Application-neutral Computer User Support at Florida Atlantic University Copyright 1990 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 13, Number 3, Fall 1990. 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, the CAUSE copyright and its dateappear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu APPLICATION-NEUTRAL COMPUTER USER SUPPORT AT FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY by Don E. Gardner and Carol S. Schwob ************************************************************************ Don E. Gardner is Associate Professor and Executive Director for Information Management at Winthrop College in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Previously he was Associate Vice President for Information Resource Management at Florida Atlantic University. He has held administrative positions at The University of Wyoming, Portland State University, and Arizona State University. Dr. Gardner has participated in CAUSE since 1975. Carol S. Schwob is Director of Computer User Services at Florida Atlantic University. Her fifteen years of data processing experience include programming and analysis positions with Mead Digital Systems, Basic Technologies, Inc., and Science Applications, Inc. Immediately prior to her current assignment she was a systems coordinator, then Assistant Director of Academic Computing at Florida Atlantic University. ************************************************************************ ABSTRACT: The increasing use of the microcomputer as a standard desktop tool has resulted in new challenges in campus computer user support. One of these involves a significant blurring of the traditional distinctions between academic and administrative computer users. Increasingly, the microcomputer on the desk has become a multi-purpose utility, and new networking strategies have provided open access to a variety of computing platforms. Today, the typical campus computer user cares more about reliability and ease of use, than where particular application software resides. This article describes the creation at Florida Atlantic University of a computer user services department -- completely separate from administrative computing, academic computing, and the information center/MIS department -- to provide a source of "application-neutral" user support. Problems and solutions are discussed, including the benefits of the approach and recommendations for those interested in pursuing a similar course. In just ten years, microcomputers have become the single most important desktop tool -- aside from the telephone -- in most administrative offices in higher education. In many cases, the same hardware (and often the same software) is used in academic areas for administrative support, public service activities, and enhanced instruction and research. One result of this revolution is that where computer support issues could once be clearly divided between academic and administrative users, the delineating lines have become increasingly blurred. Consequently, there is emerging a new breed of campus computing consultants and new offices aimed at providing microcomputer support to campus computer users. Most of these support organizations have evolved in obvious ways, for example, out of the traditional academic or administrative computing departments. Others have become extensions or integral parts of information centers or MIS departments, where attempts have been made to adapt business concepts to the college setting. In every case, a series of new challenges must be addressed in some way: * guiding the transition from a "machine-centered" to a "user- centered" computing environment; * making all campus computer users citizens (or potential citizens) of an integrated data network; * dealing with the issues of hardware and software standards; * managing technological change with some semblance of rationality; * meeting user education and training needs; and * maintaining effective support sub-groups (for example, network user groups, computer stores, computer maintenance shops, special interest groups, etc.). This article presents a case study which describes how Florida Atlantic University employed an innovative approach to meeting these challenges by creating an "application-neutral" user support department. But before sharing that experience, it may be helpful to briefly discuss each of the challenges in some detail. THE CHALLENGES Success in meeting the challenge of effectively guiding the transition from a machine-centered to a user-centered computing environment will be dependent on the extent to which campus computing professionals acknowledge a fundamental change in computer user status. In the early computer environment the mainframe (whether academic or administrative, or both) was at the center of activity, with computer experts working diligently to help users access "the machine." In today's computing environment, campus mainframes are simply one of many computing platforms -- including minicomputers, high-powered workstations, and microcomputers -- available to help users accomplish their tasks. While some have been slow to recognize it, the focus has clearly shifted away from the technological bulk of major computing centers to the individual needs of the computer user, which can now be served in a variety of ways. This being the case, the real hub of activity from a hardware standpoint becomes the network, which leads to the second challenge outlined above: that of making all campus computer users citizens (or potential citizens) of an integrated data network. In this context it is not necessary to define an integrated network from a technological standpoint. Regardless of how it is achieved, providing general "any-to- any" device communication is, or will be, a requirement at most campuses.