Conference koolit::vms_curriculum

    Even if there's no discussion, it might be nice to see some notes that
    say "I read it and I agree with everything" -- anybody read it yet?
    
    (I read it and I agree with everything. Just keep that funding coming :-)
    
    I have a question. How different is "VMS System Administration
    in a Small System Environment" supposed to be from "VMS System and
    Network Management I"? Why do they need to be different?
    
    					Val

    
    I think [as I remember the discussion] the difference was that
    system managers at the "I" level would be under direct supervision
    of more experienced managers.
    
    ...That system managers at the "II" level would need to begin to
    know about cluster and network management....along with being more
    independent in action.
    
    The need arises for a SMALL system management course when you get
    all A but not all B...in other words....managers of small systems need
    the level of instruction that gives them independent action without
    needing to know a whole lot about clusters and networks...[or they
    wouldn't be SMALL systems...]
    
    Did that make sense?
    
    Mel
    

    I read it and I don't agree with it ;-) - well most of its OK...
    
    Modularity:
    	A scenario. The DCL HELP topic is modified. Once it is replaced in
    a code library (we are using CMS aren't we :-) ), are reliant materials
    automatically updated? 
    
    For example let's say courses A, B and C all use this module. Will
    courses A, B and C automatically pull the new module when rebuilt?
    Using a tool like DECwrite facilitates this linking and updating of
    dependents. VAX DOCUMENT could be coupled with, say, MMS to do a
    similar job.
    
    I know that we out here in the boondocks probably shouldn't worry about
    the mechanics of the system. There's just that whiff of uncertainty
    and slight unease that the system may not function as desired.
    
    One of my concerns, is the length of the courses.
    Coupling VMS For Application Users I and II presumably makes up the five
    days of the current VMS U & C. OK, folks could do part I and go away
    coming back another day (or two) to do part II. Is there a similar
    possibility for programmers with the VMS For Programmers course?
    
    People can do useful work after three days of Introduction to VMS 
    (VMS For Application Users I). The same might be applied to programmers
    new to VMS. Get them started on a three-day course. Come back on the
    two-day programmers piece when they know their way around the basic VMS
    tools and procedures.
    
    I feel the same is going to be true of the 20-days SysNetCluMan series.
    Could we package pieces into two and three-day sections?
    
    There have been some concerns around these parts about someone now
    needing 25 days of training to become a system manager. It looks like
    that on paper. I guess we need some reassurance
    
    Something I've mentioned elsewhere is the increased demand for our
    home-grown Introduction To VMS. This three-day course has been doing
    very well in the face of a recession in training demand. It's a cheap
    route to getting started on VMS. Gets people back in the office the
    same week of the course. Get my drift?
    
    Page 1 of the plan (para 1.2) cites the System and Network Manager
    Survey. I don't believe a survey of "ordinary" users has been
    conducted. This group is likely to be as diverse in its responses as
    system and network managers. I wonder if our approach to first time and
    occasional users of VMS is appropriate?
    
    Programmer Curriculum:
    	I agree that this curriculum needs major overhaul. Should I be
    preparing to deliver Utilizing VMS Features II? It would seem a waste
    of time if the course is mangled under the revision. Offering it for a
    year then removing it doesn't seem sensible marketing.
    
    One suggestion for restructuring this curriculum - group the training
    by its position in the software development life-cycle. Analysis and
    Design tools at the front. Testing and Maintenance tools at the back?
    Don't ask me to name and number all the phases!
    
    Issues like portability could well be addressed in the 
    "Programming in..." courses - too late in a Utilizing VMS Features
    course.
    
    Some generic courses are needed in this curriculum. We may not want to
    be in the business of training analysts and designers but we should be
    able to explain the processes. Techniques courses - writing
    documentation, developing training for new software, debugging and
    maintenance techniques. Testing - destructive, acceptance, regression
    and so on. Performance testing techniques and tools.
    
    Look forward to participating in the Programmer Curriculum overhaul.
    
    -- Keith

49.2 >   managers of small systems need
     >    the level of instruction that gives them independent action without
     >    needing to know a whole lot about clusters and networks...[or they
     >    wouldn't be SMALL systems...]                             
    
    It says in the program plan that the small system course is "for
    those... who have recourse to system support and therefore do not
    require the full armoury of skills..." This does not make it sound like
    the "small-system" manager is expected to perform independent action,
    does it? Maybe it needs to be clearer.
    
    					Val

Let me take a stab at the Small System Manager.  Prior to coming to Digital I
managed and installed a single VAX into an area of Shawmut Bank that previously
had not been automated.  We installed a VAX 11/750, 9 peripheral devices to do
check processing, LAN manufactured and maintained by the vendor, ORACLE  Data
Base program, a software package called WLS ( Wholesale Lockbox ) and VMS. 
There were 3 programmers one of whom was also the system manager and the
operator.  There were also 3 clerks who used captive accounts to run reports
and to correct and update data files.  We processed 30,000 transactions per day
for 125 corporate customers.  Each transaction being a check to be deposited to
the customers account.  The vendor did the original installation of all the
hardware and software.

Why was this a small system.  Not because the VAX was a 11/750.  It could have
been a VAX 9000.  It was a small system because of the small number of users
and the simplicity of the work.  We basically did the same thing every day over
and over.  Our biggest problem was ORACLE.  The programmers used an editor and
the C compiler.  The clerks never saw a $ prompt so they were limited in the
amount of trouble they could cause.  There was no cluster and no network. 
Daily data files with receivable information were sent to customers via a modem
and a piece of software that was part of WLS.  Even backup was done via
software from the vendor.  The system has continued to run with minimal support
for 4 years.  All three programmers are gone.

Ask yourself what a system manager new to this system needs to know. They need
to log in, set up accounts, change passwords, check for hardware errors,
monitor disk space, know enough that when the system is running slow to shut
down some activity for a short time etc.  Now how much time to you think the
manager is able to spend in training.  If they can get a week they are lucky.
So what we need is a week long course that teaches the basics of system
management and system use.

Here is another scenario.  The owner of a small VAX on a network wants to do
most or all of her system management.  She has no responsibility for the rest
of the network.  It this person has never touched a VAX before what does she
need to know.

    re: .5
    
    Another stab at Small System Manager.  In the current courses we are
    often seeing folks who are basically system Adminstrators.  And their
    systems qualified as "small" because they were standalone or
    non-clustered nodes, or (more often than not) they were "physically
    small".  In the last case, the criteria for enrolling is no more valid
    than "I am taller than the VAX, therefore it is a small system ;-)".
    
    While the current courses explicitly exclude workstations, guess who
    shows up.....
    
    and 3xxx servers for workstations are commonly showing up as well.
                                                          
    
    Emmalee's example is a good one; this is another variation. 

    A pointer to an active discussion we should listen/participate in:
    
    HUMANE::DIGITAL   note 1404.*

    OK, if we claim that "small system" still means "no network, no
    cluster" (which is not clear in the program plan!) I can understand
    the need for a separate course.
    
    Otherwise it will be (and may still be) difficult to position the two
    courses. When we developed the original "small-system" course, it
    served as a 1-week alternative to the 2-week U&C/Sysman string. Now the
    customer will have a 1-week alternative in the new SysNet I, so the
    differences in content had better be explicitly stated in any marketing
    material.
    
    					Val

Let me try some of Keith's questions from .3.
    
    >There have been some concerns around these parts about someone now
    >needing 25 days of training to become a system manager. It looks like
    >that on paper. I guess we need some reassurance
    
    I think we're changing the definition of "become a system manager" a
    little. Yes, it still takes 25 days (or 20 or whatever) to teach
    someone everything we can teach them. However, we now claim that
    someone can start to be a system manager after a week of the new
    training instead of today's 2-week minimum.
    
    We also expect some of our audience to stop coming to training after 1
    or 2 or 3 weeks due to budget restrictions. We want to leave
    them able to do a bit of everything instead of with major gaps in
    their skill set. 
    
    I hope that's reassuring; is it?
    
    >I know that we out here in the boondocks probably shouldn't worry about
    >the mechanics of the system. There's just that whiff of uncertainty
    >and slight unease that the system may not function as desired.
    
    You're right; stop worrying about it :-) Maybe someone involved with
    the user curriculum (hi Mel) can speak to how the modularity
    effort is working so far.
    
    >I wonder if our approach to first time and
    >occasional users of VMS is appropriate?
    
    It's a bit late to think about that since the user curriculum reorg is
    well under way (see the rest of this conference...) However, the
    modular approach should allow further tailoring of the curriculum if it
    turns out tailoring is needed.
    
    >Should I be
    >preparing to deliver Utilizing VMS Features II? It would seem a waste
    >of time if the course is mangled under the revision. Offering it for a
    >year then removing it doesn't seem sensible marketing.
    
    The plan says to expect a new programmer curriculum by the end of FY93, 
    more like 2 years. Is your concern with the cost of getting instructors
    up to speed on new material (in which case it would help to have a
    sense of how many VMS-specific skills we'll continue to teach after the
    reorg) or with the cost of marketing a new offering (afraid I can't
    help you much with your decision in that case) or with confusing the
    customer?
    
    					Val
    

       Hi there.

       Let me start by stating that I have no intentions of being
       a spoilsprt, or even worse pour acid in somebodys
       sugarbowl.

       But ....... There is something called IEEE 1003.2 that is
       strongly on its way. IEEE 1003.2 is the CLI for POSIX, and
       we are pushing POSIX and our commitment to standards hard.
       So the POSIX version of VMS has just gone into EFT, and
       ULTRIX 4.2 will be as compatibile as possible.

       This means that some salesperson will very soon very probably be
       selling a mixed UlTRIX/VMS environment on the basis that
       they have a common CLI, end even a standard one!

       Where does that leave the modularization of the VMS
       curr.?? In worst case (don't cry Mel!!!) with a total
       rewrite, in best case with some extra modules!! In the
       POSIX version of VMS it is possible to switch between DCL
       and POSIX at commandline level, so new users on the system
       could be using POSIX (because it it near the UNIX they
       were taught in University), and all the old user comm. 
       would be using DCL!! 

       In short we are now entering the same CLI-war as the UNIX
       community, but only worse as the two CLIs are so
       different!!

       Best

       JOSS

    OK I read it and agree with it.
    
    I think, we have to describe precisely what a small system is, and what
    the tasks of the system mgr will be. If we don't have an exact
    description, a lot of system managers of microVAXes will take the
    course "Small System Management" wrongly. 
    A group of student for this course will be the system managers of the
    workstations.
    The existing course "VMS System Management: Small System Environment"
    is very bad and has to be rewritten. It contains too much subjects and
    the theory is too brief. 
    
    Ed Janssen.

Re: POSIX for VMS

I'm well aware of what is gong on here and we aleady have a project running to
develop programmer and system manager training (and we'll be announcing the
notesfile etc as soon as we have a first pass plan that is sharable)

It's clear that at some point we will have to deal with the dual CLI problem
that Joss refers to, and my feeling is that we will have to do this by
modularising and restructuring the U*X curriculum too. One of the advantages of
the modularisatio that we're doing is that this beocmes much easier to do.

However, my discussions with the product managers, marketing and technical folks 
responsible for POSIX for VMS lead me to believe that vary few, if any, customrs
will be using *BOTH* CLIs, at least in the short term. My solution, then, is for
the VMS users to take VMS user training and the U*X bigots to take Ultrix U&C.
We'll clearly have to continually reexamine this as we go along, starting NOW!

Let's hear from you...


Cheers,

Andy

I can see that with the introduction of the new VMS System Management string, 
the need for the Small System Environment courses goes away ( replaced by 
SYSNET I ).

However, I can still see a large hole in that we do not offer a system 
management course for workstations. How do we cover this? Here ( in Australia 
and New Zealand ) we have been looking at taking the Small System Environment 
courses and tailor them for workstation users/managers. As a previous reply 
said, these courses need a lot of work. Should we be looking at taking the 
SYSNET I course and modifying that for workstations? Does anybody else have a 
workstation mangement course?


Trevor

    The DOTES date for VMS Sys $ Network Mgmt I is apparently set to July.
    
    But... if I look at Notes 50-115 in this conference that were set up to
    review bits and pieces of the SysNet curriculum, I see NOTHING. I
    cannot imagine nothing being available for review yet. If we are to
    give serious feedback well on time it is time to make something visible
    to us.
    
    Also, after listening to Andy on the Video Tape I am wondering whether
    the SysNet curriculum is feasible. Especially the level IV still being
    undefined and the first three levels completely crammed.
    
    Are we facing a potential disaster here? The SysNet curriculum is far
    more important than the User curriculum. I would expect at least the
    same amount of feedback of the field for SysNet. But we need to be
    informed NOW.
    
    At the Nieuwegein Training Centre we are willing to put in quite a bit
    of time to work on the review, please make use of that.
    
    
    				Rob (with cold feet)

    I couldn't agree more with Rob (-.1) about needing to see the material.
    I do, all in all, like the overall architecture of this curriculum, but
    until I see materials I won't be able to buy into it completely.  As
    was stressed in the video, feedback must happen well in advance of the
    cut-off date.  My fear is that the implementation will fall short of
    the original plan; or, that the original plan will become diluted into
    uselessness.  Compounding that fear is that these are, as you know, our
    bread-and-butter courses -- if these end up being messed up, we're all
    messed up.
    
    Mark Thorne
    Chicago Customer Training Center

    I've seen the video but I haven't been able to read the book.
    
    If the directors would like the actors to play their part successfully
    it would be kind of friendly to let the actors see the script before
    first night? (Guess it will be nights at the speed the first delivery
    date is approaching).
    
    If there's a problem let's hear it and maybe we can help fix it.
    
    -- Keith

Re: the last few


I share your concerns and am investigating the delay...

Be assured that I'm not about to launch a new curriculum without extensove field
review - even if that means slipping the implementation.


Andy

    I don't understand how a reasonable plan for restructuring a curriculum
    could have disintegrated so seriously at its implementation.  The
    course specifications alone cause me great concern.  I believe the only
    way to get this critically needed program running again is to discard
    the current timetable and take another long hard squint at this
    implementation from the beginning.  Slapping together some courses to
    meet some deadline and patching them later to make them adequate isn't
    going to fly here.  A viable new curriculum could greatly enhance our 
    image in the eyes of the customers.  A curriculum with problems could,
    just as greatly damage that image.  If we're not better off with the
    new curriculum then why bother?
    
    Mark Thorne
    Chicago Customer Training Center

    Where are the descriptions of III and IV ?
    
    I'd like to see when @NETCONFIG gets done to build the DECnet on a node
    ?
    
    I thought it would be in SYSNET I but it doesn't seem to be.
    Isn't it as important as LAT in getting up and running ? You need it to
    load a Decserver.
    
    SYSNET II doesn't mention it either although there is mention of NCP.
    
    			Geoff

    We hear you. We know the course specs are inconsistent with each other
    and with the results from the instructor forum.  We're working on
    resolving the differences. I can't comment on schedule at the moment.
    
    (How's this for a content-free note? Please bear with us and watch this
    space for something more tangible soon. Promise.)

					Val 
    

Hi There.

         Hmm  I just printed out the new materials for the
         VMS-for application users, and browsed
         through them. 

         I know, I have stated this before, but I am
         not sure that your kind of application users, are my
         kind of application users. 

         In Denmark an application user is strictly an
         *application* user, not a VMS user. In fact most of them
         does not know (or care) that they use an operating
         system, and even less if it is called VMS or not.

         This means that we would not use the materials as they
         are, but do a cut and paste job. The materials are nice,
         but far far to technical, for our kind of applications
         users. These users demands furthermore materials in
         their national language, and due to this the materials
         are useless for basic application users, unless we do a
         translation ourselves. I know that the nationalization
         subject has been raised before, but I have never seen
         any concrete actions.  

         We have discussed this in our departemental meetings,
         and we see this restructuring more as a sort of "shopping"
         center for course materials for *all* the different
         courses. 

         However most of the materials for the applications users
         would be fitting for the C&U courses we give, so the
         materials are very usable, but maybe not where they were
         intended.

         I think that we should be able to deliver, what is
         needed, not was is possible, in order to maximize
         customer satisfaction. We are giving more and more
         customized courses, where the customer wants a little
         of this and some of that and all about LAT. 

         Are we the only ones that feels this way, or will
         everybody teach EVE to application users??
           
         Best 

         JOSS @dmo

               

    
    Two points:
    
    	First, I think the title is misleading. BOTH pilots
    so far have supported that feeling...BOTH courses are going
    to be re-piloted. We have shared that problem with the funder
    and are waiting for resolution.
    
    	Second, the intended audience are VMS users...not application
    users as you define them. Our first pilot had people in it thinking
    they were going to learn how to use LOTUS 123...just for this same
    reason.
    
    	Very valid point. We saw it and are trying to react by having
    the title changed. I will keep you posted.
    
    	Mel

>
>         I know, I have stated this before, but I am
>         not sure that your kind of application users, are my
>         kind of application users. 
>
>         In Denmark an application user is strictly an
>         *application* user, not a VMS user. In fact most of them
>         does not know (or care) that they use an operating
>         system, and even less if it is called VMS or not.
>

We recognize that some "application users" work from captive accouonts and
never see the  "$" prompt.  VMS  courses are not appropriate for these users.

Other "Application Users" do use VMS for certain simple things.  This is the
target audience for VMS for Application Users I.  Are you saying that this
course is not appropriate for this audience. If the answer is yes, please give
us some examples of what you think should be included in this course.

    
    I think Joss is saying that the title is misleading.
    
    "Application Users" is such a personally 'translatable' word
    that obviously can be misinterpreted. That feeling was supported
    by the pilots of both courses so far. everybody thought the
    title was misleading.
    
    Mel
    

Re: the course title issue:

I'm aware that 'VMS for Application Users' can be misconstrued, but I've yet to
hear anyone come up with anything better. If you can come up with something,
please let us know quickly...

(VMS for Users won't work because *Everyone* is a 'user'; and anyone who suggest
a title using 'General User' gets to write a 10-page essay on the history of the
VMS curriculum!!!!) 



>
>         This means that we would not use the materials as they
>         are, but do a cut and paste job. The materials are nice,
>         but far far to technical, for our kind of applications
>         users. These users demands furthermore materials in
>         their national language, and due to this the materials
>         are useless for basic application users, unless we do a
>         translation ourselves. I know that the nationalization
>         subject has been raised before, but I have never seen
>         any concrete actions.  
>

I don't understand this comment. All the source materials are available for
translation/localisation via ESDP in Reading. A number of countries have
sucessfully translated and localised these materials.



>         We have discussed this in our departemental meetings,
>         and we see this restructuring more as a sort of "shopping"
>         center for course materials for *all* the different
>         courses. 

There are some technical/training issuse to be resolved before this can happen.
These are being discussed and we plan to form a separate team to work the
issues. Bob Sowton is the European contact for this.


Cheers,

Andy

    Re: the Course title:  How about... VMS Utilities and Commands. 
    Whoops, sorry.
    
    Well, I suppse I should introduce myself.  I'm Arthur Lessard, and I am
    supposed to be "coordinating" (boy, I hate that word) this curriculum
    switch for the L.A. training center.  Having read over the materials
    and seen the tape, I have to say that I definitely agree with the idea. 
    The motivation for us is readily apparent, and I think the customers
    will certainly appreciate a stream-lined course set (anything to keep
    from having to hear "what should I take after U&C" one more time).
    
    I must also say, however, that like Mark, we have concerns over the
    implementation.  Not about anything in particular, it's just that, as
    so aptly pointed out before, we have as much opportunity to do great
    damage here as we have to do great good (sounds like life).  The only
    thing that keeps me from running off in panic is that Andy and Co. seem
    to have the good of the curriculum in mind, even if it requires
    slipping schedules a bit.  That is VERY reassuring.
    
    The only thing that will abate these fears, I think, is access to the
    materials as early as humanly possible, and a fair amount of say as to
    how the materials come out.  I think that even normally quiet
    installations (such as ours) would want to participate in this as soon
    as possible.  We definitely appreciate the opportunity.
    
    Waiting with baited breath (I have NEVER understood that cliche),
    
    			Arthur. 

    Having reviewed the course specs for Sysnet I and II, and having looked
    over the actual course materials for Sysnet I, I do have a new concern
    regarding the modularization concept.  For example, let's look at EVE.
    Having one module for EVE is a great idea.  It avoids confusion among
    the instructors, cuts down on maintenence costs, and so forth. 
      However, the problem is that it is a COMPLETE module on EVE. 
    EVERYTHING you ever wanted to know about EVE has to be in there, since
    there is only one module.  That means that, wherever the module
    appears, you have to talk about EVERYTHING about EVE.  The way the
    course are structured now (which, for EVE at least, I think is
    correct), we talk a little about EVE in U&C I, just enough to get the
    students started.  Then, in U&C II, we have the time and inclination to
    go into the details of section files and so forth.  How would something
    like this be addressed (I noticed this about EVE and MAIL in the SYSNET
    I course)?  I think that what concerns our instructors when they see
    the Sysnet I materials is the length of the course, and I think this
    might be one reason.
    
    			Arthur
    

    Hi;
     
    Arthur has an excellent point in .28.  That helps explain why I found
    "MAIL" to be more than needed for "SYSNET I".
    
    How about more than one "MAIL", "EVE", "NCP", etc module?  This would
    suggest that the sub-modules be alligned toward expertise or skill
    level, and that a fixed number (ie three) may not work for all
    subjects.
      
    Yes it may be more difficult, but...
     
    Arnold.
    

    Or how about one gigantic MAIL module, so it's easy to maintain, but
    only take portions of it for various classes?  Using the Code
    management software "stuff", this shouldn't be too hard to maintain. 
    Just a thought...
    
    			Arthur

    
    Yes, but...
    
    The 'module' that we have defined is at the <list>, <table>, <example>,
    and <figure> level.
    
    You DO NOT have to have all you ever wanted to know about EVE anywhere.
    You can pick exactly which lists, tables and examples you want to use
    that have to do with EVE in any course or seminar.
    
    If our granularity were at the chapter level, then your point would be
    a good one. Since our granularity is at the 'element' level...every
    item within the chapter is a separate resusable piece that can be
    re-ordered, deleted, or expanded with other 'pieces'...I think we have
    addressed the issue you are raising.
    
    One our initial premises was that any TASK needed to be customizable
    regardles of the TOPICS that enabled it. To achieve that, we had to
    make our 'module' cut at the smallest possible level that we could. So,
    each chapter you see is actually made up of as many as a hundred
    separate little module files that are 'included' by a utility and
    formated together to make a chapter.
    
    Did this make sense? I have some pictures if you would like to see
    them.
    
    This is a whole different view of course development. Very much akin to
    modular programming, actually.
    
    Mel

    re: -.1
    
    That's great.  That solves the problem about making the modules
    smaller.  The question, then, is why some of these modules in the
    SYSNET I course are so huge.  As Arnold said, for EVE and MAIL, 90% of
    these features even WE don't use, and if we're trying to get to the
    system management stuff in the course, wading through that really slows
    the course down.  And, as we all know, as soon as we try to gloss over
    anything in the manuals for the sake of speed, we get dinged on the
    QA's.

    
    I sort of thought that recommendations from you folks about what could
    be cut was the purpose of the review...[grin]
    
    If you read the reviews of the chapters posted, there has been no
    input [until -1] that anyone thought we _could_ delete whole sections
    of Mail et al. Nor did the instructors (5 of them) who have been
    up to ZKO reviewing the materials suggested this possibility.
    
    Some development history of the first nine modules perhaps is in order:
    
    This course will take a novice user and push him/her through the
    elementary basics of VMS and into a _very_ elementary introduction to
    system management tasks. The prereqs for the course are zero.
    
    So, the game plan was to lift the three-day USER I course, edit it a
    bit to reflect the system management view of the universe and make that
    the first part of the course. What you see in the first nine chapters
    has now been through 1) An entire review cycle in the notes file 2) a
    pilot 3) five weeks [a different instructor each week] of on-site
    review.
    
    I am not trying to say that elliminating parts and pieces of those
    first nine chapters is out of the question, but I think we would
    have to look very hard at that. The overwhelming response from
    instructors up until the previous reply is that they are on target.
    
    My questions would be: 1) Is the system management novice audience that
    much different that it would warrent such a marked difference between
    the two courses? 2) Or has eveyone who has looked at the course to date
    just missed this point?
    
    After this much instructor review, I would hesitate to make such large
    changes without a real consensus here that this is a viable course of
    action.
    
    Melinda

    Some Thursday morning ramblings - read no further if you don't follow
    student guides slavishly...
    
    I don't want to go over all the old issues of what makes a good student
    guide but...
    
    One of the occasional topics of conversation here in the UK is how long
    it takes to do MAIL on a U & C.
    
    Over the years arguments have raged about the correct length of this
    early-in-the-course topic. Time spent varies from 10 minutes (yes, I
    did do it in 10 minutes once), to over two hours!
    
    Instructors' discussions of a topic may be drawn out by the volume of
    information in the student guide despite the obvious nature of the
    facility under discussion. A number of the tools on VMS are
    intuitive in their use - they are sound analogies of how we do things
    in the non-computer world. 
    
    MAIL, like so many tools, is best learned practically, not
    theoretically. Commands map to the real world of mail. Elsewhere in
    this conference, or in A. N. Other, there has been a discussion about
    what is a good lab exercise. In this context it's an exercise that gets
    the student through all the various EVERYDAY facets of a tool. For MAIL
    this would be:
    
    		o  reading new mail
    		o  replying to mail
    		o  storing mail in folders
    		o  getting rid of old mail
    		o  creating and sending new mail
    
    Properly introduced, one can wave ones arm and say "...for the rest
    its just like your paper mail at home...go try it for half an hour..."
    (I send students mail once or twice a day on U & Cs with details of
    forthcoming topics etc. Asking for replies with edited versions of
    messages also exercises their EDT/EVE abilities, and so on).
    
    Just because the student guide devotes 30 pages to mail doesn't mean
    an instructor must slavishly follow every ASCII character of those 
    30 pages. Indeed the word "Guide" could equally be applied to the
    instructor, and they usually come with more than 30 pages on MAIL!
    I often use the pages as - "Let's just skim through the module
    to see we've covered all the vital bits and check our objectives are
    OK".
    
    Sure, lets have the 30 pages of useful hints, tips and advice.
    Instructors have the freedom and expertise to decide to what depth they
    should follow the written words. Point students in the right direction
    and push them gently! 
    
    (I'm reminded of the comments of a lecturer from some 25 years ago -
    "I'm not paid to think, I'm paid to make YOU think")
    
    Instructors shouldn't be under an illusion that the weight of material
    on a subject is directly proportional to its importance or the time
    taken to cover the subject. ALL subjects in a student guide should be
    important - or they wouldn't be there.
    
    Text editors are vital but they don't get the paper coverage that some
    other topics receive.
    
    Of course an index at the back of EVERY guide means students can help
    themselves more easily...
    
    -- Keith

    Just a couple of observations from the last couple of notes:
     
    The overall plan to take the first few chapters from "Application
    Users" and use it in SYSNET I is a workable one.  The issue of how
    much of a topic to cover is, in part, what an instructor should be
    doing.  The idea of a SG covering utilities such as MAIL, EVE, or BACKUP 
    by going through every esoteric twist and turn just does not seem to be 
    the way to go.  The reference manual is the place to define all qualifiers
    and parameters.  If I find a utility covered in this manner in the
    "guide", I will do as Keith suggest in the previous note.
      
    Melinda mentions a pilot of these first nine chapters with different
    instructors an prerequisites "NONE".  Were one to test these
    prerequisites then we would select students who had no computer
    background or familarity with common terminology for the pilot. Was
    this done or did the pilot(s) have the usual population usually seen
    in U&C1? Again I just don't believe that the "NONE" is workable.
      
    Arnold.
    

    
    Good point.
    
    A few comments.
    
    First, we have slashed and burned a great deal of stuff that used to be
    covered in U&C out of tpics like EDITORS and MAIL. Compare them and
    see. What used to be 45 page chapter is now about 18. So we did _try_
    folks. If there is really still stuff in there that you feel is totally
    useless to a user, we will do your best to accomodate you.
    
    Second, The pilots had a varying level of experience in the students.
    [Which I would think matched the heterogeneous audience you might get
    for an introductory course?] We were not satisfied that they were
    actually representative, so we are piloting these two courses again in
    July. But, the marketing position on these courses [with the exception
    of VMS for Programmers] is that the student need not have any computer
    experience. That position was established by the funder. As writers we
    have to write to the LCD defined by the prerequisites for the course as
    defined by the funder...and then take instructor review and pilot
    feedback into account. 
    
    Third, the point I was trying to make was that we certainly _can_
    delete topics from the SYSNET version of the first nine chapters
    if it makes sense to do so. That is why we modularized in the first
    place. [grin] But...we would have to consider the action carefully
    before we did so, because 1) the stated prereqs for the course in the
    PLAN are NONE and 2) those nine chapters have so far received more
    review and piloting than some entire curriculums have gotten in the
    past.
    
    I guess what I was trying to say [clumsily] was that instructors are
    all individuals...we try to take review from as many as we can and
    get a 'feel' for what maybe a consensus is on something that might make
    a course better. But if we reacted every time a single instructor said
    'delete this we don't need it' or 'add this we need it' ... these
    courses would never get out the door. There are too many of you with
    slightly [or vastly] differing opinions.
    
    
    I don't think we are arguing, really. [grin] But I do need specific
    suggestions of material to cut in the first nine chapters if that is
    the general feeling here. FYI, the current versions of the nine
    chapters have already been cut from the USER I versions by about 20%.
    I removed a number of explanatory pages and put them on instructor
    pages, leaving the instructor to teach from a bulletted example. I did
    not remove any topics altogether...which I think is what is being
    suggested here.
    
    Thanks for your help.
    
    Melinda

    I think that a major topic, like networks for example, should be
    maintained with submodules.  For example, NET_A, NET_B, NET_C.
    Then NET_A (basic stuff) could be included in SYS NET I, NET_B
    (intermediate) in SYS NET II, etc.  You wouldn't want repeat NET_A
    in SYS NET II since students should have already seen it.
    
    	However you may want to put it in an Appendix for the INSTRUCTOR
    GUIDE only.  This way the instructor could assess the knowledge level
    of the students and decide at the time how much, if any, to review.
    
    	Don't think this isn't necessary if the students have taken the
    pre-requisuite course.  I'm teaching U&C II this week and although
    80% of the students have "had" U&C I, their working knowledge of
    the concepts and commands of that class is fair to poor.  The real
    world is that sometimes some review is needed,  other times it's not.
    
    -- Ray Enright
    

    
    Our current capability [remember this is a prototype, please] is:
    
    We can build:
    
    	All individual items on any topic by themselves [Steps to login]
    	Any Task grouping of Topic modules [How to login]
    	Any Vertical Topic grouping of topic modules [anything you
    		ever did or didn't want to know about Mail]
    	Any Audience Grouping of a task [what system managers need to know
    		about logging in]
    	Any chapter from any course
    	Any course
    
    That is what we are capable of creating/building/saving/modifying
    as of today.
    
