I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Measuring Quality, Cost, and Value of IT
Services
Christopher S. Peebles, Craig A. Stewart,
Brian D. Voss, and Sue B. Workman
Office of the Vice President for Information Technology
& University Information Technology Services
Indiana University
Presented at EDUCAUSE 2001, Indianapolis, IN
Monday, October 29, 2001
I
N
License Terms
D
I
A
N
•
A
•
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Please cite as: Peebles, C.S., C.A. Stewart, B.D. Voss, and S.B. Workman.
2001. Measuring Quality, Cost, and Value of IT Services. Presentation.
Presented at EDUCAUSE 2001, Indianapolis, IN. Monday, October 29, 2001.
Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2022/13896
This content is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). This license includes the
following terms: You are free to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
and to remix – to adapt the work under the following conditions: attribution – you
must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not
in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). For any
reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this
work.
I
N
IU in a nutshell
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
•
•
•
•
•
•
Founded in 1820
$2B Annual Budget
8 campuses
>90,000 students
3,900 faculty
878 degree programs; >1,000
majors; > 60 programs ranked
within top 20 of their type
nationally
• University highly regarded as
research and teaching
institution
I
N
D
IT@IU in a nutshell
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Academic programs in IT through computer science,
library and information sciences, engineering and
technology, and most notably through new School of
Informatics
• CIO: Vice President Michael A. McRobbie
• ~$70M annual budget
• Technology services offered university-wide
• UITS comprises ~500 FTE staff, organized into
crosscutting units (e.g. finance and HR) and four
technology divisions (Teaching & Learning Information
Technology,Telecommunications, University Information
Systems, Research and Academic Computing)
I
N
D
Value
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• IT and Value Creation
– It’s all about time: powers of automation and
augmentation
• IT and Value Destruction
– It’s all about time: wasted time due to poor operating
systems, poorly crafted applications, and mysterious,
opaque user interfaces
• IT and Value Protection
– It’s all about time: time spent in support and education
I
N
D
Measures of Performance and Success
I
A
N
A
U
N
• Do not have measures like EVA and “profit” as a measure
for the success of university IT organizations
• Must draw exemplars from business and benchmarks from
wherever they are available
I
V
E
• Organization performance: IBM “Adaptive Organization”
and “Customer Relationship Management”
R
S
I
T
Y
• Measurement: “The Balanced Scorecard” and “ Counting
What Counts”
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Performance Measures for All Organizations,
Including University IT Organizations
• Robert Kaplan and David Norton. The Balanced
Scorecard. HBS Press, Boston, MA, 1996.
• Four dimensions of retrospective and prospective measures
– Financial perspective: deployment (and growth) of revenue, ABC
against internal (historical) and external benchmarks
– Customer perspective: customer satisfaction measures, number of
partnerships with faculty in teaching and research, support of
university business processes, support of library processes
– Internal perspective: process measures, classic IT measures of
availability, cost-of-poor-quality, speed and depth of development
cycles
– Learning perspective: employee satisfaction, employee
development (MSCE, CCNE, etc.), personal alignment of
employee goals with position
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
Measuring Quality and Cost
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Customer Surveys
Activity Based Costing
I
N
D
Importance of Quality
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Claiming that quality is important is easy. Doing
something useful is hard.
• Measurement of quality requires
– Leadership initiative
– Understanding your services
– Commitment to two-way, fact based communication
with customers
• Motivations at IU
– Initiative
– Feeling of responsibility
– Responsibility center management
I
N
D
User Satisfaction Survey
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Created out of leadership desire for quality and
accountability, and desire for fact-based response to
assaults on IT center’s budget
• Key features of Survey
– Administered by independent survey organization
– Stratified random sampling; survey center finalizes and
administers survey, performs randomization, tabulates
responses, ensures anonymity
– This assures credibility and quality of data
– Longitudinal comparisons assured by consistency of
questions from year to year
I
N
D
User Satisfaction Survey details
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and
faculty sampled. N has varied; current 1000 undergrad,
500 each remaining category per campus
• Likert scale, Y/N questions, demographic information,
opportunity for comments at end
• Data reported as average score (+ 95%CI), satisfaction
percentage (percent scoring 3-5), percentage who use a
service.
