 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Why an Oracle Users Best Practices Board?
In the industry, there is no certifiable source of Best Practices. While many
experts write white papers for OAUG conferences and other purposes, there is
no review process to give them credibility as indeed being Best Practices.
Further, since there is no commitment on behalf of the writer to maintain the
information as Oracle releases new family packs, technology changes, or new
modules, information in these white papers quickly become outdated. Finally,
a lack of standard format and requirements as to the content often leave out
critical setup and methodology information. As a result End Users have less
confidence in the quality of the white papers and have little way of ascertaining
if the white papers represent Best Practices or determining the credibility of the
author. A more structured approach to the white paper process would give end
users and consultants more ‘meat’ from the white paper and more ability to
incorporate the ideas into their companies and processes.
experts write white papers for OAUG conferences and other purposes, there is
no review process to give them credibility as indeed being Best Practices.
Further, since there is no commitment on behalf of the writer to maintain the
information as Oracle releases new family packs, technology changes, or new
modules, information in these white papers quickly become outdated. Finally,
a lack of standard format and requirements as to the content often leave out
critical setup and methodology information. As a result End Users have less
confidence in the quality of the white papers and have little way of ascertaining
if the white papers represent Best Practices or determining the credibility of the
author. A more structured approach to the white paper process would give end
users and consultants more ‘meat’ from the white paper and more ability to
incorporate the ideas into their companies and processes.
How will this process be different than the current process to create white
papers?
papers?
Currently, professionals write white papers to develop credibility as an expert in
a given area to help them sell product and/or services relating to their
expertise. The most common white paper process relates to the submission
of these white papers to OAUG, AppsWorld, IOUG, or ODTUG for presentation
at one of their conferences. Several shortcomings exist in with the current
process. First, white papers are created for a point in time (i.e. for the
conference) and are not necessarily maintained as changes occur in the
applications or technology. Therefore, they can become stale relatively quickly.
Second, the white papers do not undergo any peer review to validate that they
indeed represent ‘Best Practices’ for the given subject matter. Finally, the
standards for writing these white papers are not specific enough to ensure a
user will gain the information necessary to need to determine the paper's
applicability to their circumstance and to implement such Best Practices set
forth in the paper.
Key elements of the OUBPB concept are as follows:
A standard will be developed for writers of white papers that will require certain
key information to be contained in the white papers. Examples will include
applicability to the various versions (i.e. 10.7, 11.0, and 11i for the applications,
8i, 9i, and 10g for the database) and point releases (11.5.5, 11.5.9, etc),
identification of key setups and suggested configuration of the application, and
the applicability to certain market segments and vertical markets. The standard
will also include formatting, which will require an Abstract and Executive
Summary and will help the author address common editing and grammatical
errors. Once the white paper is completed, it will be subject to a peer review
process. Peer experts will volunteer to review it and provide comments to the
writer. The writer will incorporate such comments into the white paper and give
credit to the peer reviewer, if the reviewer allows. If the writer and one of the
reviewers disagree on one or more of the Best Practices concepts, the issue
will be referred to the OUBPB Steering Committee to resolve the
disagreement. The writer of the white paper will be encouraged to maintain the
white paper as relevant changes to the applications or technology occur. The
OUBPB will monitor feedback from users and the length of time since the last
update to encourage the white papers writers to update the content. The white
paper will include an update log so that readers can identify the timing of the
last update. Once the peer review process is finalized, the white paper will be
published with an appropriate caveat that has yet to be developed. Initially, the
white paper will be made available on the OAUG and OUBPB websites. Once
‘critical mass’ has been reached, OAUG will offer a premium membership to
access this database and will allow users to purchase them on an individual
basis. Eventually, a rating scale (form 1 to 5) and user comments may be
made available as well. Both OAUG and OUBPB will offer the white papers on
a per white paper basis to support the development of these Best Practices.
OAUG will offer member and non-member pricing. OUBPB will offer the papers
and non-member pricing. Pricing models have yet to be determined.
a given area to help them sell product and/or services relating to their
expertise. The most common white paper process relates to the submission
of these white papers to OAUG, AppsWorld, IOUG, or ODTUG for presentation
at one of their conferences. Several shortcomings exist in with the current
process. First, white papers are created for a point in time (i.e. for the
conference) and are not necessarily maintained as changes occur in the
applications or technology. Therefore, they can become stale relatively quickly.
Second, the white papers do not undergo any peer review to validate that they
indeed represent ‘Best Practices’ for the given subject matter. Finally, the
standards for writing these white papers are not specific enough to ensure a
user will gain the information necessary to need to determine the paper's
applicability to their circumstance and to implement such Best Practices set
forth in the paper.
