United Paper Company
Memorandum

To:   James Varnsen, Technical Supervisor
From:   Bo Bayles, Chief Technician
Date:  8 June, 2005
Subject:   Addition to Rolling Machine Replacement Trip Proposal

United Paper has been looking into replacing its older rolling machines this year. As you remember, last month, I submitted a proposal to visit two manufacturers of rolling machines. I am scheduled to leave for Hawthorne, California and Newark, New Jersey next week to do my evaluation of American Equipment's and Consolidated Industrial Equipment's rolling machines.

In researching the different rolling machines for my first progress report, I came across an omission in my proposal. There is a third major company that produces rolling machines like the ones we are thinking about buying. I am requesting an extension for my research project and an increased budget to study this third company's rolling machines.

Southern Printing Equipment

Southern Printing Equipment, based in Atlanta, GA is also a leading manufacturer of rolling machines. I researched their operation, and found that they are fully competitive with both American Equipment and Consolidated Industrial Equipment, the two manufacturers whose facilities I am already planning to visit.

Request for Proposal Amendment

To fully compare the machines from all three companies, I will have to visit all three manufacturing sites. As you know, these machines are more than $300,000, so I feel that an increased travel budget is a worthwhile investment for our company. Purchasing the right machine is important – we could save substantial amounts of money in the long run on purchase price, maintenance costs, and longevity of the machines.

As a result, I request permission to submit a revised version of my travel proposal, one that will include a trip to Atlanta to visit Southern's facilities. I also request that the deadline for my final report be extended 7 days to June 30, so I can fully compare the three options and make my recommendation.

I know you expressed concern over the cost of these research trips, and I took that into account in deciding whether I should even visit Southern Equipment. I researched the best way to add Atlanta to my itinerary – below, in Table 1 are my findings and requested budget changes.

Budget Amendments

If I leave Newark, NJ the morning of June 16th, the day I planned to fly back to Oregon, I would be able to spend the afternoon at Southern's facilities, getting a tour and product demonstration. I can go back the next morning and meet with their sales representative and get price details. I would stay the night of the 16th in the 2-star hotel, Days Inn, just outside Atlanta. I would have a rental economy car from Hertz for my time in Atlanta, then I would leave for Portland the evening of the 17th. Three meals and expenses bring my total budget increase request to $700.92, in addition to the $6,000.00 I initially requested.

Conclusion

I regret omitting Southern Printing Equipment from my original report, but I hope that by adding it to my schedule now, I can recommend the best paper rolling machine for United Paper. Please contact me with your authorization decision and let me know if you have any questions.

To:   Richard Fitness, Instructor
From:   Bo Bayles, Student
Date:  28 June, 2005
Subject:   Progress Report for Library Software Upgrade Study

The following is a mid-term progress report on our study of the different options the local public library has for upgrading its aging computers' software.

Summary

We have been researching the options the local library has for keeping its computers' software up-to-date in order to keep its patrons' personal information safe from malicious software, malicious computer users, and other security threats. Our team has met with library staff to determine computer specifications, gathered data from surveys given to library patrons and staff, done research in magazines and on the Internet, and also  spoken to other library administrators about different software options the library has.

Introduction

On June 18th, my team submitted a proposal for our class project to research and analyze different options the local library has for upgrading software on its computers. This topic was chosen because of its importance to the library. As computers have become used by more and more people, threats to the security of their users' data have emerged. The primary method of defense from these threats are software updates, but the library's limited budget for software and the age of some of its computer equipment prevents it from being able to purchase or run software upgrades every time it could. We will submit the results of our research to Amante Livros, library administrator, for analysis and to you for our assignment on July 8.

The library has purchased new computers over the last several years to respond to increased demand for new technologies. Today, library patrons use public computers for entertainment, research, personal communication, and personal business (such as online banking and tax filing). However, budget concerns do not permit the library to upgrade all of its computers at once As a result, the library currently has computers that are up to 5 years old, with almost each year's computer running different software.

Security issues, such as the threats from “malware” (malicious software, such as viruses or “spyware”) and computer hackers, have become a concern in recent years. The primary defense from these threats is updating software – software vendors either fix vulnerabilities in their products by releasing a new version for users to buy, or by offering a smaller revision “patch” that users can usually download for free. Both methods are often impractical for the library – sometimes it does not have the funds available to buy a new version, and sometimes updated software will not run on older hardware. When any software changes are made, the library often has to spend time and money retraining employees and re-teaching users how to use the software that has changed.

All of the library's current computers use versions of Microsoft's Windows operating system, and Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser for Internet access. These two products are the most used by library patrons, and also the most vulnerable to malicious software and hackers. This makes them the most important to update for security reasons. This leads to a number of issues:

• Microsoft plans to stop offering updates to many older versions of its software, most immediately Windows 98 and Windows Me, which some library computers run. Users who want security updates will have to switch to newer versions of Windows.
• Microsoft plans to release a new version of its Internet Explorer browser in 2005 that will contain many security fixes, but it will only be available for Windows XP and Windows 2003 users.
• The newest versions of Windows have higher “minimum system requirements,” the hardware that is necessary to run them. Even if a computer meets the minimum requirements, it may be much slower than is desirable. Updating hardware can cost anywhere from under $50 to hundreds of dollars.

