The End-user's Desktop: New Center of the Computing Universe JHPorter Page 1 of 9 Cause93 Copyright CAUSE 1994. This paper was presented at the 1993 CAUSE Annual Conference held in San Diego, California, December 7-10, and is part of the conference proceedings published by CAUSE. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, that the CAUSE copyright notice and the title and authors of the publication and its date appear, and that notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information technology in higher education. To copy or disseminate otherwise, or to republish in any form, requires written permission from CAUSE. For further information: CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301; 303449-4430; e-mail info@cause.colorado.edu The End-user's Desktop: New Center of the Computing Universe Cause93 Presented by James H. Porter Administrative Information Systems The University of Chicago Internet: j-porter@uchicago.edu Views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent the official position of The University of Chicago The End-user's Desktop: New Center of the Computing Universe Presented at Cause93 by James H. Porter I. Introduction Our current approach to end-user support is directed at achieving computer literacy. For the most part we provide our administrators, faculty and students with classroom training in the use of desktop applications running on their personal computer (PC). Little effort is expended on assisting the end-user integrate the PC, the network and the task at hand, whether that be managing a department, recording student grades or researching and writing a paper. As a result, many--and some would argue most--of our PCs are serving as typewriter replacements. Needless to say, with our PCs serving as typewriter replacements, little of the reduced costs and increased organizational effectiveness expected by many from desktop computing is being realized. Indeed, it could be argued that since we tolerate non-use and our organizations incur the cost of duplicate administrative and communication systems, PCs have contributed to increasing costs rather than reducing costs. For example, we do not require all faculty, staff and students to use electronic mail and we do not require all administrators to use only electronic transactions to submit, say, a purchasing requisition.[1] There is alwaysthe option to use a paper form, fax, paper memo, messenger or telephone. This is rapidly changing. The option to use, or not use, the desktop computer will soon disappear. The end-user's personal computer will soon cease being a typewriter replacement and will become the end-user's only window to the university's administrative applications, electronic mail, analysis tools, information servers and collaborative work. Empowered users will accomplish all work and most communication and information exchange through their networked personal computers. The end-user's desktop will be the new center of the computing universe.[2] Soon, our administrators, faculty, staff and students who do not understand and use their networked desktop computer in accomplishing their university role will become isolated, separated from the administrative and educational mainstream. Our end-users, our organizations and our technological infrastructures are not ready for this rapidly approaching computer-mediated future. Our users are struggling to master the computers already on their desks. Our support organizations are struggling to train these end-users[3] This paper addresses the importance of the end-user's desktop by: * looking at the university administrator's work environment and how it is changing * reviewing various user-support and training models * expanding the definition of end-user to include faculty and students as well as administrators * reviewing user-services experiences at The University of Chicago * proposing possible user-services models and organizations This is a complex subject involving cultural, sociological, organizational and technological issues. A short paper such as this can only explore one or two thoughts in any depth. There is some interesting work being done in the private sector on this theme. Hopefully, others will take these ideas and use them to help us better understand how to build, support and utilize the human and technological infrastructures in our universities. II. Administrators and Their Work Outside of our central organizations and the larger academic units, our administrators are "Lone Rangers,"--one person tending to most administrative matters such as purchasing, personnel administration, budget management and report preparation. We have observed that these administrators are generally interrupt driven in that they must deal with the current demand or crisis crossing their desk.[4] The administrators are isolated in that they are the only person in their unit with such responsibilities.[5] Since these administrators report up through their organization, there is little reason to talk to peers in other units--so cross training is limited. We have also observed that these administrators have no forums in which to share common problems and have no champions to advance their agenda. The administrative work environment has been relatively stable for many years. With the introduction of PCs and networks, the technological knowledge and skill required to perform as an administrator have increased--but individual administrators have not yet fully incorporated networked PCs into their daily work. Since our administrative systems are paper- or mainframe-based, there is limited organizational or peer pressure to master networked desktop computing. In addition, the required network and PC resources are not in place and the required organizational support and direction is not available. In our work with campus organizations, we have loosely identified three general categories of PC user: the early adapters, the laggards who will never be able to, or will not, adapt and the remaining 'adapt as required' majority.[6] This majority will use technology if they can see that it adds value, if they are trained and if there is an organizational expectation for its use.