IdP as a Service Working Group

[Janemarie Duh <>]

Hi, Mary and E.J.,

Thank you for your hard work and leadership of the IdPaaS Working Group. The survey is looking great!

A few additional suggestions:

Institutional FTE working in Identity and Access Management (IAM):

Is a yes or no the expected answer or a number count? Adding radio buttons for yes/no or 1, 2, 3 would clarify or perhaps a few explanatory words.

 How committed is your institution to developing cloud-first infrastructure?

 What reservations would you have about deploying an IdPaaS solution?

There appears to be stray spaces at the beginning of these questions.

What does your institution use for single sign-on (SSO)?

Perhaps radio buttons for common solutions plus a fill-in for Other. It might make presenting the results afterwards easier for you.

The responsive questions based on selected answers is great. I noticed that one can continue to the next page after selecting the Other radio button without being required to fill in the text box. Same with "I can't see IdPaaS fitting into our infrastructure. (Please tell us why)." They don't have to tell us. Are you able to mark filling the box as required upon selection of the radio button?

On the "thank you" screen, would it be helpful to include a link to the IdPaaS wiki so respondees can follow the group's progress? You could sign it as the InCommon IdPaaS Working Group and add a link from that if the form has that capability.

Thank you.

      Janemarie

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 6:21 PM Albert Wu <> wrote:

First, really nicely put together survey!

 

I have a few minor comments:

 

Navigation: at least in Mac OS Safari, the tool does not allow any backward navigation. The browser back button is disabled, and there is no back button on page. This may be awkward if I decide to change an earlier answer based on later questions…

 

I’ve noticed that none of the questions require an answer. When I don’t answer anything, the survey seems to use something as a default to determine the questioning path. That leads to at times perhaps odd combinations of questions. We may want to require an answer on some (in fact most) of the questions.

 

Contact information: do we want to include an optional field to collect the person’s contact information in case they wish to receive follow up communications?

 

Layout: on multiple choices questions where there is a “Other” option, can we make the associated text input box bigger to signal to the respondent that they should elaborate?

 

albert

------------------------------

 

On 7/16/19, 1:08 PM, " on behalf of Mary McKee" < on behalf of > wrote:

 

Hi all,

 

Please see below for a working survey (thanks to E.J. and Duquesne for hosting!): 

 

https://duq.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3E0fVcfuQRuzLAV

 

As discussed on our calls, this survey is dynamic to minimize irrelevant questions (e.g., it asks you what factors are preventing you from joining InCommon or another federation only if you indicate that you are not currently a member, but are interested).  Please let us know by Thursday, July 18th if you would like to recommend any changes to the survey.

 

For distribution, I would like to propose that we send this out in two waves - first to senior IT leadership groups, and subsequently to a wider distribution (such as the Educause list).  I think it would be useful to compare/contrast any concerns or priorities identified by senior leadership vs. other technical staff, as it will be important to consider both perspectives in recommendations moving forward.  

 

By our next call, I expect to have some data we can share from the first distribution, so our discussion can be focused around 1) results so far, 2) how to share raw data with the group for further analysis/inquiry, and 3) distribution of the second wave of surveys.  The data we collect from this exercise will factor into every one of this group's deliverables, so we'd really like to make sure that development, distribution, and analysis of the results is a team effort.

 

As always, we appreciate your engagement and welcome your feedback!

Mary