    Mel
    

    
Melinda;
    
    I agree, this is a discussion!
     
    The idea to continue the pilot for a more representative audience is
    a good one, given the importance of these courses.  There are some
    differences between "NONE", and "No Computer Experience".  Imagine
    the student who does a $ SHOW SYMBOL A; isn't it possible that he/she
    may wonder about the octal and hex portions of the display?  Or in
    the "ADD USER" section of managing users there is always one who tries
    a /UIC=[8900,1] or some such.  We just wanted to draw attention to
    these possiblities.  Maybe Andy could shed some light on the marketing
    side?
    
    Results from the pilot(s) would also be useful.  Have they been posted
    or have I missed them?  I have seen some references to them.
    
    Arnold.

	Regarding the last couple of replies - Length of modules, and
	what the instructor 'has to' put in.

	I totally agree with the comments regarding the instructor can
	can decide what he/she puts into a module and how long they take.
	While if not enough material is covered a student can go and read
	it later for themselves.

	What I am concered with is that some Instructors will cover some
	bits 'as standard' and others other bits. The customer may also
	be under the impression they will learn all of the meterial (on
	the course). A good set of objectives need to be drawn up for
	each module stating what the student will see 'as minimum'. From
	there both the instructor and the student are under no illusions
	of what they will cover.

	Normally the objectives cover everything in the module, I would
	propose the objectives cover only what should be taught as a
	minimum.

	Ramble, ramble...
		Ian Flack (Shire Hall - Reading)

    
    Ooooh...Objectives, one of my favorite topics...[that was
    said with a grimace, in case you didn't catch the body language
    [grin].
    
    The objectives in the courses currently:
    
    	1) Have to meet Digital guidelines which state that they
    	[the objectives] may not imply a guarantee. So we can't say
    	things like..."we will show you how"....or "this chapter
    	will show you how" ...or "students will learn how".
    
    	We have to say...
    
    	"To [perform some job task] the [selected audience for the
    	course] must be able to:"
    
    	example:
    
    	To [get help on their own] a [user] should be able to:
    
    	Then we can make a list of specific skills that enable that
    	task.
    
    	I think what I am hearing, is that we should be careful to phrase
    	that list of skills so that it covers the minimum basics but
    	doesn't necessarily cover every major topic in the chapter.
    
    	Let's see...for instance...let's take Mail...[sigh]
    
    	Instead of:
    
    	To be able to communicate with other system users a user should be
    	able to:
    
    		Send messages
    		Read messages
    		Edit messages
    		Forward messages
    		Store messages in folders
    		Extract messages to files for editing
    		.
    		.
    		.
    
    We should say instead:
    
    	To be able to communicate with other system users a user should be
    	able to:
    
        	Receive and read mail from other users
    		Send and forward mail to other users
    
    Based on the [probably correct...sounded good to me] assumption
    that the 'minimum' a user needs to know how to do is read and
    send mail...the rest is a bene if you have the time but can be
    gotten fairly painlessly from the documentation or online help.
    
    Those topics might still be present, but then the objectives would
    match some agreed upon minimum objective.
    
    Have I got it yet?
    
    Mel
    	

    
    
    I agree that it is up to instructor discretion to decide how deeply to
    go into a particular topic.  However, (and I don't know if this is a
    problem in the UK - you people are so POLITE over there 8*)), if the
    topic is covered in the material, we have a hard time skipping over it
    in lieu of having the students read it on their own time.  This is
    especially prevalent in the examples section for a particular utility. 
    I happen to be teaching U&C I this week (oh, joy).  One of the
    examples for the BACKUP utility uses BACKUP/IGNORE=LABEL_PROCESSING. 
    Nowhere else is it mentioned in the student guide.  I can't tell you
    how many times I've been asked about this.  Sure, you can say
    "...covered in another course...", but then they're left feeling "Well,
    why is it in the example, then?"  And if this is happening all over the
    place in the student guide, it leaves them with a bad feeling.  It's
    not a huge problem, but it is a problem.
    
    
    		Arthur

    Agreeing with Arthur...
    
    The approach that "objectives that are a subset will cover the problem
    of too much material is in the module" is a familiar one.  
    
    Unfortunately, enough folks will be keenly interested in different
    details that in effect, the class wants the whole enchilada!
    
    Within reason, let's not duplicate the doc set.  The module on a given
    topic (take MAIL, please) show not have as many pages as the given
    reference manual. 
    
    Unfortunately, some students could and would play with mail all day...
    
    ih
    

    
    To start another thread of discussion...
    
    When the restructured curriculum is fully implemented, how will people
    that need to "cross-train" be catered for?  A scenario which I'd argue
    is quite typical and possibly quite common (it happened to me!), is
    that someone becomes a Programmer.  Sits "VMS for Programmers" and
    higher programming courses and gets used to VMS from this angle.
    
    For some reason, s/he gets offered a "golden opportunity" to manage a
    system or two. SysNet II seems like the obvious course to sit, but will
    the pre-reqs state SysNet I?  If so, to get the gentle intro to System
    Mgt s/he'll have to go through 3 days of U&C material. Could the
    candidate survive SysNet II without sitting SysNet I?
    
    This could work the other way - a Manager type may decide to enter the
    programming world.  Would s/he miss vital info by skipping "VMS for
    Programmers" and just sitting a language course?
    
    I know that the existing courses will be available for the short/med
    term to allow people that have started along the existing curriculum to
    complete it - but what about those that have yet to start?
    
    Just a thought,
    Stephen

    
    My understanding is that there will be entry points beyond the
    first level to accomodate the very real situation you describe.
    
    ALmost all topics that are introduced to a particular audience are
    covered in detail in the next follow-on course. So...yes, I think
    any of those people you describe could and would enter at the II
    level. This is usually covered under the 'or appropriate expeience'
    line in the prereqs...is it not?
    
    Melinda
    

A couple of points:


Re: cross-overs...

We are producing new curriculum maps that define some of the cross-overs, others
we'll have to add later.

The particular case in point (Programmer to Sysman) we'd recommend study of the
relevant modules of the Sysnet I TBI course then Sysnet II.

Re: Modules...

Reading the discussion, I'm not sure tha everyone is using the same terminology.
When Mel or I or anyone involved in the developemnt side says 'module' we mean a
small, atomic, reusable chunk of material. These are the things we build from;
which we re-use; which we have only one of etc.


I think these are being confused with what used to be called modules and which
we are now calling 'chapters'

To clarify: a course will consist of  n chapters ( n<20)
	    a chapter will consist of m modules ( m could be >100)

There are intermediate 'things', as yet un-named (sub-chapters? mega-modules?)
that are groupings of modules and other stuff and which are combined t form
chapters.

The bottom line: If you think there's too much/little coverage of a topic in a
particular chapter of a particular course - LET US KNOW! We CAN change it!!

Andy

    
    
    	Another comment from those of us in the land of milk and honey.
    	(otherwise known as L.A., CA.)
    
    	I'm Jason Fish (Fish)
    	Officially I'm an instructor, but in my previous 
    	life working in and on and around some other vendors machines
    	(can you say IBM) I wrote these fabulous things we call
    	student/instructor guides.   (what a wonderful job.)  I, as
    	the developers here have, received many "do it this way"
    	statements.
    
    	On the level with which I covered a topic,
    	some thought more was better, or brief was best, or
    	let the instructor decide...it's their class anyway.  
    
    	Well...
    	The idea is to provide the student with a guide that
    	is supplemented by our lecture.   This gives the instructor 
    	complete control on what goes in a course and what doesn't.
    	("customized" to meet this particular audiences needs--can 
    	you say  'identify your audience?')
    
    	However, if a text provided in the course covers a utility
    	(or any topic) _fairly_ thouroughly (like disk striping in current 
    	system management II courses) customers expect the instructor
    	to be proficient in this topic and cover it with the detail
    	and weight presented in their guides.
    
    	Many replies about the "depth" topic suggest the amount and/or detail
    	with which a topic is covered is not a measuring stick to be 
    	used by the instructor in deciding how heavily to stress a topic.
    
    	BUT......THIS IS THE MEASURING STICK OFTEN USED BY OUR CUSTOMERS,
    
    	especially if we are assuming a "NONE" level of pre-requisites
    	and we have mindless, computer-idiot customers coming into class.
    	If these customers truly know so little (or are expected to) their
    	only guide to the importance of a topic is the material set in front 
    	of them by the smiling instructor.
    
    	A carefully presented OBJECTIVE list will not solve the problem,
    	and never did in the manuals I wrote (refer to reply .40) 
    	Often, correct me if I'm  wrong the OBJECTIVE list
    	is blown past by a majority of us (I've not seen
    	it used by any instructor I've sat-in on, nor does any instructor
    	I know mention using it.)  I do, and have seen, however,
    	instructors create their own objective lists.
    
    	By trimming down and presenting a stream-lined (modularized) 
    	topic (as i'm glad we're trying to do) we give the instructor 
    	the freedom to expand the topic to its "correct" length, based not
    	only on the instructor's own beliefs, but also on the audience
    	level and experience (real world level).  
    
    	A full discussion of the topic IS important in the instructor
    	guide, but by no means should a lecture dependent document (S.G.) be 
    	thought of as a "full treatment" piece.  
    	Depth of this level is better left to  "reference books",
    	you know, the ones we all passed by in the library and they would
    	never let you check out over night, if in fact you could carry
    	them?
    
    	Remember, keep it simple.
    
    	
    
    	Fish.

    Here's some news from development, and apologies that we haven't always
    been clear about what we're doing...
    
    We're now treating the Sys/Net curriculum as a four-course string. We
    also have a permanent project leader for the Sys/Net II-III-IV string,
    which we didn't quite have before. (That's me now.) Sys/Net I is being
    managed as part of the User curriculum, and we all talk to each other.
    
    Sys/Net I is as you see it; we're incorporating the review comments.
    Next week we'll post one more spec for Sys/Net I as a reference,
    reflecting the actual contents.
    
    Sys/Net II-III have become Sys/Net II-III-IV, since there was clearly
    too much material for two courses.  I've rewritten the front part of
    each spec to more clearly state the focus for each course. We've
    redistributed the topics, using some recent input from Europe and also
    going back to the instructor-forum proposal and the Job Analysis
    report. There may be further redistribution if any of the courses is
    still too full, but I think we now have a framework that allows that.
    
    The Sys/Net IV spec is not ready yet. In short, it's where the bulk of
    the troubleshooting material winds up. It will be marketed as a
    "specialist" course on VMS troubleshooting (actual title TBD). Sys/Net
    III will also be the prereq for most of the other specialist courses
    (Security, Performance, etc.)
    
    Each major topic area is "owned" by one developer across the entire
    curriculum. This provides as good a guarantee as we can provide against 
    overlaps & gaps. Developers and their areas are:
    
Paul Mosteika:	Monitoring/troubleshooting; performance; command procedures
Wendy Thomas:	Queues; backup/restore; terminal/printer management; media 
    		management
Bonnie Morgan:	Security; user management; customization; startup/shutdown
Val Matthews:	Duties of system manager; system configuration
    
    Each book also has one developer in charge of publishing / admin stuff:
    
Wendy: Sys/Net II	Bonnie: Sys/Net III	Paul: Sys/Net IV
    
    					Val

         General Opinions: SYSNET I COURSE

         	1. Bullets, that point to text, could work better 
         	   if they were on the same page.  If this
         	   cannot be done, having them on facing pages
         	   could be an answer.

         	   An example of this could be mod 1 p. 1-19 and
         	   1-20.  There is no room to put it all on
         	   page 19, but we could put it on facing pages
         	   by leaving page 19 intentionally blank and
                   have what is on 20 on page 20 and what was on
         	   page 19 on page 21 and slide everything else.
         	   
         	   This technique can be used in all our courses
         	   and is used in other companies/courses/books.
		   When leaving a page blank on purpose, they
         	   normally state so on the page, to avoid
         	   confusion.

         	2. Opinion: Too many modules? Can the course be
         		    taught to the proper audience in one
         		    week.  This needs to be tested.

         		    If we teach each topic at the level 
         		    they should be taught, so that the
         		    subject is thorough and understood,
         		    it should take more than a week to
         		    teach.  If we teach all in one
         		    week, the course could be so super-
         		    ficial that it will not be useful
         		    to the students and they will say
         		    so on the QA's which, as we all
         		    know, is only used to evaluate the
         		    instructors, not the course.  Who
         		    is hurt? The students and instructor
         		    for this course, and the same for
         		    subsequent courses that this is a
         		    building block for.

         		    We have students now, who cannot
         		    fathom U & C I.  What if they come 
         		    to this course, cannot handle the
         		    U & C part, how can they expect to
         		    handle the SYS. manager part? we could
         		    lose them early ,and they could be
         		    miserable and/or disruptive the rest
         		    of the way.  U & C I builds to mod 7,
         		    then followed by important, but
       			    easier, modules.  This allows the slower
         		    students time to redeem themselves,
         		    in their own minds, before the course
       			    ends.

		3. opinion: Remove topic pages from all modules.
         		    They just repeat the objectives.
         		    The instructor either ignores them
         		    and the student wonders why the
         		    instructor skips these pages or
                            he covers them and wastes time with
         		    needless redundancy.

    
    Briefly...
    
    Intentionally left blank pages have been 'outlawed' by corporate
    standards. If the funder wants to write a waiver, we can do it;
    otherwise an editor will just take them right back out after I
    have put them in.
    
    As for topic pages....we took them out a few weeks ago...then
    put them back in per instructor and funder request. Sorry, I guess
    they stay.
    
    In a nutshell...we do our best to respond to the consensus of what
    review comments say. That means that not every instructor request
    can be fullfilled....because instructors disagree on what they
    want...we try to get a feel for the majority opinion and do that.
    In addition, as a development and publsihing organization, there
    are ESDP standards that we pretty much have to follow. Of course,
    the funder can waive any standard that he/she wants...but in doing
    so, we will be working against standardization...which will work
    against resuability and modularity. The more 'different' we make a
    course format wise...the less reusable pieces of that course are;
    the more money it costs to maintain and customize it.
    
    I _know_ that examples that fall on back to back pages are
    _awful_ in the classroom. When I get a final draft [with review
    edits in] version of the course, I will go through and do my best
    to place as many of them as I can facing each other. But I can't
    promise everyone will work.
    
    Mel
    

    
    	In essence, what I read in 49.50 was  "If the funder wants to 
        write a waiver, we can do it".  This is a disturbing statement
    	and one that confused me.  
    
    	Question one:  Are all changes only implemented if the 
    		       requested change passes the review and/or
    		       stated guidelines of the "funder?"
    
    	Question two:  Can you describe to this unwise instructor
    		       who the "funder" is (are)?  It would be
    		       helpful to me to know.
    
    	Question three: How do we influence the funder to 
    			augment their guidelines and provide the
    			necessary waiver (on some topic or style
    			sheet)?
    
    	Thanks,
    
    	Fish.
    

    Hello Fish -- LA has in the past been kind of isolated from us and I'm
    really glad to hear from someone out there, so I'll provide a 
    simplified answer to .51. 
    
    You could obtain a more complete answer by asking your manager to
    explain to you how Digital Education is structured (probably a good
    idea if you're "confused"), or by opening a discussion in 
    ESDP_INSTRUCTOR_NOTES.
    
    Question two first:
    
     Course developers (me, Mel, Wendy T, Kristin, Hannah et al.) work for
     ESDP (Ed Services Development & Publishing, soon to be renamed...)
     ESDP's work is funded by other sources within Digital.
    
     Our funder for this curriculum restructuring (as mentioned elsewhere
     in this conference) is Ed Services Corporate Marketing (ESCM), which
     manages & markets curricula for customer training. In this conference,
     ESCM is represented by Andy Sadler and (temporarily) Emmalee Tarry. (You
     might want to reread some of the discussion in this conference now that
     you can see the user names SADLER and TARRY in the proper light.)
    
     The funder is responsible (among other things) for trading off the
     suggestions we get vs. the cost of implementing them.
    
    Question three: a) talk to your manager. The customer-training 
     management chain is supposed to provide feedback to ESCM, and it very 
     often works. b) talk to ESDP through this conference (which Andy also 
     follows) or directly. If many people agree on a suggestion, we can 
     recommend to Andy that we be funded to implement it. c) talk to Andy 
     directly; if every instructor did that he'd probably go nuts, but it is 
     an option now that you know his name.
     
    Question one: a waiver is required only if we want to do something
     that violates a standard. 
    
    Hope this helps! Please pursue this further in ESDP_INSTRUCTOR_NOTES
    since these questions aren't specific to the VMS curriculum.
    
    					Val
    

Nicely put, Val! Saved me the job... :-)

Cheers,

Andy

    Hi,
    
    I'm an Australian instructor currently reviewing the VMS USER/OPERATOR
    /SYSNET string to see how the new curriculum fits into our world.
    
    A few questions have arisen as to what exactly are the courses we are
    to teach.  It says in the Operators note that the intention is to run
    with the first 9 chapters of VMS for Application Users with 5 specific
    operator chapters.  Is this still the case?  We noticed a complete
    Operator student guide on SUPER which seems a lot more up-to-date then
    the individual chapters posted.
    
    Also, we wonder why have three separate courses for the first 3 days
    of User, Operator and System Manager training when the information is
    so similar.  If the "As the system manager, you ..." type phrases were
    omitted we could offer this course to anyone and leave the last 2 days
    as job specific.  We don't have the registrations to justify 3 different
    courses so it is a rather big issue here. (especially at the more remote
    offices where we currently have trouble filling a U&C every 2 months)
    
    I imagine other locations outside Oz would have similar problems.
    Has this been already been addressed and I have missed it?
    
    Cheers,
    Jo Berry,  Adelaide Australia.

>    I imagine other locations outside Oz would have similar problems.
>    Has this been already been addressed and I have missed it?
    
    Yes, there are other locations who have raised this issue, and it's a
    regular agenda item at Andy's VMS curriculum rollout meetings with the
    US/GIA/Europe representatives. No resolution yet.
    
    Modularity allows us easily to build a generic course without the "As
    the system manager..." phrases in it. If the world can tell us exactly
    what should be in that generic course, we can build it. Maybe it's
    the same as "VMS for Application Users" (which is now being called "VMS
    Skills for Users"); maybe it's not?
    
    					Val
    
    (I'll get the appropriate person to answer the Operator question.)

    Posted with Jo's permission:
    

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     10-Jul-1991 12:55pm EDT
                                        From:     Jo Berry
                                                  BERRY JO AT A1@ADO75A@ADO
                                        Dept:     EIS
                                        Tel No:   08) 235 7267

TO:  CAROL CRIDLAND                       ( CRIDLAND CAROL@A1@EDUOZ )


Subject: Sysnet I/Operator Review



Hi Carol,


Get comfortable, its a long one!

I've gone through the whole Sysnet I/Operator course and here are my 
initial impressions and concerns.

I dont believe the additional chapters for the Operator are a final draft.  
If they are I dont think we should use them.  All they've done is rip out 
some pages from the old System Management I course (including some pretty 
nasty errors)  Therefore I think we should somehow fit Operators into the 
Sysnet stream (I will include some ideas on how we could do this below)

When reading through the first chapters of "System & Network Management I" 
I was actually quite excited.  After about chapter 10 it went a bit down 
hill.  The first 9 chapters are excellent as an introduction to VMS.  When 
the chapters move into the System Management area is where they fall down.  
I thought the object of the new VMS curriculum was to allow a new System 
Manager to take the first Sysnet I course and after 1 weeks training, go 
back and do useful sysman type stuff.  I dont believe this to be the case.

What we actually have is 3 days of a very good introduction to VMS, but 
then 2 days of incomplete system manager functions.  For example, Chapter 
12, "Managing System Users" talks about the steps for adding a new user 
account.  I agree this is something a System Manager should learn 
immediately (its a very common task), but the chapter doesnt go anywhere 
near far enough that they could go back to work and start creating or 
modifying accounts.  I thought initially that maybe they were just going to 
mention it (I hate that) and leave it til Sysnet II, but I searched through 
the Sysnet II notes and couldnt find it elsewhere.  They do the same thing 
with disk quotas.   They talk about using the REPLY command in this 
chapter, but the only time you see REPLY/ENABLE so you can actually see the 
user requests is in an example.  They also dont explain anything about the 
different classes you can enable.  Once again, not enough here to be 
useful.

Chapter 11 - Managing System Hardware talks about utlitites like SDA and 
UETP.  At this stage they dont know how to start up the system, so using 
SDA to make reports about the last system failure could be a little 
difficult.  Also, if any utility is going to hang the system it will be 
UETP.  They dont know how to force a crash at this stage (or even how to 
stop a process) so its a bit dangerous (and silly) to mention it now.  They 
only have 3 lines of text about it (just like the old Sysman I) so why 
bother!

Chapter 10 - A Closer Look at the VMS Environment starts talking about 
Clusters.  There are only a few pages, but whats mentioned is pretty heavy 
(from a cluster illiterates point of view that is)  I suspect that there 
will be a few of us (me included) who will need abit of assistance to teach 
whats mentioned here.

Chapter 13 - Starting Up & Shutting Down a VMS System - doesn't actually 
say how to start it up! (Admittedly its just a >>>B for boot but its 
something they've got to know)  They didnt mention the different startup 
files which are executed on booting (I gather because other then login.com 
they dont know what a command procedure is!) and they dont mention minimum 
boots or emergency crashes.

I wasnt planning on being specific here (and its getting late) so I'll 
finish up.  I've read all the replies in the VMS_CURRICULUM notes 
conference about this course and agree with most of what was said, but the 
majority of replies are about typos.  There wasnt any real discussion on 
what was included.  A system manager needs to know VMS basics (as chapters 
1 to 9 explain very well) and how to start up, shut down, add & modify 
users, backup disks and manage queues.  Backups arent mentioned until the 
Sysnet II course.  This is probably the most important thing a System 
Manager will do so I think they should learn it pretty early on in the 
piece.

What could be a solution to a number of our potential problems with the new 
VMS curriculum string is this...

Rename the first 9 chapters of Sysnet 1 to something more generic (how 
about Utilities & Commands ;-) ) and make it available to everyone - Users, 
operators, programmers & system managers.  I dont see the point of VMS for 
Application Users as our customers often dont know what category they fall 
into so why have 2 extremly similar courses and confuse our bread and 
butter. One course means more bums on seats per class.

This would be a 3 day course (I believe we would have more registrations 
then on U&C simply because they will still have 2 days back at work - a big 
factor in my manager deciding whether I could do a course or not back in 
the days of being a real person (er I mean customer) was how long I would 
be out of the office.  A whole week usually is not affordable and I mean 
time not dollars.

Anyway, the 3 day course for everybody.  That leaves us 2 days to satisfy 
the operators and system managers.  Everything an operator does a system 
manager needs to know so we wouldnt have too many problems.  The main 
problem I see is leaving out authorize (shouldnt be taught for operators) 
in this first week and maybe being too specific about backup (I beleive 
operators should know all the ins and outs of backup like the system 
manager should but some (one at least) other instructors disagree with me.

Has anyone in Sydney looked at the Sysnet I course yet?  I would really 
like to know what they think about it.

Overall, I wouldnt like to teach the Sysnet I course as it stands.  It 
wouldnt be too difficult to fix the problems and I would be very willing to 
be the one (or one of the ones) to do it.

Regards,
Jo.

    I'll respond to some of .56. Thanks again, Jo, for taking time to enter
    that memo.
   
   					Val
    
   
>I thought the object of the new VMS curriculum was to allow a new System 
>Manager to take the first Sysnet I course and after 1 weeks training, go 
>back and do useful sysman type stuff. 
    
    The current description says the student "is assumed to be working
    under the supervision of an experienced system manager and to have
    limited responsibilties." 
    
    In other words, we can introduce system management in the first week
    but we can't expect the student to function as an independent system
    manager at the end of it. The marketing literature has to be really
    explicit about this. (We don't quite have the same problem for
    operators since it's implicit that an operator is working under
    supervision.)
    
    Does that help to put the materials into perspective?
    
>After about chapter 10 it went a bit down hill.
    
    Yes, some review chapters had enough omissions that they could appear
    to be completely off-base, and I hope we've rectified most of them for
    the pilot. Mel & I are going through all the specific comments and
    we'll answer all of them. I can answer some now:

> ... disk quotas. 
    
    Yup, we slipped on that one. I asked Wendy to add it to Sys/Net II; not
    sure it'll be there for the pilot.
    
>Chapter 10 - A Closer Look at the VMS Environment starts talking about 
>Clusters.  There are only a few pages, but whats mentioned is pretty heavy 
>(from a cluster illiterates point of view that is)  I suspect that there 
>will be a few of us (me included) who will need abit of assistance to teach 
>whats mentioned here.
    
    Granted, the person who teaches this has to be cluster-literate. Maybe
    we should have said that more distinctly.  You also have to be
    prepared to defer the detailed questions about configuration if they
    come up (you don't have to know how to configure a cluster to be able
    to start managing one); here the instructor who's been teaching
    VAXcluster Managment may have a tougher time staying out of ratholes.
    
>Chapter 13 - Starting Up & Shutting Down a VMS System - doesn't actually 
>say how to start it up! (Admittedly its just a >>>B for boot but its 
>something they've got to know)...they dont mention minimum boots or emergency crashes.
    
    B-for-boot and emergency crashes should be in there now, and Mel's
    making sure. The specific commands for crashing each system are
    different, so they're in the hardware operations guide that is also to
    be handed out on the course (see topic 37). 
    
   Minimum boot is done in the context of system upgrade (week III) so
   we'll cover it there unless you can identify a week-I or week-II task
   that requires you to do a minimum boot -- it's useful for trouble-
   shooting & system upgrades but I don't think it's a task in itself.
    
>They didnt mention the different startup 
>files which are executed on booting (I gather because other then login.com 
>they dont know what a command procedure is!) 
    
    This one's deliberate; they're introduced in week 2.
    
>Backups arent mentioned until the Sysnet II course
    
    Inadvertent omission; it's been added to Sys/Net I & should be in the
    pilot draft. 

    [If you're on the designated-reviewers list, you've already seen this]
    

Dear Instructor (if you're a manager, please forward to interested instructors):

Your name is on a list (below) of key reviewers of VMS course materials, which
was provided by your area representative.

In case you haven't been following the Notes conference SUPER::VMS_CURRICULUM,
here's a status report and a list of materials available for review and study.

o  VMS System and Network Management I and VMS System and Network Management II 
   are being piloted during the weeks of August 5 and August 12. Copies of the
   Sys/Net I instructor guide and the Sys/Net II student workbook are in:

	SUPER::ES$REVIEW:[SYSNET_I]SNI_IGPROFILE.PS
    	SUPER::ES$REVIEW:[SYSNET_II]SYSNETII_SPROFILE.PS 
    
    (Sys/Net II instructor guide to be available soon)

   We have a small amount of time after the pilot to incorporate revisions, and 
   can consider incorporating review comments as well.

o  For VMS System and Network Management III, we've started posting modules for 
   review and will continue posting over the next several weeks. Check the
   VMS_CURRICULUM conference, topics 94 through 115, for announcements of
   modules. 

o  VMS Skills for Users has gone to print. The final instructor guide is in:

	{SUPER,HARDY}::ES$INSTRUCTOR_GUIDES:EY-G990E-IG-0001.PS_LZ

o  VMS for Operators is in final production. A close-to-final draft is in:

	{SUPER,HARDY}::ES$REVIEW:[RA0296]RA0296_COURSE_SG_PROFILE.PS

o  VMS for Programmers is undergoing post-pilot revisions. A draft of the 
   pilot instructor guide is in 

   	{SUPER,HARDY}::ES$REVIEW:RA0295_IGPROFILE.PS

Any questions? Send mail to me at SUPER::MATTHEWS or Mel at SUPER::REGNELL or
any of the other course developers in the VMS_CURRICULUM conference.

					Val Matthews, DCD, ZKO

    We've drawn up some topic cross-references. Each one consists of a
    topic list for one of the old course (equivalent to the table of
    contents). For each topic, it indicates which of the new courses 
    covers that topic. Courses listed are U&C I-II, System Mgt I-II,
    VAXcluster Mgt, Network Mgt I, and Security.
    
    Copy them from:
    
    	 {SUPER,HARDY}::ES$REVIEW:[VMS_CURRICULUM]*TOPICS.TXT
    
    I hope these are useful for those of you familiar with the old
    curriculum in prepping for the new. A couple of warnings:
    
    - This is a first draft. Some of the courses will be revised after pilot
    results are in.
    
    - It indicates whether a particular topic is covered, but not whether
    the coverage is identical to what's in the old course. We've preserved
    a lot of existing material and also done a lot of rewriting.
    
    - System & Network Mgt III is still under development and IV not yet
    designed. I've put a ? for topics being considered  for inclusion in
    one of those courses.
    
    
    - It was impossible to do a cross reference for the Performance course
    because the topics don't break down the same way when we treat them in a
    task-oriented manner. 
    					Val

Addendum to .59 -- you need to print the cross-references on 132-column paper.

    The postscript version of the most recent VMS Curriculum Maps have
    been posted in
    
    	USER8:[SIMCOX.CPD]VMS_CURRICULUM_MAPS.PS
    
    Please review these maps and comment back.  
    
    Thanks.

    What is the whole pathname?  I tried SUPER::USER8:[SIMCOX.CPD] but
    it didn't like that!
    
    Thanks,
    Sherry

    re .-1 
    
    Try CECV03::USER8:[SIMCOX.CPD]  instead.   
    
    (I did the same thing the first time ;-)
    
    
    			Irene

        Please move this if its not in the right place...
        
        Over the last couple of days a selection of instructors have been 
        looking at what topics have been left out of the new SYSNET 
        courses that were in our old SYSMAN courses. This was with a view 
        to positioning the old courses in the new U.K. curriculum map.
        
        This is a brief list of old and new courses we consulted...
        
        Old Courses:            New Courses:
        System Manager I	System & Network Manager I
        System Manager II	System & Network Manager II
        VAXcluster Management	System & Network Manager III
        & Configuration
        
        Here is a list of material we felt should be included some where 
        in the new courses...
        
        From the Cluster Course:
        o Configuration options for a cluster
        	- Positioning of data/system disks (Local/MSCP)
        	- Mounting of disks (Cluster/Local)
        	- Heterogeneous/ Homogeneous configurations
        	- Dump file configurations
        o Re-configuring Clusters
        	- Removing Nodes
        	- Removing Disks
        	- Removing HSC's
        o Merging clusters
        	- Merging UAF's etc.
        o Moving files off the system disk
        o DECNet over the CI
        o LAT Cluster Alias name
        o HSC & ISE Configuration
        	- Node Name & Allocation Class
        o One section on SYSMAN
        	- Not seeing STARTUP was worrying
        o Backup in a cluster
        	- Special Standalone Backup Needs
        	- Shadow set backups
        	- HSC Backups
        o Lock Manager
        o Trouble Shooting
        
        It was suggested that if Performance were dropped from System & 
        Network Manager III this material could be included instead. That 
        would mean the existing Performance course needn't change and the 
        existing Cluster Manager course could be dropped.
        Note: Some of the above topics are relevant for standalone nodes 
        too.
        
