Listserves were ADFUTURE and EMAILFUTURE, just a small correction there. But yes will be a good platform for this discussion.
Christopher M. Harper
MANAGER OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
University Relations / Michigan State University
401 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047
Email: [log in to unmask] / Direct: 517.355.9980
Web: http://ur.msu.edu / Cell: 517.290.5496
--
From: MSU Network Administrators Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Troy Murray
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MSUNAG] MSU Exchange Thoughts on Central Active Directory and no more "Islands"
A good thread to start the list setup for that discussion, I think it was by using "adfuture" and or "mailfuture" in the subject and body to the list serve address.
--
Troy Murray
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 13, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Esther Reed <[log in to unmask]> 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
Esther V. V. Reed
IT Systems Administrator
MSU Graduate School
|