[7] The early adapters, on the other hand, are the ones who love technology for its own sake. Given the rapid change we will be experiencing, a challenge facing user-services is to adequately train the 'adapt as required' majority and to somehow leverage the talent, enthusiasm and knowledge of the early adapters. More on this later. III. Rapid Change The administrator's world is rapidly changing. Figure 1 presents a model of the administrator's environment today while Figure 2 gives a comparable view of tomorrow's environment. FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE Many of the change elements in the 'tomorrow model' are already here. To me, these change models support the idea that, like it or not, we are moving toward an electronic community where we will work, communicate, teach and learn through our desktop. Our organization's effectiveness will depend upon successful interaction through the desktop. Today the desktop is inconsequential. In the rapidly approaching future, the end- user's desktop is critical. IV. Disappearing Applications and New Organizational Structures An interesting phenomenon is taking place. Our central applications are losing their identity to the end-users. Today, with our mainframe-based legacy systems, we log into, say, the purchasing system to initiate a purchasing transaction. Likewise, we take specific steps to log into a different system to inquire about a personnel matter. With the current commercial client-server applications available for the higher education market--which are based upon integrated relational database management systems--end-users log in through the network and select the transactions they need and are authorized to use. The movement between the various traditional systems, such as the accounting, personnel and student systems, is seamless. To the end-user (in this example a departmental administrator) there is one administrative system. The accounting, personnel or other central office that today 'owns' the application and data and processes the paper transactions may, over time, become blurred into one central support office in the minds of the end-users[8] Needless to say, the disappearingapplications phenomenon has some important implications for user-services, which will be discussed below. V. What Skills are Required? How do we prepare our end-users for the electronic organization of the future? Will our current employees make the transition? Do we wait, as one of our administrators suggested, to introduce new computer-based systems until all the people who do not use computers have retired? How can we train the thousands of future system users? What is required can be better understood if we consider the technical skills used by administrators over the years to record basic business transactions. As indicated in Figure 3, we started off centuries ago with pen and ink and then moved to typewriters early in this century. In this simplified history, we moved to mechanical punched card systems in the 1940s, to electro-mechanical ledger card systems in the 1950s and to mainframe based systems in the 1960s and 70s. Each of these changes required retraining and resulted in new organizational structures to take advantage of the new technologies. For example, most of the initial mainframe applications concentrated on eliminating manual clerical operations with a resulting organizational structure that concentrated data-entry personnel into relatively low- skilled units[9] PCs were introduced in the early 1980s; however, they had little impact on the typical organization because they were not networked, they were used to emulate dumb terminals, the users were not trained and the PC was not integrated into daily business activities.[10] Later in the 1980s, networked personal computers were introduced. Application systems designed to take advantage of networked desktop computing power are being developed and installed in some organizations. Figure 3 suggests that the administrators need to master a well-defined, achievable set of skills to work successfully with networked PCs. This analysis implies that if we can bring our employees up to a knowledge and skill level adequate to work in the existing networked PC environment and ensure that this skill and knowledge level is maintained, then our end-users will be prepared to successfully handle the additional technical and non-technical skills required as new organizations, redesigned procedures and new systems are introduced. In other words, if we are to successfully change our organization to take advantage of the enabling power of the new networked PC-based technological infrastructure, we must develop our human infrastructure. Figure 3. Representative Required Administrative Skills FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE Once our end-users are functioning adequately in the networked PC environment, what additional technologies will they be required to master? Keeping in mind that predictions are difficult, especially about the future, I suggest that possibilities include multimedia, personal digital assistants and virtual reality. Multimedia and digital assistants can be considered an outgrowth of PCs and adequately qualified PC users should be able to master either or both as the need arises. Virtual reality will probably remain in the entertainment realm for the next few years. Anyway, most of our administrators have sufficient real reality to be bothered with the virtual kind. VI. Who are the End-Users? At The University of Chicago I would estimate that there are from 700 to 900 or so users of our corporate administrative systems--with a user defined as one who prepares transactions for submission or has on-line access to the corporate systems for transaction entry or inquiry. There are, of course, many more account managers, researchers, faculty and others who have account management or other responsibilities and receive periodic paper reports but have no direct interface with the systems themselves since this is typically handled by the departmental or other administrator as described above under "Administrators and Their Work." This is rapidly changing. With the new administrative systems we will eventually purchase or possibly build and the administrative procedures and processes we will reengineer: * account managers will have on-line access to their accounts and can initiate transactions directly * researchers will have direct access to information on their sponsored research accounts and can, if they wish, initiate transactions * faculty will have on-line access to appropriate class and student records as well as access to their accounts and the ability to initiate transactions * employees will have some type of direct access to their own personnel records * students will have on-line access to their own academic and financial records and will be able to update, on-line, certain information such as their various addresses Eventually, virtually every employee and student will have some type of access to our corporate administrative systems or to portions of the data. As these new users are given access we will move from hundreds of users to thousands. For The University of Chicago, with 11,000 or so students and approximately 10,000 employees, there is a potential of having up to 21,000 end-users. VII. Required End-user Desktop Resources If we consider the networked PCs in place today, we will find that e- mail, remote information access and desktop PC applications are a common denominator among most end-users. What