        From System Manager I:
        o Queue protection definitions
        	- ACL Protection
        	- UIC protection  - E means what ?
        o Volume sets
        o Install
        	- Covered on tuning briefly
        o Controlling the Maximum Number of Logins
        o Creating Stand Alone Backup
        
        We were very surprised at the last two points
        
        From System Manager II:
        o Command Definition Utility
        	- The $SET COMMAND command
        o Libraries
        	- The $LIBRARY command
        o Logical names
        	- Tables
        	- Search orders
        	- SYSMAN Startup
        o Pool Memory discussion
        	- Even missing from the performance section
        
        Summary:
        The topics above need putting in some where. We where adamant 
        about dropping the performance section of System & Network 
        Manager III and including some of the bits from the Cluster 
        Manager course. We where also very surprised when we couldn't 
        find some of the topics.
        
        Hope this different angle helps. Any comments gratefully 
        received.
        
        Ian Flack (Digital Services (EDU) - Manchester U.K.)

Note that SYSNET I, II, and III are in a review directory...they are
not yet final.

The files in ES$INSTRUCTOR_GUIDES are in compressed format. You
must decompress them before you can print the PS file. Instructions
are in ES$INSTRUCTOR_GUIDES:READ_ME_FIRST for doing this.


Directory ES$REVIEW:[SYSNET_I]

EY-G986E-IG-0001.PS;2  6129  24-OCT-1991 12:58:38.28  (RWED,RWED,RE,RE)

Directory ES$REVIEW:[SYSNET_II]

SYSNETII_IPROFILE.PS;3 10962  21-OCT-1991 17:40:05.87  (RWED,RWED,RE,RE)
    
Directory ES$REVIEW:[SYSNET_III]

SYSNETIII_IPROFILE.PS;2 13380  17-OCT-1991 23:54:09.60  (RWED,RWED,RE,RE)

Directory $1$DUA6:[ES$INSTRUCTOR_GUIDES]

EY-G990E-IG-0001.PS_LZ;3 1058  23-JUL-1991 15:21:47.44  (RWED,RWED,RE,RE)
EY-G992E-IG-0001.PS_LZ;1 1843  16-SEP-1991 17:31:12.78  (RWED,RWED,RE,RE)
EY-G993E-IG-0001.PS_LZ;1 2471   1-AUG-1991 12:58:16.90  (RWED,RWED,RE,R)

    Training managers in the US have been notified, but I'm posting this in
    case instructors want this info:
    
    The Sys/Net I and III teaches were videotaped last week, and the
    Sys/Net II teach is being videotaped this week. The tapes will be
    duplicated for any training center that wants them for TTT use.
    
    This is a limited, one-time offer; the tapes will not be orderable.
    Your manager should notify Roger Towne @BUO as soon as possible if you
    want copies of the tapes. Your cost center will be charged $10 per tape
    (I don't know how many tapes there are, but Roger should know by now.)
    
    					Val

    We need to identify a primary field reviewer for VMS System and Network
    Management IV, which will have a troubleshooting emphasis.
    
    If you'd like to be considered, check with your manager & send mail to
    Andy Sadler at ESMAIL::SADLER.
    
    Prerequisite: familiarity with the current VMS System Management II,
    VAXcluster System Managment, and Network Managment I courses or
    equivalent.
    
    Funding: to be negotiated.
    
    					Val

Here -- finally -- is a reply to 49.65 (Ian's note). Some of the topics
listed are now in the Sys/Net courses. Some of them we explicitly decided
not to include.
    
>        From the Cluster Course:
>        o Configuration options for a cluster
    
   We'll discuss them more completely in the replacement VAXcluster course.

>        o Re-configuring Clusters
    
   We can look at including this in a future revision

>        o Merging clusters
    
   We don't see this as a hot topic these days, but if we're wrong we can look
   at including it in a future revision.

>        o Moving files off the system disk
    
   Sys/Net III, Performance chapter

>        o DECNet over the CI
    
   Network specialist topic, to be included in the network specialist 
    curriculum

>        o LAT Cluster Alias name
    
   Sys/Net III, Managing Terminal Servers chapter

>        o HSC & ISE Configuration
>        	- Node Name & Allocation Class
    
   I agree this should probably have gone in; we'll look at it for a future 
   revision

>        o One section on SYSMAN
>        	- Not seeing STARTUP was worrying

   VMS Engineering does not recommend the use of SYSMAN STARTUP, so we don't
   cover it. Sorry...

>        o Backup in a cluster
>        	- Special Standalone Backup Needs
>        	- Shadow set backups
>        	- HSC Backups

   If necessary, we can look at including these in a future revision

>        o Lock Manager

   Remains in the VMS System Performance Management course

>        o Trouble Shooting

   Will be included in Sys/Net IV
        
>        From System Manager I:
>        o Queue protection definitions

   Sys/Net III, Customizing Print Queues chapter

>        o Volume sets

   Sys/Net II, Managing Disks chapter

>        o Install
>        	- Covered on tuning briefly

   Right

>        o Controlling the Maximum Number of Logins

   Sys/Net III, somewhere in the Performance chapter

>        o Creating Stand Alone Backup

   I think we can squeeze this into Sys/Net III
        
>        From System Manager II:
>        o Command Definition Utility
>        	- The $SET COMMAND command

   Programmer topic; would have been in Programmer II

>        o Libraries
>        	- The $LIBRARY command

   Sys/Net III, Customizing Print Queues chapter

>        o Logical names

   Sys/Net II, Using Logical Names chapter

>        o Pool Memory discussion

   Remains in VMS System Performance course

From:	SONATA::SIMCOX "04-Dec-1991 0901"  4-DEC-1991 09:03:41.24
To:	@NEWCURRICULUM
CC:	
Subj:	VMS Reference Guide--New location of PS file

All,

The New VMS Reference Guide is now available in Postscript format.  Because of
security restrictions in the Stow facility, the file has been moved to the DCD
development group in ZKO. To copy the file please use the following file spec:

	SUPER::ES$PUBLIC:VMS_CURRICULUM_GUIDE.PS

The reference guide is 136 pages long, single sided.  Table of contents as
follows:

Introduction				  4
Analysis of System Management Tasks	  6
Structure of New VMS Curriculum	       	  7
Outline of New Curriculum Changes	 11
Topic-by-topic Matrices			 13
Task Matrices				 53
New Curriculum Features and Benefits	 68
Questions and Answers			 70
Registration Strategy			 72
Course Product Descriptions		 75
Sales Update Article			125
Curriculum Maps				131

We have produced a "companion" videotape that will be packaged with the
reference guide for internal use and are in process of doing this at this time. 
The plan is to have the video and guide be orderable from DDD.  We will also
make available a "customer version" of the video that will also be orderable
from DDD.  

Please let me know how many of internal and/or customer packages you would
be interested in receiving so that we can make these available over the next
couple of weeks.

Regards, 

Bill, Val,

Re .-1, can one of you please extract the new Course Descriptions from the
Field Ref Guide, and put them in this notesfile ?

I'm referring of course to pp 76-124 of the FRG.  I have this (like everyone
else) in Postscript, but need ASCII in order to put the new descs into CODA
for European use.

I suspect others may have a similar need.  Alternatively, if you can point
me to an ASCII version of the FRG, I'll extract the descs myself.

Many thanks,

Phil.

    I have just been reading the VMS_CURRICULUM_GUIDE and noticed a
    question at the bottom of page 71. 
    
    Question:  If I have already taken Utilities and Commands as well as
    System Management I, what course should I take next?
    
    Answer: In this case, you should follow the old curriculum and enroll
    in System Management II, or the other electives such as Network
    Management I or VAXcluster System Management.
    
    This seems to imply that the new and old curriculum courses will be
    running in parallel for some time. Is this expected?
    
    Or does it mean that the should attend the required course at a
    training centre that is still using the old courses? 
    
    Could someone clarify this for me?  Thank you.
    
    Ted Egri (Dublin) DTN 7827-2222

    >This seems to imply that the new and old curriculum courses will be
    >running in parallel for some time. Is this expected?
    
    Yes, that's the idea.
    
    					Val
    

    This is in response to the discussion that started in the Sysnet note
    and that Val suggested we move here.
    
    The discussion centres on whether we should be teaching theory or
    whether we should take cookbook approach to training.
    
    Here's my position:
    
    We should NOT use a pure cookbook approach. As Greg and Todd point out,
    if we do this we are not preparing the customer to be self-sufficient
    in that (s)he will not be able to handle situations that were not
    EXACTLY covered in the course.
    
    On the other side of the argument, long discussions of the internal
    workings of the system, the design concepts and strategies, and tales
    of the elegance of the solution, while being infinitely pleasing to
    some of us (I count myself among the worst offenders)  are not required
    to do the job, and are not required by the people who pay the bills for
    the training (the REAL customer!!! N.B. This is not the student in most
    cases - oh **** that's opened up a real rat-hole - try a diversionary
    tactic...
    
    That's not a rat-hole! It's a mink-hole!
    
    What's a mink-hole??
    
    A rat-hole that feels good to be in!!!!!
    
    Anyway, where was I???
    
    
    Oh yeah - too much theory makes Cyril a goggle-eyed numbskull...
    
    What we need here is BALANCE!!!
    
    We should teach enough theory so that the learner can apply the theory
    to the specific skills we're inclulcating and thus extrapolate on the
    skills in situations that are different from but related to those we
    cover. 
    
    It may be that in an effort to make sure that the skills are covered,
    we are reducing the theory too much, if so, we need to fix it - so
    let's have your positive criticism. We'll work it in as we go! In the
    meantime - you can magically pull said theory out of your head as
    added-value in the class!
    
    OK?
    
    
    Goodnight!
    
    
    Andy

    Well, I have now taught one SYSNET I and two SYSNET II courses.  I will
    be doing a first teach of SYSNET III next week.
    
    SYSNET I:  Received very well by the class (five customers); but, I
    found myself having to add things that weren't in the course materials. 
    Not that I'm slamming the existing course materials -- which presented
    the topics with a reasonably good flow -- but, I'm seeing that after
    all of the design of the topic flow and all of the concern over what
    information someone taking these courses really needs, I see that an
    entirely different concern we should be addressing is what the
    customers _want_.  I know, I know, some want device driver design in
    SYSNET I and other things that aren't realistic.  When I taught SYSNET
    I, I found myself going into an overview of VAXclusters and DECnet
    beyond what the course materials covered.  No commands, no SYSGEN
    parameters, just "here's what a cluster is, here's what DECnet is,
    here's how they're different."  I decided that my own goal of SYSNET I
    was to see to it that they had, at least, heard the names and roles of
    all of the big pieces.  At times that included theory and at times it
    didn't.  Since one of the day to day events they may encounter was the
    loss of quorum in a VAXcluster, I gave them a basic once over about
    votes and quorum;  why it is used, and why you have to be careful about
    shutting down VAXcluster nodes.  Noteably, I did not cover how to set
    quorum, or what to do about quorum loss, only how to recognize it --
    and within the charter of SYSNET I that they should promptly begin
    shrieking for help from their supervisor.  The two days of user stuff
    and three days of manager stuff seemed to work quite well.  By the end
    of the second day they were ready to get out of the user stuff and leap
    into the management stuff.
    
    SYSNET II: I've now taught this both at-facility and onsite.  Both
    times I got complaints about the lack of DECnet stuff.  Now, the
    problem here is one of perception.  There is the one module that has
    the word "network" in it.  Their perception is that that's the only
    coverage of networks in the course; in reality, there were several
    places in other modules where both clustering and networking are
    mentioned topically.  We may want to do what we can to make those more
    visible.  The real problem is resolving the name of the course with the
    topics we cover.  No matter what the rationale, students expect to hear
    a lot about network management in a course called "System and Network
    Management".  We can point out the logic of the positioning of topics
    in these courses all we like, but they'll still want the coverage of network
    and cluster stuff to be highly visible.
       I also added an improvised lecture (mainly in response to requests)
    on VMS's process management (ie, Virtual Memory, Process Priorities,
    Process States, and about ten minutes on the big pieces of the I/O
    subsystem).  No big detailed thing, again -- just so they'd heard the
    names and had some clue as to what the SHOW SYSTEM  display was telling
    them.
    
    The biggest adjustment I've had to make in these courses is to cover
    topics less intensively than I'm used to.  This is, of course,
    simply getting used to the new curriculum.  It sounds simple and easy.  It's
    not.  Several instructors I've talked with are struggling with this,
    and it will take some getting-used-to. 
    
    I'll let you know how SYSNET III goes after next week.
    
    -Mark Thorne
     Chicago Training Center
    
    

	Hello,
	
	I also have some remarks about the contents of SYSNET I
(A couple of weeks ago i have taught the course for the first time) and
I have to ommit that I was suprised about the contents of some chapters.
	
	I think that we have to refer too much to the following course
SYSNET II (We have to because there are a lot of items that we do not
discuss in detail but only mentioning, and giving a small overview of
items).  Maybe i'm wrong (I hope so) but I think that clients don't
appreciate referring to other courses.
	Following courses is expensive !!!
	
	Maybe it is the name of the course which is confusing.
(Systems and Networking Management) This means quite a lot.
	Don't you think so ?

	I don't have any suggestions yet, because I first want to
have teached the complete curriculum and then I could make any conclusions.
	So this will be continued.

	
	De ras Gerdy
	Instructor Digital Belgium

    Well, after having taught all three of these I have some general
    comments.  The details of the page-by-page changes have already been
    covered quite well elsewhere in this conference. 
    
    It may be necessary to reexamine individual course focus.  I found it
    necessary to go into detail about topics that were absent from the
    course in each of the three courses.  I really think that after SYSNET I,
    the students, in addition to the practical skills presented, should be
    aware of the major aspects of these systems.  They need to know exactly
    what DECnet, VAXclusters, and LAT are -- and how they are different. 
    I'm not saying that they should know it down to the individual commands
    and parameters, just the general ideas behind these topics.  There
    really isn't a way to do this by patching modules from old courses into
    these!!  In the second course, they should be given a presentation
    about the general details of the VMS environment; i.e., the major
    pieces of a process, the gist of memory management, etc.  That topic
    can be covered in more detail in the third course as well.  I see us
    omitting that but covering the joys of concealed and terminal logical
    names in both the second and third courses (while adding no new
    information about them in the third course).  I get the distinct idea from
    talking to other instructors around here that if these ideas are going
    to be absent from the course materials we will present them anyway. 
    The students ask questions about these topics, and recognize the
    absence of fundamental treatment of these topics when they are unable
    to relate new topics to what they already know.
    
    I really do believe that this curriculum can work, and work well.  I
    don't believe it will work at all unless we can adjust it as we acquire
    practical experience with it.
    
    
    Mark Thorne
    Chicago Training Center

    
    
    I just finished my second teach of SYSNET I.  I am amazed that it
    passed because of the student make-up of the class (see note 51.9).  
    
    Basically, it provides good information but the title should have been 
    SYSTEM USER AND BEGINNING SYSTEM MANAGEMENT.  My students were
    thoroughly disappointed because of the lack of network management.  I
    was THOROUGHLY disappointed in several of the examples (ex. TYPE
    SYS$MANAGER:OPERATOR.log.  Face it, this file can be HUGE.  Also, I
    start my students out with basic privileges.  They cannot even SEE the
    file.  Why introduce this file, when you must explain it and they get
    frustrated/overwhelmed right from the start.  REMEMBER these people are
    just starting.)  I can compensate for poor or mis-guided examples, and
    I can explain and give examples as the topic pertains to the real
    world.  But, we have another problem.
    
    I agree with Mark Thorne in Chicago.  The curriculum will work well BUT
    IT IS GOING TO TAKE THE HELP OF REGISTRATION.  This week I got NAILED
    on one QA because registration told four guys that they HAD TO TAKE
    VMS BASIC SKILLS FOR USERS before they took SYSNET I.  FOUR people
    stayed in class and listed to an exact repeat of what they had taken
    the previous week.  I am surprised that the other three in this party
    did not nail me also.  Registration made the mistake, I took the heat.
    
    MY MAIN CONCERN.......We are getting away from the concept of a
    customer going to Atlanta to take a class and sending some to Dallas
    and getting the same class.  Standardization USED to be the key.  It
    isn't anymore.  Look at this notes file.  Everyone is supplementing the
    material.  I might add that everyone is supplementing BASED on their
    expertise!!!  
    
    I teach EVERY page.  Some instructors never even refer to the book. 
    When we leave gaps in the materials, you must expect the instructors to
    compensate in some way.  After all, it is the instructor who is graded
    on the materials.  When we got to the page on adding users to the
    system, adding a diskquota entry was mentioned.  I added how to create
    the diskquota file, where it was located, how to modify, and how to
    rebuild.  I felt I HAD to because the students did not understand when
    they were thrown into the middle of the diskquota subject.  
    
    When you get into the business of heavily compensating a subject, you
    risk not being able to cover all of the material in the student guide.
    
    On a last note:
    1. Comment -  students were very disappointed that they did not learn
    more about command procedures and how to set up a queue.
	
    2. Comment and Request -  Could someone give some thought to 
    standardization and give us some guidelines.
    
    3. QUESTION -  Are the unlimited registrars and regular customer
    enrollment registrars under the same management with the same training? 
    My four customers were all unlimited students who were told that they
    had to take VMS Basic Skills for users AND SYSNET I.  I must say,
    however, that I had "regular paying customers" who were misplaced.
    
    Thanks to everyone for their comments on the course content for the
    SYSNET II course.  I teach my first teach next week and I know that
    your comments will be very valuable to me.  I am just like a customer,
    I see things written in black and white and take it as gospel, only to
    try out the command and have it fail! At least, with everyone elses
    help I know I have not LOST IT!!!, that other people are human and make
    erros too.
    
    None of my comments were meant to offend anyone.  I hope they have
    helped instructors who will teach this class in the future and prepare
    them for what they could be up against.
    
    Dee Sayers
    Dallas Training Center
                     Training that brings about no change
                     is like a parachute that opens
                     on the first bounce!
    	                             Author unknown 
    

    
    Hi Dee,
    
   > Basically, it provides good information but the title should have been 
   > SYSTEM USER AND BEGINNING SYSTEM MANAGEMENT.  My students were
   > thoroughly disappointed because of the lack of network management.  I
   > was THOROUGHLY disappointed in several of the examples (ex. TYPE
   > SYS$MANAGER:OPERATOR.log.  Face it, this file can be HUGE.  Also, I
   > start my students out with basic privileges.  They cannot even SEE the
   > file.  Why introduce this file, when you must explain it and they get
   > frustrated/overwhelmed right from the start.  REMEMBER these people are
   > just starting.)  I can compensate for poor or mis-guided examples, and
   > I can explain and give examples as the topic pertains to the real
   > world.  But, we have another problem.
    
    1. The lack of network management has been chewed to several
    deaths in this notes file. The consensus of instructors at the
    IPF that helped design the user curriculum was that it did not
    not belong here in any more depth than was covered. And, quite
    frankly, I can't imagine where you would put it and still get out
    of class in under seven days. But I think we can all agree to
    disagree on that one....[grin]
    
    2. Typing the file [I think this falls under 'poor or misguided'
    examples....] was a great idea that went south. Somewhere back in
    the dark ages when we all started out on this new design, the plea
    was made to create specific examples that made sense to each audience.
    So, instead of typing some ho-hum generic file like MYFILE.TXT, we
    were asked to use system files. We beat you to this one, Dee. About as
    soon as it hit the streets, we decided it wasn't very good either. The
    files will be replaced with generic ones in the next update.
    
    3. However, I do have to point out that the instructions for the
    course call for students to have certain privileges. If you choose to
    not give them to them...then it is not the fault of the materials that
    the students cannot access files referenced. 
    
    4. We are always asking for 'real world' examples. But we get very
    few from instructors. I would be happy to use any real world examples
    that you feel would enhance this course. Please post them here and
    I will extract them!
    
    >I agree with Mark Thorne in Chicago.  The curriculum will work well BUT
    >IT IS GOING TO TAKE THE HELP OF REGISTRATION.  This week I got NAILED
    
    Well, I can't agree more. Does registration read this notes file?
    
    >MY MAIN CONCERN.......We are getting away from the concept of a
    >customer going to Atlanta to take a class and sending some to Dallas
    >and getting the same class.  Standardization USED to be the key.  It
    >isn't anymore.  Look at this notes file.  Everyone is supplementing the
    >material.  I might add that everyone is supplementing BASED on their
    >expertise!!!  
    
    You lost me here. These courses use EXACTLY the same object files
    to create several courses...you can't get much more standardized
    than that? Are you making a statement about the course...or about the
    presentation of various instructors? If you are talking about the
    standardization of the course, then I need to post a course reuse
    matrix so instructors can see where the same material is used
    repeatedly to create the different courses. If you are discussing
    instructor presentation...you may have a valid point, but one that
    course development has nothing to do with...? Un-confuse me?
    
    >I teach EVERY page.  Some instructors never even refer to the book. 
    >When we leave gaps in the materials, you must expect the instructors to
    >compensate in some way.  After all, it is the instructor who is graded
    >on the materials.  When we got to the page on adding users to the
    >system, adding a diskquota entry was mentioned.  I added how to create
    >the diskquota file, where it was located, how to modify, and how to
    >rebuild.  I felt I HAD to because the students did not understand when
    >they were thrown into the middle of the diskquota subject.  
    
    Re: the gap on diskquotas. The gap was intentional, reviewed and
    agreed to by instructors, and based on the intent of the first course.
    The work-around was to tell students that diskquotas are covered in
    a later course. It is your choice as in instructor to do otherwise.
    
    >1. Comment -  students were very disappointed that they did not learn
    >more about command procedures and how to set up a queue.
    
    Command Procedures are covered in SYSNET II and in the TBI Writing
    Command Procedures. As in network management...where would you put
    a discussion on command procedures in this week? As you said...
    they _are_ just starting...at what point would you launch into
    a discussion of complex command procedures?
    	
    >2. Comment and Request -  Could someone give some thought to 
    >standardization and give us some guidelines.
    
    A. There has been much thought. And there has been much action...
    it is just invisible out there because to date it has only effected
    how developers do their jobs and how the material finds it way to you.
    
    B. I am currently in the process of drafting the review copies
    of modularity guidelines that will provide detailed guidelines on
    format, style, content, [etc etc] of 'objects' used to customize
    courses. This review documentation will be posted in this notes
    file for your review and input. We are moving towards providing
    instructors with the capability to customize courses online. BUT
    [that _WAS_ a shout!] this is all prototype stuff. It will not
    be grinning at you from your desk tomorrow...we hope to have
    a couple of pilot centers working with our guidelines and
    utilities within the next 6-12 months.
    
    ---
    
    Thanks for you detailed comments! And I hope you can find the time
    to post some better examples...I am always on the hunt for examples
    from instructors to use!
    
    Mel
    

>   Does registration read this notes file?
     
    No. Keep posting your experiences with registration for the benefit of
    other instructors, but continue working the issue through your
    management. I've been forwarding the relevant notes to US Area
    management, but that's about all we can do from here in DCD --
    
    					Val

The course descriptions for some of the new courses in Digest 
January 92 - June 92 is somewhat misleading.  In particular, the
gray areas that mention the old courses.

In VMS for Users, it lists U&C II.  The only information from U&C II 
could be some symbols and advanced EVE.  However, these topics were 
also covered in U&C I.

In SYSNET I, it lists Network Manager I.  There are a few pages about 
what a network is, but that information was also in U&C I.  One other 
topic from Network Mgr I is "Identifying Circuits".  I don't think this
is enough to warrant listing Network Manager I though.  (I know, I know..
using Network in the title in the first place is a hot topic of discussion!)

I SYSNET II, it DOESN'T list Network Manager I!  This is one of the places 
it should!

-Sherry

    
    
    The next reply to this note is a proposal to update and enhance the
    Sysnet courses with regard to Network, Cluster, and Performance
    information. Your comments on this proposal are very important to the
    success of the Sysnet rework.
    
	Please read the proposal and enter comments here or send them to
    SUPER::WTHOMAS (Wendy Thomas).
    
    	Thank you.
    
    				Wendy
    
    	

 






1  Problem Statement

Upon review of the SYSNET curriculum, it has become apparent that although
the curriculum overall is well received, there are a few problem areas that
need to be addressed.

Specifically, the problems areas causing concern are those that present
information on:

           o  Networks

           o  Clusters

           o  System Performance

2  Proposed Solutions


The following proposed solutions are in response to the need for revising the
SYSNET curriculum in the areas of Networks, Clusters, and System Performance.

Please review this proposal and comment either in the SUPER::VMS_CURRICULUM
notesfile or by mail to Wendy Thomas (SUPER::WTHOMAS).

2.1  Network Solution

It is understood that the SYSNET courses are weak on Network information. In
order to fix this problem, we are proposing the following information be
included and expounded upon in the following courses:

              SYSNET I

In addition to the duties of the Network Manager, the OSI Network management
model will also be included.

              SYSNET II

The Network management tools piece needs some updating, for example, DECmcc
and MSU will be included. Basically, this section will introduce the tools and
their features and benefits so that SYSNET managers will have tools to use
for network management.

              SYSNET III

The overview of the Network troubleshooting is designed to help the manager
with installation. It is planned to be a framework/methodology to help in
problem isolation. It is not intended to solve the "100 Most Frequently
Occurring Problems" in the Network. Those specific commonly occurring problems
will be addressed in SYSNET IV.

           Advantages

The advantage of adding the duties of the network manager is that it supports
the SYSNET philosophy of gearing people to become managers of systems in
networked clusters. It is a follow-on to the duties of the System Manager,
which is included in this course. The OSI network management functions would
support the corporation's statement of being committed to standards. There is
a recurring theme of OSI in other.



 


Network courses, so this would be a good spot to introduce it to the students.



           Disadvantages

The disadvantages have already been listed in the VMS_CURRICULUM notes file.
People will be scheduling and teaching older NETMAN materials causing problems
with the flow of the SYSNET string of courses.



2.2  Cluster Solutions

The following three cluster solutions are presented for discussion. Please
review each of the proposals and post or send by mail feedback as soon as
possible.

2.2.1  Integrated Cluster Information

This proposal would be the easiest to implement. It proposes that we take the
information from the Cluster Crossover chapters and retrofit them back into the
SYSNET curriculum. The order of the cluster information would remain as it
currently is for SYSNET, however, the depth of the topics discussed would be
greater.

           Advantages

As stated, this would be the easiest proposal to implement and would cause the
least amount of disturbance to the curriculum and to the students who are
considering taking the SYSNET courses.

           Disadvantages

With this proposal, we are locked into the current order of SYSNET Cluster
information which may not entirely fix what appears to be wrong with the
cluster materials.

2.2.2  Grouped Cluster Information

The current Cluster Crossover course is being written in three chapters:

           1. Understanding the VAXcluster Concept

           2. Configuring a VAXcluster

           3. Managing a VAXcluster

This proposal suggests that all of the current Cluster information within the
SYSNET curriculum be removed in its bits and pieces state and be replaced with
the corresponding Cluster Crossover chapter. Each chapter would be slightly
modified to make sure that it covered the cluster topics currently listed in
the SYSNET courses.

          

 

           Advantages

All of the Cluster Crossover information will match the SYSNET curriculum and
we would have unity on cluster knowledge going into the Cluster three day
course.

All of the Cluster information would be grouped into one area for teaching
purposes.

           Disadvantages

By grouping all of the information in one chapter we are defeating our
educational philosophy of organizing information by task instead of topic.

2.2.3  Rearrangement of Cluster Information

The last cluster solution is to rearrange the order of cluster information
that is presented in the SYSNET curriculum from course to course. This is the
least desirable of the cluster solutions and will be discussed only with very
specific reasons to support this change of the SYSNET curriculum.

Essentially, the order of the information that is covered in the Cluster
crossover course's three chapters (for each SYSNET course) would be covered in
each corresponding SYSNET course in an integrated manner (no separate cluster
chapter).

           Advantage

The course information would match the flow of the Cluster crossover
information and would make instructional sense i.e., they would learn about
prerequisite topics before they learn about more advanced topics.

           Disadvantage

This would mean a rearrangement of the cluster information as it is currently
presented and would require changing of course descriptions and marketing
documents contacting all currently enrolled customers, and a complete relaunch
of the New Curriculum.. This would represent a large financial investment.

Also, the order of cluster information is being based on the existing Cluster
Management course and that may not be the most sound order in which to
present the cluster information.





2.3  Performance Solution

It is generally understood that SYSNET III is overloaded and is a difficult
class to teach because of the sheer volume. Because of this, we are proposing
that:

o  the majority of the information in the Performance Management chapter be
removed from SYSNET III and put into a specific Performance course that would
be available to the student after they had completed the SYSNET curriculum or
had reached the course objectives through other courses or by job experience

o  the following concepts be retained in the SYSNET curriculum from that
Performance Management chapter:

                 Virtual memory including paging and swapping
                 Definition of installed images
                 Alleviating disk bottlenecks
                 Disk fragmentation
                 CPU sharing
                    process priority

           Advantage

Complicated Performance information that may possibly be for the wrong audience
is removed from SYSNET.

By removing some of the teaching material, free time is made for teaching
more on the other topics.

           Disadvantage

Some students may both be needing and expecting Performance information. They
may feel that they are being cheated.

3  Time

Time is a priority in revising the SYSNET curriculum. We are hoping to have
agreement on this proposal and and implement the enhanced information by the
end of Fiscal year 1992 (June).

In order for this to occur, comments on this proposal must be voiced as soon as
possible after its posting.

    I hate to be a wet blanket.  All the changes you are suggesting
    for the "string" may be good intended.  When I read in reply .83
    "...although the curriculum overall is well received..." I want
    to choke.  This mean that all the comments from all ove the world
    we listed her and in other notes about these courses have fallen
    on deaf ears.  It is like reverend Falwell and his "Moral Majority".
    You may have heard from 15 percent of the instructors who teach
    these courses and assume the other 85 % "well receive" them.  
    
    	Go back and reread the replies in this note.  I went back to
    75 and reread up to here.  That is enough to show you that a "patch"
    is not going to fix this mess.  We need only start with the name
    of the string.  It is confussing and does not work.  It alone causes
    bad QA's because the courses are not what the student thought. 
    Because of that do we need to change the courses to comply with
    the name.  NO, change the name.
    
    		Problems    	1. The name is wrong
    
    				2. To much material in each course.
    				   Sysnet II is the best for quantity.
    				   I and III are out of sight.  We should
    				   not be teaching until 4 PM every
    				   day in these courses.  In I i do
    				   it 3 days and in II 4 days.  When
    				   do the students do labs?
    
    				The suggested patches are going to blow
    				out again very soon down the road. 
    				We need a retread first. And until we
    				get this string fixed don't touch the
    				other courses that are working fine
    				now.(cluster,sys perf. and network I)
    

    
    
    .84 is, in my opinion, right on the money!
    
