Recommendation for Campus Calendaring & Collaboration Information Technology Planning Group Campus Calendaring Work Group October 2011

chulavistajuniorΚινητά – Ασύρματες Τεχνολογίες

10 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 4 μήνες)

74 εμφανίσεις

Recomme
ndation for Campus Calendaring
&

Collaboration





Information Technology Planning Group

Campus Calendaring Work Group

October 2011




Kip Bates

Polly Bustillos

Ted Cabeen

Lopaka Delp

Bill Doering

Doug Drury

Matthew Dunham

Randall Ehren

Thomas Howard

Richard Kip

Daniel Lloyd

Bruce Miller

Alan Moses

Andy Satomi

Jason Simpson

Chris Sneathen

Jamie Sonsini (Chair)

Nathan Walt
er

James Woods






Executive Summary

In the fall of 2010, the Campus Calendaring Work Group was tasked with recommending
a replacement for the campus’ Oracle Calendaring service. The Work Group expanded
its focus to include electronic mail and other f
eatures which may include collaboration
services. Product requirements and criteria for evaluation were identified. Subsequently,
the group determined a preference for those solutions offered as Software
-
as
-
a
-
Service.
The Work Group then narrowed the ev
aluation to two products and eventually
determined that the benefits and features offered by Microsoft’s Office 365 product were
compelling. The Work Group recommends Office 365 be established as the campus
calendaring standard and that a service organiza
tion be identified that will be charged
with supporting this service. Further, it is recommended that a Governance
Committee

and campus Technical Coordination Group be created. Those on campus already using
Microsoft Exchange are encouraged to facilitate

cross
-
calendaring with the new Office
365 environment.

Additionally, the Work Group believes some measure of cross
-
calendaring should be available with Google’s Apps for Education service. The Work
Group suggests that the service organization provides i
ts best effort to facilitate these
cross
-
calendaring opportunities.


2

Table of Contents

Background

................................
................................
................................
.......................

3

Work Group Membership

................................
................................
...............................

3

Process

................................
................................
................................
................................

4

Work Group Goal Statement

................................
................................
.......................

4

Fundamental Requirements

................................
................................
.........................

4

Candidate Products

................................
................................
................................
......

4

Recommendation
................................
................................
................................
...............

5

Evaluation Process

................................
................................
................................
........

5

Input from Others on Campus

................................
................................
....................

5

Preference for Software
-
as
-
a
-
Service Solution

................................
..........................

5

Product Recommendation

................................
................................
............................

5

Other Recommendations

................................
................................
................................
..

6

Service Organization

................................
................................
................................
....

6

Governance Committee

................................
................................
................................

6

Technical Coordination Group

................................
................................
....................

7

Service Costs

................................
................................
................................
..................

7

Migration from Oracle Calendar to Office 365

................................
.........................

8

Provisioning and Authorization Plan

................................
................................
..........

8

Cross Calendaring

................................
................................
................................
........

8

Proof of Concept Implementation

................................
................................
...............

9

Comments Regarding Recommendations
................................
................................
.......

9

Re
servations About Funding for Success

................................
................................
...

9

Concerns Regarding Office 365 Reliability

................................
................................

9

Appendices

................................
................................
................................
.......................

10

Appendix 1: Fundamental Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

......................

10

Appendix 2: Explanation of Preference for Software as a Service Solution

........

12

Appendix 3: Service Costs

................................
................................
.........................

13

Appendix 4: Microsoft Office 365 Options and Pricing

................................
.........

14

Appendix 5: Using Office 365 as a Stand
-
Alone Calendar Service

.......................

15



3

Background

In September

2010
,

the Information Technology Planning Group (ITPG) commissioned
the Campus Calendaring Work Group. Jamie Sonsini volunte
ered to chair this group.
The initial
intent

of the group was to recommen
d a replacement for the campus’

Oracle
Calendar service, scheduled to
become

unsupported in August 2013. Soon after the
ir

initial meetings the group determined that stand
-
alone cale
ndaring solutions (like the
Oracle Calendar) were a dying breed and had been replaced by suite
-
solutions that
contained calendaring, email and other associated features. The group brought this back
to the ITPG and their charter was expanded to include ema
il as well as calendaring.


In January 2011
,

the Information Technology Operational Effectiveness Committee
asked the Work Group to assist them with their goal which was to suggest a campus
-
wide
collaboration solution. The Work Group gladly accepted this
additional responsibility
and expanded their efforts. They were guided by the principle that
their

recommended
solution would
not preclude the implementation of collaboration capabilities at some later
date.


