Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned

IDEA Implementation of GROUP a Network PrintPUBLISHING Management System: Lessons Learned 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200, Hershey PA 17033-1240, USA Tel: 717/533-8845; Fax 717/533-8661; URL-http://www.idea-group.com

293

IT5707

Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned George Kelley Morehead State University, USA Elizabeth A. Regan Morehead State University, USA C. Stephen Hunt Morehead State University, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To manage the rapidly growing demands and costs of providing campus print services, a regional university of about 9,000 students turned to a well-known outsourcing vendor. The new Network Print Management System (NPMS) replaced 35 networked printers in the library, open-access computer labs, and computer classrooms in more than 10 different buildings. The initiative had several key objectives: to increase student access to printers, to improve the quality of print services, to decrease printing costs and environmental impact, and to avoid increasing student fees. The project also sought to reduce departmental printing costs, fund technology upgrades, and reduce the burden of printer maintenance on university technology staff. This case study tells the story of the planning, analysis, design, implementation, and realization of the new system, which proved more complex than anticipated. It offers an interesting mix of perspectives, sometimes conflicting, on outsourcing implementation of new technology in a complex end-user environment. This chapter©appears in the book,Inc. Annals of Cases on Information Technology 2004, Volume 6, edited Copyright 2004, Idea Group Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without writtenby Mehdi Khosrow-Pour. Copyright 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic permission of Idea Group Inc. is©prohibited. forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

294 Kelley, Regan & Hunt

BACKGROUND In the spring of 2001, word got out to the students on a regional state university campus of about 9,000 students that the $20 per semester information technology fee for Internet access from the dorm rooms was going to be discontinued and that Internet access was no longer going to be subject to a fee. In the fall, students would also have a new ID SmartCard (SmartCard, n.d.), which they would be able to use to pay for meal plans and services such as library, laundry, vending machines, book store, copiers, and printers. The SmartCard also would allow for electronic banking, check cashing, and cash-free spending. One of the major components in the first phase of the ID SmartCard program was the implementation of a Network Print Management System (NPMS). The recommendation for implementing a print metering system was made by an internal Technology Resources Committee (TRC). The TRC sought input from a number of university groups including students. A number of problems were identified with the existing print facilities, including poor maintenance, inconsistent quality of service, lack of color printers for art programs, graphics and other specialized uses, and inadequate budgets in the academic departments for printer supplies and service. Departments also complained about wasteful use of paper and print cartridges. The university’s Information Technology division was then directed to research solutions and evaluate vendors. After two years of analyzing alternatives and piloting various print metering systems, they selected a well-known outsourcing vendor to develop, implement, and maintain a campus-wide solution.

SETTING THE STAGE Providing and maintaining the computer resources for students and faculty is the responsibility of the University’s Office of Information Technology. Available facilities include over 1,600 desktop and laptop computers located in classrooms, open access labs, the library, and faculty/staff offices. Most of these facilities provide print capability for which, up to this point, there was no direct charge to students or faculty. Expenses for the academic computing infrastructure are supported by general technology fee assessed all students each semester. Campus buildings are intra-networked using ATM over optical fiber between floors and switched Ethernet over copper to the desktop. The campus has recently begun to offer wireless connectivity in some locations as well. The Office of Information Technology also has responsibility for all administrative computing and the campus Internet facilities. The Office is headed by a Senior Director with many years of experience at the university, who deserves considerable credit for providing a relatively high level of service on a relatively modest budget. The new SmartCard replaced an earlier Multi-Technology Automated Reader Card (MARC) ID and payment system. This older MARC card carried the bearer’s photograph and a bar code stripe on the front. At one point the bar code stripe on the front of the card was read with hand-held laser wands at the library to provide patron services. It was also equipped with a magnetic strip on the back with the user’s meal services account information. The magnetic strip on the back had eliminated the need for diners to show both identification and meal cards and freed the cashier at the point of sale (POS) from Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned

295

having to record the appropriate information for each diner. This allowed for prepayment, faster checkout lines, less shrinkage, and more accurate, timely reporting. The daily usage tally was produced quickly from the information provided electronically by the cards. The new card sought to expand the electronic services provided. In addition to the magnetic stripe functionality of the old MARC card, the new card contained two programmable magnetic tracks. The first track enables cash dispensing at automated teller machines from an interlocked account on the global electronic banking network. It also offers cash-free retail payment for purchases made at any network member outlet, for example a bookstore or grocery store, whether on or off campus. Arrangements were made with a regional bank for this new feature, which the old card had not supported. Use of the first track requires that the reading device have access to an outside real-time electronic transaction server and typically incurs a small transaction fee at every use of the global external banking network. The second programmable track of the new SmartCard was used to support the meal services functionality of the old MARC card. This magnetic track allowed the new card to be used on campus as a debit card for cash-free meal purchases at any eatery on campus upon balance validation against an internal account debit system. As with the old MARC, the second SmartCard track is read by having the checkout operator swipe the card at the point of sale. New account types and cost centers could have been added for the NPMS, if desired, and the information added to the user’s magnetic card strip in a similar fashion to what was already being done with the prepaid meals. In addition, on the face of the new SmartCard is a half-inch square set of 10 gold contacts, which is based on ISO 7816 specifications (ISO7816, n.d.). This gold chip set provides access to a renewable stored value integrated circuit chip. This new card chip was a rather welcome improvement over the old MARC card in the eyes of the vending machine, photocopier, and laundry machine contract vendors because it did away with the need to administer coin and contract card stations. The integrated circuit stores prepaid cash value, which is decremented by an automated self-serve reader built into the dispensing device when the card is used to vend products. This prepaid cash value integrated circuit technology has been marketed since 1979 for stand-alone vending machines that are not networked, such as soda and snack machines, laundry machines, and photocopiers (Mag Stripe, 1996). In the late summer of 2001, the university retrofitted soda and snack vending machines, the laundry machines in the student dormitories, and the photocopiers on campus to support the new SmartCard system. These card readers require that each machine be visited every few days by a service technician equipped with a laptop computer or similar device having a serial connection. With the proper access code, the technician transfers transaction data to the portable computer, and subsequently to a floppy disk. Then the floppy disk is submitted to a Card Services Center on campus, which determines the dollar amounts for vended products and credits payment to the vendor’s account.

Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

296 Kelley, Regan & Hunt

CASE DESCRIPTION The recommendation to implement a network print metering system was made by the internal Technology Resources Committee. They were asked to research print management solutions for the open-access computer laboratories, public access points in the library, and computer classrooms. The composition of the committee is shown in Figure 1. The university’s Senior Director of Information Technology chairs the

Figure 1. Composition of the University Technology Resources Committee (TRC) (Note 1) Function (Note 2)

Members (Note 3)

Term Ending (Note 4)

Committee Chairman

Director of Information Technology

Permanent

Academic Subcommittee Members - by College

(Vacant) (Vacant)

Administrative Subcommittee

(Vacant)

Science and Technology Science and Technology Humanities Humanities Education Education Business Business Student Seat Info. Tech. Staff Academic Affairs Staff Academic Affairs Rep. Librarian

2001 - 03 2000 - 02 2001 - 03 2000 - 02 2001 - 03 2000 - 02 2001 - 03 2000 - 02 1 year term 2000 - 02 2000 - 02 2001 - 03 2001 - 03

Members - by College Faculty (At-Large) Staff (AFS-Prof/NF) Staff AFS Rep. Director of Libraries Registrar Student Life Rep. Staff (Info. Tech) University Advancement Rep.

2001 - 03 2000 - 02 2001 - 03 2001 - 03 Permanent Permanent 2001 - 03 2001 - 03 2000 - 02

Note 1: The stated purpose of the committee is to review policies and procedures related to the University's academic and administrative information resources services and recommend appropriate changes. Note 2: The chair of the committee votes only in case of a tie. The subcommittees divide duties and responsibilities by academic and administrative information resources matters, but the whole committee makes final recommendations. Note 3: Members are selected by the Faculty Senate. Note 4: Terms end August 15 of each fiscal year. Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned

297

Committee. Members are elected from among the university faculty and staff and serve two-year rotations. The student seat and the student life representative seat were vacant at the time. The library had two representatives. The university Office of Information Technology also had a second representative in addition to the Senior Director. The existing network printers were centrally administered via a web browser interface (HP Install Network Printer Wizard, 2002). They also provided users the capability of printing directly to any network printer on campus. This feature was popular with faculty because it gave them the flexibility to access printers in the classrooms nearest their offices and allowed them to bypass malfunctioning printers if necessary. Various types of printers were located in all open access labs, computer classrooms, administrative offices, and faculty offices. Printer usage volumes, on which the project cost estimates were based, were reported by users based on their own best estimates. The two primary competing vendors both tested the print volume for the month of October of 2000 to estimate volume for proposal purposes. Although there were minor differences in the volume estimates due to timing differences and methods, they were fairly consistent. Actual print volumes after implementation of the network print management system, however, proved to be significantly less than the original estimates. Since the university had not systematically tracked print volumes and the associated costs in the past, they had no alternative other than to use a “best estimate.” The perception, however, was that printing costs from an overall institutional perspective were excessive and needed to be reduced. The decision process narrowed the choice to two vendors who were asked to submit detailed proposals. The winning vendor was selected in the latter part of June 2001 and was the same vendor who already supplied and serviced the photocopiers on campus. One of the factors in selecting the vendor was significant experience in installing payper-print systems in open-access computer labs at other universities and public facilities such as libraries. The software at the core of the NPMS was supplied by a third party vendor who offers two standard implementation designs. Both designs allow the organization to track, monitor, and optionally charge the users for printing. The first alternative is a Prepaid Print design, which has two options: one uses the embedded gold chip of the SmartCard; the other uses programmable magnetic stripes (Figures 2 and 3). The second alternative is a Prepaid Direct Print design (Figure 4). More details about these alternatives are provided in Figures 2, 3 and 4.

