Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
darrutiParticipant
Hi Patrick,
Can you provide more details on the Academic Freedom concerns as they relate to enterprise services? Thanks.
darrutiParticipantCyndi,
I moved this comment to the External Vendor SLA forum, which is the SLA you referenced. Sorry for the confusion on the titles on these.
darrutiParticipantMoving a comment from Cyndi on this SLA here, that was inadvertently posted to another SLA:
—-
Is there a definition of an External Vendor? For example, under 2.1 Service Scope, there’s a reference to “external entities”. Further down in that section, the list of services includes Network capacity and connectivity. Section 2.1.2 speaks to boundaries and states that the service features and functions are “restricted to state and federal government entities”. Therefore, if a state or federal government organization is located on the UNM campus and uses the CDCN (is it still called that?) but is not a “vendor” in the traditional sense of the word, does this SLA apply?
—-
I will ask Kirsten Martinez to take a look and respond.darrutiParticipantElisha,
We do not have a comprehensive Enterprise IT Vendor list that is inclusive of Networks, Platforms, Applications and others, to my knowledge. In Applications we do have an ERP components list that is shared through the ERP committee and I suspect others have similar. Not exactly what you are looking for, I know. It is a reasonable ask and I will work with others in IT to approach this. I have seen several reports that we could work from to get at the information. This is listed as a service because it addresses IT’s role in the procurement and vendor relationship management process related to these enterprise vendors. I’m not sure how to address performance on this one and am very open to input. As the topic is closed on Discuss, please feel free to send me your thoughts via email. Other units, if determined to be enterprise providers, would need a similar SLA; but this one is specific to the service provided by IT. Thanks.
darrutiParticipantPosting for Steve Spence: This may require further research, but as this service depends upon the underlying NetID service it is also beholden to the same limitations. I will be paraphrasing, but as I recall there was a process of developing a “password standard” some years ago and that group developed the standards documented here: https://unm.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3559. Various parameters in the password were limited to the capabilities of the various systems that would be using the NetId and password for authentication outside of CAS.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by darruti.
darrutiParticipantThanks Susan. In cases where a service is elective, charges are only incurred when a decision is made to use the service. For enterprise services, the working definition is that the service is to be offered exclusively via a central entity, although as of this moment there has not been a directive to exclusively use those services classified by KSA as enterprise. Funding implications on enterprise services and/or the financial impact of possible exceptions to utilize enterprise services are not defined as of yet. The example of baseline email in particular does not have a charge – it is provided to campus without a pass through of cost based on usage (in our existing model).
darrutiParticipantHi Greg. Hopefully the response just posted to Elisha’s comment helps to clarify. With regards to the follow on questions:
“If the IT service is optional, and units choose to use their own internal resources to provide the service for their own use, are they also required to abide by the SLA? If a unit chooses to partner with another unit to provide these services, will both units be required to implement and abide by the IT SLA?”
Much as we have been asked to work on SLAs for those services categorized by KSA as enterprise, we have also been asked to work on standards for those services categorized by KSA as supplemental. The standards would be the relevant resource and guide for any unit providing a service in those supplemental areas.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by darruti.
darrutiParticipantHi Elisha. I’ll attempt to respond to a couple of your comments:
“This is a general question related to all of the SLAs, but I’m especially interested in the answer as it pertains to this one. The KSA report defined “Enterprise” as something that is “Exclusively offered by a Central Entity.” Does adoption of this SLA, then, force adoption of Central IT hosting for all websites, or is this SLA an attempt to describe a service that is currently offered as an option for departments? Some definition of that in the scope would be helpful. ”
UNM IT intends to complete SLAs for all of our services whether enterprise or supplemental so that users can better understand the service we are offering. Per the President’s timeline, our immediate focus is on enterprise SLAs identified through the KSA review (and that is the nature of your question). As of this moment there has not been a directive to exclusively use those services classified by KSA as enterprise, whether provided by IT or another unit. We have only been asked to document the service and collect and incorporate feedback for review by executive leadership. Any steps beyond that are to be determined. Certainly the articulation of the service and input from the community will better inform any next steps.
“4.3 Escalation – What recourses are available to the customer beyond contacting the service owner?”
We will work on the language in this section to better articulate. Thanks.
