documentationspecifications
I've just moved a client's email services over from my host to Google Apps. I would like to hand over a document providing all they (or their agent) need should I not be available etc.
How are such documents normally structured, and what level of detail should they contain? I know user names and passwords are essential, and instructions on how to manage domains on Google Apps are over the top, but what is a commonly used middle ground?
It depends on the size of the network, number of users, number of nodes (computers, servers, printers, etc.) and the size of your IT staff, among other things.
It also depends on your goal. Are you documenting the network for training and maintenance purposes, insurance/loss prevention, etc?
Personally, I document my networks in such a way that I know I can derive any missing information based on what is documented. From a practical stance, there is a point of diminishing returns when your documentation gets too granular.
A good rule of thumb I use is that there should be documentation in a known location that is thorough enough that if I get hit by a bus tonight, another administrator can keep the core network running while he/she fills in the missing pieces over the next few days/weeks.
Here is an overview of what I think is most important about one of my networks. For the record this is a Windows-only shop with about 100 users and 5 offices.
If there was anything strange about a setup or workflow that would not be immediately obvious to a new administrator, I would write a short "brief" about it as well.
When writing mine I've always devolved into writing two three sets. The get-er-done checklist, with a MUCH LONGER appendix about the architecture of the system including why things are done the way they are, probable sticking points when coming online, and abstract design assumptions. followed by a list of probable problems and their resolutions, followed by a longer section with information about how a system works, why it does it that way, and other information useful for pointing people in the right direction should something unique happen.
At my last job we were required to write doc so that even level-1 helpdesk people could bring things back up. This required checklists, which generally became out of date within 3 months of the writing. We were strongly urged to write troubleshooting guides whenever possible, but when the contingency tree gets more than three branches in it, you just can't write that doc without going abstract.
When leaving my last job, I turned in a 100 page 'how to do my job' manual before I left. It had the abstract stuff in it, design philosophy, as well as integration points. Since I was presumably writing for another sysadmin who was going to replace me, I aimed it at someone who could take abstract notions and turn them into concrete actions.
Five years have passed and I find my opinion on this has shifted somewhat. Both Document as Manual and Document as Checklist have very valuable places in the hierarchy of documentation and both need to be produced. They target very different audiences, though.
Document as Checklist
The target market for this kind of documentation are coworkers who want to how how to do a thing. They come in two types:
Impatience is the driver for the first kind. Maybe your coworker doesn't actually want to know why the output has to be piped through a 90 character perl regex, just that it has to be in order to close the ticket. Definitely include a statement like, "For a detailed explanation for why this workflow looks like this, follow this link," in the checklist for those that do want to know why.
The second point is for procedures that aren't run often but contain pitfalls. The checklist acts as a map to avoid the Certain Doom of just winging it. If the checklist is kept in a documentation repo, it saves having to search email for the time the old admin sent out a HOWTO.
In my opinion good checklist-documentation also includes sections on possible failure points, and responses to those failures. This can make the document rather large and trigger TL;DR responses in coworkers, so I find that making the failure-modes and their responses a link from the checklist rather than on the page itself makes for an unscary checklist. Embrace hypertextuality.
Document as Manual
The target market for this kind of documentation are people who want to learn more about how a system works. The how-to-do-a-thing style documentation should be able to be derived from this documentation, but more commonly I see it as a supplement to checklist-style documentation to back up the decisions made in the workflow.
This is the documentation where we include such chewy pieces like:
Which are all very useful for obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the whole system. You don't need a comprehensive understanding to run simple human-automation tasks, you need it to figure out why something broke the way it did and have an idea where to make it not do that again.
You also mentioned Disaster Recovery documentation that has to be a checklist.
I understand, you have my sympathies.
Yes, DR documentation does need to be as checklist-like as possible.
Yes, DR documentation is the most resistant to checklisting due to how many ways things can break.
If your DR checklist looks like:
- Call Dustin or Karen.
- Explain the problem.
- Stand back.
You have a problem. That is not a checklist, that is an admission that the recovery of this system is so complex it takes an architect to figure out. Sometimes that's all you can do, but try to avoid it if at all possible.
Ideally DR documentation contains procedure checklists for a few different things:
Triage procedures are sometimes all the DR documentation you can make for some systems. But having it means the 4am call-out will be more intelligible and the senior engineer doing the recovery will be able to get at the actual problem faster.
Some failure cases have straight-forward recovery procedures. Document them. While documenting them you may find cases where lists of commands are being entered in a specific order, which is a great use-case for scripting; it can turn a 96 point recovery procedure into a 20 point one. You'll never figure out if you can script something until you map the recovery procedure action by action.
Manual-style documentation for failure cases is the last ditch backstop to be used when there ARE no recovery procedures or the recovery procedures failed. It provides the google-hints needed to maybe find someone else who had that problem and what they did to fix it.
Best Answer
I am not sure how the documents would normally be structured, but in this scenario I would think documenting the following is appropriate...
One to two pages should be sufficient. Include a short summary of what Google Apps is and how it is different than hosting your own email or using your ISP's services.