Winning Vendor Solution Design The design selected by the university for its new NPMS was the Prepaid SmartCard (Gold Chip) configuration, as shown in Figure 2. Although this system originally was designed for standalone vending machines, it offers several advantages from an administrative standpoint. Students prepay for services. The University does not have to maintain student accounts and bill students. The same card can be used for all services. Cards can be issued easily to users who do not have student accounts. One major disadvantage from the student’s perspective is that if they lose their card, they lose any money value on the card. The Office of Information Technology favored this alternative because they felt it was more convenient and reliable.

Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

298 Kelley, Regan & Hunt

Figure 2. Prepaid Gold Chip Network Print Management Design, As Implemented

With the Prepaid Gold Chip Card configuration of Figure 2, a Card Reader identical in functionality to those used with stand-alone on-campus vending machines is connected via a serial cable to the print release station. The Card Reader is electronically self-contained, requires its own power supply, ejects cards using a pneumatic mechanism, and costs between $1,200 and $1,500 each. When the card reader senses a newly inserted card, it queries the card's Gold Chip and displays the user's stored balance via a built-in display at the same time as it activates its serial cable connection to wake up the print release station from its programmatic dormant state. Once cycled awake, the Print Release Station queries a central networked Print Server on campus to retrieve the queue of submitted print jobs destined for the network printer under its control, and then displays the entire print queue on the Print Release Station display monitor. This process was timed at over 40 seconds. After the wake up and print job queue retrieval delay, the user has the opportunity to select his or her print job from among the queue display. The print release station sends a request to the centralized Print Server for the print job particulars and the anticipated print page count. When the user supplies the correct print job password (previously entered at the workstation) and then acknowledges the print job cost acknowledgment prompt, the print release station sends an instruction to the Card Reader via the cable serial connection to decrement the balance on the user's SmartCard. The Print Release Station then sends an instruction to the centralized print server to dispatch the print job to the nearby network printer under its control.

Both of the other print management configurations offered by the vendor (Figures 3 and 4) also would have worked in the university’s existing network environment. In fact, the Direct Print configuration would have taken better advantage of the network printer tools that were already in place but were not being used (Dean & Combs, n.d.). However, the Direct Print configuration would have required creating and maintaining a centralized database for tracking student accounts, which entailed additional costs and administration. Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned

299

Figure 3. Alternate Prepaid Swipe Card NPM Option

The Prepaid Swipe Card Print design, illustrated in Figure 3, uses a Card Swipe Reader in line with the keyboard of the Print Release Station computer. The Card Swipe Reader reads the magnetic track on the back of the user's card that stores the user's account information. The Card Swipe Reader is the same card reader that is used in ordinary retail point of sale (POS) checkout registers and in the university's dining room checkout stations for meal plan charges. This Card Swipe Reader is in a constant active state, responds quickly to card swipes, and costs a fraction of a Gold Chip Card Reader. When the user swipes their card, this device reads the user's Print Account information from the magnetic track on the back of the user's card. The Print Account information is sent by the Print Release Station to a central Print Account Server for validation and verification of the user's prepaid account balance. A deduction is made in real time from the user's available account balance, and upon final selection by the user, the print job prints on the nearby network printer. This Prepaid Swipe Card Print configuration option has been implemented at various other universities to control printing in public access areas like libraries and open-access computer labs [Santa Clara University (SmartPrint, n.d.); Liberty University (Print Services, n.d.); Yale University (YaleRIS, n.d.); Eastern Washington University (Dean & Combs, n.d.)].

The winning vendor proposal was based on a first-dollar revenue sharing model between the university and the outsourced vendor. The vendor would charge the university a flat monthly fee. The proposal called for the displacement on a one-for-one basis of about 15 different types of existing network laser printers from 4 different vendors with a set of three comparable models. The functionality of the new printers was matched to provide the equivalent functionality of the old displaced printers. For

Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

300 Kelley, Regan & Hunt

Figure 4. Alternate Prepaid Direct Print NPM Design

The Direct Print Design, illustrated in Figure 4, is much simplified over the NPMS designs of Figures 2 and 3. Hardware costs are also very significantly reduced. No print cards, card readers, or networked Print Release Stations are needed. In fact, the user does not even have to get up from the workstation to print. With Direct Print, instead of supplying an ad hoc print job name and password, as called for under Spooled Print, the user simply supplies an account and password. After these are authenticated on an account server on the network, the user's account is debited and the print job is sent directly to the printer of the user's choosing. Anyone without an account can create one themselves at the time of their first print job submission (YaleRIS, n.d.).

example, color network printers were replaced with color network printers, printers with high-capacity or oversize paper trays were replaced with models with high-capacity trays, and duplex-capable printers were replaced with duplex models. One new printer was added in an office, and a new color printer was provided for the Art Department. The breakdown of the printers displaced and added by location appears in Figure 5. The contract also called for the vendor to provide 4 new dedicated, rack-mounted network servers to be placed in the Information Technologies computer room. This configuration of four print servers provides a very stable environment with dual power supply, fault tolerance, and dual Ethernet. It also provides for load balancing, backup, and roll over redundancy. The university was to contribute 35 print job release stations, Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned

