD PUNCHING
2540 Computer Center 331M $ 2.32 $ 768Handling 636
Total Composite Card Punching_
331M $ 4.24 $ 1,404
PRINTING
Computer Center 13,500M $ .16 $ 2.192Martin Hall 2,153M .40 861
Composite Rate 15,653M .20 3,053
Handling
1403 Personnel (12,759 Jobs) 7,273
Martin Hall 1 1--365
Total Handling
-8,638
Total Composite Printing 15,653M...---- $ .75 $LUM
1-
121
27
G. TS0 (Time-Sharing) Rates
L.. Costs-77-r
Equipment use charges, maintenance,and applied overhead for the followingwere determined to be dedicated tointeractive computing:
one ISC pathone Block Multiplexor Channelone 3333 Disk Control Unit.375 MB of core
In addition, the cost of onesystems programmer, whose time isdedicated to this area, was assigned.
2. Utilization
To avoid penalizing the faster deviceuser: and the "thinkers," it was conclud-ed that the number of carriage returns,or their equivalent on a CRT terminal,was the fairest unit of measure to em-
ploy here for the consumption of theresource. The billing unit was equatedto 100 carriage returns.
3. Rate Calculation
The costs were divided by the esti-mated utilization to develop a rate per100 carriage returns.
4. Comments/Rationale
The cimmonly employed billing unitsof characters or connect time, or somecombination of these, could penalize orreward users to a greater extent thanthe method employed here.
H. 3705 Front End Rates
The calculation of rates for the3705 front end consists of,two rates:(1) the monthly use of a port for agiven line speed*and (2) a rate perpublic dial line connect hour,
1. Costs
The costs of the dedicated ports arethe equipment cost and overhead, Thecosts of public dial lines are themodems, phone, overhead, and the costof,10 ASYNC lines,
For dedicated ports, the cost of the3705 and overhead is allocated betweenits components: processor and storage,scanners, and ports, based on IBM price
lists. The cost of each of these threecomponents for each type of line wascalculated based upon rated capacities.A composite cost of each type line wasdetermined by adding the processor,scanner, and port costs.
122
26
2. Utilization
The number of ports used and the num-ber of hours of use of dial-up lines wasbased upon historical usage.
3. Rate Calculation
The costs divided by utilizationdetermined the rates for the four dedi-cated port line speeds, The dial-uphourly rate was developed by dividing thecosts by an estimated 1,000 total hoursof monthly use.
4. Comments/Rationale
The dedicated port rates used takeinto account the allocation of 3705 com-ponent costs according to the line speedrequired. The dial-up rates include mo-dem, phone, and overhead as well as thecost of the lines themselves. A maximumdegree of equitability has been obtained.
Tape Rates
1. Costs
The costs are equipment, maintenance,and overhead. If an entire drive isdedicated to a user, its cost would bededucted, The costing unit is the numberof drives used, multiplied by a calcu-lated allocation time per drive. The cal-culated allocation time per drive is anestimate of the time the drive would beon-line if there were no other jobs inthe job stream. This is estimated as thesum of the job's SMF-measured CPU time,plus the number of EXCP's for all devicestimes 50 milliseconds.
2, Utilization
The total number of hours per monthof tape usage for all drives was basedupon SMF data.
3.. Rate Calculation
Total tape costs were divided by theutilization hours to determine an hourlyrate.
4. Comments/Rationale
The use of a calculated allocationtime per drive based upon CPU time, allI/O time and assuming a 50 rillisecondper I/O execution gives an excellentmeasure of the actual tape utilization.
VII, CONCLUSION
By employing a multi-disciplinaryapproach in developing rates for computercenter services, the rate structure willreflect the needs and desires of both theusers and suppliers to a much greater ex-tent than less cooperative efforts. At
Clemson University, the joint effortsof computer center, business office,and outside consultant personnel re-sulted in a system which has proven tobe equitable, comprehensive, and audit-able. The special expertise contributedby each group are essential ingredientsfor proper design.
2'123
USER INVOLVEILN1 IN 1HE INFORMATION SYSTLMS LTFoRI
Harry L. Gibson, Ph. D.
Professor of Information SystemsDepartment of Management Science
and Information SystemsColorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
kliSTRACT: User involvement is a critical factor in the development of informationsystems. ('his paper discusses factors that determine the degree of user involvement inth..) systems effort. The findings are based upon data collected through interviews withsystems personnel and uith users in six major organizations that are heavily involvedin systems development.
INIRODUClION
\ widely accepted principle in effec-tive information systems development isthe need for user involvement. Systemspractitioners recognize user involvementas a necessity. John Wagner (1), a manag-er for Peat, Marwick, Mitchell ti Co.,stated in 19 "2 that, "Considering the manyingredients which comprise a managementinformation system, and being asked toquantify and list those ingredients inorder of importance," he would place userinvolvement at or near the top of thatlist. formal research findings point tothe need for user involvement. Dickson -
and Powers 121 concluded from their study,"User participation is crucial to thesuccess of the MIS project.... Successfulsystems are developed whenever users andsystems personnel work meaningful!): as aunit."
Ina study recently completed ofcritical factors in information systemsdevelopment, the author and two of hiscolleagues 13) determined user involve-ment to he a critical factor in systemswork, one of several study outcomes.Other critical factors cited in that re-search effort were planning and control,systems expertise, and attitudes.
Even on a broader front, researchstudies in various areas of decisions forchange indicate the importance of employeeparticipation in creating acceptance ofchange. (4, 5) Thus, involvement is notpeculiar to information systems develop-ment only.
Various project management schemeshave been designed to more effectivelybring about user involvement; for example,utilization of a steering committee, in-volvement of the user or user representa-
tive as an intimate, working member ofthe project team, establishment of a userliaison, etc. These techniques have beensuccessful in several cases. Lucas (0)found that involvement ratings were high-er in those companies utilizing steeringcommittees. Howeter, even with the useof various management techniques, userinvolvement in some systems efforts hasnot been at a desired level for maximumeffectiveness.
The question addressed by this paperis: What factors determine the degree ofuser involvement in the systems effort?If managerial structures do not insureuser participation, what factors dodetermine the level of involvement?
PROCTDURTS
Data to assist in answering thesequestions were collected from systemsanalysts and user personnel at six organ-izations that are heavily involved insystems developmental efforts at variouslevels of systems sophistication.
Participants were interviewed to ob-tain their definition and perception ofinvolvement an! to collect data for analy-sis of factors contributing to effectiveuser involvement. The factors indicatedby the interviewees are listed in Table I
and are discussed in the following para-graphs. No ranking of the factors wasdetermined. The inherit danger in rankingwould have been that the lower rankedfactors might appear to be of much lessor negligible value. The absence in a.particular system effort of even a verylow ranked factor may have a detrimentaleffect upon accomplishing a satisfactorylevel of user involvement.
124
0
MTH I
I1C1ORS AFIFCiING OsIR
tommunication Effectiveness betweenUser and Svstems Personnel
ixtent of User Involvement Desired
fan,tional 1-xpertise of Ilse:
How the Analyst and Vsei DefineInvolvement
Impact of System upon User Activities
Management Support for the SystemMort
Managerial Philosophy within II,erDepartment
Persistence of Inyolted Personnel
Physical Proximity of User toSvstem-Effort Activities
Prior involvement of User iniomputer-Related Itforts
Rapport Lstablished between User andSystems Personnel
User's Perceived Benefit from SystemMort
1\1.411 VI '41 I 11d tow;
Factor 1. Communication Iffective-Bess between User and '11,,,ztems leisonnel.
overcoming the technical jargon bar-rier is a problem faced by any disciplinein attempting to communicate with person-nel outside that discipline. In informa-tion systems efforts, the communicationharrier is one of double jeopardy. Not
only must the analyst translate computerutilization into a language understandableto the user, but also, the analyst mustunderstand the functional language of theuser.
the .4eAtems manager for a malor oilcompany stated recently in in interview,"our pioblem is a user problem -a commun-ikation problem. he have to say it inbasic Inglish. If it isn't said in plain
we need to tiv again; makeanother attempt at communicating."
Vactor 2. lxtent 01 User Involve-ment Desired.
In the crude, some analysts indi-cated they did not want as much userinvolvement in their systems work asthat desired by other analysts. Vari-
ations in the amount of involvementdesired seemed to be determined by(l) type of system being developed,(2) personalities of the involvedindividuals, Li) training and experi-ence of the analyst, and II) background
125
of the user. Ilser ,;arkfaction with thesy,tem short appeared to be closely relat-ed to the degree of user involvementdesired by the analyst. As R. N. Kashvap(), a principal in R. N. Kashyap 4 Assoc-iates, indicated, ". . . managers (needto) have a major say in the developmentof information systems and . . . the tech-nical interests of the systems specialist(should not he) allowed to dictate thetype of systems to be developed. . . ."
!actor 3. Managerial Philosophywithin the User Department.
User involvement, particularly atthe operational level, is partially deter-mined by the managerial philosophy in theuser department. The philosophy may beone of open access to departmental person-nel and information, or it may be onethat erects protective barriers so thatinvolvement of the operational user isdifficult to obtain. Some analysts indi-cated in the study that operational userinvolvement was almost impossible to ob-tain in some departments because of theattitude of management toward involvinghis/her people in the system effort. In
the study, management practice varied fromdepartments that were totally open (theanalyst was free to talk to anyone withinthe department and was not required tohave specific management approval) tothose in which all interviews, documenta-tion, and recommendations had to becleared by the departmental manager. fine
departmental manager did all of the com-municating with the analyst in a particu-lar system effort; the analyst was notallowed to talk with any other department-al personnel.
fr.ctor I. Persistence of InvolvedPersonnel.
Persistence or the systems personnelin soliciting and obtaining user involve-ment and persistence of user personnel inbeing involved are two additional aspeztsof user involvement. Generally, the im-petus for user involvement comes from theanalyst; however, instances were noted inthe study where she user was involved duemainly to his own insistence and his desireto contribute to the system effort.
31
Factor 5. Physical Proximity of theIke:- to System-Effort Activities.
Physical distance is frequently abarrier to user involvement. Communica-tions, rapport, dam collection, training,etc., are more difficult to bring about if
distance between user personnel and systemsstaff must be overcome. (Inc systems de-partment resolved the distance problem inone system effort by physically moving the
analyst to the (1%ei location. hhen physi-cal distance becomes a problem, userparticipation may be based upon a samplingprocess and be effective.
facto' o. Prior Involvement of Userin Computer-Related Eiforts.
Prior experiences of the user in com-puter-related activities has a major effectupon his attitude toward involvement in agiven system effort. If pfist experienceshive benefited the user, he hill be morereceptive to involvement in present orLiter systems activities. loo oftenanalyst assume, and frequently an improperassumption, that the user will look favor-ably upon new systems efforts, or at leasthe will not be antagonistic toward thoseel forts. In the critical factors studytonducfed by the author and his colleagues,one 411,11V;t indicated that it' the systemsdepartment in that firm had known the typeof experiences had in previous systemsefforts, the approach to a particular,vstem in whiLli they were currently en-gaged would hav,., been quite different. In
particular, he stated that t%e time framewould have been lengthened to allow forovercoming problems created by the users'experiences with other systems.
lactoi ". Rapport Established betweenuser ind '-;ystemsPersonnel.
one successful analyst spent severalhours with the user to achieve this one ob-iective--establishing a desirable rapportwith users. He stated that his purpose wasto develop within the user the feeling thatthis was his system, that he would he themato' benefactor of it (directly or in-Airectlyt, that the analyst was there tohelp him achieve his aspirations, and thatthe analyst should not he tonsideledthreit to those aspirations. 1111,, factorha,. been well set forth in professionalliterature; vet, in practice, too manyanalysts issume an effective r..pport with-out devoting sufficient effort to itse-ztablishmeat.
I ictor S. User': Perceived Benealtfrom the System litort.
the question is not one of whetheror not the user will receive any benefitfrom the new system, but rather is one ofwhether or not the user thinks he willbenetit from the new system.
Lido( 1, functional Lxpertise ofthe Ocer.
If the knet, 1 is/11,1 lob
hi; involvement has solicited more heavilythan if the user was inexperienced or, for
various reasons, did not funs ,ion well athis tasks.
factor 10. How the Analyst and User,Pt tine "Nor involvement. '
the definition of use! involvementvaried among analysts and among users. forexample, one analyst believed he had ac-complished user involvement upon Lompletionof a one-month observation period in theuser's department. However, the managerin that user department did not considersuch activity at all as involvement. lobe effective, user involvement should beat the decision-making level. One managerstated, "1 should be able to specify myinputs and desired outputs; he (the anal-ysts can figure out the processing." Ob-servation of user activities does notconstitute involvement.
Factor II. Management Support forthe System Mort.
Management support is critical toeffective use' involvement. Managementmust provide financial resources and dis-play its enthusiasm for the system effortif the potential for involvement is to befully reali:ed. Not only is financial andmoral support of management a determinantof user involvement, but physical supportmust be included also. Management's part-icipation in system decision-making activ-ities, in particular in planning for thesystem effort and later in arbitratinguser differences and conflicting userneeds, is a requisite for involvement.
Factor 12. Impact of the System uponUser Activities.
Users generally were more eager forinvolvement in those systems impactingtheir activities; that is, the greater theimpact, the greater the user's desire tobecome involved. However, the impact mustnot only be a possibility, it also must heperceived by the user. A problem arisesin attempting to define the degree of im-pact. \ partial solution is found in theproper definition of prime users.
MIASURLMIAI 01 1151 It INVOLVFMINI
measurement of user involvementis difficult to achieve for severalreasons:
(1) That criteria should be used to re-flect effective user involvement?
(2) Can quantitative measures be used; ifthey can, which measures and whatinstruments would be the most desir-able?
12E)
32
f;i Are qualitative measures more import-ant than qaantitative; that is, canone be concerned with only numbers ofmeetingg.-conferences, interviews,
-for the quality 0' in,ut thitoccur' in those communications is ofprime consideration.
Cill k KJ 1 SI 01 11l ION')
A checklist of the twelve subfactorsis shown -it the right and could be used toelicit the perceptions of users and anal-ysts as to the level at which the factorsappear to be opeating in a given systemeffort. Other checklis7s could be devel-oped, using Lickert and fhurstone formats,for evimple. the illustrated checklisthis not been tested.
Miny victors contribute to the levelat user involvement: the organizationalstructure of the projeLt, the twelvefactors discussed in this paper, and otherfactors not previously mentioned in thispiper, such as the effect of the systemupon the parer structure, recognitiongiven to users' suggestions, user under-standing of system definition and objec-tives, etc. trhe "etc." is necessary,for no list of factors can he Ion percent complete.) Further research isneeded particularly in the measurement ofinvolvement and in determining desirablelevels of involvement.
tit i i CILD RI I I lam.' ti
1. John T. Magner, 'Miser Involvement inManagement Information," Burroughs Clear-ing House, January, 19-2, p.
vary W. Dickson and R. F. Powers,"''MIS Protect Management: Myths, Opinions,ind Reality," California Management Review,Spring, 19"3.
1.. D. M. carter, 11. L. Gibson, and R. A.
Rademacher, "A ';tudv of Critical !actorsin Management Information Systems for IN
Air force,- 1 lila! Report, Grant- -" AIOSR-- 1;8, March,
M. Lester Coch and John R. P. french, Jr,
"overcoming Resistance to fhange," Read-ing; in ~octal Psychology, \et, Yoik7-77olt,Vinehard and hinston,
a. 1 . L. Lawler III and T. R. Hackman,-Impact of 1 mplovee Participation in theDetelopment of Pay Incentive Plans: 1
field Experiment," Journal of Applied
Psychology, 171.
Ih. K. C. Scheflen, 1. I. Lawler 111, andI . R . Hackman, "Iong-lerm Impact o f i n
plovee Participation in the Deelopmentof Par Incentive Plans: A field Lxperi-ment Revisited," Journal 01 Applied
127
3 t./
CHECKLIS1USLR INVOLVEMENr
Directions: Indicate on a 1-10 scale thelevel at which you perceive the followingsubfactors exist in thesystem effort. A "1" indicates no or mini-mal existence of the factor; a "10" ratingindicates that the factor is being met witha high degree of satisfaction.
I S 10
. Management support '
for this system it
rhe rapport estab-lished between userand systems person-nel is
Impact of the sys-tem upon user act-
3.
ivities is
. Benefit of systemto its major usersis
Analysts may pur-sue the systemsstudy with minimalinterference
6 . Communicationchannels betweensystems personneland users are
Users and analystsagree as to whatconstitutes userinvolvement
Desirable level ofuser involvement is'
Satisfying experi-ences of user inprior systems ef-fort is
Ni Analysts' and us-ers' persistence inbecoming and re-maining involved is'
11 Level at uhich us-ers knew their lobsis
12 the detrimental ef-fect of physicaldistance is
Psychology, 35:1s2-180.
6 Henry C. Lucas, Jr., "Systems Quality,User Reactions and the Use of InformationSystems," Management Informatics (Changedto Management Data), 3:207, August, 1974.
R. N. Kashyap, "Introducing ManagementInformation Systems for Corporate Planningand Control," ioDs Range Planning, March,I97i, pp.
Cosi 1\11,5tilti 101: Si! %Is 1111111011%11\1
Bohert W. Baumbach
111ttIWCD,, Data P1,),,C,,Ing NI1111°111V, IreaVrIck, Maryland 21-01
tli',1 1. t,, t tol de%elopment seems to have gained more attention re-cynt1),, ptoblhh Jut to tIghtaA budgets as unposed b Boards of iducat ion and related gov-etnoyntal agencle,. In the past, maw. data processing functions could command a substan-tit", Imureas, III re,ouice, ,Imp 1'). because of the computer "halo" effect or hith a state-,! th lit uutituation ot hhat hould he autilable in the near future. lInfortunatel),tit n' it 1111111( 101 man). u,er, ha- in reality the distant future or never. Negative user
act ion p1n- the tInantal pinch has forced many educational agencies to reevaluate theJ ita -ing fulition in term, ill its merall horth or Impact on the agency versus itsto-t. litt papet deal, 1.fth ulalttial technIques used to determine the cost of the pie--ent t hell is the neu -0.stem. the derivation of these costs is essential forco t henefit in11).-1- Ind lot budget justification for deelopment effort.
1%1B000Ci10%
to,t anak,t, al,o enable- the a,--ignment of equitable pitotittes 4, 11',01
competition fo limited data plocesingserf.ice, Inc teat'. It 1, patadoxicalthat CICD the 11,11,he,i klitic, of datapra,ving. agenci,..s seek expanded set
Ihi, ,eyminglf, unlimited demandmu,t be i.onfrented pith thy knohledgethat re,ourt.e, Axe limited. fhl, Ilmitation taut', the question of hhith ap-plicition 1, mo,i co,t henefft IA to theorganl-ation Ill kompari,on to othei renue,t
1 . 15111 -.1'111%1 ttltilti 1lktillti NI it
',1';11%1 CmmSfti
its ordei to .Ira ie at equI table111 abut ion 01 ,t stem development reout , the - 1:111 1111p I t a
1 I on and opt, rat ion cost must be developud ,Antl compared to manual or presentmtn0A,. Hohei.er, ,trit ,omparisonof -,y teill t 41'.t 111.11, 11111 NO% Itic a ,;(/',t
factot tot .ins AdAttional bentAlt, of anew sv,tem ouet the ple,ent st,-,tem. In
reality the impetus for a net, 1,
fryqnyntl, ba-ed on the nytd for expandedtu improed ,e11,1ces that the present ,
tem lacks this problem tali be solved itpre,enting the benefit, Along kith the
.t anah,t, a, -imply the paeoff forthe ). ,tem. inestment o1r b tomput 1 gt ,1 t .1t Inc'. of t he new bencfMI1'1111'111 1. , utb a t ".11 111V .111 IltICJ(' It t 'HO in mint t,ises, patt 1 ir Ion.II Kent lee, thec0,1 ,4111It' tmploted \sterl are
128
34
diffIcu1i to define. for example, if a nehregistiation system reduces the student tunespent in lines; what are the savings? thetotal student hours saved at x dollars perhours or perhaps the net, process hill en(outage more students to register foe morecourses. In either case, the computationIs complicated and may he difficult todetermine in specific dollar savings. thatdoes not mean that improving registrationis not a horthhhile project, but in a tightfiscal situation student time savings maynot be a reasonable objtctive for the dol-lars expended.
A clear statement of benefits may bemore reasonable for management decisionmaking than a complex dollar computationfor benefits. 1 sample request form piththe cost benefit analysis is included in1ppendix A.
1n additional pitfall for cost analysisis the problem of '.ost savings versus costavoidame. A cost savings is an out-of-pockt saings that can be spent on something else. rho sa%ings must be in termsof mone that has been budgeted, plefrablyID the present fiscal year. A cost avoidana,., is the elimination of cost factorsthat loll not he incurred ir the recom-mended system is implemented. Both arelegitimate factors in a cost analysis, butcost ,aIngs are much more easily presentedand appreciated. Cost avoidance, on theother hand, depends on the anal).st's abilityto define and pret110 a logical pattern ofko,t factors and then determine the
rationale for the new syNtem atoidance ofsuch costs. the distinction between costsakinils and cost avoidance i, not alwayscletr but don't try to spend that costavoldince money.
the final product of a sv-tem tort anal-y-1- will be a tost between whatis cutiently being done and whit must bedone versus alternate hays of satii.ftingthe system objectives. It's important thatthe systems objectives are considered interms of the oyeiall organizational objec-tives. It's possible that the system you'restudying has intended to do something thatno longer needs to be done either in hholeor in part. If the system is to be rede-signed or the objectites and hence the protossing .ystem iedefined or eliminated,thole still remains the knofty question offlow milk does "what we're doing" cost.Al don't he slit about recommending thatthe -,t,-11) objectives can be satisfied bet-toi MADOAI1V it indeed that is the case.
ha-'tally the cost of a system can heditided into three major tategories; people01 laboi-ielated tosts, supply and equip-ment cost and facIlities cost. lack ofthese major cost elements can he furthelditided into a mytiad of elements. Labol,for example, can he ditided into full timerail time, oyertime, or training. !quipment And supplies can be ditided into cap-ital outlay, maintenance, forms, paper,etc. taIlities hill include tapital con-stiuttion, heat, light, utilities and soforth.
toitunately, most cost elements ire refated to the operating unit in even themost rudimentary accounting and budgetingsystems. An exception to this is facili-ties, but more about that problem latex.the tabor, equipment and supplies, al-though usually related to an operating unit,must be further broken down into system-ielatcJ tunttions,
111. 1\\1.1:,1S 01 IABoR COSIs
the most txpensiye e.ost element in
neatly all admini-tratite type systemswill be the labor or people cost. Onfortunatlt, for cost analysis, employee timeis rirely tompletcly devoted to a singleproyess or system. Therefore it is net-e.,,rt to analyze the duties of each employee directly associated with the sv,tem todetermine how much of hi, time is spenton the system under study. In large systen.-. an (-Yen more basic consideration maybe to deteimine what organizational unitsare involved in the process. Consequently,the ili,t stop is to determine what employec or group, of employees should besurveyed hith regard to task analysis.
this is not usually a major problemsince oxganization charts, protedvie man-uals, and custom giye you a pretty good
129
title as to who does whit to whom. At anyrate, once you begin the study you can trackdown any loose ends you have missed.
once the gioup is identified, their po-tential should be surveyed via a Tack De-description Sheet (Appendix B). the raskDescription Sheet simply asks the employeeto list his duties and an estimated per-centage of time for each duty. A word ofcaution is in order. You must be certainto notify the top administrators in eachsurvey area of your intentions and approach.In fact, the requests as well ac the em-ployee completed task lists should be re-layed through the supervisor/administrator.An alternative to the task lists may be thepersonnel files if the personnel officemaintains up-to-date job description thatincludes duties and time percentages. If
you gain access to thi's material and it is
up-to-date, the task lists may be dispensedwith.
