Group Services Metrics Report 11 -01 -2018

3y ago
18 Views
2 Downloads
695.66 KB
6 Pages
Last View : 25d ago
Last Download : 3m ago
Upload by : Camden Erdman
Transcription

G ro u p S e r v ic e s M e tr ic s R e p o rt 1 1 -0 1 -2 0 1 8IntroductionThe aim of Group Services Metrics is to measure the impact of our group services on two dimensions: The benefit of Group Services to our clients as measured by adoption and usage rates The IAM effort necessary to roll out and support Group Services as measured by size and volume indicatorsReport Author: Terry Connolly, IAM Group Services Owner; Terry Connolly@Harvard.eduMetrics OverviewThe following 6 metrics are calculated monthly and included in this report. Applications using Groups for Authorization Effort to Onboard Applications using Groups for Authorization Reference Group Growth by Affiliation Group Growth by Type Growth of Grouper UI Users Growth of Delegated Group AdministrationMetric 1: Applications using Groups for AuthorizationThis metric counts the number of applications each month which began using Groups integrated with HarvardKey tocontrol their application authorization.Indicates: Group Services adoptionAnalysis and Projection: Steady increase in thenumber of applicationsusing groups forauthorization whichnow totals 32. Average onboardingremains fairly constantwith an average of1.8/mo.Applications using Groups for Authorization35323028252320152013131412How is it counted?10 An application is7 5635counted if it utilizes2411113 0 3 10one or both of the0group featuresintegrated withHarvardKey inProduction;Applications Added per Monthregardless of whetherthe application haspreviously been on-boarded without using the feature.Page - 125161511716013323Total Applications11/01/20184

G ro u p S e r v ic e s M e tr ic s R e p o rt 1 1 -0 1 -2 0 1 8 An application is counted only once regardless of whether it uses one or two methods. It is not counted againif it uses one method at one date, and then incorporates the other method at a later time.Metric 2: Effort to Onboard Applications using Groups for AuthorizationThis metric estimates the IAM effort to onboard applications that use Groups integrated with HarvardKey to controltheir application authorization.Effort to Onboard Applications using Groups for AuthorizationLarge Effort (e.g. Custom API)WikiOpenScholarUngerboeckHL e-ResourcesAWS ConsoleCloud HealthMuleSoft Console FieldglassMedium Effort (e.g. SAML)Poll EverywhereHUIT-SlackTalent GatewayLyndaScoopCPMEnrollment ViewCampus MapHMS SoftwareSyllabus itCommon arvard.eduBatch Admin OmniSmall Effort (e.g. 31/188/31/189/30/1810/31/1811/30/18Indicates: IAM effortAnalysis and Projection: The onboarding effort remains scattered with some repeat clients, especially in HUIT (e.g. ATS, ITS, Ac-Tech) Some clients are beginning to set up their own application authorization groups due to the creation of a “Guideto Create and Manage Application Authorization Groups” and training offered as an extension to the “ManagedGroups” training session or separately.How is it counted? An application is given a subjective effort rating from 1-10 indicating the effort involved in completing theonboarding request through to production. CAS integrations are considered easy, SAML as medium and custom integrations as large. Other factors areenterprise versus local applications, delegated or IAM-managed group administration, was training necessary,how much did the request go back and forth between the client and IAM, and did the client require a testenvironment before production.Page - 211/01/2018

