| Information Technology "Recommended
Solutions" Guidelines
Approved by the Committee on Computing
and Information Services, COAD and the Vice Presidents
April 1998
Document Contents
- Introduction
- "Recommended Solutions"
Overview
- FYI Documents
- "Recommended Solutions"
Documents
- Summary
1. Introduction
As a result of work done by the Miami University Computer
and Communications Advisory Group on standards and the
process for creating standards (report dated 9/12/97),
this document serves to implement its recommendations
and provide the structured process for standards adoption
through "Recommended Solutions" documents.
"Recommended Solutions" documents are intended
to provide the campus with timely information on recommended
hardware and software solutions for campus computing.
The process used to create them is modeled after the
procedure that has been used the Internet Engineering
Task Force for over 25 years to create Request for Comments
(RFCs) that document the communications standards for
the Internet. In addition, we are building upon work
done by UC Davis presented at the 1996 CAUSE Annual
Conference.
This process serves as a framework for establishing
standards for departmental office use in support of
university business and for general purpose use within
divisional computing labs. Please refer to the Computer
and Communications Advisory Group document titled, "Standards"
(9/12/97) for detailed information on standards. The
process is not meant to dictate what software is used,
especially with respect to coursework and research.
Rather, the process is designed to identify and communicate
software products that will be centrally supported and
meet the majority of needs in university business and
general lab use. In general, support for discipline-specific
software will be provided at the department or division
level rather than centrally.
"Recommended Solutions" documents are created
upon request by the Associate Provost for Computing
and Information Services, in response to needs identified
by IT Services staff, TSRs, and others at Miami University.
As outlined in the 9/12/97 "Standards" document,
the Associate Provost will initiate a request to IT Services
staff or to the Technical Support Representatives (TSRs)
for a Feasibility Study to examine the feasibility,
costs and benefits associated with development of a
standard solution for campus computing. It is not necessarily
assumed that a recommendation for a standard will be
the result of this process; the study may determine
that a standard is either not feasible, not cost effective,
or not possible. On the other hand, while the goal is
to recommend a single product or group of products as
the standard solution, it may be necessary, feasible,
or desirable to recommend multiple standards.
The "Recommended Solutions" document must
be discussed, reviewed, and approved by participants
in the RecSol process through the RecSol web site at
http://www.muohio.edu/recsol/
and the appropriate University avenues before officially
gaining "Recommended Solution" status. Proposals
gaining "Recommended Solutions" status are
then presented to the Associate Provost for Computing
and Information Services for review and approval at
the Vice Presidential level. Vice Presidential approval
is required for adoption as a standard.
The RecSol site at http://www.muohio.edu/recsol/
serves as a forum for:
- the submission of FYI and "Recommended Solutions"
draft documents
- discussion and updating of "Recommended Solutions"
documents
- discussion designed to influence the status and
outcomes of "Recommended Solutions" documents
Since many of the documents will be improved by the
use of tables and formatting, Microsoft Word documents
will be the standard format of submissions and the following
technical requirement must be met to participate in
the list:
- Able to access the web via a browser, preferably
one that supports frames (e.g., Netscape 3.0 or higher)
2. Recommended Solutions Overview
3. FYI Documents
FYI's (For Your Information) documents are documents
that can be posted to notify the list participants of
an activity to evaluate hardware and software solutions
for any type of computing. These notices should include
the following information:
- Problem Statement
- Current Technical Solution Under Investigation/Evaluation
- How to Participate in the Investigation/Evaluation
(listserv lists, IT Services or TSR demonstrations, beta
test programs, project team membership, etc.)
- Contact Person
The notice will be posted to the Miami University World
Wide Web server at http://www.muohio.edu/recsol/">
http://www.muohio.edu/recsol/ for up to 6 months and
must be renewed by the FYI author if the evaluation
is not complete and the FYI should remain available.
FYI's may reflect active projects within IT Services, within
the TSR group, or within divisions or departments investigating
solutions to problems within their respective divisions/departments.
