IdP as a Service Working Group

[Mary Nevis <>]

Hi everyone.  I’m a little late to the game. I think the survey looks amazing!

 

Our university is in the infancy stages of getting a solid IAM solution.  We are putting out an RFP for an IAM assessment and from that we will build our strategy.  We currently have four SSO solutions we use.  When I got to the question about whether I wanted a primary SSO solution or a supplementary SSO solution, I chose supplementary but after I hit submit and read your email, I realized I wanted to go back and change my answer to a primary SSO solution.

 

I guess my point is that there are schools that just don’t know – they don’t have a plan.  They know they want federation but just are not sure how they are going to get there exactly.  Perhaps there could be a question about how soon they plan to implement such a solution.  If its soon, then we could expect the answer about primary vs. supplementary to be fairly accurate. 

 

Happy Friday!!  Have a great weekend!

 

Mary

 

 

Mary Nevis

Identity and Access Manager

IT Security

Pacific Technology

University of the Pacific

3601 Pacific Avenue | Stockton, CA 95211

Tel: 209-932-3420

 

 

This message may contain information which is confidential. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, forward or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email to and delete the message. Thank you.

 

 

From: <> On Behalf Of Mary McKee
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 6:41 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Feedback requested: IdPaaS survey

 

Hi all,

 

Thanks for the quick and insightful feedback!   

 

To see the updates, you may want to clear your cache or use a new browser since we've found  a lot of things to be sticky: https://duq.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3E0fVcfuQRuzLAV.

 

In addition to the recommendations from this thread, we've also modified the intro paragraph on the basis of feedback we've gotten from some trial recipients in IT leadership.  In case you would  like to help us further refine that, the tl;dr of that feedback is that people want more clarity on what they're being sold before they attempt to answer these questions.

 

E.J. and I have had some discussions about clarifying our purpose and what we're proposing.  So far, the group seems to have identified two ways that IdPaaS could be leveraged to advance our cause of helping institutions participate in federation:

 

1. By providing a primary SSO solution for institutions who are in the market for that and otherwise would not have the bandwidth to prioritize federation (but could get those abilities essentially for free with the right IdPaaS product)
2. By providing a supplementary SSO solution for institutions who would like a practical and low-overhead way to support federation without completely rearchitecting their existing SSO environment.

 

Our experiences administering this survey suggest that we will get better quality answers if the intro paragraph helps survey takers self-identify which of the above camps is more applicable to them before we explicitly ask that question later in the survey.   If you have any last minute suggestions (today, if possible) about how we can get folks there more effectively, we'd be very appreciative.

 

Thanks again, and especially to E.J. for learning more about Qualtrics than he probably thought possible!

Mary

 

 

---

From: Albert Wu <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 6:20:52 PM
To: Mary McKee <>; <>
Subject: Re: Feedback requested: IdPaaS survey

 

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