Chapter 5 — Directory structure and data quality

Chapter 5 — Directory structure and data quality

Lesson map

Lesson 05 published. Map, example, EX017.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["5.1 Structure"]
  N2["5.2 Aligning with HR"]
  N3["5.3 Safe correction"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX017"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["5.1 Structure"]
  N2["5.2 Aligning with HR"]
  N3["5.3 Safe correction"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX017"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[5.1 Structure]
    |
    v
[5.2 Aligning with HR]
    |
    v
[5.3 Safe correction]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX017]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) organise users and groups; (2) align directory data with HR; (3) correct errors safely.

5.1 Structure

Tomas reviews Millbrook's directory structure. Users sit in one flat list, groups have inconsistent names such as Nurses, nurses-surgery2 and NURSE TEAM, and nobody knows who owns them. He proposes a naming pattern, role- for job roles and site- for surgeries, with an owner for each group. After the practice manager approves, he renames groups in a planned window and updates documentation. A consistent structure makes later automation and reviews far simpler, because scripts and people can rely on predictable names.

5.2 Aligning with HR

The practice manager keeps the staff list, so it is the source of truth for names, roles and surgeries. Tomas compares the directory export with that list and finds three role mismatches, one person missing from the directory and two directory accounts for people who are not on the staff list. He records each difference and asks the practice manager to confirm the correct value before changing anything. Confirming first avoids correcting the wrong system when the HR list itself is out of date.

5.3 Safe correction

Tomas makes corrections one at a time, noting the old value, the new value, who confirmed it and when. For the two accounts with no staff record, he disables rather than deletes them and waits two weeks for anyone to object. One turns out to belong to a visiting hygienist who works monthly; she is added to the staff list and the account re-enabled with an end date. Reversible steps protect against mistakes when records are incomplete. Each correction is listed in the monthly report to the practice manager.

Worked example

Groups are renamed to a pattern; three mismatches are corrected; two unowned accounts are disabled, and one is restored for a visiting hygienist.

Synthetic case. Groups, accounts and people are synthetic.

Errors and limits

Deleting accounts missing from HR without checking can remove access a legitimate worker needs.

Exercises

• EX017 — Naming pattern. What naming prefixes were adopted? Rubric: 3 = role- and site-;; 2 = prefixes;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX018 — Mismatches. How many role mismatches were found? Rubric: 3 = three;; 2 = 3;; 1 = two;; 0 = none.
• EX019 — Restored account. Whose account was restored? Rubric: 3 = a visiting hygienist;; 2 = hygienist;; 1 = nobody;; 0 = none.
• EX020 — Disable first. Why disable rather than delete? Rubric: 3 = reversible if records are incomplete;; 2 = reversible;; 1 = faster;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Consistent structure and confirmed, reversible corrections keep directory data trustworthy.

Continue studying — chapter 05 of 18

← Chapter 04 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 06 (draft) →