G ro u p S e r v ic e s M e tr ic s R e p o rt 1 1 -0 1 -2 0 1 8Metric 3: Reference Group Growth by Affiliation This metric counts the number of Reference groups each month by the affiliation types of Employee, Student,POI, Library Borrower and Guest (XID holders).oMetric does not include Bundled groups, which are bundles of reference groups.oMetric does not include the 357,000 Academic Course groups generated from the AcademicTechnology course database and used primarily for the wiki.Indicates: Group Services adoption; after the initial offering of reference groups in June 2017, they are now built byrequest or IAM analysis. IAM Effort; reference groups require both business and development resources to implement.Analysis and Projection:793800734 734 734700600519500400334374 375 383407 407 407 407 407450 450 450 2018 Employee reference groupincrease in June waslargely due to request byEmployeeStudentPOILib BorrowerVPAL to buildoutreference groups for 54FAS departments to facilitate rollout of their Enrollment-View 2017 Increase in October ismainly due to adding“basis” reference groupswhich have only oneemployee code type pergroup. These can be usedto filter out individualemployee types from astandard employee group.9007/1/2017 Employees make up 82%of reference groups, up10% from last month.Reference Group Growth by Affiliation6/1/2017 Reference groupspertaining to a person’saffiliation (e.g. student,employee, school, anddepartment) total 793.Guest(XID)How is it counted? Reference groups are counted at the first of each month from the decision table spreadsheet for each affiliationtype (e.g. student decision table).Page - 311/01/2018

G ro u p S e r v ic e s M e tr ic s R e p o rt 1 1 -0 1 -2 0 1 8Metric 4: Group Growth by TypeThis metric counts the number of groups each month by their type; reference, bundled or managed. Managedgroups does not include the approx. 1,300 iSites legacy groups in the Academic Technologies “managed” folder.Indicates: Group Services adoption; managed groups are built out by delegated group administrators within theschools/departments. IAM effort; bundled groups, and delegated group folders are built out by IAM business and QA resources.Group Growth by 7799390ReferenceBundledManagedAnalysis and Projection: Jump in bundled groups in August was due to the addition of “All” groups for schools, and “Employee and POI”groups for departments as decided upon by the Group Services Workgroup. Large increase in managed groups in July was due mainly to the addition of 616 groups representing thePeopleSoft HCM Roles create by ATS using the Grouper API to populate the groups. Managed groups outnumber reference groups since July, 2018. Increases in reference groups is explained in the “Reference Group Growth by Affiliation” Metric.How is it counted? Reference groups are calculated as the total of the affiliation reference groups counted in the ReferenceGroup Growth metric. Bundled groups are calculated using Grouper search for "bundle:" and filter on Groups and use the total countof groups listed minus the two security groups for read and view access. Managed groups are calculated using Grouper search for "managed:" and filter on Groups. Get the total countand then subtract the count for "managed:legacy:" groups in order to remove the legacy groups imported foriSites migration.Page - 411/01/2018

G ro u p S e r v ic e s M e tr ic s R e p o rt 1 1 -0 1 -2 0 1 8Metric 5: Growth of Grouper UI UsersThis metric counts the increase in the number of users who are authorized to access the Grouper User InterfaceIndicates: Group Services adoption; users managing their own groups within Grouper IAM effort; training and self-service guidesGrouper UI Users250200150100500220166250178410338744628197181 182171157 16639146 152 137 15030 3326 2812322115181221104 112185555129 132 138 136 145106 118 118 110 120 12489 97 98101012121616991111IAM Group Admins and SysAdminsDelegated Group AdminsGroup Membership ManagersTotal Grouper Users11131313Analysis and Projection: Delegated Group Admins make up 75% of the Grouper users. Delegated Group Admin must attend a one hourin-person training session. Average increase is 11 users per month. Project Membership Managers to be an increasing user population. Membership Managers can onlyadd/remove people to specific groups. Training is a self-service guide. Drop in Grouper UI users in April was due to tightening of IAM Grouper users in the production environment.How is it counted? Grouper users are counted as the total indirect members in the etc:UiUsers group as of the 1st of each month Delegated Group Administrators are counted as the total indirect members of the roll-up of school anddepartment Delegated Group Administrators. Group Membership Mangers are counted as the total indirect members of the roll-up of school anddepartment Group Membership Mangers.Page - 511/01/2018

