[ale] Recommended Support Levels

[Michael W. Stibor]

Thompson, I do seem to remember seeing something regarding this issue, it 
may have been a Gartner study and it included everything from users, as 
Denny has pointed out, to platforms, equipment, remotes, almost everything 
you could think of.

I have tried to search Gartners site but haven't found it as of yet.  I am 
determined to find it now as well because it would come in handy here for 
me too.

I will continue to search through areas I normally frequent to see if I can 
come upon it again.  I do remember that platform DID play a big role in the 
support levels, but I can't remember specifics.  I will post here as soon 
as I find it.

~~Mike Stibor
Research Scientist I
GIT/GTRI - EOEML


At 12:31 PM 1/31/2002 -0500, Thompson Freeman wrote:

>Well, you qualify as the first person to _not_ confuse the question with
>total cost of ownership (tco obviously). Congratulations!
>
>Which means you should recognize the answer when/if you run across it. Of
>course, technically you did answer with 1 support per 75-100 users,
>generally platform independent. And a solid, brief discourse on
>influencing factors for staffing levels.
>
>I'm sorry to appear greedy - but is this the industry standard
>practice? Do the suppliers of software/hardware suggest the same
>levels? Can it be established that there is no support bias between
>platforms (on the basis of staffing levels), or is there a real bias
>between platforms which is overshadowed by other considerations? My
>scientific background is rubbing a burr into my saddle sores...
>
>Still, I _do_ thank you for the first direct answer to the question to
>date!
>
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Denny Chambers wrote:
>
> > I believe these numbers depend less on the platform, and more on the
> > following:
> >
> > Number of Users
> > The number of users that are being supported. This number will dictate
> > how many server are need. The more users, the more home directories,
> > email, and misc. data that needs to be stored. The more servers and disk
> > space that need to be managed. Also, more users mean more desktops that
> > need to be managed. The knowledge level of you user will factor into
> > this as well. Managing a group of developers, is a little different than
> > managing a group of data entry people. And I don't care what platform
> > you are running on, or what the knowledge level of the user is, USERS
> > WILL BREAK IT. Thinking back on past experience I might suggest 1
> > desktop person, and 1 server admin for about every 75 - 100 users. That
> > is a rough estimate.
> >
> >
> > Number of remote location.
> > If several remote locations are being supported, managing the lans and
> > wans can become a full time position, so a full-time Network admin may
> > or may not be needed. It would depend on the work load and skill set of
> > you other admins.
> >
> > Numbers and Size of Specialty Servers
> > If you have servers that handle specific functions. i.e. Email,
> > Databases, Peoplesoft, SAP, Mainframes, OS/400, Citrix, PBX....,
> > depending on the size of your applications, and the user base, these
> > types of servers may require dedicated personnel with particular skill
> > sets.
> >
> > Then of course you need a manager to keeps this chaos under control.
>
>Hmmm. I've been managed too often by a manager who seemed to enhance chaos
>- not keep it under control. <<sigh>>
>
> >
> > HTH,
> > Denny
> >
> > The number of remote location.
> >
> > Thompson Freeman wrote:
> > >
> > > The subject came up on another list I'm on, I went looking on the 
> web, and
> > > I've yet to see results. For the various computing platforms &
> > > applications, what are current industry practices for support
> > > staffing? Failing that - the recommended levels?
> > >
> > > What I'm curious about, for an office doing office stuff, how many 
> support
> > > people are needed when the office is MS based? How many when Mac
> > > based? How many when Unix/Linux based? Likewise servers. It seems like
> > > these numbers should be available somewhere, but I simply haven't found
> > > them.
> > >
> > > --
> > > ===========================================
> > > The harder I work, the luckier I get.
> > >                     Lee Iacocca
> > > ===========================================
> > > Thompson Freeman          tfreeman at intel.digichem.net
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> > > See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems 
> should be
> > > sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> >
> >
>
>--
>===========================================
>The harder I work, the luckier I get.
>                     Lee Iacocca
>===========================================
>Thompson Freeman          tfreeman at intel.digichem.net
>
>
>---
>This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
>See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
>sent to listmaster at ale dot org.



---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.