Kenji, My personal opinion is that it would almost certainly need to be a new agency, BUT you could, and would almost certainly need to compose this new agency of existing agency personnel from the different existing agencies IT support people. Politically this would almost certainly be the only feasible way to centralize and not step on too many toes. At the same time, I think that maybe the head honcho should be an independent hire from corporate background, or someone without their own agenda in any case. I think that it's entirely possible if legislature mandates the matter based on the cost reduction of standardization and centralization alone. The problem is having someone in charge that will study the current situation of equipment and current personnel qualifications, and take ideas suggestions from the current IT organizations, this means the techs and not just the management. Then be able to make a decision and have the ability to enforce it. Dion Baird -----Original Message----- From: T. Kenji Sugahara [mailto:sugahara@private] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 8:45 AM To: Dion Baird Cc: Shaun Savage; CRIME Subject: Re: CRIME Computers vulnerable at Oregon department Dion, I agree that centralized management would be beneficial. The question is how to do it. Would you recommend a new agency that deals strictly with tech or delegate the function strictly to DAS (and thereby fold the other IT depts into the super DAS)? Or do you think that would simply add to the bureaucracy and confusion? I am assuming that there would be an initial resistance by agency management, but legislative combined with executive mandate could push things along. Kenji On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 08:34 AM, Dion Baird wrote: > My perception of the problem as an IT specialist and a state > employee is that there is no centralization. Each Department (i.e. > ODOT, HRS, DAS, etc.) calls their own shots as far as desktop and > server OS's, equipment, etc. Only certain systems are centralized for > the entire state, and yes Shaun, most of those DO run open source OS. > > Most big shops run MS desktop at least because it's easier to train > users on (most of them have Windows based systems in their home), and > for the most part, it's easier to find trained personnel, and also to > train personnel to support it. Most of the server based stuff will be > a mixture of OS's. For instance at DAS, we are mostly windows based > supporting a citrix environment, however we have a couple of large Sun > boxes and a Linux server or two. > > The bottom line is that until all IT is centralized as least as far > as > management and command and control, it's going to be very difficult to > set any standards for OS's and equipment and put them in place. > > Dion Baird > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 10:35:30 PDT