          GJD

  
|Upon review of the SYSNET curriculum, it has become apparent that although
|the curriculum overall is well received, there are a few problem areas that
|need to be addressed.

  Funny.  I work this course about as hard as I can to get good grades.  How
  did we decide that "...the curriculum overall is well received"?

|Specifically, the problems areas causing concern are those that present
|information on:
|
|           o  Networks
|           o  Clusters
|           o  System Performance

  Actually, it is the LACK of Network info in I & II, the poor organization of 
  the VAXcluster material and the lack of time to cover all the topics in III
  (performance material is OK, just not enough time to cover it).

|It is understood that the SYSNET courses are weak on Network information. In
|order to fix this problem, we are proposing the following information be
|included and expounded upon in the following courses:
|
|              SYSNET I
|
|In addition to the duties of the Network Manager, the OSI Network management
|model will also be included.

  Nope.  We don't need the model!  Don't teach architecture to USERS!  Teach
  them the basics:  Copying across the network, use of explicit access control,
  SHOW NET, maybe MCR NCP SHOW EXEC, SET HOST features, like /LOG /LAT, etc.  We
  don't need Architecture at this point, put it in II (or III), not I.

|              SYSNET II
|
|The Network management tools piece needs some updating, for example, DECmcc
|and MSU will be included. Basically, this section will introduce the tools and
|their features and benefits so that SYSNET managers will have tools to use
|for network management.
 
  Time Out!  SYSNET II needs STARTNET, explanation of basic processes (NETACP,
  EVL and REMACP), a SIMPLE run through of NETCONFIG using defaults, commands
  to turn off the network and possibly even the basics of NCP and LAT (nothing 
  fancy), just turn off-turn on stuff.  
  
  We don't need to be discussing *MORE* layered products (i.e. DECmcc)
  before we have given them a basic 'start, run, stop' training of DECnet. 
  If anything, move these items to the Network module in SN3!  Don't turn
  this into a marketing course--teach them what they have!!  Do a majority
  of the students have these toys?

|              SYSNET III
|
|The overview of the Network trouble-shooting is designed to help the manager
|with installation. It is planned to be a framework/methodology to help in
|problem isolation. It is not intended to solve the "100 Most Frequently
|Occurring Problems" in the Network. Those specific commonly occurring problems
|will be addressed in SYSNET IV.

  WAIT!!  Hasn't anyone read the write up in this conference yet?!  We don't
  want a SysNet4!  We want SysNet3 fixed *BEFORE* SysNet4 is designed!  We
  want the Network configuration part of module 1 woven in with the Network
  Management module!  We want *LESS* material in this course, not MORE!  We 
  can't trouble-shoot until the architecture is discussed (and understood). We
  can't successfully discuss trouble-shooting until the installation is
  covered properly--discussion of objects, explanation of Circuit Cost, 
  deciding when to use areas and when not to use areas, etc.!!  PLEASE, just
  forget SysNet4 until you get SysNet3 fixed!!!!!

|           Advantages
|
|The advantage of adding the duties of the network manager is that it supports
|the SYSNET philosophy of gearing people to become managers of systems in
|networked clusters. It is a follow-on to the duties of the System Manager,
|which is included in this course. The OSI network management functions would
|support the corporation's statement of being committed to standards. There is
|a recurring theme of OSI in other.

  It sounds like this is a politic issue ("...support the corporation's 
  statement of being committed to standards.") and the emphasis is *NOT* on
  teaching the students how to run and manage a network/system/cluster!
  Don't clutter my course with non-essentials...I'll just skip right over
  them to get to the important stuff!

  Duties of Network Mgr seems OK, just keep it short, we are already tight
  enough on time!

|           Disadvantages
|
|The disadvantages have already been listed in the VMS_CURRICULUM notes file.
|People will be scheduling and teaching older NETMAN materials causing problems
|with the flow of the SYSNET string of courses.

  The VMS Network Manager I course is a *speciality course*, and there are
  very appropriate students in the field needing this course.  There *ARE*
  Network Managers that are *NOT* System Managers.  These people will probably
  take SN1 and SN2 and THEN jump to Net Mgr I.  Or, programmers cross training.
  Or existing, skilled System Managers that need Network courses!  This course
  still has a place!  It *must* be maintained until something is put in place
  for these other students (the non-System Manager students needing Network
  Mgt.)

|2.2.1  Integrated Cluster Information
|
|This proposal would be the easiest to implement. It proposes that we take the
|information from the Cluster Crossover chapters and retrofit them back into the
|SYSNET curriculum. The order of the cluster information would remain as it
|currently is for SYSNET, however, the depth of the topics discussed would be
|greater.
|
|           Advantages
|
|As stated, this would be the easiest proposal to implement and would cause the
|least amount of disturbance to the curriculum and to the students who are
|considering taking the SYSNET courses.

  "...would cause the least amount of disturbance to the curriculum..."  Sigh!
  The cluster stuff is unorganized (as I said above).  We need to introduce
  the topics in order - concepts THEN installation!

|           Disadvantages
|
|With this proposal, we are locked into the current order of SYSNET Cluster
|information which may not entirely fix what appears to be wrong with the
|cluster materials.

  Bingo!!

|2.2.2  Grouped Cluster Information
|
|The current Cluster Crossover course is being written in three chapters:
|
|           1. Understanding the VAXcluster Concept
|
|           2. Configuring a VAXcluster
|
|           3. Managing a VAXcluster
|
|This proposal suggests that all of the current Cluster information within the
|SYSNET curriculum be removed in its bits and pieces state and be replaced with
|the corresponding Cluster Crossover chapter. Each chapter would be slightly
|modified to make sure that it covered the cluster topics currently listed in
|the SYSNET courses.

  Sounds interesting, but I've never seen a Crossover book.  Can someone post
  a copy somewhere, or maybe just the table of contents.
          
|           Advantages
|
|All of the Cluster Crossover information will match the SYSNET curriculum and
|we would have unity on cluster knowledge going into the Cluster three day
|course.

  This seems good, but until we see an outline...

|All of the Cluster information would be grouped into one area for teaching
|purposes.

  This is *NOT* necessarily an advantage to teaching...

|           Disadvantages
|
|By grouping all of the information in one chapter we are defeating our
|educational philosophy of organizing information by task instead of topic.

  I tend to agree, but many customers don't mind the segmenting during a
  course.  Having it 'woven' throughout a module makes it difficult for the
  students WITHOUT a cluster.

|2.2.3  Rearrangement of Cluster Information
|
|The last cluster solution is to rearrange the order of cluster information
|that is presented in the SYSNET curriculum from course to course. This is the
|least desirable of the cluster solutions and will be discussed only with very
|specific reasons to support this change of the SYSNET curriculum.
|
|Essentially, the order of the information that is covered in the Cluster
|crossover course's three chapters (for each SYSNET course) would be covered in
|each corresponding SYSNET course in an integrated manner (no separate cluster
|chapter).

  HURRAY!  This makes sense!!

|           Advantage
|
|The course information would match the flow of the Cluster crossover
|information and would make instructional sense i.e., they would learn about
|prerequisite topics before they learn about more advanced topics.

  Bravo!  Of course I still need to see and outline, but this is a WONDERFUL
  concept...teach the prerequisites first!!  WOW!

|           Disadvantage
|
|This would mean a rearrangement of the cluster information as it is currently
|presented and would require changing of course descriptions and marketing
|documents contacting all currently enrolled customers, and a complete relaunch
|of the New Curriculum.. This would represent a large financial investment.

  "..and a complete relaunch of the New Curriculum."  I think you exaggerate
  here.  Yes, there is a fair bit of work, but the course descriptions and the
  marketing materials are *terrible*--misleading information is the biggest
  problem (see other comments in this conference)!  I've seen many courses get
  basically TOTAL rewrites and nothing is said to anyone until the course shows
  up on the student's desks!  No remarketing was done, course descriptions
  often were not updated, etc.  Yes, it will take time and money, but when a
  ship has a serious structural defect, they don't fix it in the water, it goes
  back to dry-dock to be fixed.

|Also, the order of cluster information is being based on the existing Cluster
|Management course and that may not be the most sound order in which to
|present the cluster information.

  Oh.  Surprise!  Other than a bit of redundancy the VAXcluster course *IS*
  organized rather well.  I've taught it (and LAVc and the old CI course and
  the VERY old CI course) and I find no major organizational problems.  Do
  we have a better outline to review?

|2.3  Performance Solution
|
|It is generally understood that SYSNET III is overloaded and is a difficult
|class to teach because of the sheer volume. Because of this, we are proposing
|that:
|
|o  the majority of the information in the Performance Management chapter be
|removed from SYSNET III and put into a specific Performance course that would
|be available to the student after they had completed the SYSNET curriculum or
|had reached the course objectives through other courses or by job experience

  Good.  Although performance is a favorite topic, VAXclusters, DECnet and
  Advanced System Mgt needs to be emphasized.

|o  the following concepts be retained in the SYSNET curriculum from that
|Performance Management chapter:
|
|                 Virtual memory including paging and swapping    (1)
|                 Definition of installed images                  (2)
|                 Alleviating disk bottlenecks                    (3)
|                 Disk fragmentation                              (4)
|                 CPU sharing                                     (5)
|                    process priority

  1, 3 & 5 make sense, but installed images and disk fragmentation are
  minor stuff.  Overall, looks good.  How many pages are left?  What is the
  expected lecture time?  The current chapter takes at *LEAST* 3-4 solid 
  hours...did we cut it to 1 hour??  I hope so!
  

|           Advantage
|
|Complicated Performance information that may possibly be for the wrong audience
|is removed from SYSNET.
|
|By removing some of the teaching material, free time is made for teaching
|more on the other topics.

  Bravo!

|
|           Disadvantage
|
|Some students may both be needing and expecting Performance information. They
|may feel that they are being cheated.

  "Needing"...sorry.  We've got to prioritize!  "Expecting"...is a marketing 
  issue.

    Make that one more DITTO on my part.  These guys are right on the
    money.  What we are selling here is
    
                           QUANTITY
    
                               not QUALITY!!!!
    
    The NAME IS WRONG!!!!!!  SYSNET I  is NOT what students are getting.
    
    This course should be named VMS UTILITIES AND COMMANDS AND INTRO to 
    SYSTEM MANAGEMENT.  That is what we are teaching them.  My students
    have been appalled at the LACK of network information and the lightness
    of the System Management information.  
    
    We have escalated this to Bill Kingsbury in our region/area.  We have
    repeatedly complained about poor naming of the courses and poor
    marketing on the part of other courses.
    
    In my opinion, the Network Management I Course and the VMS VAXcluster
    Manager courses were very good.  (Again, with redundancy but basically
    good courses.)  They taught the basics through troubleshooting (in the
    network class anyway).  If we had to split these courses up, why not
    start at the beginning of each course (Network Management I for
    instance) and take out the first few chapters and put them in our new
    courses?  
    
    We are tantilizing but not TEMPTING our present students.  Instead of
    them wanting to come back for more.....they are leaving frustrated and
    not wanting to come back for more frustration.  I don't know about the
    rest of the instructors across the board but I am currently teaching
    many more INSTRUCTORS from other companies who are going to develop
    their OWN training curriculum.
    
    Also, as far as instructor participation and the notes file, we have 12
    instructors in Dallas/Houston.  Only two of us participate in the notes
    file on a regular basis.  Do the other people benefit from the
    information here?  Yes, if the people who participate extract out the
    notes files and MAIL (yes, VMS Mail) them to our co-workers.  Is this
    YOUR problem.  NO.  But, you are not getting input from the majority on
    how instructors feel about the courses.  I have to believe this is
    across the board based on the participation in this file.  
    
    WHY do people not participate?  For one simple reason, fear of
    retaliation and being labeled as a trouble maker.  In many cases the
    "squeeky wheel" does not get the "grease" they get the shaft.  Another
    reason is that some people here are new and constantly prepping to get
    up to speed and some don't even know HOW to use the notes file.  I
    don't even want to get into the did-you-offer-to-teach-them----
    why-haven't-they asked debate.
    
    Bottom line,  change the name of the SYSNET I course, please.  
    In my opinion,  don't eliminate the VAXcluster class and put the
    Network Management I class back the way it was and make adjustments to
    the new courses.  Look at the way Digital has arranged their IM&T
    department.  VERY basically, it is
            System Support     (system managers/operators)
            Decision Support   (programmers)
            Telecom            (networking)
    
    This is the way ALOT of our customer base is arranged.
    
    To end on a positive note, I will say that I did have one student who
    said that I did such a great job on the first course that he just HAD
    to come back for more.....this guy also flirted constantly, asked me
    out, asked for a list of all of the courses I taught, gave me his home
    phone mumber on Friday when he left, and has called me asking questions
    like "What key was it to go the head of a DCL command line?"  Now was
    it the Course content of SYSNET I that did all of this?    I think
    NOT!!!!
    
    Looking forward to changes,
    
    Dee 

Chuck,

	You silver tongued devil ... You have never been more right on the 
money than you are now. Please do not attempt to patch these courses. FIX THEM!
Correct them and rewrite them so we do not loose any more business. Please,
and at this point I am begging, let's get away from the cookbook approach to 
system management. We must train the students to be able to decide the best
course of action based on the situation and choices. With the courses as 
written they are not given the knowledge to accomplish "true system management"
only "system operations".
	These courses are not being well received either by the instructors of
the students. It is just that most of us find a way to work around the course. 
Dee is also correct, most instructors do not reply to the notes files so 
they are not branded as trouble makers and others because they do not have time.

Thanks

Todd

Ps. Don't just change the name, CHANGE THE COURSES!

    I couldn't agree more (with every point) raised in the past 3 replies. 
    If you plan to continue teaching, and care at all about the integrity
    of what we are delivering, you find ways to make the courses more
    useful, but with very mixed results, in part due to the mixed audience
    in the classes.  Those who have previous experience managing systems
    (other o.s., prior VAX VAMS experience) are appalled at the lightness of
    the material in Sysnet I & II, while those who really come in with no
    DCL skills are blown away because too much ground is covered
    superficially.  
    
    It is very frustrating for them to reach later, more technical classes,
    while still stumbling over DCL syntax, use of editors, and other
    "basic" skills which used to at least get decent and thorough coverage
    in Utilities & Commands I.  How can someone who is not sure why there
    is an asterisk on their screen pay attention to yet another utility's
    unfamiliar command line structure, feel competent and gain useful
    experience in the labs?? 
    
    This is not just affecting Sysnet graduates who survive these 3
    classes. but when folks go thru this curriculum on their way to
    Internals, and still haven't got basic DCL skills, they've got the
    understanding and foundation of a devotee of Cliff Notes (tm).  One of
    our Internals III (yes, true story) instructors had a student who had
    been thru the entire Sysnet string, and couldn't do lab work when it
    required that he copy files across the network last week.  He was stumped.
    This is becomming more common than comic. 
                                        
    For the customers who are new to Digital's products, who are having a
    NOT FUN experience learning an operating system, would someone with a
    marketing hat care to quantify the long term cost of having these folks
    remember what a bad time working with DEC systems was when they get
    promoted to deci$ion making jobs and are evaluating additional
    investment in systems?????
    
    We can't afford to risk poorly preparing a "generation" (this year+
    crop of "trained" system manglers) while we worry about the marketing
    embarassment of returning to "Classic Coke" (tm).
    
    This is still the wrong thing to do.  If I didn't care anymore, I
    probably wouldn't risk saying so.  Let's not do our business this
    disservice.
    
         Irene

From my point of view lets fix the SYSNET courses and do it right.
Please do not call it by this name.  The customer is looking for
network management and cluster management and this course just doesn't
do it. Don't jump too quick into a topic and say nothing in doing so.
Teach the customers the skills needed don't just say "Oh by the way
here is a topic you may like to read about later."
I took the time to type all of this. I hope someone, somewhere uses
this.
Comments for SYSNETI

1-9	Please mention that this is for the seldom used Hardwired
	terminal.

1-10	Why not tell the manager about the Dictionary and History
	file up front.  When they try to change their password they
	see it right away.

1-17	Why do you have a service that is a cluster alias?  What
	back ground do they have on what this is?

1-22	Bullet number 4 always causes a discussion.  "I connect to
	CD yet it tells me I am connected to TIDY. WHY?"

1-26	How do you unlock a terminal for a person who forgets? This
	is always asked.

3-6	Either increase the list or use a command that is listed.  The
	customer at the TOPIC prompt types in SHOW yet it isn't listed.
	The same thing is true with SYSTEM.  For a beginning user this
	is very confusing.

5-18  	You may want to include the GET FILE command.  They always
	ask is there anyway not to have the two files in the same buffer.

6-27	You start with 17 files, subtract 6 and have 10 left.  The
	mathematics is incorrect.

8-14	At the bottom of this page Access is mispelled.

9-6	In Table 9-2 you need to add the qualifier /SYSTEM to DEFINE.

9-7	Make the device something like DUA1: and get rid of WORK1:
	This causes too much confusion.

9-18	The third dash is NOT true.

10-36	REMOVE this page completely.  Hold SYSMAN off until later.

10-41	If this course is for the inexperienced VMS user get rid of this
	page too! They should not even be thinking about changing the
	protection on system files/directories.

11-3	The first objective is wrong.... It should be hardware environment
	instead of console system.

12-11	Does anyone set up a logical with the ALLOCATE command.  This
	course is to be kept simple.  This is very confusing.  Why
	set up a logical and than another logical?

12-17	The format for this page should be corrected. The right column is
	too narrow.

12-27	Too little information for the Backup Utility.  Why not included
	how to restore an image backup?

13-5	Correct the last file name to:
	SYS$QUEUE_MANAGER.QMAN$JOURNAL

14-6	Make the ACCOUNT field and the Group identifier the same.  They
	usually are and it takes only one customer who has had time
	on the system to really open a can of worms and ask 1) how did
	they get different  2) how do I make them the same?

14-16   Include a copy of DELTREE.COM

15-7	You need to add the node ZEUS to the SHOW NETWORK display.



From a previous note that may not have been read.  

Here are some errors I found in teaching the new SYSNETI course.

Page
2-18	Two typos
        "ther curser" should be "the cursor"

4-11	The device name starts out as $1$DUA1: and then changes
	to VMS$COM  -  make the devices all the same.

6-27	You actually deleted 7 files.  The system message says 6.

6-33	The file names do not match. The displays are LISTA.DAT and LISTB.DAT
	but the last line showing the command list LIST1.DAT and LIST2.DAT

8-14	In the last display the ACE should have "PERSONNEL,ACCESS"
	not "ASSCESS"

9-6	In the table 9-2 the DEFINE needs the qualifier /SYSTEM.

9-7	Just a thought. Since this is the first time students are seeing
	logicals don't use a logical for the device name.  That is instead
	of using WORK1: use DUA2:  

11-3	Objective - The first bullet should read "Describe the different
	components of the hardware environment" not the "console system".

11-12	Typo - Use the the

13-5	The file name is spelled incorrectly, it should be
	SYS$QUEUE_MANAGER.QMAN$JOURNAL

13-5a	Same as above

13-14	Last sentence has a typo  -  commad should be command.

13-15	DELETE/ENTRY was not talked about in this chapter so you should
	remove it from the summary.

15-7	"ZEUS" should be listed in the display since it is the
	nearest area router.

15-11	Since this course is to include cluster information all the
	shutdown options should be listed.

	They are:
	REMOVE_NODE
	CLUSTER_SHUTDOWN
	REBOOT_CHECK
	SAVE_FEEDBACK

16-47	Change Question 2 to read "A system process that performs system
	wide queue management and control tasks.  (We will no longer talk
	about JOB_CONTROL here.)

	Also the word display is spelled disp[ay.

16-48	Incorrect answer to question #2. It should be Queue_manager.

17-50	Directions say to delete the [.TEST] directory but in the solutions
	you have [.MEMO]*.*;*

18-27	b. Should read "Listing messages you have "received."
	Also correct the question part.



Lynn White
Washington, D.C.

    Here is a suggested name change to our sysnet courses to keep
    them in line with the other "strings".
    
    		VMS for System Managers I, II & III
    
    Each course can have a subtitle to better discribe it.
    
    Now that we have a new name we can work on content.
    
    Thanks, Chuck

    Everyone has had some wonderful ideas and now I think I have 
    a GREAT suggestion.   Since it  p o u r i n g  down rain and 
    a very dismal day here in Dallas, I am EVEN going to attempt to add 
    a little humor here with the help of Michael Jackson (the singer).

    Michael says we should "BEAT IT".  He also says we should just put
    things in "BLACK AND WHITE".  So I propose that we do something "
    Dangerous".  (With me so far???)

Why not get the course developers and the instructors who are 
participating in the notes file together for a BIG review session.
Yes, I know this was done before, but now let's get together 
for a POST-review-session.

I would be willing to put in 12 hour days or longer to get all of these 
suggestions implemented.  We can all get together and "Jam" and "Remember 
the Time" when things were more cohesive.

Even Madonna wants to jump in here with "Express Yourself".

Ok, so I have lost it, but they told me that everyone here had those cute 
little white jackets with the arms that cross in back....LOVE those buckles!!

Dee

Oh, and by the way.....if everyone wants to come to Dallas, I will 
volunteer to get us a conference room, the hotel is right next door,
(rental car not required), SHOPPING is within walking distance!!!
(The Galleria), and TONS of restaurants!!!!!  (Not that we would get
    to shop or eat, but just in case)


    

    	I appreciate all of the work that is being put towards this Sysnet
    reorganization effort. I just wanted you people to know that we are
    reading all of your comments and are very seriously considering your
    suggestions.

    	Comments will be accepted on this proposal until June 05 and then
    we (the developers et al.) will get together and see if we can come up
    with a plan of attack.

    	I will post the results of that meeting.

    				Wendy

    re .95 We in development would love it too. Anybody optimistic that we
    can justify the travel budget?
    
    There are a number of video-equipped facilities throughout the world,
    so I suggested a videoconference to the CTBD folks, but  I've had no
    indication that they're interested in doing one. Maybe you in the field
    can try feeding the same suggestion to your management. 
    
    That would mean we don't all get to shop at the Galleria, but for the
    sake of company finances I'm willing to make that sacrifice :-)
    
    					Val

Without repeating all the specifics, I'll just say that I agree with much of
what has been said by others about the problems in the SYSNET courses.  


The first time I taught SYSNET II, only one or two students wrote any
comments.  The one I remember was 
- I expected a high level of learning.  This is a basic course.  If I knew it 
  was like this I wouldn't have taken this class.


I just taught the course for the second time.  Out of fifteen students in the
class, eight wrote comments about the course content or the student guide. 
The following is a complete list, grouped by student, of the comments in those
areas: 

- The course is inappropriately named.  Not very much network management 
  covered.
- Not enough network management.

- Training manual had many mistakes.

- Course materials were very good, but too many typos.
- Would have liked to have had more in-depth information about how and why 
  things are done for/by VMS.
- I was expecting more of what is apparantly in SYSNET III.  Perhaps catalog 
  description should be revised.

- Fix typos in manual.

- At my level of VMS knowledge, this course could have been done in 2 to 3 
  days.
- I knew most of the material presented, but will recommend it for others in 
  my group.

- Sometimes too advanced for me.

- There were frequent mistakes in the examples in the Student Manual.

- Lots of typos in student book.
- Expected to learn more about networking and DECnet, but I guess these are 
  covered in SYSNET III.


I'm really not used to so much dissatisfaction.  Even if we didn't assume that
there were others who had complaints but didn't bother to write them down,
this high a percentage would surely indicate that there is a problem
somewhere. 

    We ABSOLUTELY need to have another Instructor Product Forum (or
    Consultant Meeting, or whatever).  Unfortunately, I think Val's reply,
    a few back, displays the major obstacle to this... budgets.  The budget
    people probably don't read this conference; but, they need to know that
    unless we spend the money now to fix this curriculum (including an
    IPF), we might all end up with no budget at all, for anything.  We need 
    to get this repair done yesterday.
    
    Mark Thorne
    Chicago Training Center

         Sherry,

	This is in regard to our conversation Friday about the format.
It is a hard question to answer.  Which was better the old format or the
new.  I think that the new format had merit and may someday succeed.  It
is hard to make a decision about the format because the material did not
work.  It is a "Forest for the Trees" scenario.  Sysnet I fails in part
because we teach Utilities and commands for 9 modules.  We have to cram
that into 2 1/2 days with little time for lab.  Then we go to System
Manager material and expect the student to be proficient at U & C with
no gap to learn and practice.  I think this to be unfair to the student.

	Secondly,  Many students expressed that sysnet II was to big
a jump from sysnet I.  There should have been something in between.
I do not know what that something is but I see the frustration in the
students.

	The old UC I prepared the student, with a few weeks off to
use what they learned, for their next courses.  In our case, system
manager I.  

	Another "feeling" about the 2 ways.  In the sysnet string
we do not always complete a topic.  We seem to keep things dangling
for them to come back for the next course.  This leaves the student
unfulfilled.  Some examples are, in sysnet I,  backup is not covered 
completely. Almost no qualifiers are shown. Incremental is not shown.
In sysnet II Backup is shown as a command procedure "utility".  Lets
put these modules together and dump the command procedures and we
have taught backup.

	In Sysnet I we never use the word "init." in reference to
Queues.  Why not?  Did they happen by magic?  In sysnet II we add
more.  At the end of sysnet I they cannot do an incremental backup
or restore a file from a saveset for an individual.  They can look
at and modify queues but cannot create one.  

	System Manager I course hit a topic and finished it in that
course.  Queues and backup were covered thoroughly.  Installs/upgrades
were covered.  In sysnet II the student can install a new product
and upgrade the VMS but could not install VMS from scratch and it 
is the primary thing you need to know.  It only took 1 or 2 pages
to complete the job in system Manager I.  

	The major point here is that the old way of doing things
brought the topics to a conclusion.  The students could go away
knowing they have learned a skill that will hold them well in the
community they work in, and their money was well spent.  They got
time on our system to exercise the learned skills.  In the new way
none of the above is true.  We leave too much dangling at the end
of each course.  The course has to stand on its own and give value
on its own.  Let the next course venture into new grounds.  

	New ground about the same topic is O.K.  New Ground to
complete one thought is not.

	I am going to put this as is as a note in notes also.  If
others have opinions on the way to go please lets hear from you.
Pro or con.  Fast!!!

Thanks,

Chuck Naughton  
    

    I have taught SYSNET II & SYSNET III a few times now, but SYSNET III
    more often (4-5) times. One thing seems consistent; students ask
    questions that delve into to TOPIC at hand and I have two choices..
    
    1) Tell them it's covered later in another chapter - wait until then!
    				(OR)
    2) Go ahead and pursue the topic to a logical conclusion and usually
       skip around in the book referencing various pages.
    
    Either way it seems to be disorganized from their point of view.
    I realize that it would seem logical to some to organize the material
    in a TASK oriented format and I agreed with that initially. BUT
    implementing this effectively and efficiently is turning into a real
    juggling act! These are probably vague comments but that's how it
    "feels" from the podium.
    
    If major reorganization is necessary I would suggest a different
    approach. (Especially for SYSNET III!) Expand the curriculum to 4
    courses and extract roughly 60% of the "core" course material and fit
    it into 1.5 - 2 days (with labs) for each topic. With major topics 
    like VAXclusters, VMS Performance, Network Mgt., VMS & DECnet Security, 
    Terminal Servers (anyone for a LAT overview?) could fill TWO weeks 
    (SYSNET III & IV). 
    **BUT thinking it would need to  be TOPIC relative instead of TASK 
    relative and that just means compressed and concatenated versions of
    the old "stand-alone" courses. Oh well, no "EASY answers", just some
    suggestions from the front lines.....

Please do not destroy the cluster course until you completely fix the
SYSNET series.  How can you write a new 2 day/3 day cluster course
until you are sure what is being covered in SYSNET I, II, and III.
If you feel that the information in the SYSNET series is equal to
what is in the current Cluster class, Please look again.  SYSNETII
has three (not so great) pages for the SHOW CLUSTER Utility.  The 
Cluster Course does a much better job in six pages. Even more
could be added, with labs to reinforce learning.

Lynn White
Washington, D.C.

    Chuck and others,
    
    I've been moving notes to the right places. 
    
    If you post a note in this topic that reports errors in Sys/Net I, I
    move it to topic 51, which is where we asked you to post it in the
    first place. Error reports on Sys/Net II go in topic 73, and on Sys/Net
    III in topic 95. I haven't been deleting anything.
    
    At least people have been keeping error reports separate from the
    general curriculum discussion, for the most part. Thanks for that.
    
    					Val

>        <<< Note 49.100 by TEACH::CHUCK "and I am UNANIMUS in that!" >>>
>                         -< Discusion on course form >-

Please listen to Chuck's comments; he's right on target.  I couldn't have 
said it better myself (and believe me, I've tried).  It's time for us to do
the "Classic Coke" shuffle.  I don't think we can possibly make the necessary 
overhaul to the new curriculum in the time we have.  Haul out the old courses;
update them; get rid of the redundancies, and we have something we can deliver
with pride.  We sell the courses everytime we teach, and I don't care how good
an actor the instructor is: if you don't believe in it, it comes across.

			Susan

    In trying to decide what should be covered in the SYSNET and hence the
    cluster courses with regard to cluster information I find (natch) that
    we are having difficulty deciding what the goals of SYSNET are as far
    as having the students learn cluster information.

    	I'd like to take a (relatively) quick poll here and ask:

        What specific tasks do you think students should know\be able to
    perform on Clusters by the end of the SYSNET curriculum?

    	This is not a wish list here, I'm not looking for what would be
    nice or what would spiff up the course, I'm asking for what you
    honestly think should be taught on clusters in that curriculum and what
    the students should be prepared to perform once they have completed all
    three courses.

    	I realize that this has been addressed in varying degrees in
    previous replies to this note but I want everyone to be able to give
    input to this specific request.

    	I have some limited information that was taken from System Managers
    a few years back and I will compare that information to the replies in
    this note.

    	As always, thank you for your comments and insights,

    			Wendy

    I do not feel that any cluster concepts should be part of SYSNETI.
    Example A
    The cluster configurations could wait until terms and concepts were
    taught. 
    Example B
    You fail to explain the device formats such as node$ddcu
    or $allocation_class$ddcu yet in some examples you use these formats.
    Then the students asked what is an allocation class?, when do I
    need it?, how do I set it up on the VAx?, how do I set it up on
    the HSC?, what do you mean the HSC has its own operating system?,
    etc.
    Hopefully this message displays why I feel it is better to wait.
    
    Lynn White
    Washington D.C.	    

>    I do not feel that any cluster concepts should be part of SYSNETI.

Lynn is absolutely on target here.  It is absurd to expect these students
to understand/absorb VAXcluster information in the first week.

By the end of the three weeks, they should know:

VAXcluster Concepts (overview of the hardware and software, including QUORUM)
Device Naming Conventions (ALLOCLASS, ddcu, etc.)
Directory structure of the system disk
How to use the SHOW CLUSTER Utility
How to use the SYSMAN Utility on a VAXcluster
How to shut down and boot a VAXcluster.