301

Figure 5. Number Of Network Printers By Location, Before And After The Implementation Of The NPMS. Adapted from NPMS Vendor (2001)

Location

Library

Open Access Labs

Computerized Classrooms

Office Areas

TOTALS

Number of

Printer

Number of Networked Printers

Computers

Type

(Note 1) Before Implementation

After the Implementation

Maintained Internally

Maintained Maintained Internally by Vendor

8 B&W Color

3 0

0 0

3 0

B&W Color

10 1

0 0

8 2

B&W Color

21 1

0 0

19 1

B&W Color

0 0

35 2

0 0

36

37

33

200

474

1300 (est.)

1982 NETWORK PRINTERS NPM PRINT RELASE STATION PCs NPM CARD READERS

BEFORE 36

AFTER 70

BEFORE 0

AFTER 34

BEFORE 0

AFTER 34

Note 1: The printer count does not include several hundred mostly ink-jet technology low volume printers attached directly to individual faculty and staff computer workstations, or personal printers attached to personal computers owned by students in the university dormitories.

older but serviceable computers and monitors, to be configured by the vendor. Older model PCs were recycled for this purpose, since only minimum configuration PCs were required for this dedicated use. Cost estimates for the hardware and for per-print charges appear in Figure 6. Payment for the new printers, servers, and card readers and related software and services was bundled with a fixed monthly service fee for the administration Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

302 Kelley, Regan & Hunt

Figure 6. Printer, Toner, and Paper Cost Estimates. After Wheatley (2000). Printer Type (Note 1) B&W B&W Color

Print Speed (ppm)

Largest Paper Size Used

Duty Cycle

Printer Cost (Dollars)

(Note 2)

(Note 3)

(Note 4)

(Note 5)

21 28 5

Letter Legal Legal

75,000 130,000 50,000

$1,300 $2,000 $3,600

Toner Cost (Cents Per Page) (Note 6) 1.55 1.06 2.00

Paper Cost (Cents Per Page) (Note 7) 0.50 0.50 6.40

Total Print Cost (Cents Per Page) (Note 8) 2.92 2.74 12.0

Note 1: B & W: Black and White. All are laser printers with built-in network cards. Note 2: ppm: pages per minute. The color printer is also capable of printing 16 ppm in B&W mode. Numbers are from vendor literature. Note 3: Letter Size, 8 1/2 x 11 in, Legal Size, 8 1/2 by 14 in. Note 4: The term Duty Cycle is poorly defined in the printer industry. It is not the same as the expected life of the printer. It is used here as an indication of the number of pages the printer may be expected to print reliably per month. Numbers are those provided by the printer manufacturer. Note 5: Prices quoted for the network printers are from http://www.bbmnet.com and http://www.cdw.com. Card reader prices are estimated between $1,000 and $1,500 each. Vendor maintenance charges for the VPN estimated at $16,000 per month. Actual prices are not known. The addition of added network printer capabilities, for example higher capacity paper trays and duplex printing capabilities, are typically offered at an additional cost. Note 6: The color printer needs 4 different color cartridges, cyan, magenta, yellow, and black. Cost estimates assumes the toner cartridges lasts the vendor's quoted standard page print count and, in the case of the color printer, even consumption of all colors. Note 7: The cost of paper for black and white printing is based on the paper costs of one department incurred in 2000-2001. Color paper pricing is for 24 lb color laser print grade paper. Pricing and costs shown are estimates of the marginal costs of printing and are meant to be indicative of magnitude rather than descriptive of actual total costs. Note 8: The Total Cost assumes that the printer is thrown away after 10 printer cartridges have been used up. Long-term maintenance of printers requires the occasional purchase of maintenance kits costing as much as $650. Similar numbers have been published for other network printers (Monk, 2000).

and maintenance of the new system. The payment arrangement for the NPMS required no upfront capital outlay on the part of the university. The university would simply pay the vendor a flat monthly dollar amount for a fixed period of time. Funding for the monthly fee would come from the revenue generated by the sale of the prepaid electronic gold chips for the student ID SmartCards. Pricing was based on operating the NPMS on a cost recovery basis (See fee scale in Figure 7) with some projected excess. If the projected excess was realized, the Office of Information Technology planned to reduce print charges appropriately in the future. Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned

303

Figure 7. NPMS Per Page Print Charges* Print Type

First Semester Per Page Print Charges

Second Semester Per Page Print Charges

B&W, Letter Size Paper (Note 2)

$0.10

$0.07

Color, Letter Size Paper Color, Legal Size Paper (Note 3)

$1.00 $1.50

$0.60 $1.00

(Note 1)

Note 1. B & W: Black and White. Note 2: Letter Size, 8 1/2 x 11 in, Note 3: Legal Size, 8 1/2 by 14 in.