Key elements of the OUBPB concept are as follows:
A standard will be developed for writers of white papers that will require certain
key information to be contained in the white papers. Examples will include
applicability to the various versions (i.e. 10.7, 11.0, and 11i for the applications,
8i, 9i, and 10g for the database) and point releases (11.5.5, 11.5.9, etc),
identification of key setups and suggested configuration of the application, and
the applicability to certain market segments and vertical markets. The standard
will also include formatting, which will require an Abstract and Executive
Summary and will help the author address common editing and grammatical
errors. Once the white paper is completed, it will be subject to a peer review
process. Peer experts will volunteer to review it and provide comments to the
writer. The writer will incorporate such comments into the white paper and give
credit to the peer reviewer, if the reviewer allows. If the writer and one of the
reviewers disagree on one or more of the Best Practices concepts, the issue
will be referred to the OUBPB Steering Committee to resolve the
disagreement. The writer of the white paper will be encouraged to maintain the
white paper as relevant changes to the applications or technology occur. The
OUBPB will monitor feedback from users and the length of time since the last
update to encourage the white papers writers to update the content. The white
paper will include an update log so that readers can identify the timing of the
last update. Once the peer review process is finalized, the white paper will be
published with an appropriate caveat that has yet to be developed. Initially, the
white paper will be made available on the OAUG and OUBPB websites. Once
‘critical mass’ has been reached, OAUG will offer a premium membership to
access this database and will allow users to purchase them on an individual
basis. Eventually, a rating scale (form 1 to 5) and user comments may be
made available as well. Both OAUG and OUBPB will offer the white papers on
a per white paper basis to support the development of these Best Practices.
OAUG will offer member and non-member pricing. OUBPB will offer the papers
and non-member pricing. Pricing models have yet to be determined.
What are the benefits to the industry to the Oracle Users Best Practices
Board?
Board?
The benefits to the industry are many. For those that write the white papers,
who would presumably be mainly consultants and software providers, they
would earn additional credibility as an expert because of the information being
validated by their peers. (Once this concept is rolled out to the masses, we
foresee a ‘gold rush’ of sorts by people wanting to stake their claim as an
expert in their process area). The first to write these comprehensive white
papers will become known as the expert in that area. As long as the writer
maintains the white paper for current issues, they will retain the credibility in
that area. To end users, the benefit is that they will have a repository of Best
Practices white papers and some comfort that the white papers have been
through a peer review process, lending them more credibility.
Regional OAUG groups will also have a better handle on ‘committed’
developers of Best Practices to draw from for speakers at their meetings.
who would presumably be mainly consultants and software providers, they
would earn additional credibility as an expert because of the information being
validated by their peers. (Once this concept is rolled out to the masses, we
foresee a ‘gold rush’ of sorts by people wanting to stake their claim as an
expert in their process area). The first to write these comprehensive white
papers will become known as the expert in that area. As long as the writer
maintains the white paper for current issues, they will retain the credibility in
that area. To end users, the benefit is that they will have a repository of Best
Practices white papers and some comfort that the white papers have been
through a peer review process, lending them more credibility.
Regional OAUG groups will also have a better handle on ‘committed’
developers of Best Practices to draw from for speakers at their meetings.
Why now?
The industry is maturing, is lacking a central source of white papers, and the
existing white papers have less credibility as Best Practices due to lack of peer
review. A more stringent approach to industry white papers as Best Practices
is long overdue.
existing white papers have less credibility as Best Practices due to lack of peer
review. A more stringent approach to industry white papers as Best Practices
is long overdue.
What will the Oracle Users Best Practices Board do?
The mission of the OUBPB will be the aggregation of willing writers and willing
reviewers who will participate in a peer review process of the white paper. The
end result will be a repository of Best Practice white papers for end users and
consultants to rely on in their ongoing work.
reviewers who will participate in a peer review process of the white paper. The
end result will be a repository of Best Practice white papers for end users and
consultants to rely on in their ongoing work.
How will the peer review process work?
The process will always be open for new submissions. It will not necessarily
focus on the submission of white papers for the OAUG or any other
conference. On any given day, someone can submit an idea to the OUBPB for
consideration. The OUBPB will have a repository of willing reviewers, by
subject matter. The writing process and review process will have strict
guidelines. The comments from the reviewers will be provided back to the
writer of the white paper. The writer will be expected to incorporate such
comments into their paper, except for where instances in which ERP Seminars
and the writer agree that such comments would not be appropriate because
they don’t represent Best Practices. Where the writer and ERP Seminars
would disagree on the incorporation of such comments, they would be sent to
the Steering Committee where a majority opinion would prevail. If that majority
opinion would require the writer to incorporate such comments into the white
paper and the writer would refuse to do so, the white paper would be rejected
for consideration. Those that did the peer review of the white paper would be
acknowledged as a reviewer, unless they would rather not be acknowledged. If
they would rather not be acknowledged by name, an acknowledgement to
“Anonymous Reviewer” would be made.
