Desktop Project Discussion

I am very distressed by what I heard at the desktop meeting this afternoon. If I am interpreting this correctly, the order of machine distribution will be based on who is available to send an A1 on a given date and time, with no consideration given to the functional needs of the college. I also believe I heard that the reason for this method is because no one wants to make a decision on who should be first.

If this is incorrect please let me know. I cannot believe we will leave these critical decisions to chance because we do not want to be responsible for saying no to someone. That's what management is all about.

We are trying to get the LCS project up and running, but my office is working on dumb terminals. I am on the Implementation Steering Team, and several members of my staff are on workflow teams. We will need to be able to access the LCS in January, and probably several other programs before that. The computer system is the heart of my office. Nothing happens without it. I feel like I'm trying to do a heart transplant with stone knives! If we are slowed down in our ability to make the transition to the new system, our students will be the losers. (Which is not even to mention that in the spring 96 semester 39% of the FTSE was generated by financial aid recipients). We are trying to find new ways to reduce the red tape in a very complicated process, and the functionality of the LCS is critical to moving to the next level.

I have at least 3 people who need new equipment as soon as possible, and the rest need it by the first of the year. I am willing to do the work myself, if that is what it takes. We have no software to convert, but we need to be able to connect into the network.

Many of my people need basic PC navigational skills. As I stated earlier, nearly everyone in my office is still on a dumb terminal. I do not, however, want to get them trained, if it will be months before they have a machine to work on.

I hope you will reconsider the decision to eliminate the rational process from determining machine allocation.

Ted Malone

Ted,

I appreciate your memo about the Desktop Project Implementation Plan (especially the concept of the Early Bird Specials); I want to make it very clear that the Early Bird Specials are not a means of avoiding making decisions about who should get their machines first, nor will volunteering be based on who is available to send an A1 on a given date and time. If I gave the impression that the mechanisms would be that simplistic, I apologize. However, I also admit to occasionally overstating the case for the Early Bird Special strategy. What follows is an attempt to put the strategy in context.

What we are trying to do here is distribute the responsibility for the timing of upgrades to people who have the most at stake: the unit managers and department chairs, working in concert with the people in their units. As we tried to emphasize at today's meeting, there are many, many unknowns about all of these projects. We are also trying to build a different kind of decision-making structure, so that people participate in and understand the various competing needs of users across the campus. Note also that LCS is only one "need" for improved desktop machines; if that project were to go away, the Desktop Project would continue as a means of providing robust access to the Internet and to our own intranet.

While the Desktop Project is a hardware infusion activity on its face, I would also like to argue that it is really not about technology at all. If we are going to move towards an organization that grows and learns, our most valuable resource is the initiative and motivation of our members. The Early Bird Special concept is an attempt to put that quality at the front of our thinking -- before job, before rank, before knowledge, even before need. I know that is not a conventional strategy, but it may be what we need at this stage of our growth towards a new kind of institution. More than anything, we are trying to recognize the value of personal responsibility for learning. We hope that upgrades and training are not "done to" people by others, but rather opportunities sought by individuals themselves.

Coordinating hardware upgrades with training, infrastructure renovations, and the development of LCS is going to be a challenge. You are assuming that LCS will be available for access in January, and that the people in your office will not have the training and hardware they need at that time. I do not agree with these assumptions. We just don't know any of this for sure. What we are trying to do is plan for a future in which a great many things are uncertain. Part of the point of the Early Bird Special concept is that the one sure thing we can count on is our people and their desire and capacity to learn.

Karen

I noticed you weren't copied on Ted's A1. Following is my response. I am very interested in continuing this discussion in whatever format anyone deems appropriate. I agree that I may over-state the case for the Early Bird Specials (hereafter EBS), but I do think there's an important philosphical shift here, and I reject Ted's characterization that it is irrational and/or spineless! (my terms, not his). Ted, Mary Lou, and Cashiers (who leads that unit?) probably have the most difficult decisions of us all, but it may be that the EBS possibility produces campus consensus in a way no other proposal could. Hmm. Could we all possibly look beyond our narrow interests on this one? Scary!

Karen

Karen:

From our conversation yesterday morning prior to the CTC meeting, you know that I share Ted's concerns.

Although I understand and support what you are trying to accomplish (learning organization) the LCS team also knows the obligation and commitment it has assumed to make the LCS implementation successful -- not just for GCC but for the other colleges and MCCCD as well.

You stated that you do not agree with the assumption that Buzzeo LCS will be ready in January. Karen, we do not have the luxury of not believing in this assumption. Buzzeo's contract states that they will deliver the generic system on January 1, 1997. Our responsibility (GCC and MCCD) is to ready ourselves for that delivery. That readiness includes having a people trained and equipped for the LCS system by April 1997. Whether or not we go live on April 1, 1997 has more to do with MCCD and GCC being ready than Buzzeo. Some individuals must (by the nature of their role at GCC) be ready before others.

