Pittsburg State & Education Technology on why universities have so many computer labs (Webinar)
In this video, Charley Rogers, Editor of HE publications, of Education Technology & University Business, discusses with Pittsburg State University the modern computer lab, how it can be improved, & Pittsburgh's journey to optimizing software delivery to managed machines.
In this webinar we discuss:
- Why do universities still have so many dedicated computer labs?
- How to reduce specialist labs and improve software access
- The benefits of fewer, more universal machine images
- Managing licensing & reduce labs without boosting peak concurrency
You can watch the full video below, & please don't hesitate to contact us with any questions on how to reduce PC labs and increase IT efficiency & student software access with AppsAnywhere.
Good afternoon everyone viewing us from the US, and good evening to everyone in the UK. My name's Charlie Rogers, I'm the Editor of Education Technology magazine and we are bringing you this webinar today in conjunction with University Business Magazine, Software2 and Pittsburgh State University, so thank you very much for joining us. Today we're going to be talking about why universities still have so many computer labs and joining me today on the panel is David Miller, who is VP of Software Development at Software2. We have Angela Neria, who is the CIO of Pittsburgh State University, and we have Lucretia Heraty, who is Director of IT Project Management at Pittsburgh State University. Welcome panel, thank you for joining us.
I'm going to hand over straight away to David, but before I do, I just want to remind you that if you would like to engage with the panel, or with each other directly, there is a chat box just below this video and you can type any questions you have in there and I will try my best to [inaudible 00:01:01] the panel in our Q&A session at the end. Thank you. So David, over to you.
Thanks so much. Hi everybody. Good day and welcome. Thanks for joining us today. Again, my name is Dave Miller, I'm the VP of Business Development for Software2 for North America. We're delighted to bring you this live webinar on a topic that is very relevant in higher ed market today. It's entitled, Why Do We Still Have So Many Computer Labs? One of our awesome customers, Pittsburgh State University is here to help answer that question.
Before I turn it over to them, I thought I would share just a little background on Software2. We are the developers of AppsAnywhere and we're a global company with headquarters in Leeds, UK. We also have offices in Germany, Spain and Cambridge, Massachusetts. Our focus is only on the higher ed market. A fun fact is, we just turned 10 this year and for our tenth anniversary we restored an old English pub, and now it's our global headquarters. If you're ever over visiting in the UK, please come and visit us.
Without further adieu, it's my pleasure to introduce Angela Neria, the CIO and Lucretia Heraty, the Director of IT Project Management at Pittsburgh State University. Ladies, over to you.
Thank you, hi. This is Lucretia Heraty. I am the Director of IT Project Management here at Pittsburgh State University.
Hi. I'm Angela Neria, I am the Chief Information Officer here at Pittsburgh State University and we're excited to tell you about our journey today.
I'm going to go ahead and share my screen here and our presentation will be pulling up shortly. Okay. So we've done our introductions here so you know who we are. We want to tell you just briefly, a little bit, real quick about Pittsburgh State University. We are located in Pittsburgh, Kansas, which is the southeast corner of Kansas, bordering some other states, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas is very close. On our campus we have about 6500 students that we service, 800 faculty staff and we are the home of the Gorillas.
When we are talking about the reduction in our computer labs, we are specifically talking about the five different areas, which we have four colleges on campus: Arts and Science, Business, Education and Technology, but we also have to include our library facility in that as well because they service all students across campus.
Here's a little bit of what we'll talk about today. First, why did we need to reduce these computer labs? What our charge was and who the task force members were, and what their outcome was supposed to, was directed. Project details will be very quick and then we'll get into data collection, analysis, task for process and recommendation. Then some of the lessons that we learned during this process.
So, the main reason, one of the main reasons that we needed to reduce in our computer labs across campus was annual budget cuts. We had funding, we needed to be able to find ways to cut cost across campus. We also had some security concerns and a lot of these labs have older machines that are end of life and we needed to make sure that our network was safe and everyone was safe and to take care of those old machines and give them their proper retirement. We also knew that students that were coming in, we suspected, and took the steps as you'll see, to find out this data that students really weren't using the labs. So, as you will see, we have a significant number and knew they weren't being used at capacity for sure.
There are certain labs that were tethered. They tethered them to the software in the labs. So, we needed to look at other options at how we handle that as far as our students go. Then machines in the labs were older technology, then some of the students were bringing their own personal machines in, or what they had been utilizing, if anything, on their high school campuses. Those are the main ideas.
