Doing More With Less: A Pragmatic Approach to Getting the Work Done 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 Doing More With Less: A Pragmatic Approach to Getting the Work Done. Laura M. Hofstetter Manager, Office Systems Maria E. Mullin Consultant Analyst, Office Systems Computing & Network Services University of Delaware Newark, Delaware Abstract As most higher education institutions in the country are facing budget and staffing cuts, administrators are looking at less staff-intensive methods to accomplish administrative tasks. This paper describes how the University of Delaware's Office Systems group addressed this reduction in staffing issue by identifying it as a new challenge for cost-effective use of Information Technology. The Office Systems group helps departments and colleges face the challenge of implementing automated systems. We guide users through a process of analysis, system design, integration, funding, documentation, and implementation. The approach is one of offering solutions rather than technology. We present our recommendations in a comprehensive package that also includes practical considerations such as physical office space requirements, or the appropriateness of the building's existing electric and telephone wiring. The Office of the Dean of Students project will be presented as a case study to illustrate our approach. Doing More With Less: A Pragmatic Approach to Getting the Work Done The Concepts From Information Center to Office Systems - Beyond Word Processing The University of Delaware is a multi-campus university system. It enrolls more than 20,000 students and employs nearly 1,000 faculty and over 2,300 professional and salaried staff members[1]. In late 1984, the University of Delaware's MIS department established a service within its management structure to provide office automation for the administrative branch of the University. The Information Center (IC) was created to conduct needs analyses, document studies, and cost projections for secretarial staff office automation. A task force was established to select a word processing standard, and a plan was laid out to bring the affected staff up to par in terms of computing. Three staff and a manager were hired to start the process, and in the Spring of 1985, the conversion to word processing was started. Since then, the Information Center has continued its crusade for computer literacy of the University's staff by providing support for the mission-critical mainframe data as well as the many user- developed, microcomputer-based systems that were popping up in the administrative offices as a result of a mainframe system development backlog. Today, the IC no longer exists; instead, it has been superceded by a new support team for administrative computing called Office Systems (OS). The goal of this new team is to help administrators cope with the significant cutbacks in staff and funding that have resulted from budget reductions over the last four years. Our mission now reaches far beyond simple word processing, and our users are more knowledgeable and computer literate. Facing a Better Trained Workforce Desktop computing was introduced in 1984 when office automation began on campus for the administrative offices, and a University grant was established to provide the faculty and professional staff with an opportunity to purchase a personal computer at low cost. Nine years later, this investment has paid off: we now have a well-trained workforce and a good level of computer literacy among faculty and professionals. From Hand-Holding to Think-Tanking No longer does the Office Systems staff have to show users the benefits of word processing or electronic record keeping. Our users have experienced the many benefits first hand. Now they want more, and they create their own think-tanks within their departments to come up with new ways to do their daily work. The Office Systems staff helps them put their ideas into a form that is usable within their department without too steep a cost or learning curve. We also try to make the new systems fit into existing ones without too much redevelopment or investment in new software and hardware. Cost-effectiveness and staff productivity are our primary goals. Are We There Yet? Planning For Solutions Yet To Come While we help our users with their automation goals, we also teach them how to plan for new solutions that the University's Computing and Network Services department is envisioning for the future. For example, CNS is currently in the process of wiring our campus for Ethernet. Most of the administrative staff have been working in an SNA environment for more than ten years, and are reluctant to accept the change. They are unaware of the many applications and wealth of information available to them via access to the Internet. It has therefore been the goal of CNS to provide the users with this knowledge and to make them aware of the benefits by creating real-life solutions otherwise not available to them. Other emerging technologies are being implemented on our campus such as electronic forms, kiosks, voice-mail, cable TV and digital technology to all dorm rooms and offices. Increasing Productivity Within Budget Constraints: The Ultimate Challenge Because of the continuing price reductions in computing equipment, it has been possible for the Office Systems group to increase productivity in various offices on campus while still maintaining the continuing level of budget reductions required by upper management. Often, this has presented some real challenges and required some very creative suggestions from both users and Office Systems staff. For example, at the time when the staff of the University Secretary was cut in half, a decision was made by the Board of Trustees to significantly increase the number of advisory committees to the Board. This resulted in a tremendous scheduling problem for the staff member in charge of organizing the committee and board meetings. The Office Systems staff provided the staff member with a turnkey system that practically runs the whole process. The new systems selects committee members, prints invitations, creates meeting minutes, interacts with food services and schedules transportation for committee members. What used to take several staff days to do by hand is now done in minutes by one operator. How Did Office Systems Know You Were Shorthanded? THEY ASKED! As in the Paine-Webber TV commercial, the Office Systems staff planned for the constraints users' offices were experiencing when faced with staff and budget cuts. We asked our users how they planned to cope with less staff, yet