Yes, things are vague, ambiguous, and there are many uncertainties, but GCC has an obligation to make the best decisions possible and too prepare its employees for the significant change to come. I fear the initial process for distributing desktop units (early bird) has created a competitive rather than a thoughtful, supportive, learning atmosphere for the LCS implementation process.

At this point we (LCS Implementation Team) have little choice but to play out the hand that we have been dealt. I must say however that I am disappointed that the desktop project did not consider the LCS effort a priority.

Mary Lou

Karen, a few things to consider

The desktop project is part of Apollo and LCS is the major component of Apollo to be implemented. The project needs to support LCS implementation. The schedule for LCS implementation is not ours to change.

We are only 4 months out from the initial release date for the generic LCS system, and we have received no indication that the release will not occur on target.

Following the initial release, testing, development and documentation will have to be done at a fast and furious rate if we are to meet even the now projected June to August "production rollout." We need to be productive every day we have.

The EBS approach may be the only workable way to begin the desktop implementation, and it can work for LCS too--if those who we identify as critially needing a new computer that are not involved in the EBS (and some probably will be) can be taken care of in November or December.

The philosophical base of the EBS project is good, but that doesn't mean that we have to let the philosophy prevent any adjustment to the project that addresses the very real problems faced by LCS implementation. Yes the result is a bastardization of the pure concept, but sometimes that's what it takes to get the job done that needs doing (much as I hate to admit that since I am so enamored of "pure" and elegant solutions.)

Here is my take on this issue.

It looks like everyone has the same goal in mind but different ways of getting at it.

I see the EBS as one more avenue to distribute these machines to peoples' desks. This should not be by any means the only avenue, because it requires considerable commitment/liabilities from our staff and faculty. We should not devote all our energies to the EBS so that it becomes the only distribution strategy between now and January 1997. The EBS is a solid strategy and an opportunity to surface the kind of leadership, initiative and discussion that will be required to support and implement LCS.

We also need to be careful not to make change appear too painful for users at this early stage. LCS in itself will bring substantial changes when implemented.

In my opinion, we should setup another distribution strategy that takes place during the week and accomodates the needs of LCS, perhaps not in September but at the very least starting in late October. This strategy could be implemented with existing staff or with additional temporary (4-5 months) help. There is still an opportunity to reward early birds during September and October, but we must have an alternate strategy in place to accomodate LCS users that do not or can not participate in the EBS program. LCS should be a priority on our distribution strategies. After all Early Bird Specials should only last for a short time.

Due to their processing cycles, Financial Aid will be highly impacted by the windows of time in which LCS gets implemented. If the system is implemented as planned by April, they are going to be part of the first wave of users and potentially very heavily involved with testing after January 2nd.

Miguel

Karen,

Ouch! "Look beyond our narrow interests"???

I don't exactly see LCS as a narrow project. Its successful implementation for a broad group of employees is vital for GCC's health as an institution. We can't implement unless those who need Apollo-ready machines HAVE the Apollo-ready machines WHEN they need them.

There's a lot of talk these days about "empowering" employees. The fastest way to empower employees who MUST use LCS because it is the essence of their job is to give them, in a TIMELY manner, a) the hardware they need and b) training on the skills they need. Without both they are powerless, discouraged, demoralized, unable to do their jobs, etc., etc., etc.

We (LCS Implementation Team) need assurance from the Desktop Project group that the employees we identify will have a. so that we can provide b. I'm not sure we got that yesterday. Did we? If not, when?

Shirley

I encourage everyone to read GCC's Desktop Implementation Plan on the web at

http://www.gc.maricopa.edu/apollo/desktop/GCC

Of course, I support the new way of working that is the foundation of LCS, and I agree with Mary Lou that we want to develop "a thoughtful, supportive learning atmosphere," not just for LCS but for all the new challenges we face. I was trying (and obviously not succeeding very well) to focus our discussion beyond any one system; in fact, we have identified many, many changes over the next six years (we have identified them on a link to the web document above). All of them will entail changing the way we work.

Part of the concept behind the EBS was to change the relationship that has existed (elsewhere as well as at GCC) between the "providers" of the tools and the "users." Many people have ruefully noted that we have fostered and often fed a continuing sense of dependency. We tend "do for" people, rather than help them learn to do for themselves. "Giving" people machines and the training on the skills they need may be one interpretation of empowerment, but I am hoping that we can embrace one that goes back further, that taps into some basic human qualities we all possess, but which may be beaten out of us over time -- energy, motivation, self-confidence, curiousity, and initiative. This is what I was hoping the EBS concept would promote.