We have a committee, a council as we call it, on campus called Information Technology Council. They're tasked with IT strategic planning across campus. We do a plan that's every two years, every five years and Angela leads that team. This was one of the goals that was set by them. As you'll see, goal number one was to expand information technology resources, seek funding solutions based on IT cost recovery study. Those were a goal and objective. We knew that the evaluation of the campus computer labs and the use and also their cost that it was costing the different colleges on campus needed to be investigated and see if we couldn't make a recommendation to have possible, more efficiencies and conveniences that we could introduce to campus.
So, we wanted to tell you a little bit of why and how Central IT, what their role is in these university computer labs. For some campuses they're very involved. For us, it's very minimal. Basically, we make sure they're connected to the network, that they have access to enterprise software or that it's on there, but the responsibility of these labs really was put on the colleges and the library, because there is a Director of our library facility. They made the plan for how many computers were in there, to make sure they're updated, how they were going to fund them to update any equipment inside of those labs and then as well as schedule time when they're open and all those kind of things for students to access.
As you can see with that, it was a very isolated decision making. The College of Arts and Sciences made decisions for them, as well as the other areas specifically made decisions only for them and didn't really consider what was happening across campus otherwise. That's another reason that we really needed to look into this.
The charge came down from the President of the university. Again, the main reason that this was happening was because of budget restraints. Angela reports directly to the university President here and he had brought this forward to her to do this research and to take on this charge. Here's the bullet points that we had to look into. We needed to find out what the current use was. They were tasked with finding a way to do that. Recommending a target of an appropriate number of labs across campus. That may have meant that we were okay. Even though we assumed that we were over, we didn't know at this point in time. Then we needed to find out, examine how best to distribute university owned software to students, faculty, staff and machines and that's where Software2 comes into play as we get further through this presentation. Of course, the ultimate goal is to achieve a reduction of overall financial investments in those labs.
Real quick here, this is the task force that was created to take on this project. Angela, again, headed it. She's Chief Information Officer, but we also needed to have deans, we needed to have instructors, departmental chair and the library systems manager and a senior tech who is here on campus who maintained some of those labs. It was a very good mix with a lot of people of different knowledge across campus.
I'm going to talk a little bit more about the project details. I'll go through this relatively quick. ITS, we do not have an enterprise project management, we strictly have ITS. We knew that because Angela was heading this as well as the technicians across campus now are in our area, in our department, and so they were going to be heavily involved in this, that we needed to deem this a project. We deemed it essential because it was handed down from the President of the university to say, "This is what we need to do", we need to find out where we're at as far as how many labs we truly need, what the usage is and then ways to be more efficient.
The duration of the project had actually changed from the very start to where we ended up, but the duration ended up being about 18 months. That definitely warranted us determining this as a project in IT's eyes. Then of course, number of tasks that we had to approach. Just real quickly so you know, Team Dynamics is the project management software that we use here on campus. Starting that we scoped the project and created tasks to move through.
This is a timeline of where we started and where we ended. We started in April of '18, 2018 and went through just a little over a year of really, probably almost 18 months as there's still things that's moved from the task force and others are making decisions on. That's just a quick time line of the different areas and things that we had to do.
So, what did we know before we went into this study? Well, fortunately Pittsburgh state knew quite a bit because we do a survey out to our student body. What we had found since we had began recording, which was in 2011, of how many computers we had in computer labs across campus, compared to our enrollment, that computers were going up and enrollment was going down. In fact, you can see that on the final bar there, we actually increased the number of computers in a computer setting with the computer lab, from April to October. Actually, funding was spent even as we were starting this project.
Here's some of the things that we got from the survey. We know that we had 89 computer labs across campus, which came out to 1732 actual computers in a lab setting and with that, we discovered that at that ratio, there were 3.8 students to every one computer. However, we found out that the ratio was more like 1.8 because of actual use that we found when students completed the survey. So what did that tell us? It told us the colleges did not want to throw stuff away. They wanted to keep it whether it was outdated, whether it wasn't sufficient or even being used. We had to tell them that they're hoarders and we needed to get rid of some things. That's not an easy thing. Change is sometimes hard.
Here's som more data that we found, from our students in that survey, that we found that 98% of students take a mobile device to class every day. So that's significant. That's not, it's probably very normal on most campuses now on whether it's a phone or anything else, but when we did dig a little deeper, we found out 94% are actually taking a laptop or a tablet with them to class, meaning they have a device that is very similar to what's sitting in, or maybe not very similar to even, to sitting in our labs. Their machines actually might have been more powerful. Then we found out that PSU students use their personal lap tops and tablets during class. They actually use it, so 93% of them.
