Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!voa3!ck From: ck@voa3.UUCP (Chris Kern) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers Summary: Multitasking workstations are an alternative to a shared-logic system. Message-ID: <294@voa3.UUCP> Date: 27 Sep 89 11:23:31 GMT References: <9676@venera.isi.edu> <189@crucible.UUCP> <291@voa3.UUCP> <7765@microsoft.UUCP> <6313@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: ck@voa3.UUCP (Chris Kern) Organization: Voice of America, Washington, D.C. Lines: 62 In article <6313@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >[...] Even with a network, the individual computers are single-tasking... a >user has to back out of whatever they're doing to send electronic mail. And >users have no access to each others' files, either because of network >limitations (the network will only work in server *or* client mode on a >given box), or because of administrative ones (no or inadequate security). > >An office is inherently a multi-user environment. Grafting the software >on top of a bunch of single-user systems still leaves every man an island. The point about multitasking is well-taken, but that doesn't necessarily imply that a shared-logic machine is the only approach to office automation. Single-user multitasking workstations are an alternative and sometimes superior way to deliver computer resources to professionals. One of the implementor's most important tasks is to match the technology to the organization. Most of our users have multitasking workstations. A few use IBM-ish personal computers, which are connected to the same network. The users with the workstations tend to think of the monitors in front of them as windows into the organization. Electronic mail and shared mass storage have displaced and significantly augmented traditional forms of communication. The users with the MS-DOS machines have a radically different view of the technology. As Peter suggests, they essentially use personal computers that have been taught a few new tricks. They might as well be connecting to a dial-up port. The network buys them nothing except a high transfer rate. To really do the job properly, however, most operations -- not just notification and retrieval of electronic mail -- should take place in the background (or at least the user should have that option). One of the things that distinguishes professionals from clerical or mechanical workers is that the professionals are expected to manage their own time. Typically, this means that work cannot be arranged serially; usually, the professional has to be able to do several things at once. The first release of software that we installed on our workstations often blocked the employee from using the machine while a network operation (electronic mail retrieval or transmission, storage or retrieval on a file server, etc.) was taking place. We have a much lower level of user frustration now that almost all workstation functions either take place automatically in the background or give the user the option to select foreground (for quick completion) or background operation. Providing proper distribution of network resources is also an issue, but using small single-function servers works well in our environment. Except in rare instances, none of our workstations acts as a server to another system. There are cases where one *server* will act as a client of another server -- authentication sometimes requires an operation of this kind -- but as long as the servers are also multitasking, that isn't an inherent problem. Finally, needless to say authentication (security) is important, even if your application doesn't involve really secret stuff. But the problem is not insoluble. See the work on Kerberos at MIT or, for a mature implementation, see the authentication service that is included in Xerox Clearinghouse Service. -- Chris Kern Voice of America, Washington, D.C. ...uunet!voa3!ck +1 202-485-7020