Jim points out the irony of the IS staff being "first" when we are trying to promote a different kind of model. We have not termed this an EBS; we intend it to be an opportunity to write the documentation and discover the procedures others will need to make the first EBS a success. Maybe we should solicit volunteers for that session too? I know those non-technical people who volunteered and then installed ethernet cards and pulled wires during the upgrade weekend in the HTCs learned as they went (and I should note that Jim, Mary Lou and Joyce were among that group!) There are many additional things we will need that session, including good writing skills and organizational talent.

Finally, Miguel makes a key point (one that I should have included more prominently in the plan itself and in the presentation on Tuesday): that the EBS is just the first strategy, and just one strategy, not the only one. It is an attempt to get machines on desktops quickly before the usual staff is fully prepared to do the conventional installations. Things may go so smoothly in October (or thereabouts) that we can install several machines a day for the rest of the fall semester and meet everyone's immediate needs. Indeed we do have some additional funds to hire part-time employees; whether (or better, how many) installations we can do during regularly scheduled work hours will depend on many factors, including how smart we are in documenting our procedures during the EBS.

I know, given the tenor of the responses people have written, that the following will grate, but we ought to think about how this all can be fun too. Laughter (ironic as well as heartfelt), working with friends, and being part of the vanguard are integrative elements; they are critical in fostering persistence and retention among our students. Why can't they help us surmount these challenges?

Above all, let's keep this discussion going. It is important.

Karen

Karen, a well thought through response. I suspect though that the most critical question was Shirley's which I don't believe that you addressed and that was: Do we have any kind of reasonable assurance that the LCS Implementation will have what it needs to carry forth the plans the LCS ` Impelementation Team is making in good faith? That is really the crux of this whole discussion, as Miguel also pointed out. Tell us "Yes, you identify who needs what equipment when and we will have it installed," and we can work out the rest.

We will facilitate the process in any way we can. If it means that we (Miguel, Mary Lou and I) are in there installing hardware, transferring files and doing on-the-job training and trouble shooting, then we will do it. And do let us have fun. I sense no animosity in this discussion, but perhaps a little frustration.

Jim,

First, let me assure you that these are important discussions. I do understand the frustrations (and I certainly don't mistake them for animosity at all). This is very hard work, the people involved care deeply about their various projects, and we all have invested in the larger issues and care about the outcomes.

I tried to address Shirley's concern, I thought; let me try again. I don't see this as a discussion about hardware. Rest assured that I will be there with you, shoulder-to-shoulder, screwdriver-to-screwdriver, for as long as it takes. But this is really about learning, not about learning-the-technology but about LEARNING itself. I suspect this is particularly difficult for non-academic units who are concerned about WORK (not LEARNING) because WORK is seen as prior to LEARNING. If our students aren't enrolled, if they don't have financial aid, if the classrooms aren't scheduled, LEARNING won't take place. So WORK takes priority.

I think I can also make the case (and rest assured that I will try) that LEARNING should take priority over WORK. This means that we should invest first in our employees' LEARNING, and then they will be able to do whatever work needs to be done. So it isn't, as Shirley argues, that we must give them the hardware and provide them the training so they can do the specific job we have assigned them; instead, I contend that we must invest in our employees, in their own ability to learn, so they can do any job that presents itself. The analogy in the classroom goes like this: we have students who say "Just tell me what I need to know; I'll learn it and send it back to you the way you want it." The alternative is the student who always asks why, always explores, whose learning is sloppy, erratic, and contentious. In the end, that is a better student, a better citizen, and (I would argue) a happier individual. In this situation, I will argue that we will be better served in the long run by employees who are good learners than by employees who are good workers. That includes us all.

Again: I would challenge us to think about LCS and other Apollo projects as being about LEARNING. If we look to the learning, the work will follow. The hard question is how do we help employees become learners rather than just workers? Is this question way off base?

Karen

The question is not off-base, though it is quite abstract. It's also not complete,"How do we (and can we) teach them to be learners and not just workers. . . in time to do their work." Work includes testing, evaluation, and development of LCS plus production on LCS.

It is not difficult to argue that those involved in testing, evaluation and development have already stepped beyond being "just" workers and have entered territory new to them where they are learning as they go. Given the amount of particpation in the Innovation groups, FFFG's and the Work-flow groups, there are not many "workers" in the ares most heavily impacted by LCS that are not in some way already involved -- and learning.

Moving then from the abstract to the more concrete: what specific concepts, skill sets or "new ways of thinking" would fulfill your concept of learning, so as to allow the worker to then obtain the technological tools they need to do their work?

Although nowhere in either of your recent responses did you say "Yes, they will have the tools they need when they need them," I infer that to be your response based on your comments about being in there right along with us with your screwdrivers, etc. Is that a correct inference?

