RESTRUCTURING COMPUTING ACROSS PENN
Services for Local Providers Pilot Project
Support for Local Providers
Principles and Prospects
A report to the Penn community from the Support for Local Providers
pilot team
November 4, 1996
Introduction
The New Model for Computing Services Across Penn is grounded on the
idea that end users are central and that the best mechanism for
delivering computing support to them is through local support
providers, located as near to them as practical. Nonetheless, the
model recognizes that the existence of local support providers does
not complete the picture - there is a need for secondary support to
assist them:
- "Secondary services undergird primary support and make the
whole greater than the sum of the parts."
- "All in all, the model clarifies the division of labor under
Responsibility Center Management. Schools (and business units) are
responsible for their own primary computing support... The center
concentrates on secondary services. Standards help tie the
structure together. The model encourages confederation for the
common good even as it values organizational self-reliance..."
- "Mechanisms are in place to refer problems that a primary
provider alone cannot solve. Sources of second- and third-tier
support are clear, and means of access are well defined."
In consultation with the Implementation Steering Group, the
Support for Local Providers pilot has been working to investigate
and understand the problems, opportunities and consequences which
follow from widespread adoption of the New Model for Computing
Services Across Penn as it relates to support for local
providers.
This report summarizes the results of the preliminary phase of
the pilot project. It begins by defining the relevant terms used in
the report. The next section enumerates a series of principles for
organizing, delivering, and funding support for local providers.
This is followed by a description of a high-level framework which,
we believe, incorporates the principles for services for local
providers as well as the principles from the New Model for
Computing Services Across Penn. Finally, we present representative
examples of second-tier services in more detail to illustrate the
general features of the proposed model. Each of these services will
be studied carefully in the next phase of the pilot and presented
to the steering committee with specific recommendations.
Definitions
What is Support for Local Providers?
Support for local providers consists of specific activities,
services, or components of services which are directed to, or
directly benefit computing support providers situated in schools
and units.
Clients and Experts
Clients include front-line support providers, process teams, and
other information technology professionals. End users are not
generally direct clients.
Services for local providers will be delivered by a network of
campus computing experts from ISC and individual units. They are an
expert group, not a group which makes up for inadequate
primary support.
The people who provide these services will almost always have
other operational duties as well. They are experts because of those
other responsibilities: standards, architecture, emerging
technology, support for services, etc.
Principles
Principles for Service Delivery
- Support local providers
Support for local providers does not provide primary support.
Primary support issues are referred back to local support
providers.
- Communication is critical
Information and communication about the services available for
local providers is crucial to successful delivery.
- Expertise arises from actions
Support providers acquire, and maintain, expert knowledge of a
technical area because they use it in their everyday jobs.
- Map what's there
Clearly document available services and help local providers
know where to go for what.
- Link authority with responsibility.
The providers of specific services should be responsible for the
local provider support required to deliver those services.
- Avoid referral and escalation
Support requiring escalation or referral is a loss for the end
user. Support for local providers works best for end users when it
empowers local support providers to solve problems directly.
- Keep it simple
Don't over-engineer the solution. Respond to specific needs with
appropriately targeted, and funded, services.
- Encourage informal support structures where appropriate.
- Track usage
Tracking and metering use of support for local providers will
help to:
- improve service,
- better target the service to a particular audience,
- determine value; appropriateness of funding or sunset,
- identify blind spots in primary support.
- Promote standards
Local provider support builds on an accepted base of standards
and services adopted in consultation with the University community.
The availability of good local provider support for standards
provides a strong incentive for units to adopt and comply with
them.
- Identify tradeoffs
Recognize trade-offs and interdependence among the various
components required to deliver support.
- ISC's role
ISC should focus primarily on services for local providers
which:
Principles for Funding
Support for local providers is funded through a mix of allocated
cost ("taxes") and direct charge. Individual units contribute
expertise and staff time through participation in user groups, task
forces, and the "facilitated volunteers" local provider support
network. Funding decisions can be guided by the following set of
general principles:
Five approaches to support for local providers
This section describes a framework for understanding and discussing
services for local providers at Penn. As with any framework
designed to describe systems which are complicated and
multidimensional, it may oversimplify and not accurately categorize
every contingency. However, we believe that it achieves the
following goals:
- It follows from and respects the principles of the New Model
for Computing Services Across Penn,
- It is framed in a way which makes funding strategies
explicit,
- It incorporates examples of existing services in a natural way.
This, in turn, allows discussions about the desirability and
evolution of these services.
The reader should note that the most important criterion we used
in selecting the examples cited below was: "Is this service
primarily directed to or for the benefit of local service
providers?" If it was not, or if the service contained elements
beyond this criterion, it was not included.
Campus experts help each other
We have dubbed this approach "facilitated confederation." It
recognizes Penn's existing informal networks of campus experts.
However, it calls for more explicit coordination and management
from ISC and more explicit definition of roles and responsibilities
for all participants to help assure that these confederations are
effective. A fitting analogy might be: "Units provide the buckets,
ISC provides and manages the plumbing which allows knowledge to
flow from one bucket to another." (You'll forgive us if we don't
take the plumbing analogy too far in the discussions which follow).
Who pays?
In this approach, allocated costs pay for ISC's coordination and
process management role. Units, including ISC, provide
contributions in kind from their campus experts. Specific services,
such as the network or central administrative systems, are
responsible for local provider support related to the base service.
Example services
- Escalation of questions beyond the expertise of local
providers.