Work Group Membership

Every effort was made to

include

Information Technology representation from all
elements of the campus community. From among the membership of ITPG the following
individuals volunteered to participate:


Name

Organization

Represented

Kip Bates

Housing & Residential Services

Pol
ly Bustillos

Advancement Services Department, Division of Institutional
Advancement

Ted Cabeen

Life Sciences Computing Group

Lopaka Delp
1

Instructional Computing/Electronic Communications Group

Bill Doering

Gevirtz Graduate School of Education

Doug Dru
ry

Administrative Services Information Technology

Matthew Dunham

Instructional Computing and OIST


Randall Ehren

Institute for Social, Behavioral and Economic Research & OIST

Thomas Howard

Administrative Services Information Technology

Richard Kip

Co
llege of Engineering

Daniel Lloyd

Instructional Development

Bruce Miller

Communications Services

Alan Moses

College of Letters and Science

Andy Satomi

Office of the Chancellor, Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor,
Academic Personnel & Academic Se
nate

Jason Simpson

Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management

Chris Sneathen

Office of Research, Animal Research Center & Center for Black
Studies Research




1

Left UCSB July 2011


4

Jamie Sonsini

Information Systems & Computing

Nathan Walter

Student Affairs

James

Wood
s

Marine Science Institute

Process

The Work Group started
by creating a statement which expressed the goal for their work.
This was followed by identifying several fundamental requirements for any solution
selected. This set of principles would ser
ve to guide the research and analysis to follow.


Work Group Goal

Statement

To prepare a set of recommendations which, if implemented, would allow those with
administrative duties across campus to perform calendaring and scheduling tasks.


Fundamental Requ
irements

In addition to including all of the obvious and typical calendaring features and functions,
t
he solution we recommend must

also
:



Support calendar delegation (designate)



Provide cross calendaring with those using Microsoft Exchange calendar service
s



Allow for the calendaring/scheduling of resources



Support mobile devices (smart
-
phones)



Provide the convenient publishing of calendaring information so as to be available
to other populations (students, off
-
campus individuals)



Be able to be in production

at least one year prior to the retirement of
CorporateTime (August 2013)

Candidate Products

With the understanding that solutions would provide more than stand
-
alone calendaring,
the work group set out to identify products which would meet its Fundamental

Requirements
and not preclude future collaboration efforts
.

The following solutions were
targeted for evaluation:



Google Apps for Education



Microsoft Exchange


Provided Locally



Microsoft Office 365



Zimbra


Provided Locally

The work group created a “Pro
duct Evaluation Group” for each product and tasked each
Evaluation Group with preparing a descriptive response to our set of evaluation criteria
for their product solution.


5


Recommendation

Evaluation Process

A set of evaluation criteria was created to rep
resent the specific areas of interest and
evaluation.
2

Each Evaluation Group prepared and shared a document describing their
product and how it measured up against our Fundamental Requirements and Evaluation
Criteria. Each of these reports was presented
to the full Work Group
.


Following all four presentations, each Evaluation Group was asked to present a “UCSB
Walk Through” discussion at which the
y described how their solution c
ould be deployed
on campus.


Input from Others on Campus

We

sought input
and
guidance
from individuals
,

recommended by members of the Work
Group
,

who
might

offer additional insights
for our evaluation
. Specifically we received
input or comment from those responsible for handling E’
Discovery
requests for
campus.
W
e
also
solicited
comments or suggestions from
individuals in
the Office of the
Chancellor, the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement, the
Office of the Academic Senate, Intercollegiate Athletics, the Police Department, Business
Services, Audit
Services, Accounting, Budget & Planning, and the Chicano Studies
Institute.


Pr
eference for Software
-
as
-
a
-
Service Solution

After evaluating the four product solutions, the entire Work Group expr
essed a
preference for the two Software
-
as
-
a
-
S
ervice
(SaaS)
so
lutions. The following
characteristics explain that preference
:
3


We believe that the quality of service provided by our SaaS vendors exceeds that
achievable by a locally provisioned service.

A SaaS solution allows us to better utilize our campus IT staff
.

We believe a SaaS solution will be less expensive for the campus than any locally
provisioned service.


Product Recommendation

The Work Group members determined that
the benefits and features provided by the
Microsoft Office 365 product were compelling.

With that in mind, we make the
following recommendations:

Microsoft Office 365 be provided at the
base

level (No cost for Faculty and Staff)
.

Microsoft Office 365 be recognized as the campus standard for calendaring.

