Recommended network types for a complicated University network?

[Mark Messinger]

I am thinking about network hierarchies and how to set up, as an example, a University network.

At the top level, there is one University network.

I can see in the manuals there is the suggestion that University networks have as separate children Division networks for Faculty, Staff, and Students.

So, on the second level, I have three Division networks. One each for Faculty, Staff, and Students.

But, what if there are multiple campuses associated with the University? Imagine there are two separate campuses. One solution suggested in the manuals is to create Worksite networks for each separate campus.

How many Worksite networks do I need? Two (one for each campus) or six (one each for Faculty, Staff, and Students Division, at each campus)? I think I only need two.

But maybe there are some faculty, staff, and students who have to commute to both campuses, on different days. If users can only be associated with one Worksite, doesn't that pose a problem for commuters who have to go to one campus on some days and the other campus on other days? Would it be better for me to define each campus as a unique Location, instead of creating a Worksite network for each campus?

What is the recommended configuration of network types to accommodate the need I have described?

[Amol B]

A worksite network is typically useful in scenarios where you want to perform administrative functions that are applicable to one location. If users are visiting one or two campuses, identifying or performing administrative functions at one worksite network doesn't fit in. For example, if you need to communicate to students who may visit a campus about an upcoming parking closure - you may need to communicate to all students (not just students of one worksite). Creating duplicate worksite networks may require duplicating administrative tasks or it may create an unwieldy network structure to maintain.

In the case you described, I would consider not creating worksite networks and instead using network locations. 

 

[Mark Messinger]

Thank you, Amol.

I can appreciate the need to obtain the simplest network hierarchy possible to meet the needs of (in this case) the University.

I am also struck by the realization that there are a limited number of different network types which can be children of a University network. Only Division, Program, and Worksite networks available as possible children. If more "depth" is required from the hierarchy, to accommodate an especially complicated scenario, one option would be to set the top level of the hierarchy higher.

For example, create one University network for faculty, a second University network for Staff, and a third University network for Students. In that way, an additional level in the network hierarchy would be made available. The need to provide this additional level must be balanced with the increased complexity of operating three top-level networks for the college or university, instead of one. I imagine this would likely impact reporting, incentive programs, and the campus-wide communication.

[Tracy Ellis]

When we initially set up our database, all of our worksites were automatically uploaded into the database. So I now have about 15 worksites for the University of Oregon. (Which have not yet been associated with the parent network - the University.)  I have many users that are already associated with those worksites.

What is the best practice for this then? To delete their worksites and just have them associated with the University Network?

The worksites do help us to identify which users may be with the University, but aren't associated with the network.

[Stan Suchan]

Amol: I don't understand what the phrase network locations in your last sentence means. Could you provide some additional information or explain in a different way? If I create a university network can I communicate with people and pull reports based upon something called network locations?  

[Amol B]

There are multiple aspects of creating a worksite network - some on the user side and some on the administration side. On the administration side, a worksite allows the administrator to communicate with users visiting that location, run reports, or perform additional administration functions. On the user side, worksites allow user association to the network. In addition - on the user side, worksites make network locations available to its users so they can select those locations for ridematching or trip logging (as against entering the complete address). This is an important function - so a user can select a familiar name such as "Lincoln Towers" OR "Corporate Building 12" instead of entering the address.
The "Addresses" menu in the network administration application allows creating network locations that show up on the user side such that users can select those locations for ridematching and trip logging. A user can have as many network locations in their profile as the network configures.Network locations do not have administrative functions such as communication or reporting at the location level.

So why would a network consider using network locations?  

Let’s take the scenario where members of the network are visiting different locations. Let’s assume the administrator is interested in posting some communication to users visiting one location. If the administrator used worksites or divisions, then the communicating may go through only to a subset of intended users if the administrator posted only in one network. Another option the administrator may have is to cross post to other networks which also isn't ideal. In order to reach all users, the administrator may anyway have to post communication at the top network level. In this example, worksite or division networks are not solving the business need. The network in this case could consider using network locations. Similar scenarios exist for other functions such as incentives or events.

Certainly, using network locations has to be evaluated carefully for its impact on any business process at the individual network level – and some networks may want to administer at the location level in which case   it wouldn’t be a solution. But today, some worksites do exist that aren’t administered – so there isn’t any reporting or administration done at that level. If the network has such locations, using network locations might work out.