|
On Feb 13, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Esther Reed wrote:
> I left today’s IT Exchange a bit early so perhaps my following
> comments have been discussed:
> (This is a bit long to provide background to those who did not
> attend.)
>
> When I left, the discussion about options for MSU Email was
> revolving around MS Exchange and a central AD. The idea of a single
> sign-on using just the centrally authenticated and maintained
> account was included in this. Tom Davis asked, “If we built it,
> would you come?” I must add that some of the discussion seemed (to
> me) to wander from a central email system to an entirely central
> computing system -- no more “islands”.
>
> The responses, that I heard, discussed the pros and cons from IT and
> business viewpoints: What is reasonable or convenient to create and
> maintain? I heard no one mention a major component: the needs of
> individual colleges, units, departments and programs. Aren’t
> computing systems supposed to serve and mesh with a unit’s workflow
> (as much as possible given their budget)?
>
> MSU has over 240 graduate programs -- most have different needs,
> priorities and workflows. Add to that undergraduate programs,
> research grants, centers, extension services and satellite
> operations. It is easy to see that many pieces of MSU have vastly
> different needs and workflows that will not fit a standard business
> model.
>
> The problems with a central Exchange and AD are (1) one-size-fits-
> all configuration, (2) inability to nimbly change, and (3) long
> response times. These are NOT criticisms; these are the nature of
> the beast.
>
> (1) One-size-fits-all: A central system can not match its AD to
> the workflow of every unit on campus. It just can’t. A “best fit”
> middle-of-the-road configuration will have to be used. Units, who
> do not quite match, will have to adjust their workflows to fit. A
> unit with its own child domain will have more flexibility, but some
> limitations will have to exist to ensure that all domains play
> nicely together.
>
> (2) Nimble changes: How long does it take for a single unit to
> upgrade its servers -- once the chairman or dean gives their
> blessing ;^) ? How long for a central system? How long have we
> just been *discussing* changing MSU email? Again, no criticism --
> thorough preparation is critical. It just takes a long time to
> change a behemoth.
>
> (3) Response times: If my Dean wants an account created or a
> global Exchange group changed right now, I can do that in minutes.
> How long will it take for a central system to respond to this
> request? 4 hours? 24 hours? 1 week?
>
> I do agree that a centrally maintained system will be attractive to
> some units, such as (a) units who have no IT person; (b) units who
> want their IT person to do something other than Exchange or AD; (c)
> units whose IT person is not interested in doing Exchange or AD; (d)
> units whose workflow will be minimally impacted; or (e) units who
> want a central feature such as a globally shared calendar (BTW, not
> everyone wants this.).
>
> However, I believe that many units need a specialized configuration,
> nimble changes, quick response times and an IT person who intimately
> knows their workflow. These units will continue to maintain their
> separate “islands” as long as they can afford to do so. These units
> pay for this because it makes sense for how they need to do business
> -- it strengthens whatever service or course they provide. To tell
> them “too bad” and force them to a central system will weaken them
> -- compared to competing programs or services -- and, in turn,
> weaken MSU.
>
> It would be far better to have central *policies* of what is needed
> (security, encryption, disaster protection, email services, etc.).
> Then each unit would be allowed to choose how to comply -- either
> join the central system or make sure that their “island” follows the
> rules.
>
> I believe that MSU will continue to need both: a central system and
> “islands”.
>
> What are your thoughts or opinions?
>
Esther,
I'm not sure if you heard my thoughts (I was given a turn at the very
end to comment), but I believe I addressed these issues with my
comments. I think our entire infrastructure should exist with the
sole intent of empowering the people at the end points to achieve the
mission of The Institution (this means that *more* power is at the
bottom of the "hierarchy." I think there are components of the
infrastructure that should be centralized, but with the purpose of
providing a clear and consistent way to traverse the data and workflow
mine-field of such a vast institution, not in order to "command and
control."
I'm looking forward to hearing other thoughts on this.
./mk
--
Matt Kolb <[log in to unmask]>
Academic Computing & Network Services
Michigan State University
|