G ro u p S e r v ic e s M e tr ic s R e p o rt 1 1 -0 1 -2 0 1 8Metric 6: Growth of Delegated Group AdministrationThis metric counts the increase in the number of delegated school/department folders in the org hierarchy, plusenterprise application folders in the harvard:apps hierarchy each month. Delegated school/department foldersinclude both “managed” and “app” folders.Indicates: Group Services adoption*; delegating group administration to schools and departments is a fundamental goalof Group Services. IAM effort; initial folder build-out, training and consultationGrowth of Delegated Group 24205466141818282829583637291981011120Delegated School/ Department FoldersDelegated Enterprise Application FoldersAnalysis and Projection: Delegated school/department folders and enterprise application folders continue a steady increase.School/department folders increase on average 2.5/mo, while enterprise application folders is 3.8/mo. * At this time all delegated enterprise application folders belong to the AWS Console application. A delegatedfolder is created whenever an AWS account is added, however it may not actually be delegated to tenantgroup administrators to manage, so this metric is somewhat misleading in terms of measuring Group ServicesAdoptionHow is it counted? Delegated School/Department Folders are counted using Grouper search for "org etc" and filter on "folders"as of the 1st of each month.Delegated Enterprise Application Folders are counted using Grouper search for "harvard:apps etc" and filteron "folders" as of the 1st of each month.Page - 611/01/2018

Page - 3 11/01/2018 . Group Services Metrics Report 11 -01 -2018. Metric 3: Reference Group Growth by Affiliation This metric counts the number of Reference groups each month by the affiliation types of Employee, Student, POI, Library Borrower and Guest (XID holders).

Related Documents:

3: HR metrics ⁃ Examples of different HR metrics ⁃ HR process metrics vs. HR outcome metrics 4: HR and business outcomes ⁃ Going from HR metrics to business metrics ⁃ The difference between metrics and KPIs Course & Reading Material Assignment Module 2 Quiz 2 VALUE THROUGH DATA AND HR METRICS MODULE 2

Metrics for Software Testing: Managing with Facts: Part 2: Process Metrics Provided by Rex Black Consulting Services (www.rbcs-us.com) Introduction In the previous article in this series, I offered a number of general observations about metrics, illustrated with examples. We talked about the use of metrics to manage testing and quality with facts.

2.2.1 Product and Process Metrics Generally within a software development project, software metrics can be classified into process metrics and product metrics (Conte et al. 1986, Hunter 1990): Process metrics quantify attributes of the development process and the development environment such as the number of defects found

metrics are any different, or is it just an application of classical metrics (desktop metrics) to a new medium (web metrics). In our research, we propose to investigate these issues, and present the distinguishable metrics for the Quality Assurance(QA) processes involved in Web-Applications, as opposed to traditional desktop software application.

the metrics, best-practice in reporting the metrics to CDP, and includes worked examples. Section 4: Guidance on breaking down portfolio impact metrics by asset class, industry, geography and scope, including a worked example. Section 5: A discussion on how financial institutions can go further in using theses metrics once

4 Tier 2 - Process Safety Event Indicators 4.1 Tier 2 Indicator Purpose 4.2 Tier 2 Process Safety Event Thresholds 5 Reporting Process Safety Event Tier 1 and Tier 2 Metrics 5.1 Rate Adjusted Metrics 5.2 Industry Process Safety Metrics 5.3 PSE Metrics Interpretations and Examples

Landscape LevelsLandscape Levels Landscape -metrics are computed for the entire landscape. Class - metrics are computed by landscape classmetrics are computed by landscape class (e.g. cover types or habitat types) Patch - metrics are computed for each patch. A limited n mber of metrics are a ailablelimited number of metrics are available.

This document describes how to poll the Couchbase REST API to obtain metrics for an external monitoring system, describes which metrics are most important to monitor, and provides guidance on how to interpret those metrics. Obtaining Couchbase Metrics Couchbase exposes monitoring metrics via REST APIs with responses returned in JSON format .