Although Office 365 is an outsourced "
cloud" service, a significant amount of local
operations around management, provisioning and support will need to be provided by



2

See Appen
dix 1 for the complete set of criteria

3

See Appendix 2 for additional comments regarding this preference


6

UCSB.

A single organization should be charged to provide the infrastructure and
support necessary for our campus to use the Mi
crosoft service.


Under the guidance of
a governance committee, this organization will have responsibility for management of
the vendor relationship, oversight of technical resources required to implement and
maintain the service, and providing cross
-
campu
s support of the service components.

In response to the campus Operational Effectiveness Steering Committee interest in

campus
-
wide collaboration, we recommend that they consider the acquisition of

Microsoft Office 365 at the Plan A3 level
4
.

This licensin
g
plan
includes advanced collaboration
features beyond the base
level
, which may provide
the necessary infrastructure

for campus
-
wide
collaboration, as well as licensing for standard Microsoft desktop software.

We further suggest that an analysis of campus
-
wide expenditures on Microsoft
licensing be conducted to determine how the campus may be able to leverage
these expenditures for greater campus benefit.


Other Recommendations

Service Organization

We envision a

service organization
consisting of a service

manager, s
taff dedicated to
the
campus technology required (“Technology Support Staff”)
,

and
staff to
provide
assistance

to

those who deliver end
-
user support in departments across campus
(“Application Support Staff”).


The Service Manager
would
be respon
sible for managing the service staff and be
responsible for the creation and implementation of a service description. They will
act a
s

the point of contact and coordinati
on for the Governance Committee and

the
Technical Coordination Group
,

and represent t
his service to other campus committees
or organizations.

Technical support staff would be responsible for on
-
campus technology (including
interaction with the Identity Management service) r
elated to Office 365 services.

Application

support
staff
would
aggr
egate and disseminate

information on campus.
They would be responsible to escalate end
-
user problems

to the service provider
.
These individuals
would also

be responsible for coordination and
training
of

departmental end
-
user

support staff across campus.

Their
efforts associated with
end
-
user

support would be in the form of
creating and maintaining
materials useful for
those
providing end
-
user

support

as opposed to providing that end
-
user support
directly.


Governance Committee

We recommend that oversight

of this service be provided by a new “Collaboration
Services Governance Committee.” This group will have overall responsibility for
defining priorities and providing strategic direction for the service offering, balancing



4

See Appendix 4 for the full range of Microsoft Office 365 plan options and pricing


7

service resources with requested

service levels and insuring the scope of this service
remains aligned with the resources available.


To ensure a balance of cross
-
campus representation, membership should include one
delegate per
Co
ntrol
Po
int. The Service Manager (and additional service

staff as
necessary) should participate, assist and support the Governance Committee’s efforts.


Technical Coordination Group

This group should include one representative from each department using the service.
Each of these individuals will have the follo
wing responsibilities:


Be the technical point of contact for their department/organization.

Be the source of requests for technical assistance from their department to the
campus
service
organization
.

May have administrative rights to assist with (or comp
letely manage) the
department’s service accounts.

Be responsible for end
-
user support within their organization.


Service Costs
5

Our rough estimation of the costs to provide the service recommended are as follows:

Staffing Assignments

Service Manager

.


.
2
5 FTE

Technical Support Staff


1.5 FTE

Application

Support

Staff


2.0 FTE


Staffing Costs
:






$ 391,000/Year

We anticipate the cost of staffing this servic
e to be approximately $391,000. T
his
would include benefits (suggested to be 40% of salary) and ov
erhead (
to contribute to
departmental administrative costs and expenses related to the individual such as cell
phone service, office telephone, desktop workstation, training, etc. This value was
suggested to be 18.5% of salary).


Equipment Expenses
:





$

2,500/Year

We anticipate costs of approximately $2,500/year for the acquisition and ongoing
infrastructural support for local server equipment necessary for this service.





5

See Appendix 3 for details related to these cost estimates


8

Migration of Oracle Calendar




$ 40,000?

As a “place holder” for what a migration

of data from our Oracle Calendar might
cost
,

we offer the value of $40,000. We would expect the actual project to be less
than this value.


Base Office 365
Licensing Expenses
:


$

1
,000/Year

Base Office 365
Support

Expenses:



$
26
,000/Year
-
One

The “bas
e” Office 365 licenses are provided

at no cost.

We should acquire a small number of Plan 2 licenses (which would be used to
address E’Discovery requests). We estimate the costs of 20 of these licenses to b
e
approximately $1,000 per year (this value was ca
lculated using Microsoft
’s

“list”
pricing and would be subject to further discounts and negotiations).

