[692] in Enterprise Print Delivery Team
Re: IPM and distributed printers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David F Lambert)
Thu Nov 16 08:38:43 2000
Message-Id: <200011161338.IAA06356@fort-point-station.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 00 07:55:17 EST
From: David F Lambert <LAMBERT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
To: Jonathon Weiss <jweiss@MIT.EDU>,
Enterprise Printing Delivery Project Team <printdel@MIT.EDU>
cc: ops@MIT.EDU, Theresa M Regan <tregan@MIT.EDU>,
Bob Ferrara <rferrara@MIT.EDU>, Greg Anderson <GANDERSO@MIT.EDU>,
Roger A Roach <RAR@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:32:51 -0500 from <jweiss@MIT.EDU>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:32:51 -0500 Jonathon said:
>
>Hi,
>
>After seeing a recent set of printdel meeting minutes, I'm a little
>confused about hte scope of the printdel project. I was under the
>impression that the scope was limited to replacing printing from the
>mainframe.* However, the minutes I've seen I get the impression the
>team is planning to set up IPM queues for all of the distributed
>printers currently served by arbor-eater and fiber. I think I heard
>someone say at some point that the plan wasn't to replace the
>arbor-eater and fiber functionality immediately, but to maintain
>enough compatibility that that would be an option in the future.
>However, this doesn't look like what is actually happening
>(particularly the plans to purchase licenses for 550 printers). I'd
>appreciate it if someone could explain what is actually going on,
>along with some of the thought process behind it, since I'm feeling
>rather lost right now (and this obiviously has teh ability to impact
>my team).
>
>* The original scpoe had included all administrative printing, but the
>distributed printing side of things was removed around a year ago to
>make the scope managable.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathon
Hi Jonathon,
Sorry if we've introduced confusion to the printing arena. The project
scope & charter of the delivery team is to focus on central printing
(W91 and its remote print site in E19). That's a tad different from
saying replace the mainframe printing services. For example, based on
customer requirements, we needed to handle Postscript and we needed to
accept files submitted via the net. Both of these requirements cannot
be easily handled by today's mainframe based services.
From your note, I think the real source of confusion is probably
coming from a couple of directions. The HP8100 we manage in E19 is
currently managed by APS. We rushed to install this printer ~16 months
ago to address an immediate business requirement expressed by CAO when
they stopped backfeeding financial data from SAP into the legacy
mainframe DBs for printing there. So, we had planned all along to
move this printer to IPM as a central printer which we wanted managed
by a single queue and device management tool. Additionally, CAO
requested their HP8100 also be managed by IPM to allow them a single
user friendly (browser based) tool to manage their queues for both
the HP8100s. Managing CAO's HP8100 with IPM is the only exception
to the scope/charter to focus on central printing services.
The other point of confusion which you raised is around the issue
of the 600+ distributed SAP printers. You may recall the original
discovery charter included our review of all printing related issues
with administrative printing. One goal was to ensure we did NOT
implement a solution which was incompatible with APS. The pricing
structure associated with IPM is based on the number & size of printers
managed by IPM. We negotiated two prices since we had one opportunity
to "squeeze" IBM for special discounts. The current s/w license covers
our large IPDS printers in E19 & W91, the two HP8100s, and a few small
test printers. Additionally, we received pricing to add the ~600
SAP printers if we chose to do so in the future.
IBM made a significant mistake in our favor on the pricing and then
applied heavy discounts on top of that. They stuck to their pricing
even after noticing the mistake. MIT has 180 days to enhance the
license to include the SAP printers. There are ~60 days left on
that contractual fuse. The additional IPM licensing fee of $17K
for the SAP printers also brings the license to a point where we
can manage an unlimited number of printers in the future with no
additional costs.
Moving the distributed SAP printers from APS to IPM is out of scope for
the project! However, it *may* make sense to do this in the future
after a significant discovery review of the issues. So, given the
60 days remaining on the special pricing, the team suggested to a
number of directors that they might want to consider enhancing the
IPM s/w license until a formal review could be completed without
the 60 day time pressure. $17K seemed like a small enough amount
to buy us some time. Additionally, please note from above that
this license enhancement would also allow us to add other central
printers at no additional (above the one time $17K) cost.
Having some additional flexibility to add more central printers
is a good thing given the interest in the new services. For example,
FSS is very interested in 'n' up printing which can be performed by
IPM; Alumni moved printing to their own dept when their application
moved off the mainframe and now they want to move printing back to
W91; Admissions has a whole new application process they hope to
start next month which requires large scale central PDF printing.
So, having some ability to grow central printers is definitely
attractive.
Again, our delivery project has *no* plans to move the ~600 SAP
printers from APS to IPM - that's outside our charter. If there
is interest to review that possibility, a formal discovery project
would be launched with appropriate project members.
I hope this helps clarify our intentions. It's probably best to
address any remaining concerns in person. A two way conversation
done face-to-face is much less apt to cause additional confusion
and heartburn. :)
Dave (for the Enterprise Print Delivery Project)