Once the task lists have been completedand retiehed by the supertisor, the systemsdevelc,pment staff can begin interviewing.Lich employee should he interviewed andparticular attention paid to those dutiesthat are directly related to the system.the interviewing hill protide an importantsource of toformation for the final systemdesign. Important products of the inter-yiehing process may include flow charts,procedures, organization charts, data ele-ment notit.. and a work distribution chart.The work distribution chart (Appendix C) is
especially important for the cost analysis.Ibis chart is a summary of the task listsafter the duties and pertentages have beenverified in the inteiview. This chart willenable the analyst to determine employeetime devoted to specific system tasks. Theisolation of spvcifit tasks with employeetime makes it possible to determine theapproximate Lost of eat!' major system func-tion currently being performed.
the cost computation hill require thetranslating of the work distribution chartpercentage into hours and then into dollars.!or Lonyersion to hours, multiply the per-centage from the work distribution charttimes the hours in a work year which foreight-hour days will he 2080. The 2080houis constitutes a full vork year and doesnot make any direct allowances for sickleave, vatations, holidays, etc. The 'ab-sent' hours arc simply viewed as overheadto the work year. rums when you compute afunction at x hour, that x total includesi factor for the missing or lost hours sincethe total work yea' is accounted for in thepercentage totals. Similarly, I never re-teived a task list that indicated time spentOn toffee breaks, late start, or early quits,etc. these items are simply overhead coststo the employee hoik year.
Aftei the hours are determined it is
Petessary to air ivy at an hourly rate for
the emplo%ee time. it is possible to com-pute the costs tor each employee but sucha computation is time consuming and maybreash confidentialit% requirements. kti
iltyrnative 1, to determine an aveiage dol-lar rite foi the organi:atton as a hholy.this tattot can he determined b% divtdingthe total salaries for clerical or "elect-ed emplo%ey, b% the !mbel of clelicalemPlo've-o lhvli P. .:11S0 Col hours in tilt
to administrative rate a, hellas the let It a 1 rate should be determined.the admintsttatite rate 1, determined inthe satin, manner as the clerical rate ex-cept for a dtfferent group of employees.\n boort% faktor for fringe benefits canalso be added into the rate. beep In mindthat the hourl% rate is for a base yearana that prolettions of system cost, of a
%t it pettod hill require the addi-tt-n ot tost of liking and merit increasesto the ,at it' structure. flat percentageapplita to the total cost figure should besutft, wit. this hill, however, he a compound cooleoltion for the year, to he pro-te,tt'd,
'-onte labor 1, u,uall% the mo-=t expen-,Ile ,o,t item, it 1 broken John tnto thefolloutng subelements:
%.
it
P.
o. ,tent, analt,is and de-ignProgrammIngtlelital and administiati%eorientation and trainIng
Ibis hreakdohn favors the data systems func-ti,n but 1, ustful as a planning guide sinceIt forte- the de.elopment of time e,t1-mate- that ate neeessr fot proper ,thed
)f deft Iopmei .t l%0 it tthin the datatenter.
I -sh I (Mid plot fide toll itith a !Hit',
Itt it eq11,1t 1,,n for predit t tug hots long eachof these items should take. iwneiall%, theproject, ire lettehed and the more comple\,,,, di , kith the programmers and ano is elide. h. and large this tech-Iii at ha- plated leasonably atturate pitha slight time stet run of approximatel%01 on 110-.t plotetts. One 01 the proj,t, tool ,lightl% less time and atlea,t on- pioiett took thite a, long as
Iiniied. out a that dif I
itt Ina t Wk tat le t IN(' than e t iraltuaacre in o.tt. to ne, user app rot% a I paltt.ulaIL. %len polit% quetions here in-t, h, J and in OH prepatation of ,%stem,ond pregtammtne documentation process,It I- tripe rat ire that loeurnentat ion be,ompleted is i b%ptoduct of the ,tep, inthe ploto- Ana not as the la,t step.
.1.0A estimate tequtre that Individualslartiltir kith ,t.tems and ptogtamming Arepteparing or rel.iehing theltythleage of the hotk patterns at the.yntel and eten tilt inditiatial ,apabilstir, of tilt anal% .t, and progiammel,e..ential. ile %let, manheek, and manhouts
as complete!} intetthangeable is spuiou,logic that tan C,1110 serious problem,.
the tlerital and administrati%e elementis the result of the employee stud% men-tioned earlier at least for the presentsystem costs. rhe proposed systems costsfor this item are arrived at by reviewingthe hork di,tribution chart and determiningthose functions that hould be supplanted bythe automated or revised system. It is im-
portant that the eogni:ant admintstlator forthe study area be consulted in this deter-mination.
rhis type of analysis of labor costs isintended for a Large system developmenteffort in%olving a major system design andimplementation. rot small or one-time typerequests an estimate of employee time sat-ings from the requester may be sufficientfor employee time savings. The amount ofanalytical time spent must be hetghtedagainst the si:e of the request itself.
IV. EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES COSTS, CONSUL-L1N1 SERVICES
The major equIpment costs hill normallybe fox -Data Processing at the computer cen-ter. ro arrive at a rate for this element,the total yearl% hardware costs plus thesalary cost of the operation staff heredivided by the hours of utilisation peryear. the rate utilized thus Included thestaff overhead as part of the hardware hour-ly cost figure.
Present utilization records are retainedso that the present system costs %idle nottoo difficult to determine. The prOjectedcosts are much more difficult and are artived at by reviewing the system design andmaking certain preliminary decisions re-garding frequency of run, sire of reports,potential pedal runs and so forth.
Data preparation includes keypunching,verification and any special equipment. suchas optical scanning devices. Foi the key-punch rate the rate used by local ke%punch-'nit contract firms is reasonable and easilyobtained. clue Input volume has estimatedand then the rate has applied. Similarlyif the input data has entered via a termina! detice, the labor costs of, the usingagenc% hould be included in this element.Ihis element could be a labor element costif the punthing and %erifying hill be doneIn house.
Data terminal,, modems and trnsmi,ston,,osts %%mild also be included for on-line"%stems.
k. Iwirtrirs COST
the fattlities cost is the most difficultto delinc. the most rea,onable apploathmay be to Intlude an) major modificatIonsto buildings 01 fixed equipment netessitated
by the proposed system. Phis is not a usu-al consideration for a new system; however,the implementation of on-line terminal ac-cess systems may make modifications to exis-ting building structures desirable - sound-proofing, additional service bays, under-ground cable installation, etc.
\ more frequent consideiition may be inthe or avoidance of nets facilities byeliminating new positions. If the systemeliminates positions or defers new posi-tions, the facilities cost may be'a legit-imate cost saving/avoidance. The use ofcost saving for facilities will depend toa large degree on the particular situationat your institution. Occasionally thecosts may be readily apparent especiallyit the system is for a new project that re-guiles neu staff and facilities. Obvious-ly the elimination of a position providesa direct and legitimate facilities costsavings. The savings can be computed on asquare toot basis since most institutionshave some guidelines for the square feetallocated to each position. Facilitiescost per square foot should also be avail-able from the facilities or finance depart-ments.
At any rate the cooperation of the orga-nization unit responsible for facilitiesplanning should be secured before a facil-ities savings is applied. This is essen-tial to preserve the integrity of the costanalysis,'
Depending on your particular environ-ment, the cost analysis could he omittedfor overhead facility costs without seri-ously distorting the cost picture.
VI. COST ANALYSIS AND THE DECISIONPROCESS
After the requested data processingservices have been analyzed some meansmust be provided to assign priorities tothe requests, In many organizations thistask is assigned to a steering committeeusually made up of representative com-puter services users. Ideally this groupshould revieu the computer services re-
' quests t%lth the cost benefit analysis inconcert with the budgeting process sothat any budget requests for additionaldevelopment staff can be tied directly tothe services. If the positions are notfunded the services will not be provided.
131
3 7
Appendix A
INTERAGENCY DATA PROCESSING AUTHORITY
Request For Data ProcessingServices
INSTRUCTIONS'1 Complete top portion2 Forward White and Yellow copy to Director, IDPA3. Retain Pink copy for file4 Yellow copy will be returned after coat analysts
REQUESTED BY
R. Jones
EXT. 1 AGENCY/DEPT.
1
1 Regatrat_
PRIORITYOF
1 1
TODAYSDATE
DATEREQUIRED
9-5-76DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST (Attach Additional Sheets as required)
Provide an early registration capability that can be accomplished by mail-ing registration forms to students. The forms can be mailed back to the,registrar so that a "bull pen" type of registration is not required forearly registration. The student schedule and an invoice would be preparedbased on the student's requested sections.
BENEFITS (Attach Additional Sheets as required) 1. Reduce peak work loads. Early reg-istration can be spread over a much longer time span.2. Consolidate student records. The same registration record will be usedby all college organizations. No college office will maintain separateregistration records.3. Improve service to the student. The mailing feature will eliminate the'n'eed to stand in line for section selection.'4. Consolidate student billing. A single billing record will be createdfor each student regardless of campus. A student will be charged for total(hours and all deliquency will be shown on the invoice.
EMPLOYEE HOURS SAVED NON-EMPLOYEE SAVINGS ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE HOURSPER YEAR (DOLLARS PER YEAR) REQUIRED IF REQUEST IS
NOT APPROVED (PER YEAR)
....L_.
THE SECTION BELOW WILL BE COMPLETFD BY IDPA STAFF
ESTIMATED COSTSCOST ELEMENTS DEVELOPMENT 1 ANNUAL
I PRESENT PROPOSED PRESENT PROPOSED
iSYSTEMS ANALYSIS DOLLARS
KS, 61g80 I 540 1,080
MAN WEE
PROGRAMMING DOLLARS 7p0 560MAN WEEKS
SUPPLIES and EQUIPMENT1
1 DATA PROCESSING
CLERICAL and ADMINISTRATIVE
INPUT PREPARATIONPOSTAGE
TOTALS
REQUESTER
480
320
110
3,000 3,600
28,740 22,110
1,650 4,8001,200
5 YEAR LIFE CYCLEPRESENT PROPOSED
2,700
15,000
143,700
8,250.
11,80C
10,080
18,48
110,87
24,116,00
14,670
APPROVALS
33,930 33'350 169,650 181,420
DATE DIRECTOR OF DATA PROCESSING DATE
IDPA 1 8/75
3 E
132
g s.t r _ .
APMV.PF.: B
230) ;
- -.1_,.... Cxat esI
Clerk Regis.112X
P1:P11:: (1 1:',:::. 171,1 )
VOLWOF
RECORD" Trr!
Original Check-out of Graduates 600 32
Final Check-out of Candidates for Graduation 500 10
Determine Eligibility for Student BenefitsTrom7Social Security:77711 Service Retirementand Railroad Retirement Assist Students. 250 10
Certify Athletic Eligibility 210 2
Determine Selective Service Eligibility and4000 20StudenET5iTerences
Employment References and Confidential Re-ports for Transfer Students 600
Preparation of Two Final Examination Schedulesand Summer Exam 3020
---Th 5Prepare Budget for Registrar's Office
Research Prospective Candidates for Honorsat Graduation for Depts. 600
Confer with Systems Analyst on NewProgram Needs
'i.Two Mid-Semester Exam Schedules a Yeax 150
unlimited
1
1
3
TYRInes and Acadeilire17ffriftions
Registration and Setting Pees
Advising Students of Rights by telephone and
Letter. Certify Attendance of ForeignStudents witleteiTrassy.
Supervise Processing of transcripts andTelephone Connected-with Same 4500
Assist in Clarifying Situations That Cometo Otiice with Newer Start
1DPA-6(11.75)
3u
133
; A:A AUTHORITY
".ARYT.AND
'.41-.T.NT Registrar's Office
WORK DISTRIBUTION CHART
PREPARED BY R Ratnnhaell
APPENDIX C
DATE 12-9-70
'.1 Y
-. ' L:r6
ClerkTyr!!
Secretary
Adm('lk ITypIlrypI4
lerk Clk AdmAide
ClkTvpI
Clk RegTvpIlistr /TOTAL
'roeesSi i1 : 1.i o Stan.luli, 4 112 17 31
Lid/Diopilma.-odhra, 1 30 ill 2 63
lecomfmtation oftrades VI 19
legistration:eneral 3 26 26 10 6 7 88
,wtpv Checksrs ti
''pc, ill t1c4.' ilead,;trt 9 9
13Roc m --11e211 Ling
'Iodate Q,Ilednle -S
-lettinc Fee," 1 3
',Ien'l Filing, Mail,t I inc., \rpointrientq 1 25 9 9 11 6 64
liaruzo or \ddre,; 1 1 2
C,ItIntvr Work
1
6 15 15 70 106
Nit; 'telephone 2 10 15 1 28
PR CardTile Maintenan,:t 9 5 , 16
Process - GradeLabLLL:LL22.-1.1111a----
Ynrrcct PR rari
R8
9 9
Pr.)ce' Gradttatton-1 'it) 1; S 82
(,tyydoni Potic` f It ; 141 10
ititletic fligibiliiv 1
-' .-1...-illo 'lervice,0 I
0 20
I X11,1 (:_:C110:11! I t!, ( \I 1 ) 6 2I
8
Research Cand. forHonors., Grad. 1 1
Prepare Rndgot 'S 5 S
1:oreiqn Students 1 1
Grade Processing 10 10 10 30
Isstst [acuity 10 10 8 4 ".,._(,uperviston 2- 25 27
Idm. Student Delp 5 S
'I ran 4- r 1 nt,:15 !
10
':efteral =t 1 ll 1 7,
"5 ton 100 100 Ium Inn Inn lc ,Inn go0
13't
AN ALTERNATE APPROACH
TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
(MIGRATED, UNIVERSITY INFORMAT:ON SYSTEM
Lynn Bellamy
Assistant Vice Presidentfor Computer Services
Arizona State UniversityTempe, Arizona 85281
1lis1RA(I: An integrated, university information system may be viewed as three separate,
functional components:11 transaction or operating systems,21 statistical reporting systems and31 planning and budgeting systems.
Iraditionally the.transaction systems have been designed and imp:emented without focusing
on the ancillary statistical and planning systems. An alternate approach, which doeslocus on the remaining components, consists of a survey of projected user needs for sta-
tistical and planning information (i.e. the ''wish list"). Another alternative is to con-
ceptually incorporate the entire WU data clement dictionary into the overall design.
A fourth alternative is recommended wlach,involves the use of existing, packaged systemsfor statistical reporting (e.g. IIEPS) and p.l,anning (e.g. CAMPUS VIII). The packaged sys-
tems can be used to develop the specificatiorrequired for adequate statistical report-ing and planning information (e.g. data elements, report content and operating procedures,
et, .the transaction systems can then be designed with due regard for future components
ii.e. statistical reporting and planning). In fact, the packaged systems can be modifiedand used as the statistical and planning components during some specified interim period.
the use of previously installed, tested systems for developing specifications should be
more cost effective than the other alternatives.* * * * * *
INTRODUCTION
over the past decade a great deal of atten-
tion has been focused upon the development ofmanagement uifomnation systems (MIS) for uni-
versities (Ref. 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11). The advan.
tages and disadvantages as well as the uses and
misuses of an MIS at universities was reviewed
recently by Driscoll (Ref. 3, 4). The reviei,
hutcver, was from the vantage point of a major
state university president.
In a recent article Mowbray and Levine(Ref. 9, indicated that the MIS is alive, well
and ready for academia. They also state that the
plobiem; associated with developing and instal-
ling an MIS in a university are "social" rather
tnan "technical". lhey continue with the state-
ment that the MIS "begins in the hearts and minds
of educational managers."
Driscoll states that an MIS exists at aninber of institutions and is being developedor implemented at many more as a result of the
recent demands for "accountability" in public
institutions. As an aside he also states thatprivate institutions will feel the same pressure
if they require public funds for survival (i.e.,yardsticks which serve as operational commondenominators for all institutions are an integral
part of an MIS development effort). Several
other cognent issues are also addressed from the
viewpoint of the president. In particular, the
need for internal information as opposed to theNand by external agencies for information, the.ear that the computer will make the decision as
opposed to the computer irovTaIE information upon
which to base the decision an malty contribu-
tion of an MIS to the historical conflict betweenthe "bean counters" and the "academicians." Theadministrative data processing (ADP) departmentat most universities has and will continue to beimpacted by developments in this area.
All of the issues above should concern themanager or director of ADP at any institution of
higher education. Unfortunately, the recent lit-
erature has not addressed the development of an
MIS from the vantage point of the director or
manager of APP. It is almost impossible to refute
the statement that, or whatever reason,-MIS is
either "here" or "co Ming soon". The relevant
question, from the vaktage point of the manageror director of ADP, is '"What impact will this have
on me and my organization ?"
Recently, several technical approaches to
the problem have been reported in the literature
(WS. 8, 9). The author report: progress in ex-
plaining data base to university administrators,developing the conceptual design for a universitydata base and proposing a structure for dealingwith the policy questions which naturally arise
from such an effort. Even in this case, it is
135
4
high!) piobabh that the unmet ,it). .hiministiation1- more ahale of the "technical" aspects of thelaohlem ti.v. the data ha,' managertnt ,-Asttrmthan the ale of the "social" aspect- of the prolien ii.e. the fear, Ind hi,tolisal conflict:).
one mu -t also ask the uhf sou- question, "Pia 11AMI" st it f oll,ihatk the tuthol and OA \ill
,1,14,, ol aid It !-','.:It in the hkatt- and mind- ,tithe edutational managers::
Gmen that MIS Is inetitable, the teal problem1, hots doe- the \DP manager or director plan in le,ond to the ntc.1 in a reasonable time frame and attoasenable co-t. 1 pragmatic approach to the pio
hltm hill be addressed in this hoh-etet , it I-opt-late to del' Inc MN in the context of an institution of higher education.
* * *
1111 NIHI'\11 11, MR I ILSI1) I \3012M110% si
it 31.tionall., the manages or director of ADPha, teiT, a, shoun on the loher part offigure I. hidh fch exceptions, each system hascharacteilzed a, a Iinancial st,tem, a student,\--ten 01 .1 planning system. Recenth, Mohbratand letine )111 hate developed scheme for cla,-1 ft trig ads) t at me -A stems Ouch Is rsu C
',tent hith the MIS or !Ids, the% propose that311 administiatilx ststems he scpatated into ducefunctiondl fica,:
* timr-attion or opelating systems,* statistical reporting systems and
* Oanning and budgeting systems.'mentor) of curient s)-terns published in the
oliginal papei is reproduced In! igules 2, 3 1.
Certain!) , t bete is no disagreement inioiig managetor director, of ADP that tran,actional '-t stems oreessential to the daily operation of the tilversitv.Itith fee exceptions, most major uniteisitic, ale inthe proses, of deteloping of hate all of the ttansaction 'Astern, li,ted In I IgUic 2. the statisticalleporting in ligure 3 a, hell a, the plan-mg and budgeting -y stem, in liguie 1, hohetei, aleanother matter entire!). Statistical reporting:Astern, can defoutel) he found in public unitersi-tie, there' state ieporting 1, mouited Its the lc,os-latUic of the Poald of Regent,. the' are lets uni-\cisme-, hohetel, hhich hate a complthen,Ite plan-ning and budgeting system.
the plopo,ed ,c1Arne for classit)ih administrat ve s stens ha 1141 ue lot' the trattaget ofdirector of 11w. )401.... ',Tull ant hohet , Is the-structure illicit ha, proposed 1,), tiohhi, ma pet use.
Ta. struaure 1, reproduced in figure 3. Note thata fourth functional component of OA of 1111s is
proposed hhich is the output etaluat ion and goal,revieh. 11,o note the inDunation ma-.let
plan at the base of the structuie. PecentIN laige-talc, multt unitelstv effort on output etaluatlonand goal, levity ha, been initiated bt the Iducation-al testing Sert ice and IdUCation konomit tit - ,tern.
ti.e. proeCt H111\1.
SDL in tot onto ha, developed a eomplehensive
planning and budgeting ,ystem called CAMPUS \III.1 dm, ion 4 I k,onomu. t ha stet eloped I
pitilen:,1; 'tat 1,1 teal report ing cal led lif N.
Si I , INi olz.MAI it *1 anti a number 01 ol bet. nil, hive
13b
4r4.
del.eloped basic transactional s)stems in thestudent and finance aiea". thus, both Driscolland Levine me coirect in stating that IN isdive, hell and :eddy for academia. Xt the heartof the proposed structule, hohevei, is the infor-mation st"tm master plan hhich must be dciclopedIA the institution. Note that in figure :; dataIdols and/oi is aggregated from the bottom to thetop (i.e. data is collected by the transactionsystems, aggregated to prepare statisttcal report",the "tattstical reports then provide basic datafor the planning and budgeting systems, etc.). it
is also important to note that external data isadded to prepare both the statistical leport, andthe planning and budgeting reports. thus it is
essential that the design of the basic tiansaction-al systems focus on future components ii.e. the
statistical reporting system as hell as the plan-ning and budget system). !he relatite cost of thedevelopment and implementation of the vallons com-ponents versus the benefits derived from theirhnplementation has also been addressed by Nk)hbrayand letine. Fheir commits are reproduced bolo).
"One of the ironies of MISplanning anddevelopment in higher education ha, beenthe inverse relationship hetheen costsIncurred and benefits derived. Largesum, have been spent on computer ized trans-act Tonal s)sti."4" uht re the educat tonal p,o,
off is least. Moderate sin:, hale gone in-to statistical reporting there the benefit,are modest. Little has been spent on inte-grated planning, budgeting and futuritieshhere the payoff is very great. Almost nossternatic effort has been detoted to con-,:cientioa etaluation and goal, retieh %herethe costs are relatite small and the poten-tial benefits astronomical."
Given that all majOr public in,,titlition, hill,,0011 he faced hith the implementation of at least
the three basic components of the TUN, the mana-get of director of 'DP must ask himself,"Hou can 1best prepare for the onslaught?" Nohbra) and Le-tine deal hith the philosophical issue of delelnping the information system master plan hhich ha,been lefelied to in the piesent holt, a "hi,hlist". they also note that the "social" problemle"ult, from the diffitult) that most people havein trying to explain in detail them intomitionrequ retrent, durtherIOn.,, MIS or Idly 1111> not
bate "begun in the hearts and minds of the educa-tional managers" at the in,titUtiOn. In otherholds, from the tanGve point of the direttol ofmanav,er Ili!', ht. I l ad t it lona 1 is (sit list'
it - ti,e .1 , Jet e 1 opmen tand unplementatIon tool iepfcsent, an Idealisticlathei than a plagWatbc approach to the ploblm.Iht next section deal, huh a more pragmatic ap-moat 1i to the development and implement at 11111 Altthe 11115 compo111.11 t
*
\ PRAGNIAI :WNW I (0 1111 II 1111
I 11 1 S
it1.'1 01 e Ai 1 Ittr the' rciommeliticd titDIN development, a tort of harnIng I, in order.
Under no circumstances should the manager or dir-
ector of ADP become involved in thenontedinicalaspects of the decision to iimplemeae ior not toimplement) the remaining components of the IUIS.
the recommended approach is based upon the
premises listed below:
1. All four of the components of the IUISwill be reconinended for installation at
the institution within three to five
years.
2. Transaction systems are more unique to agiven institution than statistical re-porting systems and statistical report-ing systems are more unique to an institu-tion than planning and budgeting systems,
etc.
3. the design of the IUIS should be from the"top down" while the construction must hefrom the "bottom up" (see figure 6 ).
. .,libstantial savings can be realized if the
data elements, report content, operatingprocedures, etc. for the statistical re-porting component as uelI as for the plan-
ning and budgeting component are specifiedand considered in the design and construc-tion of the transaction or operating sys-
tems.
.WP must be able to respond within a reason-able time frame and at a reasonable cost toan administrative decision to implement theremaining components of the IUIS.
