[992] in I/T Delivery
Re: NOTES from 1/6 Delivery Council
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mary Weisse)
Tue Jan 7 16:50:46 2003
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030107165200.04125008@hesiod>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 16:53:34 -0500
To: Robert Ferrara <rferrara@mit.edu>, delivery-council@mit.edu
From: Mary Weisse <mca@MIT.EDU>
Cc: khiggins@mit.edu, delivery-mtg@menelaus.local
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030106180956.035cd688@po9.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=====================_112033515==_.ALT"
--=====================_112033515==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
- HR rollout (for Cyborg functions) is moved to mid-Aug instead of Sept so
it will be before school start. Payroll will be a year later.
This is still in discussion to the best of my knowledge the date is still 9/1.
Mary
At 04:43 PM 1/7/2003 -0500, Robert Ferrara wrote:
>Delivery Council Notes for 1/6/03 2-3:30 (in N42-286)
>
>ATTENDING: jag, khiggins, ljr, mca, mjv, msnow, rferrara, thg, thorne,
>tomt, wdc
>AWAY: pbh
>
>NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, January 21, 2 PM in W92-199
>
>-------------------------------
>ROUNDTABLE
>- JDB submitted the budget letters, 3-5-7% budget cut proposals
>provided. Expectation is 5-5.5% cut. Cut back some services, found one
>time savings. Hoping to hear back in mid-January.
>- Ken will be talking to TLs about budget projections for next two quarters
>- ITLT is launching internal and external communication efforts
>- Reminder to review commitments from last October 18, 2002 meeting; will
>go over in future meeting for Feb 2003 review.
>- Vijay has been making academic rounds - tradition of visiting academic
>departments, faculty for conversations
>- Working hard on XP, slow going
>- Good cluster news - 9 different classes using 37 cluster in Spring
>- HR rollout (for Cyborg functions) is moved to mid-Aug instead of Sept so
>it will be before school start. Payroll will be a year later.
>- Upgraded production warehouse machine, working on upgrading dev machine,
>need more space on the SAN, waiting on hard drives. Found out that the OS
>may need to be upgraded on the production machine (rev maybe in middle of
>February).
>- Credit card team added a few new merchants. Added new features to allow
>merchants to create their own forms to connect to ClearCommerce
>- VWR contract up, reviewing merchant bids
>- Keynote from MacWorld will be on MITCable on Tuesday, January 7 at noon
>- Going live soon with new install CD that handles IBM hardware
>- Athena team will spend IAP time looking at disconnected Athena operation
>- Upgrade to Corporation database in process by EAST
>- Meeting tomorrow on MIT ID database at the Card Office
>
>-------------------------------
>DEVELOPMENT "CHARGEBACK" -- providing development services for
>departmental applications
> Desired Outcome:
> - develop list of pros (benefits) & cons (potential issues)
> - what would it take to succeed?
> - clarify next steps
>
>I/T APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS
>
>WHY: Gradually we keep getting whittled away on development capability -
>we get smaller while demand continues to get bigger. IS also gets cut out
>of certain business - mainly application work, not infrastructure. A lot
>of support from ITLT, but need to get the specifics. New
>customers. Protect commons. Provide better alternative to
>consultants. WCS, FSS, EAST very interested in charging model.
>
>GOALS: "Do right thing" by commons. Would be great if 6-8 "projects" /
>engagements a year at maturity. Another way to look at it - how many
>people can we fund this way in a steady state fashion? Doesn't mean we
>have the bodies funded. Concern about soft vs hard money balance. Bob is
>not suggesting that we have dedicated bodies for project work. Question
>about these projects taking people away from Institute priorities. Point
>- we don't have the headcount for any project work. If we say slice of
>Delivery headcount is cost-recovery, and we don't cost-recover, what
>happens? Contract houses has very fluid staffing levels, don't want
>Delivery to turn into that - would need to redefine organization.
>
>SCOPE OF TYPICAL PROJECTS: Cost recovery of development makes sense when
>we can compare ourselves to an outsourced, alternative service. Long term
>- IS provide project manager for jobs, when consultants are involved. 1-3
>person months at first. Exclude warehouse, other than normal
>consults. May require definition of what IS does offer.
>
>SUPPORT REQUIRED
>- analysis piece
>- contracts required, help manage scope creep
>
>CONVERSATION NOTES:
>Many feel it's not that we lack a model - we lack the resources. If
>someone has the money, couldn't we find people to fill the need? Missing
>support piece - if IS helps, we end up having to support it. No natural
>mechanism to control the volatility of customer/need. Finding resources
>and controlling them - use outside bodies that have nothing to do with
>standing level. Big middle ground between what we do now and doing all
>the application work - a lot of different needs / goals in that
>space. Departmental business applications is what we missed.
>
>A center contracted with a firm, paying a lot of money for features that
>could be free/low cost with existing credit card services.
>
>Need conditions to determine if IS/Delivery will take on issues. JDB got
>rid of this type of service maybe a decade ago. AMPS exists on this model
>now - MIT needs it.
