INTERIM REPORT
SUBCOMMITTEE CHARGE
The Network 21 Desktop Capabilities Subcommittee has interpreted its charge to identify strategies that will facilitate the acquisition and operation of the desktop hardware and software that campus units will need to optimally utilize the available technology. The strategies must address: 1) the financing issues associated with purchase of department/unit hardware and software that meets a minimum configuration requirement; and 2) the educational and information dissemination challenges that are presented in a research university environment with vastly different levels of understanding and experience with information technology.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Information Technology (IT) should provide campus units with specific minimum hardware and software configuration requirements information and update that information as frequently as necessary.
The Information Technology TIPS document entitled: "Hardware Solutions -- Tips for Configuring Office Computing Systems" authored by Joan Gargano on behalf of the IT-appointed "Recommended Solutions Implementation Committee" was distributed to the campus in March 1995 summarizing the hardware configurations and related software needs to assist department managers in making appropriate purchasing decisions. The "TIPS" document specifies a minimum personal computer configuration based on some fundamental assumptions about the type of computing that will be performed and includes information about: a) hardware platform (PC, Mac, or other) configuration; b) disk storage; c) Ethernet Card; d) software standards; and e) site licenses. IT has committed to the dissemination of updates of the minimum configuration information as often as required.
2) IT should develop a document that expands on the March 1995 TIPS and which concisely identifies those important considerations associated with selection of desktop hardware and software. This document should also be widely disseminated to campus departments/units. IT will have to communicate often and clearly with the campus community to properly convey the basis of its hardware configuration recommendations. Specifically, the Subcommittee believes it is critically important for the community to understand that: a) IT does not perform repair/maintenance services because the private sector is far better equipped to provide those services (thus, campus departments must carefully consider their options for repair/service when they purchase hardware from manucturers or distributors that have limited warranties); b) the IT recommended hardware configuration is based on a "total cost performance" concept that includes the initial purchase price and the cost of service/repairs (product warranty and reliability must be considered in addition to purchase price when making value analyses); and c) the IT recommended configuration also takes into account the range of current and future computing activities (the business/research desktop computer must be reliable and perform reliably on a local area network).
IT's information dissemination program shall clearly advise the campus community that departments are not required to purchase hardware that meets the IT recommended configurations, but departments need to understand the risks associated with purchase of products that do not meet those standards.
IT management has committed to this information dissemination project and is now condensing the excellent information provided by the Gartner Group in a Strategic Analysis Report, dated September 28, 1994. The Gartner Group "PC Hardware Vendor Evaluation" identifies three tiers of hardware: a) Tier 1 hardware is produced by IBM, Compaq, and Apple - have the most testing and greatest reliability, the highest level of financial stability, and best warranties; b) Tier 2 hardware is produced by vendors with good testing, generally healthy financial situations, and good support policies - they include Hewlitt Packard, Dell, etc.; and c) Tier 3 hardware is produced by vendors with the least testing and reliability, less financially stable, and less support - they include Gateway, Metrostar, and other clone suppliers.
Many campus departments have purchased Gateway and Metrostar computers given the advantages of price over tier 1 and 2 machines. In fact, these computers have received the favorable endorsement of computer-savvy campus persons. IT estimates that 70% of Gateway users are very happy, while 30% are very displeased. IT review of the Gateway and Metrostar hardware has found that internal components are different from machine to machine and problems are often traced to inferior components in some machines. Minimum requirements and a 3 year warranty would address this problem.
3) The Subcommittee recommends bulk purchases of hardware and software to reduce the per unit cost for campus departments. IT and Purchasing will collaborate to effect large hardware purchases, perhaps twice per year, to substantially reduce prices for desktop hardware. The Subcommittee also endorses the consolidation of specific departmental purchase requests to reduce the per unit cost. This approach would have the advantage of purchasing exactly the number of computers requested by departments.
IT, in consultation with Purchasing, has been testing the market through use of Requests for Proposals (RFP's) to determine the discounts available given significant bulk purchasing. After considerable discussions with a client, IT and Purchasing developed a very specific set of minimum requirements which included a 3 year warranty. Vendor responses to the RFP has been positive with a successful purchase imminent. This experience indicates that bulk purchases will reduce the per unit cost.
The Subcommittee also discussed the possibility of further reduction in per unit pricing through Central Administration subsidy to make the IT bulk-purchased computers even more attractive to departments. However, the Subcommittee has since reconsidered because of concerns about the ability to fund such a subsidy. Further, a very strong message about information technology must be conveyed to the campus community. The message must convince community members that information technology is a fact of present day life, vital to the University's future, and represents a substantial and continuing expense that must be incorporated within campus units budgets.
4) IT should identify and carefully review two or three departments that have most successfully employed the use of computing and networking. These departments may then provide several working models for demonstration purposes.
IT has contacted several departments and is now learning the extent of their successes and willingness to share their experiences.
5) An IT Faire should be held in Freeborn Hall, perhaps as early as Fall 1995, that would expose key department staff and faculty to recommended hardware and software, and most importantly, provide demonstrations of real campus applications that will illustrate clearly how staff and faculty may save time and gain access to a new world of information. Consideration should be given to having the Faire co-sponsored with other campus organizations like the Academic Senate's Committee on Computing, ADMAN, Staff Assembly, Academic Federation.
The Faire would include demonstrations that feature the successful use of information technology for/by: a) academic and administrative departments; b) Library staff; c) Personnel/Payroll representatives; d) Facilities representatives for on-line status of jobs; e) Student Information Systems; f) Environmental Health & Safety's new Chemical supply inventory system; etc.