FYI documents serve the need of notifying others of
evaluation processes that bring interested parties together,
but may not necessarily result in a "Recommended
Solutions" document. These groups may be investigating
very specific hardware or software products, e.g., video
boards for high end multimedia work, solutions for specific
departmental or divisional needs which may be of interest
to other areas, or performing a preliminary scan of
products to determine the maturity of a potential solution.
4. "Recommended Solutions"
Documents
"Recommended Solutions" documents are announced
on the RecSol
LISTSERV list and Miami
Report, and posted to the web site at http://www.muohio.edu/recsol/ as a result
of a request by the Associate Provost for Computing
and Information Services to investigate the feasibility
of a standard. The process for recommending and adopting
standards is outlined in the Computer and Communications
Advisory Group document titled, "Standards,"
dated 9/12/97. The process as defined in that document
is quoted here:
"The process outline therein for recommending
and adopting standards is the following:
"The Associate Provost for Computing and Information
Services will initiate the process by requesting the
Technical Support Representatives (TSRs) and IT Services staff
to conduct a feasibility analysis that includes the
following: (1) a review of the prevailing software or
hardware in use, (2) the strategic direction of the
industry as it affects a university environment, (3)
a preliminary estimate of the financial and organizational
impact of establishing a standard, and (4) an evaluation
with the Department of Business Services/Office of Purchasing
on the requirement for an RFP.
"After consultation with the vice presidents,
Associate Provost for Computing and Information Services
will authorize the appropriate group to develop the
proposed standard, plan for approval, plan for implementation
and migration, and a refined cost estimate.' [Note 1:
the result of this step is the "Recommended Solutions"
document. Note 2: The group will work with the Department
of Business Services to issue a RFP as appropriate.]
"For standards that impact students, faculty and
staff, widespread review and comments will be sought
from the TSRs, the Senate CCIS and COAD, as well as
other appropriate groups, such as the Libraries, the
TSRs, students, faculty, and staff. [Note: The first
draft of the "Recommended Solutions" document
is the starting point for widespread review and comments.
The Senate CCIS has stated it wishes to be informed
of the first "Recommended Solutions" draft
document, with a decision on further involvement as
appropriate.] Notice of a newly proposed standard is
sent out via the listserv and announced in the Miami
Report. The text of the proposal and receipt of
comments is handled at the web site.
"For enabling protocols and technical standards,
IT Services, in consultation with the TSRs, will determine
when widespread university input is required. Typically,
the TSRs and IT Services staff will work collaboratively to
identify and recommend standards to the Associate Provost.
In some cases, such as the RJ-45 network jack, IT Services
may make internal recommendations on standards to the
Associate Provost, and in most cases, widespread input
and review (of enabling protocols and technical standards)
beyond the TSRs and IT Services is not anticipated.
"After appropriate review, the Associate Provost
for Computing and Information Services will forward
to the vice presidents a recommendation that includes
the standard, its cost based upon RFP responses as appropriate,
community feedback, and the related issues of training,
acquisition, and funding.
"Vice presidential approval is required for the
establishment of a standard."
You are encouraged to read the entire "Standards"
document to understand more of the rationale and process.
4.1 Standards
The Miami University Date and Video Network Plan
and Network
Services Architecture are based upon open protocols
in a TCP/IP based network environment. Campuswide
applications should comply with such standards in
order to be considered for central funding and support.
Localized applications that are limited to a single
division or department should attempt to comply with
these standards whenever possible. In all cases, recommended
solutions must address the issues of scalability,
interoperability, staffing and support needs, funding,
and cross platform support.
4.2 "Recommended
Solutions" Etiquette
The RecSol web site at http://www.muohio.edu/recsol/
is an online forum for the discussion of technical
solutions. As such, it is expected to generate the
posting of a variety of opinions on the draft document
and constructive criticism. This should result
in the modification of the document for technical
accuracy and to reflect the consensus of the mailing
list participants.
