Main Nav

Begin forwarded message:

I made revisions to eduPersonAffiliation based on conversations on the last call:

https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/macedir/eduPersonAffiliation-2011-draft-02

Please review and edit. I may have missed something.

          -- Hazelton@doit.wisc.edu

Comments

Begin forwarded message:

From: Andrew Cormack <Andrew.Cormack@ja.net>
Date: December 21, 2011 11:09:39 AM CST

Keith (feel free to pass on to IDM - I'm not going to bother bouncing a reply off the listserv this time!)

Not sure whether the statement "If the terms faculty and staff are in common use at an institution, there is no need for the employee affiliation" is intended as a health warning when using those three terms?

The problem is that that statement itself perpetuates the problem of different meanings in the US and UK! "Faculty" and "Staff" are indeed both terms in common use in both languages, but "staff" has a different meaning - here it's "everyone who works here, including faculty": there I gather it's "those who work here but *aren't* faculty". So your statement that appears to add clarity could actually create more confusion.

If you're going to pick out the three terms at all, I really think it should be "If the terms faculty and staff are in common use at an institution, there is no need for the employee affiliation. Note that both 'staff' and 'employee'  have different meanings in different countries". Otherwise I think we're just increasing the risk that an SP will use 'staff' for authorisation, assuming the UK meaning, and get flooded with complaints from irate US faculty who are denied access. Or vice versa, of course :(

Andrew

--
Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser, Janet
Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell, Didcot. OX11 0SG UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302
Blog: http://webmedia.company.ja.net/edlabblogs/regulatory-developments/

Janet, the UK's education and research network

JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG


Suhaimi,

I would say that "staff" and "member" would be appropriate ePAffiliation values for both academic staff and general/support staff.  No need to assert "faculty" if it does not apply in your environment.

      --Keith
__________
On Dec 21, 2011, at 19:04:33, Suhaimi Napis wrote:

Hi,

Just to add in tothe complication. In Malaysia, the word faculty refers to school as in Faculty of IT/School of IT headed by a dean. Faculty as in US term that refers to teaching faculty; we refer them as academic staff and the non-teaching personels as general/support staff!

---
SN
---
Sent from my Non-bl@ckberry mobile device on Pushmail via Mobile MiWi (Wimax/Wifi). Sorry for typos, gramms and truncs.
SAVE TREES•THINK B4 U INK

Andrew, Keith, and all interested parties,

 

"If the terms faculty and staff are in common use at an institution, there is no need for the employee affiliation" – I disagree with this statement from the perspective I’ve learned to view service provisioning from.  I see the “member/employee” affiliations as layers of university membership simply due to the reality of how we provision services.  An explanation follows.

 

 

As I have viewed this (affiliation) against our historical provisioning logic, and tried to reduce the lines of entitlement setting to the least-common-denominator, it became apparent that the use of all these terms (Faculty, Staff, Employee, and Member) is in fact beneficial to us.  If you can remove yourself from the tendency to view relationships/roles as singular and to accept relationships/roles as more typically multiple and layered, then the model that makes a lot of sense to me is as follows:

 

All persons in Faculty, Staff, and Student relationships are members in good standing as a basic assumption.  What I found is that we provision the majority of our services to each of these “roles” if you will despite their difference, thus I call the services at this level member services.  They are provisioned based on the “MEMBER” affiliation, and the assumption is that all staff, faculty, and students get these services due to membership, not due to staff or student specific entitlements or affiliations.

 

“Employee” tends to relate to compensation, either in the form of payroll or benefits related services.  I found that ALL of our services applied to either staff/administrative employees or faculty, so these services are provisioned at that employee role level.  While it might not be a payroll contract, the type of relationship is at least contractual/agreement based in nature(letter of appointment, etc.)  There is a two-way expectation of service and reward.

 

Finally, there were NO distinct services in our central IT service catalog that applied only to STAFF or only to FACULTY!  When I examined what we provisioned, it was identical.  The common denominator was more base than either higher-level or distinct role. (e.g. both get email, we provisioned to each affiliation and then a had to handle collisions, when in 100% of the cases they would have email.  Duplicate work!)

 

If you were to draw membership the way I describe it in a Venn Diagram, the outer ring would be member, and completely contained within member would be employee.  Within employee would be two additional containers that could remain separate or intersect each other perhaps.  I tend to draw this as a pyramid of sorts.  Student remains within member but outside employee.  (Student employees have both affiliations as a result.)  See attached diagram.  The first column is what I’m supporting, the last is closer to what we historically have done.

 

The practical outcome was that our affiliation and provisioning logic gets a lot simpler thinking of it this way.  I’ve attached a diagram that shows this simply (I’ve presented it before) but I think it is a better conceptual match, and if you approach the problem this way, then you really do need member and employee affiliations, not just staff or faculty.  In our case, staff and faculty are actually meaningless (for service and provisioning) without the assumption that any such affiliation is by definition also a member and employee.  It also allows for a “member” type relationship that has no benefits or salary, but is seen as a participant, someone able to assert the university’s interests on its behalf, without the clear-cut and often non-existent payroll, benefits, or appointment source record. 

 

We haven’t reworked our IAM systems to work this way, but will in our next major revision.  The actual service delivery remains the same, but  ***about 1/3 the complex logic!***  Any/all “staff” members will have at least 3 affiliations: member, employee, and staff.

 

Best regards,

 

Jim Dillon

-----------------University of Colorado------------------

Jim Dillon, CISA, CISSP

Program Director, OIT

Administrative Systems, Data Services, and Identity

jim.dillon@colorado.edu                303-735-5682

------------------------Boulder--------------------------

 

From: Identity Management Constituent Group Discussion list [mailto:IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Keith Hazelton
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:25 AM
To: IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [IDM] Fwd: [refeds] Fwd: https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/macedir/eduPersonAffiliation-2011-draft-02

 

Begin forwarded message:



From: Andrew Cormack <Andrew.Cormack@ja.net>

Date: December 21, 2011 11:09:39 AM CST

 

Keith (feel free to pass on to IDM - I'm not going to bother bouncing a reply off the listserv this time!)

Not sure whether the statement "If the terms faculty and staff are in common use at an institution, there is no need for the employee affiliation" is intended as a health warning when using those three terms?

The problem is that that statement itself perpetuates the problem of different meanings in the US and UK! "Faculty" and "Staff" are indeed both terms in common use in both languages, but "staff" has a different meaning - here it's "everyone who works here, including faculty": there I gather it's "those who work here but *aren't* faculty". So your statement that appears to add clarity could actually create more confusion.

If you're going to pick out the three terms at all, I really think it should be "If the terms faculty and staff are in common use at an institution, there is no need for the employee affiliation. Note that both 'staff' and 'employee'  have different meanings in different countries". Otherwise I think we're just increasing the risk that an SP will use 'staff' for authorisation, assuming the UK meaning, and get flooded with complaints from irate US faculty who are denied access. Or vice versa, of course :(

Andrew

--
Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser, Janet
Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell, Didcot. OX11 0SG UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302
Blog: http://webmedia.company.ja.net/edlabblogs/regulatory-developments/

Janet, the UK's education and research network

JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG



Close
Close


Annual Conference
September 29–October 2
Register Now!

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.