Contact us Heritage collections Image license terms
HOME ACL ACD ICF SUS DCS G&A STARLINK Literature
Further reading □ OverviewContentsPart I: 1979Part II: 1980Part III: 1981Part IV: CritiquePart V: 1982Part VI: CritiquePart VII: 1983Part VIII: Common base 1984/5Part IX: CostPart X: ConclusionAudit
C&A INF CCD CISD Archives Contact us Heritage archives Image license terms

Search

   
ACDSingle User SystemsPERQ History
ACDSingle User SystemsPERQ History
ACL ACD C&A INF CCD CISD Archives
Further reading

Overview
Contents
Part I: 1979
Part II: 1980
Part III: 1981
Part IV: Critique
Part V: 1982
Part VI: Critique
Part VII: 1983
Part VIII: Common base 1984/5
Part IX: Cost
Part X: Conclusion
Audit

Audit

The PERQ Audit

The PERQ Audit
Full image ⇗
© UKRI Science and Technology Facilities Council

The Science Research Council changed its name to the Science and Engineering Research Council during this project.

The Audit of what was often called the PERQ Project was requested by the Science Board of the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) in 1985.

The Engineering Board of the Science Research Council (SRC) had launched the Interactive Computing Facility (ICF) in 1976 as a result of the Rosenbrock Report (1975). That report also recommended that a continuing evaluation of single user systems (later called workstations then personal computers) should be made as the belief was that, at some time in the future, the price of components would decrease significantly that demanding interactive computing would be feasible on a single user system.

The first system to appear on the market was the PERQ developed by the Pittsburg company, Three Rivers. This was followed later by Apollo and Sun systems. At that time the operating systems on these single user systems varied and the Common Base Policy was defined which effectively said that researchers could be awarded such systems on SRC grants as long as the software available conformed to the agreed standards.

As the other Boards of SRC were also purchasing single user systems and SERC had decided to coordinate its computing activities under a Central Computing Committee, the Common Base Policy became a Council-wide one. The Science Board of SRC were a relatively small participant in the programme.

By 1984, the decision had been made in SERC that perhaps having a central computing committee was not quite such a good idea and reverted to each Board having their own control. In consequence, the PERQ Project reverted to being an Engineering Board project. The Science Board asked for an Audit of the Project to get a complete overview of the programme, to see if the objectives had been met and to see if the costs proposed by the Engineering Board for maintenance and support were reasonable.

At the time, some of the material was Commercially Confidential.

The Audit is broken down into 11 Parts with 60 Chapters in total plus some Appendices. It is the most comprehensive document that relates to the PERQ Project and the Common Base Policy.

At the time, a popular TV Series was Yes Minister. In consequence, this seemed an appropriate quote to include at the front of the Audit:

The DAA has apparently bought one thousand computer video display terminals at ten thousand pounds each. Ten million pounds of the taxpayers' money.

And they are made in Pittsburgh!

Yes Minister, Volume 1 Page 20, BBC 1981

⇑ Top of page
© Chilton Computing and UKRI Science and Technology Facilities Council webmaster@chilton-computing.org.uk
Our thanks to UKRI Science and Technology Facilities Council for hosting this site