* Source: Sewell (2002)

The winning proposal called for streamlining the printing process in the openaccess computer labs and in the library public access areas. Adding print vending to computer classrooms was not specifically mentioned in the proposal. However, the inventory list did not differentiate between printers that were in computer classrooms and those that were in open-access areas. A list and count of printers categorized by openaccess laboratory, library, and classroom appears in Figure 5. It is not clear how or when the decision was made to extend the Technology Resources Committee directive to encompass the computer classrooms. Although the vendor had contracts with a long list of other universities, none were identified that were using the pay-per-print systems in their classrooms. A contract was signed in July 2001, and the implementation and daily network printer administration of the new NPMS and related infrastructure was outsourced to the selected vendor. Deployment of the new networked print servers, print release stations, card readers, and network printers, and the configuration of the software took place over three or four weeks in the late summer. A final major thrust took place in the computer classrooms late into the weekend before the start of classes on Monday, August 20, 2001. The services provided by the vendor were to include vendor software and thirdparty software updates for the network servers and the print release stations, the monitoring of printer low paper status, and servicing printers with fresh paper reams and toner cartridges. Included with the service statement was the promise of 7/24/365 support by the vendor’s “National Help Desk Support Team,” plus a full-time technical support representative on site from 8am to 4:30pm, Monday through Friday. The technical support representative was responsible for print system administration, including network printer status, server monitoring and maintenance, taking systems and usage readings, and reconciling data streams from the printers, the associated card readers, and the related database servers. Posted on the new printers was a service phone number for assistance. The number is answered after hours by a recording giving instructions to leave a message. Response time was usually 10 to 20 minutes during service hours. The phone number is part of the university’s internal phone system. Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

304 Kelley, Regan & Hunt

The university assumed the risk that revenue from usage of the new print system would exceed the vendor’s fixed monthly service fee. In exchange for the fixed monthly service fee, the vendor provided the database servers, the printers, and the card-readers under a no cash-outlay model, and also assumed the risk for the maintenance of the network print system. Jonathan, the on-site technical support representative, was very knowledgeable and responsive. He commuted from the vendor office in a neighboring state, staying in town during the week, and returning home on weekends. Jonathan worked with the Office of Information Technology and departmental personnel to install the new printers and to resolve problems that arose during the early weeks of operation. He also was responsible for regular maintenance, which included supplying the paper for the printers. Many of the displaced network printers had been purchased over time by individual departments. They were stocked and maintained at the departmental level with backup support from the University’s Office of Information Technology. Although most faculty and staff had low cost, low volume color inkjet printers directly attached to their desktop PCs, they also had access to the high-output networked printers in the various computer classrooms or open-access labs in their buildings. Under the new system, faculty now had to use the pay-per-print card metering system if they wanted to print to high-speed lab or classroom printers. After the new printers were installed, some departments immediately put the old printers back into service in shared office areas for use by faculty and staff. These old printers continued to be serviced by departmental staff with backup support from the Office of Information Technology on a cost recovery basis.

Impact Although technically the new NPMS operated as planned, a number of technical and logistical problems had to be resolved in implementing the system. The timing of the introduction with the start of the fall semester created additional challenges. Faculty felt the timing was poor because many of them were unaware of the planned change, and they did not have adequate time to familiarize themselves with the new system and prepare student materials for their classes. The logistical operation of the new system in the open-access areas and in particular the classrooms created unanticipated problems. The new print management system as designed required users to first submit the print job to one of the new network print servers, to wait for the network print server to convert the file to a format suitable for printing, and then to return a request to provide a print job name and an ad-hoc job release password of the user’s choosing. This process took 30 to 45 seconds. Then the user got up from his or her work area, walked to a print job release station located next to the network printer, and fed the SmartCard into a card reader to pay for the print job prior to obtaining the printout. When the SmartCard was inserted in the card reader, it electronically decremented the value on the prepaid embedded cash chip, leaving the user with a declining balance. The card reading process took in excess of 30 seconds for validation of the card by the network server before the job could be printed. In the openaccess lab this process worked fine. In the classrooms, however, it proved problematic. For a class of 25 students printing at the end of a class at 45 seconds per student took almost 20 minutes (25 students x 45 sec = 1125 seconds/60).

Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned

305

In practice, time delays were not the only challenge. There were also other barriers to accessing printouts from the new networked print management systems. One was the inability of end users lacking a campus ID SmartCard, for example, walk-in library patrons, special event guests, and occasional invited lecturers. For example, the instructors for a special two-day computer workshop during the first week of classes discovered that they were unable to print because they had no access card — a situation they found to be disruptive and frustrating. Without a card, queued print jobs could not to be printed and were routinely flushed from the system. Although the ID SmartCard with the embedded cash chip is issued at no cost to students, faculty, and staff, users are required to secure and maintain a pre-paid cash balance on the card cash chip by paying at one of the five designated automated locations or the Card Service Center (located in the Library Student Open Access Lab and staffed 24/7). They must then have the card with them when seeking to print. Because the card user assumes the risk of loss of value if the cash card is misplaced or stolen, the cash on the chip not being refundable, and because there is a fee for issuance of a replacement card to students, the user has an incentive to keep low balances on the card cash chip and exercise caution in carrying it with them — as they would any credit card or cash. During the day, when print problems arose, faculty could call technical support, and the representative would respond to calls within 10-20 minutes. For evening classes after 4:30, however, support was only available on an on-call basis. In some of the open labs, work-study students who formerly had been trained to troubleshoot the printers were instructed not to do anything with the new printers except to call the support line. Most units cleared their jams and stocked their own paper. They were not instructed to do so by the vendor. This may have been a departmental decision. There was a problem with a significant quantity of missing paper that led to the implementation of controls, such as stocking paper in a closed cabinet and sign-out procedures. Another unexpected issue was the slow presentation of the job naming and release password interface to the student user when sitting at the PC. When inserted in a snack vending machine, the gold chip prepaid balance on the card is read quickly, so that it is possible to have vended product in hand within 5 or 6 seconds. However, when the same card is inserted into the card reader hooked up to the print release station, the station wake cycle took over 40 seconds per user card. (This issue was later resolved and the wake cycle time was reduced by more than half). Although this inconvenience was manageable for printing in open-access student labs, it proved impractical and unacceptable for group printing under time constraints in the classroom. In one classroom with 45 computers, it required over 30 minutes for all students to print their first examinations. Faculty members were also confronted with students who did not bring their cards to class or were out of money on their cards. Would the student fail the exam for not being properly prepared? Would the instructor pay for the printing? How should this situation be handled? Some enterprising students even offered to loan their cards to fellow students at twice the regular fee for printing! Faculty also bore the brunt of complaints from students who were upset about the new pay-per-print fees.

Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

306 Kelley, Regan & Hunt

CURRENT CHALLENGES FACING THE ORGANIZATION One of the academic areas affected most by the new pay-per-print systems was the Department of Information Systems. The Department Chair, although very supportive of the university’s decision to implement print metering, was concerned about its impact in computer classes. On October 5, 2001, the chair of the Information Systems Department wrote the provost and detailed examples of the impact of the new print management system in the conduct of classes within the department. “Based on the responses,” she wrote, “it appears that faculty members are taking a variety of approaches to modify instruction and avoid printing — both appropriate and inappropriate.” Some of the problems encountered early in the implementation of the new print management system appear in Figure 8. In an effort to persuade the administration to remove the new print management system from the computerized classrooms, the memo also detailed what the Information Systems Department had spent in total for paper and toner cartridges in fall, spring, and summer of 2000-2001. It listed a print total of 525,000 pages consumed to support its open-access computerized laboratory, printing for the year by faculty and staff, and classroom printing in over 225 sections of the various courses offered by the department that year in service of about 5,000 enrolled students — $4,600. On October 26, 2001, the department chair informed the faculty that the Office of Information Technology had agreed to eliminate the card readers in the 45 seat computer classroom used to teach the CIS101 introductory computer course with enrollment of over 1,000 students each semester. However, the printing would continue to be done through the new network print management system so that the print jobs submitted could be counted. The Information Systems Department was to pay for the printing from its own internal funds and at the rates that would otherwise have been charged to the students. The cost estimate to the department, based on the historical average of print volumes during the prior three years, to support this one course for one year under the new print system was close to $19,000. Since the department was not funded for this expense, they sought budget assistance through the academic vice president’s office and looked for ways to reduce printing. They also proposed implementation of a lab fee for the CIS101 course to recover printing costs. On January 23, 2002, an article was published on the front page of the campus newspaper. It announced reductions in the per-page print charges for the new print management system. The article described the predicament of a student in a desktop publishing class: “When you have a 36-page magazine due in color at the end of the semester, $1 per page was really expensive. I think the decrease in price will be absolutely fabulous.” The article also included an editorial that echoed an earlier one expressing editorial dissatisfaction with the new print fees and asking the administration to seek funding venues other than students. The print fee reduction had been made known about a week earlier in an internal memo to faculty and staff. Black and white prints on standard size and weight paper were reduced from 10 to 7 cents per page, or 30%. Color prints on standard size paper were reduced from one dollar to 60 cents, or 40%. Legal size color printouts were reduced from $1.50 to one dollar, or 33%. The article quoted the Director of Information Technology as saying that the price reduction was done with the students in mind: “Hopefully Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned

307

Figure 8. Early Impact in the classroom of the new NPM Implementation

Benefits

1.

Consistent access in all open access and computer labs to quality, high-speed laser printers. 2. Availability of color printers for areas such as art and graphics. 3. Makes true cost of printing visible to the institution. 4. Significant reduction in print volumes and wasteful use of supplies and paper. 5. Provides automated accounting functions for print jobs submitted with the library and labs. 6. Allows the university to capture significant revenue associated with network-based student printing. 7. Provides a turn-key solution in which the vendor designs, implements, manages and supports the entire solution, freeing the university technical staff to focus their attention on other projects.