Here is the real thing that really determined that this needed to truly, really be investigated and looked at is, that over half of our students say they do not go to the university computer labs. Over half. So, we knew that there was a lot of computers sitting on campus that were not being used. Then, when we asked if they would prefer to access university owned software on their own devices, as you can see, it was a resounding yes with 96% saying "I would absolutely use my own device to utilize that software", and do work and school work from wherever.
One of the things that we had to do right from the start is that we needed to share this data early to our campus community and really educate them on what students are saying and what we found out. That was critical in going forward with this task force and making a recommendation.
Hi, this is Angela and I'm going to take over from this point. A couple of things I just wanted to reiterate that Lucretia shared with you. One, Central IT did not manage, and still does not manage, the computer labs across campus. They are managed by deans, directors, chairs of the four colleges and the library. I'm sure many of you live in a world where sometimes someone gets a grant and one of the pieces of the grant is to open a lab and so on and so forth. We have some of that on our campus and then we have some general labs on our campus that are shared and used by all, like in the library. This made it a very interesting topic to broach.
One of the reasons that it was part of the IT strategic plan is, that group that creates the plan is made up of very few IT people in back. It's made up of lots of faculty, chairs and students and they are the ones that said, "We know these labs aren't being used", we had been feeding them this data for a while, so they were very aware. Let's do something about it. Academic Affairs had the opportunity to take advantage of reducing some of those labs and just really never got to it. That's when the President came to me and said, "Would you lead this?". I said, of course. That's how Central IT got involved in managing or at least facilitating a project that was going to change the future of labs that we don't manage.
As you can imagine, this was a little touchy of a subject across campus. The last slide that Lu shared that really talks about how critical it was to share the data early to our community so that they have an idea of what students were telling us that their use was, what they were self-reporting their use, was really critical. We really got that information out very quickly across campus. We talked to the student newspaper, they did an article on it et cetera, before the actual study even began.
Let me tell you a little about the committee. The committee, as you saw earlier, was made up of a dean, some faculty members, a chair, some technical folks from across campus and they were very thoughtful in their process. We talked to other universities that had reduced labs and asked them "How'd you do it?", and the most common answer that we got was, we observed labs throughout a semester physically. Took note of how many people were in the labs, how many machines were not being used and made our reductions from that. The next most common answer we got was, we installed a product in the laboratories and we measured the use of the computers in the labs and made reductions based on that data.
We really liked that answer. So we did some research. We ended up purchasing a product, if you'll see down on bullet point number three called LabStats, and we audited our computer labs over the course of Winter/Fall and Spring semester. Fortunately, LabStats does not work on Chrome books or iPads so we were able to install LabStats on a little over 1300 of the 1700 machines. All of our Windows and all of our Mac machines. The committee felt like this was a very good way to collect data, but we wanted more than that.
So we also created a couple of surveys. We sent one to each of the deans and directors that manage labs, and there were eight different individuals in that case. We received seven responses and we basically asked them, what are the future of your labs? What do you think the future is? Are you going to cut them? Do you see a reason to cut them? Are you going to grow them? Do you see a reason to grow them? If so, why? And so on and so forth. We even went ahead and said, "Would you be willing to go ahead and cut some of your lab computers now?" We actually had a couple of willing hearts. The College of Education said, you know what? We can see that our labs are not being used. We're willing to go ahead and cut some now before we even get the results from the committee. We realize that they aren't being used.
The second thing we did was, we sent a lab owner survey to every single one of the 89 lab owners across campus. If you'll remember, there's 89 labs on our computer, each one of them has a person that's responsible for them. We asked them all kinds of things about their labs. Things that we couldn't gather through LabStats. Things like, what are some of the special uses in the lab? What are some of the specialized software in the lab? Or peripheral devices in the lab. Are the devices used for other groups on campus? Maybe our freshman experience, those kinds of things. So, that we really had that whole picture of how these labs were used. Those three approaches really gave us good data and good information as we moved forward to make decisions.