Anything more than this belongs in a specialty course.

    I have been monitoring the discussion in this note for some time and
    feel that it is drifting the wrong way.
    
    Let me first stress that I sympathise strongly with the many US
    instructors that lately expressed their worries with the new Sysnet
    courses. From what I gather you have not been prepared/assisted well
    enough for this major change. I know what it is to have to fix bad
    materials and bad expectations in the classroom.
    
    We have implemented the new Sysnet courses in our Nieuwegein training
    centre in the Netherlands as of February this year. A couple of weeks
    ago the first Sysnet III was delivered, the third one is running this
    week.
    
    Here comes the big shock:
    
    	OUR COURSES ARE RUNNING VERY WELL
    
    Instructors and students seem to get along well with the new courses.
    
    Are we special/superinstructors/smart salespeople? No.
    Are we talking about the same courses here? Yes.
    Have we any problems with the materials? We do.
    
    What happened then?
    
    We have been involved in this project long time ago. I went through
    many of the tedious discussions on the curriculum design, the material
    design and the roll-out of it all. I have been anything from extremely
    positive to deeply depressed about this new curriculum.
    
    How dit we succeed in the end?
    
    The major mistake I made while trying to implement this was to discuss
    the curriculum starting from the materials. That did not work, because
    they are not task-oriented enough (yet). So I finally went back to my
    original thoughts, which were adopted by the Corporate development team
    and sold the curriculum idea to the instructors. They liked it. Then we
    agreed on the objectives for each course. What did we want the student
    to be able to do and know (IN THAT ORDER) at the end of every
    particular course. Then we looked at the materials and determined how
    much they would assist us in delivering the course.
    
    Sysnet I materials survived pretty well, labs were insufficient and
    were partly replaced by our own.
    
    Sysnet II got some more flack, but stayed alive, with some more
    amendments and local labs.
    
    Sysnet III was blown to pieces. Too much of one thing, not enough of
    the other. We tried to feed this back during development, but were too
    late. We implemented it completely on our own, and gave it a very
    strong hands-on twist. We installed H/W, produced a local handout and
    kept our fingers crossed. Big success. In fact it turned out to be 30%
    theory and 70% lab. Students were getting very tired, but said they
    never learned this much in a course before. Much to our surprise the
    SPI materials that were made available some weeks ago are much better.
    We will give those out to students in the near by future.
    
    I will not bother you with all the details of how we are running these
    courses, but I will give some keywords below:
    - Course Materials are SPI versions (students love it)
    - Instructors HAVE to be trained to stop lecturing. FORCE students to
      work. FILL-IN when necessary
    - Objectives expressed in task-oriented terms to be achieved on Friday
      is ALL that counts
    - EVERY lab should show immediate useful result
    - Instructors should understand the objectives of ALL THREE courses, to 
      avoid pre-empting the next course
    - We left Netman I (slightly stripped) in place following Sysnet III
      for those wanting to specialise in networks
    - We skipped quite a bit of heavy Cluster stuff leaving more for
      Clusman
    - We packaged all three Sysnet courses and gave it an attractive price
    
    I urge all instructors that feel unhappy with the current Sysnet
    courses to DEMAND from their managers and the Area Rep's to
    re-implement these courses, starting from a curriculum point of view,
    thinking like a customer. Do not look at it from the materials with our
    traditional DEC-specialist-know-all-the-qualifiers mindset.
    
    And please do not forget that the need for re-designing this curriculum
    already existed several years ago. We have been losing more and more
    customers in the near past due to overweight courses that explained all
    about our products but did not really help the customer DO HIS JOB,
    starting the day after the course. It is hard on us that know so much
    more, but we have no choice...
    
    I hope this all does not sound too arrogant. We really would like to
    see these courses succeed all over the world. The original idea behind
    them is excellent, the implementation needs a lot of additional work.
    
    Call, Write or Shout at me if you really want to make this work
    
    
    			Rob de Maat

>    Here comes the big shock:
>    
>    	OUR COURSES ARE RUNNING VERY WELL
>    
>    Instructors and students seem to get along well with the new courses.
>    
>    Are we special/superinstructors/smart salespeople? No.
>    Are we talking about the same courses here? Yes.
>    Have we any problems with the materials? We do.

Do you have the same kind of customer?  Apparently not.
    
>    The major mistake I made while trying to implement this was to discuss
>    the curriculum starting from the materials. That did not work, because
>    they are not task-oriented enough (yet). 

You seem to have missed a point that several of us have been trying to get 
across; our CUSTOMERS want the theory; they can look up the task-specific 
commands and qualifiers.


>    Then we
>    agreed on the objectives for each course. What did we want the student
>    to be able to do and know (IN THAT ORDER) at the end of every
>    particular course. Then we looked at the materials and determined how
>    much they would assist us in delivering the course.

The ability to do this in the US is hampered by the very real possibility that
our customers will NOT take all three courses at the same training center.  We
are also limited by the fact that we are not offering Network Mgr any longer, 
and VAXcluster Mgr is currently being overhauled (read mangled).

    
>    Sysnet II got some more flack, but stayed alive, with some more
>    amendments and local labs.

I rewrote labs for this course to make it fly; but the course itself is still
not fun to teach (or sit through).
    
>    Sysnet III was blown to pieces. Too much of one thing, not enough of
>    the other. We tried to feed this back during development, but were too
>    late. We implemented it completely on our own, and gave it a very
>    strong hands-on twist. We installed H/W, produced a local handout and
>    kept our fingers crossed. Big success. In fact it turned out to be 30%
>    theory and 70% lab. Students were getting very tired, but said they
>    never learned this much in a course before.

I also put together hands-on labs for this course.  I hear similar comments 
from the students about never learning so much in one class before.  They 
also have fun during the week.  HOWEVER, the fact remains that they are not
getting what the want/need.  They tell me straight out how disappointed they
are in the rapid pace/superficiality of the new courses.  
    

>    I urge all instructors that feel unhappy with the current Sysnet
>    courses to DEMAND from their managers and the Area Rep's to
>    re-implement these courses, starting from a curriculum point of view,
>    thinking like a customer. Do not look at it from the materials with our
>    traditional DEC-specialist-know-all-the-qualifiers mindset.

So if our customers make it clear that they don't LIKE the new courses????
(See above.)  DEMAND from our managers?????
    
>    And please do not forget that the need for re-designing this curriculum
>    already existed several years ago. We have been losing more and more
>    customers in the near past due to overweight courses that explained all
>    about our products but did not really help the customer DO HIS JOB,
>    starting the day after the course. It is hard on us that know so much
>    more, but we have no choice...

I'm sorry but Utilities and Commands did an excellent job of teaching our
customers how to use DCL.  System Manager taught them how to do the basic
system management functions on a standalone VAX (add users, create and 
manage queues, perform backups, maintain security and monitor).  Network
Management taught them how to build and manage a DECnet-VAX environment.
VAXcluster Sys Mgr taught them how to build and manage all types of 
VAXclusters.  Security teaches security features.  Performance teaches
those tools.  These courses were VERY successful here.  As I've said before
in other notes, on Monday morning students always indicate that the reason 
they are in class is to learn the theory/ the "why".  They either already
know the "what" or know how to look it up.

We now have students who still can't write command procedures after three
weeks of training (or worse, can't copy a file) because everything went 
by too fast or was too disjointed.

    
>    I hope this all does not sound too arrogant. We really would like to
>    see these courses succeed all over the world. The original idea behind
>    them is excellent, the implementation needs a lot of additional work.

I'm afraid our CUSTOMERS would say this is arrogant since they are telling us
they DON'T LIKE it, yet we keep forcing it on them.
    

>    Call, Write or Shout at me if you really want to make this work

I believe that's what many of us have been doing here in Notes since January.
Wouldn't it be great to get good course materials that we all could use?  Why
should each training center have to redo course development?  Our customers
deserve better than this.


				Susan

>    Here comes the big shock:
>    
>    	OUR COURSES ARE RUNNING VERY WELL
>    
>    Instructors and students seem to get along well with the new courses.

  As you mentioned in your note, you are using the SPI material.  I have
  seen some of this material and it is in many cases quite superior to the
  lecture-lab stuff.  But, let's read on...

>    Are we special/superinstructors/smart salespeople? No.

  Gee.  I'd hope so!

>    Are we talking about the same courses here? Yes.

  No.  remember, you've already mentioned using the SPI stuff.

  I think Susan has a very good point when she stated that "Do you have the 
  same kind of customer?  Apparently not."  We notice the difference in
  students in different parts of the States.  I've taught VMS Performance
  Management in Orlando, D.C., Atlanta, Detroit, etc. and I can see the
  difference in expectations, level of skill and real desire to learn in
  many of these places.  The Unlimited Training (do you folks have that
  in Europe?) has made my job just that much harder...people showing up to 
  class because "it is the next is the series" and they wouldn't have taken
  it if they had to pay for it.  But...that's another rat hole -- later.

|>    The major mistake I made while trying to implement this was to discuss
|>    the curriculum starting from the materials. That did not work, because
|>    they are not task-oriented enough (yet). 
|
|You seem to have missed a point that several of us have been trying to get 
|across; our CUSTOMERS want the theory; they can look up the task-specific 
|commands and qualifiers.

  EXACTLY.  Especially by the time they reach SysNet3.  I get an incredible
  number of "Why?  How does it know?  Please explain this in more detail!"
  every time I teach SysNet3.

>    Then we
>    agreed on the objectives for each course. What did we want the student
>    to be able to do and know (IN THAT ORDER) at the end of every
>    particular course. Then we looked at the materials and determined how
>    much they would assist us in delivering the course.

  Very sane approach.  I believe that this is what Wendy is trying to do
  with the Cluster Material.  The U.S. students *WANT* DECnet, but not 
  as many of them express an interest in Clusters in SysNet3 (or even 2). 
  Examining what the average U.S. student wants is VERY tough...it's almost
  impossible to define the needs because of such a great diversity between
  parts of the U.S. (Boston students want one thing, L.A. students another).

|The ability to do this in the US is hampered by the very real possibility that
|our customers will NOT take all three courses at the same training center.  

  Wow!  How very accurate!  Only about 1/3 of my SysNet3 students have had
  SysNet2 (or 1) in my training center!  About 1/3 to 1/2 of them don't
  take the pre-req's at all!  They read those terrible course descriptions 
  and then just show up!

>    Sysnet III was blown to pieces. Too much of one thing, not enough of
>    the other. We tried to feed this back during development, but were too
>    late. We implemented it completely on our own, ...

  Please explain "We implemented it completely on our own"!?  Did you
  rewrite the course materials?  Did you eliminate chapters?  Re-order
  the lecture pages/chapters?  How did you "implement" it?

  All-in-all I agree that SysNet3 is the worst.  No real focus on what is
  to be completed.  Chapter organization is poor.  I understand where the
  material came from and what the intent of the course seemed to be, but we
  missed the mark.

|HOWEVER, the fact remains that they are not
|getting what the want/need.  They tell me straight out how disappointed they
|are in the rapid pace/superficiality of the new courses.  

  Agreed.  I get great comments from the students on the effort I put in,
  and I'm very careful not to say anything derogatory about the materials
  to the students during the week, but they tell me on Friday how chopped
  up it seems.    

>    I urge all instructors that feel unhappy with the current Sysnet
>    courses to DEMAND from their managers and the Area Rep's to
>    re-implement these courses, starting from a curriculum point of view,
>    thinking like a customer. Do not look at it from the materials with our
>    traditional DEC-specialist-know-all-the-qualifiers mindset.

  <Frustration level medium-high (you might want to skip to the next page)>

  HA!  You obviously are not aware of the effort involved in getting the
  'management' to move on something like this.  I have tried UNSUCCESSFULLY
  on 3 different occasions to get changes made with course offerings, but a
  lot of this is not decided at my local (even regional) management.  There
  are managers 'higher up' in the U.S. structure that have actually put
  courses on our schedules in the Digest that we did not want on there in
  the first place!  (No, don't ask for details...we finally got this one
  fixed.)  

  So, DEMANDING doesn't work well in the States.  We have to waste hours of
  our time writing stuff in this conference about these courses only to get
  managers (at three different levels) to say "So, that's your opinion.  I
  don't see many others agreeing with you in the conference."  (I don't see
  many others disagreeing!)  

  Ed. Services local management, as a rule, is not concerned or interested
  in the quality of the course materials.  (Gee, I hope this doesn't get
  back to my manager!:-)  Just teach it.  We are expected to make it work! 
  Sometimes sacrificing dozens of SOFs on a lousy course, having to write
  your own materials, make handouts, write labs that actually work, etc. 
  Want a good example of crappy material that has been on the shelves for
  over a year!?  Look at the DECwindows Programming I class -- almost every
  example program in the lecture material fails to compile and run.  Sure,
  we work around it, teach the courses successfully, give the students a
  good course, but it is RIDICULOUS what it takes to get bad courses fixed! 
  What was the latest 'idea' from DECwindows course development to fix it? 
  Throw the course out and buy a course from an outside company!  Oh, my
  aching Prepping muscles!!

  "...demand from their managers..." Sigh!  Dream on!

  <Sorry folks.  Back to something a little less of a Hot-Button with me.>
    
>    And please do not forget that the need for re-designing this curriculum
>    already existed several years ago. 

  Agreed.  The courses were turning into a "See this neat toy?  Listen to
  this neat whistle." type class.  I think the new curriculum has addressed
  a very basic issue -- SOME people need to get enough to get a certain job
  or task done.  However, the specialty courses are being chopped up as a
  result.  I have 'specialty' students.  They are existing, skilled System 
  Managers that want the details on how DECnet works.  Others need to move
  from a stand-alone system to a clustered system.  The new courses must
  fit carefully with the 'specialty' space, and this seems to be missing at
  this time.  From what I've read you've handled this by offering NetMan I
  and Cluster Mgt as follow-on classes.  There is overlap of material if
  you use the standard, corporate courses.  How do you get around this?

|We now have students who still can't write command procedures after three
|weeks of training (or worse, can't copy a file) because everything went 
|by too fast or was too disjointed.

  Yup.  Notice we talk about device allocation classes on Monday of SysNet2
  and then do Cluster_config (which requires making a decision on how the
  devices are to be named) on Tuesday or Wednesday of SysNet3?  Almost
  all have forgotten.  NCP TELL commands before explaining STARNET?  Wierd.
    
>    I hope this all does not sound too arrogant. 
>    We really would like to see these courses succeed all over the world. 

  I too would like to see them succeed.  It is not to late to fix them.
  But, there are a lot of things to be fixed over the next several versions
  of these courses.  So I miss those old System Manager courses...yup!  I 
  think SysNet1 will work out well.  SysNet2 will be shuffled, edited and
  fixed for most purposes.  SysNet3, hmmmm.

> The original idea behind them is excellent, the implementation needs a lot 
> of additional work.

  Bingo.

|Wouldn't it be great to get good course materials that we all could use?  Why
|should each training center have to redo course development?  Our customers
|deserve better than this.

  Oh, Susan.  Don't get me started on this again.  (I agree.)

$

        I applaud what you have done with the courses
    to make them work.  You said two things though.  1. the courses
    are great.  2. We had to fix them.  I put that in my own words
    but I think it is an accurate rendering of your meaning.  I think
    it better to say "We fixed the courses and NOW they are great."
    Atleast that is what I got from the rest of your reply.  I really
    saw in your note that you were saying the same thing we have been
    saying since January.                          
    
    	I think Buck Trayser and Susan have replied well to what you
    have said and state the U.S. "condition" well. They are right on
    the money as usual.   I have been trying to get management to move 
    on these courses since October (That is when I first taught the new 
    OPER course and the VMS for USERS. There was a bad trend starting 
    then and it continued.  
    
    	Thank you for your input though.  We all need to express our
    opinions and experiences.  It may be that the work you have done
    can be used by Curriculum Dev. to assist them in making the whole
    thing better.  Keep the ideas coming.  Brainstorming is the way
    to fix a lot of things.  
        
    Thanks, Chuck

|>    I do not feel that any cluster concepts should be part of SYSNETI.
|Lynn is absolutely on target here.  It is absurd to expect these students
|to understand/absorb VAXcluster information in the first week.

  I'm going to disagree here, but just slightly.  The users are taught
  about things like copying files from disks in these courese.  They
  should be aware of the fact that a VAXcluster is merely several
  computers all sharing the same devices.  So, many of their commands
  may need a 'prefix' in front of the normal device names (i.e. $1$DUA1:)
  so that they can access their data correctly.
  
  This is *required* since many training centers have VAXclusters as their
  U&C systems.  Other than a brief intro (1 page?) to VAXclusters and
  the device name issue, they should be told nothing else of significance
  in SysNet1.
  
|By the end of the three weeks, they should know:
|VAXcluster Concepts (overview of the hardware and software, including QUORUM)
|Device Naming Conventions (ALLOCLASS, ddcu, etc.)
|Directory structure of the system disk
|How to use the SHOW CLUSTER Utility
|How to use the SYSMAN Utility on a VAXcluster
|How to shut down and boot a VAXcluster.

  Pretty good outline.  Let me rephrase it -- how to manage an existing
  VAXcluster environment, not how to configure or install a VAXcluster. 
  Save that for the VAXcluster specialty course!!  Use the time we save
  here to expand DECnet & LAT in both SysNet 2 & 3.
  
  $
  
(Anything more than this belongs in a specialty course.)

                  	In this reply I would like to address the effect
         of putting info from specialty courses in the manager
         strings.

         	Putting specialty info in the string will weaken
         the specialty courses.  Who takes the specialty courses?
         It should be people who have already had the string, but
         it does not have to be. The specialty course should 
         teach the subject in its entirety.  If it does
         it will have a lot of redundancy.  If it does
         have redundancy it will be so stated on the
         evaluation forms and the instructor will feel the wrath
         through no fault of his/her own.  If we leave the
         material out the students will not have the basics if
         they  come   directly to these courses.  If we divide
         the course into two (a 2 day and a 3 day) we will have
         managers sending their people to the second. ("My people
         are too smart for the basic course, and I'll save money")
    

I might as well throw my opinion in here.

After three weeks of System and Network Management, students should be able to 
perform 80-90% of the tasks they will be expected to do in their day-to-day
job. This means things like:

	o Installing software on the cluster
	o Monitoring cluster resources
	o Adding satellites to the cluster
	o Creating and managing queues
	o Managing disk resources
	o Troubleshooting simple cluster problems

This is not an all-inclusive list, but it gives the flavor of what should be 
taught.

If *I* were a paying customer, and sat through tree *weeks* of a 'system'
management class, I'd be right pissed if at the end I was told I had to take
*another* class to learn how to manage my cluster. Isn't my cluster a 
'system'?

I think that topics such as these belong in an 'advanced' cluster course:

	o Configuration planning
	o Complicated configurations
		-FDDI rings
		-DSSI systems
		-CI/NI/DSSI mixed configs
	o Troubleshooting
	o Tuning

The very first thing I'd do is remove the User material from the front of 
SYSNET I. USER I would be a prereq for SNI...I understand why the decision
was made to include it, but I don't agree that it belongs in SNI.

Next, I'd make certain that some *usable* cluster skill is taught in each
of the three SN courses. I think that sending a customer out the door
with a task that s/he can do back home is important. This means a bit less
theory in SNI and a bit more hands-on experience.

Finally, I'd reorient SN materials to *emphasize* cluster management where
they're not already. I believe that the majority of our installed base
is clustered, and besides, we offer a stand-alone management course.

Perry

Sure!  If we took the User stuff (old Utilities and Commands) out
of SysNetI, made them take a USER I course, THEN they took 3 System
Manager courses, I'd have no problems putting Clusters in it.

Problem is, we basically have SysNet1 as a replacement for Utilities
and Commands today, leaving us 2 courses to cover the old SMI, SMII,
DECnet Mgr and VAXcluster Mgr.  NO WAY!  

You gotta get rid of something, go back to the old curriculum or
do some serious name changes!

$

    I do not see a whole lot in this string that came out of SM II.
    It was a well recieved course.  Libraries and lock manager are 2
    things that were there I would like back.

    	We have had our meeting to discuss how we are going to approach the
    SYSNET "quandary". I am confident that our plan addresses many of the
    major concerns with the curriculum.

    	Watch this space for a posting of the meeting results within the
    next week. (we need to obtain verification information before we post
    our plan).

    	Once again, thank you all for your input, it has and will continue
    to make SYSNET a stronger curriculum.

    			Wendy

    PLEEEEEEEEESSSSE     Let us not call it sysnet!!!
    
    
    
    

    
    re: .121
    
    	Wendy - who is the 'we' that had our meeting ?
    
    	        who attended this meeting ?
    
                I expect the VMS ECIM was present - is this correct ?
    
    Ron

    
    
    	In attendance at the meeting:
    
    	Howard Fletcher - VMS Course Dev Unit Manager
    	Andy Sadler - Funder
    	Bill Simcox - Funder
    	Sherry Butler - VMS ECIM
    	Val Matthews - SYSNET Curriculum Leader
    	Emmalee Tarry - Performance person
    	Phil Milgrom - Network person
	Wendy Thomas - Project Manager/Instructional Designer
    
    

|>    I do not feel that any cluster concepts should be part of SYSNETI.
|Lynn is absolutely on target here.  It is absurd to expect these students
|to understand/absorb VAXcluster information in the first week.

>  I'm going to disagree here, but just slightly.  The users are taught
>  about things like copying files from disks in these courese.  They
>  should be aware of the fact that a VAXcluster is merely several
>  computers all sharing the same devices.  So, many of their commands
>  may need a 'prefix' in front of the normal device names (i.e. $1$DUA1:)
>  so that they can access their data correctly.
>
>  This is *required* since many training centers have VAXclusters as their
>  U&C systems.  Other than a brief intro (1 page?) to VAXclusters and
>  the device name issue, they should be told nothing else of significance
>  in SysNet1.
  
Just to clarify.  Buck's difference of opinion is in line with what I want 
(and didn't do a very good job of stating!)  In the old U&C I class, we had 
a brief overview of the standalone VAX, SMP, VAXcluster, and Network 
environments.  No deep discussion of the "concepts" (read ARCHITECTURE), just
various pieces/parts.  Since we've been teaching VAXcluster classes forever
and a day out here, I've always included the VAXcluster device names in the
discussion on device codes for a standalone machine.  Since this was always
done in the non-privileged user class, it was easy to say something like,
"Depending on how your system was configured, you could see:

		ddcu
		nodename$ddcu
		$alloclass$ddcu."

If anyone asked for more information, I'd add a reference to a SYSGEN parameter
without spelling out any details.  I'd also give the people with a need for
more information the option to take it off line during lab.  It was never a
problem.

Getting into the "concepts" (again, read that as ARCHITECTURE) doesn't belong
in SN 1, and probably also shouldn't be in SN 2.  SN 3 students are the only
ones really capable of dealing with it; however, the longer this curriculum 
is in place, the less capable my SN 3 students are becoming.  At first, they 
were mostly students from the old curriculum either brushing up or thinking 
they'd get something new.  The number of "old" students was big enough to 
carry the ones who'd only had SN 1 & 2 a few weeks earlier.  The ratio is 
changing and the death count is rising!

			Susan

>    	In attendance at the meeting:
>    
>    	Howard Fletcher - VMS Course Dev Unit Manager
>    	Andy Sadler - Funder
>    	Bill Simcox - Funder
>    	Sherry Butler - VMS ECIM
>    	Val Matthews - SYSNET Curriculum Leader
>    	Emmalee Tarry - Performance person
>    	Phil Milgrom - Network person
>	Wendy Thomas - Project Manager/Instructional Designer

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but why wasn't an Instructor in
attendance?  (And preferably, someone who has taught this string?)

Also, when the plan is posted, will it be subject to change or is it cast in
concrete?


			Susan

    
>>I'm probably going to regret asking this, but why wasn't an Instructor in
>>attendance?  (And preferably, someone who has taught this string?)
    
    Oo, oo, I wish I'd said that.............
    
    Greg -- teaching his first SYSNET I this week and II next week and
            NOT having a good time.  I feel like I'm taking these people's
            money and providing them VERY, VERY little in return.  And,
            what I am providing is a hodge-podge of not very useful 
            material -- LEAST NOT FOR SOMEONE WHO IS A NOVICE SYSTEM
            MANAGER.  (Sorry for shouting.....................)
    
    

    
    To paraphrase a bit... " we shouldn't be teaching clusters in
    SN1...only SN3 people are able to handle it..."
    
    I sincerely hope that you're kidding. Most of the students coming
    through the SYSNET string are going to manage a cluster; we should
    start talking about clusters the *very first day* of SN1. *All* of the
    management information should be geared toward clusters. If the
    customer needs to manage a standalaone system, s/he should take a
    "standalone" class.
    
    The first step is to pull the User stuff out of SN1 so there's time to
    talk about system (cluster) and network management.
    
    Our students aren't babies, and we should stop treating them that way.
    They are adults who have chose to pursue a career in computer system
    management...we've got to assume that they have *some* aptitude in the
    field and can understand some of the technical aspects of the job. If
    they can't, maybe they should think about a new career...
    
    Perry

    Good News..
    
    We will be having an Instructor Product Forum for the SYSNET string.
    It will be in Nashua,NH on June 30-July 1.  There will be 1-2 instructors
    from each of the 4 areas in the US, maybe some instructors from
    other countries, Wendy Thomas, Val Matthews, probably some other
    course developers, Andy Sadler, Bill Simcox, and me (VMS ECIM).
    
    When I know who will be representing each of the regions, I'll post
    it here so you can get your input to them to bring to the meeting.

    -Sherry

    
    re:  A couple back.  I think you're wrong -- very wrong.  The
    "philosophy", as I understand it, of the "old" (I long for those days!)
    curriculum was that you took the "single node" manager classes first
    because YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO MANAGE A STANDALONE SYSTEM BEFORE
    YOU CAN MANAGE A NETWORK OR CLUSTER. If you're advocating removing the
    user stuff from sysnet I, we're actually going to be asking our
    customers to take MORE classes than the old curriculum in order to
    become competent in network and cluster management.  In my sysnet I
    class this week, over half of my students are BRAND NEW to VMS and, I
    have a feeling, are going to be overwhelmed by the system management
    stuff when I start it today.
    
    *******************************
    
    As for the IPF -- that's great news, but not enough notice, Sherry. 
    You know as well as I do that instructor schedules are set, usually,
    weeks in advance.  And, yes, I know that it's scheduled for the first
    couple days of a short work week and there's not a lot of classes being
    offered that week.  So, gee whiz, what do you suppose LOTS of
    instructors have planned.  VACATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    GOD, I'm frustrated.

    re: 49.129
    Sherry,
    
    Could I please be included in the Instructor Product Forum if I can get
    permission from my UM?  I will give up my vacation for this
    opportunity.
    
    49.130
    
    I COMPLETELY agree.  I am currently teaching SYSNET I and I have
    completely new users.  They need to know about standalone before
    cluster concepts.  It is SOOOOOO tough to cram 8 modules in 2 days
    but quite necessary to finish all of the modules before Friday.
    
    Perry,  Your correct in that they need to know cluster concepts, but
    they HAVE to have the basics first.
    
    Dee Sayers
    Dallas

  >    I sincerely hope that you're kidding. Most of the students coming
  >  through the SYSNET string are going to manage a cluster
    
If you mean the majority of students, you are probably right; however, that
leaves a sizable number that won't be managing a VAXcluster.  In fact, I
regularly get students in class who think that VAXclusters are dead and are
planning to go full-out to ODT and Network services.  I personally think that
VAXclusters are a marvel and love to teach people how to build and manage
them, but we'd better be prepared to deliver what the customer wants (unlike
the old Fords; you could have it any way you liked so long as it was black
with a red stripe!!!!).

I certainly do not advocate treating our customers like babies.  For the most
part they are intelligent and extremely trainable.  However, when they are
brand new to VMS, it is unreasonable to expect them to absorb EVERYTHING at
once, which is what we're trying to do in this curriculum.  The other replies
state it perfectly, they need to understand what managing a standalone entails
before they take on net and clus.

Perry, you suggest that they take a standalone class instead of the SN 
classes.  What standalone class would that be????


				Susan

    The replies to note .128 are correct.  To show an analogy of note
    .128.
    
    		It is O.K., while you are trying to teach a baby to
    walk to also try to teach them to play football at a grade school
    level and to talk at a high school level.
    
    	Skills have to be developed.  Building blocks need to be
    covered in sequence.  It is not a lack of ability on the part
    of the students to require things to be presented "in proper
    sequence."
    
    	Remember that fabled instructor in a previous note that
    uttered those unforgetable words  "...let's not be afraid to go back
    to CLASSIC COKE(tm).  He was right on and sad to say I think
    his message fell on deaf ears.
    
    	WE need the basics taught first and the basics are how to manage
    a single system and we can layer on in any way feasable the network
    and cluster info where applicable.
    
    Chuck

    
    It's my understanding that the standalone class will be
    resurrected.
    
    My point here is that we have to get away from the problem described in
    the past few notes, where on day 1 of SN1 the students don't even know
    howto log in, and on day 3 we're telling them how to set up accounts.
    
    User *must* be a prereq to Sysnet. I understand the reasoning behind
    the current SN implementation, but I don't agree with it.
    
    
    Perry
    

|    To paraphrase a bit... " we shouldn't be teaching clusters in
|    SN1...only SN3 people are able to handle it..."
|    
|    I sincerely hope that you're kidding. Most of the students coming
|    through the SYSNET string are going to manage a cluster; 
  
  Actually, this is a statement without data.  I survey my students with 
  EVERY class.  The word "MOST" is marginal.  Yes, about 50% of my students
  manage clusters, but "MOST" implies a greater margin than this.

|    we should
|    start talking about clusters the *very first day* of SN1. *All* of the
|    management information should be geared toward clusters. If the
|    customer needs to manage a standalaone system, s/he should take a
|    "standalone" class.

  Concepts, yes.  Details, no.  I have a hard enough time teaching them
  about the 'basics' by the time they get to SysNet3!  What *should* be
  taught and what *should* be learned is a bit different "in the field"
  than it is in the "white ivory tower"!  Material can be organized, 
  structured, implemented and taught from the "ideal" plan.  But, if I
  get BLANK STARES from my students every time I teach this stuff, there
  is a problem...and it isn't me!  I *want* these classes to succeed!  I
  make teaching my profession and I make my living passing my SOFs!  I'm
  getting tired of it being "one or the other".
  
  With the *CURRENT* organization, SN1 (a poorly named course) is where
  a BULK of the old Utilities and Commands class (a full 5-day class) must
  be covered.  THERE IS NOT TIME FOR MUCH MORE!  The course name is a MAJOR
  issue!  It *MUST* contain a word indicating we are teaching USER skills,
  not MANAGER skills as the major topic.  The following courses need to be
  changed following that.  With this much in place, assuming we renamed
  the current SN2 to SN1, I could almost agree with you.  

|    The first step is to pull the User stuff out of SN1 so there's time to
|    talk about system (cluster) and network management.
 