Given the above, the recommended approach is
rather simple (acquire the statistical reporting
component as well as the planning and budgetingcomponent from institutions where these componentshave been developed in a evolutionary process). Thecomponents can also be acquired from vendors (e.g.HLPS from kducation 4 Economic Systems and CAMPUS
VIII from Systems Dimensions Ltd.).
Llecting to acquire the "package" componentsfrom a sister institution or from a commercial ven-dor depends upon the available funding and/or the
institutional structure. Individual modules of the
"package" components can then he implemented as re-
sources and basic data become available. More im-
portant, however, is the fact that the data elements,
report content and operating procedures (which arean integral part of these components) can be used
to replace the user survey or "wish list" recom-mended in the traditional approach. Rather than
depend upon a single user at the institution, onecan benefit from the experience of many users atother institutions and the evolutionary processwhich led to the development of the "package" com-
ponents.
Once the transactional systems have been con-.
structed (including the data elements, report con-tent and operating procedures for the statisticaland planning components), the institution can elect
to utilize the "" package"" components, to modify the"package" components or to proceed with the evolu-tionary development of unique components. from a
review of the statistical and planning "package"
137
4 3
components, the administration will also gain an
awareness of the policy questions which ariseas a result of the IUIS (e.g. the use of contact
versus credit hours, calculating faculty loads,evaluating and measuring public service and re-
search activities, etc.). In fact, the implemen-
tation and/or review of the "package" components
can be an educational experience in itself.
The marginal cost to the institution for thisapproach will range from $50,000 to $150,000 de-pending upon the selection of "packaged" components.The costs associated with the evolutionary develop-ment of comparable systems is one or more orderof magnitude greater than this marginal cost.Furthermore, if the "off the shelf", modular imple-mentation approach is taken, the response time onthe part of ADP will be minimized. Obviously, the
reports will not precisely satisfy the need of the
users at every institution. One should expect,however, a high degree of commonality in the sta-tistical and planning reporting areas. Thus even
with additionpl modification costs, the approach
should he cost effective.
In closing, anot:,er statement of Mbubray and
Levine should be reiterated. They indicate that
people must understand that every college anduniveristy has the kind of information system itdeserves. In a later article, bride (Ref.2) indicatesthat the computer system is only a "mirror" of theinstitution and that it reflects our ability' to
think. He further states that people often blamethe "mirror" (i.e. the computer ) when in fact itis the reflected entity (i.e. the institution) that
is at fault.
FiGuut 1S T C T S
STATISTICAL
SYSTEMSEPORTING
PI ANNING
BUDGETHIGYSTEIIS
TRANSACT 1011AL(OPERATING)
SYS FENS
FINANCIALSYSTEMS
138
FIGURE 2
TRANSACTIONAL (OPERATING) SYSTEMS
MISSIONAPPLICATIONEVALUATIONCONFIMIATION
FINANCIAL AID
APPLICATIONEVALUATIONCONYIRMATION
RESIDENCE
PREPARATIONAPPLICATIONCONFIRMATIONREGISTRATION
'RLGISTRATIOd
MASTER SCHEDULEPREPARATIONPREREGISTRATIONREGISTRATION (in person)REGISTRATION CHANGE
HEALTH SERVICE
STUDENT RECORD
PREPARATIONGRADE PROCESSINGEVALUATIONTRANSCRIPTS
DEVELOPMENTGRADUATE FOLLOW-UPFUND RAISING - FILE PREPARATIONFUND RAISING - SOLICITATIONt' J) RAISING - DONATIONSluizrroLto - TRANSACTIONSPORTFOLIO - VALUATION
STAFF
POSITION FILEHIRINGASSIGNMENTTERMINATIONUPDATEPAYROLL
PURCHASING
PURCHASE ORDER PREPARATIONPURCHASE ORDERUPDATEQUALITY CONTROL
ACCOUNTING
TYPES 01 ACCOUNTSIDENTIFICATIONAGGREGATIONACCOUNT FORMATChART OF ACCOUNTS - PRINTOUTCNA% OF ACCOUNTSAGENCV FILEACCOUI:r MASTER FILE.ENCULBRANCEADVANCESINVOICES LIQUIDATIONPAYROLLFINANCIAL AIDBILLINGBUDGETARY CONTROLRECEIPTSTRIAL BALANCEPERSONAL ACCOUNTSCLOSING THE BOORS
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
INVENTORYUTII'PATION
e TAL n".TECTS
TAKEN MAC. LEVE1E, JACK B. and GEORGE (BRAY. "Specifications for a Ilanagatent Information
Systan" , EDUCATIONAL CatIENE/1,974, The University as a System (R, T. Sandie, Editor/College of
Education, University of Toledo, Publisher) .
139
4 r'
FIGURE 7.)
SFAIISIICAL RIPORTE!) ,SYcA ;S
SMUTSBACKGROUND (admissions fil )EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIESATTRITIONGRADUATIONPOSTGRADUATE ACHIEVEMENTS (alumni file)CURRICULAR FEEDBACK
STAFF
ORIGINSEDUCATIONAL and OTHER EXPEULNCEINSTRUCTIONAL LOADSOTHER ACTIVITIESTITLES PUBLISHED, HOAeS,RANK DISTRI6UTIONCOSTS
SPACE
INSTITUTIONALCAMPUSIUILDINGCAlEGORYSUBCATEGORYSI'LE
UTILIZATION
MANCECOURSE COSTSPROGRAM COSTSDEPARTMENTAL COSTSINSTITUTIONAL SUI1MAR I ESENDOWMENT PORTFOLIOINVESTMENT YIELDSOPERATING STATEMENTBA LANCE SHEET
F: ri:vr:;i:, JACK B. tend Cf.,(0,;(.; ; :owpa,ve , f t ions for a 1,-(nagcspen t Information
0 712/r/197.4, Tho Frtivt.n: ty Sv, (11, Sarkl in , Editor /College of
len , Uni versi ty of 'Toledo, Kai; iSTi er3 .
PIO
4.
FIGURE 4
PLANNING AND BUDGETING
HISTORICAL
LAST YEAR'S ACTUAL OPERATING EXPERIENCE
THIS YEAR'S BUDGET
THIS YEAR'S ACTUAL OPERATING EXPERIENCE
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
DEPARTMENTAL (COLLEGE AGGREGATE REPOTS ON RESOURCE USE)
COST DETAILS (ACADEMIC AND SUPPORT DEPARTMENTS, PROGRAMS,
COURSES, CREDIT/CONTACT HOURS)
REVENUES
FUTURE
ARRAYED COST/REVENUE ALTERNATIVES FOR CHOICE IN'ACADEMIC
PLANNING
NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET
NEXT 2-5 YEARS' BUDGETS
DEPARTMENTAL LOKMENTARY
FINAL DECISION FOR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET (COST CENTER
ALLOCATIONS)
FINANCING POLICIES (LONG AND SHORT -TERN)
TA} ROM. Isom, JACK B. and GEDIAZMGARAY. "Specifications for a Management. InformationSystem", EDUCATIONAL COMENT/I974, The University as a S stern (R. T. Sandin, Editor/College of
Education, University of Toledo, Pu isler .
4r'
Fr, rmAer
FIGURE 5
NANACGFAT INFORMATION SYSTEM
-L Uuirur VALUATION .11, GOALS REVIEW- a
3 PLANNIM E, BUDGETING SYSTEM
2 STATISTICAL REPORTING SYSTEM
BASIC TRANSACTIONAL SYSTEM
14__INWA110:1 SNEM MAS R PLAN
1
ADDED
EXTERNAL
DATA
JACK 8. ,,(1 mo:1,RAy: it ic at Ion,. for .1 Mallage.rpnt Infortr,a1011t..i 1 ttAI 10NAI. Co!IMENI /101'. , rho SI.,..!en (R. F. Sand In, Edi tor/College of
U111 si,r .11 y v I1 41o, ,11. )
1 S
142
f.
FIGURE 6
DESIGN
AND
CONSTRUCTION
PLANNING AND
BUDGETINGSYSTEMS
TJP
LOA1111:1M. I.D(TFRNAI,-.. 4---
DATA DA'rA
TRANSACTIONAL(OPERATING)
SYSTENS
143
URUP
RI El RENCES
1. Baughman, George W., "National and StatewideIntormition System Effects in Higher Idusation",p. 1o5, COMPUTING AND TIlE DECISION MAKERS,1DUCOM, April 17-18, 1974.
Bride, Idward J., "Systems seenMirror,' ", COMPUIERWORLD, Vol,Dii': W, 197').
is 'torporite
IX, No. tl,
t. Drisk ,11, Glen R., "The Management of Change inHigher Edthation", NACUBO, Vol. 3, No. 7, 1974.
Deis, olt, Glen R., President, The University ofloledo. Ohio College Association, HIGHLIOITS,Vol. 1, No. 8, February 1974.
Edu44itional Testing Service and Education &E4onomi. Systems, "A Message to the College ofModel-1h: Size Describing HELIX, A Program to1 116 G.,1ls and Out' omen to Management andPlanning in Higher Education", November, 1975.
o. Lorne y, Limes, "Statewide Administrative'`':stems' , p. 41, LoMPUTING AND IHE DECISIONMAKilts, LDUcoM, April 17-18, 1974.
Gatauer, Doiald E., et al., "DBMS Goes tocollege," INF0SYSIEMS, (submitted for publika-tion, 197o).
A. Gardner, Donald L., "Explaining 'Data Base'--Nn Approach to Presenting this Concept toUniver,ity Administrators," C1'MREC, May I, 1975.
' .
10.
Levine, Ja,k B. and George Mowbrav, "Specifi-sations for i Management Information System",
IDIcAilONAL CoMMNT/1974, THE UNIVERSIIY AS 4VSYS1LM, (R. 1. Sand in, Editor/College of
iduLatton, University of loiedo, Publisher).
Mann, Rikhard L., "A Summary: cBM1S", p. 177,
coMPUI1NG AND 1HE DECISION MAKERS, IIAA0M,April 17-18, 1974.
II. MeFarlan, F. Warren, "Problems in Planning theInformation System", HARVARD 111.5INI5 REVilW,p. 74, Mardi-April, 1971.
1'. Mosmann, tharles and Lrnar Stet terud, "CampusComputing Management", DAIAMA110N, p. 20,
March 1, 1971.
1 t. Ral,tork, Anthom, "rni,,ersitv LOP: Get It All
together", DAFAMAlioN, p. 24, Marsh I, 1971.
14. Roberts, M14hael M., "A Separatist', View ofUniversity EDP", DAIAMATIoN, p.Marsh I, 1971.
I 4. Soden, lohn V., "Planning for the Computer,a4rvi,es Spin-Out", HARVARD BUSINESS RIVILW,
p. o9. scptember-wtober, 1972.
144
A PUBLIC SCHOOL CONVERTS FROM BATCH TO AN ON-LINE ENVIRONMENTIMPACT ON VARIOUS USERS
D. I. Nasoni, W. O. Drum, L. S. Hargis, D. H. Miller, E. M. RoselleTucson Public Schools
ABSTRACT
In a School District comprised of 61,000 students in grades KG - 12, the decision to convert
from a batch-oriented system to an on-line environment carried with it fundamental implica-tions for all types of long-standing users. The Purchasing Department now uses CRTs tocapture P.O. transactions while checking computations and providing accurate vendor infor-
mation. A Business Education data processing configuration was converted from a small stand-
alone computer system to an RJE station connected to the large central computer. All nine high
school Mathematics Departments are using NDEA grant money to acquire equipment to provideextensive and varied on-line services within their schools. Their Registrar's Offices are
planning to be on-line this Fall to the central Student Data Base of 120,000 records and to
their own course registration and mini-Data Base files.
Tucson Public Schools had offered 12 years
of basic data processing services to its schoolsin a straight batch environment. Each new com-
puter system installed afforded slightly morespeed and capacity for slightly more money.Gradually, tighter school budgets, more varietyin curriculums and individualized approaches toteaching made the standard batch approach appearboth cumbersome and outmoded. An analysis ofexisting applications indicated that many werebatch not by nature, but by necessity.
Pressures on management demanded quickerresponse to special information requests. At
the same time inflation gave computer purchasea new air of respectability.
Responding to those factors, the Districtlet a bid for a responsive, growth-oriented com-
puter system. After extensive evaluation ofproposals, a time-sharing system was chosen.Since the existing data processing staff wasbatch oriented, design for on-line systems priorto installation was inadvisable, and a period oforientation to the new environment was necessaryto assure a non-trivial approach to systems de-sign.
However, two large questions remained to be
tested: 1) Could the new computer with itstotally new approach to work really accomplishthe existing load with time to spare, and 2) wasconversion of programs and data as easy as ad-
vertised? The 128K word DEC System-10 arrivedearly in January. We planned that the old ma-chine would remain six months until we could beassured the transition would be smooth. It was
accomplished ahead of schedule and the nextphase started which was to prepare the BusinessEducation remote job entry station for the
opening of school.Here we learned our first hard lesson in co-
ordinating efforts of the computer vendor, thephone company and an independent modem manufac-
turer. Mr. Bill Drum and his first period class
took the brunt of the problem.
I. Business Education, W. O. Drum, Rincon High
SchoolThe Business Education program must respond
to the changes taking place in the business worldwhere more and more companies are becoming in-creasingly involved with a variety of computersin all phases of operation. First, secondary
school educators must be aware of those changestaking place and relate them effectively to thecurriculum working to find better ways to teachthe common vocational skills of communication andcomputation. Second, central school managementmust respond by attempting to provide the neces-sary tools for instruction.
The pilot configuration for Business Educa-tion classes consists of a 300 1pm printer, a 300cpm card reader, and a teletype console. In ad-
dition there is a cathode ray tube multiplexedthrough the PDP-8 computer at the remote site.This system allows for simulation of stand-alonecomputer operation and both batch and interactiveprogramming in COBOL, FORTRAN or BASIC.
In addition, the school's registrar isserved by the ability to obtain several basicreports and labels from their small private stu-dent data bases, which can be refreshed from thecentral site as needed.
This system is also being used to teachJunior College courses in the evening and for ourown District mathematics inservice courses in the
late afternoon.
II. Administrative Business Applications, D. H.Miller, Data Processing
The first on-line application was access tothe budget by many combinations of the basicelements of the budget key, that is digtrict,fund, function, account code, department, course.
Requisition information is entered viacathode ray tubes, using a conversational methodwhere the computer does the extensions, taxes,looks up the vendor's address, and captures theorder transaction. In the afternoon tile pur-chase orders are printed out on a hard-copyterminal. As a result, purchasing can process25 to 50 per cent more orders than before. The
next budget phase will include a method wherebypayments can be posted to an on-line pendingfile.
Work is currently proceeding on a new pro-perty control system to replace the large cardfile system now employed. The main inventoryfile will reside on tape and be updated once aweek with transactions captured at the cathode
ray tube. A totally new classification systememploying major and minor category codes isbeing developed by our property control peoplefor use in this system. File maintenance andnew item information will be captured from thepurchase order system with additional codingbeing added by the property control personnel.
III. Mathematics Education, E. M. Roselle,
Sabino High SchoolSeveral math teachers had been involved
with using and teaching about computers forseveral years. When the new central systemarrived, enormous possibilities presented them-selves, so planning began. Built around the
central concept of "computer literacy" a pro-posal took shape. It was presented first toDistrict central personnel and finally to theFederal government under NDEA Title III. The
grant awarded was of sufficient size to placeat least two terminals at each of nine highschools. In addition to obtaining a cathoderay tube and a hard-copy terminal, four highschools are going to use a 120 cps card readerwhich will make more computer power availableto more students each class period.
Interactive COBOL, FORTRAN and BASIC areavailable at all nine sites, each with filespaces large enough to save significant amountsof data. The registrar's mini-data bases can beaccessed here also, so that the schooladministrative office can use the hard-copyterminal for a printer after school.
This year, several sections of math in-service course teaching the use of the new com-puter have been offered so that teachers canprepare for the installations at their schools.
IV. School Administrative Applications, L. S.
Hargis, Data ProcessingPlans for the next fiscal year include the
possibility of c.r.t. terminals in the regis-trars' offices at ten high schools.
The terminals will help considerably indetermining at the point of enrollment intoschool whether or not a student has been in theDistrict before by means of an efficient search
146
of an alphabetic cross reference to our 120,000student records. Registrars can then determinefor a returning student when and where he droppedfrom school and whether or not he was a dropout.
A new application which has course changesas its first phase is currently being developedfor implementation this fall. Drops, adds, andchanges to course sections and individual stu-dent schedules will provide up-to-the-minutecourse totals, and ethnic balances for each sec-tion. Scheduling of courses for the next quartercan begin the second day of the prior quarter tothe extent that school administration can startto supply some master schedule information.Placement of students into the master scheduleand development of the schedule itself can pro-ceed simultaneously for the coming quarter.
V. ConclusionThe first year of change has given those
who are working closely with the new system theability to control the application with whichthey are involved.
The central Data Processing staff is noexception. Programmers each work interactively
to program, test, and debug their programs. No
keypunching of programs is necessary. A programcan be written, compiled and tested in a fewdays' time where previously it took a few weeks.Programmers are able to produce at least twiceor more than previously.
User and programmer satisfaction are bothup this first year. We expect even betterthings next year.
PUBLIC SCHOOL
DATA PROCESSING
25 ipm
1-1ARDCDP1TERMINAL
'-----
CENTRAL
___----/
CARDREADER
EXAMPLES OF USER SERVICES
147
5 3
SECURITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT IN THE UNIVERSITY'SADMINISTRATIVE COMPUTER SYSTEM
Leslie D. Ball
College of Business AdministrationArizona State University
ABSiRAci. A. privacy legislation is passed, as more administrative applications are computerized, and asmore people develop computer expertise, the security problems of a university's administrative computercenter change. Fire bombing has become less of a problem relative to toe modification or disclosure of.tuaent and financial records. This paper presents a discussion of those changing problems and how bestto ..opt with them. Included are risk assessment procedures used to develop a viable security plan, adiscussion ot.theresponsibilitiesof the university community to make the security plan work, and a pre-sentation or the costs of an inadequate securi,ty plan to the university.
I. iNfRdDLciloN: computers are assuming an in-
creasing level ot responsbility in colleges anduniversitic-- As, a varied university populus
gained access and knowledge of computing sys-tem characteristics, the opportunity to inter-rogate, diseminate or destroy confidential andpublic information must raise concern in theminds of those charged with the responsbilityof managing the information processing facili-tvks). l%e have now developed the capability tocreate and maintain concentrated information sys-tems. This expertise presents a new and broadspectrum of dilemmas to those conversant with the.omputer system and information intimacies.
Single facility environments (such as that
at Arizona State University), present particu-larly perplexing problems as both administrativeand academic' computing are supported by the same
computer system. Physical damage to the facil-it. impairs all ph....es of campus administration,instruction, and research. Information misuse
is viable as academic users and administrativetechnicians both have knowledge of system spe-cifics and, therefore, the opportunity to cross
di,cipline boundaries in their interrogation ormanipulation of information. Multiple facilitysystems that effectively separate administrativeand academic computing chores (such as that atthe lniversity of Massachusetts), still pose se-curlt,. breach and information misuse dilemmas
the users and staff of each facility.Academic computing environments typically
contain both public and proprietary softwarepackages, data sets and research results. Ad-ministrative processing tasks require the main-tenance of student, personnel, finance, andfacilities' records. The unauthorized or neg-ligent misuse of any of these elements repre-sents the potential for significant losses oftime; money, credibility and could, conceivably,
violate federal laws.
II. siktRIIY AND PRIVA(,Y: Security and pri-V4tV problems have evolved through advances
148
no 4
in information processing technology. The abilityto concentrate, access, and process large amountsof information has created the opportunity forknowledgable persons to misuse the power of theinformation system; the ability to uncover fraudor the illegal dissemination of computer residentinformation has not grown commensurately. Donn
Parker of the Stanford Research Institute indi-cates that no technological solutions to theseproblems are at hand and that none are expectedfor several years) Information residence andprocessing concentrations have also increased thepotential damage from Acts of God, such as fireand flood, and other unintentional acts, such asoperator error.
Several security and privacy breaches havealready occurred in universities. Examples in-
clude:
1. a university parking slot allocation pro-gram was sabotaged by a programmer;
2. grades were altered by an employee of theregistrar's office to maintain tilt eligibility ofher football player boyfriend;
3. wirecutting and acid were used to destroy
an IBM computer;4. students took over a university computer;,
and
5. a university computer center was bombed.2Computer security, employed to prevent these
events from occurring, is best defined as the pro-tection of the computer, the data it contains, andthe programs that direct Its actions from acci-dental or deliberate destruction, modification ordisclosure) To implement an effective securityplan, various techniques must be applied whichrange from Installing locks on the data centerdoor to the Installation of sophisticated soft-ware encipherment techniques for the protectionof data transmission.
Coupled with the installation of securityprocedures, universities must also be concernedwith the issue of privacy. Although privacy isnot guaranteed by our constitution, or mentionedin the Bill of Rights, the civil liberties tradi-
tion has been that sensitive personal informationcollected by government agencies for 'a specific
purpose mandated by law should not be given tootner agencies, or individuals.'' This traditionhas been incorporated into the Privacy Act of 1974,the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act acheso-called "Buckley Amendment"), pending legisla-tion, and state and local privacy laws which re-
quire that universities include privacy consider-ations into security plans.
AS an example, in January, Massachusetts en-acted the fair Information Act. This law requiresthat state agencies, including universities, thatmaintain personnel information about individualsreport to the Individual., involved what ihforma-ion is maintained and the reasons for maintaining
the tile. In addition, they must maintain a rec-ord or whu accessed the information and file cer-tAin r,iorts with the Secretary of State each year.Iris law applies to manual systems as well as auto-rated .,,tc1-1..;..
Law, similar to the one in Massachusetts havebeen ena,ted in three other states. It Is only a
matter +,1 time before a majority of other statesenact privacy laws which, according to Capt. Gracehopper, head vt the Navy's Programming Languagesar tion, could triple the cost ot maintaining per-,enal (luta tiles.' As 1984 approaches and thegoy ernment grows In power, It can be expected that
Individuals wIll remand more privacy protection.It i these problems ot security and privacy
that an Adequate security plan will attempt to
ittack. in this paper we will discuss why secur-
Ity problems diner In various environments, thecriterion necessary to develop a viable security
p1 n, and hew a university might plan and imple-rent security proposals.
III. slyt.I.SilY IN DIFFERING ENVIRONMENTS: As each.nmputer in7Eirlati711771Tilerent, it is nut 1;)s-,tbit" to develop one security plan for all compu-
ter envirunc.ents. Ihese differences are a resultt various types ot processing applications andIvel- at equipment sophistication.
+Nice clearly, businesses have a wide varietyot security needs. Banks have security needs thatdifter trot: manutacturers. Large companies havesecurity needs that differ from small companies.these ditterences can be enumerated along organi-zational lines or processing lines.
Even within universities, great differences,ire present. As previously mentioned, the mostcommon ditterence is the use of a single facility
Jr a multi-tacility ter admInisti ion, research,
and teaching needs. When a university elects toemploy a single Lacility, physical damage will im-
pair its use by .11 users. In additivn, the pos-stility ot information misuse is grealy in-creased as large numbers of faculty, stall, andstudents acquire the ability to access informationnot intended for their use.
In i multi-tacility environment, security
problems are different. In fact, separate secur-
itv ;'14113 must be developed for each tacility.lash ot three plans will have different objec-tives depending on the facility's use.
In either type of installation it is quite
likely that operatUng personnel are former stu-dents who have extensive computer programming
Ihi, practice of employing operatoroith programming abilities creates a substan-
tial potential for information misuse.Unlike many businesses, usera of the computer
systems in a university, such as financial aid,housing, and others, have been tound to be unaware
of the value of the information within their con-trol.' This lack of awareness can lead to signif-
i ant security problems.Universities are also more likely to experi-
ence firebombings, take-overs, and other violentacts than other types of lomputer installations.However, in recent years, very few violent actshave occurred and universities must look at secur-ity problems that are more likely to occur.'
