Installing a Micro Network in a Small Firm: The “Personal Touch”
| Published date | 01 July 1985 |
| Date | 01 July 1985 |
| Pages | 17-20 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb057408 |
| Author | Christopher J. Rowe |
| Subject Matter | Economics,Information & knowledge management,Management science & operations |
Installing a
Micro Network
in a Small Firm:
The "Personal
Touch"
by Christopher J. Rowe
Humberside College of Higher Education
Introduction
Ashton and Fulstow are a timber group holding company
with a head office in Manchester controlling a group of
smaller companies spread throughout the North and
Midlands. The largest of these, in Leicester, has about 100
employees, while the others total just over 200. Despite
these separate divisions, Ashton and Fulstow's have remain-
ed a family
firm,
and the timber company, on which this
article is based, is run by three family directors, two of whom
remain at head office while the third (the managing direc-
tor) is based at Leicester. Under him are three assistant
directors — for Sales, Administration and Production — who
manage the employees of the three sections.
Deciding to Install
Like many companies in the 1970s, Ashton and Fulstow
perceived the need for computing facilities to process their
various accounting operations and the company installed
a Burroughs mainframe machine at head office which, for
some years now, has satisfactorily processed group data
for sales and gross margin, debtors and other reports. In
late 1981, the timber company began to think about the
possibilities for computation at site level, for while none of
the Leicester managers possessed any computer expertise,
they were increasingly aware that mini and microcomputers
were becoming cheap and that their payroll in particular
might prove a straightforward first installation.
By chance a representative from a local computer bureau
visited the site and precipitated management thinking by
showing them an apparently cheap, simple, efficient payroll
system.
Instead of purchasing this, however, the managing
director and assistant director for administration (under
whom the computer would be based) saw no reason why
they could not initiate the installation themselves and
(hopefully) obtain the most suitable system for the company
while,
at the same time, saving themselves a great deal of
money.
The assistant director visited a series of exhibitions — where
he found most systems either too sophisticated or too ex-
pensive — and also had preliminary talks with the group
financial director at head office, who supervised the main-
frame and had some knowledge of computers. He inevitably
became involved, for he had finally to approve any expen-
diture,
and a series of discussions revealed that payroll, stock
and stock statistics, and production costs were the obvious
areas for application.
This was thought possible for an initial outlay of about
£10,000, split equally between hardware and software. Staff
levels were being reduced at the time through retirement
and some redundancies (due to the recession) and it seem-
ed an appropriate moment to install the computer so that
additional staff need not be appointed once the economic
situation picked up. The proposal was put to local manage-
ment and received their approval.
The Installation
The group financial director was concerned to approach the
installation with caution, especially as none of the Leicester
managers had any computer experience. He was well aware
of companies "getting their fingers burned" and the glib
manner of slick, confident, fast-talking computer salesmen.
He happened to be friendly with a computer consultant in
Manchester, with some of whose previous work he had
been impressed. He felt much happier dealing with some-
one he knew and could trust, and the consultant was in-
vited to visit Leicester on 5 September 1983 to review the
company's situation. This resulted in a Business Specifica-
tion being prepared by the consultant which was presented
to the company a month later.
The document began by stating that the company had a
hardware choice between:
(a) Shared logic — in which users, via terminals, share
the same computer, and
(b) Distributed processing — in which each user has his
own computer, but all share common resources,
such as printer, disks, etc.
The report strongly advocated the second approach (which
the advent of the microcomputer has made possible) for
if a computer breakdown occurs with the first system all
IMDS • JULY/AUGUST • 1985 17
To continue reading
Request your trial