• All results, including every text comment ever written
[identifying references deleted] available on the Web at
http://www.indiana.edu/~uitssur
I
N
D
Some key results: Overall Satisfaction
I
A
N
A
99
U
N
I
Percentage
97
95
93
91
V
89
E
87
91
R
S
I
T
Y
92
93
94
95
96
Year
97
98
99
00
01
I
N
D
I
Overall quality maintained by attention to
individual services
A
Satisfaction with Stat/Math Center
N
A
Satisfaction with Stat/Math Center
U
I
V
E
R
Percentage
N
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
1993
S
I
T
Y
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
I
N
User demographics: ownership
D
I
A
N
User demographics: ownership
A
100
90
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Percentage
U
80
70
60
50
40
91
92
93
94
95
96
Year
97
98
99
00
01
I
User demographics: time spent using
computer per week
N
D
I
A
N
User demographics: time spent using computer per week
A
U
N
I
V
Hours per Week
25
20
15
E
10
R
S
I
T
Y
91
92
93
94
95
96
Year
97
98
99
00
01
I
N
D
Survey Credibility and Utility, 1
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Response rates:
– IUB survey response rates in 1991 ranged from 23%
(undergraduates) to 50% (faculty).
– IUB response rates in 2000 ranged from 41%
(undergraduates) to 71% (staff)
– IUPUI survey initiated in 1997 with a 26% response
rate for undergraduates
– IUPUI response rate for 2000 at 36% (undergraduates)
to 48% (staff)
• High response rate due to small incentive ($5-$10 value)
and to recognition of value of survey
I
N
D
Survey Credibility and Utility
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• External
– Results disseminated rapidly and widely. Survey
conducted Feb-end of April; results on Web in July or
August
– Results, and actions taken as a result, publicized widely
throughout the year
• Internal
– Key component of annual internal quality
assessment/plan
– Often used in internal proposals as justification
I
N
D
Activity based Costing
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• “There are no results inside an organization. There are
only costs.”
– Peter F Drucker, Managing the Nonprofit
Organization: Principles and Practices. Harper Collins,
NY, 1990. p. 120
• Activity Based Costing-Activity Based Management
– John Shank and Vijay Govindarajan. Strategic Cost
Management. Free Press, NY, 1993
– Robert Kaplan and Robin Cooper. Cost and Effect.
HBS Press, Boston, MA, 1998
I
N
D
Activity Based Costs and Management
I
A
ABCosts
N
Wages and Benefits
A
Training
Organization
Products
People
Hardware and Software
(Expense or Depriciation)
U
N
I
Maintenance and Other
Contracts
Processes
Unit Costs
Circuit Charges
E
Data
Video
Voice
R
Organization Sustaining Activities
S
Other Costs
T
Y
SERVICE
Expendable Supplies
V
I
Quality
Measures
Knowledge
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
UITS Services — Bloomington Campus
1998-1999 Fiscal Year
Report on Cost and Quality of Services
I
N
D
ABC data
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Full reporting of data on Web at
http://www.indiana.edu/~uits/business/scindex.html
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A Case Study of Activity
Based Management
Reengineering E-Mail at Indiana
University Bloomington
I
N
Cost and Quality: an E-mail example
D
I
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Percentage
A
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
Pine
Exchange
Vax Mail
Overall
92
93
94
95
96
Year
97
98
99
00
I
N
D
I
Volume and Cost for e-mail services at
Indiana University Bloomington,
1996 - 1998 Academic Years.
A
N
A
1996-97
66,000
1997-98
48,000
1998-99
46,000
307,000,000
270,000,000
179,000,000
U
Number of Mail
Accounts
Number of
Messages
N
Mb Received
1,258,000
NA
391,825,000
I
Cost/Message
$0.001
$0.002
$0.002
V
Cost/Account/
Year
$8.96
$9.80
$6.11
E
R
S
I
T
Y
I
N
D
I
User perceived quality measures for five mail
systems used at Indiana University Bloomington,
1996-1998 Academic Years
A
N
1996-1997
Percentage
Satisfied
A
1997-98
Satisfaction Percentage
Score
Satisfied
1998-1999
Satisfaction Percentage
Score
Satisfied
Satisfaction
Score
U
Pine
95.1%
4.1
90.5%
3.9
85.8%
3.7
N
Unix
Mail
(Elm)
Eudora
82.1%
3.5
82.2%
3.5
62.2%
3.0
96.5%
4.2
87.8%
4.1
92.3%
4.1
89.0%
3.8
78.4%
3.8
76.9%
3.5
96.3%
4.2
85.0%
3.8
92.5%
4.2
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Group
Wise
Exchange
I
N
D
I
Comparative measures for e-mail support requests
in Indianapolis and Bloomington during the
academic year 1998-1999.