The committee had 18 major action items and I'm not going to go through every single one of them. If anyone would like me to send them to them, I'm happy to do that. The most important items that we had were really communicating the data findings to campus. Throughout the process, when we were collecting all this data, we kept communicating the data. We had over 40 meetings across campus with decision makers and folks that use labs, et cetera, to keep them in the loop about this data. We also met with the student paper so that they could publish the data, and we also worked with our marketing department so that they could share stories about the actual study and the data that was resulting from the study. So, really communicating that a data, which was pretty abysmal, in terms of what the use was across campus was critical.
In the end, we had three major recommendations. The first one was to reduce about 40% of the computers in our labs, which equals about 30 labs out of our 89 labs. The guiding force was this, was peak usage. We looked at peak usage of each lab and said, this is the most you've ever used during the course of the year and this is how much we think that you could stand to reduce. We also said, every lab, regardless of size or use, must have an upgrade plan. Including target dates and estimated cost. We didn't tell the groups you need to update labs every three years, four years, or five years, we just said you need a plan. Because it was obvious we have some very new, up to date, beefy machines in certain areas of campus and we have some older machines in other areas of campus that were not being used hardly at all. In the end, our message to them was, we need fewer but better labs.
Then our last recommendation, which is really the reason that we're here talking to you all today is, installing Software2 AppsAnywhere and/or desktop virtualization to be used for the distribution of the university owned software to our laboratories, to faculty machines and student's personal machines. So, very excited about this process and we've been using Software2 for several years, but this has really elevated our use of it and we believe it will elevate it even more in the coming 12 to 24 months.
For those of you that don't know much about Software2, David did an introduction of where they are and what their product is. They're 10 years old now. We learned about them several years ago, and have been working with them regularly. They are a higher ed focused vendor who develops and provides a product called AppsAnywhere. They're specialists in application delivery and virtualization for universities and colleges. So they work in this higher ed realm. They get it. They understand our world. They're not from another industry trying to make their product fit into the education industry, which is what we often see with enterprise products. The Software2 team feels like an extension of our PSU IT team. They have presented with us over time. They have come to understand how we work on our campus, the challenges that we have and have brought solutions and ideas to help us do our jobs better. They really have felt like an extension of our team here at Pittsburgh State.
The benefits, just continuing the benefits of AppsAnywhere, it gives you universal lab space. Any software is available anywhere. It improves student's experiences here on our campus, or by being a university student because it provides consistent access to software n any lab. It creates open access or collaborative student working spaces. The idea that if I'm an accounting student and I log into AppsAnywhere and I can see that I have access to products like SPSS and Mini Tab, that I would have had to purchase or go to the computer lab to use, but I have access to it through my log in credentials on my machine, whether I'm at home, whether I'm at the coffee shop, et cetera, it pretty awesome. That's something that our students are very thrilled about because being tethered to those labs is difficult. Especially with busy students that hold jobs and have lots of coursework in other areas to do. So, we've heard nothing but positive responses to using this product.
It also reduces imaging overheads and associated staff costs, and time. The folks that image our machines on campus have learned how to package AppsAnywhere and they've been able to respond much quicker to software changes without needing to re-image labs. They're able to deploy software updates and versions mid-semester, which is nice because we usually do that over summer and/or winter break. It also future proofs our support for bringing your own device and delivering to off campus devices. It really helps with that whole aspect of it. Because we don't know what our students are using out there. We have all kinds of machines that students come to campus with, as many of you do. This really helps in that way.
Then, it reduces our reliance on our VDI infrastructure. We don't have a large VDI infrastructure and we don't plan to. Software2 has really helped us not go down that path and really saved us a lot of dollars up front by learning that Software2 is out there. We use some VDI on our campus in specific areas where we have to because of licensing issues and things like that, but not much.
When we began talking about this across campus and really sharing the data, these are the kinds of responses that we received. "What about waterfall labs? They cost us nothing." Was one of the key things that one of the deans told me, who is an economist, which made me giggle. I reminded them that they certainly cost us something. Space, we have to wire them. We have to pay for the enterprise licensing on those labs, et cetera. So the whole idea of waterfall labs is really going away on our campus. Because we can make sure that we have the software that we need to deliver through Software2 and still have an efficient campus with newer, better machines in our lab. We also heard things like, "We need our labs for critical testing. They are used all the time." We looked at the data, that wasn't true.
We have a wonderful nursing school here at Pittsburgh State University, it is well known and respected and we always have a waiting list for our nurses. Our nurses have to take lots of online tests, any nurse does, to graduate and fulfill their [inaudible 00:27:09] with old machines. Who cares if they aren't up to date? Well, our security officer cares. Because if they're end of life and they're still on the network, that's a problem. In fact, anything that's at end of life, especially an operating system, is not permitted on our network. We absolutely just pull it. That argument didn't get far.