perform the same amount or more tasks with a leaner budget. Many offices were so short-handed that they simply hadn't even thought of how they would cope. Many were so backlogged that they would not even want to hear about changing their work habits or learning new technologies that would help them cope with their workloads. We helped them realize that they needed to streamline their systems and become more efficient in the use of their staff. We also helped them realize that by using the technologies available to them, they might at first see a decrease in productivity because of learning curves, but would soon see a tremendous gain in productivity that would allow them to structure their offices and task assignments in a more effective way. And we gave them our unconditional support and help through the learning period. Overcoming the Daily Routines: Leaving Room for Planning One of the biggest obstacles we encountered when helping our users plan for better office systems was the remark "I just don't have time to talk to you right now!" And they didn't! We could see firsthand how overworked some of these people were. In the Dean of Student's Office, for example, we found that we could not speak to anybody for longer than 1 minute before being interrupted by telephone calls. Soon we realized that most of these telephone calls were redirected to the Registrar's Office or to the Admissions Office. So the first suggestion we made was to put an answering machine on the telephone to screen these calls. IT WORKED! Even though they did not quite get an answering machine, they did purchase new telephones with features capable of rerouting calls. This interim solution was preferred while waiting for the campus-wide implementation of voice mail for administrative use during fiscal year 1994. Involving our Buddy: The CRP We have a network of "buddies" in place on our campus. They are our departmental contacts and we refer to them as the department's Computer Resource Person (CRP). The CRPs are trained thoroughly in computing applications and receive preferential treatment from CNS in terms of support. In turn, they provide CNS with a resource to funnel information for dissemination to the users and back to CNS. Since the CRP knows the business environment of the department, we work through the CRPs to find systems suitable for automation. They are present during all meetings with the department and are the channel through which we report progress to the department. Asking the Right Questions and Getting the Right Answers When thinking about office automation, it is imperative that the Office Systems staff know how to receive correct information from the users. Asking the right questions is therefore key. We make a concerted effort to avoid using computer jargon and to talk business rather than technology. Using this approach has given us many opportunities for opening communications with other departments on campus and often puts two people together to solve issues without our help. For instance, when we interviewed the CRP of our College of Engineering, we learned that one of the secretaries rekeyed into a word processor all the recruitment information received from the Admissions Office about minority students. We spoke with the Admissions Office and asked if this information could be obtained in electronic format. The answer was "certainly." Is Management Support Necessary? Attempts to obtain management support for our automation projects have been successful in varying degrees. We found that the degree of departmental management involvement is correlated to the project's successful implementation. Even though most requests come to us from the clerical staff, our most successful projects have been those in which we have involved management from the very beginning. If management is not sold on the process, the projects will not be successful, and a lot of time and energy will be wasted. What About Funding? Office Systems staff do not help departments obtain funding for automation projects. We do suggest avenues for the department to pursue to obtain support and funding. One alternative may be to spread implementation cost over more than one fiscal year. Another option may involve requests for grant money matched with department funds. We found that once a department believes in the benefits of the automation project, they will find the funding for it. It is the duty of Office Systems to provide the department with a complete and realistic cost analysis for the project, and to make sure there are no financial surprises during its implementation. Don't Forget to Implement the Project: Doing It As You Go As a rule, we take care of tasks not requiring funding during the project analysis period. This "instant gratification" approach encourages the department to continue the project and see it through to completion. Once funding is obtained and the project implementation stage has been reached, we find that we need to make sure implementation goes smoothly and as planned. We monitor progress through the CRP and provide the department with our assistance if deadlines are not met. All too often, departments "forget" implementation deadlines when workloads peak periodically during the semester. While we accommodate these peaks in our project plan, we find that users forget to pick up where they left off after the peaks have passed. We make sure that they continue implementation by offering our help during these periods. The Process Background Before Office Systems begins working on an office automation project, we have a staff meeting and brainstorming session to decide how to approach the project(s). Our objective is to make recommendations for improving office functionality and promoting usage of the facilities and information available to the departments on the central mainframes. We use the following steps as a guide for conducting a successful needs analysis. Steps Involved in Accomplishing the Objectives Step 1: Interview all staff members. Before the project begins, a letter is sent to the CRP (the computer resource person within the department), along with a list of questions we plan to ask. The CRP is instructed to give a copy of the questions to each staff member. The CRP is also involved in scheduling the interviews and may attend each interview, if desired. A sample of the questions we ask is provided in your handout materials. Step 2: Write preliminary report. Our findings are compiled during the next month or so, and a preliminary report is written. The report is returned to the CRP to verify that we made an accurate depiction of their office procedures. Step 