A
N
A
1998-99
Total
Number
of Users
N
Pine IU-B
44,000
1,537
1 per 28.6
Percentage
of e-mail
Calls to
Support
Center
23.8%
I
Outlook
Exchange
IUB
Pine IUPUI
4,500
1,773
1 per 2.5
27.4%
2.7%
45,000
1,943
1 per 22.7
22.7%
4.2%
6,000
2,425
1 per 2.5
28.2%
5.3%
U
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Outlook
Exchange
IUPUI
Number of Call per
Calls to
User
Support
Center
Percentage
of Total
Calls to
Support
Center
2.4%
I
N
D
So what to do about email?
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Wait until a better solution presented itself
• The better solution: Webmail
• Early results extremely favorable…
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Balanced Scorecard: example from Research
& Academic Computing
• Service measures (for all, current levels and  from last year)
– Quality – from user survey
– Utilization – from user survey
– Cost
• Staff
– Turnover
– % receiving some sort of external certification
• Results
– Number and $s of grants applied for or supported
– Number and $s received (not less than $1M in last 3 years)
– Publications
• Enabled by our services
• By IT organization staff
I
N
D
Quality Planning
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Internal quality plan written by each management unit,
focusing on assessment and plans for improvement
• User survey and ABC data key indicators
• Any service with a satisfaction rating of less then 90% is
generally taken to be cause for action
• IT center budget office, which has customers only within
the IT center, does its own annual survey!
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
IT Support@IU
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Support in Breadth
I
N
IT Support at Indiana University
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
•
•
•
•
IT has invaded our lives and culture
Demands for IT support increased exponentially
Budgets remained steady (at best)
How do we deliver a quality product under such
conditions?
I
N
D
Some background
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Support free, unlimited to 115,000 IU Faculty, Staff,
Students.
• End-user, general-purpose support provided by central
computing organization (UITS)
– Support Center
– Knowledge Base
– Student Technology Center Consultants
– Residential IT Support
– Education Program
I
N
Support Center
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
•
•
•
•
Provide support to 400,000 contacts/year
Campus-based centers
Variety of questions/platforms
Various support delivery methods
– Call Center
– Walk-in Center
– Online
I
N
D
Call Center
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Calls distributed to ACD routed queues
– Computers/Applications w/ Windows OS
– Computers/Applications w/ Macintosh OS
– Computers/Applications w/ Unix OS
– Mission Critical Systems
– General IT questions
I
N
Walk-In Center
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
•
•
•
•
Campus-centric locations
Support requiring personal authentication
Computer configuration
General-purposes support of convenience
I
N
D
Online Support
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Support via e-mail
• Knowledge Base
I
N
D
Managing the quantity of contact
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Proactive versus reactive support
• Tools to reduce time of contact
• Increase quality of answers
I
N
D
Measuring the Quality of Contact
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Annual Department Survey
• Daily Support Center Survey
– Simple measures
– Non-intrusive to customer
– Indicator of quality of service
I
N
The 3 Key Indicators
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
1.
2.
3.
Did the customer receive a solution
in a timely manner
and delivered courtesy and respect ?
I
N
What do we do with the info?
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
•
•
•
•
Send to 45 users from day before
Every response is read and every “no” receives a response.
Used as indicator of need for training or resource allocation
Positive feedback
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:15:49 -0500 (EST)
From: kdyn <kdyn@indiana.edu>
To: <scpc@indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Dell Optiplex GX1..MS Natural Keyboard
(#269.1445)
THANKS, Jim. Please forward my message on to your boss –
this is the BEST service I've ever gotten on ANY computerrelated problem anywhere. I'm glad my technology fee is
paying your salary. THANKS.
