[2340] in Enterprise Print Delivery Team
conversation with Rocklyn and print delivery project
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Susan S. Minai-Azary)
Tue Feb 26 18:07:48 2002
Resent-From: David F Lambert <LAMBERT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Resent-To: Enterprise Printing Delivery Project Team <printdel@MIT.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p05010401b89349f5d825@[18.18.6.117]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:07:57 -0500
To: lambert@MIT.EDU
From: "Susan S. Minai-Azary" <azary@MIT.EDU>
Cc: rar@MIT.EDU, rclarke@MIT.EDU, tregan@MIT.EDU, rferrara@MIT.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Here 'tis... -Dave
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Dave
I know the team working on New Central Printing Service did come to
itag as is required. I think what happened after that is what may
happen with projects that have changes in staff and/or leadership or
time frames. Things drift, teams learn about new requirements, etc.
itag asks that teams return for another conversation if there are
changes in the scope of the project or in the solution. This is the
team leader responsibility.
I was telling Rocklyn what some of the disconnects were from my
point of view. He and I found immediately we had different
definitions of the project. I also told Rocklyn what I thought itag
might say about some of the situations. I, personally not itag (this
was a hallway conversation), was particularly dismayed about
gathering unvalidated accounting data that might be used in the
future. Possibly inaccurate and unused data in new systems is a red
flag. I thought this was a useful conversation for just Rocklyn to
hear as information about the kinds of issues we address in itag. I
was fairly sure none of this was discussed when we had met with the
team.
Talks with itag as most useful before the work is done. I
understand this project is in production. It is not our goal in itag
to back up or hold up projects, except in the most extreme cases.
This is not one of those, unless you tell me differently. Therefore
I am not asking your team to come to an itag meeting. If you would
find one useful for your team, you may request one. If you are
planning to do any more development around this project, then you
should ask for one.
We do not send out prioritized lists of our concerns or issues when
we hear partial information about changes in a project. This would
not work in general because we need the context of the business you
are addressing to evaluate the solution. A conversation works best
for this. That is why the responsibility is with the team leader.
Therefore unless I hear differently, I will assume you are moving
your product to production and itag will hear about Central Printing
Service if or when there is a Release 2.
Thanks for your concern and your follow up note. You should have
heard from me sooner.
Regards
Susan
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 02 15:11:04 EST
From: David F Lambert <LAMBERT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Issues with the New Central Printing Service
To: Susan S Minai-Azary <AZARY@MIT.EDU>, Theresa M Regan <TREGAN@MIT.EDU>
cc: Enterprise Printing Delivery Project Team <printdel@MIT.EDU>,
Roger A Roach <RAR@MIT.EDU>, Bob Ferrara <rferrara@MIT.EDU>
Hello Susan & Theresa,
At our weekly printdel meeting yesterday, Rocklyn shared some
of the conversation he had with you recently. Based on his
comments, it appears that you both have some issues or concerns
regarding the implementation of the new central printing service.
Given that we are already running production work with this new
service and the team would like to wrap up their delivery work,
it would be useful to resolve any pending issues you have sooner
than later.
Therefore, the print delivery team would like to request that
you document your issues/concerns in a prioritized list, send the
list along to printdel@mit.edu, and schedule us for an ITAG
meeting (if you feel it's appropriate) as soon as possible.
If OCP and ITAG have differing issues, two prioritized
lists are fine with us. Additionally, if Theresa wants to meet
separately from the ITAG meeting, that's fine too.
I know we all have MIT's best interest in mind. So, the team
is very confident we can resolve any remaining issues/concerns
to everyone's satisfaction.
We would like to address your concerns sooner than later. This
has been a long and tedious project which needs to get wrapped up.
With production work already being handled by IPM, resolving any
remaining issues now would be beneficial to all involved.
Thanks in advance for your timely response.
Dave (for the printdel team)