[1] The focus here is on the difficulties associated with providing flexible, easy-to-use network access to a group of users with disparate needs, interests, and levels of sophistication. The challenges relating to hardware and software standards have been widely discussed in technical journals and trade magazines. Suffice to say here that whatever the size of the computer user support staff, it will be able to effectively assist users with only a limited number of hardware configurations or software packages. Selecting good hardware and software standards and "making them stick" is both an art and a science. Managing technological change with some semblance of rationality is perhaps the most frustrating challenge from a budgetary point of view. As each new generation of hardware and software bursts on the scene, top campus administrators may have reason to believe that computers are a kind of "racket," with periodic payments required for "protection" from the dire consequences of being left out of the next level of technological advancement. Unfortunately, the pace of technological change continues unabated, although the rush to adopt the latest new thing appears to have slowed temporarily while users either work to catch up on learning to use what they have, or are content with tools that are generally adequate. The challenge, of course, is to help identify hardware and software migration paths that both protect current investments and allow users to advance at a rate that needs and desires demand. A major part of the current investment in microcomputer technology is in training. Focusing on user training needs and keeping pace with them as they evolve is a major challenge, since it takes time and money to bring a large group of users to a significant level of expertise on any software package. Furthermore, each level of competence opens a window to further possibilities, which makes this a never-ending process. At the same time, employee turnover ensures that there will always be a need for introductory courses. The final difficulties to be discussed here are in the areas of microcomputer hardware support. In spite of challenges from small businesses and the questions relating to unrelated business income tax (UBIT),[2] manufacturer education discounts have put most support centers in the position of running some kind of computer store and providing some level of microcomputer maintenance. Store operations range in scope from offices which simply verify eligibility and hand out forms for users to return directly to the vendor, to full scale store- front operations with large inventories of equipment. The ease with which most microcomputer hardwareproblems can be diagnosed and repaired makes maintaining some level of repair facility almost irresistible. Both kinds of operations have introduced a whole new set of management problems and challenges in campus computing. The preceding discussion outlines areas that would be problem areas regardless of how a campus user service unit is organized, or whether or not its primary focus is administrative or academic user support. That the challenges for both areas are essentially the same exactly illustrates the point that the hardware and software used by "both sides of the house" have become increasingly similar. In response to this phenomenon, an application-neutral approach to user support was instituted at Florida Atlantic University to address the preceding challenges, and to do so in the most efficient and coordinated way possible. The following narrative describes the results of this reorganization. FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY CASE STUDY Florida Atlantic University, one of the nine State University System of Florida institutions, is located in Boca Raton, Florida, approximately fifty miles north of Miami. Founded in 1964 as an upper-division-only campus, it now serves 11,500 students in a full range of lower-division, upper-division, and masters and doctoral programs. Recently, it was designated by the Florida state legislature as the primary provider of higher education in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, and is expanding programs and course offerings at four branch campuses in the area. In 1987, a State University System of Florida review team conducted a comprehensive study of computing at Florida Atlantic University and published its report. In addition to recommending the creation of a new division of Information Resource Management to bring the academic and administrative computing departments under one cabinet-level administrator, the team recommended creating a new end-user services center to support both administrative and academic computer users.[3] After the new Associate Vice President for Information Resource Management was hired in 1988, he began immediately to implement many of the review team recommendations, including the creation of the new department -- Computer User Services. The associate vice president agreed with the review team's observations that a lack of coordination and direction had resulted in a wasteful and confusing use of resources. Individuals in both computing departments were providing the same kinds of services, but often with conflicting results. The person users would call for help depended almost entirely on whom they knew, rather than who might be best qualified to satisfy their needs. The two existing centers supported different networks with different communication protocols, in spite of the fact that many users had both academic and administrative functions to fulfill. Also, different software orientations resulted in serious incompatibilities in sharing electronically stored information. While theoretically desirable, the review team's recommendations with regard to the functions of Computer User Services were impossibly comprehensive. Ultimately, within the broad mission of providing "responsive, high quality technical support to Florida Atlantic University computer users," the following five specific goals were adopted: * provide reliable, competent advice to faculty, staff, and students on hardware configurations, application software, and network connectivity for microcomputers; * offer low-cost hardware maintenance services for microcomputers that will minimize user down time when repairs are necessary; * provide effective low-cost training on microcomputer software products and their use, as well as DEC VAX (mainframe) computer use; * coordinate campus hardware and software standards, and obtain the most advantageous pricing possible (through site license agreements, etc.) for products to help individuals and departments