Joyce:

Only a few are responding to Karen about their concern about the desktop strategy. Everywhere I go, I hear concerns from managers that were present at Tuesday's meeting.

We (GCC, the LCS team leaders, Tessa) went out on a limb when we accepted the challenge of being an implementation site. I have begun to ask myself why we have implementation chairs and a team, if they are not being listened to when it is important to do so.

I get the sense that our arguments against the initial strategy for the deployment of desktop units is useless. Frankly, I don't have the time for discussions that are going nowhere.

Joyce this is serious. Our ability to support the LCS implementation is directly effected by the availability of Apollo level machines as well as network access. If we don't have it doesn't matter how much we "LEARN."

I hope you and Tessa fully understand the risk.

Mary Lou

Changing the emphasis on what we do is never easy. That is what we tell our students and now we are being challenged to practice what we preach.

While, at the last moment, I was unable to be at Tuesdays meeting, I am not surprised that the approach was viewed as unsettling --- messy, I think someone said. However, I would encourage you to go back into your files and re-read the rationale behind the Desktop Project. Ron Bleed did NOT develop this proposal merely to have machines that would support LCS. The deployment of the machines was to occur in the context of Individual Learning Plans and movement of the college toward a "learning organization."

That was the charge Mr. Bleed put forth in his paper that proposed the Desktop Project and that was what I charged Information Services with developing for this campus....and you are the voice of the LCS Implementation Team in IS and you have had opportunity to have a voice in the development of the plan. The LCS Implementation Team is IMPORTANT, and it is being challenged to think broadly and not focus solely on the rollout of the software.

For those who prefer linear thinking, the desire is for the chart, the timeline, the clearly drawn sketch. This appraoch, while it has linear elements (the ordering of machines, their storage, their installation support), the deployment, per sae, asks for individuals and/or departments to take an ACTIVE part in what is happening...and not just have it happen to them...again.

We have lived through a period where computers were simply placed on desks and we have seen them tolerated by some, used for decoration by others or as status symbols -- in some cases powerful machines being used only for A1 or a simple outline. While I believe that all of our staff have grown and come to see the need for this tool, it is important that we capitalize on that need and allow each to express their desire to move to the next level. We will never have a time like this again for fostering the development of learning in our staff and for demonstrating that learning is a partnership between the employee and the organization.

Instead of fighting this issue, departments could take the challenge and develop the type of plans that will support the learning philosophy. Instead of fighting the issue and waiting to be "served" with the new machines, departments might consider developing the pro-active plans that require certain kinds of training be made available now so that when the machines come in, they are ready. What are departments doing NOW to demonstrate that they should be FIRST in the deployment, or at least SECOND or THIRD, to show that they will be`ready to receive and to do? What are the managers doing to get them ready, be it in their mind-set or by encouraging enrollment in courses via fee waivers, or by discussing how LCS is a metaphor for many of the changes that GCC will face in the future.

Many of the groups are in the learning process now, but have not perhaps recognized it as such. The individuals who have been involved in the LCS teams to date have definitely been thinking and learning. Those who will be involved in the work-flow analysis are thinking and working. Are they sharing their learning with their departments? Are the departments getting a sense of what is to come? All this should count in the learning paradigm.

I fear that you underestimate staff when you say they will forget any training they receive now if they do not use it instantly. Mary Lou, you know that we cannot possibly deploy all computer units, have all LCS software, all other applications, and all such training available for all, simultaneously. Some learning needs to begin now....almost yesterday!

Some should be learning Word, now; learning Netscape, now; learning Excel now! Those who do will be ready for the power of the machines that will come and will need ONLY to learn the LCS applications. And learning LCS applications should be easier when they have the other background. There are ample machines available in the HTCs for employees to use in the interium.

What can departments be doing NOW to get their people ready? There are OE classes available NOW. There are shortterm courses available NOW. Department chairs and unit leaders could give some thought as to how they might flex shift some personnel to provide some company time for learning if matched by employee time for learning. Why shouldn't the people who take those steps now be the first to be rewarded with the new machines? And why shouldn't those who don't want to show the initiative be the last -- and if they are last and if it puts their job in jeopardy, that has been their learning choice. [Well, I'm not really that harsh, but there is a touch of reality in that last statement.]

The Individual Learning Plan concept called upon us to develop partnerships with employees. We would provide "X" but the employee had to provide "Y." The "X" might be the tool and some training on company time. The "Y" definitely was the employee's drive, enthusiasm and willingness to learn on their own time as well as company time. That remains a common thread in all we are attempting.

The Early Bird Specials are one way to capitalize on the enthusiasm. Heaven knows, we are open to additional suggestions that capitalize on employee initiative.

