ADSM-L

Re: Wanted: A working requirements process

1999-11-22 19:50:55
Subject: Re: Wanted: A working requirements process
From: Steve Harris <steveh AT WESLEY.COM DOT AU>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:50:55 +1000
Thanks for the input Len,

Your company (SAS) has a similar problem to Tivoli - A vast range of users using
the product for all manner of different purposes on a multitude of platforms.
Doesn't SAS have a requirements process where the users are presented with a
list of sponsored requirements and they vote on which improvements they'd like
to see?, with the most popular getting the development impetus.

Surely Tivoli could set up such a process - maybe weighted by number of client
licences - that is web accessible and has minimum overhead.

Discussion?

Steve Harris
AIX/ADSM/Oracle/HACMP Guy
The Wesley Hospital
Brisbane Australia








len <SNOLEN AT VM.SAS DOT COM> on 23/11/99 06:54:06

Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>








 To:      ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU

 cc:      (bcc: Steve Harris/Wesley)



 Subject: Re: Wanted: A working requirements process



Fax to:




Hello Jerry

I have to agree will Jerry's note. In the early days of ADSM-L (will Martha
have to change this list to TSM-L), there were a many enhancement requests,
discussed on the list,
that made it into ADSM version 2/3. At that time there were a number of adsm
client and server folks (both managers and developers) active on the list.
Even thought there are still several very helpful folks from the ADSM
group on the list, I do not think that there is anyone from the server side
of things. And a percentage, I think that the group is smaller. But just
as then, we do feel thankful for those ADSM/TSM  folks that do
 help us with their unique point of view of our ADSM/TSM.

At one time I believe that someone from ADSM dev, said that the ADSM-L
could be considered an user group. If it was considered a user group, then
it would seem that it should be able to submit change requests. The
largest roadblock to this would be the IBM feeling that requirements arefor
company eyes only. I wonder if they could make a list of requirements public
but not the company's response for same. Maybe they could create a secure
web site for customers to request this status. But then another vendor could
be a customer. But then I have seen other vendors at SHARE.


Maybe IBM  could even assign someone to act as a liason
person between the ADSM-L group and the ADSM/TSM product team.


Way back in a prior life, I used to go to Univac user group meetings and the
company would publish a small conference book. In the book that would give
a summary of user change requests. And this did help keep one from requesting
a change that was already requested.

PS Share does have tracks for things other then MVS, but the ADSM change
   requests were covered by the MVS HSM group and the one time I attended
   one of their meetings, the ADSM requests came after all the MVS requests
   against the DFxxx products.

PSS Some history. A heavy poster to ADSM-R list was an old friend
                  Andy Raibeck <raibeck AT CONNIX DOT COM>

And here is a response to an inquire on ADSM-R about the requirements
database.

Date:         Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:53:20 PST
Reply-To:     ADSM Requirements List <ADSM-R AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
X-Sender:       ADSM Requirements List <ADSM-R AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
From:         Greg Tevis <gtevis AT VNET.IBM DOT COM>
Subject:      adsm requirements database

We use a Lotus notes database for our requirements which is not
accessible outside of IBM...it is also classified as IBM Confidential.
I don't think you would want to go through the requirements and
prioritize them...as of today, there are 1146 ADSM requirements in
our database (only a handful of them are duplicates).

I can add requirements and I am part of the team that evaluates
them...so I will be watching this list closely and probably soliciting
input.  I also handle GUIDE ADSM requirements so I thank you for
welcoming their input as well.

I cannot make this a formal committment but
I will plan on entering into our requirements database
any requirements that this list agrees to deem important.  This
will not replace the formal SHARE/GUIDE voting which still carries
extra weight...but it will guarantee that certain requirements get
right into our database and get evaluated sooner (and maybe even
occasionally put into the product sooner  ;-)  ).  I do not commit
to add every single requirement mentioned here into the database...
but if several (like 3-5+) discuss a request and agree to its value,



len

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Boyle                               snolen AT vm.sas DOT com
Leonard Boyle                               snolen AT vm.sas DOT com
SAS Institute Inc.                          ussas4hs@ibmmail
Room RB448                                  len.boyle AT sas DOT com
1 SAS Campus Drive                        (919) 677-8000 ext 6241
Cary NC 27513



...
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>