Usage Problems and Complaints

1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18.

Each student having to wait more than 20 seconds for the print job to be processed at the remote print server before being presented with a job release information screen. An additional 40 second delay for card validation every time a new card is inserted in the print job release station card reader before the print job queue is made available to the user for the release of their print job to the printer, resulting in an increase from 5 to 20 minutes for the printing of work from a 45-student class. Students having to physically get up and queue up at the print release station to release their print jobs. Failure of documents to print entirely after the card is charged, or student sends and is charged for 8 pages and only 6 print. Cards not ejecting from the card reader, or the gold contacts peeling off the card. Inability of stations that are not properly logged-in to establish a connection to the vendor server to print. Printers stopping and prompting the user to supply paper of a different size than available in the tray when the interface and print-anyway printer controls are disabled. Repeated user station crashes and reboots from bad interaction with an anti-virus software. Classroom disruptions, upset students, missing print jobs, forgotten passwords for jobs submitted. Shortening exams to 30 minutes from 50 to allow time to print. Use of pencil and paper tests instead of hands-on computerized exams to avoid the need to print exams. Having students email the assignment to the instructor for later printing in the office printer. Enterprising students charging other students double to use their cards in the classroom, or half to use the printers in their dorms, or pressuring other students to let them use their card and not reimbursing them. Increased cheating and work sharing because faculty were unable to verify that work being submitted by the student was done by the student. Delayed implementation of a planned online standards-based testing system for several hundred freshmen that would have reduced printing requirements. Inability to service special classroom events like 140 person regional training workshops and 6-week continuing education programs for area teachers because the visitors as guests lack cards to print. Inability to offer print functionality to library patrons lacking a print card. Repeated lockups and crashes of library access point computers when attempting to print online journal articles.

Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

308 Kelley, Regan & Hunt

students will adapt to the reduction in cost and use our services again this semester.” The vendor’s on-campus service representative also made rounds at the university’s freshman orientation in an effort to gain support for the new system with the student body. The reason given in the article by the Technology Director for the decrease was that many students had sought other alternatives to printing after implementation of the new system. He also reported officials at a sister university had previously installed the same system and had cautioned him against setting prices too low. This other institution reportedly charged 5 cents per copy and “consistently lost money.” “If students think we’re making money on this,” he continued, “they are wrong.” The dramatic reduction in printing had put actual revenue significantly under projections and well below the level needed to recover the fixed monthly vendor maintenance fee. The pay-per-print system had caused a reduction in printing compared to the previous semester that was on the order of 85 percent. The Office of Information Technology and the vendor took a number of actions during the fall semester to address the problems and user concerns with the initial implementation. The long waiting time at the print release stations was significantly reduced by disabling the “sleep cycle” feature of the card readers. Despite the availability of highly responsive technical support, resolving problems and issues proved time consuming and troublesome for both the vendor and the academic departments. Unrelated problems encountered during the same period, such as corrupted files in the antivirus software and conflicts with a new version of an Internet Browser, complicated the trouble-shooting process. Starting with fall 2002, the Information Systems Department has implemented a new $28 lab fee for the CIS101 introductory computing course. This fee is intended to cover printing costs (in the lab where the card readers were removed) plus a new online tutorial and performance testing system, which is anticipated to help reduce the demand for printing.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

Describe the objectives given for the implementation for the Network Print Management System. How well were these objectives met? Review the Suggested Criteria For Evaluating a NPMS in the Appendix. What criteria were considered in the paper when making the decision to implement the NPMS? Were these adequate? What criteria do you think should have been used? The paper differentiates between implementing the NPMS in classroom settings, in open use laboratories, and in staff and faculty offices. Do you think it is appropriate to have implemented the NPMS in each of these settings? Why or why not? Did the implementation of the NPMS run into unanticipated issues of deployment and acceptance? What were they? How could they have been avoided or mitigated? One year after the completion of the NPMS, would your recommendation based on your evaluation of the case be to retain the NPMS as is, remove it from service, or to make modifications to the setup? Why?

Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned

309

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the network print management vendors and the university’s technology director for informative discussions and feedback throughout the development of this case.