minimize costs; and * serve as a bridge between users and the technical systems people at the computer centers. The personnel and support dollars for the new department were carved out of the existing administrative and academic computing centers. Identification of the personnel to be reassigned was relatively easy, given that both departments were already engaged in the kinds of support activities envisioned for the new unit. The individuals involved were simply given the opportunity to be part of a combined operation in which they would be doing essentially the same things. The timing was perfect for shifting the necessary budgets, since the directors of both of the existing departments had resigned just prior to the associate vice president's arrival. A former assistant director of academic computing was reassigned to head Computer User Services, and the department was on its way. Staffing Problems Today, in its third year of operation, the Computer User Services department at Florida Atlantic is firmly established and moving forward in the fulfillment of the goals identified above. The effort has not been without problems, however, and some lessons have been painfully learned. The first of these had to do with the consequences of putting together a user services staff from two very different computing environments and dealing with their resulting "identity crisis." The composition of the original Computer User Services staff members was two from administrative computing, five from academic computing, and one contract employee from a regional data center.[4] The administrative computing personnel were accustomed to a one- vendor environment where technical problems were solved by calling in the vendor's marketing representative or engineer. These consultants were used to dealing with administrative personnel with tight deadlines -- most tasks were "emergencies," so priorities were established based on the user's rank in the University rather than on the relative severity of the problem. Rather than following a strategic plan for computing, administrative computing personnel had generally given administrative users whatever they asked for. Network connections for administrative users had been accomplished by running individual coaxial cable from a controller in the administration building to the user's office, wherever it was located. The cost of coaxial cable and distance limitations kept the number of administrative network users stable. In this environment, administrators got immediate service, and since long-term goals were never addressed, they were the recipients of many one-of-a-kind, support-intensive microcomputer programs. For example, the consultants spent a great deal of time producing customized sets of mailing labels for administrative offices. On the academic side, personnel were experienced in a multi-vendor environment. An academic network was in place, based on Ethernet 802.3 technology. It was widely used and included both VAX/VMS and UNIX systems (including Hewlett-Packard, SUN, and AT&T workstations) as well as a variety of microcomputers and terminals connected both directly to the network and through network servers. Unlike the crisis environment of the administrative users, large projects with tight deadlines for academicians could usually be anticipated and planned for. While academic users often indicated emergency status for their requests, meeting their deadlines was generally not considered as critical as on the administrative side. Consequently, some of the academic computing consultants had a very casual attitude toward consulting and user problems in general. A major staff-related problem at the beginning had to do with salaries. There was an historical disparity in salaries between the two departments, reflected in the widespread perception that administrative computing personnel were paid more than their academic counterparts. Other staffing problems emerged during the process of assimilation. The academic computing center had generally enjoyed a reputation as a successful, technically competent department. Personnel who moved from academic computing to Computer User Services had to give up some of the glory associated with their old reputation to build a new one. At the same time, the administrative computing personnel needed to be accepted into the new group, and everyone had to participate in an exchange of system-specific knowledge. Cross-training and sharing of clientele were other initial problems. The former administrative consultants generally viewed administrators as their clientele and were not eager to take on the diversity of academic-type problems. On the other side, the former academic consultants were not terribly eager to take on problems viewed as "office-related," such as helping someone print labels, fix envelope jams in laser printers, and so forth. Structure and Procedures Computer User Services, as a new department and concept, had no precedent from which to establish an organizational structure. As shown in Figure 1, eventually four groups were formed within the department, organized along the lines suggested by the following major functions: consulting, education/training, computer maintenance, and student/faculty/staff support. [FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION] The next order of business was to establish working hours and expected work routines. This was not an insignificant challenge since, as just discussed, the personnel were used to very different management styles. To assure the level of responsiveness desired, everyone eventually agreed that consistent and posted working hours were required. After these general departmental policies were established and in place, the next task was to set up procedures for each of the sub- areas in the organization structure. Consulting The consulting group was the most problematic of the four areas. The principal difficulty was in clearly defining duties and then finding qualified personnel who were flexible enough to consult on microcomputers through mainframes, and technical programming through office automation applications. From the beginning, the consultants were required to have experience with mainframe computing, with