none
Design guides and MOF RRS feed

  • Question

  • How does the "Active Directory Domain Services" IPD differ from the "AD DS Design Guide" offered in Technet under Windows Server -> Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 -> Browse Windows Server Technologies -> Active Directory Services -> Active Directory Domain Services -> Active Directory Domain Services for Windows Server 2008-> Planning and Architecture -> AD DS Design Guide?

    Also what I'm wondering here is when going through either one of these guides what MOF SMF are you in?

     

    Leonard

    Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:36 PM

Answers

  • The AD DS Design Guide was developed by the Active Directory Services product group and is part of their suite of documentation focusing on AD. The IPD guide was written by the Solution Accelerators team and is part of a library of guides that each focus on designing the infrastructure for a Microsoft product.

     

    The goal of the IPD guides is to clarify, streamline, and accelerate the IT infrastructure design process with proven architectural guidance and best practices. The IPD guides have a rigorous quality approach that involves reviews from product groups, MCS consultants, partners, and customers to result in the most efficient design guide possible. The AD DS Design guide was written by the product group, who are also experts on the topic, just in a different way.   The guidance provided should not be contradictory and just represents slightly different approaches to the design process. Use the guide that best corresponds with the way that you the reader absorb information.

    The IPD guides are part of the Envision SMF in the Deliver phase. 

    Friday, October 29, 2010 6:08 PM

All replies

  • The AD DS Design Guide was developed by the Active Directory Services product group and is part of their suite of documentation focusing on AD. The IPD guide was written by the Solution Accelerators team and is part of a library of guides that each focus on designing the infrastructure for a Microsoft product.

     

    The goal of the IPD guides is to clarify, streamline, and accelerate the IT infrastructure design process with proven architectural guidance and best practices. The IPD guides have a rigorous quality approach that involves reviews from product groups, MCS consultants, partners, and customers to result in the most efficient design guide possible. The AD DS Design guide was written by the product group, who are also experts on the topic, just in a different way.   The guidance provided should not be contradictory and just represents slightly different approaches to the design process. Use the guide that best corresponds with the way that you the reader absorb information.

    The IPD guides are part of the Envision SMF in the Deliver phase. 

    Friday, October 29, 2010 6:08 PM
  • Ah yes, thank you. That helps a lot.

    So IPD guides and product group design guides contain much the same information (I realized this), but where there is an IPD guide, perhaps use this first to more speedily go through the design process using the product design guides for more information as needed? And of course, rely on the product design guide when there is no IPD guide yet available?

    I am a member of an internal IT team at a hospital. Now knowing the design guides to be in the envision SMF, it seems to me that I go through the design guides to discover a products capabilites (that have financial impact) to back my way into the plan phase to see what additional functionality we can offer to business and then go through the budgeting process to see if we can afford to deploy those new/enhanced capabilites.

    I don't exactly wish to go through a whole design guide and designing process so that I can discover what may be required to support a particular capability only to later find out that we're going to have to scale back an implementation because of cost reasons. All that work in design trying to discover capabilities and the requirements to support that capability may be wasted.

    When hiring a consulting group, they may have already been through this, so they can more quickly tell us costs. But in most cases we can't afford someone else to come in so we have to do the work ourselves. It would be nice if there was some way to more quickly discover capabilites and some of their requirements up front that may have financial impact so we can cost it. If the capability is a 'go', then we can proceed with going through the design process and how to configure it.

    I realize there are product operations guides (addressing operate phase), and design guides (addressing deliver phase), are there any plan phase related documents for products? My point is I sometimes feel like I may be starting at the Envision SMF by going through design guides so that I can back into the Plan phase. Are there any product documents that are plan phase centric that can help you with the plan phase of products? That can help with discovering a products requirements to support a capability for costing purposes (plan phase, financial management), to help us better align with business (plan phase, business/ IT alignment), etc? Perhaps this is what the IPD guides are trying to help bridge and address?

     

    Leonard

    Friday, October 29, 2010 8:15 PM
  • Leonard -

    I checked with the IPD team (thanks, Melissa!) and here's your answer...

    Yes, the IPD guides are designed to get you through the process as quickly as possible.

     

    In our more recent guides, we’ve focused on asking all questions to pertaining to the business requirements within the first step of the guide, and explaining the implications of them right away. For example, in the Service Manager guide that is currently out for beta review, we ask “Are historical retention of and reporting on change or incident information required? The organization may be required to retain information such as change configuration approvals for a certain time period.” And then follow it with the explanation “This will determine whether the data warehouse will be implemented and drive storage capacity planning.” As Leonard indicates, the architects and business really do need to know the implications of saying yes to a particular piece of functionality.

     

    Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:07 PM