Consensus for this process is defined as a general
agreement, or the judgment arrived at by most of those
concerned. This means that as part of the discussion,
individuals must assess the points of contention that
are most important to them and advocate the inclusion
of that information. At the same time, individuals
must be willing to concede minor points in the spirit
of reaching agreement in a timely fashion. An author
who is unwilling to modify a document to reflect the
consensus of the group will be unable to get approval
to move the document to "Recommended Solutions"
status. Therefore, it is important for participants
to approach the process with willingness to debate,
negotiate and modify drafts as appropriate.
4.3 Responsibilities
of the Participants
The "Recommended Solutions" process relies
on the proactive participation of members of the RecSol
mailing list and the appropriate university groups.
Information will be posted to the list with deadlines
for review. Silence implies consent.
It is incumbent upon the participants to read RecSol
email and web site, and comment in a timely fashion.
Otherwise, opinions and technical requirements of
an individual may not be reflected in the final document.
4.4 The "Recommended
Solutions" Process
At the request of the Associate Provost for Computing
and Information Services, a project team is formed
to conduct a feasibility study. Participation is sought
from the IT Services staff, TSRs, and CCIS. An announcement
is posted in the Miami Report, via the RecSol LISTSERV,
and on the RecSol web pages.
The project team evaluates options and the Miami
environment. Evaluation progress is published on the
web via an "FYI" document.
Once a proposed recommend solution or set of solutions
is identified, an individual who will take ownership
of the document must submit a draft document by posting
it to the web site and announcing via the RecSol listserv
and the Miami Report that the first draft is
posted on the web site for comments.
- The first draft is also given to the Associate
Provost for Computing and Information Services for
review and forwarding to the appropriate campus
committees, asking how they wish to be involved.
They are invited to participate, with encouragement
to make their comments and concerns known early
in the process. The goal is to avoid a second and
sequential deliberate review of the "Recommended
Solutions."
- Debate on the draft will continue for up to two
weeks.
- At the end of 2 weeks, the author can call for
a vote of approval or consensus by the team members
or can post a revised draft. If needed, a one-week
interim period for raft revision can be taken at
the end of any two-week comment period.
- Draft documents will expire within 2 weeks of
the posting unless revised and reposted or approved
by a vote by the team members.
- A "Recommended Solutions" draft document
can be reposted up to 3 more times (elapsed length
of time is 8-12 weeks depending upon whether 1-week
interim periods for draft document revisions are
needed). If a final draft is not approved by consensus
after the fourth posting, the document will return
to the working group responsible for its creation.
The working group will make a recommendation to
the Associate Provost whether to proceed with the
majority view. If a final draft is approved prior
to the expiration of any of the 4 postings, the
document will be forwarded to the Associate Provost
as detailed below.]
- Changes to this timeline may be requested by the
Associate Provost to accommodate schedule difficulties
or other issues.
- Once the document is approved, it achieves Recommended
Solutions status. It is forwarded to the Associate
Provost for Computing and Information Services for
review with the Vice Presidents for a decision on
approval as an adopted standard.
4.5 Guidelines to
Authors of "Recommended Solutions" Documents
Focus
"Recommended Solutions" draft documents
will usually be created as the result of an individual
or workgroup tasked with solving a specific technical
problem. The following guidelines are provided to
help teams focus their efforts on producing a document
that will move through the "Recommended Solutions"
process quickly.
- Small focused efforts are preferred to larger
comprehensive ones.
- There is a preference for a limited number of
options.
For example, rather than writing a draft that focuses
on a basic configuration of a desktop computer including
hardware and software, this problem should be subdivided
into separate, smaller efforts such as recommendations
for hardware platforms and individual classes of software,
i.e., office suites or calendaring/scheduling software.