   I think we are saying the same thing.  BUT, it CAN'T be 1/2 week User
   and 1/2 week Manager.  This will not be a significant improvement, as
   there would be insufficient time to talk about all that needs to be
   said for 'starting managers'.
    
|    Our students aren't babies, and we should stop treating them that way.
|    They are adults who have chose to pursue a career in computer system
|    management...we've got to assume that they have *some* aptitude in the
|    field and can understand some of the technical aspects of the job. If
|    they can't, maybe they should think about a new career...

  I'll be glad to arrange for you to teach SN1, SN2 & SN3, 3-weeks in a
  row in my training center  After you've taught these courses to MY
  students, I might not disagree with your comments.

  I'll make a standing offer (maybe I should ask my manager first?) to let
  any course developer/manager/leader to sit an ENTIRE week in any of my
  classes and observe the classes in action.  If you've only sat in the
  Boston/Bedford classrooms, you've missed the rest of the world.  If you 
  haven't sat in ANY of the SYSNET classes since the pilots, you've missed
  the boat!  I can even arrange for you to teach major portions of the
  material to get 1st hand experience with the course string.  (Perry, this
  is a general reply, not directed specifically at you.)

 $

    To note .134
    
    	NOW, I agree with what you say.  There needs to be a gap between
    VMS USER stuff and SYS MAN stuff.  They need to have time to practice
    and for it to sink in before going to the next step.  So many students
    in sysnet I do well as students for the first 9 chapters then we
    lose them.  They cannot handle the jump and it is not their fault.
    
    Chuck
     

    This is just a re-affermation of something.
    
    	No one has said it better than note .90.  If anyone has any
    doubts of what we should do or what the jist of the conversation
    has been reread note 49.90.
    
    		HINT: "Classic Coke(tm)"
    
    Chuck

Buck, you're dead right that developers should be out teaching. Conversely,
instructors should be helping write courses. If I can get funding, will you
come here and help me with Sysnet 1,2, and 3? If I knew how to make that 
happen, I would...I may still figure it out...

I'm in Sysnet 3 this week, and there are some blank stares, but overall I 
think that the students are understanding what's being taught. I'm going
to talk with them for about half an hour on Friday to discuss their 
expectations coming into the course, what they felt they learned, what
they *really* want to learn, and so forth. I think I need to spend a couple
of days each month hanging around PKO, sitting in on classes.

Perry

    Perry - we wish you the best of luck - we have been nudging, hinting,
    proclaiming and pleading these issues since before the first delivery
    in January.  Hopefully, a good representation of instructors AND
    developers AND product managers/funders will be able to work these
    issues at the IPF.  I have every confidence that good will come of
    this.  
    
    I hope to join those discussions, but will not know until next week.
    
    Irene

I don't understand why combined development hasn't happened more. I know it has;
(SYSMAN). But probably not often enough. I've worked on projects as an 
Instructor, and as a Developer that were a combined effort of Instructors, and
Developers. They were successful. Everyone contributed, everyone felt 
responsible, everyone wanted it to work. They did. This was with Customer 
(Field) Service Training. I'm starting a project now (ALPHA) that is to be a
combined effort. 

~~~~~~
Regarding curriculum content...

I've stayed out of the discussion because I wanted to hear what the 
Instructors had to say. But, I'm confused. I hear that the SYSNET curriculum 
is lacking detail, that customers are professionals that they expect more. The 
user "stuff" should be taken out. Yet I hear that they can't absorb it all.
That the details should be in a specialty course. That they are new to VMS.
They need the user "stuff"... and so on.

I sat in a VAXcluster Mng.course last week and was surprised at the level of the
students; novice. (I shouldn't be, I never was as an Instructor). A lot of the 
technical details were skipped; HARDWARE/SOFTWARE. It was taught from a 
practical approach, with some theory. While I don't agree with the way the
entire course was delivered, I do believe the students received the knowledge
they needed to build and start to manage a VAXcluster.

~~~~

The point is, skill/experience levels vary with each class. We need to have
different levels of all courses to address those needs. Two Instructors don't 
teach the same way. Two students don't learn the same way. Two Developers
don't develop the same way. We need combined development/teaching efforts. Not
necessarily doing each others job, but working together and interfacing more 
with one another. Hopefully more than just through a notes file.


						Regards,

						Paul M.

>I'm probably going to regret asking this, but why wasn't an Instructor in
>attendance?  (And preferably, someone who has taught this string?)
>

Because in order to be fair to ALL instructors, we take your input via this
notesfile and/or mail and/or telephone and/or the few times we can meet with
instructors (as we did recently in the PKO centre). In addition, Sherry Butler
was there to represent the US instructors - we unfortunately weren't able to get
direct representation from Europe or GIA at the meeting.


>Also, when the plan is posted, will it be subject to change or is it cast in
>concrete?
>

I'm going to post the proposal as soon as I finish answering this.
It's a proposal - subject to change based on worldwide feedback.

Andy

After detailed review of all the feedback on the new Sysnet string in the
SUPER::VMS_CURRICULUM notesfile, we've come up with a proposal aimed at fixing
the apparent problems. 

Here's an outline of the proposal as it stands at the moment:

1. Add a new 5 day course entitled "VMS System Management on Single-node
systems". This will replace the current "Small System Environment" courses and
will be aimed at those who are managing non-clustered non-networked systems.
This will remove these folks from the Sysnet string. This course has always been
in the plan - we just didn't get to it yet.

2. Split the current Sysnet I course into:

- a 2 day "VMS Skills for System and Network Managers" course covering the first
9 chapters (the "user" material). We'll rework this material to remove the
excessive detail on some stuff and make it teachable in 2 days to the target
audience.

- a 3 day System and Network Management I course covering the rest of the
current course, reworked to emphasise cluster and network tasks.

This will enable those who already know the user stuff to come straight to the 
Sysnet I course and also remove the confusion around the title.

3. Rework the other 2 Sysnet courses to:

- emphasise the cluster and network tasks
- add the "theoretical" material that's needed to support the task information
  (for those who're into Information Mapping - add the K's to support the P's)
- drastically cut back on the Performance info in Sysnet III
- fix the other specific problems that have been reported (e.g. consistency of
  examples, accuracy issues...)
- other things tbd

4. Build a new 2? day specialist cluster course "Designing and Building a
VMScluster" to follow on from Sysnet III

5. Build a new 3? day "crossover" course "VMScluster Management" to take people
from the old curriculum (sysman II), or from the new single-node course (in 1
above), into the new specialist cluster course (in 4 above).


THe new revised strings would look like this:

              +-----------+   +-----------+
New           |VMS System |   |VMScluster |
Single-node --|Management |---|Management |--------> "specialist courses"<--+
Mgr           |Single-Node|   |           |           (e.g. Designing &	    |
              |    5d     |   |   3d?     |                 Building a      |
              +-----------+   +-----------+                 VMScluster      |
                                                                            ^
              +-----------+   +-----------+   +-----------+   +-----------+ |
New           |VMS Skills |   |VMS System |   |VMS System |   |VMS System | |
multi-node  --|for System |-+-|and Network|-+-|and Network|---|and Network|-+
Mgr           |& Net Mgrs | | |Managemnt I| | |Mngmnt II  |   |Mngmnt III |
              |    2d     | ^ |    3d     | ^ |    5d     |   |    5d     |
              +-----------+ | +-----------+ | +-----------+   +-----------+
                            |               |
                            |               |
                            |               |
entry point for those with--+             entry point
for those with user skills		   from VMS for Operators
are becoming  sysnet mgrs
(eg from: VMS U&C, VMS for Programmers
VMS Skills for Users (after time!!!!))




Next Steps:
-----------

1. At this stage this is only a proposal. We want feedback on it NOW! Either
enter yours in the SUPER::VMS_CURRICULUM notesfile as a response to this (if
that's where you're reading it) or via mail to any of:

SONATA::SADLER
SONATA::SIMCOX
SUPER::WTHOMAS

who will post it for you if required.

2. Within the next 2 weeks we'll be posting outline specs for all the new 
courses in the SUPER::VMS_CURRICULUM notesfile for review.                
   
3. Following that and within the next 7 weeks we'll be posting detailed specs
for all the new  courses in the SUPER::VMS_CURRICULUM notesfile for review.

4. Reworks of the courses to meet the new agreed specs will be completed in Q1
FY93 so as to have the revised courses available in October.



"Speak NOW or forever hold your peace"


Cheers,

Andy

>I don't understand why combined development hasn't happened more. I know it has;
>(SYSMAN). But probably not often enough. I've worked on projects as an 
>Instructor, and as a Developer that were a combined effort of Instructors, and
>Developers. They were successful. Everyone contributed, everyone felt 
>responsible, everyone wanted it to work. They did. This was with Customer 
>(Field) Service Training. I'm starting a project now (ALPHA) that is to be a
>combined effort.

This is absolutely the case.  System Management I went through several 
iterations with lots of blood-letting several years ago.  The result was a
course that we could all teach with a minimum of reordering.  Instructors 
who didn't agree on when and where topics were placed could work around it
easily.  I'd dearly love to see that kind of cooperative effort again, only
this time with the emphasis on "cooperative."  As I recall, the level of 
screaming and hollering was fairly high until the Instructors' voice was 
heard.

>~~~~~~
>Regarding curriculum content...
>
>I've stayed out of the discussion because I wanted to hear what the 
>Instructors had to say. But, I'm confused. I hear that the SYSNET curriculum 
>is lacking detail, that customers are professionals that they expect more. The 
>user "stuff" should be taken out. Yet I hear that they can't absorb it all.
>That the details should be in a specialty course. That they are new to VMS.
>They need the user "stuff"... and so on.

I fail to see the confusion?!?  When we say it lacks detail that means we 
need fewer topics with more depth.  When we say they expect more that means
they want more depth not more topics.  When we say they can't absorb it all
that means they need more time (and more depth) on fewer topics.  We have to 
take the user stuff out and put it into a FIVE day course with lots of depth
and time for practice/absorbtion.  With the user stuff removed from the three
weeks we can add more details on the remaining topics.  The key words here:
FEWER TOPICS, MORE DEPTH.

>I sat in a VAXcluster Mng.course last week and was surprised at the level of the
>students; novice. (I shouldn't be, I never was as an Instructor). A lot of the 
>technical details were skipped; HARDWARE/SOFTWARE. It was taught from a 
>practical approach, with some theory. While I don't agree with the way the
>entire course was delivered, I do believe the students received the knowledge
>they needed to build and start to manage a VAXcluster.

We have NEVER enforced pre-req's.  As Buck has said many times, we need to 
completely cover a topic in a class and NOT assume they know anything.  It's
getting worse now too because we've completely confused them on what they need
to take and when.  I applaud you for taking the time to do this.  Next step is
for you to teach this stuff; armchair quarterbacking simply will not give 
you the insight you need.  Cross-training would be grand!

>~~~~
>
>The point is, skill/experience levels vary with each class. We need to have
>different levels of all courses to address those needs. Two Instructors don't 
>teach the same way. Two students don't learn the same way. Two Developers
>don't develop the same way. We need combined development/teaching efforts. Not
>necessarily doing each others job, but working together and interfacing more 
>with one another. Hopefully more than just through a notes file.

BINGO!  This is what many of us have been saying from Day 1.  The SYSNET 
courses are fine as OPERATOR material, but we need the old style, detailed
courses for the person who will eventually be the VMS expert at his/her 
facility.

And Andy, I still say an Instructor should have been included in the review 
process.  I wouldn't have cared who it was or what they thought of the new
courses, just so someone currently on platform had face-to-face input.  That 
would have been more "fair" than leaving us out altogether.  I know I'm not
alone when I say most of us aren't too sure we're being heard in the Notesfile.
An Instructor could have been a valuable asset both for us and for you.  This
is nothing against Sherry, but she hasn't taught in too long a time.

			Susan

>2. Split the current Sysnet I course into:
>
>- a 2 day "VMS Skills for System and Network Managers" course covering the first
>9 chapters (the "user" material). We'll rework this material to remove the
>excessive detail on some stuff and make it teachable in 2 days to the target
>audience.
>
>- a 3 day System and Network Management I course covering the rest of the
>current course, reworked to emphasise cluster and network tasks.
>
>This will enable those who already know the user stuff to come straight to the 
>Sysnet I course and also remove the confusion around the title.

Now I'm even more sure we're not being heard.  I know it's been said more than
once that just cutting and pasting won't fix our problems.  A two-day user
course would be a joke.  The only difference between this proposal and what
we currently have is that SN 1 will be divided into two courses.  This fits 
into our course-week calendar, but doesn't fit the customer.  Ed Svc has got 
to stop thinking in 2,3,5 day formats (which is convenient for our scheduling)
and start thinking in terms of our customers and what they want/need.  Our 
inability to deliver what's needed is beginning to cost us dearly.

				Susan

    
    I agree with the creation of a "VMS Skills for System managers" piece,
    but I really think it should be a TBI (or CBI...using IconAuthor to 
    simulate VMS, perhaps). Three days to teach Sysnet I just isn't
    enough, especially if we put more 'meat' into it.
    
    I'm not in marketing...is it difficult to sell a Wednesday, Thursday,
    Friday class (which is what SN1 would become)?
    
    Enforcement of prereqs is what I was thinking about a few replies back
    when I said we have to stop treating the customers like babies. Is 
    anyone out there using pretests to see if the students don't meet the
    prereq? If they fail the pretest, are they being sent back to the 
    prereq course?
    
    Different topic:
    
    If I were designing Sysnet from scratch, it would look something like
    this:
    
    	SN1: Managing users. It'd be an intro to systems (hardware and
    	software), then how to do things like setting up accounts, managing
    	disk resources, and installing software...basically the most common
    	things that a manager does day-to-day.
    
    	SN2: Managing systems. How and why of networks, then how to build	
    	clusters; CI, LAVC, and MI. You'd learn this by spending a lot
    	of time in the lab actually doing it.
    
    	SN3: Advanced topics. Would include things like shadowing,
    	striping, heterogoneous clusters, troubleshooting, mixed 
    	networks...again, a lot of labs, learning by doing.
    
    I'd also do one-day seminars on things like "VMS V5.5 Queue
    Management," and "Improving Cluster Performance." These would augment,
    rather than replace, specialty courses like Security and Performance.
    
    Someone told me that we see the average student 1.7 times. If that's
    true, it means that the average student *doesn't come back* after that
    first course. There's something wrong with that picture...
    
    Perry

  I haven't looked at this in detail and will comment on the contents
  later, but a 2-day and 3-day does not equal a 5-day course.  
  
  Assuming class starts at 9AM, the first 1/2 hour (or more) is spent with
  paper work, introductions, course 'overview', etc.  This is now done
  twice. 
  
  Tuesday (day 2) will end early -- many people taking just the 2-day
  course will want to leave before 3pm to catch flights home.  This
  eliminates a couple of hours of lab or lecture.  Tuesday night the
  classroom needs to be re-cleaned (the instructors get to do this in many
  training centers) and restocked. 
  
  Wednesday the registrars have to set up again in the morning -- our
  set-up in Atlanta is not as stable as the D.C. or Boston training
  centers.  We just have a table in the front lobby -- no desk, no chairs,
  etc.  If we have a change in students, more time gets to be spent
  in class with paperwork.  
  
  I saw all of this in the old Small-Systems courses.  We didn't like
  it then, I doubt the 'task' has changed this time.  Not to look at
  the contents of the course, I'd say we are short-changing them on
  quality training time.
  
  I mentioned this to my management, the answer was the same..."A 2-day
  and a 3-day, yuck!  This means extra admin overhead." (paraphrased)
  Is this the best approach?  Maybe this 'task' business isn't the right
  idea for this curriculum.

  $

  P.S.  Why does Cluster Mgr follow a course labeled VMS SysMgt Single-Node
        in the "New Single-Node Mgr" curriculum?  Is it significantly 
        different than the 2 courses 'below' it on your chart?  This
        course map may end up being more confusing than the old course 
        string's map!

    	Now that the proposal is posted I can start addressing some of your
    issues.

    	To the note a few back who thought we didn't read your comments, we
    do, I take your comments very seriously which is what led to this
    proposal.

    	By having a 2 day course and a 3 day course (User for Manager and
    Sysnet I) we now have two entry points for students to get into the
    curriculum. One of the biggest complaints that I've heard is that the
    students either have no experience or are experienced and so invariably
    *someone* in the class is at the wrong level. By having the two entry
    points, the people with no experience can take the 2 day course and
    then join the more experienced people on the third day.

    	The 3 day course (sysnet I) will not be just a cut and paste of the
    current course, it is going to be reworked so that it covers more
    cluster and network management (hence the material will match the name
    - changing the name which has so often been proposed is IMHO comparable
    to putting a bandaid on a surgical wound, the name is fine, in fact
    it's great, it's where we want to head, the course needs to be
    reworked in order to make a better fit).

    	Sysnet II and Sysnet III will also be reworked to reflect more of
    the cluster network emphasis (Perry Donham will be the project leader
    for the Sysnet courses so respond to his notes).

    	By bringing back a small systems management course, we are again
    narrowing the audience for each stream, if you are not interested in
    networks and clusters, go to that stream and stay our of SYSNET.
    Although I don't teach courses here at Digital, I teach several at a
    local college and I know how confusing and frustrating it can be to
    have students on different levels and with different expectations.

    	The reason for the 3? day cluster course is that *IF* a small
    system grows up to become a cluster, the people would only need to take
    that 3 day cluster course in order to get enough of the information to
    then start taking the specialty courses.

    	This is a very solid proposal that addresses audience diversity and
    course content. 

    	From here, we *need* to get your input at the IPF (and of course
    all of these comments will be considered).

    	By the end of July, I will be posting new course outlines based on
    your feedback and conformance to our standards on the following courses:

    	2 day VMS User for System Managers
    	Sysnet I
    	Sysnet II
    	Sysnet III

    	That small system course (can't remember the final name)
    	
    	The 3 day cluster management
        The 2 day cluster building

    	I realize that not everyone will be happy with our proposal, it
    does not address everything but I feel that it addresses enough of the
    problems that with work on everyones part it will be an effective
    curriculum for VMS system managers.

    				Wendy

    "I know you think you understand what I said but I am not sure that what
    you heard is what I meant."
    
    	The instructors are in agreement.  Susan is right on target as is
    Buck Trayser and Chuck (previous notes). But that is MY opinion and I 
    AM an instructor too.
    
    Andy --> You stated that "in order to be fair to ALL instructors, we
    take your input via this notesfile and/or mail and/or telephone...."
    
       Wonderful and with all sincerity, my thanks and appreciation BUT
    on June 29 there is going to be an Instructor Product Forum.  Why
    didn't the powers that be invite all of the participants to the
    notesfile, mail, telephone, etc. to be a part of this?  The people who
    are responding are the ones that CARE.  I was told that two people from
    each region would be sent.  This is up to the top management level,
    most of whom do not even get time to read the notes file. Are they
    going to know who to send or send someone that is "not on vacation"
    that week".  (Ooops, that honesty is probably going to get me in
    trouble.)
    
    About the Proposal --> "we are going to implement VMS System Management
    on Single-node systems.....this will replace the Small System
    Environment courses."
    
        I didn't even KNOW they still existed.  It looked like the SYSNET I
    course was copied from the old Small System Environment courses and
    updated.  I, for one, am AGAINST any implementation of a 3/2 day split.  
    Especially when that means teaching 2 days of basic user info....I did
    that Small System Environment stint....2 days is not long enough. Also,
    that is a HARD course for an instructor.  You are graded on the QA by 3 
    sets of people.  (Let's say there are 4 people in the 2-day class, 4 people 
    in the 3 day class, and 3 people in the total 5 day class.  Normally if
    2 people hated your method of teaching, your class would still pass. 
    If this scenario...you will fail three times.  Add three failing grades
    into a yearly score for 1 weeks work and it can kill you - performance
    rating wise.) Not to mention, all of the disruption that occurs when 
    people join the class.....double introductions and paperwork have 
    to be done...people are starting to get comfortable with you and now
    you have new people to establish your credibility with.
    
    As for setup....we are in the same boat with Andy in Atlanta....the
    admin staff will have to setup a classroom again....Did anyone run this
    by Chuck Alfoldy or the individual Admin managers?
    
    Let's not give them a Ferrari and tell them to look at it, admire it, 
    appreciate it for its value but then say "By the way, you know all 
    of its great attributes but you can't drive it!"
    
     No personal insults were intended.  I REALLY want to see a good class
    developed that ALL can be proud of.
    
    Dee
    
    

     
    I also have concerns about this proposal - final judgement when I can
    review the draft.
    
>2. Split the current Sysnet I course into:
>
>- a 2 day "VMS Skills for System and Network Managers" course covering the first
>9 chapters (the "user" material). We'll rework this material to remove the
>excessive detail on some stuff and make it teachable in 2 days to the target
>audience.
>
>- a 3 day System and Network Management I course covering the rest of the
>current course, reworked to emphasise cluster and network tasks.
     
    This sounds like what we have now. A System Manager needs several
    basic skills prior to starting a System Manager course; can this
    really be done in two days ? 
     
    Arnold
    

Re: .144

>Now I'm even more sure we're not being heard.  I know it's been said more than
>once that just cutting and pasting won't fix our problems.  A two-day user
>course would be a joke.  

Help me to understand why:

- Materials that can be taught sucessfully to "Application Users" in 3 days
  in VMS Skills for Users (and some people say it should be 2 days) can't be
  taught to novice system managers, who presumably have some background with
  computing, in 2 days?

- We can't cover the user skills for system managers in 2 days when our
  competitors can?

Note that I'm not asking why we can't cover all of U&C I in 2 days! All of the
relevant U&C tasks for system managers are supposed to be included somewhere in
the sysnet string (eg the detailed com proc stuff in sysnet II). If this is not
the case then give us some *SPECIFIC* information as to what's missing - i.e.
tell us what TASKS that the system manager needs to perform are not included,
and what information they need to be able to perform those tasks.



>The only difference between this proposal and what
>we currently have is that SN 1 will be divided into two courses.  
                                                                  
There's somewhat more to it than that ... we're proposing to rework the whole
string - maybe that will become more evident as the proposed specs get posted.
             
>This fits  into our course-week calendar, but doesn't fit the customer. Ed Svc
>has got  to stop thinking in 2,3,5 day formats (which is convenient for our
>scheduling)0 

I'd be the first to agree with you but it's very difficult to get the training
centre managers to buy into this, not surprisingly given their metrics.


>and start thinking in terms of our customers and what they want/need.

Which is precisely why we started the restructuring in the first place!

>Our  inability to deliver what's needed is beginning to cost us dearly.

Susan - How do YOU define "what's needed"? Be specific!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .143
            
>This is absolutely the case.  System Management I went through several 
>iterations with lots of blood-letting several years ago.  The result was a
>course that we could all teach with a minimum of reordering.  Instructors 
>who didn't agree on when and where topics were placed could work around it
>easily.  I'd dearly love to see that kind of cooperative effort again, only
>this time with the emphasis on "cooperative."  As I recall, the level of 
>screaming and hollering was fairly high until the Instructors' voice was 
>heard.

*******************************************************************************
The following was going to be a flame but by the time I finished writing it I'd
cooled down some...

In my opinion, we've done everything humanly possible to involve the field in
this process - some examples...

We ran an IPF back at the start of the project where the fundamental design was
put in place (Nov '89 in Bedford) and another one where we agreed the specifics
of the tasks to be included in each of the Sysnet courses (Sep '90? in
Chelmsford) - EVERY training centre was asked to send a representative (most
of the US centres did - I could dig out the attendance lists if necesary)


We funded field review of the courses and the pilots were taught by the field
reviewer. 

===============================================================================
[To preempt a rat-hole:

Before we get back in to the argument about needing a funded field reviewer from
EVERY training centre...

We have something like 145 training centres worldwide.
Assuming that half of them would participate => 72 field reviewers
Assuming 3 weeks per course review => 216 person weeks per course
Assuming the current internal charge rate of $2.6K per week ( which BTW is MUCH
LOWER than what the US usually wants to charge me for instructor time)
		=>$561.6K for field review per course!!!!!
At this rate I would be able to fund the revision of 1 course next year!

There are many training centres throughout the world who understand that it's
necessary for their business to commit instructor resources to participate in
reviews during the development process, without the transfer of funny money from
one part of the Customer Training budget to another.
================================================================================

To continue on the theme of field involvement:

Every training centre in the U.S. had a designated person who was supposed
to be actively reviewing the materials as they were posted. This was bought into
by *your* management!!!!! Didn't the designated people do waht they were tasked
to do?
 
We ran pilots *IN THE U.S.* When we ran into a problem with Sysnet II & III at
pilot, we reworked the courses to fix the problems, and repiloted complete
course strings to test them. This meant we had to delay the rollout and we took 
a lot of heat from U.S. CT Business Management for doing this, but we felt it
was important in order to give customers what they said they needed.  

Folks, this is a partnership! The only way that we can be sucessful in
developing quality courses is if we all do our share. We need you to give us the
input during the course development process. If you REALLY can't do that, then
you'll have to rely on those training centres who can.

*******************************************************************************

>BINGO!  This is what many of us have been saying from Day 1.  The SYSNET 
>courses are fine as OPERATOR material, but we need the old style, detailed
>courses for the person who will eventually be the VMS expert at his/her 
>facility.

This is not borne out by the customer research that we did. Customer staffs go
through a phased career development as they become system managers and the
design of the curriculum matches this.

If the student takes ALL of the sysnet string they'll get all the detail that
they need to carry out the job of the "generalist" system manager (as defined by
the customer survey). If they need more specialist knowledge, we provide that on
the follow-on specailist courses - as we did in the old curriculum. 


>And Andy, I still say an Instructor should have been included in the review 
>process.  I wouldn't have cared who it was or what they thought of the new
>courses, just so someone currently on platform had face-to-face input.  That 
>would have been more "fair" than leaving us out altogether.  I know I'm not
>alone when I say most of us aren't too sure we're being heard in the Notesfile.
>An Instructor could have been a valuable asset both for us and for you.  This
>is nothing against Sherry, but she hasn't taught in too long a time.

We met with the PKO instructors a coupe of weeks ago and their input was
included in the discussions, as was what we've got from this discussion.
You personally may feel "left out" but the instructor base was represented. 


Re: .145


>    I agree with the creation of a "VMS Skills for System managers" piece,
>    but I really think it should be a TBI (or CBI...using IconAuthor to 
>    simulate VMS, perhaps). 

We can do both  and we need both - most customers want to have the L/L
option (see the recent Ledgeway Dataquest report on Technical Training)


>    Someone told me that we see the average student 1.7 times. If that's
>    true, it means that the average student *doesn't come back* after that
>    first course. There's something wrong with that picture...

BINGO! That was another reason for the "string" approach - to try to encourage
people to come back more often, as they progress in their career development.


Re: .146 

>  I haven't looked at this in detail and will comment on the contents
>  later, but a 2-day and 3-day does not equal a 5-day course.  
> ...

We're aware of this, and I propose that we build the courses the way I outline,
but that we don't actually offer them that way on ths schedule - rather we'll
offer the 3 day Sysnet I for those who already have the User skills, and
separately offer a 5 day package of the User and Sysnet for those who don't.
As for people who leave at 3pm on the second day of a 2 day course... the
instructor's still there - the rest of the class is still there ... if people
don't want to learn...?????

Thoughts?


>  Is this the best approach?  Maybe this 'task' business isn't the right
>  idea for this curriculum.

This was discussed at great length at every stage of the process.  The
information that we're getting from the training centres worldwide indicates
that it is an absolute requirement of our customers that we take this approach,
and thus the task-oriented approach is axiomatic to whatever we do now or in the
future.

Let's stop discussing this and get on with making it work! 







>  P.S.  Why does Cluster Mgr follow a course labeled VMS SysMgt Single-Node
>        in the "New Single-Node Mgr" curriculum?  Is it significantly 
>        different than the 2 courses 'below' it on your chart?  This
>        course map may end up being more confusing than the old course 
>        string's map!
 
The Cluster Manager course in the top string is intended for those students who
start life as single-node managers and who, at a later stage, need to learn to
manage a cluster. This is not the norm but there seems to be enough of them to
make such a course feasible.




More later...


Andy

    
Well, here we go again.  Is NO one listening.... If this stupidity 
continues we won't have to worry about rewriting any courses.  We 
won't have any customers to worry about.  They will go to third party
vendors for training.

YES there needs to be a course for general users.  No you can't do
this in two-days. Look at the size of the operating system and the
number of DCL commands.  True one doesn't need to know every command
but in two days it just can't be done.  Think about this... before
we had UCI and UCII that used a total of nine days.

I teach SYSNETI and I can't cover the nine chapters in 2 days.  I have
said this more than once.

Just a suggestion:
Get away from the word "TASK" . Maybe that is the problem with this
whole mess.

Another problem...coming up with a solution without really thinking
one through....just to get a fix.This is causing more problems.  The
customers don't know if they are coming or going as to course selection.
Let's face it, when they call the 800 number there is no one to answer
their unique questions. Don't make statements like "By the end of JULY"
and have written in GOLD.  If schedules have to be pushed back then
push back.  We don't need to get deeper into trouble just to meet a date
on the calendar. Yes.. do have target dates but if the shoe doesn't fit  
don't put it on the foot yet.

The revised strings really upset ME. Are you saying that a person could
take VMS system Management Single-Node and immediately go into a three
day cluster course and be brought up to a specialist level, equal to
someone who has gone through SYSNETI,II,and III. If this is true why
do we have all the SYSNET courses?

Lynn White
    Washington, D.C.

I agree with the comments and objections in the last few notes, especially
Buck's comments (in .146) about not liking 2 and 3 day courses and that 2 + 3
<> 5; Perry's (in .145) that 3 days are not enough for SYSNET I, especially if
more meat is added; and Susan's (in .144), Dee's (.148), Arnold's (.149) and 
Lynn's (.151) that 2 days are not enough for the user skills course. 

Maybe I'll feel differently when the outlines are available, but it does seem
that we are mostly just renaming the first two days rather than addressing the
important issues of course content.  (BTW, the name has been a major source of
customer confusion, so a change is more than just a "bandaid" as Wendy stated 
in .147.)


One thing I don't understand about the proposal - why do the students in the
single-node manager course not take the "VMS Skills for Managers" course? 


If 2 days are not enough to cover VMS skills, and 3 days are not enough to
cover management, and the names cause confusion, how about this: 

   Expand the skills course to 5 days and rename it to something like
	Utilities and Commands I 

   Expand the management course to 5 days and rename it to something like
	System Management I 

- Ed

    While I am somewhat satisfied that all parties recognize the issues or
    concerns caused by the new curriculum, the proposed solution makes my
    queasy as well.  Items that come to mind: 
    
    	-	Our customers and training staff have spent a goodly amount
    		of time since January helping to try and get people in the 
    		"right courses" (meaning at lease those courses whose goals
    		and pre-requisites were aligned with what the customer 
    		thought they would receive).  This has frustrated all
    		parties:  the customers who are still not getting the 
    		training to really do their jobs competently, the delivery
    		resource (affectionately referred to as the "instructor"),
    		the local customer service represenatives and training 
    		center managers (who handle some of the customer 
    		satisfaction issues).  
    