These differences are clear. Unfortunately,adequate research has, as yet, not been performed
to identify all of the significant differences thatshould be known if we are to develop sufficientsecurity'plans for universities.
IV. DESIGN CRITEXIA: When a security plan is es-
tablished, whether it be for a single facility en-vironment or for a multi - facility environment,
four design criteria must be met. They arc:
1) effectiveness, 2) economy, 3) simplicity, and
4) reliability.°To be effective, the plan must not allow data
to be modified, destroyed, or disclosed either in-tentionally or accidently as it goes into the com-puter, while ,:cored in the computer, or as data
results come from the computer.° An effective
system will monitor the operation of the computersystem to determine when, and lf, any of these un-fortunate events occur. Simply stated, the com-puter output should be what was expected from the
computer input and the program that processed the
data.Liven that it is never possible to develop a
security plan that offers 100 percent protection,it is necessary to include economy as one of the
criterion. Security needs must be balanced with
the funds available. As funds are always a scarceresource that must be shared with other demands'ofthe computer system, economy becomes a very impor-
tant criterion.When speaking of simplicity we mean operating
simplicity. For example, if a user at a remoteterminal must input his social security number, .
his mother's birthdate, today's date multiplied bythree plus two, and a user code, he is apt not touse the system because of all the security bar-riers that have been created. It must be remem-
bered that the computer is designed to provide aservice to the user and if we make that servicedifficult to obtain, then users will be less like-
ly to fully utilize the computer.Simplicity Mist also extend to the operation
of control procedures within the computer center,
the tape library, the backup storage facility, and
other operational centers. In the event that thecontrol procedures are not simple to operate, em-ployees can be expected to bypass control proce-
dures. Without adequate control, security becomesa myth.
As for reliability, it is quite evident thatthe security plan must work continually to be ac-ceptable. The computer system will be of littlevalue it the security plan is unreliable. Catch-ing some of the Intruders some of the time shouldbe unacceptable to security' plan developers.
Lachot these criterion must be considered in-The'development of a viable security plan. They
should be considered throughout the design and im-
plementation phase.
V. DESInNING AND IMPLEMENUNG SECURITY: The tirst
step to be performed in the development of a se-curity plan is to select a securCtv team. A team
is necessary, rather than an individual, becauseof the amount of work required and the wide vari-
ety of skills necessary.team membership would be dirt rent when de-
veloping a security plan in a multi-facility en-
vironment as opposed to a single-facility environ-
ment. Here our assumption is that we are discus-sing a single facility environment and are con-
cerned with the administrative computer facility.Included should be representatives from the com-puter tactiley management, large academic users,the internal auditors, the legal staff and fromea4h ot the functional areas (such as the bursar,idcli,sion, office, scheduling, financial aId,
et, .1 teat currently use the computer or intend
to use it in the future. Each of these repro-,entatiyes should have a clear understanding of
the intormation needs and responsibilities of the
gaup that talev represent. The auditors should
ne available to recommend proper control proce-dures whae the legal representative should be re--sponsible for insuring that privacy laws are kX11-.
stied with.Once that the team has been assembled, it
111 he necessary to assess the risk environmentthat the floility and its users are operating in,
a- as an estimate made of probabilities that
these risks Lilt occur. This is'a laborious anddifficult task, but a very necessary function.
Each team member must attempt to enumerate allp0-1,1bie risks that might occur in their depart-Tont- and assess a probability rating to that
occurrence. to develop this list and its associ-ated probability ratings, Tally different types ofluestions might be asked. Some examples are: 1)
!he,. ....any people have acce,s to the data tiles!;
2) U' these tiles contain monetary or personal in-
lormacion:; 01 what value ary these data
file, and programs to other":; and 4) Are corn-
puter-rosident data filet, and programs adequate-
iv hacked -up: buidelines for developing appro-priate questions can be found in Van Tassel's)orputer Security Management and Krauss' SAFE:'+e(uritv Audit and Field Evaluation.
file risk analysis is also difficult be-
,ause there is no defined stopping point.leariv, new risks will always be turning up.
It is necessary, then, to uncover as many risks
a- po.sible and to allow for future admendments
when new risks appear.The estimation at occurrence probabilities
is "ery ditticult. liouever, it has been said
that extremely rough subjective estimates areadequate when objective estimates are unavail-
able." A method for expressing these probabil-ities is to determine how frequently the risk
might occur. Martin suggests a scale ranging
irom"virtualq impossible" to "might happen ton
IlMes a day." 1
Atter the term has uncovered all possiblerisks and the occurrence probability associa-ted with each risk, it is necessary to deter-
-An'' ,xponire costs, Lath risk has 4 cast
kia,J with it should the event occur; the uni-versity will sultr some monetary damage and/or
150
5
some other loss in terms or time or other inco..-vience that should be convected into a dollar a-
mount.These costs are then multiplied by the occur-
rence probability to determine an exposure cost for
each risk. Therefore, what has been developed is aweighted cost for each possible risk. The exposurecosts will clarify which risks should be most im-portant to protect against and will often surprise
you. For example, a fire that might cause 5250,000damage could have a lower exposure cost than a data-error that occurs ten times a day and costs five
dollars to correct.These exposure costs should be rank ordered
with the highest exposure cost first. From this
list the security team can determine which secur-ity measures to institute. However, each securitymeasure must be proven to be cost effective before
it is installed. In orher words, the cost of in-stalling the measure must be less than the expo-
sure costs. In addition, a number of other consid-erations must be included rather than just the se-curity measure's cost-effectiveness.
First, most security measures do not reduce
the occurrence probability to zero. Therefore, itis necessary to compare the reduction in exposurecost, rather than the exposure cost, against the
installation costs of the securLy measure.
Secondly, many security measures will reducethe occurrence probabilities of more than one risk.While a particular measure might not be cost-effec-tive for one risk, when the reductions in exposurecosts of all risks that this security measure af-tects are summed, it could become cost-effective.
Thirdly, some security measures will have tobe installed regardless of cost considerations.For example, privacy legislation, at both the stateand federal level as well as institutional poli-cies might require that certain security measuresbe installed. Failure to do so could result in aviolation of a law and, quite likely, significantembarrassment to the institution.
Given the exposure costs and these considera-tions, the security measures to be installed shouldbe selected. As a limited budget is likely to bea:located to security, not all of the securitymeasures will be installed. The team should selectthose security measures to be installed and proceed
with Cleir Installation.Periodically, the plan should be reviewed.
The review should include surprise audits to deter-mine if the security measures are working. In ad-
dition, each risk originally uncovered, but notprotected against, should be re-analyzed to deter-mine if Its appropriate security measure is nowcost-effective or if additional funds have beenprovided to increase the security level. Final,
due to changes in laws, applications, or equipment,new risks might be uncovered which must be analyzesto determine if security measures should be in-
stalled.
VI. CONCLUSIONS: Thin paper has presented a verygeneral overview of problems of security and pri-vacy in universities and colleges. Volumes couldbe written about security and privacy in education-al environments. It has been the intention of thispaper, however, to identify the problem and oilergeneral guidelines to aid in developing a solutionto ,ecu"ity and privacy problems.
The situation is intensifying. More people
who do not have computer backgrounds fear that thecomputer is a tool for an invasion of their privacyand this (ear appears to be increasing as we approach1984.
rriversfties and colleges must not look lightlyat these problems. They must be willing to commitsignificant resources to solving these problems orthe,: could find themselves in an embarrassing situ-
ation.
FOOTNOTES
;Donn B. Parker, Susan Nycum, and Stephen Oura,
Computer Abuse (Menlo Park, Ca.: Stanford Re-search Institute, 1973), p. 7.
'Items 1 and 2 are from: Parker, Nycum, and Ours,Ibid. pp. 91-112, and items 3, 4, and 5 from:Leslie D. Ball, "Defining Security Needs in arnfversity Data Base Environment" (unpublishedPh.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
1475), pp. 146-148.
Robert H. Courtney, "A Systematic Approach toData Security" (paper presented to U.S. Bureauof Standards Symposium on Privacy and Securityin Computer Systems, Washington, D.C., March 4-5,1974), p. 2.
'Alan F. Westin and Michael A. Baker, Databanks ina Free Society: Computers, Record-Keeping andPrivacy (New York: Quadrangle, 1972), p. 19.
Nancy French, "Massachusetts Governor BecomesFourth to Sign Privacy Protection Act," Computer-,'world, Vol. 10, No. 4 (January 26, 1976), p. 9.
( Ester Surden, "Privacy Laws May Usher In 'Defen-
sive DP': Hopper," Computerworld, Vol. 10, No. 4(January 26, 1976), p. 9.
'Ball, Ibid., p. 154.
Rein Turn and Norman Z. Shapiro, "Privacy and Se-curity in Databank Systems - Man-Measures of Effec-tiveness, Costs, and Protector - Intruder Inter-action," Fall Joint Computer Conference, Vol. 41(fall, 1972), p. 437.
'Courtney, ibid., p. 2.
"courtney, Private intrview at IBM, Poughkepsie,
N.Y., July 22, 1974.
"James Martin, Security, Accuracy, and Privacy inComputer Systems (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1473), p.
V
'Si
1C-.CRAILD PWORI\TION mrcis IN EDUCATION:
STATE OF THE ART
Don E. GardnerArizona State University, Tempe, Arizona t3i281
ABSTRACT: This paper explores the concept ot integration in Administrative Data Processing inElqtati,)11. the various option; currently available for achieving integration are discussed, and a"Jul.-bar iproae4 is proposed as the only method of attaining "true" integration. Both advantages,11.! ii,alvamtage, ot the DBMS approach are presented.
The "I onutaollitv movement" in educationha, re,q1tel ill ever-increasing lemands forLetter "-lanag, writ iniormation" pertaining tothe operation i almost all type, of educationalinstitutions. Most,o1 these demand, have comefro, outsile the institutions themselves; fromlocal governing boards, state coordinatingagen,le,, ant, ot course, the federal government.At the sa,.e Lime, educational administratorshave been tacrl with increasingly difficultinternal rrsouree allocation questions and, in
cases, have turned to "molern managementtechni Ile," for their solution. \s a result,
,here f a lanifust nee! for more and betterevaluative data to improve both the internaloperation ,t the institution and its capabilityto respon! to intormation requests from ex-ternal agencie,.
4 evtent, these pressures have"ailed and abetted" by the availabilit..
of ever-more -01phisticated computerized toolstor lanagelent. "MIS," "on-line svitems" and"lama base" are all laminar phrases to thetattoull alinistrator ot today. In manv
it weme as though the mere existence,, 1pabllit v to produ,e large quantitiesof computerized reports has been a more relevantfactor in the decision to implement a computer-io,1 ,,,;tem, than the actual need for the
'IR to be prohr:e1. Whether rhi, istrqv or not, at'- o.t all elib_ational adminis-
trator, tola, have had some experience withelectronic mama processing (it only Al at ru -.trate l user) and ,.omput erize I al
trat ve intornation systems.
rho i:onrept ot Integration
.there doe, the concept of "integration"pilfer into the manage, ,ent intermation picture?
irm) a tiworeti,a1 ,tandpoint, the eon,_ept
A entral f ;,i1P in the application ot
IA044, lent their, to the problem, ot manugo-
",vnl in the rdwitinal setting. A recent
152
r.
0
article in the Chronicle of Higher Education
highlighted the emergence of such applicationsin post-secondary institutions, beginning withthe statement that "sophisticated corporatestyle management systems," using electroniccomputers and "space age" data processingtechniques "are rapidly becom1 ing standard equip-ment on the American campus. The "systemsapproach" to management alluded to here isbased on a concept of the organization as a"whole," with the relative importance of thevarious sub-units being determined on the basisof the functional relationships of each systemcomponent to each other and to the whole.Obviously, in a management approach based onthis type of theory integration is an essentialconcept, as educational sub-systems arc viewednot as separate and distinct from one anotherbut more in terms of their contribution to thetotal well-being ot the institution.
From a practical standpoint, whether ornot the educational administrator is versed inmanagement theory, he is detinitele aware.ofthe pressures that exist for data which crosssub-system boundaries. Federal reports, pro-gram evaluation data and information to supportinternal cost - allocation. decisions, all require
integrated data at one level or another. Forexample, analysis of instructional costs ispossible only it you can ettectively relateinformation on students, faculty, programs andmonetary and physical resources.
Integration: The Alternatives
What are the alternatives for achievingintegration in administrative data systems?At a broad, conceptual level, there appear;to be four basic options (these will-almostcertainly overlap in actual practice): (1) a
default option, (2) the "coordinated tile"oPtioni (I) the "distributed processing"option, and (4) the "data base" option.
INPUTS
Sat
PROCESSING REPORTS
FIGURE I.
ME "DEFAULT OPTION" FOR ACHIEVING INTEGRATION
The obvious "default" option is depicted
in Figure 1. This is the situation wherelittle or no integration exists between the"operational," or "transaction oriented,"data systems in the institution. Separate
processing and tile systems have evolvedfor stndents,tinances, personnel andphysical plant, each one in virtual isolation
from the others. This means that the only
alternative that exist; for correlatingdata from the different sub-systems is
"manual massage." Practical experience
from an adllnistrative point ot viewattirms that manual massage is "alive andwell" amt, to some degree, will undoubtedlylive on torever. For example, the Officeot Institutional Studies at krizona State
University (1S1l) is currently laced with
the prospect 01 considerable manual effortin bringing together (tor co,,t analysispurposes) faculty data that are presentlyScattered among four basic systems:"position control," the academic vicepresidents' faculty tile, the payrollmaster tile, and the master course tile.It is almost impossible to describe theamount ot manual ettort that is some-times required to pull together accurate,timely data from tour separate '.ystemswhich were each designed with a distinctpurpose in mind.
The basic option for achievinginteeration In the lira procreang shopt; the technique of "coordinated tile process-
ing" (see Figure 2). Here, integration is
ac,,omplished through "cross-walk programming,"
iS3r. r,
ZY
(Now-tnrecEloin-OPSRATING SYSTEM RESULT
IN EXTENSIVE MANUAL MASSAGE)
the creation of "extract files" ot selecteddata elements trom operational systems, and
other similar techniques. For example, as
a possible interim solution to the ASU facultydata problem mentioned above, AdministrativeSystems and Programming personnel may develop --without changing the basic operational systemsin any way -- the necessary software to createand maintain a new "personnel history file"which extracts data from all four operational
systems. Unfortunately, data processingtechnicians are well aware of the complexitiesand problems associated with this type ot
Procedure, especially where standardizedassumptions and data element definitions are
lacking. Data /File Management System soft-
ware (not to be contused with Data BaseManagement Systems, to be discussed later)such as informatics' MARK IV, can go a tongway toward facilLt.ting correlation ot data in
a basically non-integrated environment; how-
ever, standard "keys" for cross-referencingdata must be present in the existing files,or added later -- perhaps at considerable
expense. Because this method of achievingsystem integration is necessarily "alter thetact," there will almost always bt deficienciesof one type or another in the results.
A new bandwagon which offers an optionfor integrating with a different twist is
"distributed processing." The development
ot economical intelligent terminals, com-patible mini-computer systets, key-to-dischardware, and specialized "turn -Fey"have already had substantial impact ontraditional systems design concepts. For
INPUTS STORAGE
I COORDINATEDDINEATED
PROCESSING
PROCESSING
FIGURE 2 .
ACHIEVING INTEGRATION TROUGH "COORDINATED FILE" TECHNIQUES
ea--,ple, a ,eotralicel fe,punch operation
1, on e the "rule" for data entry at 1SP.foll;, ieYpunch machines have been replacedwith VNIM key -to -disc equipment, includ-ing "listributed" 1-e_ stations for directinput ot transactions in the universitypurktia-auz department. Ilso, new equip-ent has been purchased for university.ashiers which includes a built-in mini-0-,puter (and random access storage) thatwill interlace with the main financialss,stem at the central site. The implication
, I. that, a, liscributed processingst ,pt, heome tile,pread, a new level
ot "ardiare lepen1ent" integration willbe fe,ignel into specialized subsy,:temn
that "tilt to" or "teed" one another atWtereut levels of interaction (seeti,.ure if.
The final option is the development otan "inieo-atel lata base" through the useot fats hise manament system (DBMS) solc-.ar. ro merctally available DBMS packagestu,14110 11)C11., IDMI, SYSTEM 2000, OMS 1100,
kl)1413, and [1S. Persons interested inco-par4tive evaluations ot these package,shonll refer to Dataprols "Buver's Guideto Data Base Management Systems," and arecent article by Ross. Essentially,a DWil pa,,lage tacilitates non-redundant"application-independent" data storage,irk data elements linked together invarier. of hierarchical or network
6hainet) relationships. To over-simplitiin.tad ot lata inputs from differenttun(tional ire as ;l thin the institution
tiaz, fed into physically separate tape. fnpi) . from the
154
REPORT
various departments are funneled through care-fully controlled maintenance procedures intoa single mass storage "tile" (see Figure 4).Theoretically, the data elements stored inthe resulting centralized data base may belinked in an infinite variety 0! ways toproduce required reports.
It is the opinion ot the author that theDBMS approach to information systems develop-ment, represents the only "true" integratedapproach to adminiStrative data processing.Integrated systems based on the coordinatedtile or distributed processing approachesare much more likely to result is systemsthat are too "application oriented" (i.e.,developed without regard to an overalldesign for the organization as a whole) andintegrated alter the fact, it at all.
The centralized data base approach hasbeen considered by many in the past to be tooexpensive and complicated to be able toimplement effectively. However, sottware
sales statistics indicate that more and moreorganizations are turning to DBMS for thesolution to their management informationproblems and Datanro reports a\generallyhigh degree of user satisfaction with thevarious "major" packages. Software with DBMScapabilities is already available for some ofthe medium size hardware systems, and thetrade journals report that work is progrssingon packages that will make this capabilityavailable to mini-computer based configurations.In the words ot one writer, the current interestin the DBMS approach represents "perhaps thegroundswell ot a new era in which the standardmethod of codiputation will be data based dataproce.qing."
KEY STATIONS
KEY-TO-DISK HARDWARE
INTELLIGENTTERMINAL(DIAL-UP)
OINPUTS FRQ4 DIFFERENTOPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
.\A
CENTRALSITE
PROCESSING
HARD-WIREDTERMINAL
CDFIGURE
INTEGRATION WITHDISTRIIUTED PROCESSING
STORAGE PROCESSING
DIAL-UPTERMINAL
FIGURE 4,
THE INTEGRATED DATA RASE
(DAMS APPROACH)
1S S
(1
lie 1)11'1; ipproa( 1;
/hit ar., some of the advantaee of thet.o.e ,r1tel approach to A Itnni ,
'r It IV, !It A proces tine? In the area ofI,' .! t It pie tats '"!r e,
r. .11r In tat a entry error . pr'.p,n'-r;',,lr, t the 1 oult of !ntil Ire art I tittlher
11 I ter, it 11,p.tt .ounce docir suit .
trio t of administrative in-, r it ,n .t e ii,,,yever, in convent Iona!le" ste-s, much at !at a
,1 leer,' f I 0f necessity, redundant; in'it t '+1 Al i ' (It not most) reltltitlInt..t.IA? 1 'etr an be kAl IA'sitlatCl. 11 ,,(A,
it,;)i' AA A* 11AIVIAA ANAricArli
Ao' A AV., A A AA 'At h 1 :IV that data input, are11i lite 1 throu,th hiehlV (rawelite edit
It in, in proce hires. In a !)R."5r ,, ire ',Al,. ine 1 "sine,le" p .lilt and ,tandar ii At'
( r 11 1 ,It r.,1 le 1) edit proit,ra-i.r, t , 1'11: la, ion control all
t ' 11 e .rr,sr rite
I , ir,,i ot lat a 0 or.-4,,,e and gani p-11 it ra It t t ),(111 ,irtat ion ,vst Om,It- ',tr11, t ,,t 1 1* tit t the sale 11t 1 element.,rA k '1,' "non-coaparabilitv" aril a VarietA
141' proble,,,. While institutions' n a 1. t te I to ipo,,s2 standardize! data'o 7 1''t for -cats "at ter t he tact" 11
r t 1 AISA 1,, in practice the Last.1. pr 1 On the other, !, tr, 1 !-approach, the s on At rut, t on ot,' ,t e it hl,e h. t'o'ne t 1 -a 1"r
T r t1,,, p11,11,ent stag tar!-, -0 A .1, he al... 0 in tart !et hat ion,. ha "r-
1' a .. te t rn-istratto
1tvaqt,41,, of a DBMS -based s\stmt' it it 1. throret kcal I. possible to ,t ore
lei 1 ,.1. ,ent it st a lent 9,a",e,I ,,r1 . nu, h.r, en1,. once :or
al 1 report eenerit urt . to" Alt tp1 i; le" , .toss, the !act that tie
I , l,' ,a lie :tor,,,1 in a 'et ..ner,t isle. in I nit Alt 'lit crenti , ...If, I, ant ,multiple lip-
! ,,it In, Ile To -itn, "here cert.,ire required to I- eep lat a current.
AA- ,,r evi, of stems at Pitt 111..,
11 010 '11+ late e (sit ".t1 ," i 'Arrest 1. lint line I in 1 1
Ii'''A''10 ,r 1. . fn tiv.''ti.ttmt-- 111 d lie up late 1
et lel', the ".1.,1.-de etitr,." rip lat.'I ,t a tall hae
, ro-rs up -to -!cite int.-t- Air ton f Al Ir ire!. 1. the re ,(ilt (,1 a ,ingle up-
t 11 i -
I Wet t intor,Att,n li omivIthqt,h data 0 ore 1 in ,eparat
t I. , ", ,t rtp,rt ine") generallyr. 'mire ",p, 141" pr-.-ra ;line and lob strewn, in , 1,,,, the coplexities
it 1 e ent,1' Al' ,, au,. tot
-r It" e prr het ion retInin
In ,:etin,: report Is-111111e., and thatto dliar i,rovra;mer o,ponse, "tt can't be done."'lore chi, Ii;4., thi latter tateen, :41--
lace there_ si 1 iota elellents exi stt ng ill tseparate tile, %-s- re leaned sometthat slit terent I a-and, therefore, renuire a massive "lookup" or"cot-re-Ton tent_e" table tor a lindup to be possible.For exa -plc, at 151+ there are currently tourlitIerent set of building and room codes inet tect on cat lel tt ebVieUS I yt, you are ttoint'. toencounter problems it you require httormationkeyed on buillhig or roo,a code !rem one ormore tiles to produce space utilizationstatistics) :ith non-compatible data elementstructures.
