Do networks always have to be built "from the top, down"?

[Mark Messinger]

Here's the scenario: An individual school, within a larger district, expresses an interest in actively managing trip reduction to its location. They want to run their own network. But there is no existing network in place for the school district. What network type do I create for this individual school?

It seems possible that, given time, the larger school district might come to be interested in trip reduction efforts using this system. Or perhaps other individual schools will want to join. Does that mean that, when I set up this very first school, I should set up both a parent network (for the school district) and then a child network (for the individual school)?

How do I avoid the situation where I've created one network (for the individual school) that cannot later be made the child of another network (for the district)?

If I start by creating networks for smaller entities within a larger organization, do I always need to create the network hierarchy with the larger organization in mind?

[Amol B]

Networks can be created top-down or bottom-up. In either cases, appropriate relationships can be set up afterwards if required. One thing to note - regardless of which approach you take - when you create any network, the relationship between the parent network creating the child network is set up as part of the creation process.

For the specific example above - there is no built in "school district" type of network. If the school is interested in using the system for trip reduction - there is no software aspect that's stopping creating that network and setting them up. If there's a policy aspect at the school district level about one of its schools engaging in trip reduction - that is external to the software.

If the school district comes along at a later point of time and is represented by a network, there is no software aspect that's stopping setting them up as a parent (provided that the school district uses a network compatible with SchoolPool functionality - for example, it couldn't use an employer network).

[Mark Messinger]

With respect to network types, though, I'd like to be clear on this point: Is it possible for one network type to be the parent or child to another network of the same type? In my example of the school district (this is a network with no parents seeking carpools to take children to school; it's only for employees of the school district) I have assumed it would not be possible to create an Organization/Employer network for a single school, then later create an Organization/Employer network for the school district and configure the single school's network to be a child of the school district's network.

Is that correct? One Organization/Employer network cannot be a child of another Employer/Organization network?

Are there any network types which could act as a parent or child to another network of the same type?

[Amol B]

There are no network types that could act as a parent or child to another network of the same type. 

Since we are talking about school districts and parents - that functionality is SchoolPool. For SchoolPool, you would use the School network type (not Organization/Employer) for the school. Creating or using a network for the school district itself is optional. As the school district itself is not a school, the school network type itself probably won't fit. Any of State, Region, County, City or TMA can be the parent network of a school network - the state, region and county probably won't fit for the school district network but the TMA/City might fit.

[Mark Messinger]

Since we are talking about school districts and parents - that functionality is SchoolPool.

Again, I am specifically *not* speaking about a SchoolPool.

. . . I think perhaps I need to stop using a school district as an example; it's causing all sorts of confusion. The problem is, we have a need to set up some schools which are part of larger school districts - again, these are networks where the ridematches are among school district employees and *not* a SchoolPool - and so I am asking questions with school districts in mind.

Any of State, Region, County, City or TMA can be the parent network of a school network - the state, region and county probably won't fit for the school district network but the TMA/City might fit.

I'm interested in what you suggest about using a TMA or City jurisdiction network, though. Is that your suggestion for a top-level network, where there might be some child networks which are both SchoolPool and (as an example) Organizational/Employer networks for each individual school?

For example, in this diagram I suggest using a TMA network for the school district, and one Employer/Organization Network for each individual school (to be used by the school's employees) and one SchoolPool Network for each individual school (to be used by parents seeking carpools to take their children to school).

Is this one possible configuration?

[Amol B]

I see - thanks for the diagram - that did help clarify the scenario.
The configuration you mention above is possible. Another configuration I can think of is where there are two TMA networks - one that is dedicated to schoolpool and the other dedicated to commuters. Of course, a network for the school district itself is optional - so you could also have the above employer and school networks set up independent of the school district network. So as you might have guessed, there isn't a best practice I can think of here as the configuration would vary based on what the goals and business needs are.
Regardless of the configuration chosen - there's one tip that might qualify as a best practice. If a school is engaging in schoolpool as well as commuter matching for its employees - the network names used could have some clarification since employees of the school could also be parents. So using a naming system such as "ACME School (SchoolPool)" and "Acme School (Employees)" might help them understand which network is for what purpose.