    		I don't believe we planned on confusing them, so if we
    		do it again, let's do it right.  They don't have the time
    		or money or patience to help us relearn this lesson.
    
    		The "multiple entry point" approach cannot miss target
    		this time around, because one of the options the customer
    		has is to not take ANY of our offerings.  
    
    	-	I don't think anyone is claiming that all courses must be 
    		5-days in length - but I would hope that we learned not
    		only from how difficult it was to teach the old Small 
    		Systems Environment course with drop-in attendees, as well
    		as from the last 6 months of Sysnet courses (where with
    		mis-registered unlimited subscribers, confused folks, we
    		have drop-ins, drop-outs and mostly "unimpressed" 
    		customers, who privately ask us "why did you do this???"
    
    I really don't think we will get too many more tries at this.  I
    realize there are very real financial and marketing issues that I may
    not be aware of, but I sincerely feel that even if we gave the training
    away for free, if it was the wrong training, people would still stop
    coming.  
    
    If this is worth revising, can we work together please?
    
    irene  

    re: 49.152 -- >  Ed,
    
                        WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    
    Dee :*)

    
    
    	If you will attend the IPF then please raise your hand !
    
    	I would like to know how many folks that read this notes
    	file will be there.
    
    Ron - I won't be there - i'm on vacation(planned for months).
    
        Another week would have been better for the meeting.
    

    
    I won't be able to attend the IPF unortunately (travel from Europe is
    rather restricted).
    
    So I guess I'll have to put my comments here.
    
    The last dozen replies are making me worried. The problems and
    objections described mostly have to do with our internal organisation.
    It is this consistent ignoring of customer's needs and wishes that has
    given Digital the current air of arrogance. Read recent publications
    about us? Seen the shares drop constantly?
    
    The restructuring of the entire VMS System Management curriculum has
    been done because customers are more and more asking for EFFECTIVE
    training, which is not telling them all there is to know about our
    products. It is training them to do their jobs. Forgetting about "the
    word TASK" is like sticking your head in a bucket of quick drying
    cement. You will hold out for a short while... Besides it is not the
    >>>word<<< TASK we are talking about here, like as if we are talking
    about phraseology in a Marketing publication. We are supposed to train
    people do their TASKS in their jobs.
    
    A recent survey among our customers showed the following top-three in
    wishes they had, with respect to our training offering (and that of
    others):
    1 - Visibility of course results. No more just 'taking a course', they
        want us to make sure the student achieves the proper end result
    
    2 - Task orientation. The next Monday after the course the student
        should start earning the invested money back
    
    3 - More individualisation. The ideal is that the course should fit the
        needs of the student EXAXTLY. In reality it should come as close as
        possible
    
    Our customers have reacted to the new curriculum positively. Sure, it
    needs tuning, sure the materials aren't always good enough. But we
    understand what the real objectives of the course are, AND THAT IS WHAT
    WE DELIVER. If we have to, we'll hand out photocopied handwritten notes.
    What we are working on is getting the standard materials as close as
    possible to what we feel is right. We realise this means compromising
    with others peoples wishes.
    
    A major mistake we have been making in the past is to listen only to
    those customers that were coming to our training centres. The fact that
    we were constantly losing our market share is something we shrugged
    our shoulders about. Now that we found that the tide is rushing in, we
    panic. I believe (and slowly the performance figures of Sysnet in our
    curriculum are proving that) that with the Sysnet approach we can get
    back those customers to our training centres that gave up on Digital in
    the past, because we put too much unneeded, overly detailed, unusable
    material in our expensive courses.
    
    Also don't forget that the current VMS Sysnet curriculum was based on a
    world-wide survey among system managers asking them about their tasks
    and duties. You'll never get full concensus on what to put into one
    particular course, but the current design seems to suffice. In a couple
    of years the market will have evolved enough again to reshuffle matters
    again, but we'll see by then.
    
    If the facts that customers are used to take early flights back home, and
    our internal registration limitations, dictate the structure of a
    curriculum, this company is in bad health. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER. You
    either buy this idea, or not. If you don't, you will find yourself going
    out of business in a very profitable manner.
    Deliver something the customer really needs and therefore wants. Flying
    back home at 3 p.m. will then not be an issue for most customers. Or
    have we perhaps stimulated this behaviour by making sure everybody
    could leave safely by 3 p.m.?
    
    I sincerely hope the IPF will be discussing the customer's needs and
    not which qualifier should be put in which chapter. I wish every
    participant will have the strength and ability to step away from the 
    student guides and agree on what our jobs really are about: training
    our customers in an effective way, according to their needs and in a
    profitable fashion ;-)
    
    			Rob

|    The last dozen replies are making me worried. The problems and
|    objections described mostly have to do with our internal organisation.

  Sorry, Rob.  You missed it.  The ONLY internal organization topic
  discussed was setup/re-setup for 2/3 day classes in 2 notes by
  instructors.  Check this "rough" outline of this topic's replies 
  of *Instructor* written notes:

  130 - concerned about customer taking more courses than needed.
      - students seem overwhelmed by material
  131 - standalone system vs cluster concepts
      - back to basics
  132 - overwhelming students with advanced material
  133 - build skills, teach material in proper order
  135 - which courses to discuss details of of clusters
      - instructor/developer working closer together
  136 - give students time to practice what they are taught
  137 - old series was better
  139 - instructor/developer working closer together
  143 - instructor/developer working closer together
      - fewer topics, but with more details
      - training center policy "Never enforce Pre-req's"
  144 - what does student need?
  146 - 2 & 3 day course admin issues
  148 - content issue
      - 2 & 3 day course admin issues
  149 - content issue
  151 - content issue
      - jumbled course string
  152 - not enough time for the course materials
  153 - multiple entry point
      - getting students to the right course/string
  154 - old series was better
  155 - IPF issue

  (This is MY outline and may not reflect what the authors intended.  Apologies 
   if I am wrong.)
   
  Now, looks to me that a CLEAR majority are concerned with content. 
  Following that would be student concerns and development/IPF issues with
  admin stuff being minimal 

  These notes were worth re-reading, but ONLY read the ones from
  instructors.  You should see the common thread - dissatisfaction by
  students, frustration because of this by the instructors.  We want
  this stuff to work.  It isn't and needs fixing.

|    It is this consistent ignoring of customer's needs and wishes that has
|    given Digital the current air of arrogance. Read recent publications
|    about us? Seen the shares drop constantly?

  Agreed.  See above outline.  Instructors are well aware of this.
    
|    The restructuring of the entire VMS System Management curriculum has
|    been done because customers are more and more asking for EFFECTIVE
|    training, which is not telling them all there is to know about our
|    products. It is training them to do their jobs. 

  Bravo!  I thought rewriting U&C and SMI was a good idea.  I agreed with
  the concepts.  I'd say that a large majority of the instructors also 
  believe that getting the students to do their job better is a (the?)
  major goal!

|   We are supposed to train people do their TASKS in their jobs.

  Ooops.  You changed words in mid-paragraph.  See above, you said
  "...training them to do their jobs.", now it is "...train people to do
  the TASKS in their jobs."  I must disagree with this thought.  I'm
  concerned about the students being able to make decisions BOTH when they
  get back at their job AND months or years later using the previous
  training to guide them to solving the NEW tasks that their SAME job
  throws at them.  We must teach them how to solve both, requiring both 
  short-term and long-term training concepts!
    
|    Our customers have reacted to the new curriculum positively. Sure, it
|    needs tuning, sure the materials aren't always good enough. But we
|    understand what the real objectives of the course are, AND THAT IS WHAT
|    WE DELIVER.  If we have to, we'll hand out photocopied handwritten notes.

  Yeow!  What I just heard you saying was, the material is insufficient,
  you've expanded/enhanced it and teach it's essence, not it's exact
  contents.  Am I hearing you right?  Aren't you the same one that wrote
  earlier that you use the TBI material rather than the standard
  Lecture/Lab material?  I want the standard material good enough so that
  when we bring in the (numerous) consultants to teach the course, they 
  can use it as well as we can!  We can't hire employees, so we have to
  "rent" LOTS of outside help at this time.  They don't have the benefit of
  these discussions and MUST rely on the course materials.

|    What we are working on is getting the standard materials as close as
|    possible to what we feel is right. We realise this means compromising
|    with others peoples wishes.

  Agreed.    

|    I believe (and slowly the performance figures of Sysnet in our
|    curriculum are proving that) that with the Sysnet approach we can get
|    back those customers to our training centres that gave up on Digital in
|    the past, because we put too much unneeded, overly detailed, unusable
|    material in our expensive courses.
    
  Agreed.  The courses have a tendency to become Sales Literature and/or
  New Features manuals.

|    I sincerely hope the IPF will be discussing the customer's needs and
|    not which qualifier should be put in which chapter. I wish every
|    participant will have the strength and ability to step away from the 
|    student guides and agree on what our jobs really are about: training
|    our customers in an effective way, according to their needs and in a
|    profitable fashion ;-)
   
  Great!  I couldn't have put it better!

  $

|A two-day user would be a joke.  
|
|Help me to understand why:
|
|- Materials that can be taught sucessfully to "Application Users" in 3 days
|  in VMS Skills for Users (and some people say it should be 2 days) can't be
|  taught to novice system managers, who presumably have some background with
|  computing, in 2 days?
|
|- We can't cover the user skills for system managers in 2 days when our
|  competitors can?

  Hopefully we can provide more relevant, useful material than our
  competitors.  We previously taught U&C in 5 days.  True, part of that
  could have been trimmed, a 4 day version for System Managers would be
  quite adequate.  Even a 3-day version of JUST the user material from
  either SN1 or U&C1 would provide the necessary BASIC skills (keeping in
  mind the TASK approach vs the CONCEPTS approach).  Some of the more
  advanced topics could still be put in the following course.

  Personally, I really dislike 2 & 3 day classes (see earlier comments),
  but if we were to CLEARLY define what WOULD and WOULD NOT be in these
  course, the topics would fit.  I'd like to see an outline of topics
  and more preferably the 'pages' that would be used from the various
  SN1, U&C1, VMS for Prog, etc courses before deciding this would be adequate
  time to cover the material.

|>The only difference between this proposal and what
|>we currently have is that SN 1 will be divided into two courses.  
|                                                                  
|There's somewhat more to it than that ... we're proposing to rework the whole
|string - maybe that will become more evident as the proposed specs get posted.

  Oh!  Well, if you are reworking the whole string...mind you, I like the 
  old curriculum better, but if we are going forward with this series...

  How about VMS User for Sys Mgr's being 3 days (I think we can do that),
  then SysNet1 being 5 days with LOTS of primarily SysMgr (+ Net Mgr + a
  light Intro to Cluster Mgr) stuff in it.  In other words, we keep the
  current *NAMES*, take 90% of the user stuff out of SysNet1, put it in VMS
  User for Mgrs and 'shift' topics from 2 back to 1 and from 3 back to 2! 
  This will *STILL* shorten the time spent in class, put SysNet1 as a *TRUE*
  mgt class, get some rather meaty topics in SysNet2 and SysNet 3 can be
  the 'capstone' of the series. (I think SysNet 4 needs a TOTALLY different
  name.)
             
  Now, I'm also suggesting that the topics be looked at carefully, COMPLETE
  discussions of relevant topics in a course (no, don't rely on the
  follow-on course to fill in the necessary details), given this approach
  we can get User training in 3 days, SysMgr & NetMgr basics in SN1,
  Advanced SysMgr, advanced Net Mgr, and basic Cluster Mgt in SysNet2
  followed by a  'wrap up' of SysMgr, NetMgr and detailed Cluster Mgr
  topics in the last class.

  Parallel to SysNet 2 & 3 could be the 2 & 3 day parts of clusters for
  people entering the string late.  Even a 2 & 3 day DECnet class that 
  parallels SysNet 1 & 2 for people coming out of the Single-Node series
  wanting to jump into the SysNet series.

  I'd have to think it out. Maybe I'm all wet.  But SysNet 1 *must* by 5
  days of SYSTEM & NETWORK MGT, no user stuff.  SYSNET 2 *MUST* be Advanced
  topics, completing ALL the NETWORK MGT stuff (trouble-shooting can be in 3
  or 4).  I still believe Clusters isn't a topic for detailed discussion in
  the first *mgt* class.

|>This fits into our course-week calendar, but doesn't fit the customer. Ed Svc
|>has got to stop thinking in 2,3,5 day formats (which is convenient for our
|>scheduling)
|
|I'd be the first to agree with you but it's very difficult to get the training
|centre managers to buy into this, not surprisingly given their metrics.

  Eh?  My Mgt *DOESN'T* like the 2/3 day stuff.  What are you saying here?

|>Our  inability to deliver what's needed is beginning to cost us dearly.
|Susan - How do YOU define "what's needed"? Be specific!

  My students tell me after class "we know how to fill out the SOFs, but
  this really isn't a good course."  Does this help?  I have NEVER received
  this comment before SysNet3 for *ANY* course I taught (except DECwindows I).
            
>This is absolutely the case.  System Management I went through several 
>iterations with lots of blood-letting several years ago.  The result was a
>course that we could all teach with a minimum of reordering.  Instructors 
>who didn't agree on when and where topics were placed could work around it
>easily.  I'd dearly love to see that kind of cooperative effort again, only
>this time with the emphasis on "cooperative."  As I recall, the level of 
>screaming and hollering was fairly high until the Instructors' voice was 
>heard.

|We ran an IPF back at the start of the project where the fundamental design was
|put in place (Nov '89 in Bedford) and another one where we agreed the specifics
|of the tasks to be included in each of the Sysnet courses (Sep '90? in
|Chelmsford) - EVERY training centre was asked to send a representative (most
|of the US centres did - I could dig out the attendance lists if necesary)

  I remember 89, I was there.  I remember the presentation and the survey 
  that those of us in attendance worked on.  Not a lot of time, and we were 
  broken up into groups to 'outline' what we thought were reasonable topics
  for each of the 'categories' of students, like Operators, etc.  The
  amount input to the curriculum was small, but we did participate.  90 I
  didn't attend.  The IPFs were very generalized and many centers sent
  different skilled instructor's to cover their 'space' -- for example, I'd
  be rather useless in a Database or OA discussion.  There was NOT a IPF in
  91...and I think this may have hurt.

|We funded field review of the courses and the pilots were taught by the field
|reviewer. 

  Just curious...where were these piloted?

|Before we get back in to the argument about needing a funded field reviewer from
|EVERY training centre...

  Not a rat-hole.  It is ESSENTIAL that each HUB (4 or 5, can't remember)
  needs to be involved whenever a curriculum that accounts for well over
  1/2 of our income is overhauled.  It took us many years to get U&C and SM
  I as stable as they were (yes, they had their problems, but they were 
  the Cash-Cows of Customer Training) and to expect to shuffle, rewrite and
  reorganize those two courses without pain (MAJOR GNASHING OF TEETH) is
  simply unrealistic.  The voices we here in this conference are exactly
  that...You've taken away a perfectly good Hand-propelled lawn mower and
  replaced with a self-propelled lawn mower that's extremely difficult to
  start.  Andy, don't 'defend' the curriculum...help us to understand it 
  if possible...all of us.  (Tough assignment, right?!)

|Assuming the current internal charge rate of $2.6K per week ( which BTW is MUCH
|LOWER than what the US usually wants to charge me for instructor time)
|		=>$561.6K for field review per course!!!!!
|...
|There are many training centres throughout the world who understand that it's
|necessary for their business to commit instructor resources to participate in
|reviews during the development process, without the transfer of funny money 
|from one part of the Customer Training budget to another.

  Andy, there are those of us that would gladly pilot a course WITHOUT pay
  if we have enough lead-time.  I've just completed the pilot of the V5.5
  update to the VMS Performance Management Course...Your cost?  1 developer
  traveling to my training center (actually D.C.) for the week...PERIOD! 
  We didn't charge you a PENNY for my time!  Was this pilot successful?  I
  think so.  Emmalee?  Comments? 

  Approximately 2 weeks worth of review time and the pilot course itself. 
  Yes, this most unusual, but there were personal reasons why I did this. 
  Needless to say, there are probably others that could do the same given
  enough lead-time (without the lead-time I would have had to charge for my
  time).   There are those of us that want these courses to work and are
  willing to do what is necessary to see that they are successful. 

  Give us a chance to 'unofficially' pilot some of the more critical
  courses, at more training centers with the developers merely in
  attendance of as many as they can get to.  I understand that Boston (PKO)
  is cheaper for you, but maybe you can get one "in-town" and one "out-of-
  town" for each of the new courses you are working on.

|Every training centre in the U.S. had a designated person who was supposed
|to be actively reviewing the materials as they were posted. This was bought
|into by *your* management!!!!! Didn't the designated people do waht they
|were tasked to do?

  Yes, we reviewed the material.  No, it is sometimes not possible to
  determine how well the material works until it is taught--it's easier to
  pass a test if you know the questions and the answers before hand, that's
  why pilots are so important!

|We ran pilots *IN THE U.S.* When we ran into a problem with Sysnet II & III at
|pilot, we reworked the courses to fix the problems, and repiloted complete
|course strings to test them. This meant we had to delay the rollout and we took 
|a lot of heat from U.S. CT Business Management for doing this, but we felt it
|was important in order to give customers what they said they needed.  

  Thank you.  This hopefully fixed many of the problems with the material,
  but it obviously didn't fix the underlying structure problem we are
  having now.

|If they need more specialist knowledge, we provide that on
|the follow-on specailist courses - as we did in the old curriculum. 

  OK.  But, notice your "more"?  Please do NOT assume that the people
  taking the speciality courses have taken SysNet previous!  In the 
  VMS Performance course I taught, only 2 had taken SysNet3, and some 
  had NO formal training at all!  Self-contained specialty courses, as
  much as is possible, that us what we need.

|We met with the PKO instructors a coupe of weeks ago and their input was
|included in the discussions, as was what we've got from this discussion.

  Hmmm...I wonder why Instructor's that DON'T write in these conferences
  (or read them as far as I know) get to give input directly, but those of
  us on the other end of this electronic wire....  I guess my Hub should
  quit writing in this conference so we too can have direct input to the
  Product Managers via meetings!  I'd much prefer face-to-face discussions!

>  I haven't looked at this in detail and will comment on the contents
>  later, but a 2-day and 3-day does not equal a 5-day course.  
> ...

|As for people who leave at 3pm on the second day of a 2 day course... the
|instructor's still there - the rest of the class is still there ... if people
|don't want to learn...?????

  Get your head up!  Many companies pay overtime for travel, they usually
  REQUIRE their people get back into town before 6pm on Friday to avoid the
  extra expense.  Also, this type of organization will require that certain
  topics are FORCED into day 1 or 2 that might have been best covered in
  days 3 or 4!  In many cases the instructors can improve their delivery of
  a course by merely rearranging the modules.  A 2-day and a 3-day delivery
  required that your Lecture material be better than it probably can be to
  meet this teaching order issue.

  And, in many cases, people AREN'T at class to learn!  They have this
  thing called UNLIMITED TRAINING, and they are often in my classes on
  vacation!!  This is a major thorn in my teaching flesh.  I do not enjoy
  teaching people as much if they are on Unlimited Training, because the
  are usually SATURATED by the time they get to my classes.  I could go on,
  but, this is really another topic.

|This was discussed at great length at every stage of the process.  The
|information that we're getting from the training centres worldwide indicates
|that it is an absolute requirement of our customers that we take this approach,
|thus the task-oriented approach is axiomatic to whatever we do now or in the
|future.
|
|Let's stop discussing this and get on with making it work! 

  Sorry, but I disagree.  Maybe my students are brighter than most, maybe
  not, but they CONTINUALLY ask the "WHY", "PLEASE EXPLAIN", "HOW DID WE
  ARRIVE AT THIS CONCLUSION" type questions -- Not happy with the TASK idea
  of "Just get it done, don't worry about the details, don't worry if it
  changes, just learn how to do the task at hand."  They want details!
  Concepts!  ...Give them a fish, they eat for a day.  Teach them to
  fish...

$

.158>  Just curious...where were these piloted?

    All three were piloted in Chicago. Sys/Net II was repiloted in L.A.

I plan on being there for most of it. Our vacation was planned as well;
the plane leaves the afternoon of the 30th.

				Paul Mosteika
				Information Design & Consulting (IDC)

    I think that we may be working with a general misunderstanding in this
    note stream.

    	Making something task oriented does not mean making it a cookbook.
          (not my direct quote and I will give credit if desired).

    	Although in our first version of the Sysnet curriculum we may have
    gone overboard and taken out too much of the surrounding structure
    around the tasks we have acknowledged this and are in the process of
    addressing it. 

    	All seven courses will be going through a rather rigorous (IMHO)
    Instructional Design evaluation that will help to eliminate most of the
    design issues. (too much materials, wrong order, missing concepts).

    	We absolutely must proceed with making our courses task oriented,
    it is what the market demands, however, we must do it well.

    	Sysnet was the first attempt at this, admittedly there are faults
    but it was a very good first attempt. It might take a few revisions
    before we finally nail this concept down, it's a entirely different way
    of thinking both for the course developers and the instructors, but
    with each attempt we learn from instructors, marketing, instructional
    designers, and customers how to make improvements.


    				Wendy

    re 49.157 -->  Way to summarize Buck!!!
    
    About who is going...I want to go..I even started this by suggesting
    that we have another meeting in note 49.95 but it looks like two other
    people have been chosen to represent our region.  I don't know who they
    are yet but I hope that they do participate in the notesfile so that we
    will not waste time with issues that have been discussed and my second
    wish would be that they actually TEACH the Sysnet string....not just
    have knowledge of VMS.  
    
    I agree with Buck, (49.158) There ARE alot of us that would gladly
    pilot a course....you don't even have to give me a credit for a
    weekly-teach!!  You HAVE to teach it to know what does not work.
    
    Dee 
    
    
    

re: .147, Although the band-aid is a neat analogy, the name of SYSNET I *is* a major
  problem that might be fixed -- see my replies to Andy for an idea.  This is a 
  complaint that bubbles up often.

re: .155, I *am* planning on attending the IPF.  I have cancelled my vacation
  that week, I might go up early to work with Emmalee on the Performance course,
  if I can beg-off a previous committment to help my father-in-law put a roof on
  his garage.

re: .156, .157,  After rereading Rob's notes and my replies it might seem that we 
  are enemies eyeing each other over a bunker.  Not the case.  We have exchanged 
  useful mail and I'll hopefully post a note of what Rob's group did in the 
  Netherlands to make this a successful series for them.  It's easier for him to be 
  positive when they seem to have implemented SysNet very well!  [Note: I critique
  only ideas, notes and text,*NOT* the people behind them -- they are a most valued
  resource (and friend)!  My apologies to those who might have thought otherwise.]

re: .161, Would it be better to say the courses are job-function related?  This is
  a small issue for me, I need to understand the context of TASK.  During my pilot
  last week, Emmalee would ask "what is this person's TASK" when trying to decide
  what should/should-not be in material.  Lead to interesting discussions.

$

re : .163 and....
>re: .156, .157,  After rereading Rob's notes and my replies it might seem that we 
>  are enemies eyeing each other over a bunker.  Not the case.  We have exchanged 
>  useful mail and I'll hopefully post a note of what Rob's group did in the 
>  Netherlands to make this a successful series for them.  It's easier for him to be 
>  positive when they seem to have implemented SysNet very well!  [Note: I critique
>  only ideas, notes and text,*NOT* the people behind them -- they are a most valued
>  resource (and friend)!  My apologies to those who might have thought otherwise.]

I certainly hope that no one is taking any comments personally in this con-
ference.  We desperately need the free exchange of ideas to help narrow down
exactly what we are trying to accomplish and how best to go about it!!  Often,
someone simply has to be willing to take the risk and make a stand and suffer
the slings and arrows.  Some of the most meaningful discussions I've had with 
friends started out with one of us saying something absolutely outrageous and 
off the wall, with the sole purpose of opening the dialog.  Whether we're 
throwing darts at the new curriculum or trying to defend it is irrelevant.  
We're all trying to make the product we deliver better.  I just wish that
someone from Santa Clara could attend the IPF.

				Susan

re: .158
>|This was discussed at great length at every stage of the process.  The
>|information that we're getting from the training centres worldwide indicates
>|that it is an absolute requirement of our customers that we take this approach,
>|thus the task-oriented approach is axiomatic to whatever we do now or in the
>|future.
>|
>|Let's stop discussing this and get on with making it work! 
>
>  Sorry, but I disagree.  Maybe my students are brighter than most, maybe
>  not, but they CONTINUALLY ask the "WHY", "PLEASE EXPLAIN", "HOW DID WE
>  ARRIVE AT THIS CONCLUSION" type questions -- Not happy with the TASK idea
>  of "Just get it done, don't worry about the details, don't worry if it
>  changes, just learn how to do the task at hand."  They want details!
>  Concepts!  ...Give them a fish, they eat for a day.  Teach them to
>  fish...

So many notes, so little time.  This "TASK" thing really does have to be 
cleared up.  Can we get a really solid definition of what we're talking about
here?  I prefer the "FUNCTION" approach; define "what" we need to accomplish;
discuss the "why" (concepts/theory) and spend a little time on the "how."
Something similar to Buck's analogy: I had a Shakespeare professor who pre-
ferred to teach a few plays thoroughly during the semester instead of taking 
the play-a-week speed demon approach.  His motivation was that he felt it was 
his responsibility to teach us "how" to read the plays so we could go on and
enjoy Shakespeare on our own long after the class was over (it worked).

I am teaching VAXcluster Sys Mgr this week and to a person, they all said they
were here to learn everything they could about VAXcluster CONCEPTS this 
morning during the introductions.  They have already built/managed 
VAXclusters; they haven't broken anything yet but they don't know why.  They 
know how to look up commands and qualifiers; they don't need a TASK approach;
they need to be taught how to THINK like a VAXcluster so they can trouble-
shoot.

				Susan

    No, I didn't feel attacked. Don't worry.
    
    What we see as task-oriented is the following:
    
    1 - Teach only the things they have to know, glued together
        with things they don't need immediately, just to make
        the course coherent.
    
    2 - Teach them where to look if they want to know more, or if
        they have forgotten something
    
    3 - Give them value not volume. They should be able to make things
        work, not describe how it should work
    
    4 - Make them do as much as possible during the course. There is
        nothing that can replace hands-on experience
    
    5 - Teach subjects they are ready for. Teach them too soon and
        they will fail to see the value. Teach them too late and they
        will have found out some other way
    
    Clearly specialisation courses such as VAXcluster management need a
    different approach. It can be expected that students can perform a
    number of tasks already. Now they want to know what is behind it all
    and they want to know more than just the vanilla approach.
    
    Hope this helps,
    
    
    
    			Rob

Re: "The Name Thing"

There are some very compelling reasons that we need to maintain the name
SysNet I. The biggest reason is marketing...people really do
see the three courses as a string and are buying them that way. I'd like
to see how many training passes we're selling just because of SysNet.

I'm really surprised at how loudly some folks here are shouting 'change
the name', when those same folks are shouting about not putting a 
Band-Aid (tm) brand adhesive strip on courses...changing the name, but
not the content, is the biggest bandage I can imagine! What we *must*
do is keep the name, and fix the course.

Perry

    reply to .167
    
    	I do not think anyone said change the name and stop there.
    We all know that is not a fix.  What I have said is we have to
    start somewhere and the name is the place to start.  The name is
    a real problem with the students/instructor interface that goes
    on in real life in the classroom.  The problem is sysnet I is by
    name says there is system and network info in this course about
    50/50.  At least that is what some students think.  That misconception
    is the problem.  We fix that in one of two ways.  Change the name
    to reflect the actuality or fix the course to reflect the name.
    
    	Changing the name will fix the above.  then change the course
    to be correct for what we should teach.
    
    	Changing the course to fix the sysnet name is not the way because
    in sysnet I we should not have the advanced info of network and
    cluster, ect.  If we do this all we do is make things worse.  You
    have to teach basics first and then add to them after the basics
    are understood.  You want to force advanced material into a course
    where it is too early, the student has not had the basics or teach
    it in parrall with the basics.  This is only needed for one reason:
    
    	To save the name SYSNET.
    
    It is wrong to start with.  it is wrong today and it will be wrong
    now and forever.  If you make the course match the name, you, no
    matter how much marketing you do or money you spend, have BLOWN
    IT BIG TIME.   
    
    	Listen to the people here that see customers every day.  Their
    inputs are real and valid.  In general, the people who take these
    courses are the ones who know what they need to know.  Many times
    the person sending them has no concept.  That is the person who
    Sales or marketing hits when they do a survey.  You can word a
    survey to come up with the answer you want.  If I want to do a 
    survey and have the answer to be "TASK" I can make that happen.
    If I want to make the answer something else I can make that happen
    too.  Go back and read Buck Trayser's opinion of task.  He is
    right on.  "Give them a fish and they eat today, Teach them to fish
    and they can survive for a long time."  I would prefer to teach
    some tasks but in general how a "Utility" works.  If I can teach
    the Utility I am teaching many Tasks or the ability to think for
    themselves and use the utility to do tasks we have never covered.
    
    	Take sysman as an example.  The first time sysman is used is
    to show that we can use sysman to do a dcl command on the cluster.
    That is all it says.  Later we use sysman to do something else like
    diskquota then later parameters.  This is just one example and we
    get a lot of questions like "I thought sysman was for "X"?" or "what
    else can it to", ect.  Then later in sysnet II we talk about changing
    parameters and the person who wrote that part of the course decided
    to use sysgen to change the parameters.  "I thought SYSMAN was used
    to change parameters."  INS: "it is but sysman can also be used
    to do that.  Sysgen Just works with parameters."  Stu: "Then why
    have both?  Why did they do this?  Can't we just have one? This
    is so confusing. Who decided this is the way it was to be? Is it
    that on all versions of VMS?"  We are geting these kinds of questions
    all over this string.  Don't hinder us by making it worse.  If 
    you have people who so it has to be so.  Pull them into the discussion
    and prove it is better another way.
    
    	Whoever wrote sysnet I could come here to dc and teach sysnetI
    3 weeks in a row and they would see what we see.                 
    
    Chuck
    
    

    Could someone who knows help me with an ownership question (andy, Val,
    somebody??)
    
    	Sysnet I was "owned" (developed) by a User Curriculum team, 
    	whle Sysnet II, III, etc., were "owned" by the operations
    	folks.  Is the entire string now "owned" by the same team
    	of development staff, product or funding folk?
    
    If I have the details wrong, I am sure someone will clarify.  But the
    'disconnect' issues have some roots in this division.  When the Pilot
    for Sysnet II (2nd piot, the one I attended and did the QA for in LA in
    November) ran, the strong feedback from customers who had taken Sysnet
    I the previous week was that there was a 'level" disconnect and pace
    differential between the two courses.  
    