microcomputing as a secondary skill. The philosophy was that if a consultant were expected to be able to ascertain whether a user computing need might best be satisfied on a mainframe or a microcomputer, the consultant should understand the entire computing picture. Other problem areas that had to be addressed in the consulting area included: (1) establishing and maintaining hardware and software standards; (2) cross-training of Computer User Services personnel; (3) creating and implementing help-desk procedures; (4) establishing a demographic/technical computer user database, and (5) determining the best way to deal with the various network connectivity issues. With regard to the issue of establishing and maintaining hardware and software standards, we recognized that Computer User Services personnel would realistically only be able to provide quality support for a limited number of hardware configurations and software packages. This was a conscious effort at avoiding the typical dilution of effort and failure associated with trying to be "all things to all people." However, the associate vice president felt very strongly that acceptance by the campus community of the selected standards should come from the self-evident quality of the products and support provided rather than from an absolute ban on purchasing anything else. In his experience, such mandated restrictive policies typically only served to irritate those who would figure out a way to buy whatever they wanted anyway. The rest of the campus computing community would generally appreciate the fact that if they stuck with the standard, they knew there would be someone in Computer User Services they could count on for help in time of need. Implementation of non-dictated standards requires careful research and a certain amount of nerve. For example, when we announced that WordPerfect would be the campus word processing standard, the choice was backed by survey results[5] and microcomputer magazine ratings. However, there were still some very unhappy Wordstar and Displaywrite users. On the issue of cross-training Computer User Services personnel, a consulting staff concept was followed instead of relying on individuals to be the sole experts in any one area. All members of the staff were given primary and secondary responsibilities for supported software. This was difficult to accomplish because of the demands on staff time, and the natural tendency for people to specialize in their favorite area. One step that was taken to combat these difficulties involved procedures in the new Computer Support Lab and Productivity Center, discussed in more detail below. To foster effective cross-training of Computer User Services personnel, new software and hardware were routinely installed in the Productivity Center and made available for experimentation and training to all users -- as opposed to having access monopolized by installing it on just one person's desktop system at a time. With regard to creating and implementing help-desk procedures, the goal was to establish a user "hotline," i.e., an easy-to-remember number for all campus users to call with computer questions and problems. To some extent the specific skills needed and the variety of problems that must be addressed to make this work effectively can only be appreciated by someone who has sat in the help-desk chair waiting for the phone to ring with no idea of what he or she will be asked to deal with next. At Florida Atlantic, the concept has functioned increasingly well over time. However, employee turnover and other problems have made complete success in this area difficult to attain. At the outset, the associate vice president directed that a demographic/technical computer user database be established to keep track of individual user hardware configurations and software revision levels, the idea being that to effectively and efficiently serve campus computer user needs, a user services department should know in advance as much as possible about the equipment and software on each user's desk. Ideally, an up-to-date database of this type could greatly reduce the amount of investigative time required to solve a particular problem. Also, the database could serve as a very effective tool in planning and costing out the University-wide migration to a new software release level or hardware, when required. Although a software package was purchased for this purpose, the major drawback, not surprisingly, turned out to be the amount of staff time and effort required to collect, input, and maintain the information. Again, employee turnover also played a role in preventing the database from being fully implemented. However, there is still hope that this element will contribute to higher quality service, and effort continues to collect and maintain the necessary data. At the beginning of this article, one of the major challenges identified was that of making all campus computer users citizens (or potential citizens) of an integrated data network. Dealing with the issues involved in determining the best solutions to the various network problems has been clearly the most complex and time consuming aspect of providing effective user consulting. In fact, it became clear that more high-level, technically qualified staff would be required to be successful in this area than originally anticipated. Fortunately, an additional permanent staff position was provided and a qualified individual hired. At Florida Atlantic, a combination of protocol converters, TCP/IP connections, and advantageous proprietary network software has been used to achieve institution-wide device interconnectivity across the 10MB Ethernet backbone. Technical complexity, network reliability, and the sheer logistics of getting everyone connected and trained all remain as significant challenges. For example, IBM System/38 and AS/400 computers have been successfully connected to the campus network by a gateway system. However, identifying and training the necessary staff to solve the associated keyboard mapping problems was a significant hurdle. Education/Training We intended from the beginning that Computer User Services personnel would be expected to understand the technical foundations, capabilities, and