3: Perform walk-through with selected CNS staff. The walk-through is an informal meeting with members of the Computing and Network Services staff. During the walk-through, we review the preliminary report openly and brainstorm alternatives to our recommendations. Members of CNS provide information on what data is available on the central mainframes, and how the department can utilize it effectively. Connectivity issues are also discussed, if necessary. This walk-through helps assure that our recommendations are in line with CNS's long-term strategy. Step 4: Conduct interviews with departments interacting with the College or Department. Commonly, the department being analyzed interacts with one or more outside departments on a regular basis. In this step, we meet with staff member(s) in the other departments so we can determine solutions that will be in the best interest of all departments involved. Step 5: Include recommendations and cost analysis in the report. In this step, we revise the preliminary report, considering the findings from the walk-through and notes from the outside departments. Also, new equipment recommendations and connectivity needs are included. Finally, we determine the approximate cost of the project. Step 6: Submit final report and implementation plan to the Dean or Department Head. The final report is submitted for approval to the Dean or Department Head. If they agree with the plan, then implementation can begin. Step 7: Find funding sources and obtain funding. Most departments don't have the money readily available to fund these improvements. So, in these instances, we present our recommendations to the Department Head, who can use it as justification to request funding from their superiors or other suggested sources. Sometimes the Provost's office agrees to fund a portion of the project. Step 8: Implementation. This includes everything from ordering new equipment to submitting work orders for data line installation, to installing software and training the users. The time frame for this step is entirely dependent on what needs to be done. It can sometimes take over a year to complete. Finally, a turnover letter is sent to the department to mark the project end. The Case Study Overview The Dean of Students Office (DOSO) consists of four professional staff members, one non-professional support staff member, and two secretaries. The office provides numerous services to students at the University and is also responsible for handling judicial matters. When the new Assistant Dean of Students joined the staff in 1990, she noticed the large amount of manual work that was involved in tracking a judicial referral through "due process" and thought that there must be an easier way to do it. She also found it difficult, if not impossible, to gather statistics on current cases for her regular meetings with the Judicial Council. Then after losing one of her support staff members, she called on the Office Systems group to take a look at how her office conducts business. Observations The following is a list of the major responsibilities of the Dean of Students Office: * Track Judicial referrals and due process Includes scheduling pre-hearings, hearings and related appointments, and preparing ad hoc reports and end-of-year statistics * Track off-campus tickets issued against students * Process student withdrawals * Track crisis data * Maintain office staff sick and vacation records * Answer telephones and direct calls We found that most of these functions are performed manually, with an over-abundance of forms and paperwork shuffled within the office and to other departments. The specifics of our research and our recommendations are described below. Tracking judicial referrals through the "due process" cycle is perhaps the largest and most time-consuming function of the Dean of Students Office. The office receives official complaints which are hand-recorded on a Judicial Referral Form. The referrals usually come from Public Safety (our university police) or Housing and Residence Life, but can be initiated by anyone. Once a complaint is recorded, due process begins. Each step of due process is tracked manually using the Judicial System Tracking Form. The office staff are using a database to a limited extent to record information, but an application has not been implemented to track the status of a case as it progresses. Approximately thirteen yearly statistical reports and at least one monthly report of current cases are manually prepared (hand- counted). The Office of Housing and Residence Life (HRL) works in cooperation with the Dean of Students Office. If a case is referred to the DOSO by Housing, it is tracked by both offices. Although the official file resides with DOSO, HRL keeps a photocopy of the file contents for their own records. If a case is referred to DOSO from another source, then Housing does not keep a record of it. This communication gap sometimes results in a student being issued a sanction by the DOSO without HRL's knowledge (behavioral history is an important consideration when issuing subsequent sanctions). HRL uses a simple database on their own Local Area Network to record case information, but no electronic means exists for the departments to share data. Student files are hand-delivered daily between the two offices. When a student is charged with an offense by off-campus police, the DOSO is also notified. The DOSO retains a copy of the ticket and sends a notification letter to the student. About 200 off- campus tickets per semester are recorded using a WordPerfect file. However, WordPerfect's full features (i.e. Sort and Search) are not utilized when reports are generated, and the data is not organized in any logical order. Crisis situation data is also kept in a WordPerfect document, and, like the off-campus charge data, reports are compiled manually and unsorted. Student withdrawals are also handled by the Dean of Students Office. When students want to withdraw from the University, they must fill out a form at the DOSO. Then they are advised to personally notify Financial Aid, HRL, and some other departments of their intent to withdraw. An eight-part Withdrawal Notification form is then manually typed by the secretary and distributed to the following: the student, DOSO, Records and Registration, Accounts Receivable, the Academic Dean, HRL, Financial Aid, and Dining Services. A monthly list of all withdrawn students is prepared manually and distributed to eighteen departments. Miscellaneous office duties of the secretaries include answering telephones and directing calls. The office has eight phone lines. The