IdP as a Service Working Group

[Dedra Chamberlin <>]

Hi all,

Sorry to be late! I just returned from a week of college campus tours with my daughter. Now our family gets to deal with the IAM nightmare that is applying to college ;-)

On the question "How would the following features impact your interest in an IdPaaS solution?" I would love to see an addition:

"Supports GUI-based configuration from within the an existing Enterprise IAM admin portal (such as Azure AD or GSuite)"

Also, some of the leading spaces got fixed, but I still see an extra leading space on the following questions:

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

 Is your institution interested in joining InCommon or another federation?

 What reservations would you have about deploying an IdPaaS solution?

Great work! Thanks,

- Dedra

Dedra Chamberlin   CEO  m: 510.710.1554  e:   w: cirrusidentity.com

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:41 AM Mary McKee <> wrote:

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