Contact us Heritage collections Image license terms
HOME ACL Associates Technology Literature Applications Society Software revisited
Further reading □ Overview28/09/72ACC 72/5ACC 72/616/03/7303/07/7319/11/7307/03/7423/05/7416/10/7420/03/75
ACD C&A INF CCD CISD Archives Contact us Heritage archives Image license terms

Search

   
ACLLiteratureCommittee MinutesReconstituted ACC :: SRC Reconstituted ACC Minutes
ACLLiteratureCommittee MinutesReconstituted ACC :: SRC Reconstituted ACC Minutes
ACL ACD C&A INF CCD CISD Archives
Further reading

Overview
28/09/72
ACC 72/5
ACC 72/6
16/03/73
03/07/73
19/11/73
07/03/74
23/05/74
16/10/74
20/03/75

ACC72/6: View of DTI

B R Taylor

8 September 1972

(1) As a result of views which had been expressed on the future of the Chilton Laboratory by Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Assessors on the appropriate SRC committees, the Department was asked earlier this year to prepare a paper and to discuss it with SRC. A paper was accordingly written and a meeting was held on 14 June under the chairmanship of Dr W L Francis at which the discussion ranged fairly widely over the provision and administration of computer facilities within SRC and, indeed, within other areas within the general purview of the Department of Education and Science (DES). The meeting came to the view that, since the matters which it had discussed had in many cases very broad implications, but since they were worthy of serious consideration, it would be of value if DES were invited to consider then. Accordingly it invited DTI to prepare a modified paper setting out the DTI view, and to submit it to DES with a suggestion that a meeting of the various interested parties might usefully be held. The paper has been written and sent to Mr R Toomey of DES; it is contained, with only modifications, within this paper starting at paragraph 3.

(2) It is perhaps worth while touching on one fact of the discussion with SRC which receives only a passing reference in the paper to DES. This concerns the overall administration of the appropriate computer facilities; it is a topic which is, of course crucial to the situation, but it is not one on which DTI felt that it would be right for it to dwell in the paper. The matter was discussed at the meeting with SRC, and thinking turned mainly on the concept of one body (perhaps an enlarged form of the Computer Board), which would bear overall responsibility, and to which the Chilton Laboratory would supply a strong professional arm. The precise range of this body was not discussed but it seemed likely that it should be responsible for the facilities currently falling to the Computer Board, and for some of the facilities which serve SRC, some of the other research councils and the Universities Grants Committee.

(3) Some time ago the SRC requested the Atlas Computer Committee to reconsider the basic laboratory policy in the light of the many changes which had come about since its inception. In replying to this request through its Assessor on the Committee, DTI felt that it was necessary to take account of broader policy considerations.

The views expressed and the proposals outlined in this paper have emerged from DTI's liaison with the various bodies concerned and in particular from its function of providing Assessors to the Council and to the Computer Board. They take account of the three essential elements of the broader policy considerations - DTI's role as the sponsoring Department for the UK computer industry; the need to redefine the role of the Laboratory since the present role seems less relevant than in the past and the need of the Computer Board for a source of independent technical expertise to enable it efficiently to manage regional and national facilities.

(4) The Department's role requires it to put forward its views on the plans of those responsible for computers in the Public Sector, and to take account of such plans whilst formulating its own sponsorship policy. The effectiveness with which it is possible to fulfill this role, demanding as it often does a necessity to balance its views on several conflicting factors, is dependent upon its ability to see the plans concerned as parts of an overall strategy. It is for this reason that it sees the need to take a particular interest in any organisational changes which could affect the development of such strategy, and from time to time perhaps to make concrete suggestions which might be to the mutual benefit of both the local and the national strategies.

(5) It has been apparent for some time that the Chilton Laboratory's role of making available the facilities of a large computer to research workers in universities has been to a great extent superseded. Now that the Computer Board has provided large regional, and indeed national, facilities it no longer seems appropriate for the SRC to make separate national provision for what are essentially the same customers. It is suggested that this could lead to uneconomic over-provision and hence to inefficiency in the management of facilities nationally.