To be sure that all the support mechanisms are in place to handle this approach to rollout, it makes some sense to practice on the IS folks themselves. They do tend to be the eager learners in this field. However, there has been nothing said that would prevent another department or unit from putting themselves forward as a better pilot group, with a better rationale that relates to the amount of learning the group has done, is willing to do, and how it is willing to help with the next rollout.

I would encourage other departments, particularly those that are very concerned about LCS rollout, to be agressively arguing for early rollout support.....but not based merely on LCS requirements, but based on the individuals within the groups desire to learn, to help each other and to help others outside of the group. And, as leaders of the LCS Implementation Team, I would encourage you to think along these lines as well.

LCS is aptly named. What we sometimes forget is that we are to be Learners in the process just as the students are learners. Yes, GCC is out on a limb! We are trying to discover ways to make Learners of us ALL! Mary Lou, I'd be more than happy to talk with you about this issue. It is an important one, and I do not think that our points of view are that far apart. We all want a successful implementation.

Joyce:

If you don't mind I would like to share your memo with the members of the LCS Implemenation team and GCC managers. Your desciption of GCC's learning paradigm will be helpful to them as they work toward preparing themselves and their staff for the months to come.

Jim,

Can I "promise" that everyone on campus will have what they need when they need it? Of course not. Will I work diligently to move in that direction? Have no doubts.

I am still bothered by the persistent theme here that the best way (or maybe the only effective way) for our employees to learn is if they have the necessary hardware and software at their desktop. If this is the case, then the whole premise behind the HTCs, our OE/OE classes, and much of our instructional program is false. We have built these facilities, staffed them 102 hours a week, and designed courses specifically for students who want to learn but who don't have the necessary hardware and software at home or at work. If the only (or even the best) way to learn (technology skills or any other content) is in conjunction with real work that needs to be accomplished, then we should have just constructed a huge computer check-out program instead of building this facility and a creative and flexible curriculum that makes use of it.

I am also bothered by the assumption that people currently working on terminals can learn the necessary new skills (I assume this to include mouse manipulation, file management, multi-tasking, as well as browser navigation, basic word processing and the rudiments of spreadsheets) at the same time they do their regular jobs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I have just described the curriculum of CIS 105; that is a 3-credit course at GCC, which means (most crudely) that it includes 45 hours of face-to-face instruction and a minimum of 90 additional hours of time outside of conventional instruction. That is the equivalent of more than 3 weeks of full-time "work." Is it reasonable to expect that a full-time employee can add this to a regular work load, somehow magically overlapping work and learning? Ask any faculty member: this is the most common learning problem we face, getting our students to allocate time for their own education. We can teach all the best time management and study skills, design a creative curriculum and house it in an excellent educational facility, but eventually time for learning becomes the crucial piece. Maybe I am bothered most by an apparent double-standard here: that we would treat our students and employees differently, or at least make a significant distinction between their learning needs. Why is this?

I suspect the argument for the over-lapping of work and learning masks a more serious quandary which we would like to side-step if possible, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with technology. (putting on her flak jacket) ---

In order to really be ready for the new systems ahead, and the new ways of working they entail, we will have to stop doing some things we are currently doing in order to make time for learning. I suspect, in fact, we will have to build permanent time for learning into our future work environment. That means we will have to stop doing some things, at least temporarily, while we learn to work "smarter." That process, of deciding what tasks to stop doing, will be wrenching. A current manager who sends an employee off to take CIS 105 on work time this semester (allocating approximately 2 hours a day, each day, for 15 weeks) has presumably done some careful analysis and made some difficult managerial decisions about what tasks can be eliminated. It is unfair (and maybe inhumane) to expect an employee to add these two hours of learning to an already full work schedule, magically overlapping work and learning, at no cost. (Our students try to do this by slipping their textbooks under their pillows, expecting to learn while they sleep. It is generally not considered an effective strategy.)

Of course, if we think we have an educational void, and design effective learning strategies for our employees that marry work and learning, I would hope that we would radically change our instructional program. This is why, ultimately, I think the Desktop Project is about LEARNING, not about technology.

Karen

Karen, you've made a whole lot of assumptions that I neither stated nor implied.

You've repeatedly said the desk-top project is about learning. I pointed out that the very people we are beginning to identify as the ones in the LCS project that will need their machines first, are the one heavily involved in the LCS project, who have been reaching beyond their everyday processes to learn new and different things. They will need their machines to continue the project.

What I asked was that you move from this very abstract "learning" phrase into something more specific: What specifically would you have people commit to and/or learn in order that they satisfy your criteria, whatever they may be, for "learning" in order that they may continute to learn about new ways of doing things via the deskstop project. I haven't seen an answer. Note that I also indicated that this question concerned people who were not part of the Early Bird Special Project, but would be in the next wave or two after the EBS. I'm inferring that every person who gets a computer out of this project will have to make a committment and become a "learner" regardless of when that occurs. So what are the criteria.

