[435] in Enterprise Print Delivery Team
Re: Enterprise Printing Project Notebooks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rocklyn E. Clarke)
Mon Aug 7 20:17:08 2000
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 00 20:00:34 EDT
From: "Rocklyn E. Clarke" <RCLARKE@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
To: "David M. Rosenberg" <Rosenberg@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Enterprise Print Delivery Team <PRINTDEL@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <p04320404b57ef53b1d74@[18.150.0.200]>
Message-Id: <000807.201655.EDT.RCLARKE@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Hi David,
Here is our response to the email you sent. I apologize for the long delay.
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:25:22 -0400 you said:
>
> . . . text deleted for brevity . . .
>
>Thanks for the URLs. I went to the web pages to look for the set of
>requirements that the discovery and delivery teams had and to see what I
>could about the sources of those requirements. I have a few questions. The
>answers may be on your web pages and I just failed to find them, or they
>may not be recorded in your project notebooks.
>
Q1. You asked if the team had met with a focus group representing FSS.
A1. No, there was no meeting with an FSS focus group. The only focus groups
with which the team met were the ones for R3-Admin and the Business Liason
Team. The team did have many business function requirements meetings with
CAO staff however. These included Accounts Payable, Payroll, General
Ledger, and Jim Morgan.
-----
Q2. You asked if the team had met with the programmers responsible for the
monthly general ledger print job.
A2. No meeting with the programmers responsible for G/L statements took place
prior to our 6/27 meeting.
-----
Q3. You asked if we had tried to determine how future changes in SAP/R3 will
affect MIT's technical print functionality / requirements.
A3. We have not yet made any effort to determine how changes to SAP/R3 will
affect MIT's technical print functionality / requirements. We will gladly
work with the FSS infrastructure group towards this end however. I should
mention that we have been very conscious of Jim Morgan's goal to eliminate
the printing of the monthly G/L statements.
-----
Q4. You asked which of three web pages had our current requirements.
A4. Of the web pages that you cited, the last one (the current delivery
charter) is the most definitive:
http://web.mit.edu/is/delivery/enterprint/delchart.html
-----
Q5. Does the team have any information about the source of the various
requirements? If so, is that information available?
A5. For a description of the origins of our requirements, I refer you to the
Business Analysis Report done by the Discovery project:
http://web.mit.edu/is/discovery/enter-print/deliverables-bar.html
-----
Q6. Did the team attempt to prioritize the requirements? If so, what are the
priorities?
A6. We did not attempt to prioritize the requirements.
-----
Q7. Does the team have any statement about which of the requirements are
satisfied by the team's recommended solution?
A7. Of the requirements listed in the Delivery Charter, I believe that
InfoPrint Manager (IPM) satisfies all of them, although some of them also
require business process changes. For example, getting rid of the impact
printers requires CAO to end their reliance on certain print forms.
-----
Q8. I am interested in the requirement to "handle a variety of print
attributes". Are there any more details about what the print attributes
are? For example, are
Simplex/Duplex printing
Letter/Legal size paper
1-up, 2-up, 4-up, Letter ratio pages 3-up on a legal size page
Input tray selection
the kind of attributes you mean? If so, which ones were requirements?
A8. By "variety of print attributes" I would minimally include:
Simplex/Duplex printing
Input tray selection
InfoPrint Manager can handle the others that you mentioned however.
-----
I hope this is helpful.
Rocklyn