(6) Experience has shown that neither the Computer Board nor the SRC at present is organised to undertake the management tasks that are implicit in the trend towards larger and larger installations providing at least a regional and sometimes a national service. The identification of need, the selection of equipment, the planning of installations, the allocation of and charging for time, and efficient resource management are all tasks which tend at present to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. It is suggested that both bodies could with advantage make use of a common source of technical advice which is independent of the interests of a university or of a group of universities.

(7) The basis of the proposal is that the Computer Board and the SRC should have available to them the services of a unit which would act as a strong professional arm to assist in making and implementing decisions in appropriate areas. These areas would be assessment, development, standardisation and the day-to-day administration of computer power. In order to fulfill its role, the proposed unit would have to combine the characteristics of:

  1. being unbiased and being seen to be unbiased, towards the various competing claims being put to the parent body and in dealing with the competing demands which must increasingly be placed on its facilities; and
  2. being sufficiently heavily involved in the provision of the facilities to enable it to foresee difficulties and to deal with them with confidence.

For the reasons associated with (a) above it would be inadvisable for the unit to be closely connected, administratively or geographically, with a university. It is possible, however, that its staff could adopt some role in assisting and advising a research council to assess and meet its computer needs, whilst preserving a broadly unbiased view. Sub-paragraph (b) above demands that the unit should itself possess an installation of a power comparable to those belonging to other units within the proposed body's compass, (ie of regional standard) and this installation should be a part of the parent body's overall facility. In addition, the unit should have its own programme of technical development work designed towards increasing its ability to fulfil the role outlined; this in no way suggests that the parent body should depart from the present practice of limiting internal development work, and attempting to buy in as many facilities as it can.

(8) Unless a unit is to be created from scratch to meet the role suggested in paragraph (7) (in which case it is hard to see it having the necessary status for some years), one solution stands out above all others. This is that the Chilton Laboratory should now be responsible also to the Computer Board and should take on the role of the Board's professional advisory body. The Laboratory does, in fact, appear to be well adapted for this purpose, in that it has for some time been serving the needs of a large number of people from the various universities and has faced up, in some measure, to the need to ease the burden of moving computer programs from university machines of various types, on to its own facility. It has an excellent reputation for its ability and its integrity, and possesses the technical experience to enable it to carry out and supervise appropriate developments. This background would help it immeasurably in dealing with universities. both in assisting with the allocation of facilities and also in co-operating in any work which might be in hand in the universities, appropriate to its own developments.

(9) The role outlined above opens up to the Laboratory staff a very satisfactory field of technical endeavour. There are many areas of work which would be appropriate to its function, where developments are still necessary, and in which it could either engage in development work or liaison with other organisations which were so engaged. The fields of networking, compatibility, and of the assessment of facilities come to mind. In addition the function of administering tactically the facilities in the manner outlined above, would present both a technical and an administrative challenge, which is appropriate to a unit of the status of the Chilton Laboratory.

(10) Any move to adopt a role like that outlined above for the Chilton Laboratory would have to be' done in the light of the SRC's recent decision on the Laboratory's policy. The rationale behind this policy was that of being able to guarantee appropriate computer facilities to research workers at the time when their projects were approved, and the Chilton Laboratory was seen as the chief source of these facilities. There is no reason why the scheme outlined in this paper should not, if it was felt to be necessary, be arranged in such a way that facilities could be guaranteed in a similar fashion. The scheme would, however, add flexibility, in that the facilities need not necessarily be on one particular type of computer and need not be in one particular location. The scheme would thus appear to meet the intentions which SRC had in mind when it formulated its policy.

(11) This paper sets the outlines of a scheme and DTI recognises that many important aspects have not been covered in it. These aspects are ones which would need further study and consultations of a nature which is not appropriate at this juncture. The department feels, however, that the way in which the computer scene is currently developing makes it appropriate for such study and such consultations to be carried out.

⇑ 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