I made no assumptions in this question about people learning on the job, or that management of the affected areas is attempting to submarine the goals of the Desktop project or any of the other things. I only asked what it is the Desktop project has determined to be the qualifying criteria for a person to get a deskstop unit--hopefully in time for them to continue the innovation they have been involved in in the LCS project, and dare I say it, as part of their job?

Karen,

As a manager of several learkers (that' a combination of learner and worker), I want my people to have multiple learning environments. I believe that true learning takes place not in the classroom exposure, but in the integration of that knowledge and everyday life. I sat through a great many courses from which I recall very little, because they never became part of my life. If my people are to begin taking courses, I want to ensure that they have the opportunity to begin meaningful application.

Ted

I think ALL of the memos...Jim's, Karen's, Sylvia's, yours and mine should be shared. This is something we want all to discuss, to think about, and to share. Mine needs to be in the context of that continued and continuing discussion!

Joyce, All three of us have stated and demonstrated on several occasions (at least) our support for learning in general and for the desktop project in specific. That is not an issue.

Once we have identified which employees ("learkers" to borrow Ted Malone's phrase for learners and workers) involved in LCS will need their machines when, we will evaluate their skill sets to see what they can and can't do on a computer. We will prepare them in any way we can to make sure they qualify for a desktop unit that will allow them to function in the new and evolving world of LCS. But until we move from these abstract discussions of the God, mother and apple pie of developing learkers and get down to some specifics, we won't know what will satisfy those who make the decisions. Will all potential "desk-toppers" have to take a specific CIS class or will haivng the skill sets already be ok? Will they have to sign an agreement to be a departmental resource for desktop related matters, or would being a deparmental resource for LCS be good enough? Will they need to have completed a Personal Action Inventory (PAct)? Once we know the expectations, and know the employees skill sets, we can innovate "learning opportunity offerings" (LOO's) to help the learkers get where they need to be. We have neither the time nor the other resources to be probing in the dark hoping to find the magic combination.

It is not linear thinking to recognize that we have a tight timeline for the implementation of LCS that we as a college have committed to the District to follow. We do not control that timeline, nor can it be significantly extended by anyone because of the "year 2000" problem (which will actually impact us at the end of 1998 as we prepare schedules for Spring of 2000). What we as the LCS Implementation Team are trying to do, as best we can, is meet those deadlines which is what we committed to.

The issue is not with the Early Bird Specials. We all think they are a wonderful component for an implementation strategy for all the reasons you and others have mentioned. Some of the LCS folks will very likely qualify and participate. N.B.: I do have some questions regarding how we get employees in on Saturday's if we haven't given them some flex or comp time. What happens if they're here, working, and they get hurt (some little johnny electron take a wrong turn and goes up a finger instead of down a wire) but technically they are not working because they are not being paid? A little legal question that I'm sure you've thought of.

But as Miguel and others pointed out, the EBS is only one component. Our concerns are with what follows the EBS, when, and what the criteria for inclusion are. If there are installations targeted for November and December, we will target the rest of the folks who need early access to Apollo class stations for those times, and get them ready. If the next phase will not be until June or July, we can not expect to be able to meet our timelines (which exist no matter how non-linear our thinking is). An analogy that comes to mind is that you can be as creative as you wish (or dare to be) with your taxes and how you prepare them, but come April 15 you still have to file them.

It is the trainers themselves who have said that early learning without practical application doesn't work. And we are keenly aware that we (the chairs as well as everyone else) are learners in this process. We are constantly reminded of it as we attend meeting after meeting and read document after document!

I recognize that the Desktop project does not exist solely for LCS, but it is providing resources that LCS is totally dependent on and it does not exist in a vacuum. Just as the desktop project required the completion of the networking infrastructure (or at least a significant part of it), even though the two were "not related," LCS requires completion of at least part of the Desktop project. We want to work with the Desktop folks for the common good (how's that for God mother and Apple Pie?) but right now their approach seems to be, "yeah, we'll work together, but you have to do it our way." We are trying to find out what that way is so we can do it "their way", even though we'd like a little consideration for our problems. Meanwhile, you can trust us to be as innovative as is imaginable in getting LCS on-line on time.

I think Jim raises some excellent points and he does open the door for a more complete discussion of the Learning Plan option. Is there a better way to tie the workflow analyses that are underway with the individual learning plan development? How aware are we of the current steps in the LCS implementation planning? How can this initiative be better linked to the reality (press?) of the LCS timelines, and how can the strategies better involve the learners/learkers(!) in the process?