Disadvantages of the UlIllS kruiroach
;Iliac are some of the disadvantages orlimitations of the DINS-basest integrated int orn-s-at ion system concept? l'or one thing, thediversity ot °maths] needed to tult illeleral report requirements, internal needs, and
state alai local covorning board requests, 1.1 c-tates that the data base ',ill be continually --evolving or deficient in some respect. Thismeans that the system must be designs- I 'withextreme Ilextbilitti and responsiveness inIto sever, this is a problem that is shared tosole e,tent by all computerized informationvi stems, and, of the possible options, the WMapproach appears to otter the most probabilityof success Tilly is particularly true it sometype ot eeneral [zed report-,ariting capabilityis 1,?velope! in conjunction 'with the data base.11ntort urine , 01 I habit are hard to break,
tlexibtlity is ;till an elusivs. g0-, I Intart% i tett attete
hasi,.. linitat1on qt inte ori-ton ,,,tans that is so obvious chit it is .01 ten
over looted, is that a DINS-based system (likeall computerized systems) ..ill deal or,1, 41 eh1ercain i, iruk decision int 0 VIM ttn-1,1 tunatek, the belief its t the "total k"integrated it lomat ion syntem have ot ten beenoversold to administrator-, tlY the technician,involV's1 they have_ ,tated On occa,,ion t hat, thefinished ,vstem -411 provide "alt" of theiAltnration the ad,linistrat or needs to e,t1lebetter 1 !'hey t orgy L that t here lrvariety of inputs into any given decision nitu-ac -- tonna' vs. intormal, quantitative
qua I titat ive and ebloctive vs. subjective.erize 1 rata tends to be Ionia!, quant I ta-
t ve ate1 objective -- may be the lea ,trelevant type et input to an administrator fn
a real-lite problem situation. Furthermore,eve ii-.one I no 1-, (or should duo:), certain !',pets1 Ilt 1 are much mote amenable to prosessingvia aut0lated systems than others: In theirbool, on "decision-information systems" in.1wati0a, \wire.: and include the tollo-inr
11.,tc "di :claimer" ,thich should be pertolicallvtrevie:e.1 by every individual involve! inIlmivi orative systems development, 410 par-
,t the "totally integrated" variety;
"11,. ,rt . .1 t, Itt I !te i t - n,,et to I . t 1
poi' Ito pri'lari t t, the it iv.'
intormatLon necessary for an educationalorganization to pursue its purposessuccessfully. The total intornationsystem required for such an organizationnecessarily involves much more thanjust those few aspects that can berelegated to numbers or alphanumeric,descriptors. The qualitative aspects,
including the feelings, intuitions, andemotions that are quite relevant to theactivity ot any organization of man,are not discussed -- not because theyare unnecessary, but because they arebeyond the scope ot this treatise. It
is important for the reader to recognize,therefore, that the information systemas described herein is merely a part ofthe total requisite information systemsfor an organization. . .Furthermore,
the information system will use onlysome aspects of the recorded data basedocumentation commonly bound in anorganization. It will confine itself
to the collection, manipulation, anduse of information that Ls amenableto processing via automated systems."
The main cost disadvantages of a DBMSbased system are generally related to: (1) the
cost ot the package itself, (2) the fact that
such syitems are mass storage based and (3) in-
creased processing overhead (e.g., increasedCPU -time consumed and CORE storage require-
ments). Unfortunately, it is very difficultto derive any useful generalizations for cost-evaluation purposes because system contigur-ations, expertise and needs vary so much fromorganization to organization. For example,
the cost ot the various DBMS packages mightseem relatively simple to compare; in actuality,
differences in individual capabilities andpricing options makes this a very difficultarea to evaluate. On the other hand, at1St" (since the central computer is a UNIVAC1110 ani UNIVNC provides its software "tree"as part ot a "bundled" agreement) DXS-1100vas acquired without any direct cost for the;ott-are it;e1t.
The tact that a DBMS sAtem is generally massstorage-based and may make increased processingdemands is also a difficult area to evaluate.For one thing, there almost certainly will hecost tradeoifi if a new system is designed rt.
replace older, more inefticient systems. Also,
it is very difficult to obtain realifticperformance data for purposes of cost comparison(even it some type ot benchmark testing isdone) because a good approximation of the final
iystem in operation is pragmatically impossibleto achieve. Because ot the difficultiesenumerated here, the final decision as towhether a DBMS approach will be cost-etdective in a particular situation willprobably be based on a "best-guess" estimateof incremental cost (i.e., "how much more will
it cost over tither possible alternatives" --including maintaining, the slants quo) vs. how
much the expected benefits to be derived arelikely to be worth to the inctitution.
The tiaal disadvantage of a DBMS-basedintegrated information system centers around thetact that development of such a system constitutesa commitment to a radically different philosophyof data processing than the one to which peoplehave generally become accustomed. As was notedearlier, standard data definitions are required.This means that administrators and user personnelwith different expectations of flow the systemshould ultimately serve their needs must cometo agreement on mutually useful data definitions.Similarly, individual sub-systems cannot bedeveloped in isolation of one another and stillbenefit from the advantages of the data baseapproach. Programmers must adjust to a newenvironment in which programs are "dataindependent" and must adhere to establishedstandards which they may consider to be rigidand constricting.
Conclusion
Of course, the ultimate goal of integratedinformation system development regardless of theapproachtaken is to improve the capability ofdata processing to serve the information needsof administrators. As always, this requiresthat system development proceed in a user
oriented (as opposed to "technology oriented")mode for the effort to be successful. This isespecially true in the integrated systemenvironment where programmers and analysts mustbe certain that data elements are defined,collected, stored, maintained and accessed insuch a way that the needs of a variety of users(at a variety of levels within the organization)
. may be met through the, use of the same basicresource. The development of a "trulyintegrated" administrative system will be achallenging and in many cases frustrating,experience. Houever, the increased responsive-ness which can result if the effort is successfulshould be well worth the time and effort.
References:
1Jack Magarrell, "The New Managers onCampus," The Chronicle of Higher Education, VIII,No. 26 (April 1, 1974), pp. 9-10.
2Ronald G. Ross, "Evaluating Data Base
Management Systems," Journal of Systems Manage-ment (January 1976), pp. 30-35.
3"Data Base Management Systems: TheExterior View," Jata Base Newsletter (May 1975).
4Cary Andrew and Ronald Moir, Intormation
Decision Systems in Education (Itasca, Illinois:Peacock Publishing Inc., 1970), p. 3.
15?
Ve.!
C-ti
A SIMPLE AND COST EFFECTIVE LIBRARY CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Raymond E. BocheCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California 93407
and
Peter A. ScovillManalcment Services Division, McCormick Lti Company, Inc., Salinas, California 93901
ABSTRACT: A very successful library circulation system has been implemented withoutequipment and with negligible conversion costs. The only machine readable data
elements required are patron files and Library of Congress call numbers which arecollected as circulation takes place thus spreading conversion over time and focusingon the most active part of the collection first. Patron files require only I.D. number,name and address. Even minonal batch configurations can support daily circulation ratesranging tt,m 200 to 2,000 t-ansactions. Measures of success include cost information,benetits trum circulation statistics, and patron acceptance as suggested by a suddencirculation increase.
Automated circulation systems forcollege libraries do not necessarilyrequire the expenditure of huge sums ofmoney. The Library at California Poly-technic State University, San Luis Obispo,has implemented a powerful yet simple andvary cost effective computer-based circu-lation system. It allows for the quickand easy checking out of books while stillcapturing all the information required tohandle overdue processing and to generatemanagement reports which reveal the usagepatterns of library patrons and otherusetul data. it was implemented withoutpurchasing special equipment and withoutthe massive conversion effort se oftenrequired for sophisticated referencingand extensive automated circulation?steins.
PRoB EM DEFINIT1oN
When this system was conceived inlite 1970, the circulation of books wasa growing problem. There were aboutton thousand students It the universityit that time, and circulation figureswere approaching fifteen thousand cir-culations per month. With the necessityfor recording the charge out and returnof each book plus the special handlingassorited with more than five percentreporing overdue processing, considerablyin ot thirty thousand transactionsper month were required. (lrowth of theuniversity was continuing (we are approach -in; titteen thousand students now), andwe wo, anxious to improve the efficiencyot our circulation procedures.
At the time, our circulation proce-dures were entirely manual. Borrowerswere asked to print their name and address.The book's Library of Congress (L.C.)number, the author, and title of the bookand sign for it. All of this was recordedfor each book checked out on a McBee card.Thy cards were accumulated and notchedto indicate due date, talleyed by majorclassification to provide minimal circu-lation statistics and filed in L.C. numbersequence. Book returns involved searchingthe card file for the charge card, remov-ing the card, and reshelving the book.
Periodically the files of McBee cardswere "needled" to locate overdue books.The shelves were searched for any suspectqdoverdue books to avoid sending erroneousoverdue notices. For those not located,the McBee cards were Xeroxed, the nameand address was typed on envelopes and theXerox copy of the McBee card mailed as anoverdue notice. The original card wasnotched again to indicate that the noticehad been sent and refiled. If it wassubsequently noted during the processingthat two previous notices had been sent,a bill was prepared and mailed to the user.
This was a very standard system andsome varient of that system continues inuse at a great many libraries. Whileimproved efficiency was clearly one ofour goals, there were others of equalimportance. The amount of informationthe borrower was required to record wasfairly extensive and quite time-consuming.Students needing several books for a shorttime, perhaps only over night, were
frustrated with the need to record somuch repetitive information and inevitablyneatness and readability suffered by thetime they reached the fourth or titthcard. This was, of course, the reasonfor typing name and address on ebvelopes!or overlie notification. Reducing theuser effort, was considered an important;oat for improving user relations. Anothergoal was to improve the circulation sta-tistics. This was particularly importantbecause we are a somewhat specializedpolytechnic university in a large stateuniersity system. A great many plansfor statewide library systems could haveserious impact on the nature of ourcollections, and reliable circulationinformation in considerable detail wasrequired to evaluate the effectivenessof these plans.
IAIA
At tr.. beainning, it was clear thatall et tlic identifyina information usedin the cirulation of books alreadyexi :tea in .1firne form. The number ofdata elements actually required is quitesr iii. we needed only the users idcritr-ticitin, the book identification and thebit. late. With the earlier system, the11:.r WA' relUired to record both his ownand th b oo s IdentifIcation for eachb -ok borrowed. The library verified thatinformation by reference to the bookitself and the user's I.D. card and
led the tue late. In more than 90perceut d the circulations, the identi-ying information Was never used! It
was ,nly uuel when overdue notices hadto be sent. Ideally, then, we shouldnive only recorded identifying informa-tion it books which would become overdue.thrortiuottely, of course, we had no wayto pre.lict which books those would be.It did point out, however, that in
plinninu a diti ba,,e 'or implementation" t j cent- ions, we
wald wint to avoid recording all rden-fityin; information for each transactionand substitute key Instead. We neededrely a ant N, code key for each book andeach librtry p itron.
were regaired hi show anIdentriocition card during the checkoutproc-s. That card contained, in ouroise, i ;;ocral Security Number whichservel I., a unilue identification key furriealty, staff, and students. Theeirlier "permanent student number" was
icceptablo as long as It was"1,1,0, Ind keyed to files providing amu clete identification of thebur, ,r. .iach i r le s with records,nt 11Nrog Nam and addres were already
in machine readable form Itcomputvr eenter. In order to ellie
Is in e::,ract 0 the !tuAent'7 1-11. 17,71 Pn.i'
n 'ollt tilling On l ',;; g y
1;9
64 5
information for the mailing of overduenotices. This information can be com-pacted Into 40 characters or less andeven a fairly good-sized college oruniversity should be able to fit theentire patron tile into a small segmentof a disk pack or tape. Available filesusually contain additional informationsuch as class level, major, age, sex,and grade point average. While we werevery interested in using these dataelements to gain insight into librarycirculation patterns, we elected not to,include them in the patron file sincereference for statistical study would berather infrequent. Our intention was tosearch the patron file using borroweridentification number as a key to obtainonly the information needed to prepare anoverdue notice.
The author and title and the Libraryof Congress number are customarily usedfor book identification. The L.C. numberis unique and makes the author and titleredundant although admittedly they area great convenience. Although it is avery clumsy code from the standpoint ofdata processing, L.C. number was alreadyavailable on practically every book inthe collection, and of special importancewas the fact that its use required noretraining of library personnel. If yourlibrary uses an ascension number (asequential number incremented whenevera new book is purchased) it may be usedin place of the L.C. number. It is easierfrom a computer processing point of view,but you may lose the statistical dataconcerning the subject areas of the cir-culated books. The onl requirement forthe book identification key is that it beunique and tie back to a card catalog orshelf list description of the book, there-fore, a Dewey Decimal System number couldalso serve as the identifier.
our circulation file was to consist of onlythree elements. (A fourth element indi-cating borrower status, i.e. faculty, staff,or student, via a single dieit code wasalso included toaccommodate policy differ-ences in overdue processing.) The userI.D. number was available from the user'sI.D. card at the time of circulation andwhen needed, the rest ot the identificationcould be located in the machine readablefiles already available using this accesskey. The due date was determined at thetime of core.ulation and could be added tothe transaction record by any convenientmeans. The book identification was avail-able on the boor but no machine readablefile consisting of the book identificationitself or the more descriptive author andtitle information was ivailable. Ournext problem was to find a means for estab-lishing such a descriptive ult. or alter-natively to find a way to get along withoutit.
A oorIDINTIAPICATIoN FILE
How much time and how much cost wouldbe involved if we were to start fromscratch and develop a machine readablebiok identification file? The circulat-in; collection was in excess of one quartermillion volumes, and we knew intuitivelythat capturing even a minimal amount ofdescriptive information on that manyholdings would be a monumental task. Atthat point, we turned to the literaturein search of library conversion costei,timates. DeGennaro (1) noted in 1970that:
"While experience has shown massconversion (of shelf list) to betechnically feasible at this time,it has also demonstrated that thee0,0 is extremely high -- in a/ el le of one to two dollars perentry."
Ali either work edited by Rather (2)in 1).9 indicated more specifically that:
"The total cost per entry of thetour alternatives ranged from a high
$1.R7 to a low of $1.51. . .
with 94 percent of the cost ascrib-able to manpower and six percentto machine costs."
these standards contemplated thecaptite of substantially more informationthan would be needed for circulationalum , Lt was very clear to us that the
were beyond our meager means. Weplored two uaditional ideas. Thetirst was simply to do without author andtitle in machine readable form. The.econd and real key to rapid implemen-tation was the notion that collection ofL.C. number in machine readable form couldtake pt-ire as the books in the collectionitually circulated. We chose as a mediafor ollection a standard conputer cardto remain available with the book while,r1 the shelf and to serve as a humancevtdile transaction record while thet. ,ok W,V; in circulation.
The absence of the author and titleinformation implied that a reference tothe library catalog file would be required4hen Ind if this information was needed.rortunately, this information can easilyhe added to the system. When a computertrdabl book file is available, it canhe searched in the same manner as theMatron rile. That is, it can be searchedby L.C. number for author and title whichcin then be printed on overdue or recallnotis. If price information is on thistile, then If can be used for the prepar-Oo'n of bills. A printed list would11 .0 be available for use at the circula-,Ion desk eliminating tne need to go tothe card catalog or a shelf list.
we were c'oncerned that anox re all notice withotiL authors
ILA
or titles would cause difficulty, however,our experience has shown that the stimula-tion of memory triggered by an overduenotice usually makes further descriptionunnecessary. The patron does have theL.C. number and can determine which bookis being requested from that or from thedue date stamped in the book. It is arare exception when we have to refer tothe catalog for author or title.
The idea of maintaining circulationfiles without author and title was a heyitem of contention in the decision whetheror not to implement this system. Afternearly five years of operation, it isstill an item of contention, but, as weshall discuss further, it is an observablefact that the system has operated success-fully without such information.
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE
The mechanics of the system areextremely simple and closely parallel themanual system it replaced. Since cardscontaining L.C. number were prepared asthe collection circulated, there were twosituations depending on,whether or not thebook had been circulated previously underthe new system. Assuming it had, a cardcontaining the L.C. number was stored ina pocket inside the book. The borrowerremoves the card, writes his identifica-tion number on it, and presents the cardand book to the circulation desk togetherwith his identification card. The clerkverifies the L.C. number on the book cardby reference to the book, verifies theuser identification by reference to theuser's I.D. card, stamps the due date inthe book, and sets the card in a batchwith similar due dates to be processed atthe computer center.
The computer center keypunches theuser identification directly Intl the bookcard. The book card was designed so thatuser identification would be clearlyvisible with the card in the punch stationof the keypunch. The keypunchin9 of nine(or ten if borrower status is recorded)numeric dtgits is very rapid. The cardsore mechanically sorted by L.C. numberin preparacion for a computer run whichwill merge a new book card with the oldand produce a circulation file containingthe three required data elements for eachbook charged out. The pair of book cards(one with the user identification numberand the due date and the other with onlythe L.C. number) are interpreted andreturned to the library where they arefiled until the book is returned, renewed,or recalled.
When the book is returned, the twocards are removed from the file. The onewith the user's identification number issent to the computer center; the othei
Is placed in the book which is reshelved.The computer center uses the returned cardsto purge records from the circulation file.In this way, the circulation file containsonly records for books still in circula-tion. If the bopk is returned late, thecard to be returned is batched separatelywith others on which a "fine due" Is tobe noted. nether than retaining a cumula-tive file for fines clue, reference is madeto the user file, and a notice similar toan overdue notice is returned to thelibrary or retention or disposition.
When a book is renewed, the twocards are removed from the file and theuser's number is written on the new card.A renewal indicator is noted on the cardwith a rubber stamp and both cards go tothe computer center.. The computer centerupdate, the due date and produces a newbook car 1. The renewal indicator is onlytot the benefit of circulation statistics.A recall notice could be generated by
recall on both cards (again arubber 3tampi and sending the card withthe user's identification number to thecemiatei center, but using a patron filelisting manually seemed more convenientfor LItts infrequent transaction.
Perirpllsally, the circulation file Issearched by computer for overdue books.it a record is found with a past due date,the irogram Searches the user file for thesame identification number, uses the nameand address associated with IL, and pro-duces an overdue notice or bill. Alisting of L.C. numbers of overdue booksfor a shelf search is also produced.The library staff, after verifying thebook's absence, malls the notice.
It a book had never circulated pre-vrously under the systcm, no book cardwould be ;,resent so an initial one isprepared. Although the user could beasked to do so, the field structure is ahit te,o me;',7 with L.C. number so thelibrary clerical staff records the L.C.number larint checkout. Samples of thebook calls are, shown as Ftgure 1.
Co.:;T AND IMPUUNTATIoNCON;;IMPATIoNS
The critical point with regard toimplementation is that no conversion ofthe library holdings was required. Tobeim, we needed only three thinqs:
1. The user file extract fromexistIng student and faculty:Iles,
the computer processing proarams,and
The jnInted card- and mtscei-I ineous suppl b.
161
V7
One of the authors prepared all of thenecessary computer programs includingthose for the file extracts, prepareduser documentation, and trained library,keypunch, and computer operations person-nel all in less ,han two man-months.
Item one proved to be the mostdifficult. A campus conversion to SocialSecurity number for student identifica-tion was incomplete at the time. Thenecessity for concatonating the severaldifferent and moderately in-omptiblepersonnel files into a single patron filewas annoying rather than difficult. Addi-tional preparation was needed to provideIdentifying records for courtesy cardholders, arrange for interlibrary loans,and accommodate Internal transactionssuch as temporary removal to the menderyand the bindery. The file must berestructured each quarter as students itparticular come and go. It is necessaryto defer preparation of the file untilafter any changes of address detectedduring the university's registration havebeen processed and the flies updated.However, this poses no serious delayssince books checked out by new studentswould not be due for two weeks or moreanyway.
The programs in item two were verysimple. They were developed in an evolu-tionary manner to a final state of reason-able efficiency and refinement. Forimplementation speed and simplicity,sequential file structures were initiallyused. From time to time various modifi-cations transparent to the library havebeen incorporated in the interests ofconvenience and efficiency. Outputformats of overdue notices and circulationlists printed occasionally on requestwere refined considerably for mailingconvenience and aesthetic purposes afterthe system was underway. Programs toaccumulate circulation statistics wereadded shortly after initial Implementationand a large file containing only the twoletter L.C. prefix was retained with userI.D. and security precautions. This wassubsequently used for a preliminary circu-lation study by extracting major, classlevel, and similar information from thestudent file, deleting I.D. number, com-pressing, and cross - tabulating.
Item three encompassed the preprintingof the cards illustrated, the purchase ofpockets and glue for inserting cards inthe books, and the acquisition and arrange-ment of trays in the circulation area forthe card file. In our case, no pocketswere available in the book so they wereadded on reshelvtnq following the fIrsLcirculation thus handling this mechanicalconversion in an evolutionary manner also.
None ot tlw above items was partLcu-lardy costly. The printed computer cards
[11,14111: 1
Your ',cool Security NumberLIBRARY BOOK CARD
California State Polytechnic CollegeSan Luis Obispo, California
CALL NUMBER
[4
/(;/.
PS i537.
Lid I z FlTflYcur So,ial Security Number
I Undergraduate Student
2 0 Graduate Student3 tg. Academic Employees4 Stott5 Courtesy Cord Holder6 Extension Student
Your Name
I
A618 A6
I Undergraduate Student2 Graduate Student3 1 Academic Employees4 Slat(5 0 Courtesy Card Holder6 Extension Student
Your Nom,/
I 0 C. 7
S.,43. / ,OSP
LIBRAR) BOOK CARDCalifornia State Polytechnic College
San Luis Obispo, California
A.),14,!:03 241 OD
Sample Circulation Cards (First Timu at Top)
FIGURE 1
cost 53.40 per thousand less than theMcBee cards previously used. Pockets andglue are a one-time cost of minor magni-tude and t.an be spread over several years.Although the initial time expended forprogramming costs was very small, theevolutionary development and program main-tenance has consumed approximately twoweeks per year of programmer time. Key-punching of the first-time circulationcards is slow and variable since the cardformat with desirable L.C. number spacingis inconvenient for keypunch. For thefirst week or so nearly 100 percent of theciek.uiations were "first-time." Onemonth after start-up first-time circula-tions were down to percent, and witheach succeeding month, it declined toroughly 65 percent, 42 percent, 34 percent,
162.
on down toy under` ten percent within 18months. In operation the short numericcards used in all circulations after thefirst are punched at speeds exceeding1,000 cards per hour average even by manyof our inexperi3nced student keypunchoperators. Sorting using a mechanicalcard sorter is a bit tedious and theoperator must follow instructions for theintermingled alphabetic fields. We mustalso interpret the new book cards prepared.While all of our calculations indicate thatthe total time for 1,000 daily circulationsshould be little more than one hour, inpractice, we find that it consumes nearlytwo and one half hours per day. We hirestudent assistants specifically for thisdaily processing thus keeping our totalcosts well under 5150 per month. At
6 8,
present, we are using an IBM 360/40 com-puter system operating under OS. For theentire fall quarter Just completed, ourprocessing time was under six hours orless than one half hour per week. Thisincludes time necessary for patron fiepreparation and monthly circulation sta-tistical reports.
Library circulation staff previouslyused the equivalent of two full-time peoplein the processing and handling of overduetransactions alone. There were modestsavings as a result of the system describedhere, but since the personnel involvedalso had many other duties and totalcirculation increased, no ma3or staffsavings in the library were clearly dis-:ernable. There were minor savings in- :applies and Xerox costs.
For a ,ibrary of such size, the costswere ,,belously very low, but what aboutbenefits: The system was clearly aneverwhelmir,i success from the libraryuser's point of view. The previous'rustrations of identification recordingwere eliminated. There was a markedincrease in circulation statistics in theweeks immediately fcllowing system imple-mentation. We hesitate to attribute thecirculation increase to the system alonesince many confounding factors were activesimult,neously. User testimonial as notedby the library circulation stiff wasoverwhelmingly favorable. There were
__modest improvements in accuracy particu-larly for the L.C. number recording, but' ere was an offsetting loss of timelinessin address changes for borrowers. Cir-culation statistics were greatly improved,and we have yet to use the full potentialof the'siatistical data accumulated asa result of circulation automation.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
The system offers many modest advan-tages in operation and enormous advantagesin implementation. Some particularadvantages are:
I. No library conversion of thecirculating collection isrequired.
No special data collectionequipment is required in the'library.
Very minimal computing equipmentincluding only facilities forkeypunch, sorting and interpretingof cards is required togetherwith very modest computer filehandling capabilities. (Theauthors determined that thesystem could be easily implemen-t-a by 1 c.ommuntty oollojo with4,000 ,students and a small IBM
161
1130 configuration.)
4. There are moderate reductionsin library circulation stafftime particularly for overdueprocessing.
5. Operating expenses are extremelylow.
6. Accurate statistical Informationcan be produced in a variety offorms with very little effort.
7. There are acAitional opportunitiesfor evolutionary improvement ofthe system 'oy incorporating, forexample, I.D. card readers andauthor/title book files.