The options that are provided should not be a compilation
of products available on the market but just the top
contenders based upon careful evaluation of applicability
or widespread use on campus. Standards
The Miami University Date and Video Network Plan
and Network
Services Architecture are based upon open protocols
in a TCP/IP based network environment. Campuswide
applications should comply with such standards in
order to be considered for central funding and support.
Localized applications that are limited to a single
division or department should attempt to comply with
these standards whenever possible. In all cases, recommendations
must address the issues of scalability, interoperability,
staffing and support needs, the RFP process, funding,
and cross platform support. Structure
A "Recommended Solutions" document should
be submitted as a Microsoft Word document with the
sections identified below. A template can be retrieved
from http://www.muohio.edu/recsol/template/
If you are reading this online, you can download the
Microsoft Word "Recommended Solutions" Template
right now.
4.6 "Recommended
Solutions" Template
[insert date] Document Status (drafts only)
[All draft documents must include the following statement:]
This document is a "Recommended Solutions"
Draft. "Recommended Solutions" Drafts are
draft documents, valid for a maximum of two weeks.
"Recommended Solutions" Drafts may be updated,
replaced, or made obsolete by other documents at any
time. This document was submitted by [author(s)) on
(date)]. Description
[The document should have an introductory section,
containing a two-to-three paragraph description of
the hardware or software solution. The description
should briefly describe the type of hardware or software,
its common use and any key issues for consideration.]
"Recommended Solutions"
[This section can be formatted in any fashion, but
it is recommended that it be succinctly presented
in two to four pages and tabular formats used if possible.
The information should include, as appropriate, how
the solution applies to all supported computing platforms
(i.e., MS Windows, MacOS, UNIX), estimated lifetime
for the recommendation and purchasing sources.] Technical
Support and Training
[This section must address where technical support
and training can be found for this product. If IT Services
does not have staff to support this product, it must
be explicitly stated. If expertise exists within divisions
or departments, all listed divisions/departments and
staff must approve their inclusion in this section.
Technical support listed should include all relevant
mailing lists, newsgroups, World Wide Web sites and
user groups.] Expiration Date
[This is the date that the document will expire or
be reviewed next for renewal (renewal is usually one,
two or three years from approval as a Recommended
Solution).] Document Owner
[This is the individual who will take responsibility
for the document and ensure that it is resubmitted
for renewal at least two months prior to the expiration
date (4 rounds of review take up to 8 weeks). This
will usually be the author, but can be assigned to
another individual.]
4.7 Process Following
Approval of the "Recommended Solutions"
We must investigate solutions quickly and plan for
implementation in a timely manner due to the fast
pace of technology. The Associate Provost for Computing
and Information Services will review the first draft
of the "Recommended Solutions" document
and forward it to the appropriate campus committees,
thereby inviting them to participate, making their
comments and concerns known early in the process rather
than after development of the "Recommended Solutions"
document.
Once a solution achieves Recommended Solutions status,
administrative approval must occur quickly. In order
to avoid a second and deliberate review of the work
done to reach "Recommended Solutions" status,
it is imperative that the governing and administrative
committees have involvement in the "Recommended
Solutions" process and participate in the request
for comments.
Implementation of the "Recommended Solutions"
requires identifying a person to serve as project
leader. The project leader is responsible for assembling
an implementation team, developing the project task
list, tracking progress against the task list due
dates, obtaining management commitment for staffing
and funding in support of the "Recommended Solutions,"
and keeping the campus updated at regular intervals
on the progress of the project.
5. Summary
The "Recommended Solutions" process can be
successful in providing a way to define standards and
common computing environments. The process can result
in more informed departmental and divisional staff,
and can accommodate departmental and divisional solutions.
Miami University benefits from departmental, divisional,
and central experience and technical expertise. The
process provides a way to gain consensus on technical
standards and guidelines designed to achieve a consensus
on Miami's technical direction. The goal for this process
is to aid us in moving toward a common technical environment
that permits accommodation of specialized needs while
providing core services enabling efficient and effective
network services.
Technology Support Representatives (TSR)
page at Miami
University
|