    Of course the customers attending the pilot thought the Sysnet I course
    was really a Pilot, while it had already been frozen at that point and
    was only "marketed" as a pilot to provide the Sysnet II with a chance
    to be the "right audience".  Thus the QA feedback onthe beginning of
    the string had no impact, and may have never been considered even
    though the issues were apparent 2-3 months before the first rollout
    (offerings for paying customers).
    
    I hope that the proposals and discussions at the IPF will be addressing
    the curriculum as a WHOLE, and that the resulting understandings (or
    agreements on direction) will be communicated in a timely manner to
    those of us not in attendance.
    
    	Irene

    
    
    Well, I'm in the middle of my first test of II (which is designed much
    more poorly than I, I think).  Let me tell you a story!!!!
    
    During the typical Monday morning in introductions, I paid very
    careful attention as my 16 students indicated to me whether or not they
    met the pre-requisites of the course.  8 of the students were taking
    Sysnet II WITHOUT taking Sysnet I, but had taken other courses (ranging
    from U&C, U&CII, the old System Manager, to Pathworks).  The other 8
    had taken Sysnet I (but, oddly enough, and thankfully, NOT the previous
    week.)
    
    As their first exercise of the week (and as a not so subtle test of
    their REAL pre-requisite knowledge) I gave out the username/passwork of
    a single privileged account.  They were directed to login to that one
    account and CREATE THEMSELVES an individual account.  (I assigned UIC's
    so as not to have duplicates.)  WITHOUT EXCEPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the 8
    people who had taken Sysnet I WERE UNABLE, WITHOUT CONSIDERABLE HELP
    FROM ME, TO CREATE THEIR OWN ACCOUNTS.  The other 8 people had some
    minor difficulties, but NOTHING of the magnitude of the Sysnet I'ers.
    I was appalled.  Now, certainly not all the blame for this can go back
    to the curriculum, because some of these 8 people has maybe never
    practiced this skill.  But, I don't think we are doing a good job of
    teaching what "is needed".  The courses are just plain too light on
    substance and TEACHING THE THOUGHT PROCESSES BEHIND SYSTEM MANAGEMENT.
    
    System management isn't about having a vocabulary of commands at your
    disposal -- any person with half a brain can look up the commands. 
    System management (and the teaching of it) involves helping people
    understand the motivations behind why something might need to be done.
    
    We are sadly letting our customer's down.  According to my UM,
    enrollments in the VMS courses have dropped about 20% since the
    introduction of the new curriculum.  I'm tired of hearing "the
    customers must be happy, we're not hearing any complaints".  Wake up
    people!!!!!!  The reason we're not hearing any complaints is because
    they're taking their business elsewhere.
    
    Greg -- totally disgusted in Chicago!
    
           GJD

    >	Sysnet I was "owned" (developed) by a User Curriculum team, 
    >	whle Sysnet II, III, etc., were "owned" by the operations
    >	folks.  Is the entire string now "owned" by the same team
    >	of development staff, product or funding folk?
    
    The "product or funding folk" for the new VMS curriculum (User and
    Sys/Net) has been the team of Andy Sadler and Bill Simcox all along.
    
    On the development side, ownership of VMS course development for CTBD
    currently rests with unit manager Howard Fletcher.
    
    There were several changes of management and project leadership
    during the course of the new curriculum projects. In the final
    development, Sys/Net I was indeed project-led as part of the User
    curriculum due to the amount of overlap with the other User courses,
    but the whole history is more complicated than that and largely
    irrelevant to this discussion. 
    
    So yes, we'll look at the Sys/Net curriculum as a whole.  Howard can't
    decide who should work on the project and how to manage it until we
    know what work needs to be done.
    
    					Val
                                                      

    Val, 
    
    Thank you for clarifying this.  While it may seem quite unimportant at
    this time, when the problems between the courses were brought to the
    attention of the developer who attended the 2nd Sysnet II Pilot, part
    of the response was "we didn't own that part and can't fix it".  
    
    I will hope that this time we do indeed look at the whole string in
    terms of continuity, completeness and accuracy.  
    
    irene 

    Well for what it's worth, the way I see it...there are two ways of 
    looking at this whole thing.

o	Learning solutions as required by those who PAY for it.

o	Learning experience as seen by those who attend it.

    In the first case, the World-wide market research survey that was  done
    a couple of years back quite clearly showed that the PAYING  Customer
    required training for their System Managers to provide  them with the
    skills necessary to be able to do their JOB on re-  turn from the
    training experience. This had to be accomplished in  the shortest and
    most effective time possible because, just like  us, they are feeling
    the recession as well and they simply can't  afford to and won't send
    their staff on to monolithic training  experiences just to appease
    their curiousity.

    However, this approach obviously clashes with the expectations of  the
    students who attend the courses and typically don't have to  put their
    hands in their pockets to pay for the training. They  want it all, the
    works, the lot, and it doesn't matter too much to  them how long it
    takes to complete.

    So who should we aim the training at ? It could be argued that if  we
    don't please the students then their feedback to their Manage-  ment
    will be unfavourable to Digital and we will continue to see a  decline
    in enrolments. On the other hand, if we don't please those  who
    actually cough up the readies then still we will see a decline  in
    enrolments ! Either way we lose.

    So what is the answer ? Well there has to be a compromise between  the
    two, and we (Digital) MUST be adaptive enough to please those  who
    actually decide what training their staff (or themselves) will  attend.
    This adaptability has to come from two areas....our  training
    development, in terms of making the material easy to handle and
    configure where necessary by those who deliver it, and...our training
    delivery  staff, in terms of assessing how the material will best fit
    in a  particular delivery window so that it bests suit the particular 
    objective.

    The target is still to teach ONLY what is necessary to meet the ob- 
    jective, as it is this success that those who decide (and pay) are 
    most impressed by.

    
    Bob
    

    I found out yesterday from my UM that I can attend the IPF.  I don't
    have any of the details about hotel, airport, directions, what office
    but expect to get these cleared up today.
    
    I have an offer.  Those of you who want to attend but can't....if you
    will send me your issues, I will take them with me.  I have printed out
    all of the notes under 49.* and will highlight the issues so that I
    will be conscious of the concerns of others.  I can be reached via
    DLO10::SAYERS   (that is DL-oh-ten)
    DPDMAI::SAYERSD (Note the D needs to be on this address)
    or via ALL-IN-1    Dolores Sayers @SCA
    
    I also plan to take my instructor guides for SYSNET I and SYSNET II
    that have been marked up with corrections from the notes file, student
    comments, and, of course, my comments.  I have only started looking at
    SYSNET III but plan to review it over the weekend to get a better feel
    for the content.
    
    I would love to talk with everyone personally but I am teaching
    SYSNET II this week.  (Perfect timing, huh?)  If you want to reach me
    at night, my number is 214-618-5592.
    
    Last, but not least....do any of you who are attending the IPF want
    to get together when you arrive on Monday, June 29?  I am willing
    (that is, as long as I get GOOD directions!!!)
    
    Look forward to meeting everyone,
    
    Dee (from Dallas)
    

    
    
    Some other random comments -- not all of which are DIRECTLY related to
    the Sysnet courses, but are related, somehow.
    
    We've had some discussions, lately, in the Chicago training center
    about how our customers have changed in the last several years.  The
    conclusion (not scientifically based, admittedly) is that for the most
    part our customers are NOT as technically sophisticated as they used to
    be.  More and more people who are training to become VMS system
    managers have non-technical backgrounds (lots of accountants, etc.) and
    little if any experience using other vendors' systems.  It's these
    people that I especially worry about in this new curriculum.  Those
    people that are taking VMS system management courses (or programming
    courses, for that matter) typically already have the concepts well in
    hand as to what it takes to be a system manager and have no problem
    whatever putting together the new VMS specific vocabulary of the
    commands used to actually perform system management skills.  The person
    who is new to VMS and is perhaps even new to computing might be able to
    walk away from our courses the commands, but I'm very afraid that they
    are walking away with no idea whatsoever as to how to determine, based
    on a particular situation, exactly what actions they need to take. 
    Exactly where, I guess I would ask Andy and others, are these people
    going to pick up this "conceptual skills" if not from us (or if not
    from seat-of-the-pants skills learned after making zillions of
    mistakes -- which is how I learned them ==> which is not exactly a
    productive use of time).
    
    Greg -- anxiously awaiting Friday and the full bottle of Jack Daniels
    sitting on my kitchen counter

    The instructors that will be attending the IPF June 30-July 1 are:
    
    West:    Arthur Lessard (LA)
    Central: Doug Myers (Chicago)
             John Cole (Denver)
             Dee Sayers (Dallas)
    South:   Buck Trayser (Atlanta)
             Mark Rine (Landover)
    East:    (not definite but all or some of the following)
             Ed Pont (PKO)
             Frank Sivacek (PKO)
             Debbie Kenney (PKO)
             Pat O'Malley (PKO)
             Dave Dellarocco (PKO)

    

    Just wanted to let everyone know that I will arrive at Boston Logan
    Airport at 2:25 p.m. on Monday, June 29.
    
    I called Flight line (800-245-2525) to take me from Boston Logan to the
    Shearton Tara in Nashua.  The cost is $24.00.  
    
    I made my departure flight on July 1 at 6:45 p.m. which puts me into
    Dallas at 9:29 p.m.  Flight line will also return you to the airport.
    
    Again, if anyone wants to meet on June 29, let me know.
    
    Look forward to meeting all of you.
    
    Dee

    I everyone.  After receiving a mail message from Sherry with the
    proposed agenda, I got permission to stay July 1 and check out on the
    2nd so that I would not miss anything.  
    
    See you soon,
    
    Dee

I'll be getting there a day early to meet with Emmalee 
and help her with the finalization of the Performance
course.  


However, maybe those of us attending can meet on Monday
evening at the Sheraton (in the Lounge or Lobby) after
most of the people get there -- nice to see the faces and
meet the voices behind the 'Notes' before the meeting.


$

As many of you know this is my last day with Ed. Svc.  I just wanted to say
goodbye to all of you in this conference and wish you well in your endeavors
to make the curriculum a success.  I've enjoyed getting to know you all (even 
though it has only been electronically for the most part) and arguing with some
of you.  I'll miss the dialog (or heated discussions, if you prefer).

Good luck to all of you.

				Susan

P.S.  I'll still be working for DEC so keep in touch through mail!

MELKOR::SWIERKOWSKIS
or
USWRSL::SWIERKOWS_SU

    Well, it's over, it's Friday afternoon, I'm exhausted, and I'm more 
    discouraged than I have ever been before in this job.

    Never, in my 6+ years of working for DEC, have I had to work so hard to
    pass a class -- my first teach of Sysnet II.  (100% QA's, no thanks to
    the materials.)  

    The problems with the materials in the II course lie not with the
    developer, but with the very design of the course.  I had planned to
    type in the written comments on my QA's  (I begged them to write
    comments, and got quite a few) but I frankly don't feel like spending
    the time.  So, I'll summarize:  THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MATERIALS ON
    CLUSTERS.  THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MATERIALS ON NETWORKS.  THERE'S NOT ENOUGH
    MATERIAL ON SECURITY.  THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MATERIAL ON MONITORING THE
    SYSTEM.  (Get the idea!!!!!????).  And the response, "there'll be more
    in future courses just doesn't cut it.  I bet I referred people's
    questions to the future courses (and then the discussion off line) 25
    times this past week.

    Let's face it, this mechanism of splitting the material into three or four
    courses, while possibly pedagogically sound in a purely academic
    environment, simply doesn't cut the mustard in the type of teaching
    environment we have here.  Our students aren't given assimilation time.
    We just get through introducing one topic and we immediately introduce
    another topic.  At least when the courses were more homogeneous in nature,
    the topics were related -- they were all "system manager" or "network" or
    "cluster" topics.  I really feel sorry for the customers I had this week
    who's first real introduction to the management of clusters and networks
    was Sysnet II.  Several of them said to me (and their comments are somewhat
    reflected in their written comments on the QA's) that were it not for the
    material that I added that was NOT in the course, they would have
    effectively gone home with little if any additional network and cluster
    skills.  

    The simple fact of the matter is, in my not so humble opinion, is that
    this curriculum is flawed and should be scrapped.  A simple patch of
    the courses and a modification of the order of the topics and a
    renaming of the courses isn't enough to fix the problems.  We must go
    back to the homogenous courses.  Then we, the instructors, can focus on
    ONE TOPIC and teach it in its entirety.  We must provide our customers
    continuity in the courses.  We must provide depth.  We must provide
    consistent quality.  (I'm amazed as to the differences in quality
    between I and II (I is MUCH better than II), even as to the
    differences in quality between the first 9 modules of I and the rest of
    I.  They had to be written by completely different people.  The quality
    in the first 9 modules is better; even the layout of the material on
    the pages is more cohesive.)  If we don't, I'm afraid that we're all
    going to have to (to use a euphemism of a fellow instructor) get our
    poop in a scoop and put some resumes together.

    Respectfully,

        Greg

         After reading Greg's note (.181) which had frustration written all
    over it I feel that it's my turn to pour some gasoline on a raging
    fire. Below I have included my response to a survey that was circulated
    to the instructor community a couple of weeks ago. Is anyone listening
    to the instructor's that regularly contribute to this note file?
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
                             S U R V E Y
    
     Before I respond to this survey I think that it is appropriate that I
introduce myself. I'm Virgil Neiman, presently the only instructor at the
Minneapolis Training Center. I've been teaching VMS Utilities & Commands I and
II, VMS System Management I and II, VMS Performance, VMS Security, VMS Operator
and VMS DECnet for 4� years. More recently I have taught SYSNET I and II, VMS
for Programmers, and VMS skills for Users. I do not teach the SYSNET III class.
Prior to that I was employed by the Control Data Corporation for 22 years all of
which was in an educational capacity. For the last 27 years I have either been
teaching or doing course development on hardware, software, microcomputers,
supercomputers, peripherals, and operating systems. I'm giving you this
background information so that you can put my responses in the proper context.
According to my students I'm a damn good instructor. 

Let's proceed with the survey-

        1.  How do you feel about the task-oriented approach in the new 
            SYSNET string?  Does it or could it work?
         
Please don't label me as a pessimist but I didn't like the curriculum from the 
very beginning. The topics are too disjointed. Whereas we used to present an 
entire topic in one session, now we dole out bits and pieces. We're trying to
rush the students thru and make them productive much too soon. There is no way
that you can give the average entry level student 2� days of Utilities and
Commands info, 2 days of System Management info and expect them to assume some
system management responsibilities. They haven't even seen a lexical function
yet! 

         2.  How do you feel about the current SYSNET string?
         
         	 ___  Like it the way it is
         
         	 ___  Concept is good, but topics within the courses need 
         	      adjusting
    
I need a third choice here; " --- Don't like it at all". Once again, the SYSNET 
string is trying to rush things along much too quickly and skipping over much
too much vital info.      
     
         3.  Do you prefer the old or new approach?

The "Old Approach" was much better. Now don't start yelling that I am against
change because that's just not so. When reading the promo for introducing "The 
New VMS Mastery Series" you would think that the answer to everyone's training 
requirements for system management had come on the scene. Reading the "Master 
these skills" and "Further details" portion made it look like all bases had been
covered. As an instructor teaching the courses, you realize that just too much
info has been left out in the case of SYSNET I and II and too much crammed into 
SYSNET III! 
         
         4.  In the current SYSNET courses, are the following topics 
             adequately covered?
        
         					 Yes      No         
         		Standalone systems       ___      XXX            
         
         		VAXClusters              ___      XXX 
         
         		Networks                 ___      XXX
         
         
         5.  The following questions assume the concept of the SYSNET 
             courses remain, but some adjustment of material between 
             courses happen.
         
I feel that it is a bad assumption to concede that the SYSNET curriculum can
survive in a state even closely resembling what we now have. I will respond with
my opinion that SYSNET I should cover what Utilities and Commands I used to
include, SYSNET II should cover what System Management I used to include, SYSNET
III should cover what System Management II used to include, and VAXcluster and
Networks should each be a separate course. 

         	a.  With the topics listed below, in what course or courses
     	            do you think they should be covered?
         		
         				     SN I      SN II     SN III
         
         	    VAXClusters              Separate Course
         
                    Networks                 Separate Course 
     
                    Backup                   ____      XXX        ____ 
         
                    Queues                   ____      XXX        ____     
         
                    Security                 ____      XXX        ____
     
                    Process Concept          ____      ____       XXX    
         
         	    Virtual Memory           ____      ____       XXX  
         
                    Paging/Swapping          ____      ____       XXX    
         
         	    Devices                  ____      XXX        ____     
         
         	    VMS Installation         ____      ____       XXX        
     
                    Product Installation     ____      XXX        ____  
         
         	    System Monitoring        ____      XXX        ____     
         
         	    Others:
         
         
         
             b.  For the topics that span courses, what subjects should be 
         	 covered in each course? 
         
Do not span topics from course to course. Introduce, present in detail, and 
conclude a topic in one course.         
         
         
             c.  Should the VAXCluster topics be taught with other material 
                 in the same subject (i.e. VAXCluster queues with queues) 
                 or should all the VAXCluster material within a course be 
                 in its own chapter?
         
Everything concerning VAXclusters should presented in a single course.
         
         
         6.  Some instructors have suggested there is a gap of knowledge 
             between the SYSNET courses.  If we were to keep the concept of 
             'task oriented' for the SYSNET curriculum, how would you 
             design the curriculum?
         
See 5.a above. In a nutshell, "RETURN TO THE OLD CURRICULUM!"
         
         
         7.  How much time do you spend teaching the user material in
             SYSNET I?
     
Thru module 9 which takes 2� days.         
         
         8.  Which courses have you taught and which have you prepped 
             enough that you know the content of the course?
         
         	                   PREPPED          TAUGHT
         
         	  SYSNET I          ___              XXX
         
         	  SYSNET II         ___              XXX    
         
         	  SYSNET III        XXX              ___ 
         
     
         9.  What other suggestions do you have regarding the SYSNET 
             curriculum?          

Will someone in authority please step forward and admit that the SYSNET 
curriculum is just not doing the job that it was intended. After many years of
instructor feedback, rewrites, and improvements we finally had some pretty good
courses in the Utilities and Commands, System Management, VAXcluster  and DECnet
areas. In my opinion (and MANY other instructors opinions) this was all
discarded with the advent of the SYSNET courses. What a waste of good materials.


Virgil Neiman 
Senior Educational Specialist
@MPO
    

Too bad Susan. Who will I spar with? Well, maybe about Alpha!
Good luck.

				Paul

            <<< SUPER::WORK4:[NOTES$LIBRARY]VMS_CURRICULUM.NOTE;1 >>>
                              -< VMS Curriculum >-
================================================================================
Note 49.150           VMS CURRICULUM PLAN -- GEN DISCUSSION           150 of 183
SONATA::SADLER "Change for a Flainian Pobble Bead?" 220 lines  19-JUN-1992 11:52
                         -< My thoughts on .143-.146 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Re: .144

>Now I'm even more sure we're not being heard.  I know it's been said more than
>once that just cutting and pasting won't fix our problems.  A two-day user
>course would be a joke.  

|Help me to understand why:
    
|- Materials that can be taught sucessfully to "Application Users" in 3 days
|  in VMS Skills for Users (and some people say it should be 2 days) can't be
|  taught to novice system managers, who presumably have some background with
|  computing, in 2 days?

|- We can't cover the user skills for system managers in 2 days when our
|  competitors can?

|Note that I'm not asking why we can't cover all of U&C I in 2 days! All of the
|relevant U&C tasks for system managers are supposed to be included somewhere in
|the sysnet string (eg the detailed com proc stuff in sysnet II). If this is not
|the case then give us some *SPECIFIC* information as to what's missing - i.e.
|tell us what TASKS that the system manager needs to perform are not included,
|and what information they need to be able to perform those tasks.

 In sysnet I I go to almost 4 PM monday and tuesday and get to page
    9-22.  This past week I never got to chapter 9 at all.  This was
    due to the level of the class being so low.  This material is already
    watered down.  An earlier note said "I'd like to see how many training
    vouchers we sell based on the name SYSNET."  I would NOT like to
    see the number of training vouchers we are not going to sell this
    time next year because of the name SYSNET.    

>The only difference between this proposal and what
>we currently have is that SN 1 will be divided into two courses.  
                                                                  
|There's somewhat more to it than that ... we're proposing to rework the whole
|string - maybe that will become more evident as the proposed specs get posted.
             
>This fits  into our course-week calendar, but doesn't fit the customer. Ed Svc
>has got  to stop thinking in 2,3,5 day formats (which is convenient for our
>scheduling)0 

|I'd be the first to agree with you but it's very difficult to get the training
|centre managers to buy into this, not surprisingly given their metrics.

This is where you are totally wrong.  The delievery managers metrics
    have changed.  The new metrics are now based on less courses and
    more students per course.  With this string we are going to have
    more courses and few students.  The new metrics are not that new
    and I got the info directly from my delievery manager/Cost center
    manager.
    
    

|In my opinion, we've done everything humanly possible to involve the field in
|this process - some examples...

|We ran an IPF back at the start of the project where the fundamental design was
|put in place (Nov '89 in Bedford) and another one where we agreed the specifics
|of the tasks to be included in each of the Sysnet courses (Sep '90? in
|Chelmsford) - EVERY training centre was asked to send a representative (most
|of the US centres did - I could dig out the attendance lists if necesary)


|Every training centre in the U.S. had a designated person who was supposed
|to be actively reviewing the materials as they were posted. This was bought into
|by *your* management!!!!! Didn't the designated people do waht they were tasked
|to do?
 
    WE in DC have been putting our opinions in this notes conference
    long before the courses hit the streets.  The things that got fixed
    from that were typos, wrong data and some rearanging of material.
    There was an overlaying trend in our notes that this was not going
    to work and as soon as we started teaching them it was obvious and
    we said so.  Read the notes before getting hot again-ITS IN THERE.
    


|This was discussed at great length at every stage of the process.  The
|information that we're getting from the training centres worldwide indicates
|that it is an absolute requirement of our customers that we take this approach,
|and thus the task-oriented approach is axiomatic to whatever we do now or in the
|future.
                                                            
    We were told when all this started that the changes were being made
    to make the courses more moduler.  So that if a change had to be
    made in one course the exact same change in all courses using that
    same module could be made with little expense.  We were not told
    that this whole thing was to be done to set up *TASK* like courses.
|Let's stop discussing this and get on with making it work! 

 Why stop discussing the problem and continue with the mess? *TASK*
    is part of the problem.
                          
    
    Chuck

  I'm sure Sherry or Andy or Wendy (or someone else) will post the
  'official' IPF note somewhere, but here are just a few comments on the
  past 2-days worth of meetings.

  I, for one, am NOT a morning person.  8AM meetings are *NOT* the way to
  get on my best side.  HOWEVER, we definitely needed all the time we
  took...plus more.  There was so much more we could have said and done.
  Next time it needs to be at LEAST a 3 day gathering.

  I was amazed.  Most of the developers were humans! :-)  Even Andy smiled
  on occasions (between his other meetings).  The instructors had a really
  good rapport, and weren't bashful about saying what would and wouldn't
  work.  To say that we all agreed, and were not opinionated would be an
  out-right lie...but we were civil and polite (mostly) even if the
  discussions did get heated at time.  A most interesting gathering of
  people willing to work together to achieve a common goal -- fix the VMS
  System Management curriculum.

  It was acknowledged at the beginning of the meeting that the current
  courses were broken.  Not that the idea behind the current curriculum was
  bad, nor that it wouldn't work, nor that it was any on particular
  person's (or group's) fault--and we all agreed.  It was also understood
  that some of us are willing and ready to go back to the old string if the
  new courses couldn't be fixed.  However, If it was a matter of merely
  dropping the new curriculum and going back to the old courses, we
  wouldn't have had to even attend the meeting, so that wasn't a goal of
  this meeting.

  The attitude of the attendees towards working *together* was excellent.
  There were very few comments like "we will NOT do this" or "let's just
  give up and go back to the old courses" -- this wasn't what we wanted
  from the meeting.  We wanted a proposal, a plan, to fix the curriculum,
  compare it to what we have now, compare it to what we had previous and
  see if it will work.  Is dropping back to the old curriculum still an
  option?  It could be, but I hope not.  After all the work we did this
  week I'd say we have a good chance of the "new and improved"" SysNet
  string being very workable and teachable.

  We spent 2 long days examining the curriculum, its contents, the original
  customer and DEC-internal surveys, the length of the course string, the
  impact of change on U.S., Europe and GIA Ed. Services, cross-over
  training, course design, options for TBIs/CBIs/CAIs/etc., concepts vs.
  taks, knowledge vs. process, merging classes, merging courses...Whew! 
  
  Not only did the attending instructors provide their input, but there was
  also indirect input from the other 'non-attending' instructors -- several
  of us had direct input from co-workers, the survey results from Sherry's 
  mailing, mail messages from other instructors, extracted-and-highlighted
  copies of this notes conference, etc.  Overall I was very pleased with
  the information/input at the meeting.  I honestly believe that we (I'm
  wearing my instructor hat at this moment) have been heard -- very clearly.

  Over the next week or so the various 'note takers' will hopefully flesh
  out the outlines and post the results.  It was a 'first attempt' that
  will need everyone's critiques over the next few weeks.  Keep your eyes
  on this space for the 'plan' and get your input back in here as quickly
  as you can!  

  Later (It's been a long 2 days!)
   
  $

Well after 2 long days of the IPF meetings .. everyone was still talking to
each other!  I think everyones' voices were heard at the meetings as Buck
said, and hopefully everyone will see merit in what has come out of it.
The new proposal and the outlines of the courses should be hitting the 
notesfile at the end of this week or first of next week.

The attendees of the meeting were: (if I left anyone out.. I'm sorry!)

Instructors:
Dave Dellarocco (PKO)
Ed Pont (PKO)
Bob Snowdale (PKO)
Buck Trayser (Atlanta)
Mark Rine (DC)
Doug Myers (Chicago)
Dee Sayers (Dallas)
John Cole (Denver)
Art Lessard (LA)

Developers:
Howard Fletcher (Mgr)
Dave Killelea (Mgr)
Wendy Thomas
Perry Donham
Phil Melkor
Bonnie Morgan
Val Matthews
Mel Regnel
Kristin Rounds
Emmalee Tarry
Paul Mosteika

Also:
Andy Sadler
Bill Simcox
Rick Wardrop (US Business Mgr Lecture/Lab)
Valerie Greenwald (Registration)
Sherry Butler

The items on the agenda were:

Review Curriculum Restructuring - Andy discussed why the restructuring was
		done and where the input came from.

Summary of the US Instructor Survey - Sherry got 25 responses out of about
		100 to the survey.  The results follow the agenda items.

Worldwide Feedback on Courses - A discussion from everyone around issues.
		A major discussion was around 'what is TASK-ORIENTED'

SYSNET Proposal - The outcome of this will be in notes later this week or
		early next week.

Recommendations for Proposed Content/Course - This took about the entire 
		second day.  It was broke up into 3 areas  1)Systems (queues,
		backup, installation, etc)  2) Networks  3)Clusters.  
		Instructors led each of these discussions (Thanks to Dee
		for Systems, Art for Networks, and Buck for Clusters!)
		We came up with which tasks should be covered in each of the
		courses.  The proposed outline will be posted later this week 
		or early next week.

Registration Concerns - Valerie brought up several registration concerns we
		will have with the new proposal.  These were noted and will 
		be brought up later in notes when we get a consensus around
		the revised courses.  She also noted that registration would
		like to be able to contact instructors when a customer wants/
		needs to talk directly to someone who is teaching the course.
		I (Sherry) will be talking to the UM's to get their support.  
		If instructors would like to do this, please let me know
		so I can forward your name and number to Valerie.

End of Agenda...

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

As mentioned earlier, there were 25 responses to the US instructor survey.
5 from East (2-NY, 3-PKO)
6 from South (2-DC, 2-Atlanta, 2-Orlando)
10 from Central (4-Denver/Colo Spgs/Alb, 2-Dallas, 2-Chicago, 1-Detroit, 1-Minn)
4 from West (2-LA, 2-Santa Clara)

A summary of some of the questions are:

1. How do you feel about task-oriented approach in the new SYSNET string?
   Does it or could it work?

		15- Yes        7- No

2. How do you feel about the current SYSNET string?

		 1- Like it the way it is
		17- Concept is good-but adjust topics
		 8- Don't like it 

3. Do you prefer the old or new approach?

		13-Old         
		 7-New
		 5-Both
   (This one was discussed more at the IPF with several instructors pointing
    out that they liked the old approach because it was more comfortable
    and they didn't prefer the new approach because of the current materials.
    Several did note the answers to 1 & 2 contradicted 3 and the answers to
    1 & 2 were the more important ones).

4. In the current SYSNET courses, are the following topics adequately covered?
		
				 Yes       ?         No
	Standalone systems        9        1         11
	VAXClusters               4        2         17
	Networks                  2        1         20

5c. Should VAXcluster topics be taught in its own chapter/course or with
    related material?
		
		 7-Own Chapter
		11-Integrated with related material
		 8-Own course

7. Time spent teaching user material
		
		3 - 2 days
		3 - 2-2.5 days
		9 - 2.5-3 days
		3 - 3.5 days

The next section is Topic by Suggested Position in Curriculum.  Several
people noted when they said 'SYSNET I' they assumed there would not be
any user material in the course.  Where there is a list of courses, the
topic (appropriate tasks) should be taught in each of the courses listed.

                                                             SN1  
                                        SN1    SN2    SN1    SN2
Topic              SN1    SN2    SN3    SN2    SN3    SN3    SN3

Clusters            1             5             8             3

Networks                   2      3      1      8             5

Backup             10      7             3      1             1

Queues              8      6             5      1

Security            1      6      1      2      6             2

Process Concepts   10      1      1      5                    3

Virtual Memory      6      5      3      2      2      1      2

Paging/Swapping     5      5      3      1      3      1      3

Devices             7      3             4      1             4

VMS Installation    4      9      4             1             1

Product Install     6      8      2      1      1

SYSMAN              8      2      3      4      1             1


As you can see the answers were varied!  Please keep this in mind when you 
see the proposal.  Not everyone will be able to have the course(s) just like 
they want them.  Hopefully, what we have come up with is the best next step in 
the evolution of the SYSNET string.

If anyone who was at the IPF has any additions/corrections to the 'minutes',
please post them!	

Stay tuned for more information...............

    
    re: .186
    
    When will the new proposal and the outlines of the courses be
    posted ? 
    
    

>    re: .186
>    
>    When will the new proposal and the outlines of the courses be
>    posted ? 
 

In about five minutes.

Perry   
    

    New notes have been created for the 'revised' proposal for the SYSNET
    courses.  They are:
    
    152: General Discussion
    153: SYSNET I
    154: SYSNET II
    155: SYSNET III