Tuan will follow up on other open items.
darrutiParticipantPosting for Steve Spence:
Microsoft BAA – This means (generally) that Microsoft’s offerings are technically able to be compliant with the information types identified in the BAA; however, there are two elements that always need to be enforced in addition to any vendor BAA – that the institutions operational controls are defined, in place, and enforced, and that the appropriate technical controls are defined, in place, and enforced. While Microsoft’s solutions can meet technically meet those requirements defined in the BAA, UNM’s Data Owners are working with the Information Security and Privacy Office (ISPO) to clarify and codify the technical and operational controls. At the current time, the process is to request approval and authorization from the UNM Data Owner, who will review a specific request, review operational controls, and work with the ISPO to ensure that the appropriate technical controls are defined, in place, and enforced. There is more information at http://data.unm.edu and more information will be forthcoming at that location as it is developed.
IT Agents – I think the intention here was to make sure the local IT support was aware of all of the avenues of communication that we typically use to inform the IT community of changes and support issues. We’ve changed the language to clarify that in the last version.
Support Resources – I see what you mean, but I don’t see an appropriate section in the current document—but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t create one. This might be another one where it needs to be in alignment with other SLA’s, so I’ll bring it back to the IT Agreements committee.
Calendar – True, but we’re really saying “Do not share your calendar details with everyone unless you really intend to.” We’ve changed the language in the final version to reflect that message.
Attachments – Agreed—I’ve had some issues obtaining data from vendor for the same reason. We can look into that and if we’re successful we could add that as a point in the SLA, but in general I’m not sure we should get into that level of detail regarding how we’re executing a point.
Integration – It doesn’t cover OneDrive/Sharepoint (just FYI) but it’s still a valid question since there are ways of doing Exchange integrations. But again, I’m not sure the SLA is the place for that level of detail, but perhaps the Service Catalog?
Billing – Good point! This is a standard template language. We will share this comment back with the committee.darrutiParticipantPosting for Steve Spence:
SLA for OneDrive – Andrew, see the response I gave earlier to Rooney’s similar question. We’re considering OneDrive a separate service at this point so we’ll likely have a separate SLA for that eventually.
Fees – Good point: I think that line was boilerplate and we didn’t edit it specific to this service. It’s generic and covers it even if there is no fee.
IE Limitation – The limitation on IE has been removed from A to Z. It now states “Directory listing is accessible by current vendor supported browsers delivered with the OS (operating system).”
MyUNM vs. direct access – Good – we will adjust.
“Intentionally” – If and when we can identify the appropriate controls to prevent this from happening, we would like to do it. As it stands we are making a best effort to avoid sending links that require authentication in official communications but are also reliant on educating end users to never act on such requests.
Available Reports – Thanks! We will pass that on the Agreements committee.darrutiParticipantPosting for Steve Spence: I’m assuming you mean they aren’t enough… Actually both of these are now adjustable, but the additional online storage comes with a per-user cost. We only just became aware of the message-size configuration options and are evaluating options and impact, so I don’t think we can include them in this iteration of the SLA.
darrutiParticipantPosting for Steve Spence: If those archives are in PST format they should be able to be preserved as-is. But if they are “online” archives, we’ll have to discuss options for migrating or maintaining them long term and determine an agreement on how those will be handled.
darrutiParticipantPosting for Steve Spence: Great point—we agree and have seen other schools allow students to keep their original email address “for life,” and we have the option of doing that in our current system. There are discussions to that effect, but no firm decision has been made. The Alumni Association does have a forwarding service, but it’s not related to your original email address. In any case, it’s a matter of coordinating that policy with them and other areas to make it true across the board. At the same time, there might be ways of addressing it by using guest ID status for departments that wanted to maintain them.
darrutiParticipantPosting for Steve Spence: The online archiving feature in Exchange can be expanded for a fee, but we don’t have the mechanism set up to take advantage of that yet, so we won’t put it in the SLA for now. We will at some point in the future. This is pretty similar to other providers. In terms of the multiple methods, it depends on how your users are supported today and what local archives they have deployed (be it Thunderbird, MacMail, Outlook, etc.). In any case those are already stored locally and those can remain right where they are.
darrutiParticipantPosting for Steve Spence: Good point, Dann, we will add the appropriate language and point to the fast info article https://unm.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/6672/ . It is now a self-service function. We don’t have the ability to restore beyond the information listed in the article.
-
AuthorPosts