[48] in iswork
Fwd: Response to Operational Plan Alive questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim McGovern)
Wed Apr 19 16:39:50 2000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <v04020a11b523c9f43deb@[18.152.1.21]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:39:48 -0400
To: iswork@MIT.EDU
From: Tim McGovern <tjm@MIT.EDU>
We can discuss this message's implications for the project tomorrow at 10.
Tim
>X-Sender: rferrara@hesiod
>Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:09:22 -0400
>To: itlt@mit.edu, tjm@mit.edu, thorne@mit.edu
>From: Robert Ferrara <rferrara@MIT.EDU>
>Subject: Response to Operational Plan Alive questions
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>
>Hello,
>
>At the April 6 ITLT, there was some discussion regarding a few key
>requirements raised by Tim McGovern for the Operational Plan Alive
>database. Bill Hogue and I were given the action item to follow up and
>clarify the issues that Tim raised. Since then, Bill and i have discussed
>this further with Tim and Scott. Here is a summary of where we stand.
>
>1. Historical Information.
>The ITLT felt that periodic (e.g. monthly) snapshots in the Warehouse would
>be sufficient. We do not believe that an online, user-viewable, audit log
>of all changes to the database is necessary. It's fine to have a "system
>level" audit log but there would be no expectation of using this for
>regular reporting.
>
>2. Resource Allocation & Project Accounting.
>At the ITLT discussion, it was restated that there is NO expectation that
>the database will be used for these purposes. The design should, however,
>permit cost objects to be associated with entries in the database. The cost
>object will be the common data element that permits association of
>Operation Plan Alive information with costs as tracked in the actual system
>of record, SAP. If we do ever employ project accounting, it will be most
>likely be "inside" SAP, possibly using the Project System. Similarly,
>resource allocation may be addressed using the Labor Distribution (and
>Forecasting) System module of SAP.
>
>If I have not properly reflected the discussion, please let me know.
>
>Thanks, Bob
>