The only real disadvantage notedis the imeortant one revolving aroundthe absence of author and title informa-tion. One previous use of the informationwas to correct errors in L.C. numberrecording and that need has been v.rtuallyeliminated. There have been a few otherminor inconveniences that appear i almostany system. The only one that comes ;:omind is that the hand filing of the cardsis still required. Recently, we acquireda surplus collator and considered mergingthe outstanding circulation cards usingthat machine, but some books had been incirculation for very long periods of timeand the cards had become quite tattered.An alternative merge procedure with a lesssensitive machine was subsequently imple-mented. Temporary removal of the circu-lation information from the library tothe computer center was an initial minordisadvantage that was overcome with carefulscheduling of student personnel.
EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT
During the years the system has beenoperational on our campus, we have movedvarious components of Ole processing frommachine to machine as matters of internalscheduling convenience. We initiallypunched and merged the new cards resultingfrom each circulation directly on our IBM360/4C computer. That was the. only suit-able machine available at the time andcertainly not ideally suited to the appli-cation. We subsequently acquired d 360/20usad primarily as a remote lob entrysystem to an off-campus computer, andtransplanted the card punching and mergingto that machine, retaining only the file
' maintenance on the 360/40. We expectto be making a total conversion of batchsystems in about two years and anticipateno serious conversion difficulties torany typical batch system.
The most important area of evolution-iry development relit 1 to the patron I.D.cards. When the system was conceived, the
6 r.
campus was in the pf()(05:; of planning aplastic photo - identification ard. Weimplemented the system using only a papercard that was in effect a registrationreceipt. That proved wor able, but lessthan ideal. In fact, we still use regis-tration receipts for new student, prioito availability of their permarent I.D.cards. We were able to f-outribute to thedesign of the I.D. card and arranged forembossed identification lettering andHollerith punching. It was our intent touse an I.D. cardreader in conjunction withthe system. Once such a reader wasavailable, it would be possible to elim-inate the second card, which would be amajor system improvement. We wereprecluded from taking that step by massivepolitical problems. The problems stemmedfrom well-intended plans to provide anelaborate circulation system for statewideuse. Many years later, that system isstill on the drawing beards, but itsplanning served to preclude our acquisi-tion, even on a lease basis, of an I.D.cardreader. others without th4t constraintshould find this system even more attrac-tive. We did, however, make use of theembossed I.D, card using an imprintersimilar to that typically used withgasoline credit cards in service stations.This device has greatly speeded checkoutand improved accuracy, and the cost isin the neighborhood of $100 per checkoutstation.
The remaining area for evolutionaryae7el,pment is a dream of the librarystttl. It an author/title file becameavailable keyed in some way to the C.C.number, that tile could be searched inorder to provide the missing informationfor overdue processing. While we recog-utze the convenience of this informationto the library, querying an additionaltile via an awkward code could add sub-stantial computer time to the processing.It we limited the increased searching tooverdue books and similar exceptions, it
mi ;ht not he too bad, but matching to thetall circulation file when circulationlist3 are printed would add considerablecomputer processing time. In view of our,virrent experience, such additional timewarrants careful cost-et tectivenesevaluation.
C 1 tN
While this system does not solveall ot the school library problems, it
does provide a quick, inexpensive wayS:
Minimize circulation difficultiesfor the patron,
Reduce the effort required incirculation accountin.i,
164
3. Minimize the manual effortfor overdue processina, and
4. Produce a wide variety ot .'11-culation statistics.
Finally, it is failsafe. In the eventof computer failure, the process can bedone with tab equipment or, wi h someadditional effort, by hand. The_ powersimplicity and low cost of this systemcan allow your school library to havean operational circulation system whilethe rest of the world is still flounderingin the struggle between total systems andeconomic realities. We think the worldneeds more simple systems that work!
11) DeGennaro, Richard, "A NationalBibliographic Data Base In Machine-Readable Form: Progress and Pros-pects", Library Trends, April 1970.
(2) Rather, J. C. ed., "Conversion ofRetrospective Catalog Records toMachine Readable Form; A Study ofthe Feasibility of a NationalBibliographic Service", RCCONWorking Task Force, Library orCongress, Washington, D.C., 1969.
METHODOLOGY FOR ASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLSFROM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
F. C. Bock, Ph.D.G. P. Putnam
T. C. Ripley, Ph.D.
Operations Research and Computer ApplicationsIIT Research Institute
ABSTRACT Operations research has been applied to primary and secondary educationalsystems on a minimal basis. At the same time many school districts in the United Statesare under severe stress to maximize their cost effectiveness.
To assist school districts in becoming cost effective in the major area of pupiltrinsportatton, IIT Research Institute (IITRI) has developed a methodology for assigning,Audents to schools to minimize transportation costs while meeting a number of systemconstraints.
A major part of the methodology involved is a computer software package consistingof a set of computer programs. Central to this software package is an algorithm whichhas for its objective function transportation distance (or cost). The function mini-mizes transportation cost in a school system while meeting several constraints such asschool building capacities, grade ranges assigned to a building, maximum student walkingdistance, socio-economic integration, ethnic desegregation, neighborhood groupings, etc.
This methodology is a direct "spin-off" from operations research work applied tothe manufacturing-distribution environment. Neighborhood, students, and schools areanalogous to factories, products, and warehouses. In the manufacturing sense, the pro-blem involves distributing the products from a factory network to a warehouse networkwhile minimizing costs and satisfying constraints. In the educational sense, the probleminvolves distributing students from a residential network to a school building network.
The methodology described here has been successfully used by more than 20 schooldistricts in 5 states. It has also served to unmask the O.R. role in the sociologicalarea.
Introduction
Many communities in the United Statesare faced with a dilemma. In these com-munities school children attend neighbor-hood schools.
Minority groups are not evenly dis-tributed among the community's residentialareas. Consequently, if children are as-signed to the school located in theirneighborhood the schools will tend to besegregated. The minority group childrenwill be over represented in their neigh-borhood school and underrepresented in theother schools in the community.
Changes in residential living pat-terns may not take place at a suffi-cient pace to achieve the desired de-segregation in a neighborhood schoolssystem.
Therefore these communities will
have Co assign children to schools on abasis which differs from the traditionalneighborhood school method in order toachieve desegregation of their school sys-tem. This can be a very difficult taskfor a school district.
To help school districts with thistask IIT Research Institute has developeda system involving the use of planningtechniques and computer technology whichgreatly simplifies the school district'sjob. The key features of this system are.
Objectivity - The computer iscompletely objective (not proneto outside pressure) in redistri-buting students among schools toachieve desegregation.
Minimum Transportation Impact -The plan developed maximizes thenumber of students who walk.
linioan if in.poilation tost the Planning Detail,plan keep: 00 total tral,ei al-tancv to , minimm, and conseqaenth Policl inf2rmat ionminimizes the tranportation costto the school distlict. the school district meet, with protect
',tail nvnbers and plovide, inioimationViw.en Application It ha, !.t..(21i 4,/tk.v11111W, the school district's poi tcies.accessiallv il,l'l IN ,eteral .chol on class size, transportation, glade levelsdistlict.. in each school, and desired desegregation
!etchs in terms of a minimum and ma\imum1\ailabilitv the ,,teN et i ,t ',. percentage of minority students which canIt doe not require a tilior deve- he assigned to a given ,4chool building.lopment effort -- only minor modi-ficItiows to .Idlest to a givenschool li,trict.
Respon,iveness In accomplishingit job the sv.tem produces re-ailts in a short period of time.
tonveniencie Ill services fromoianizing the program to prodtie-in resits are provided whileleliteviw,, the school board andalmini.trition of a large adminis-trative task.
Ihi, paper describes in a straightforwardmanner how a school di,tilct mav make useof this powerful tool.
Plannino mvervi w
An organi,:ation meeting is helditii the school district and keyschool boaid members to determinethe school redistricting planningproce,,.
the school li,trict supplies basicinformation concernin.:
the location of thi schools
the location of the students
the minority 4r0Ap to whichthe ,taient belongs
ci t In pat ley iRiorm It ton
ihi intorrnitIon is pat into formwhim can he read by the computer.
11 I tntl,rmation AD' programs arecomputer pioces,e1.
outpats are reviewed to determinecompatibility with school dis-triCt reqairements.
+?mputtr ;ener.ited plans are pro.Ided to the chool district.These are used to effectively as-
,Ittlent:,to schools to achievetit, d,Iled level of aesegrega-tom.
-fst
Ibb
School District
Discusses Policies With IITRI
1. High Orad2. Low Grade
3. Class Size
4. Maximum Walking Distance
o. Desegregation Specifications
Describino the School District
Map Of Woodville, USA
Locate Schools
the present school district bounda.rie. are shown on a map of the area asshown above. -\ coordinate system usingany convenient distance unit )usually 1/3thsof a mile) is established. The X axis isthe lower horizontal line and the Y axisIs the left hand vertical line.
ihe Ilea on the map within the school
district boundaries is totally dividedinto residential areas.
It is important to note that each ofthese areas is ultimately assigned by thecomputer to a particular school. Thestudents in these areas attend the schoolto which their residential area has beenassigned.
Usually the task of establishingresidential areas is accomplished withthe assistance of one or two members ofthe school board or school administrationwho are knowledgeable with respect to thegeneral distribution of the students resi-dences within the school district. Eacharea should contain a reasonable number ofstudents (usually not more than 30 or so).It is not necessary to count the number of.;tridents in each neighborhood to preciselydetermine their geographic distributionbefore the residential area boundaries areset.
The important thing is to draw theboundaries according to a school official'sbest judgment. If it develops that toomany students have been included in a resi-dential area, the first computer output willindicate this. Those areas with excessivenumbers of students can be further sub-divided and new residential areas establish-ed.
The approximate population center ofeach residential area is represented atthe closest X and Y coordinate intersec-tion within the residential area. Eacharea is labelled with a number.
A list showing the X and Y coordi-nates of each residential area is developed.
riesicimtiol Area List
Area No. X
1 23 17
2 i 23 12
3 22 10
4 22 a
1b7
u
Describing the Schools
Each school is located on the map interms of its X and Y coordinates.
On a special coding form, the follow-ing information is listed for each school.
School Code - a number assigned bythe school district. The computerwill recognize this number and iden-tify it with this school.
Low Grade - the lowest grade in thisbuilding being considered in this as-signment. (The scnool building mayhouse different grade groupings, i.e.,a junior high school and a seniorhigh school but only one grade group-ing is considered for assignment atone time).
High Grade - the highest grade inthis assignment.
No. of Rooms - the number of rooms inthe building assigned to the gradesbetween the low grade and the highgrade inclusive.
Capacity - the number of studentswhich can be accommodated in theserooms. This is usually the numberof rooms multiplied by the maximumclass size specified for this gradegrouping.
X & Y Coordinates - the value of theX and Y coordinate on the map whichrepresents the school.
School List
No. NameGrade
Capacity X YHigh Low
1 Washington 8 4 230 8 16
2 Jefferson 8. 4 184 9 8
3 LihcoM 8 4 276 13 12
4 Wilson 6 4 230 17 9
---...
...--
Describing the Students
Additional special forms are providedto record each student's name togetherwith his residential area, minority group,and school grade.
Student List
NameResidential
Area GradeEthnicGroup
Jones, A 5 4 1
Smith, J 16 5 0
Rogers, T 2 4 0
Processin, the Information
All information is put in machinereadable format The computer programsare modified and all information is compu-ter processed to produce the system outputs,
The Computer outputs
These can vary depending on the schooldistrict's particular requirements butthe following typical outputs are usuallygupplied ro the school district.
RESrLTS OF ASSIGNING RESIDENTIALAREAS TO SCHOOL
For each school, this output liststhe nirnber of re,4idential areal assignedto tlie ;,11001, A breakdown by trade of the
students, the percentage of students whowill walk to school and the number of mino-rity group students who will attend thatschool,
Results Of Assigninn Residontial Areas To Schools
SchoolNo. ofRA's
Studentsby Grade S
WalkS
Minority4 5 6
1. Washington 6 62 61 80 83 18
2. Jefferson 7 59 65 42 90 22
3. Lincoln 9 85 88 81 75 21_ -- -- ----4.Wilson 8 60 66 61 72 17
Totals 30 266 280 264 81 20 .1
ASSIGNMENT OF RESIDENTIAL AREASTO SCHOOLS
For each school the number of theresidential areas assigned to *hat schoolis listed.
Assignment Of Residential Areas To Schools
School Rosidential Areas
1 Washington 9 10 27 2829 30
2 Jofferson 20 21 22 2324 25 26
3.Ancoln 1 8 11 12
13 14 15 1819
4ANilson 2 3 4 66 7 16 17
11,8
VI
ASSIGNMENT OF SCHOOLS TO RESIDEN-TIAL AREAS
Each residential area is listed insequence together with the school to whichit is assigned, the number of students inthe residential area, the distance (ineighths of a mile) between the residentialarea and the school, and the travel modeof the students in that residential area.
Aelognmont Of Schools To Residential Atone
RosArocioSchool StuNo nts Distance Trovol Mode
1___--2
3
4
6
3 Lincoln 19 16 Bus
4 Wilson 24 9 Wolk
4 Wilson 21 6 Wolk4 Wilson 23 8 Walk4 Wilson 24 8 Welk
.-------",4 Wilson 26 4 Wolk------------------------,_
20 1 Washington 20 3 Welk20 1 Viltistunoton 27 4 Wolk30 1 Weshinnton 10 6 Wolk
RESIDENTIAL AREA DATA
For each residential area this docu-ment the breakdown by grade and forall grade,, the number of students by mi-nority group (RI and RO). The total num-ber of students in the residential area isalso listed.
Rnsidentiel Arne Ontn
Arire 4
RI NO Rt ni no RI
Tote!
1 no
7 6 0 O 19 0
2 6 2 20 4
3 6 2 5 4 4 14 7
4 6 5 4 3 6 0 16 6
6 3 6 3 6 4 4 10 14
0 6 3 0 2 20 61..,....,......."--...--^.-..-.---"--,^...,__......A........-
,r'...-^-',..,,......n-.........--......-,_,..."....----T--.....*4....,
26
79Jo
ToterSh:Isom.
19
24
21
23
24
25
3 3 ' 0 6 7 21
10t' 10
1 4 : 8 1 7 0 22 6
e 0 8 0 0 t9 0
10
27
19
THE STVDENT ASSIGNMENT LIST
Each student in the district is alpha-betically listed together with his residen-tial area, school, grade, and ethnic group.
Student AssiOnment List
.----Nemo Res
Area School Grotto.Ethu.rOuni P"
Abbot 0Armour 1Grown .1Byron TCame ACu. RComo R
3
27_ -6
6
19.
26
2?
4 Wilson1 WnshinotOn4 Wilson___4 Vason
4
4
6---6
0
1--- .-.....
0
3 Lincoln-2 Jefferson2 Jeffrmon
6
-- -
Vnrnhils P 14 3 lincomWelsh 7 9 1 Wni/ItnutonWiltOn J 30 1 Wes oton--Wyroco FYule J
2012
JtIlefo.2 Jefferson
Zecone T 17 14 sJilson
1b9
CRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THEASSIGNMENT OF RESIDENTIAL, AREASTO SCHOOLS
This picture is drawn by a computer.The triangles represent residential areasand the squares represent the schools Aline is drawn from each residential 0 toits assigned school. This picture can besuperimposed on a school district map mak-ing it possible to visualize in one glancethe way in which residential areas havebeen assigned to schools.
r
Graphic Representation Of AssignmentOf Residential Areas To Schools
Modifying the Data
After the outputs from the computerprocessing have been reviewed and verifiedthey are forwarded to the school district.
The results are discussed with theschool district. Based on these discussionscertain changes and modifications can bemade to resolve special problems. Amongthe changes that can be made are.
Pre-assigning certain residentialareas to certain schools. Thismay result in more than the mini-mum transportation possible but itmay be desirable for other reasons.
Changing some policies and obtain-ing a new assignment,
Making a finer breakdown of resi-dential areas.
After these changes are made the dataare reprocessed to produce a new assignment,
Summary
A proven system has been described forplanning school desegregation with minimumtransportation. It provides for the effec-tive application of school board 'cies,taking into account the detailed factsconcerning the individual district. Onefacet of a very sensitive issue can thus
be handled in a professional and objectivemanner aL a modest cost.
This represents an application ofOperations Research Technology to asociological problem. To date theresults have been most gratifying. Thesystem has been successfully applied inover 20 school districts by IIT ResearchInstitute.
179
TRANSACTION PROCESSING USING SOURCE DATA ENTRY TERMINALS
June Hacker
carletl university, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
ABSTRACT Carleton University uses a polled network of mark-sense reader/printer terminals to collect
registration and tuition data. Responsibility for transaction processing functions are shared by the
cperating system: polling and message assembly and the application program: transaction logic, editing,
updating and journalization. The resulting system concurrently supports pre-registration, regular
toeii,tteo,ao and fee payment activities. At the end of the four day fall registration session, the
co,Tuter tiles accurately reflect some 68,000 new course registrations and tuition payments
fr 17,C:0 students.
neSoite an/ technnloqtcal advances in the computerindustri, data entry methods still present a major
pr,hle, or data processing. Three years ago,
Carleton Jn,ersity implemented a highly successful
data entry systems. Our particular system is a
,tudent registration application. No other event
in the academic year is as traumatic as registration.Al! member', of the university community get involvedand their perception of the registration system is
vet, important. Nothing els, will establish the
rage of the university administration in the eyesof faculty and students quite so firmly as the
ahiliti teeto handle registration transactions.
The general problem of registration is to defuse
the e-otional imoact of the event itself, but the
particular problem for data processing is tocollect and process a large volume of data within
a t,riet ia,riod of tine and to do so with complete
accuracy. In the data processing environment,data errors have a natural tendency to compoundthemselves and jeopardize an entire system.Student record systems are more dynamic than most.';tudent records data is fluid and generally lacks
an, internal structure which might he used for
validit, checking once the data is on the computer
file. It is therefore important to develop aregistration system which places most of its
registration transactions
prnootly. The penalties for not doing so are rust
se/ere. It the registration system can not deliver
reliable data to the student record system, thedevelopment of graduation and promotion systems is
precluded since the quality of the registration
data have already negated the results. Until
the registration system runs well, line managers
and system, analysts will find themselves perpetual-
1/ engaged in robing enhancements and changes tothe i,gistrition procedures and programs.
r,rther t.r ce,pound the problem, in Ontario, allunLrer,i,e, are iublicallv financed according to
171
a formula based on a count of student registration
approximately six weeks after registration. The
data on the university's student record file mustaccurately reflect the university's actualregistration on the count day. It must reflectnot only the registration, but all of thesubsequent course changes and withdrawals and any
changes in academic programs. If the data iseither missing or inaccurate, the university will
lose money. As well, this data will later be
audited and it must be remembered that the auditwill be conducted from paper systems which havethe propensity to become more accurate over time.In a system where the objective might otherwisebe to produce a transcript record by the end ofthe academic year, the financial implications ofstudent enrollment have the effect of severelycompressing the processing schedule and ofre-emphasizing the need for accurate data early
in the academic year.
One of the popular solutions to a university'sregistration problems has been the development
of a pre-registration system. Pre-registrationsystems are normally implemented for one of the
following reasons. They can be used to flatten
the profile of registration by redistributing the
processing load or they may be developed toprovide student demand data for the university
planners. When pre-registration systems are
implemented for planning purposes, the dataprocessing problem still remains to collect large
volume data quickly and accurately. At Carleton
we have always had difficulty scheduling holidays
for the staff during the summer months because we
operate a very large summer school. We did not
find the addition of pre-registration processingto an already heavy summer work load to be an
acceptable or attractive solution to ourregistration problems. Although we are not very
interested in student demand data we do offer alimited counselling and pre-registration service
for freshman students.
In the past, we have invested and wasted a lottime and effort trying to develop our registrationsystem. The results were not successful becausethe approach used was never the correct one. We
initially used traditional keypunching methods.It took too long to prepare the data, and bolster-ing the keypunch staff with part-tire employees
only increased the error rate. The detection oferrors occur far too late in the processing andthe operations staff were always faced with theproblem of trying to reconcile massive sequentialerror reports with thousands of paper documentswhich were in no particular order at that time inthe academic year. While the registration error
corrections went on and on, the course changespiled up waiting for processing. The data
processing procedures create more problems thanthey solve in this type of operation.
Later we developed a card picking operation, inwhich name and course cards were prepared prior toregistration. A package of cards Jas selected for
each student in a post-office type of processing.This was a vast improvement over the keypunching
method. The data could be prepared in much lesstime and the method enabled us to detect certaintypes of errors before the data was posted against
the computer file. However, we found it was asevere strain on our human resources to produceand interpret the thousands of cards required.As well, this is a galley-slave type of operation,where the success is closely tied to the manager'saTillity to whip the -aarkers.
Three years ago, v.e implemented our current
registration system. It is a transactionprocessing syste using a network of T-Scan
terminals. It permits us to collect our data on
a real-time basis and complete all the processing
during the registration period. The data isexcellent and as a result, we have been able toextensively develop our student records system.Best ot all, both the faculty and staff now displaya positive attitude towards student records inParticular and computers in general which .ias
not pre, ;ously the case.
Two things can be identified which contribute to
the system's success. The first is transaction
processing which enables the staff to operate inan efficient manner and the secer1 is the terminalhardware Jhich enforces the transaction processingand provides an efficient manner of operation as
well. It is necessary to discuss so,,e of thecharacteristics of both the hardware andtransaction processing before describing the
application system.
T-Scan terminals are mark - sense reader/printer
terminals designed to process messages consistingof a statement And a response. The statement canbe up to 340 characters which are read from a cardand the response consists of 17 lines of 22characters which are printed back onto the sane
card. The use of the card for data entry allows
the user to prepare his data off-line and toreceive hard copy :onfirmation of the transaction.Tt,e ten,inals Ire polled &vice% connecter! in
series on a co,munications line. Each terminal
172
can be uniquely addressed and there can be up to63 terminals in a network. In our installation,the communications line is a 2400 baud time-
sharing line connected on a single port to ourcommunications controller.
Each T-Scan terminal looks rather like a aretoaster. Cards are dropped in for processingand 'pop' when the processing is completed. AT-Scan card is divided into three logical areas.
The input area is read by a mark-sense readercapable of detecting pencil marks. There is a24 bit T-line in the lower right corner of thecard. The T-line is optically read. Immediately
above the T-line is the area into which theterminal prints 16 lines. The 17th lineis the T-lire. Normal print characters are notused on the T-line, but the use of blanks andl's permit the user to number each card uniquelyand thus identify a card with a particulartransaction should the card be re-entered into
the system. The two outside bits (..0 the T-line
cannot be printed on but may be used to identifythe card type if the application has more than
one.
Transaction processing could roughly be defined
to be the sending of a message over communicationslines to a computer, the occurrence of someprocessing and the receipt of the results of theprocessing by the original user. Messages arenon-physical items which appear when the thoughtsor activities of some individual must be madeknown to the system for some purpose. Messages
should be logically complete in themselves, andaction oriented messages are normally calledtransactions. The general objective of transactionprocessing is to satisfy the data processingrequirements of an organization by queiying andmodifying a central data base as transactionsoccur throughout the organization.
There are two important concepts in transactionprocessing. The first is that both successfuland unsuccessful transactions elicit a reply.A transaction to modify the data base whichcannot be permitted to update because an editcheck has failed is nontheless completed when theoriginal user has been informed of the detectionof an error. The second concept is that alltransactions must be logically complete. Thereforeedit checks are always applied to the entiretransaction and the implementation of this ideaprevents data re-entrancy problems from occuringon the computer file.
Transaction processing must occur in an on-lineenvironment. On-line systems immediately ivercomethe basic problem, of batch processing systems.While batch systems are very efficient in theirutilization of electronic equipment they do tendto delay transactions and thus to concealinformation from the operational staff until suchtime as is convenient to use a central processingmachine. As well computer output from batchsystems tend to overwhelm the operational user.The presumption of the operating staff's abilityto deal with this overload is not a realisticexpectation.