I
N
D
Managing the Resources
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Utilize technology for what it does best
• Utilize humans for what we do best
I
N
Knowledge Base Background
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
•
•
•
•
KB was born in 1988
Internal tool to retain computing support information
Became a self-serve tool in 1995
For more info see: “What is the history of the Knowledge
Base” at http://kb.indiana.edu/data/acjq.html
I
N
D
What is the KB?
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
The KB is a system with three physical components:
1. It is a repository of problems and their resolutions
(currently holding over 7,500 entries);
2. It is a search engine to sort through that repository
(currently handling over 75,000 queries each week); and
3. It is a user interface that allows a user to engage the
search engine to manage the data in the currently used
by hundreds of thousands of users worldwide).
R
S
I
T
Y
Wonderful training tool
I
N
D
Quality Control Process
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Extensive process control
• Review and address the “goose eggs”
• Measure the “no, I did not get an answer”
I
N
D
Connecting the People and the Technology
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Trouble Ticket System replaced with Work Flow System
• Eliminates the “Post-It-Note” syndrome
• Manages workload, communication, information, and
escalation.
• Eliminates duplication of work
• Manages KB process
• New Enterprise System in development
I
N
Student Technology Center Consultants
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
•
•
•
•
1200+ Machines, 40+ Labs, 190 Consultants
60 percent of student body use consultant services
Training previously focused on technology
Change to service oriented training, given technology
resources
• Implemented single system resources
• Improved satisfaction from 75% to 94%
I
N
Residential IT Support
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
•
•
•
•
•
•
In-room services – 11,000+ students
Residential Technology Centers – 400 workstations
Concentrating on proactive support
Process improvement: connection to network
Support Center first line of contact
Overall Satisfaction 94.1%
– Concentrate on RTC H/W, S/W
– Consulting – Knowledge and ability increased 16% in 1 year
– Consulting – Courtesy and Helpfulness increased 21% in 1 year!
I
N
D
Education Program
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Better educated users support themselves
– Or ask harder questions….
• “Free” classroom training
• Free CBT training
• CBT topics integrated into KB entries
• Satisfaction rating 96.7%
I
N
Good Support – A total team effort
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
•
•
•
•
Not just the Support Organization
Careful Implementation Plans
Extensive Change Management
Preparation of Support Resources
– Consultant training
– KB entry
– Support Tools
• Careful communication to Organization and Customer
base
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
IT Support@IU
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Support in Depth
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Center for Statistical and Mathematical
Computing
• Formed in 1991, prototype for IT center specialized
support services.
• http://www.indiana.edu/~statmath/
• Formed as part of Interdisciplinary Consortium of
Statistical Applications, with Dept. of Mathematics and
Graduate School.
• Math and Grad School provide statistical consulting by a
faculty member and specialized classes
I
N
D
Stat/Math Center, 2
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Most full time staff holders of terminal degrees (Ph.D or
Ed.D)
• Offers education, consulting, software management.
• Software grouped into three categories:
– General utility. Expert consulting & provision (often
via site licenses)
– Specialized but critical utility: some consulting &
provision
– Utility within one department: provision
• Consulting: offer phone, e-mail, and long term consulting.
