[2364] in Enterprise Print Delivery Team
Re: Issues with the New Central Printing Service
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David F Lambert)
Mon Mar 4 08:22:40 2002
Message-Id: <200203041322.IAA03695@pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 02 08:00:38 EST
From: David F Lambert <LAMBERT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
To: 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>,
Susan S Minai-Azary <AZARY@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 06 Feb 2002 05:14:54 -0500 from <tregan@MIT.EDU>
Hello Theresa,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. We were waiting for
a coding estimate from IBM to address one concern/change. Please see
a few responses scattered within your note below. Thanks again for
taking time to compose the email below. It helped!
-Dave (for Printdel)
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 05:14:54 -0500 Theresa said:
>Hi Dave,
>
>I do not remember raising any new issues with Rocklyn. Possibly, the team
>would like to document the list of open questions / issues that I raised
>during our December and January meetings for review and agreement by all.
>
>Rocklyn, if I am misrecollecting our conversation, please let me know which
>new issues I raised.
>
>My recent conversation with Rocklyn focused on specific details:
>
> Rocklyn inquired... Is it "ok" to begin generating e-mail from
><computing-help@mit.edu> while the team considers my other questions around
>the web form.
>
> Example: if Computing-Help or others are going to respond to
>customer inquiries, is there a way that they can display a person's current
>information? (this question has been raised previously in e-mail)
Not yet. The team has agreed to provide this ability in the follow on
'IPM@MIT Release 2' work. Barbara is okay with this and has been given
a copy of the current format of the email which has also been distributed
to the HD staff.
> If all three pieces of information is required, how does the
>form behave? If the form does not allow a person to enter partial
>information, then, it may be possible to send one e-mail mentioning that
>the information is not on file vs one or more pieces of information is
>incomplete (this concern has been raised previously)
The code is written to report all blank fields not just the first one
it encounters.
> If the e-mail is coming from <computing-help>, will this create
>a new case in Casetracker? If no, will Computing Help receive some
>notification that a note to a client has been sent on their behalf? (new
>questions when Rocklyn and I chatted)
No. Barbara prefers not to receive the note as a heads up or to
automatically open a log. She believes the corrective steps outlined
in the email are pretty straight forward. Additionally, she prefers
not to open a log unless a client is unable to correct the problem
him/herself, and contacts the HD. It might be useful to think of the
email as a self-help aid.
> What about the restricted queues? Is the e-mail notification
>intended for the restricted queues, too? Rocklyn, expressed yes. I
>reminded him that there were open questions around the restricted queues
>and processes.
Yes. Please see the additional comments below.
> We chatted about how the data collected via the web forms will
>be associated with the various print requests. My comments focused
>on... if I send to one of the restricted queues, how will that data be
>tallied? Will it be tallied based on the restricted queues information or
>my personal information? (these and similar questions are one that I
>raised when we met in December and January)
Based on past discussions re restricted queues and there specific use,
we requested a coding estimate from IBM to use a CO and delivery
address for the restricted queue instead of requiring the submittor's
information. This positive change stemmed from our discussions with
you & others, and Rocklyn's analysis of the "extra layer of abstraction"
in the mainframe printing model. Therefore, if a submittor only uses
a restricted queue, they never need to provide a CO or delivery address
since these will already be defined for the queue when it's established.
IBM has been given the go-ahead to write this code.
> We chatted ever so briefly about the feed from MOIRA to IPM.
>
>As far as I can recollect, I did not raise any other issues during that
>conversation.
>
>While Susan, Jeff and Rocklyn chatted, I did resonate with several concerns
>that they raised... entering data that is not validated and may need to be
>cleaned up in the future; requiring authentication; and Rocklyn discussing
>this service as a new business and its potential to grow.
>
>Regards,
>Theresa
>
>
>At 03:11 PM 2/5/2002 -0500, David F Lambert wrote:
>>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)
>
>