Transaction processing perit., the people mostclosely associated with the data to input it and
validate the results. This is more efficient thanthe introduction of a highly skilled data inputi,perator, particularly in terms of data error;.ortection. The introduction of a skilled operator
requires the re-cycle of errors to th!, originaluser. The ensuing tire lost and the facilitiesconsuo.ied in such an error correcting operation
should be charged not to the system user but todata processing .dsich does not permit theoperating staff ta., function in an efficient manner.
In a T-Scan application, the terminal operatora e-ber of the operational staff concerned
,,ith the transaction being processed. The input
.ediu-, is Paper, the data is entered with aPencil and corrections are made by using an eraser.These are tools with which the operational staff
ire very ta As well no special skills arerequired ter-inal operation, anyone who can
aka hi; ..n toast can operate a T-Scan terminal.
Not unt, ies the card provide a comfortableenr(4, tot for the staff, but as well it mustbe credited .ith real economies in both processing
and sct are deeloprent time. T-Scan cards are
ye-printed to perform the prompting functionusualli associated with rare conventional terminals.Data entry is performed off-line and no c.p.u. or
connect tri'e is wasted in entry-keying or printing
moerations. There is no one-to-one relationshipr-,t operator to terminal. The T-Scan terminal is
central)', located and an entire offide may shareone terminal.
!'tie of tne card reinforces the idea of logically
c,-plete transactions. The simplest clerk dealing.1ith the -ost rndirentar i paper system will not
,no,ingly accept a partial transaction in thenuise of an incomplete document. Yet many
sochistocated data processing systems are guiltysuch behaviour due to the high costs of data
retry. When data items have been deleted ordef.tltnd in a transaction, not only is thetransaction itself logically incomplete but tiecorrection process that follows is an example of
,re-entrant
data. In a T-Scan application, errorsire corrected with an eraser and 0,0 correctedcard is reprocessed with no re-entt, costs. To
provide this facility with a key-driven system,software would have to be developed to save theinvalid transactions and re-call them when the
snot wish to enter erior corrections.
when the computer is down, data entry operationscontinue in the office and the cards are set asideto he Processed when the computer is operational
once ore. Processed cards fulfill the functionof itfurnalization normally found in on-line
stems. I+ for some reason, the data base musthe restored from a backup file, all that isrequired to bring the data base up to date is to
ce-Irt,p those cards which have been processed
since' the bacl,up was take.). When the cards are
no longer required to provide journalizationfacilities, they can be filed in some meaningful
rder to provide an audit trail in which the
transiction and its result are forever tied
twlether, No software development was required
173
to obtain the functions of both journalizationand audit, both are provided by the input medium
itself.
We did develop three pieces of software whichtogether idanage the .etwork of terminals and
process the transactions. The software for
polling the terminals and queueing and printingmessages is resident in tl,e operating system.
This provides the network management andtransaction queueing facilities normally providedby a transaction processing package. Logical
transactions are processed by a cobol applicationprogram. The cobol program is loaded with thethird piece of software, an interface throughwhich the terminal handler and the applicationprogram communicate.
Cards in the terminals are decoded according toa scheme of user defined tables so that thecobol application programmer treats the networkin exactly the same manner as he would a card
reader and printer. When the application programrequests a terminal read, the network handlerbegins polling terminals and sending print lines.As soon as a card is detected in a terminalcontrol is returned to the application program.
fig. I Terminal Handler s view of network
Peg' rat us. at 1.1. t t it. l l,ir e vet a fair
day period during the fit a week in ;;eptembr.There are two distinct phases to the registrationprocess, the first being the selection and approvalof the academic program and the second makingfinancial arrangement. with the university. The;talent Lu.lit, Li ,trio a tinsel able and cuter-
ir his selection on a Registration and PeeCintract. This is a paper document used tocollect the student': year in program, expecteddate of graduation and current address as well ashis course selections. After receiving programapproval from faculty and departmental advisors,the student .omplets the second step, that ofmaking tuition arrangements with the BusinessOffice.
Capture of the registration and tuition data forthe computer file follows the same two steps.Plr each step there is a corresponding card dropID t T-:;(an terminal. The first drop posts thestudent's a!ademic data and assesses his fees.The second drop transacts the financial dataassociated with registration. At each step theoperating staff art able to check the accuracyand Ampletenes; of the transaction as it occurs.To ensure validity in the overall data, two globalchecks are made. All tuition transactions areentered with reference to a cash register batchnumber and in a batch mode. When a batch iscompleted, the computer batch totals for feeassessment and cash receipt must agree with the:ash register tape,, taken in the registration line.Student addrt ..es which du nut have a high priority
for professing are sent- to keypunching. When theyire added tu the computer file, eafh address mustbe processed against a registered student.
The concept of two triniactions which approximatethe two steps in registration is important. Thesystem has only two rule.. There must be twological transactions for each student and theacademic transaction must occur first. Bothtianfactions are pru,e.,ed en the card. As aresult the introduction of the actual data coil-e -tiun sydem into the fhy.ical registration
process is flexible and three basic configurationsare possible. To derive the greatest benefit, the;ystem should be run on-line and in-line as a partof the registration procedure for the studentIn this configuration, the student fills out hisown card, enters the card in a terminal and checksthe printed results before carrying the card withhim to the Business Office. However, to processa mail-in pre-pay registration, the same systemcan be operated in the office by the registrationstaff. To satisfy the requirements of a pre-registration system, a combination configurationpermits the first drop to occur in an officeenvironment and the processed transaction is givento the student for validation prior to hiscompletion of financial arrangements.
The best way to understand the system is toexamine a sample set of transactions. The shadedarea on the cards shown correspond to an 'officeuse only' area on more familiar paper documents.To enter data on the card, the student joins twodots summing digits if necessary to achieve thepropor value in a column. This is an easy operationwhich we all normally employ when making change
and students are able to complete their own cardsusing sample posters for instruction. In Fig. 2below, the student whose number is 84032 hasentered the course 49.100C on his T-Scan card.The faculty under which his fees are to be assess-ed has been marked in the shaded area by thestaff member who gave the student his card. Thesame staff member entered the first initial ofthe student's surname in the shaded area next tothe student number. The initial will be comparedto the one on the computer file for the studentnumber read. The course on the card will bevalidated against the file of current coursesoffered. If errors are detected, an error codewill be printed back on the card in one of theboxes in the upper right corner. Although thisis a cryptic notation, it enables the system toprint error messages as often as is requiredwhile still preserving the print area for whenthe transaction is successfully processed.
'1
r, ; r , , T Tflo ' d 4. . .;,-,4014.. 4.1
:7,7' 74.;5'";''', . 5 t 5 5 5 .5 .5 01 ."/Alot .. -11Y-0.146-7
A Si A .A Aml... 3 ark. 3 3 3 3 3 ne,,%0.42 7 ,' .' roarer,
0 *Jaw f I . I 'I'el r covttr., 5 stocrutirtii
.ew 5 5 5 ., .0 ..,i , "0
3 4 3 ".' Rep
lq,EA 4; 2 2 2 2 2 441.0.,..s v.,i x
ile wa=ijconma r---,,,,,,, Na , ....um i -
5 5 5 5 5 io. #.0 .0 4'I $ .-.. 1-www,v
s w .....,,,i'11C4sly k 3 3 3 3 3 ,,0 0.4.04;'i i x .
,,,,,,,,,47.:,:::4ti,c52310,01......23511 ...;:- 352114.......5:11ss .4,:+c ;I wi:::+:st:::::"::::::7;:, 1
1
1 i v
,1..,w 2 2 2 2 2 ;,,,',.3 1'r, wr "warm,rutvtD311: I I I I I tOww.0yrro_
2. 2 2 2 2
I 111100000.wwLong -;
3 3! 3 3 3 10,'0',0.12 2 2 2 2 C u L4 ,3.i
I I I I I Dvm..rOverf'glomrs-rcmscsrcyltorrwYoki5.5.5.5 .5 .* ,.(
w
3.3.3 .3.3 ,,%0.2 2 2 2 2 0 0$. P 1YIIIII ,0 *AM001.ArtCNAII wIc-i-storlosoft5.5.5 5 5 s+ :N1
$3 3 3 3 or, .ft
2 2 2 2 2 locusk0:Pos.:
I I I 0,m0,*www
174
(A)
11F .111,40W ern mrtcyr
Thin ( iTRATICN CONFIRMATIONPROm ta/1i11a Inoivy *IOW L
Figure 3 shows the ,_ompleted academic transaktion.The computer system has confirmed the student'sidentity by printing back his name as well as the
student number read. The academic program whichis recorded on the student records file is confirm-
ed as well. For eali course selection, the systemconfirms not only the course number, but also thedepartment name, the course credit and when the
course will be offered. This additional course
information is printed to help the student detect
any errors. The total course credits and the feeassessment are also printed.' Lastly the studentnumber is printed in binary notation on the T-line.This will later be used by the system to ensureno misreads of student number occur in subsequent
processing. As well the presence of printing onthe T-line confirms to the system that the acad-
emic data has been collected.
It an error is detected by either the student orthe staff, the transaction can be cancelled bymarking the position 'cane' in the shaded area ofthe card and re-dropping the card in a terminal.
Fig. 3
The cancellation transaction is used to deletetransactions on the wrong student number and to
clean up the file after registration if studentsfail to make arrangements with the Business Office.
The card can become an adjustment transaction by
ticking the 'adj. area. In processing thistransaction, the system expects to find coursesadded and/or dropped from the card. Drops are
indicated by marking the delete position in theshaded area beside the course to be dropped.Adds require the new course to be added to the
card. All of the previous edit checks occurwhen an adjustment transaction is dropped. When
printing confirmation of this transaction, thesystem will cross over deleted courses and printthe new ones in available print positions. The
previous fee assessment is also struck and thenew course totals and assessment will be printedon the second assessment linr on the card.Figure 4 is an example of a card that has been
adjusted.
....". s1 AA L - - ST, Ps' .1 t i A 0 ef Ass
.5t.11105i 5)1 5, 5 .5.5.5 5 5 5 5 5 iyor,,,*i: *.,,i.-.3 ...2... 3 .1 . ... 3 3 i 3 3 3 errorrO;*t
2 2 2 oar." ',1. 2 2 2 2 2 Itut..c,*.sz trIt: I Ieal..111sx Io 1,111e°,7eNzOasswavffisc 0.raC,at ttrtrA ' 3 001.1-r-co..sc ....-,--i-no.1...tm.-1
..... 5 .5 5 peo,.., . 5 5 5 5 J AtI0..".1........,1*01 13 3 3 Iseorroo*okto, 3 3 3 3 3 Ierrr,*1 1I
2 . 2 . 2 .2 2 *r.11**'rreszt!..* 2 2 2 2 2 rutGrres.z.4 5,
)..,,,1 1 -I , .0,7.z....,,,,,i, , I i I i .0,70z....: f."
owt.e.' ,,,...ic .4 --rAS MO. 4.1 !lit t .7001 lat-C, v*Ilt w> ---r ,,c,...,0. ;5 5 et,,,..1 ..,..st 5 5 5 5 5 *,Jrw"., *..) :--,
I -*. 1 Irr,3 3 IITK%0.., 3 3 3 3 3 eye r o*.4
I2 2 ict,,Grresz 4.` 2 2 2.2.2 !Cut eey'. tT 02 .;
I'I ts
1.1,
A itt. I I / I I 0°,.."?0,0., 1 . t " I I 1 I I 0°,7 0" z° *AN .1 i, p,, MI A0 T ,t0111 Mt I SA TOM OM. 5 t1111at- CA AI( M-SIAMMI A AltI , Ai
1 rr.11,11,' ." 5 5 O 5 5 5 e7-,0 ,,, .fo, 5 5 5 5 5 Asor " I ',es aiI:, vo
a,...ulvemmay 1 *...-,I 001,.. oil air: 3 .3 3 3 3 Or' Ofx°0 Itt.) 3 3 3-.3 3 "or 0.77'
1 i T x ii 4))
TII ; t,.01 SA.,A A S
SOO *1.1.0' 2 * 2 O 2 2 2 c,,2.',,'?, 2 2 2 2 2 er.,-.GrreszolI % .,
irtac...1.:r. 1 I I 1 1 *'".0...s.,<, 1 1 I 1 1 -*-*=r11. . _ -v ..... ..A.2 z- . ...v.
Fig, 4
5,45. 5 5 5 5 5
DAPX...,14 --
B .P e Al vider
B.Art,g isPSYCH Olt&
irIN M.
I 0 AtA.
orrnmcc.r.-
126'2 ARTS
ITI
"''''T` ""
arr.,/I
TM n y0.0 at GISTRATOI CONIIRMATiONPIIIM SIMS NA 04101 OA 1M. 47
I II
t .
0.4014 4% . .
a. 4 5 5 .5 5 ..i...1r.r.1 I '''--%.3,,,,,3, 3 .). 3 ,... 3 oar. 3 3 3 ."0-0.,*
i I I " r,f14.., 2 2 2 :' 6.2101. ...441 2 ...a... 2 2 Tut *Cv ZA
14f ts I air I 1 1 Fs :j 11 asiLl I wire I 1°..',04.totleretv,,t -rscs,, tf Nil' :),C01. 0;:eti--6C0:T ..1.5- -/"AST.Ati Lt:I.11;5 yr. 5 5 5 cy.r.,*,*
3 3 3 Y% o* 3 3 3 3 3 !*$*?..0.'I
T X
2 2 2 2 2 ,,,Lc.,szI I , ;
.1 1 .0,7,,z0....14,1, I I I I I .4,7 z .....,,,...,..:, ,:,,,,, 1.0:7 tASICAMlt17;ir , 40 CUI MeV rit-MAit ,A5"1-ASICA:r IIIIIIA, 1
5 5 5 5 ..., sIT,,,I.0/ 0,TA, 5 ., , 5 5 5 sr ".:;1
3 3 3 3 3 er'erro.o.plid1
2 2 2 2 2 ervL.G.r*.sz.It
2 2 2 2 .4914.,szoo.
3 3 3 3 3 ?rrroFor''z'oi.'*.' 2 2 2 2 2
z
;4411LV 5 5 5 5 5 1/4.1
wt....it .4 Oftt.MAMA III 7 111111 3 3 3 3 3 O*,'rrO
iooe..s.i 2 2 2 2 2 tv+.0,.tre
TTr MD.; // ?
I6j1 :'t111101T;".11)*RY Al E XAHDER
itgrj
WiT* 1,
HIST /415A
fit-TM-CC:or
1 1 1 . 1 1.L 7 . fl=, r
1-I [I
ITan") i-C. vIt ,t -,-110 A l.tt .-15 5 5 5 5 *..., *0 *.o, c - ."-... III I.,
f 1 1=11, 3 '''!..-.'5;.";t,..3 3 31.3 3 er*.rx*.o.F1.- ...A 4'iA' 'I I 1 "lif2 2 2 2 2 *Cu, e.., PSz Ths Is yaa PEC., MOON CONCIRMATON
I I 1=f,' Nat 013as$ fa a a,/ on one. soloI i I I / .0 ." 0....f.,-....-Jt....- -.........L.- -L.A I II I
1 V11.4.0
175
X
' :'1 .
! isoutsmod 5 5 5 5 .....5 5 5 5 .4....4,....,w, it1 . ', ' ilmei 3 Ii 3 1 i 17-74,milt 3 3 3 3 ,..rx0c1 fied. j , I ,' 0.,' 1 2 " ' 2 ...W.. 1.14- 2 .4.-.1 2 rov:.:y:
i
I ,.. i. . s.-
1 ' ' ' I '... 1 II lotAti-cotry .74,1"d"'l..................r5ttwir-towit--i .4, 7 1 v.)._ i
fVN.71:4::f5 41.6, 5 5 5 Ty ...,-,........!.I 17,....,,,,,,,, 3 .3 3 .',..rx0e. ft 3 3. 3 3 3 IIYrx 4A
,1:t.:"."...:.. 2 2I 2 2 7 1451..4,s :.;,. 2 2 2 2 2 1.cut.0.,,szi
,+ 17"7..111.L. I 10 ...z )I I.' ot,r4 , ,,l ,,' s1 !,,.? .17: .I, I I tr 1 I 1 .0,"",0Nwr
t::::4" ., 's 5 5 .5 5 ,+.1 4.1 ,51, 0;"::,,' ,r 5 .'14.'"-te`sl,`,71::,',`;','",,1
* ,- a
I Io A so 3 3 3 3 3 ..,.%0:',m4 3 3 3 3 3 III".rxpe J."
2 2!. 2 2 2 cut..°.,Posz
*-4I I I 1 I .0,""?rwr
r omrry- ,ortt .0. --rCi,C. UMW.55I 555Aeost...01
ttoer1 j 2 r 2 r
. ..,. I I I D, .,,,oueff ,c(sow, s 5 5 5 5 5 .8oit 8.1 s
To -.,Nooss o ov 3 3 3 3 3 ,4rx4;,.. 11.` 3 3 3.3 3 YrxoJ
2 2 2 ,2 2 C, 41v 7 . 2 2 2 2 2 1tV
6
.41 I I I 0?.?.tI- .ur. i .how., the kompleted ttansattion. The
0111,,A! data has been added to the Lardby the cashier's assistant in the registrationline. The (ard is paper clipped to the BusinessOffice copy of the Registration and Fee Contract.At this point, the student is given his copy ofthe LontraLt and the third and final copy sent tothe kevpunkh shop where address data collectionwill take pitoy. After a cash register islosed in the registration line and the cash
balanted, the paper documents, T-Scan cards, cashregister tapes and batch control sheets are sentback to the otfi(e for I-Scan tuition data collec-tion. A batch-open transaction is dropped tonotify the system, that a partikular batch ofbusiness offiee transattions will now be droppedin a partitular terminal. Business office trans-Ittions are rocessed very quickly. At the endf the batch, a batch-tlose transaction solicits
the computer's batch totals. If the computertotals do not agree with those of the hatchcontrol sheet, the staff quickly locate the errorby tomparing individual T-Scan Card figures withthe cash register validation on the contract.FaLh processed transaction now shows the amountpaid as well as the payment plan selected. As
with the assessment line, there Is room on therd to permit the confirmation of a correctionon the final drop.
In addition to the two bode transactions, andthe previously mentioned hatch open and closetransactions, the system also supports studentand course queries. Multiple student cards arealso supported to enable the system toaceomodate up to 21 student. course selections
per student.
three years later, we are still pleased with theperformance of ol: 1-;, an system. As a bonus,we learned a lo, about people and their inter-attion with data proeessing systems. We strongly
176
r
dIffBRoar TIARY ALEXANDER
xxxxxx XXXXXX
HIST 24215A 054
7XXXXXXX63)0
XXXXXX XXXARTS 05
XXXXXX6710
33'55ISl.14
kaPrO,STRADON CONNWATON
Flosior si tot .44 noh 01.
I I I
021__ _
suggest that thoughtful consideration of theconcepts incorporated into the T-Scan terminaldesign is a worthwhile exercise for all dataprocessing personnel.
j
HOW-TO-DO-IT:POINTS OF INTEREST FOR THE POTENTIAL. COMPUTER CUSTOMER
Bernard Sidman
Beverly Public Schools, Beverly, Massachusetts 31915
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this parer is to present informatton which should assist potential computft
customers in the proc..,, of getting into the computer age. There is no "one way" of getting into th
computer age., However, in preparing to utilize computer technology one should have at least a minimum
level of awareness of the following topics:
1. Develoeing the RFP (Request for Proposal).2, Service bureau, in-house, time-Sharing ur consortium.
3. Fvallation and selection of hardware.
4. Evaluation and selection of software.
5. Financing: pu-chase, rental, third party lease, other.
r)eveloping the RFP
The RFP (request for proposal) is the lechoul
-orporation's vehicle of Communication betweenthemselvas and the computer companies. It is
"blueprint" fiy which the educational data pro-cessing needs and Vequirements are described to
prospective Udders. In essence, it is quite
similar to a set of educational specificationswhich would be prepared as the bidding documentfor Aschot1 contruction project.
There can be many .afferent formats for the
RFP. However, it should ,antain at least the
following elements:
1. A .taterient of the types of functions expect-
ed of the system.2. A statement of remitted vendor support
functions.1. A proposal format.4. Summary forms to be filled in by the vendor.
Forms should be detailed enough to providesuffiient information for hardware and soft-
ware selection. Most importantly, let the
vendor extract the pertinent data from his
sales literature.5. Policy matters, evaluatIon techniques and
standards should ;e available to vendors.
6. Terms and conditions.7. Expected time frame for contract award and
debriefing should also be s -ated.
8. A firm dare beyond which rebids will not beaccepted.'
The forms provided in the RFP to obtaintechniaal and eolt information from the vendors
are extremely important. They will allow for a
comparison of item costs to be made betweenvarious hitIders. Aoreover, the forms will also
show very clearly whether or not compaoy uses
"bundled" pricing. Lindenneyer contends that he
is better able to judge cost when all componentsare "unbundled" i.e., costs for hardware, soft-ware' field engineering, maintenance, etc., are
all separate. Whether costs are buddled or un-
bundled, it is quite imperative to have the amountand type of field support thae comes with theinitial contract spelled out in detail.
Some other factors that should be included in
the RFP are: (1) a requ.rement for the vendor to
give reference accounts who are present1Nrusingcomputer systems*similar, if dot iientical, inconfiguration to that proposed for your installa-tion and who have similar system requirements,2X2) a requirement for successful running of"benchmark" i.e., a demonstration that the computerprograms 'Ang proposed to do the school corpora-tion's ellicipated workload can in fact satisfythe school's requirements3 and (3) detailed plans
for conversion and also for future expansion.
The development of a meaningful RFP usuallyrequires having the services of a technicallyqualified person (hopefully the EDP manager) toassist in the preparation of the document and alsoto help interpret the propdsals which it is
Service Bureau, in-House, Time-Sharing or Consor-
tium
Service bureau, in-house, time-sharing orconsortium all represent approaches that may betaken to realize the advantages of utilizing com-puter technology. The particular approach, orcombination of approached, taken usually dependsupon the needs and/or available funds of theschool corporation.
In order to discuss some of the advantages
177
83
rft
and disadvantages of each ut the above methods,the following brief but concise working defini-tions are necessary: (1) service bureau - acompany which either owns, leases or has accessto an electronic computer and proviles computerservices on its own premises to"the general pub-lic for a predetermined fee,4 (2) in-house -having a self-dependent computer system for theschool corporation located in one of the corpo-ration's facilities, (3) time-sharing - a com-puter technique in which numerous terminaldevices located in one or more school corpora-tions can utilize a central computer concurrentlyfor input, processing and output functions5 and(4) consortium - an agreement or union wherebyseveral school .orporations pool their resourcesto jointly acquire a computer system to be housedin a facility of one of the member corporati,. 5
but to be used by all of the school corporationsinvolved. From the above definitions we can seeth,4t belmiging to a consortium is,somewhatsimilar to either using a service bureau or totime-sharing for the member corporations exceptthe one that has the computer system in-house.
The proponents of obtaining the advantagescf computerization through service bureaus usethe following justifications: (1) purclasingyour own computer equipment is too costly, (21there is a problem in finding the adequate spaceand environmental conditions for a computerinstallation, (3) it is difficult and expensiveto employ a competent staff, (4) the low propor-
' tion oftavailable computer time needed to performthe required applications makes the unutilizedtime very expensive, (5) difficulties are foundin keeping up with the changes in equipment andin methods and (6) the abilicy to obtain all theadvantages of EDP without employing any computerspecialists.6 The major disadvantages of using aservice bureau are the turn-around time i.e., theamount of time elapsed between pick-up of inputand delivery of output,, the rigidity of the formof the input which makes school corporationunique variations either impossible or an adei-tional expense, having to pay extra for eachapplication being performed and the lack of theflexibility to experiment with new applicationsor to utilize the full potential of computerizeddecirion-science techniques.
All of the disadvantages of using a servicebureau become some of the advantages of acquiringan in-house computer system. The only advantageof a service bureau that might be a disadvantageof a properly planned for and o.ganized in-housesystem might be the overall co't of the latter.