Long term done with team of researcher, statistics
consultant, and statistical computing consultant
I
N
D
Unix Workstation Support Group
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/
• Supports people using Unix as a desktop workstation OS,
from astrophysicists running a commercial Unix variant in
their research lab to undergraduates running Linux in their
dorm room
• Offers classroom and online training, mirror sites, site
licenses
• Staff commonly present papers and give tutorials
• Often collaborates with CS dept
I
N
D
Library Electronic Text Resource Service
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• http://www.indiana.edu/~letrs/
• Consulting and services in support of electronic delivery of
texts
• Partnership with University library, for both service and
Victorian Women Writers Project
(http://www.indiana.edu/~letrs/vwwp/index.html)
• Led by manager with Ph.D. in English Literature
I
N
D
Advanced Visualization Laboratory
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• http://avl.iu.edu/
• Manages VR facilities, provides consulting on immersive
and advanced visualization facilities
• Writes community codes (3DIVE, XMView) in
collaboration with CS and Chemistry departments
• Managed by Ph.D. computer scientist
I
N
D
Specialized Support Services: keys to success
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Pareto 80-20 rule. Critical additions to human knowledge
(and accomplishments that distinguish university overall)
often come from those with nonstandard computing needs
• Specialized support services successful when:
– Strategic need spans multiple academic units
– Staffed by consultants expert in content and computing
tools
– Consultants and researchers view each other as partners
– Formal partnership with one or more academic units
helpful
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
IT Support@IU
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Distributed Support
I
N
D
Leveraged Support Model
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Roles (Voss, Workman, Alspaugh, et al)
– Support provided centrally
– Support provided by the users themselves
– Support provided by local IT staff
• Central IT organization responsible for ensuring all
elements
I
N
D
I
A
N
Quality Distributed Support
Evolution at Indiana University
• Distributed Support Assistants (DSA) Program
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Technical Information for Excellent Support (TIES)
Program
– Education/Certification (Ed/Cert)
• Partners in Computing Support (PICS) Program
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
DSA Program – Seeding Quality Local
Support
• Unforeseen Consequences
– Development of local IT job market
– Close-knit Community
– Career paths – in and out of central IT
• Covered 26 campus entities
– Success led to ‘wild growing’ local support in other
units
I
N
D
TIES Program
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• As support grew wild, it needed training and contact with
central IT – thus TIES was born
– 10-12 weekly sessions each semester
– Training and information sharing focus
– Integration with DSAs elsewhere
• As time passed, need for detailed skills that were
certifiable – Ed/Cert developed
I
N
D
PICS Program
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
• More than just a user group – a set of services
– Tools acquired centrally, served to local staff
– Forums for discussion, sharing, and learning
– Special Focus on serving our ‘partners’
• Forum for getting feedback on services
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Forum for getting input from partners
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
Organizing for Supporting Local Support
Providers
• LSPs need forward looking focus
– Departmental Computing Advising and Support
– Departmental Support Lab
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• LSPs need back-up support
– Local Support Provider Services
– LAN Lab
– 2nd and 3rd level expertise in key applications and
technologies
I
N
Satisfaction
D
I
A
N
• User Survey results for UITS distributed support services
A
U
Satisfaction with UITS
Distributed Support Services
2000
1999
1998
1997
93.3%
90.1%
90.8%
91.4%
N
I
• User Survey results for local support providers
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
2000
1999
1998
1997
89.1%
85.4%
85.7%
86.8%
Satisfaction with LSPs
in departments
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Key Factors in Delivering Quality Local
Support Services
• Organizing Central IT to deliver support
• Emphasizing Local Support Providers
• Emphasis on building LSP skills
• Emphasis on building User skills
• Providing Specialized Support services
• Providing Tools that enable user self-support (Knowledge
Base)
I
N
D
Other Environmental Success Factors
I
A
N
A
• Institutional/Enterprise Software Licensing
– Standardization and consistency
– Latest versions – lessen support burden
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Departmental IT Equipment Modernization and life-cycle
funding
– Minimizing and eliminating problems and workload
caused by out-of-date equipment
– Standardization – volume purchases
I
N
D
Support is the Critical Element
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
• Adds value through standardization of hardware and
software
• Adds value through education of customers and IT
professionals
• Prevents some of the destruction of value through poorly
designed software and poorly manufactured hardware,
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
IT@IU
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
The Value Equation
I
N
D
Some key results: Overall Satisfaction
I
A
N
A
99
U
N
I
Percentage
97
95
93
91
V
89
E
87
91
R
S
I
T
Y
92
93
94
95
96
Year
97
98
99
00
01
I
N
D
I
For faculty: How helpful has the information
technology environment at IU been in your teaching
activity?
A
N
A
40
35
U
30
N
25
I
Percent 20
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Not at All Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
15
10
Very Helpful
5
0
1997
1998
1999
Year
2000
I
N
D
I
For faculty and graduate students: How helpful has
the information technology environment at IU been
in your research activities?
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
45
40
35
30
25
Percent
20
15
10
5
0
Not at All Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Very Helpful
1997
1998
1999
Year
2000
I
N
D
I
For undergraduate and graduate students: How
helpful has the information technology environment
been in your learning experience at IU?
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
45
40
35
30
25
Percent
20
15
10
5
0
Not at All Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Very Helpful
1997
1998
1999
Year
2000
I
N
D
I
A
N
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Indiana University Bloomington