- Interest and user groups:
- PCNet
- MacNet
- Super Users
- Campus Lab SIG
- Digital Media and Publishing
Highlighted principals
- Encourage the informal structure
- Expertise arises from actions
Formal campus teams
This approach recognizes the importance of teams constituted to
serve and benefit local support providers, especially in areas
which cut across organizational boundaries. Nomadic teams with a
fixed life span can be particularly effective in dealing with
technological issues which, by their very nature, are often short
lived. Roll outs of new technology are a particularly good example
where this approach can be effective.
Who pays?
As a campus-wide process, funding and resources for these teams
can, and should be, multifaceted: contributions in kind, allocated
costs, seed money, or direct charges. In any event, the preferred
strategy is to allocate resources to the project team itself,
preferably through a separate budget.
Example services
Highlighted principles
- Map what's there
- Encourage the informal structure
ISC as provider
This approach recognizes that there are certain services for local
providers where it makes sense for ISC to perform them and to pay
for them out of allocated costs. In deciding which services to
select here, it is important to keep in mind the funding principles
which apply and to make every effort to keep the services focused,
identify the customers as precisely as possible, and to negotiate
and manage service levels.
Who pays?
These service are paid for out of allocated costs.
Example services
- Software distribution services
Presently, this includes ISC-managed servers which provide
single repositories for supported campus software: penn_sw for
on-campus Win95 and Macintosh systems, and ftp.upenn.edu for
universal access on and off campus.
- Systems for problem tracking and resolution
One way to leverage the broad expertise available on campus is
to provide mechanisms through which problem resolution knowledge
can be captured, managed, and shared. Another pilot "Linking Help
Desks" is investigating the ways a specific product, Apriori, can
be used to do just this. We believe it is important to take steps
which allow more effective sharing of problem solutions to "get the
support knowledge out of one head and into many." Ultimately, this
benefits the University by reducing the number of parallel efforts
required to address and solve common problems.
Highlighted Principles
- Track usage
- Avoid referral and escalation
- Allocated funds for the good of the whole
Entrepreneurial units sell services where markets exist
This approach recognizes that there are some services for local
providers which do not fit within the guidelines for services paid
for out of allocated costs. In these cases, the New Model for
Computing Services Across Penn recommends the establishment of
service bureaus. Services for local providers are no exception.
Who pays?
The service is paid for by direct charges.
Example services
- PENNback
This service is a fee-based system for backing up desktop
systems and servers over the network to an ISC-managed
repository.
- Data and Media conversion
As technology changes, there is a recurring need to move data
from one storage medium to another as well as convert data from one
format to another to allow processing by specific software
packages. ISC currently provides such services on a small scale in
both ACS and CRC.
Highlighted Principles
- Link authority and responsibility
- Expertise arises from actions
Mixed strategies
This approach recognizes that for some services a combination of
funding and delivery methods may be appropriate.
Who pays?
A mix of allocated and direct. For example, ISC performs the base
service or coordination out of allocated costs, with direct charges
for the product itself.
Example services
- User guides for standard campus products.
Here, ISC provides the base documentation. Schools, units, or
individuals pay the costs of customization and distribution. The
Guide to Elm at Penn and the PennNet Passport fall into this
category
- Bring training to Penn for local support providers
ISC coordinates and maintains relationships with external
training vendors. Local units pay for the training itself.
Highlighted Principles
- Support local providers
- Leverage existing resources
Services and activities with significant local provider support
components.
Finally, we wish to make the point that the approaches identified
were selected to keep the discussion focused on services for local
providers. This said, we also realize that there are a number of
campus wide efforts which have a significant impact on local
support providers but which are considerably broader in scope. Site
licensing, for example, falls into this category. In keeping with
the 'link accountability and responsibility' principle, we have
listed a number of areas which need to maintain strong established
links with the community of local support providers. These links
need to be clearly identified and made part of the operational
fabric of each area.
- Standard setting teams,
- System security awareness and management,
- Site licensing,
- Vendor relations,
- Support provider identification and certification,
- Fall sale package evaluation/selection,
- Facilities management services
Appendix - Relation to the Restructuring Model
In this section, we list the relevant principles from the Model to
Restructure Computing at Penn, and briefly describe how our
recommended approaches for support for local providers follow from
and reinforce these principles.
1. Put the client first. Locate support and support decisions
close to the recipient.
Our approach clearly identifies the clients as local support
providers and focuses attention on services and activities which
meet their needs.
4. Focus Penn's energies by organizing and funding a few
important activities along process lines.
Our approach recognizes and recommends the creation, operation,
and review of campus wide teams. Nomadic teams with a fixed life
time make particular sense in technological areas. These teams
would be organized to address specific needs of local support
providers and phased out as the need for them diminished.
5. Move toward confederated activities that overcome the
traditional Penn dichotomy of "school vs. central."
Our approach recommends the continuation and strengthening of
current confederations of campus experts to help one another and
leverage existing expertise.
7. Build on Penn's strengths and best practices. Learn from
others.
Our approaches recognize the effectiveness and desirability of
existing support for local providers and seeks to promote more
effective information sharing .
8. Make plans and policies that encourage flexibility. Expose
organizations, processes, and services to sunset laws that require
them to prove their value in changing circumstances.
Our approaches encourage the definition of processes to guide
and prioritize services for local providers. Periodic reviews would
identify services to be created, modified, or deleted.
Local Services Pilot
Approaches Progress Overview Members
|