limitations of computing in general at Florida Atlantic University. Also, they would be able -- at some level of expertise -- to help individuals apply computer technology to their day- to-day tasks, regardless of their role or duties at the University. This is the essence of the "application-neutral" approach to user support. And while everyone was not naive to the fact that User Services personnel would naturally have their own specialties (based on background and personal preference), we hoped that all would develop a broad set of skills. At minimum, it would be expected that each Computer User Services consultant would have sufficient training to quickly recognize the nature of any given problem and know when to call a more qualified individual when needed. Therefore, one of the first things decided was that it was important to set up internal training criteria and procedures for development of the Computer User Services staff before attempting any expansion of training for campus computer users. For example, the chief maintenance person was sent to a one-week seminar to learn the finer points of repairing microcomputers. In turn, he was required to give a one-day seminar to the rest of the staff. Every staff member had to take a PS/2 and an AT-style system apart, identify the boards and components, and put them back together. Following the same philosophy, other staff members attended local application seminars, such as SAS and desktop publishing, and vendor presentations on the Macintosh and IBM AS/400. Every other week, the department has an in-house technical seminar on pertinent topics such as LaserJet printers (including Postscript printing), down-loadable fonts, network connections, campus network design, UNIX to VMS gateways, using the Kurzweil Programmable Text Scanner, and so forth. With a program for internal staff development in place and functioning, Computer User Services proceeded to expand the training offered to University microcomputer users. Examples of the courses that were offered include: Introduction to Microcomputers (including DOS), WordPerfect Beginning, WordPerfect Intermediate, WordPerfect Advanced, WordPerfect Special Topics, DBase, Lotus 1-2-3 Beginning, Lotus 1-2-3 Advanced, Hard Disk Management, Backup and Restore Techniques, and Desktop Publishing. When one of the original staff left the University to relocate out of state, it was very difficult to replace his skill level. During the long recruitment process, a grant was negotiated to partially fund a certified trainer to teach faculty and staff. Because of the success of that program, the grant has been expanded to support 1.5 FTE positions. Computer User Services now has a part-time certified trainer with an office management background who concentrates on office-type seminars and courses including specialized topics such as WordPerfect, mail- merge, and printing three-up labels. Another method used to augment the number and frequency of training courses offered was a significant increase in the number of courses taught by persons with expertise from outside the department. For example, the computer science department had requested that Computer User Services offer mini-courses in programming languages not taught by their department. Consequently, part-time specialists have been hired and courses have been successfully offered in such topics as "C" and FORTRAN. These classes typically have had full registrations the day they are announced and have required waiting lists. Computer Maintenance An early and major undertaking of Computer User Services was to set up a new computer maintenance service auxiliary to repair and maintain campus microcomputers and peripherals. Starting the auxiliary required first producing a list of standard supported hardware -- including establishing prices for agreements and repairs -- and then writing a proposal and presenting it to the president's cabinet before it could be sent to the Board of Regents for approval. When the Board of Regents approved the new auxiliary, a document explaining services and charges was prepared and distributed on campus. A new technician position was established, which involved generating a position description and bringing in enough capital to cover the technician's first-year salary before recruitment could take place. Although the initial charges were undoubtedly too high (based on the need to cover the start-up cost of the technician's salary), the maintenance auxiliary has been very successful. After it was set up, a new microcomputer burn-in and installation service was instituted for campus users for a nominal fee. The fee also covered preliminary diagnosis and pick-up and delivery for warranty repairs. Whenever possible, loaner equipment has been provided to keep users up and running while their equipment is being repaired. After completing its first full year of operation, it was possible to reduce the annual maintenance fee to approximately $100 for a basic system, and still maintain a balanced budget for the auxiliary. Computer Support Lab and Productivity Center The final area requiring new structure and procedures involved opening a Computer Support Lab and Productivity Center where faculty, staff, and students could try out a wide range of software and hardware before purchase. This center also is intended to assist the Computer User Services staff in evaluating and learning new products. Situated in the center are demonstration equipment and software from IBM, Apple, DEC, NeXT, Zenith, and Hewlett-Packard. The demonstration hardware and software will be continually updated, depending on new announcements from computer vendors. An important part of the Productivity Center is the Florida Atlantic University Computer Store where vendors offer systems to students, faculty, and staff at educational discount prices. The Productivity Center also coordinates and offers a variety of methods for obtaining personal copies of campus standard software at educational discount prices to qualified buyers. In addition to providing Florida Atlantic University with a central place to explore computing options, exchange computer information, demonstrate new technology, and explore network