If all the library's computers cannot have the latest security releases for their software, they should be protected as much as possible by other software. This software includes:

• anti-virus software – Several companies offer software that prevent computer virus outbreaks for public computers. These are normally available on a subscription basis, so they must be paid for each year.
• anti-spyware software – Like anti-virus software, there are a number of products aimed at keeping computers free of spyware. Many of these are freely available.
• anti-hacker software – Most commonly software “firewalls” are used to keep hackers from accessing computers. There are several types of firewalls available, some for free.
• alternative web browsers – Because Microsoft's Internet Explorer is used on over 90% of computers, it makes a good target for individuals who try to exploit its vulnerabilities. There are alternative web browsers from the Mozilla Foundation and AOL's Netscape division that are freely available and a good security reputation.
• alternative operating systems – Like Internet Explorer, Microsoft Windows is installed on a vast majority of computers, making it a large target for malicious individuals. There are alternative operating systems, many of which are freely available that have a reputation for being more secure and usable on older hardware. Various types the of Linux operating system also have a reputation for being difficult to set up.

Our contact with Amante Livros, the library administrator, led us to develop these criteria for analyzing the software upgrade options we research. The best solutions are:

• inexpensive to implement – the library has a limited budget, so costs for new hardware or software should be kept to a minimum.
• inexpensive to maintain – if there are recurring costs, such as the necessity to upgrade again in the near future, or renew a subscription, these costs should be minimal.
• easy for employees to learn – time and money must be spent teaching employees how to use any new software.
• easy for patrons to use – patrons must be able to accomplish what they're used to without excessively having to ask library staff for help.

Results of Research

We have completed two of the tasks we outlined as part of our procedure, are near completion of the third, and have begun the two remaining tasks. Below is a description of the work completed on each task, and the work left to be done.

Task 1: Meet with the library administration to determine the current library computer system configurations.

• Completed work
  • We met with Amante Livros on June 20th. She prepared for us a comprehensive list of the hardware the library currently has for public computers, the software each computer runs, and the age of each computer. This information is included in Table 1.
    

Task 2: Distribute questionnaires to library staff and patrons to find out their computer usage patterns and skill levels.

• Completed Work
  • We prepared, distributed, and collected questionnaires from library patrons and staff. We got about 20 responses, and have decided to keep these questionnaires out longer so we can get more. The questions from the questionnaires were as follows:
    • For what tasks do you use the library's public computers most often?
    • How many hours per week do use library public computers?
    • What concerns do you have about your personal information when using public computers? What precautions do you take? What precautions does the library take? What precautions should the library take?
    • At what level would you rank your computer skills?
      1 – beginner, 2 – novice, 3 – average, 4 – above average, 5 – expert
    • Are library computers fast enough to adequately run the software you use?
    • What comments or suggestions do you have for the library about its public computers?
• Future Work
  • Since we have decided to keep the questionnaires out longer, we still have to collect the remaining forms. Then, we will study the responses we get, and use them in our analysis of the library's upgrade options.

Task 3: Investigate upgrade options by reading software reviews, contacting other libraries to share their experiences, and researching costs.

• Completed work:
  • Our team member Samir Bolton spent several days researching computer magazines at the library (including PC World, PC Magazine, and Extreme Tech) to find reviews and rankings of anti-virus and anti-spyware software. He also researched several Internet sites for similar information (including CNet, ZDNet, and eWeek). From this research, he determined the best anti-virus protection for the library could come from: 1) Trend Micro's “PC-Cillin”, 2) Symantec “Norton Security Center”, or 3) McAfee's “McAfee Antivirus”. He also found that the best anti-spyware protection could come from either 1) Safer-Networking's “Spybot S&D”, or 2) Giant Software's “Giant Anti-Spyware.”
  • We also telephoned the library administrators from two nearby towns and asked them to send us information on their security software experiences.
• Future Work
  • We are awaiting e-mail responses from both the administrators of Hermann Public Library and Wellsville Public Library. When we have their responses, we will study them and use them in our analysis of the library's upgrade options.

Task 4: Test some of the trial versions and free Microsoft upgrade alternatives on library computers to find out how patrons and staff respond to them by conducting short interviews and distributing questionnaires.

• Completed Work
  • Our team members Bo Bayles and Samir Bolton, who are both experienced with non-Microsoft operating systems, got permission from library administrator Amante Livros to temporarily install two versions of the Linux operating system on two of the library's older computers. The versions used were Ubuntu Linux and Fedora Linux, running the Mozilla Firefox Internet web browser software. They have just set these computers up at the library, and will spend time there this week, asking library users how they are getting along with the unfamiliar software.
• Future Work
  • The two computers with non-Microsoft operating systems were just put in place, and short questionnaires need to be compiled and short interviews need to be conducted to see what patrons think of the new softtware. They will be asked about 1) the usability of the software, 2) the learning curve associated with it, and 3) the features it has compared to Microsoft's. Their responses will be analyzed and included in our analysis of the library's upgrade options.

Task 5: Provide a completion report detailing our findings.

• Future Work
  • After finishing gathering, we will analyze the data from our interviews, research, and questionnaires, and compile a report outlining our findings. We will submit this report to you for our class assignment, and to Amante Livros at the public library, so she can consider its conclusions. In the report, we will explain the problem we studied, the methods we used to study it, the pros and cons of each option we studied, and the conclusions we drew. The evaluation of the different options will consider the costs of implementation, cost of maintenance, and ease of use for both patrons and library staff. We will submit the completed report on July 8.

Updated Schedule

Figure 1 is an updated estimation of our schedule for completing the tasks in our procedure. The black bars indicate work that is completed; the gray bars indicate work yet to be done.

Conclusions

Our team has completed our research procedure's first task, extended the scope of the second, completed most of the work on the third, and started the fourth. At the current rate, we will be able to meet our deadline of July 8 within our proposed budget. Our research so far has given us raw data on the library's computers' specifications, its staff and patrons' computing habits, and narrowed down the options we will present.

Please contact Bo Bayles at 241-1020 if you have any questions or comments.