What we are trying to avoid, on one hand, is the old mechanism of setting machines on desks and saying "go for it" as seems to be happening in a lot of other places that will remain unnamed. Yet, we also also acknowledge that it should be the individual employee who is recognizing the need for the increased computing power in order to new their new/emerging job and who is willing to contribute to that learning effort. Ron's original proposal stated:

Personal Commitment Plan: A learning organization places some of the responsiblity for learning back on the individuals within the organization. Personal mastery in technology requires that each employee develop themselves toward goals and purposes they choose (p.4)

By way of this note, I'm asking Robin to find a time when all of us can meet, preferably next week, to find the places where we are together and what we need to do to bridge the gaps that may exist. Jim, you are right...these are not discrete initiatives; they are interconnected. Let's build on that commonality!

I have some questions about how we will prepare stations for the LCS that are not covered under the Desktop project.

We have service windows that are not at the desk of a full-time board approved employee. We also have work stations for student workers, and temporary employees that are critical to the operation of this office. Clearly the service windows do not need the office suite products, but they will need full access to the LCS systems. In the desktop meeting KC mentioned that LCS may run on a "thin client." While I have a basic understanding of the concept, I assume that it will not by a Wyse terminal.

Have we developed a strategy of creating these type of work stations? I also believe that it is critical to the theory of the LCS system to have stations that are accessible to the students. Much of what is being designed is designed as self service. We probably need to think about have stations available in the lobby of the SPS building as well as other places.

I am sure that A&R, CIAR and other places need these type of stations as well. While I wish all my employees were full-time board approved, that is simply not my reality.

Again, I am ready, willing and (IMHO) able to do installation work. I am also ready to start committing my people to training. I just need to know that there is some assurance that they will have machines in a reasonable time frame to put practice to the training.

Ted Malone

I, for one, am proud of all of our people who have been involved in the discussion that is occurring on the subject. I have been watching it carefully, and it is full of conviction (preferable to apathy), learning (a positive sign in dealing with a shift or change), and ownership (what we always strive to achieve). Resolve cannot be far behind with the high-ordered tone of respect that all are bringing to the discussion and diversity of perspective. Feel free to share my message with all involved.

While I had asked Robin to find a time when we could meet with the LCS Steering Team Chairs so that we could work on bridging the gap, I've come to think that we might be better served if we devoted the majority of the IS meetings to the LCS effort. In this way, we would be more closely attuned to their pressures, they can also remain sensitive to the other demands on IS that need to be balanced with the LCS effort, and, thus, foster a closer working relationship amongst us without creating yet ANOTHER meeting structure.

I know that some of the frustrations currently felt about where we are in the LCS/Desktop efforts relates to how we will actually make that LINK which will trigger the availability of a specific Desktop machine for a specific person. (I know that Jim, and Mary Lou and Ted, might just be saying....well, at last she gets it!)

They are asking: What is it that the person who knows that s/he will need that machine in a very short period of time needs to do in order to show/demonstrate the learning commitment required by Ron (theoretically, at least) to have the new machine?....that is the basic question being asked and the answer they hear is fuzzy at best and thus frustrating. (Did I get it????)

The question is also placed in a larger context because the machine, in and of itself, can only be as powerful as the network to which it is connected. Thus, as the Steering Team attempts an analysis of all the potential users of LCS, they/we must also determine where the network will be at the time we go "live" and if it is not where the people need it to be, what are the alternative plans for the people, who through no fault of their own, cannot use LCS directly from their station....if they have one at all? And I think, quite frankly, that the Steering Team would like NOT to worry about that and have faith in the fact that someone else IS worrying about that!

And, as the analysis of individual learning is conducted, by the individuals themselves, through whatever process an individual or department choses to use, how is/will help be provided so that they can attempt the task (if I don't even know what file management is, how can I tell if I know I need it?)...And all of this has to happen before the task of learning what will be needed for their LCS uses. How can the potential priority users be helped to know what is coming, thus recognizing the impact of the immediate future, and how can they be helped to realize the learning commitment they must make and that we will support in the months/years to come....per the Desktop Project Plan? And from the Steering Team perspective, they would like to know that someone is worrying about that, and sheparding that, and feeling comfortable that that part is being taken care of so that they don't have to worry about that!

They really want to worry mainly about all the "stuff" that is "pure" LCS stuff -- the workflow analysis, the testing of the modules as they rollout in terms of content and functionality, the reshaping of the jobs in certain areas, if needed, etc, etc, etc.

A standing meeting might help to address these issues together.....the next meeting could be on Sept 26, but if it would work, we could move it to next Wednesday, Sept 18th at noon and I'll pick up the lunch tab! Not all might need come to all sessions, but the forum would be there.