today seems to set faculty, staff and students apart as far as PC usage is concerned is that some administrators have access to corporate administrative systems or other function specific systems, some faculty use computers in the classroom and in their research and students are special because they are students. If we set aside sociological issues (such as faculty generally not wanting to attend classroom training and staff being reluctant to sit in a classroom with sharp, eager students), I believe that this division of faculty, researchers, staff and students, however defined, into separate groups for PC support is inappropriate. A different model, especially if we accept that over time virtually everyone will have access to and will use the corporate administrative systems, is to consider that all faculty, researchers, staff and students have a common core of PC resources that they must know and use to be productive members of the University community. This core includes access to a networked PC, access to a basic set of desktop applications, access to electronic- mail, access to various networked information sources and services, and appropriate access to the corporate administrative systems. Implied is the required knowledge and skill to adequately utilize these core resources, the organizational and peer expectations that the core resources will be used by everyone and an organizational commitment that the core resources will be made available. In addition to the core resources there exist at least two special areas of PC usage: computers in the classroom and computers used in research. It seems that support for classroom and research related computer usage are special areas that will be best addressed on an as requested basis. This does not preclude having information technology specialists proselytizing the use of computers in the classroom; however, computers will be widely used in the classroom only when the push comes from the faculty themselves. That push will grow very rapidly once a critical mass of computing skill and knowledge is in place--when all faculty and students are actively using the core PC resources. VIII. End-user Support Requirements This paper, so far, has proposed that in our rapidly changing environment: * We have thousands of end-users that must become proficient in a reasonably well-defined set of core resources * All faculty, staff and students will work with about the same set of core resources * Once the core resources are mastered, the end-users are prepared to cope with the evolving networked PC-based technological infrastructure until some new future breakthrough occurs Bringing thousands of users up to an acceptable level of proficiency with the core resources and maintaining that proficiency is, needless to say, a challenge and requires a bold new approach. I propose that we look beyond the technology and recognize that we are really introducing organizational and cultural change--and then proceed appropriately. At The University of Chicago we have been very successful in moving entire groups into new technological environments. Examples include our President's Office7 and the Publications, International Affairs, College Admissions and Special Events Offices. Our methodology puts great emphasis on individual, one-on-one coaching, relating the technology to the individual's work and establishing group expectations for system use. Traditional classroom training, when used in these change efforts, has been less successful than we would have liked. We have not been very successful in assisting isolated individuals to adapt to new technologies, especially administrators in remote academic departments. For example, we have installed e-mail and other network- based applications for such academic departmental administrators and they aren't used. We believe that the administrator's isolation, the difficulty in setting expectations for use and the lack of a critical mass of PC-based functionality havee contributed to this lack of success. The installation of electronic mail is a good example of our group approach. We always recommend a micro-based e-mail package. (QuickMail-- but other similar products would work as well.) Micro-based e-mail is feature-rich, easy to use and is locally maintained on the front end within the group. Generally, everyone gets their e-mail connection and personal training in its use at the same time, which helps to set group expectations for use. We have installed QuickMail for hundreds of users and have always been successful--where success is defined as everyone in a group using e-mail on an on-going basis. We have not yet had an entire client group begin to use e-mail where pop-mail, mainframe-based e-mail or other non-micro-based e-mail was used. We believe the individual focus of these e-mail applications, when compared with micro-based e-mail, has contributed to this lack of success. Our directions and experiences have been substantiated by the literature, including: * Local, focused, just-in-time assistance is the most effective end- user support. The support person must provide business-related, context- sensitive coaching and training11 * Most learning takes place on-the-job, classroom training is typically not effective12 * We must change our organizational structures to accommodate and exploit what is valuable in information technology if we are to bring about the information technology revolution13 IX. One User-support Model One approach to providing the required desktop PC support to end-users is to recognize that there are two very different tasks to be accomplished: I. Bringing end-users up to an acceptable level of proficiency with the core resources II. Providing on-going support to end-users to maintain and increase proficiency Task I is best accomplished in natural groups--such as all faculty and staff in a department or all staff in an administrative unit. Bringing together selected administrators from many different academic departments, providing training to one person from a unit and similar splintered approaches will not be successful due partially to the absence of the group expectations and mutual support which exists when groups are "converted." If possible, the intervention to introduce new technology to a group should be timed to coincide with the group's connection to the network or other significant event. Our experience indicates that the requirement for support when using the proposed Task I approach drops off rapidly after a short period of intense personal support. The long-term Task II support can be provided several different ways. We provide a range of support, depending upon the requirements and resources of the unit. For example, we provide on-call support for individuals and small units while larger units have resident experts whom we have trained to provide front-line, just-in-time