>
>Circumstances where it works:
>GOOD: customer comes with well-defined idea and money, and we have the
>resource available, can do better than outside (e.g. IT goals in
>mind). Resource availability (needed to write a contract -
>BAD: If AMPS already covers it, commercial application already exists.
>
>NEXT STEPS: will be looked at as a Discovery project by Discovery Council
>on Jan 13 to create organizational piece - feeling that we have to get in
>this business or "we will be whittled away".
>
>-------------------------------
>* Delivery "Monthly Report" (15 min)
>Proposal: as part of a larger effort to improve IS communications, Bob
>will write a monthly communication for all Delivery staff and other key
>constituents
>Desired outcome: list of ideas for content: what do people want to hear about?
>GOOD:
>- executive summary of what goes over the delivery lists
>- delivery people only
>- too much non-effective communication - too much of it
>** new & coming projects
>** "back story" from ITLT, effect on Delivery
>- Delivery objectives
>- CG - don't be redundant
>- ** Important to MG current, and what Bob is working on
>BAD: lack of content, no redundancy
>
>-------------------------------
>FSS interest in IS project management methodology (10 min)
>Desired outcome: - ideas for how to make IS methodology more accessible
>and useful to FSS
>Group in FSS came to Bob, chartered to come up with project
>methodology. Currently maintain a list of a few hundred to-dos (tasks to
>projects). Both development and business analysis. IS working on asset
>management discovery project - immediate customer is IS, jointly led by
>FSS & IS.
>
>-------------------------------
>* Input on Team Leader Development -- Mark Snow (10 min)
> Desired outcome: suggestions for how CG can be helpful with regard to
> TLs getting feedback and creating development plans for Spring 2003 PA
>TABLED - will do by email or next meeting
>
>-------------------------------
>Next meeting (Tuesday -1/21):
>* Quarterly report
>* Plan for - Delivery meeting 2/18 (unlikely)
>* Cross-platform development: where are we? where should we go?
>* other suggested topics? (project debrief?)
>* Visits to Delivery Council by other Directors
> - would this be useful?
> - whom should we invite?
> - what should topic/format be?
>
>
>----------
>Thanks to Tom Grayson, here's a link to the Globe story about the Native
>American artifacts that I mentioned. (The general ideas are accurate, but
>in his enthusiasm, the writer took some liberties.
>http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/005/northwest/Shroud_lifts_on_unearthed_ancient_relics+.shtml
>
>
--=====================_112033515==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
- HR rollout (for Cyborg functions) is moved to mid-Aug instead of Sept
so it will be before school start. Payroll will be a year later. <br>
<br>
<br>
This is still in discussion to the best of my knowledge the date is still
9/1.<br>
<br>
Mary<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 04:43 PM 1/7/2003 -0500, Robert Ferrara wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Delivery Council Notes for 1/6/03 2-3:30 (in
N42-286)<br>
<br>
ATTENDING: jag, khiggins, ljr, mca, mjv, msnow, rferrara, thg, thorne,
tomt, wdc<br>
AWAY: pbh<br>
<br>
NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, January 21, 2 PM in W92-199<br>
<br>
-------------------------------<br>
ROUNDTABLE<br>
- JDB submitted the budget letters, 3-5-7% budget cut proposals
provided. Expectation is 5-5.5% cut. Cut back some services,
found one time savings. Hoping to hear back in mid-January.<br>
- Ken will be talking to TLs about budget projections for next two
quarters<br>
- ITLT is launching internal and external communication efforts<br>
- Reminder to review commitments from last October 18, 2002 meeting; will
go over in future meeting for Feb 2003 review.<br>
- Vijay has been making academic rounds - tradition of visiting academic
departments, faculty for conversations<br>
- Working hard on XP, slow going <br>
- Good cluster news - 9 different classes using 37 cluster in
Spring<br>
- HR rollout (for Cyborg functions) is moved to mid-Aug instead of Sept
so it will be before school start. Payroll will be a year later. <br>
- Upgraded production warehouse machine, working on upgrading dev
machine, need more space on the SAN, waiting on hard drives. Found
out that the OS may need to be upgraded on the production machine (rev
maybe in middle of February).<br>
- Credit card team added a few new merchants. Added new features to
allow merchants to create their own forms to connect to
ClearCommerce<br>
- VWR contract up, reviewing merchant bids<br>
- Keynote from MacWorld will be on MITCable on Tuesday, January 7 at
noon<br>
- Going live soon with new install CD that handles IBM hardware<br>
- Athena team will spend IAP time looking at disconnected Athena
operation<br>
- Upgrade to Corporation database in process by EAST<br>
- Meeting tomorrow on MIT ID database at the Card Office<br>
<br>
-------------------------------<br>
DEVELOPMENT "CHARGEBACK" -- providing development services for
departmental applications<br>
Desired Outcome:<br>
- develop list of pros (benefits) & cons
(potential issues)<br>
- what would it take to succeed?<br>
- clarify next steps<br>
<br>
I/T APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS<br>
<br>
WHY: Gradually we keep getting whittled away on development capability -
we get smaller while demand continues to get bigger. IS also gets
cut out of certain business - mainly application work, not
infrastructure. A lot of support from ITLT, but need to get the
specifics. New customers. Protect commons. Provide
better alternative to consultants. WCS, FSS, EAST very interested
in charging model.<br>
<br>
GOALS: "Do right thing" by commons. Would be great if 6-8
"projects" / engagements a year at maturity. Another way
to look at it - how many people can we fund this way in a steady state
fashion? Doesn't mean we have the bodies funded. Concern
about soft vs hard money balance. Bob is not suggesting that we
have dedicated bodies for project work. Question about these
projects taking people away from Institute priorities. Point - we
don't have the headcount for any project work. If we say slice of
Delivery headcount is cost-recovery, and we don't cost-recover, what
happens? Contract houses has very fluid staffing levels, don't want
Delivery to turn into that - would need to redefine organization.<br>
<br>
SCOPE OF TYPICAL PROJECTS: Cost recovery of development makes sense when
we can compare ourselves to an outsourced, alternative service.