phones are extremely busy, and many of the calls are directed to another appropriate department. One secretary is also in charge of maintaining the vacation and sick leave records for the staff members. These are kept on handwritten charts --one per employee. The secretaries are also responsible for scheduling pre-hearings, hearings, and appellate hearings with the Dean and Assistant Deans. This is all done via paper calendars. Individual calendars are typed up daily for the Dean and Assistant Deans. Each staff member has a PC with mainframe access; however, these machines are not used to their best capabilities. The Dean, for instance, was using an IBM Model 55sx for electronic mail access only, while his secretary uses an IBM Model 30 for word processing and spreadsheets. The oldest of their equipment was an IBM XT, which is used by the staff assistant. Recommendations and Justification We recommended the following be done to help automate the Dean of Students Office procedures: * Provide each member of the Dean of Students staff with a desktop computer with LAN and mainframe access. * Develop a LAN database application to track judicial referrals using R:Base 3.1. This includes developing an official information policy between DOSO and HRL to determine who has the right to access information handled by DOSO and HRL. * Develop a means of tracking off-campus tickets and crisis data using R:Base. * Develop an automated means of notifying the necessary departments of a student withdrawal. * Purchase WordPerfect 5.1 for office staff for use with VASS (Vacation and Sick System) to track staff vacation and sick leave. * Purchase R:Base 3.1 LAN 5-pack. Evaluate an automated telephone answering system to direct calls. * Provide training to the staff members. Since each member of the DOSO staff already had a PC with mainframe access, it was not necessary to make major hardware purchases. There was already a Banyan network in place in the DOSO's building (and HRL owns their own Banyan server), so the PC's only required token ring cards to connect to it. There was, of course, a connectivity charge for this. The only system that needed to be completely replaced was the oldest PC/XT, which was incapable of running the latest R:Base version efficiently. Other PC's would be swapped around the office to make the most of their functionality. We also recommended they purchase WordPerfect 5.1 and R:Base 3.1. Our campus has been somewhat standardized on these vendors for many years now. The Office Systems group developed a macro, using WordPerfect 5.1's Table feature, to track employees vacation and sick leave. Since the DOSO and HRL already had data in older versions of R:Base, we recommended they continue using that product to develop the new and improved judicial tracking database, which would also include the off-campus offenses. The crisis data, which was already kept in a WordPerfect file, could be easily imported into a separate database, also within R:Base. The electronic mail package that is most widely used by the administrative users on campus resides on our IBM mainframe and runs under TSO. This package includes a calendaring system, bulletin boards, conferences, and the ability to use electronic forms. Thus, two of the DOSO problem areas could be addressed by simply utilizing the tools already available on the mainframe. By granting the secretaries access to the appropriate person's e-mail account, they could easily schedule appointments and print daily calendars on the fly. We recommended that an electronic form be developed to notify the necessary departments via e-mail of a student's intent to withdraw from the University. We also recommended that an automated telephone answering system be evaluated so most calls could be directed without secretarial input. Implementation The first step of implementation was to obtain the necessary funding. We presented our report to the Dean of Students stating our findings and recommendations, as above. The Dean used our report as justification to ask his Vice President for the funds. His Vice President agreed. Once funding was acquired, Office Systems prepared the requisitions to order the hardware and prepared the work orders for the Data Communications group to do the wiring. Upon delivery, we set up the equipment, loaded software and swapped machines among users. We conducted one-on-one training sessions to get the users familiar with the Banyan environment. We also provided a custom R:Base training course for the DOSO staff members, which incorporated their own data into the class exercises. Office Systems supplied a development team to design the new judicial database system. This new system has been in use for about two years now. The Dean of Students staff members have taken enthusiastically to it and strongly depend on it. As the staff members have become more familiar with R:Base, they are able to create their own ad hoc queries and reports quite painlessly. Office Systems provides support, along with some updates and enhancements. Once the judicial database was fully functional, HRL was granted access to the DOSO server to query the data. Although HRL has not developed their own shadow system of the data, they have on several occasions exercised their new query privileges. Office Systems also developed an automated fill-in form, which is used to notify departments and colleges of a student's intent to withdraw from the university. The electronic form is sent to 24 recipients, and only one hardcopy record is maintained in the DOSO files. This new procedure has drastically reduced the paper flow between offices, and each office is responsible for keeping its own records of withdrawals. After some preliminary research, our recommendation for an automated telephone answering system was ruled out because of its extensive cost. As an alternative, new phone sets were installed in the office which offered more features than a standard push- button phone. We are awaiting implementation of a voice-mail system, which the University plans on making available to staff and departments sometime this fiscal year. Conclusion The Dean of Students Office is only one of the several projects that has been successfully implemented by the Office Systems group during the past two years. Other departments served are the College of Physical Education, the College of Education and the Department of Music. As the news of our successes spreads across campus, we have been approached by more users who require automated solutions for both big and small projects. FOOTNOTE: 1 Source: Office of Institutional Research, University of Delaware.