And, "What are you going to do for students that can't afford a computer? How will we ever survive with fewer labs?" Well, we learned from the data that you can see is, our students definitely come to campus with computers. We also learned through our lab study that we have several lap top carts around campus and most of them were used less than 1% throughout the course of the year. So, we are now moving those laptop carts into check out lap top situations for students that either can't afford a lap top computer, or who have a broken computer or need a beefier lap top.
We also heard things like this when we began sharing the data, "We should have fewer, but better equipped labs." People began seeing this right away through the data. We heard, "Let's use the savings for other critical technical equipment and stop buying computers." So, we have other equipment on campus that's also aging. We could use those technology dollars to upgrade that equipment. We heard, "We are ready to eliminate machines and labs based on lack of use now, where do we start?" We heard, "I think that this is the right direction for our students. We need to give them more convenience. We should not ask them to be tethered to our labs and the hours that our labs are open." My favorite one, "Data don't lie." We had several people say that, including our President. You really couldn't refute the data. What we were seeing with the LabStats data and the feedback we got from the owners, it was very clear that we needed to make some changes.
So, in looking back at things, an average computer replacement cost on our campus is around $1360. We have a College of Technology on our campus who has very beefy, up to date machines and they're a little bit more, so that swings our average computer costs up a little bit higher than some other institutions most likely. We asked our folks to eliminate 684 machines and that is a savings of almost $1 million. So, guess what that $1 million is going to help pay for? LabStats and of course Software2, and all of the tools that we need to keep doing a better job to be efficient. And there will still be plenty of savings for other things across campus that are technology related.
We really pushed this out there. It's time to let it go folks. We know some of you are emotionally attached to your labs because you got them through grants or other ways, but it's time to let go of them and move forward and do what's best for our students. Other suggestions that we made to the dean, that they should work more collaboratively. They very much, when it comes to labs, had worked in silos. You remember the original slide that Lucretia shared regarding why Central IT got involved and really that was because there was really no centralized decision making when it came to laboratories across campus. I think that's why the sprawl happened, 89 labs for a campus our size is pretty ridiculous. So we talked to them about considering distributing savings to create fewer, but better equipped labs for our students and then also look at all these spaces that you're going to open up by reducing 30 labs.
Could that be student collaborative, coalition spaces that you could make open for students to have places that they can bring their own machines, charge their machines, sit, talk, have a cup of coffee and work with others. Create testing computer labs and scheduling systems so that folks could have testing labs across campus, but they share them instead of having their own testing lab. Then, of course, regular evaluation of software licensing should take place, which with Software2, there's very good reporting on who's using what software and how it's being used, when it's being used, those kinds of things. We learned from our Software2 and LabStats data that we were over-licensed in almost every software area, based on use. So we're slowly eliminating some of that software around campus. We're a little hesitant to do too much of it because we think some of it might spike with the heavier use of Software2, but we're taking small steps to save dollars here and there as we can.
Lessons learned from our study really come back to, we thought that our task force was going to submit our responses and be done. We would be a typical task force. We do our job and be done. But, we learned that we really are going to continue, or need to continue to meet over the next 12 to 24 months as these machines are phased out across campus and watch the data. If we do have an uptick in enrollment, we need to make sure that we do have the right machines in place for any enrollment growth. We need to continue with LabStats for now. Originally, we were going to monitor for one semester. That's what was in our charge.
We changed that to two semesters, and here's why; faculty came back to us and said, "We have classes that we only offer in the Spring and those classes are held in labs". Of course, my question back to them was, "What are those labs used for in the fall?" And usually it was, nothing. They're quiet in the fall. So, we felt like it was only fair to really look at both semesters. There was less use in the Spring semester, but it wasn't dramatic. We learned that ownership runs deep. There's some folks that are very attached to their labs. We have heard some of the deans say there's certain battles I'm going to take on and there's others I'm not. So, we know that some of those folks that own some of those labs, they have great affection for them and the deans are having to deal with some of those battles now that they have never dealt with before. Again, kind of contributing to the sprawl.