Long term - IS provide project manager for jobs, when consultants are
involved. 1-3 person months at first. Exclude warehouse,
other than normal consults. May require definition of what IS does
offer.<br>
<br>
SUPPORT REQUIRED<br>
- analysis piece<br>
- contracts required, help manage scope creep<br>
<br>
CONVERSATION NOTES:<br>
Many feel it's not that we lack a model - we lack the resources. If
someone has the money, couldn't we find people to fill the need?
Missing support piece - if IS helps, we end up having to support
it. No natural mechanism to control the volatility of
customer/need. Finding resources and controlling them - use outside
bodies that have nothing to do with standing level. Big middle
ground between what we do now and doing all the application work - a lot
of different needs / goals in that space. Departmental business
applications is what we missed.<br>
<br>
A center contracted with a firm, paying a lot of money for features that
could be free/low cost with existing credit card services.<br>
<br>
Need conditions to determine if IS/Delivery will take on issues.
JDB got rid of this type of service maybe a decade ago. AMPS exists
on this model now - MIT needs it.<br>
<br>
Circumstances where it works:<br>
GOOD: customer comes with well-defined idea and money, and we have the
resource available, can do better than outside (e.g. IT goals in
mind). Resource availability (needed to write a contract -<br>
BAD: If AMPS already covers it, commercial application already
exists.<br>
<br>
NEXT STEPS: will be looked at as a Discovery project by Discovery Council
on Jan 13 to create organizational piece - feeling that we have to get in
this business or "we will be whittled away".<br>
<br>
-------------------------------<br>
* Delivery "Monthly Report" (15 min)<br>
Proposal: as part of a larger effort to improve IS communications, Bob
will write a monthly communication for all Delivery staff and other key
constituents<br>
Desired outcome: list of ideas for content: what do people want to hear
about?<br>
GOOD:<br>
- executive summary of what goes over the delivery lists<br>
- delivery people only<br>
- too much non-effective communication - too much of it<br>
** new & coming projects<br>
** "back story" from ITLT, effect on Delivery<br>
- Delivery objectives<br>
- CG - don't be redundant<br>
- ** Important to MG current, and what Bob is working on<br>
BAD: lack of content, no redundancy<br>
<br>
-------------------------------<br>
FSS interest in IS project management methodology (10 min)<br>
Desired outcome: - ideas for how to make IS methodology
more accessible and useful to FSS<br>
Group in FSS came to Bob, chartered to come up with project
methodology. Currently maintain a list of a few hundred to-dos
(tasks to projects). Both development and business analysis.
IS working on asset management discovery project - immediate customer is
IS, jointly led by FSS & IS.<br>
<br>
-------------------------------<br>
* Input on Team Leader Development -- Mark Snow (10 min)<br>
Desired outcome: suggestions for how CG can be helpful with regard
to TLs getting feedback and creating development plans for Spring 2003
PA<br>
TABLED - will do by email or next meeting<br>
<br>
-------------------------------<br>
Next meeting (Tuesday -1/21):<br>
* Quarterly report<br>
* Plan for - Delivery meeting 2/18 (unlikely)<br>
* Cross-platform development: where are we? where should we
go?<br>
* other suggested topics? (project debrief?)<br>
* Visits to Delivery Council by other Directors<br>
- would this be useful?<br>
- whom should we invite?<br>
- what should topic/format be?<br>
<br>
<hr>
Thanks to Tom Grayson, here's a link to the Globe story about the Native
American artifacts that I mentioned. (The general ideas are
accurate, but in his enthusiasm, the writer took some liberties.
<br>
<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/005/northwest/Shroud_lifts_on_unearthed_ancient_relics+.shtml" eudora="autourl">http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/005/northwest/Shroud_lifts_on_unearthed_ancient_relics+.shtml</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote><br>
</html>
--=====================_112033515==_.ALT--
