This week, I thought that I would try something new.  I am going to focus on a single topic and produce a series on a single topic.  This week’s topic will be on Enterprise Email services’ Global Address List function or GAL for short.  Today is the third day of this series.  You can read the earlier days here

On Monday, we introduced the concept of the Global Address List (GAL) and explained its purposes. Yesterday, we delved into Microsoft Exchange Server, the Enterprise 10,000 pound Gorilla, and LDAP, the service that it and other open-source alternatives provide. We also went into depth on why directory services were essential to a productive Enterprise.

Today we are going to discuss the challenges and problems with the current implementations of GALs in practice. We will follow that up on Friday with suggestions for new features and functions to enhance the effectiveness of your Enterprise Directory Service.

pulling-hair-out

Here are things that drive me nuts about the Global Address List as it currently exists in most organizations:

  • If you cannot spell the name, it is nearly impossible to find the person.
  • It is a bandwidth hog. It frequently makes Outlook hang while doing simple searches.
  • It is a dumb database at the mercy of its administrator. Spelling mistakes, empty data fields, and juxtapositions are common and undetected.
  • It lacks the ability to search via drill down. What I mean is that you cannot find people like your mind works. It would be nice if you could search for all the people in Accounting, then limit by those named Bob, then limit further by those who work in the Wisconsin Office for example.
  • It is hierarchical and not relational. It is easy to find the Secretary in the Sales Department, but not a list of all of the Secretaries in Dover.
  • It does not use the optional photos of the people in any constructive way. Why can’t face recognition be included? What can’t I find women, with glasses, in the Michigan Office, in the marketing department for example?
  • It cannot self-synchronize with "entrusted" data sources. So if you import another organization’s GAL into yours for reference, then they update their listings, you have to re-import to get that data. This almost always results in duplicates.
  • For some unknown reason, when you add a GAL contact to your personal address book, and then the GAL gets updated, your contact does not.
  • It does not enforce standards or rules on data entry. How often have you seen one group that includes the country code in their phone numbers next to one that does not. Or that uses middle initials and one that skips them.
  • It handles distribution lists in a hierarchical manner that makes it very hard to create new collectives from parts of other distro lists.
  • Harvesting Data is nearly impossible. For fun try cutting and pasting phone numbers from your GAL sometime. Also, why cannot you export all the entries that match a smart search… like all IT Techs in your Boston Office…. into a spreadsheet?

That is one page’s worth of my hair-pulling annoyances with most of today’s GAL services. I could probably go on for another ten. Mostly, I just wanted to point out that for what should be one of the oldest facets of an Enterprise computing environment, the GAL is incredible immature and ripe for improvement and innovation. Tomorrow, I will discuss some recommendations to close the gaps between the today and the ideal!

I am sure that you have many more headaches with your GAL. Why don’t you share them by commenting below. We would all benefit greatly from some good interaction and discussion of this topic.

That is my Information Technology Thought of the Day (ITTOD) for November 4, 2009  by Scott Coughlin.

Image Credit: gaudiumdelingua.wordpress.com

Be Sociable, Share!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.