focus on the submission of white papers for the OAUG or any other
conference. On any given day, someone can submit an idea to the OUBPB for
consideration. The OUBPB will have a repository of willing reviewers, by
subject matter. The writing process and review process will have strict
guidelines. The comments from the reviewers will be provided back to the
writer of the white paper. The writer will be expected to incorporate such
comments into their paper, except for where instances in which ERP Seminars
and the writer agree that such comments would not be appropriate because
they don’t represent Best Practices. Where the writer and ERP Seminars
would disagree on the incorporation of such comments, they would be sent to
the Steering Committee where a majority opinion would prevail. If that majority
opinion would require the writer to incorporate such comments into the white
paper and the writer would refuse to do so, the white paper would be rejected
for consideration. Those that did the peer review of the white paper would be
acknowledged as a reviewer, unless they would rather not be acknowledged. If
they would rather not be acknowledged by name, an acknowledgement to
“Anonymous Reviewer” would be made.
How will the OUBPB influence the solicitation of white papers and
presentations for the various OAUG and other conferences?
presentations for the various OAUG and other conferences?
This influence of the OUBPB on the OAUG White Paper process will evolve over
time. We will work with the OAUG as they want to encourage writers of white
papers to submit their conference white papers through this peer review
process. However, it is conceivable that some writers of white papers would
prefer not to and some content wouldn't be appropriate for consideration as
Best Practices. For example, vendors that submit white papers that have an
aggressive view of the benefit of their product in the marketplace may want to
submit a white paper to present as support for their product, but it may not rise
to the level of a Best Practice. A Best Practice white paper, for instance, would
take an objective view of all tools on the market or not mention any tools at all.
Most vendors would not want to identify their competitions product as a viable
alternative in the development of their white paper. Therefore, non-OUBPB
white papers may still exist. However, it would be our desire that all conference
white papers eventually (subject to laws of supply and demand) be encouraged
to go through the OUBPB process.
time. We will work with the OAUG as they want to encourage writers of white
papers to submit their conference white papers through this peer review
process. However, it is conceivable that some writers of white papers would
prefer not to and some content wouldn't be appropriate for consideration as
Best Practices. For example, vendors that submit white papers that have an
aggressive view of the benefit of their product in the marketplace may want to
submit a white paper to present as support for their product, but it may not rise
to the level of a Best Practice. A Best Practice white paper, for instance, would
take an objective view of all tools on the market or not mention any tools at all.
Most vendors would not want to identify their competitions product as a viable
alternative in the development of their white paper. Therefore, non-OUBPB
white papers may still exist. However, it would be our desire that all conference
white papers eventually (subject to laws of supply and demand) be encouraged
to go through the OUBPB process.
Will the OUBPB solely be Applications focused?
No, initially many of the Best Practices will be focused on Applications issues.
The OUBPB will encourage writers to consider submitting all topics relevant to
users, including technology topics.
The OUBPB will encourage writers to consider submitting all topics relevant to
users, including technology topics.
How will the Steering Committee be structured?
OAUG and ERP Seminars will be the founding and permanent members of a
Steering Committee with one member from each organization sitting on the
Steering Committee. We will solicit five more individuals to have
representatives to participate on the Steering Committee. Each of these five, ‘at
large’ members will have staggered terms. The initial terms for each of the
three terms shall be one, two, and three years. One member would have a one-
year term, one member would have a two-year term, and one member would
have a three-year term. For the five initial members, a random drawing would
be made to determine which member received the one, two, or three year
terms. The subsequent replacements to the Steering Committee shall be
three years in order to maintain the staggered terms. This Steering Committee
will commit to promoting the efforts of the Board and to be a tiebreaker where
there are disagreements between the interpretations of Best Practices during
the peer review process as managed by ERP Seminars.
Steering Committee with one member from each organization sitting on the
Steering Committee. We will solicit five more individuals to have
representatives to participate on the Steering Committee. Each of these five, ‘at
large’ members will have staggered terms. The initial terms for each of the
three terms shall be one, two, and three years. One member would have a one-
year term, one member would have a two-year term, and one member would
have a three-year term. For the five initial members, a random drawing would
be made to determine which member received the one, two, or three year
terms. The subsequent replacements to the Steering Committee shall be
three years in order to maintain the staggered terms. This Steering Committee
will commit to promoting the efforts of the Board and to be a tiebreaker where
there are disagreements between the interpretations of Best Practices during
the peer review process as managed by ERP Seminars.