Even stone cold data needed to be proved, or worse, it was ignored. So we had all of this great data that we were sharing from LabStats and even some of the folks would say, "Well tell me what that means" and "Are you sure that's right?" Or they would just ignore it and say, "I don't care what your data says. I know my labs are being used." So we had to do a lot of work with those folks and the communication piece was critical. Then lastly, just to reiterate, our communication plan was key. It was tweaked along the way. We created a communication plan as we do in our department, for almost every big initiative that we take on. Working with our Marketing department and stakeholders across campus, and it really became the heart and soul of why this became accepted across campus. If we had done all of this, and not communicated along the way, I think we would have shocked people with the data. So being able to communicate that along the way in creating opportunities for discussion along the way was really critical.
That closes out our presentation. We would like to share with you our contact information. We're happy to share details if some of you are going down this road, taking this journey, we would love to share the details of what we've learned along the way. Things that we would do differently, things that we were happy with, et cetera. With that, I'll throw it back to you Charlie.
Thank you Angela and thanks Lucretia as well. Thanks for giving us all that information. It was really interesting to see how you went about the entire project and how you worked so closely with Software2, I think is really a fascinating meld of business and academia. It's gone really well it sounds. If you have time, I just have a couple of questions that have come in from our audience. So whoever wants to take the question is absolutely fine with me if you just jump on it as you see fit. The first question that we've had in relates to how many software titles you're actually rolling out. This audience member has asked, how many software titles will you deliver to student's devices, and how did you decide which software titles to deliver first?
We did quite a bit of testing with different software titles. We wanted to make sure that we could run some of the beefier software applications from our College of Technology. So we worked closely with some faculty out there to test them and make sure that they worked with faculty and students. Right now, we have 22 titles that are rolled out. Some of them are very beefy, for the College of Technology students and some of them are titles that are used across campus. Titles like SPSS, Mini Tab, Mat Lab, Art GIS. Those kinds of things are used in a lot of different areas.
What we did is, we started tapping people on the shoulder. Faculty that we knew might be willing hearts and they used this software, and said, would you be willing to jump in and try this out and tell us how it works. So, students are notified through faculty right now, but as we get more and more titles in and we work through growing that list of 22 to a list of 50 or so and we feel more comfortable with the status and the working through all the bugs and all those kinds of things, we will make it very well known to students through a communication effort directly to students.
Fantastic. One thing I noticed actually through your presentation is, how closely you kept in touch with your student body and your faculty and made sure that they were happy with all the changes, which I think is something that any university out there looking to take this journey would be very pleased to hear. Very positive that you kept everyone involved. It was also interesting to hear, you mentioned that 98% of your students take a mobile device to class. Huge figure there. Another question that we've had in from our audience relates to [inaudible 00:38:30], to bring your own device. How did you communicate the BYOD roll out to students and what type of feedback have you received? I think you covered this a little bit in your presentation already, but did you get any particular feedback from the students themselves?
Sure. We've really, like I said earlier, we really haven't made it to the point that we are directly communicating with students about how to access Software2. We are doing that through our faculty. Our goal is, right now, is to get buy in from faculty that are willing hearts to use Software2 and find value in it with their students. Then continue to do that with more and more faculty until we can make it just the way we do business on campus. We know from past experience, that we need willing heart buy in from faculty for this to be successful. I have no doubt that students would jump on this like crazy, but if we don't have faculty that are willing to use it and promote it, it won't work.
Absolutely. I hear that all the time actually, that getting buy in, not only from senior leaders, but as you say from your faculty that are on the ground that are actually front line and using this stuff, is essential. That's really great to hear. I think we have now run out of time. I've just been given the nod. So, we'll have to close up. Thank you to Angela, to Lucretia and to David, to Software2 and to Pittsburgh State University. I'm Charlie Rogers, we bring you this webinar in conjunction with Education Technology Magazine and University Business. I hope you enjoyed it. Please do send us through any more questions you have and we'll do our best to pass them on to the panel for followup. Thank you very much and enjoy the rest of your evening.
Learn more about AppsAnywhere
91% of students expect their institution to provide an "app store" to access their university software. So, in collaboration with our customers, we've developed AppsAnywhere, a beautiful web interface that gives students access to all the software they need, from a customizable portal.
Make more informed strategic IT decisions by gaining a deeper understanding of your application estate, including how software is accessed, where, on what device and when.
Package and virtualize 100% of Windows apps with Numecent's Cloudpaging technology, the next-generation application virtualization tool.
With Parallels RAS (Remote Application Server) university IT can securely deploy Windows apps to any device, including macOS, iOS, Android and Chromebooks.