Time-sharing Can result ir, a savings in bothequipment and'personnel while at the same timeproviding almost all of the services of an in-house system. The'extent to which time-sharingsatisfies the usehO needs is usually a functionof the size and application capability of thesystem being hooked into. However, if ttie time-
sharing school has competent personnel and hasalso been allotted sufficient stlrage space inthe main computer, it could then use the systemalmost though tt were in-house.
The consortium approach towards utilizing
178
84
computers, if carefully planned, will allow small-er school distrizts to realize all the hardwareand software benefits of a large in-house system.7This implies that: (1) the main computer is ofsufficient size to adequately service all of theconsortium members, (2) the professional/technicalstaff responsible for the design, implementationand operation of hardware and software are highlycompetent and innovative people and (3) that atime-sharing rather than a service bureau approachis used by the participating members.
Evaluation and Selection of Hardware
Having solicited proposals for a computersystem via the RFP, the educational administratoris now faced with the need to select the appro-priate hardware to meet present and anticipateddata processing demands within a finite budget '
allocation.8 There are probably as many tech-niques of evaluating proposed computer systemsas there are computer systems that have eventual-ly been purchased. In other werthrrItere is noone method of evaluation that has proven to beapplicable to all situations. About the onlyphysical factor that reaches near concensus isthat the computer Obtained be at least a thirdgeneration model. The generation of a computeris determined bythe technology employed in thecentral processing unit (CPU) and in the memoryhardware e.g., first generation uses vacuum tubes,second generation uses transistors and thirdgeneration uses integrated circuits.9
befote beginning the task of assessing com-puter equipment it is necessary to summarize whatdata are available to be used in the evaluation.precess. Miller, after studying various tech-niques from both the industrial and governmentalsectors, decided that the following major dataclassifications would be most useful: (1) costdata, (2) performance data, (3) hardwarecharacteristics, (4) software support and (5)miscellaneous data.10 Reading the followingcomplete list of items under each major. heading,written in as nontechnical a manner as possible,will more than likely reinforce the need, previ-ously stated, to have a competent EDP manageravailable to help interpret the incoming bids.
Cost Data
I
1. Total cost.2. Individual component costs.3' Estimated cost to perform each benchmark job
based on fixed hourly charge.4. Maintenance costs,5. Software costs (development, purchase, lease).6. Educational and training costs.7. Reprogramming costs (application programs).S. Other discernible cost factors (transporta-
tion, installation, remodeling, buy -hack,eta...).
Performance Data
1. Compilation time, by compiler, on benchmarktasks.
2. Linkload or collector time, by compiler, onbenchmark tasks.
3. Execution 'time, by compiler, on benchmark
tasks.
4. lime needed to initiate operating system,5. Sort timings (from sequential and random
access files).6. Readability of printed output.7. Number and kind of machine malfunctions.M. Average number of machine instructions
generated per lina-of coding by eachcompiler.
9. Response latency to demand proce sing asa function of the number of activeterminals.
10. percent of CPU utilized during benchmark.11. Proportion of "overhead" time out of total
processing time not accounted for duringbenchmarking.
12. Convenience of operation.11. Compatahtlity of existing programs (number of
,instructions added, deleted or changed).14. Average number of job control parameters
net 4Ied.
Hardware Characteristics
1. Cull memory 4yele tim4 with and withoutinterleav1ng.
2. Average maohine instruction time.1. Channel speed (total and per channel).4, iota' storage -- fast memory.1. Total storage -- slow memory.h. Total storage -- random access.7. Average access speed -- random access storage
for data.
8. Average acveas speed -- random atcess tooperating system modules.
9. Total memory available to single user program.10. Floating point and decimal arithmetic hard-
ware.
11. Character coding,12. Word size.13. Multiprocessing capability.14. Multiprogramming capability or batch jobs.15. Time sharing and demand processing
capability.
16. Add, subtract, multiply and divide time insingle and double precision for floatingpoint and fixed point arithmetic machineinstructions.
I/. Real time and time of day clocke availabil-ity:
18. Expandability of memory.19. Virtual memory capability.20. Total number of channels available to high
speed devices.
21. total number of remote terminals capable ofsupport with a response delay of le' than
three seconds.22. Compatibility to coding other than internal
coding.23. Maximum size of directly addressabie memory.24. 'Maximum tape transaort transfer rate.25. Maximum transfer rate from card reader.2h. Maximum lines per minute (132 character
lines) for line printer.27. Total storage per disk pack, if packs
available.
Compatibility to smaller or larger machinemodels.
24. Total power requirement.30. Total cubic feet of air conditioning needed
and 11/11 dissipated.
179
31. Total floor space (square feet) required.32. Memory protest features.
Software Su2port
1. Language availability and features.2. Maintenance support and costs.3. Application programs.4. Conversion assistance.5. Utility programs available and their
features.
6. Memory utilized by operating system.7. Memory and file protect options.8. Levels of priority permitted.9. Machine utilization accounting routines
provided.
10. Inter language compatibility (e.g., abilityto write FORTRAN subroutines in COBOL using
a Common data area).11. Debugging facilities of each language.
12. Automatic restart (recovery) procedures
available.13. File management and identification proced-
ures.
14. Capability of system to continue processingwhen system components fail.
15. Ease with which operating systems are
generated.
Miscellaneous Data
L. Delay before system may he delivered.2. Proximity to other systems available for
backup support.
3. Compatibility to other agencies providing areceiving date to or from the bid system.
4. Reputation of the vendor for technical andmaintenance support.
5. Availabilite of personnel trained on thesystem.
F. Training programs offered by the vendor.7. Cost and quality of supportive technical
manuals.
8. Availability of equipment from other manufac-turers which interface to the bid systemwithout modification.
9. Availability of software developed by inde-pendent software houses for the 1,1d system.
10. Expandability of the total system andpotential for use in systems with fasterprocessors.
11. Mean time between failure (MTBF) for eachsystem component.
12. Purchase *ions, long term lease arrange-ments, guaranteed pricing for anticipatedlife and other cost benefits.
The above ,lists do not exhaust all possiblerelevant considerations. Most vendors have systemfeatures unique to their equipment which cannot beevaluated on all bids.11
Most school administrators would need theassistance of a competent computer specialist tointerpret the meaning and significance of many ofthe hardware characteristics. However, as long asqualified professional assistance is available toevaluate the hardware so that the best suitedequipment is obtained, the school administratorcan still effectively and efficiently utilizecomputer technology without becoming a hatdware
expert.
Aside (tom not using a eomputer professionalto assist in the nardware selection process,there are other errors made in evaluating boththe suppliers and the hardware. harf has de-
lineated the following:
ea.rorsin evaluating suppliers
I. Tendency to consider only one manufacturerseriously.
2. Tendency-to look at what a manufactureroffers vou, not what he has to offer.
3. Failure to define your own needA clearlyand in sufficient detail for the manufactur-er.
4. Lack of real will to cooperate with otherpotential partners in the fields of machineuse, application, development and specializedstaff.
4. lendem: to grossly underestimate costs.h. Failure to evaluate the manufacturer as he
reall is and will be in your specialsituation as 8pposed to his general
"reputation".7. Lack of will to make extensive and systemat-
ieaIlv searching first hand contacts in
order to evaluate user experience AOcorresponding machines and manufaeturers.
S. Lack of relevant experience on the part ofthose participating in the data processingselection decision, especially as opposedto the - manufacturer team which is both
trained And experienced in this particular
gltuatirn.Failurc to recognize that your own personnelmay bring irrational thinking into theeviloation for personal reasons.
10, Failure to recognize that the manufacturerand ,ertaio of your own personnel will havethe same vested interest in empire building.
II. failure to analyze the half truths serveddata processing salesmen.
L. 1 rk of will on the part 01 the manufacturerto really learn about vou as a customerhe,ause he won't spend the time to find outwhat Is really the situation.
13. londencv of the manufacturer sales teams to
t' specialized, in spite of the fact thatvaur organization may need interdis,iplinaryknowledge.
1+. Failure to realize that the data processingsalesman Las extremely strong short-termmotivation and weak long-term motivation.
41
Typical errors in evaluating hardware
9.
I. Failure to go into depth regarding forms ofparallel operations.
2. -Failure to run actual tests.
3. Failure to take into account the effect ofsoftware organization and selection on
hardware performance.4. Failure to find out if the hardware is:°
presently supported, sufficiently supportedor supported under a particular softwarevstem so that it can be utilized without
"do it yourself" software support.
5. Failure to calculate the marginal utility ofadding certain hardware.
100
6. Failure to evaluate hardware costs in termof other alternatives: "value analysis".
7. Tendency to evaluate in terms of old myths.
8. Failure to design an efficient system beforecalculating need'd hardware capacity.
9. Failure to anticipate Parkinson's Law: the
tendency of users to expand needs so as tofill the capacity of a new EDP facilitywithin unexpectedly short time.
10. Tendency to confuse traditional needs simply.-use we have been unable to satisfy real
needs economically before.
11. Failure to give serious consideration toindependent peripheral suppliers, thusforcing yourself to take the economicconsequences of the package deal even on the
hIrdware side.I2
Armed with the ready assistance of his com-puter specialist to interpret and evaluate thetechnical hardware specifications along withbeing cognizant of the above typical errors inevaluating suppliers and hardware, the schooladministrator will be able to approach the pro-cess of evaluating and selecting hardware in anintelligent and meaningful manner.
Evaluation and Selection of Software
In tOs computer dictionary, Sippl definessoftware as:
The internal programs or routines profes-sionally prepared to simplify programming and
computer operations. These routines permit theprogrammer to use hi, own language (English) ormathematics (Algebra) in communicating with the
computer. Various programming aids that arefrequently supplied by the manufacturers tofacilitate the purchaser's efficient operation
of the equipment. Such software items include
various assemblers, generators, subroutinelibraries, compilers, operating systems andindustry -- application programs. Most types of
programs in the computer software library areoffered in several versions to run in systemsconfigurations of different sizes and composi-tions.13
During the 1960's hardly anyone (especiallyeducators) considered using any software thatwasn't generated in-house or supplied "free" bythe computer manufacturer. But users are nowrecognizing that software costs morey and that"freebees", in most cases, aren't part of the
overall package any longer.14 Since computerprograms are not in general patentable or copy-right-able, the computer companies protect theirsoftware on the basis of the "trade secret" law,This law defines a trade secret broadly as "anyformula, pattern, device or compilation of
information which is used in one's business, andwhich gives him an opportunity to obtain an ad-vantage over competitors who do not know or use
it."15 The computer .:ompanies have implemented
the trade secret protection for their computerprograms through a License-to-Use. This license
can specify either that the use Is for a speci-fied period of time or that the use is forever.For the first cave the financial arrangement isusually a monthly fee and a paid-ur or full-pay-
ment lease in the second (ase.16
Contrary to popular opinion, lust because acomputer company has a*particular so*tware appli-cation package, does not necessarily imply that
the package: (1) is completely debugged (will
run without errors), (2) will satisfy your re-quirements or (3) will be written in a languagecapable of being run on your equipment config-
uration. Fortunately, most proprietary software
is warranted. This means that the seller has theresponsibility to fix whatever bugs may benoticed during the warranty period.17
Another factor to consider is that moreoften than not, the company supplied softwarepackage must be modified to suit the particularuser's needs. If, in this case, the modificationswill be extensive enough so that the resultantsoftware becomes quite user unique, then theadministrator should be concerned with: (1) will
there be an additional charge for the modifica-tion effort, (2) is the resultant package stillconsidered to he proprietary software or is it
user owned software and (3) in either case isthe software still under warranty?
The school administrator in trying to evalu-
ate and select software should also be aware ofthe following typical errors in this process
compiled by Scharf:
1. Failure to run actual tents on actualmachines and to ensure that the evaluationteam is trained and gives time to do this
(benchmarking).2. failure to measure real performance.
3. Tendency to think in traditional ways.
4. Failure to comprehend all the complexfactors which affect software performanceon a given machine.
i. Failure to use experienced eXperts forIndependent software evaluation.
6. Failure to recognize and calculate theamount of man effort on your own part whichis necessary in order to actually use cer-tain software.
7. Failure to use the same standards forcomparative evaluation of different manu-
facturers' machines.8. Tendency to evaluate on the basis of past
needs, not future needs.9. Failure to evaluate the concept of security
in software.
10. Failure to evaluate the complexity of usingsoftware efficiently on a day to day basis.
11. Failure to evaluate single software partsin terms of the effect on the totaleconomics of the software system.I8
The preceding discussion has been primarilyconcerned with selecting and evaluating softwareapplication packages. The same factors also
apply to the various language processors thatshould be capable of being run on your computersystem e.g., COBOL (COmmon Business OrientedLanguage), FORTRAN (OORMula TRANslation), ALGOL(ALGOrithmic Language), RPG (Report ProgramGenerau.on), PL/1 (Programming Language/one),BASIC (Beginners All-purpose Symbolic InstructionCode), manufacturer unique assembly language,etc.
lel
87
Financing: Purchase, Rentals Third
Party Leases Other
Purchase
If a school corporation could afford an out-right purchase of a computer system, it would bethe least expensive method of payment. The re-
duced expense is a result of not having to paythe interest that is required on a multi-yearpurchase agreement and also because of the savingsrealized from the educational discounts offeredby some companies on outright purchases.I9 How-
ever, if an outright purchase is made, the equip-ment should be of the latest model to avoid run-
ning the risk of obsolescence. This obsolescence
may occur because of the introduction of betterequipment, because the equipment will not handlethe volume of work or because new systems conceptsrequi:e a different kind of equipment configure-
tion.26 A reugh rule of thumb that has beencited i; that a computer installation with a use-ful lift of more than five years should be pur-chased rather than rented. Although, in any
specific case, the breakeven point is dependenton such factors as the number of shifts theequipment is used and the types of present and
anticipated applications.21 Even with the out-right purchase method of acquiring a computersystem there will still be the continual cost ofa maintenance contract, which definitely should
be acquired.
Rental
The major advantage of vendor rental agree-ments are the capability to easily arrange for anupgrade without the necessity and inconvenience ofhaving to dispose of existing equipment, and thecapability to easily arrange for the replacementof particular pieces of equipment-which may beonly marginally serviceable. The last advantage
may be very important in cases of mechanicalequipment subject to rapid wear e.g., cardpunches, printer, card readers, etc.22 Other,
more obvious, advantages of renting are theabsence of a large capital outley, the assumptionby the manufacturer of all maintenance costs andthe remcvalof the risk of obsolescence for the
user.23
Though there are several different types ofrental agreements, most of them: (l) charge perpiece of equipment, (2) charge for each specialfeature e.g., interpret feature on keypunches,and (3) have a base rental for X hours (usuallyaround 176 hours) of actual use per month with anadditional lower rate for all hour, above thatlevel (some manufacturers do not charge educational
users for the excess hourly usage).24
Third Party Lease
Under this method of financing the educationalinstitution purchases the equipment on an outrightbasis in order to take advantage of all potentialeducational discounts, resells the equipment to a *third party who actually supplied the initialcapital and then leases the equipment from thethird party.25 Though lease webments vary, theytypically have provisions such as:
1. User agrees to lease for a minimum period,
say, five yeats, with purchase and trade-inoptions.
2. The lease payment includes maintenance andother charges.
5. There is no additional cbargy for second-or third-shift operations (except someadditional maintenance charges).
4. After the minimum period, the lease chargesdrop to a lower rate.
5. If the lease is terminated before theminimum period is up, the user must pay atermination charge.26
After examining third party leasing,Kaimann and Drzycimski listed the followingadvantages and disadvantages:
Lessee Advantages
1. The rental payment for identical hardwareis 10-30% less when leasing via a lessorintermediary.
.. The minimum monthly maintenance contractfrom the vendor is usually paid by thelessor.
1. The user may utilize additional system timeat no direct additional rental charge.
4. A flexible schedule of rental charges mightbe arranged at the inception of the contract.
Lessee Disadvantages
I. 4% longer lease is frequently required thanthat offered by the vendor.
2. There is a question of vendor support withrespect to personnel and software assistanceto the installation
3. To utilize the full benefits of thecontractual arrangements it is necessarythat the income of the lessor causes him toreside in a high tax bracket.
4. At some point during the life span of thelease, the lessee might choose to complementthe hardware configuration by requestingadditional capacity in terms of more tapeor disk drives or maintenance memory.The lessor might have to assume personneland software support functions if the vendordeclines to do so.Lessee opts to abandon the lessor bycancelling the lease or by not exercisingthe renewal option.27
h
Other
Most vendors offer a lease rental plan whichincludes an option to purchase the equipment.Thougn the provisions vary from vendor to vendor,they usually provide for educational discountsand low interest rates. The major advantages ofvendor lease arrangements are the capability toeasily arrange for upgrade without having todispose of the existing equipment and the capa-bility of readily arranging for the replacementof separate pieces of equipment which may be onlymarginally serviceable.48
Another method of acquiring a computersystem is by forming a computer cooperative.These cooperatives usually will provide for the
182
development of a data processing capability farbeyond the financial limitations of any of theindividual districts involved.29 In most cases
none of the participating districts will want toassume the cost of program development and/oroperations that are not readily applicable to
their own immediate requirements. The easiest
way to resolve this potential problem is simplyto share costs on a proportionate basis i.e.,the costs of program development, hardware,personnel, etc., are shared proportionately by
each participating district. On the other hand,m.nagement policies and other decisions relativeto operating the facility would be made on anequal basis by all the member school districts.30
Summary
Unfortunately, there is no "cookbook"approach for getting into the computer age. How-
ever, the phases just described should serve tocreate a necessary, if not sufficient, level ofawareness of the steps involved in organizing,planning, evaluating, financing and implementingan administratively oriented educational computerfacility.
The initial action recommended is the hiringof an administratively and technically competentEDP manager far enough in 'advance so that he wouldbe able to assist in each phase of the process.Then once a total plan for all uses and applica-tions of computer technology for the school
district has been drawn up, the specifications forthe syster are then delineated. These "specs" arefor hardware, software, support services, and
benchmark testing. The RFP containing all ofthese specs and requests is then sent to numerousvendors to solicit their bids.
At this point it should he worth noting thatthe be system for your needs is not always themost expensive. However, if not, closer exami-nation may show that for the same cost of whatappears to he the best but also most expensivesystem, other proposed systems could be expandedto include new and attractive features thusmaking one of them the most cost-effective
choice.31 This is quite similar to not buyingthe stripped-down top-of-the-line automobile,but rather buying the next model and adding onall of the desired items so that the end r tit
is a customized machine for the same price -the top model without all the same options.
An important point to keep in mind when re-viewing the vendors' responses to your RFP issimply that "any question that might not beanswered by the proposal, should be treated AA,being negative...all commitments anu promis(must be in writing."32
Also, a complete computer facility willrequire other items of related equipment such as:(1) keypunching machines, card sorters, formsbursting and collating machines, special purposestorage cabinets, card files, office furniture,
etc... These items should be ordered so thattheir delivery is either before or coincides withthe time the computer is installed.33
86
1
i
.4
Finally, approaching the process of acquiring
A computer system in a haphazard manner can causethe following law of Harvey Golub to become areality:
No major computer project is everinstalled on time, within budget, withthe same staff that started It, nordoes the project do what It is supposedto. 34
99
113
I
FOOTNOTES
L.H., Methods Used in a Recent Computer Selection Study, pp. 2-4 through 2-5.
`Ibid., pp. 3-8 through 3 -9.
Martin, Bd.., "Guidelines for Contracting fc: Computer Related Services," Computers and
Automation, p. 18.
Cerullo, M.-t., "Teaching About Service Bureau," Journal of Data Education, p. 7.
5Sippl, 21. cit., p. 328.
6Cerullo, up. cit., p. 10.
7Fullum, S.J., "Use of a Time-Sharing Computer in a Regional Data Processing Center at Burlington
County, New Jersey," ERIC ED087469, p. 3.
Miller, W.G., "Selection Criteria for Computer System Adoption," Educational Technology, p. 71.
9summers, J.K., and Sullivan, I.E., The State of the Art in Information Handling, ERIC ED051552,
p. 17.
10Miller, ok. cit., p.
11bid., pp. 72-74.
12Scharf, T.G., "How Not to Choose an EDP System," Datamation, pp. 73-74.
13Sippl, 2p. cit., p. 292.
"Haasen, R.W., and Shostak, A.D., "How to Evaluate and Select Software," ERIC ED087460, p. 1.
15Frombolz, N.J., "Legal Protection of Computer Programs and Confidential Information,"
Proceedings of the COMPON 73 IEEE, p. 106.
16Hansen and Shostak, up. cit., p. 2.
17Ibid., p. 2.
18Scharf, op. cit., p. 74.
lURotten, 1..H., Methods Used in a Recent Computer Selection Study, ERIC ED086208, p. H-1.
29Davls, G.B., An Introducti9n to Electronic Computers, p. 477.
21I19.0., p. 478.
-"Rotten, 2,p. cit., p. H-2.
23Davis, 22. cit., p. 476.
261194.. p. 476.
25Rotten, 2p. cit., p. H-1.
26Davis, 2p. cit., p. 478.
27Kaimann, R.A., and Drzycimski, E.F., "Third Party Leasing," Journal of Data Management,
28Rotten, L.H., Report of Computer Selection Study Committee, ERIC ED086207, p. 6-3.
Pp.
29Hoffwister, J.K., "A Locally Financed Schools Computer Cooperative," AEDS Monitor, p. 7.
301p. 9.
31Mosmann, Charles, Academic Computers in Service, p. 151.
32Roberts, EN., Data Proressins.Curriculum for Education, p. 206.
184
Ju
33-46.
rj, al., 02. p.
Groobev, l.A., "Maximizing Rt. tirn on CUP Investmenis," _Yournl of DataManalment, p. .8.
185
91
t
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rotten, Leroy H., Methods Usei_ln a Recent Computer Selc:_tion Study, Andrews University, BerrienSprings, Michigan, ERIC No ED086208, February 20, 1973.
Cerullo, Mithae1 T., "Teakhing A, ,ut Service Bureaus," Journal of Data Education, March, 1972.
Davis, Gordon B., Au Introduction to Electronic Computers, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965.
Frombolz, "Leiki Pityktion of Computer Programs and Confident'al Information," Proceedinya ofthe POMPON, 73 IEEE, 1977.
/ilium, Stephen L., "Use of a Time-Sharing Comput r in a Regional Data Processing Center atBurlington County, New lersey," ERIC No. ED087469, Au,ast 31, 1973.
i:roohey, John A., "Maximizing Return on EDP Investments," Journal of Data Management, September,1972.
Handy, H.W.; Gibbs, Helen; and Bell, John C., The Computer in Education, Educational Service Bureau,In We:bin:jun, D.C., 1970.
Hanson, R.W., and Shoslak, A.D., "How to Evaluate and Sele c Software," ERIC No. ED087460, April 19,
1911.
Hutfmeisr, 1.K., "A Lmall: Financed Schools Computer Cooperative," AEDS Monitor, October, 1970.
Kaiminn, Ri.hard A., and Drivkimski, Eugene F., "Third Party Leasing," Journal of Data Management,lanthirv. 1969.
Martin, B.A "Guidelines for Contrakting for Computer Related Services," Computers and Automation,April, 1970.
Miller, William G., "Selection Criteria for Computer Systems Adoption," Educational Technology,
oz tuber, 1969.
M04,1,10, A0.1(itTliA ('miters in Service, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1913.
Robtrts, Elli, W., Data Pro,essing Curriculum for Education, Final Report Project No. 8-0449,
HEW, 1968.
Szhirf, tom 6ibb, "How Not to Cnoose an EDP System," Datamation, April, 1969.
sippl, Charle, J., (4Tv4,:y lti, tionau_and Eandbpok, Howard W. Sams and Co., Inc., Indianapolis,
Indiana, 196s.
Summers, J.E., and Sullivar, ht., "The State of the Art in Information Handling," Mitre Corp.,Bedford, Mas,., ERIC S. ED0515 ;2, Tune, 1970.
Ir
18b