connectivity issues, this center offers other services. The Kurzweil scanner there is a programmable text-only scanner which can be "taught" to read material printed in a foreign language, or text in different printer fonts. There is also a graphic scanner available for use. Criteria for Measuring Success The following criteria were identified to measure overall success or failure of the new Computer User Services department at Florida Atlantic University: * Are the functional goals being met? * Are users receiving reasonable levels of service? * Are the anticipated efficiencies of operation being achieved? * What end-user problems have been effectively solved or addressed? In the consulting area in particular, we have successfully addressed two specific problems -- the need to communicate more effectively with users throughout the University and the need to find a way to support non-standard hardware and software. The first need was met by establishing a User Bulletin series (both printed and electronic versions) for important announcements and distribution of institution- wide documentation, while the second was addressed through sponsoring independent user groups to provide support for all applications found on campus. As for meeting our expectations of achieving efficiencies of operation, we have dramatically expanded University site-licensing for microcomputer software (for example, in a six-month period, 570 packages of WordPerfect were distributed at a savings to the University of over $30,000). The scorecard overall, while admittedly unfinished, has shown other significant evidence of success: (1) the help-desk hotline logs an average of 150 calls per week, (2) the equivalent of two maintenance personnel are consistently busy, (3) training classes are in constant demand, (4) users -- who are not shy about expressing dissatisfaction -- appear reasonably happy, (5) real dollars have been saved (in addition to the WordPerfect savings mentioned above) through more effective software site-licensing, and (6) additional resources have been released by the administration to help Computer User Services do an even better job. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the beginning of this article, the need to effectively address a set of major challenges facing the campus computing community was posited as the basis for attempting to provide "application-neutral" computer user support. After approximately two full years of experience with this approach, we remain even more convinced that the former distinctions between academic and administrative computing users are becoming increasingly meaningless. The distributed computing revolution is real. Advances in technology are placing more and more computing power on the desks, or (through networks) at the fingertips, of all members of the higher education community. Having achieved a truly integrated -- in the sense of any-to-any connectivity -- campus-wide network has underscored for us the fact that many campus computer users really do not care on what hardware platform their application resides, as long as it is readily available when they need it. There are exceptions, of course. Faculty experts will continue to pursue specialized computing interests on specialized hardware and software. There will continue to be a few administrative personnel whose interest in computing will never extend beyond their narrow function. Also, there will always be those for whom having control of "my machine and my data" will be important. In a sense, therein lies the beauty of the emerging distributed environment: those who need and can afford unique equipment and narrow applications can have them. However, with proper network support, they can also have access to the full range of common utilities and services, including electronic mail, administrative information, external network access, mainframe software, and file transferring and sharing capabilities. That being the case, to some degree every user is a potential application-neutral user, and one who might benefit from application-neutral user support. Can cross-trained, non-specialists serve user needs as well as more focused, specialized support personnel? At Florida Atlantic University we believe the answer is "yes." User consultants should be highly skilled technical experts with innate specialties based on prior education, experience, and interest. However, there is an emerging broader view of computing as a utility that produces a commonality of need and experience that extends well beyond the old academic and administrative user stereotypes. In this context, here are some of the obvious lessons we learned from our experience at Florida Atlantic University. * The cliche that computing is a constantly changing environment is more true than ever. * It is necessary to constantly train personnel. * Computer software consultants must continually be reminded that it is as important to show users the solution as it is to fix the problem and, better still, to teach users how to fix the problem so they can handle it the next time. ======================================================================== Footnotes 1 At Florida Atlantic University, the technical challenge was to integrate three separate data networks with four different protocols into a single entity from a user standpoint. This was done with gateways and protocol converters, using TCP/IP on the fiber-optic-based Ethernet network. 2 For additional information see Robert Gillespie and Patrick Gossman, "Issues and Threats Affecting Time-sharing and Microcomputer Sales," CAUSE/EFFECT, Spring 1989, pp. 7-16. 3 Roberta Maddox, Information Technology Resources at Florida Atlantic University: Report and Recommendations (Tallahassee, Fla.: State University System of Florida, 1987), p. 27. 4 In addition to traditional campus computing centers, the State University System of Florida is served by several regional data centers offering remote data processing, timesharing, facilities management, and other services. 5 It was already the de facto standard, with approximately two-thirds of the University word processing market already cornered. ========================================================================