support, with our organization providing backup. We do have a problem that needs to be addressed: the contribution by our resident experts, who tend to be regular staff with job pressures like everyone else, are not officially recognized in their job descriptions or by the University--and occasionally not by their bosses. Staffing for end-user support organizations must have an information technology background, understand the university's business processes, know the organization and have excellent people skills. According to the literature, most traditional classroom training and hot-line support personnel lack the educational and business experience to be successful in this newly-defined user-support role[14] X. Summary After years of spending $millions on PCs and related technology with no pay back, we are poised for a breakthrough. This breakthrough will be driven by our institutions achieving a critical mass of networked PCs and the implementation of new processes and organizations to take advantage of the potential these new technological and strengthened human infrastructures provide. The technical infrastructure to achieve this breakthrough is, for the most part, available and could be purchased today, given sufficient funding. The human infrastructure required to achieve this breakthrough is a different matter. For years we have dropped PCs on end-users desks and assumed that somehow they would learn to use them. For years we have treated the introduction of PCs, networks and related technology as if it were another office tool, like a typewriter. For years we have skimped on training and support, forcing our end-users to learn from one-another and support themselves. For years we have tolerated non-use of technology. As a result, our end- users and our organizations are not prepared for the future. Many are struggling to get by with today's technological demands. The challenge to our universities is not technological. It is a human challenge. We must take bold steps to prepare the entire organization for the future. An initial step is to focus on building the human infrastructure. A first step in building this human infrastructure is proposed by this paper: do whatever is necessary to bring the end-users up to an acceptable level of proficiency with the core resources. And since we are really dealing with organizational change and the setting of organizational expectations, we need to approach this initial task by "converting" groups rather than individuals. Ongoing support is also very important. If we are successful in getting the core resources into use by all end-users, we will create a tremendous demand for help in mastering new tools and doing new things in addition to assistance in solving routine problems. The possibilities are exciting. If we are successful in getting an entire university to use at least the core resources, we will build a synergy that has never existed before. Imagine the faculty, students, and staff linked together electronically, supported by new administrative and other support organizations. This will lead, over time, to new approaches in education, research and administration with tremendous benefits to us all. Notes: 1 Many of our electronic transaction systems are actually mainframe- based legacy systems with the desktop computer substituting for a 'dumb terminal'. For this paper such systems are considered in the same light as the typewriter. They have served their organizations well and will continue to do what they were designed to do; however, such systems are not part of the end-user desktop environment this paper is addressing. 2 The phrase "...new center of the computing universe." first appeared in John P. Halloran's and Brian S. Pappas's article titled "Micro Management" in the April 15, 1993 issue of CIO magazine. Halloran and Pappas are affiliated with Nolan Norton & Co. 3 A major theme of discussions in the User Services Special Interest Group meeting at CAUSE93 was that our user services organizations are underfunded, understaffed and that our organizations do not understand the importance of end-user support. 4 This discussion focuses on the 'business' administrator. In academic units there is usually a 'student affairs' administrator who faces similar isolation issues. 5 For a discussion of administrative organizational issues see Therese Nelson and James Porter's article, "Desktop Computing Power: Issues and Opportunities" in the Summer 1991 issue of CAUSE/EFFECT. 6 Halloran and Pappas, in the article mentioned above in Note 2, suggest that the early adapter category is 20%. Chris Pickering, in his December 1992 article in CIO magazine, "Preparedness Training," suggests that laggards make up 16% of our employees. 7 In "Introducing Technology to Senior Executives: Theory and Practice-- a Case Study" (CAUSE92 Proceedings) James H. Porter suggested that desktop computers will be used by executives and other senior managers when the applications are easy to use, are meaningful to the executive, and a "critical mass" of functionality is available such that the executive turns on the computer first thing in the morning and uses it throughout the day. 8 If our end-users are empowered through on-line, integrated systems into which have been embedded the university's policies, processing rules, edit and audit rules and legal requirements, will this result in major changes to the traditional roles and organization of our central administration? Do our administrative processes have to be supported by systems broken into the traditional financial, student, human resources andfund-raising modules? 9 This reduction of clerical personnel was offset by the new data-entry, computer operations and computer programming organizations. The apparent savings in clerical costs were used by our systems organizations to justify new and improved systems. Unfortunately, using computers to reduce clerical costs is still expected by many of us while the major benefits from computing are in improving organizational effectiveness and enabling new organizational structures. 10 The typical PC in our organization is used for word-processing and spreadsheet applications. Some use the PC to access information on our legacy systems over the telephone lines or via the campus network. A growing number use electronic-mail as their primary communications medium. However, none of these activities are yet fully integrated into the way an administrator works. 11 John Halloran & Brian Pappas in the article referenced in Note 2 above. Also, "Wanted, MBAs for the Help Desk" in Information Week, October 18, 1993. 12 Kavin Moody of the Bank of Boston in I/S Analyzer, September, 1992 13 From What Presidents Need to Know published by CAUSE, 1993 14 Naomi Kartin in "Mind Your Own Business" published in Strategies for End-user Computing: QED Information Sciences, Wellesly, MA, 1990