While the Early Bird Special planning continues and as the dates are identified and the pilot proceeds with IS folks, that first wave might also include some from the LCS priority groups who are ready for this type of machine. The first wave session was to see what it would take to use this approach, but unless we have some from outside of IS as Karen suggested in one of her memos, it is not a true test. Ted said he felt he had 3 people ready; Mary Lou has several that I know of. Can/should they be involved in that first EBS, and if so, how are we identifying them? Would they be willing to help with the process analysis and documentation that is to be part of the first wave effort?

And what are we asking that IS staff do to demonstrate their commitment to a learning plan? What pilot effort are we making in that regard? And will such "demonstrations" differ? and if so, how? And if that is not in place, how can we, in good faith, allow the first machines to roll-out? Is simply showing up on that Saturday enough? Is simply having a job description that says you have those skills enough to "qualify" you? Its a rub!

I think Miguel said that EBS is one answer, and we all agree that it should not be the only answer. We do need more answers and we can come up with them together. At one point, Jim asked: "Do we have any kind of reasonable assurance that the LCS Implementation will have what it needs to carry forth the plans the LCS Implementation Team is making in good faith?" The answer is YES, but we need to make sure that all of IS knows what the LCS plans are, and I would hope that the assurance could be even more than "reasonable!" We can/will find it working together.

Jim also stated: "We will prepare them [emphasis added] in any way we can to make sure they qualify for a desktop unit that will allow them to function in the new and evolving world of LCS." By working together I believe that we can also find that point where the above statement can have a different emphasis. I would hope that we can get to the point where we can say: "Our employees will prepare themselves in any way that they can be sure that they qualify for a desktop unit that will allow them to function in the new and evolving world of LCS and to function in a world that will require continous self-imposed learning in the future."

If EBS is one stategy, what is the next and the next? What ELSE will/should be available in October, November, December? That will be our agenda. Also the updates that relate to "qualifying," to installation scheduling, to the network infrasture, to training, to whatever else is needed to make LCS the success we all want it to be and to make the Desktop Project all that it can be....and all the while making sure that we don't lose sight of the need to continue to support the on-going instructional demands, the on-going SIS and OGF demands, etc. And we are just beginning to get an inkling of the the impacts might be when LCS is operational. Will we need a database manager just` for LCS? What Technical Operating support will be needed when/if we have to have both SIS and LCS operational? Will and what will be the increased UNIX demands? So many unknowns.....

Let me know what you think about the Wednesday meeting(s), and I know you will let me know what you think about anything that I've said!!!

Joyce, I have only one word to say in response to this missive . . . ."BINGO!!!"

Ron, earlier I sent you some of the discussion items but we now have them on the web:

http://www.gc.maricopa.edu/apollo/desktop/ebs/

The tension you designed in the requirements for the Desktop Projects versus the rollout of LCS implementation demands is something to behold. There are those who probably wish we had not chosen to take you seriously, but I am glad we have. If we do not take the opportunity to engage in such debates, we loose something.

Stay tuned! (...and it really is coming together is a very good way!)

Mary Lou, after the discussion at the LCS Steering Team meeting on Monday, I took some time to read the "discussion thread" that is on the Web regarding the deployment strategy for desktop machines at GCC.

I can see that there is a conflict between doing things in a "new" way that characterizes the "learning organization", and the pragmatics of being ready to implement a new system which represents a multi-million dollar investment. The irony is, that LCS is supposed to be one of the "beacons" for the transformation process which will eventually involve the entire district in some major culture changes. If the implementation process for LCS stalls because we don't have people ready, willing, and able to use it, the light of this particular beacon will certainly "dim".

My concern is that all the people who need to test the system, and be the early adopters (workflow teams and the implementation teams and involved BAE's) are ready to do so when the applications are available to us. GCC and PC HAVE to shake the system down quickly so the rest of the district can begin implementation as soon as possible. The pressure on GCC/PC is far greater than if you were a "follower" and other colleges were not so dependent on your ability to rapidly test and implement. It will be a travesty (in my humble opinion) if an impediment to the successful implementation turns out to be that people were not ready. Being ready, means being familiar with the basic desktop skills necessary to navigate the new system when it is available (and having the equipment to do so, of course).

To my knowledge, there is no other major application or system currently in development that will have anywhere near the impact that LCS will have (or has the potential to have) on the entire district. It is true that nothing is cast in concrete with respect to the roll-out schedule and we could be a few months late, BUT at this time we must (as you indicated) proceed on the assumption that modules will be ready for testing according to the plan - which means late January. (I wish I could nail this down with more certainty at this time but I don't have enough information to do that yet).

I certainly hope that you and your colleagues will be able to reconcile your philosophical differences and find a way to "reward" the early "learners" while at the same time make sure that people "on the front line",(like in Ted Malone's organization) are adequately prepared to start using LCS as soon as it is available to them.

Enough rambling for now.

Ken