Talk to the network manager at a vocational college about the project rediscovery, saying that their campus network Authentication & Billing was on the line when it came in. The opening of the program basically represented the typical destiny of such projects: technology was not the biggest variable; decision-making path was the way.
The campus network Authentication & Billing system adaptation project, which appears to be a technological replacement and actually a redistribution of organizational powers. Of the projects I have seen over the years, eight were eventually or repeatedly back in work, not because technology was wrongly selected but rather because they had gone through several stages.
Point one: Whose goal is the target of the transformation?
The campus network Authentication & Billing has three levels of users: network centre management equipment, student branch bandwidth policy, treasury management clearing process, each level of pain is different. Network centres think about uniform control of the equipment, students wonder about fewer complaints from students, and the Treasury thinks about accounting. If the goal of the renovation is just a network center, the other two layers are blocked when they are online.
One example was seen: the network centre-led remodeling, which selected the most functional platform, led to students finding that the interface was completely unworkable. The Treasury found that bill formats were not in line with existing school templates, both departments were not involved and all the problems went online into the network center. This pot technology program was left behind and buried during the target definition phase.
Component two: Who's the bottom of the migration data?
Most of the remodel projects, data migration is the most unregarded and undervalued part. The campus network Authentication & Billing system contains not only account codes but also historical billing records, equipment bindings, changes in trajectories, and late payment records. These data have three migration difficulties: one is a lack of uniformity of format, an irregular slotting of old systems, and the new system field does not match; two are historical arrears that cannot be said to disappear after the transfer; and three are problems with the migration window period.——During system switching, how the two old and new data sets are synchronized, who maintains them and what operational norms are.
In one provincial undergraduate school, the old system ran for eight years, with over 400,000 historical accounts alone, two months of data cleansing by the relocation team, three days before being on line, and finding that there were two systems where cost settlement rules for a group of walk-in students were not defined in accordance with the new system rules, the head shot decided to follow them, and parents called to ask why the arrears records and the new system were not matched. This question could have been detected in advance and confirmed in writing.
Component three: whether or not the package policy changes should be approved in parallel
The NATHHELL_AUTH_BILLING system is backed by a fee policy. During the renovation, many schools used to adjust their baskets, for example, using flow-based to long-time or bandwidth-sharing to exclusive use. This adjustment was good in itself, but if the package adjustment did not finish the school fee approval process, new packages were online and no logistics or financial recognition became a problem.
And even more problematic is that some schools have historical foods.——For example, when early free broadband is provided to teachers, when the new system is online, whether or not this policy should be maintained, how to migrate and if new teachers are not enjoying the same type of policy, without a clear pre-codification, the system will have a significant historical irregularity.
Segment four: Where is the border between third-party systems?
The campus network Authentication & Billing system is almost impossible to stand alone. Common matching needs include: the introduction of student accounts into the teaching system, simultaneous bills for financial systems, and a cartoon platform sharing identity certification. Each interface is an independent interface agreement negotiated with different duty-bearers and interests underlying each negotiation.
I've seen a project. It's written on the bidding."Support seamless interface with existing systems", the implementation phase only found that the introduction of a system of teaching needs to be approved by the school informatization leadership group, that the connection to the financial system requires an interface file with the recipient and that the two departments have a completely different willingness to move forward, which has been delayed for three months. The underlying reason is that the tender stage did not confirm the third-party cross-check list article by article, nor did it include in each contract the approval path and time estimate for each docking.
Component five: what's the substance of the transport-vitor handover?
The acceptance of the project is not a transfer of the carrier. Many schools think that it has been completed, and the real test of NATSHEL_AUTH_BILLING system actually started on the day of receipt and signature.——Students are beginning to use them on a large scale, and border situations are emerging, when the network centre is very passive if the transport document is incomplete and the trouble-handling process is not clear.
On one occasion, the delay in billing was experienced when the engineer remotely checked the database logs, but the operator on the school side did not have access to the database and the contractor said that the permission was not specified in the contract and had to go to change applications. One fee was delayed for three days, and students complained about the telephone for three days. The subsequent retrace was the result of the failure to make the list of rights and emergency response mechanisms clear on paper during the transfer phase.
Before the remodeling starts, all five decision points must have written conclusions and the parties signed a letter. Without this confirmation, technology is better than just building on the beach.