REFERENCES Daniel, D. (1998). Printer management moves to the wild side. Computing Canada, 24 (13), 33-38. Dean, D., & Combs, C. (n.d.). Students at the center of the universe: Fostering a student focused, student guided, comprehensive service. Retrieved from the Eastern Washington University Technology And Libraries website: http://www.ewu.edu/ TechRes/studentcomputing/sld001.htm Hp install network printer wizard, version: 3.00.075. (2002, January 21). Retrieved April 8, 2003 from the Hewlett Packard Web site: http://www.hp.com/support/ net_printing. ISO 7816 Parts 1-3: Asynchronous SmartCards: Summary of the ISO 7816 standard. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ttfn.net/ techno/smartcards/iso7816123.html. Mag stripe stored value systems. (1996). Retrieved April 8, 2003 from the Campus ID Report Web site: http://www.campusid.com/dec6.htm. Monk, M. (2000). Making cents of copy and print management. Retrieved April 8, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.envisionware.com/lptone/MakingCents.pdf. NPMS Vendor. (2001). Network Print Management Cost Recovery System statement of work. Unpublished work. Print services policy. (n.d.). Retrieved from the Liberty University website: http:// www.liberty.edu/itrc/policy/printservices.html. Sewell, J. (2002, January 23). Printing fees for students reduced this semester, Trail Blazer, 74 (15), 1, 7. SmartCard solutions for multi-application security in today’s e-business world. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2003 from the SchlumbergerSema website: http:// www.smartcards.net/. SmartPrint usage of public access printers. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2003 from the Santa Clara University, Information Technology website: http://it.scu.edu/projects/ SmartPrint/smartprint.shtml. Wheatley, M. (2000). Total cost of ownership: one step forward, one step back: That $600 PC really costs a whopping $10,000 a year to operate. Retrieved April 8, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.itworld.com/Man/2817/ITW3487/. YaleRIS print account management. (n.d.). A campus web site that allows you to add funds to your printing account, look up your past debits and credits to your print account, and establish a PrintID if you are a visitor and do not have a NetID. Retrieved April 8, 2003 from the Yale University website: https://wwwvending.its.yale.edu/pm/print.html.

Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

310 Kelley, Regan & Hunt

APPENDIX Suggested Criteria for Evaluating an NPM. Adapted from Monk (2000)* Issues Related To Project Opportunity and Value 1. 2. 3.

Was there a potential to reduce wasteful use of printers, printer supplies, and paper? Was there a potential to reduce maintenance and administrative costs relative to printing? How much money was being wasted by excess printing without the NPM in place?

Issues Related To Project Economic, Organizational, and Technological Feasibility 4. 5. 6.

Can the organization cost justify the investment? Will the solution be reliable? What similar organizations can attest to the reliability? Can the vendor provide hardware and software that is compatible with existing systems?

Issues Related To Project Sponsorship 7. 8. 9.

Who approved the NPM project? Who was given the authority and responsibility to see the NPM project through? What resources (staff and budget) were committed to the NPM project, and what timetables set for its completion?

Issues Related To Project Logistics 10. 11. 12.

How long did the NPM implementation take once the contract with the vendor was signed? Who acted as the Project Manager for the NPM implementation? What equipment was replaced when the new NPM was put in place? What equipment became redundant?

Issues Related To Project Acceptance 13. 14. 15. 16.

Can public facilities, such as the library, meet the needs of all patrons (such as nonstudents) with the NPM? How well did the classroom facilities, function with the new NPM? What adjustments had to be made? Is any special training required to support the system? Are there other components that require training to support the system on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis? Can the system support different prices per printer so that color and black and white can be charged differently?

Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Implementation of a Network Print Management System: Lessons Learned

311

Issues Related To Project Assessment 17. 18. 19.

How much will the need for staff intervention or support be reduced (or increased)? Would it have been more practical to provide free printing system-wide by using the NPM controls waste without actually charging? Was the university’s money well spent? Did the university accomplish its waste reduction objectives? Its printing cost reduction objectives?

*Adapted from Monk, M. (2000). Making Cents Of Copy And Print Management. Retrieved April 8, 2003 from the website: http://www.envisionware.com/lptone/ MakingCents.pdf.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES George Kelley, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at Morehead State University. Dr. Kelley has more than 12 years of industry experience, is a member of AIS, IEEE, and IRMA, and has published in the areas of technology adoption and implementation, systems security, and intelligent software agents. Elizabeth Regan, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Chair of the Information Systems Department at Morehead State University. Dr. Regan holds a Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut and completed a year of additional graduate work at Colorado State University. She has also held appointments as an adjunct at New York University, and for 7 years was an instructor in the University of Connecticut School of Business. She brings to the classroom 16 years of experience in industry, where she was responsible for many projects involving system design and implementation, end-user computing, knowledge management, and organizational transformation. Her research interests are primarily in the area of information technology, innovation, and organizational change. She is the lead author on two college texts, the most recent being End-User Information Systems: Implementing Individual and Work Group Technologies (2nd ed.), Prentice Hall, 2001. She has presented her work in numerous national and international forums and publications. C. Stephen Hunt, Ed.D., is currently a Professor of Business & Computer Information Systems in the College of Business at Morehead State University. Dr. Hunt formerly worked in a dual appointment at Tennessee State University for the Center of Excellence for Information Systems and the College of Business. He has numerous refereed journal publications to his credit, including articles in the Journal of Computer Information Systems, Journal of International Information Management Journal of Education for Business, Journal of Business and Training Education and the Office Systems Research Journal (now the Information Technology, Learning & Performance Journal). His current research interests include Group Support Systems, Web-Based Collaboration, Knowledge Management, and IS Curriculum Development. He was recently appointed to Chair the 2002-2003 National Reengineering Task Force for the Organizational & End-User Information Systems (OEIS) Model Curriculum.

Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.