[Mark Messinger]

I have found a reason my use of a TMA as the top-level network type for a school network, is probably not desirable.

Users are associated with TMA's automatically, based on user's specified state, city or zip code (work or home). And, users cannot opt out of the TMA.

Public school districts are - well, they're publicly-recognized boundaries. My understanding is the TMA network type requires a State, City or ZIP Code to set up, then subsequently assigns all users who fall within that boundary to be part of the network. Users who have a work or home within the school district would be assigned to the district's network (TMA network type) and, once assigned, users couldn't remove themselves from that school network. That unnecessarily forces all system users into the school district's network.

Based on the criteria that school districts must be network types which permit users to opt out, the most likely top-level network type for a school district would be Organization/ Employer. The SchoolPool could not be set up by the administrator of the Organization/ Employer network and could not be in any way a child of the Organization/Employer network.

For the same reason (how users are associated and the inability to opt-out), a City jurisdiction network type would probably not be appropriate for even a public school district.

Am I mistaken in this assessment?

[Amol B]

I think much of setting up a network hierarchy is subjective to specific business practices and individual preferences of an agency or the school district and how they plan to use the various networks set up.
TMA networks don't require State/City/Zip - they can be set up using other association types such as web domain or a GIS boundary. In addition, you could also have a placeholder TMA network that has no association defined. In the latter case, the placeholder TMA network allows the administrator to manage its child networks - but the users are never part of the TMA network itself.

There's one aspect I would like to call out. If a user is associated with a TMA network that is a school district - they don't automatically join schoolpool. For instance, the TMA network could be set up and used to purely send communication and report on usage. In that case, members of the TMA network may receive communication that schoolpool functionality is available and they could take advantage of it by joining the school network. But unless they become a member of the school network, they would not be part of schoolpool. So they would always have the choice to opt out of the schoolpool functionality.

[Mark Messinger]

Thank you, Amol. You've been very kind to continue to respond to this thread.

Your description of a "placeholder" TMA network sounds very suitable for the diagram I uploaded earlier in this tread (Sep 11). It would allow a single network administrator to manage the individual schools' Employer/Organization networks and would allow the SchoolPool networks to be associated as children of the placeholder TMA network.

What network types in addition to TMA can be set up as "placeholder" networks, where users are never part of the network itself? This possibility does not seem to be described in any of the iCarpool manuals I've read.

[Amol B]

Mark, I'm glad to be of help and it’s nice to see the forum put to good use.

Creating an employer network with an email domain such as @notarealdomain.com or creating a program network with a passcode and not sharing that passcode with users both in a way provide you with a network to which users will not get associated with - yet you would be able to use those networks as "placeholder" if you wanted to. But I have not found scenarios where other network types could use the "placeholder" concept. That said, real life relationships between entities are complex and we are all learning how to leverage the networks hierarchy to try and reflect those in a manner that can work for the intended goals - I imagine this to be an evolving process.

Regarding the manual - we have a balancing act between the feedback we get that the manuals are too big (they had to be broken up into multiple documents because of their size) and feedback we get to elaborate on topics in greater detail. It's possible the supplemental documentation UW is doing may bridge that gap.

[Mark Messinger]

The placeholder TMA network allows the administrator to manage its child networks - but the users are never part of the TMA network itself.

Does "managing" include reporting?

I can see a possible need, in Oregon, to establish placeholder TMA networks and associate them with child networks (I would prefer County networks to be the children, but that's not possible; we may have to create Program networks for each Oregon county). This would be for reporting purposes only. Is it possible to use a placeholder TMA and report from that level, the reports to include activities of users associated to the child networks?