Re: Scalable Technical Architecture, etc.,
Margaret Honey (mhoney@tristram.edc.org)
Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:14:56 -0400
Hi Bob and others -
Many thanks for your detailed answer. The model you raise is very
compelling and makes lots of sense. I am curious about a couple of things.
First, what do people think of Bob's suggestion that the model they have
developed may challenge traditional centralized bureaucracies? I can
imagine this arising as an issue for several of the school districts we
have been involved with. The other thing I'm curious about is do you
standardize client-side applications, or is this left up to individual
sites? We have found that it greatly simplifies things to have everyone
using the same email program , browser, etc. Training is easier to do and
support is easier to provide.
I look forward to hearing from you all -
Margaret
At 10:24 PM -0500 3/31/97, Bob Carlitz wrote:
>Margaret asks about models for site support. In Common Knowledge:
>Pittsburgh and in our Pittsburgh community networking projects,
>we have tried to distribute the support just as we distribute the
>infrastructure. The underlying idea is to "democratize" the use
>of the technology. At each school or community site we have tried
>to encourage the development of a group of people knowledgeable
>enough in the use of the technology to teach their colleagues
>how to use it and to provide the first line of maintenance of the
>network and attached devices.
>
>The origins of this core group lie in our competitive site selection
>process. In order for a school to compete for available resources,
>it must put together a team to construct and submit a proposal. This
>team becomes the core group as the local project develops.
>
>For a sustainable activity it's necessary to have more than one
>person capable of handle local support. Otherwise that person
>could get burned out, or if they move to another site, the
>whole activity would be in risk of collapsing.
>
>It's also unreasonable to expect the local team to have all the
>answers. This is where the central support group mentioned by
>Margaret becomes important. In Common Knowledge we handle system
>and network maintenance centrally and delegate user support
>to local school sites. There is thus a small central staff to
>deal with technical issues and a small central staff to deal
>with user issues. The latter group orchestrates the competitive
>site selection process and maintains online and telephone support
>services.
>
>These mechanisms are extremely efficient, especially in the area
>of introducing people to the technology and providing their initial
>instruction in its use. Indeed, the approach is so efficient that
>it threatens traditional central support structures and their
>associated bureaucracies. This may be a real problem in deploying
>the model more widely.
>
>I'm curious how other projects that have contemplated whole-school
>and whole-district networking have dealt with these problems.
>
>Bob Carlitz