We would also anticipate the need for special, one time, assistance from Microsoft
during our first year of operations. This additional support service
is estimated to be
about

$

26
,000.


Plan A3

Office 365 Licensing Expenses:

$1,008,000/Year

Should the campus wish to provide
licenses for 6,000 employees at the
Plan A3

level
(described above) the annual license cost would exceed $1,000,000/Year

(this valu
e
was calculated using Microsoft
’s

“list” pricing and would be subject to further
discounts and negotiations). It is also important to note that UC Berkeley
is in
negotiations to license this product (as well as site license for a large portion of
Microso
ft's desktop and server offerings)
and that the results of those negotiations are
likely to influence our pricing.


Migration from Oracle Calendar to Office 365

There are two companies offering migration services from Oracle Calendar to Office 365.
They a
re Sumatra and CalMover. We recommend that a sensible
6

migration be included
as part of this project, but the selection of the actual product used
be
left to those
responsible for the service (and governance).


Provisioning and Authorization Plan

We belie
ve that our campus’s central identity system should be the source for
provisioning and that activation of Office 365 accounts should not be automatic
(requiring the individual or department to take explicit action).


Cross Calendaring

We acknowledge that s
ome organizations may wish
not
to use Office 365 as the
ir
primary calendaring service.

For those using locally hosted Microsoft Exchange, we



6

W
hich Oracle Calendar accounts to be migrated should
be
determined after closing all unused accounts,
considering calendar content (
not migrating an account with
no meetings
in

the future), calendar use (some
period of inactivity) and so on.


9

expect full fidelity cross
-
calendaring to be possible.


For those choosing Google Apps for
Education services we b
elieve some measure of cross
-
calendaring will also be available.


Those providing service and support should attempt to facilitate and support these cross
-
calendaring

opportunit
ies with a "good faith" effort.

We would further suggest that the
Technical
Co
ordination

Group and the Governance
Committee

provide guidance as to the
effort expended in this area to facilitate cross
-
calendaring

with other environments and
products.


Proof of Concept Implementation

The Work Group suggests that a Proof
-
of
-
Concept imp
lementation be initiated so as to
gain a deeper understanding of the Office 365 product and service. Such an
implementation would allow for experimentation and exploration of the Office 365
feature set as well as the capabilities of cross
-
calendaring with

other calendar services
already in place on campus. Jamie Sonsini h
a
s volunteered to conduct such a Proof
-
of
-
Concept with some of his current I
-
Mail and Oracle Calendar customers.


Comments Regarding Recommendation
s

Reservations About Funding for Success

Several members of our Work Group expressed serious reservations about the method
and amount of funding required for this service to be successful. We would encourage
those who are responsible for funding to coordinate strategies broadly across the campu
s
and to fund this project so as to ensure its success.


Concerns Regarding Office 365 R
eliability

Office 365 is a very new service from Microsoft, introduced in the summer of 2011
.

The
Work Group notes that
to this point
there is little on which to base
confidence in its
reliability
, but believes that Microsoft will, eventually, deliver a very reliable service.
Wit
h this in mind, the Work Group suggests some caution be exercised as the campus
moves towards relying on this service.



10

Appendic
es

Appendix

1
:

Fundamental Requirements and Evaluation Criteria


Fundamental Requirements



Support calendar delegation (designate)

Access controls to the Delegate



Provide cross calendaring with those using Microsoft Exchange calendar services

Scale and Capability of Cr
oss
-
Calendaring

Federation, both Open and Closed



Allow for the calendaring/scheduling of resources

Access controls available to delegates



Support mobile devices (smart
-
phones)

Native App, or Lightweight HTML

Push or Pull model

Support for Android, iPhone,
Blackberry & Mobile 7 environments



Provide the convenient publishing of calendaring information so as to be available
to other populations (students, off
-
campus individuals)

Publishing formats (iCal, HTML, XML)

Evaluation Criteria



Client/User Interaction

Email, Calendaring, Collaboration


Email quota/limits, message size/content limits

Native clients available for which platforms (PC, Mac, Linux, anything else?)

Web client feature limitations/differences


Supports access using standards based or

widely ava
ilable protocols

Extra function/features available from proprietary protocols

ADA Compliance



Support Model

Tier ? Support, Costs

Self
-
service tools for support staff and users

Implied support model



Service Provision Model

Server implications

Backup/Restore

capabilities


11

Disaster Recovery

Handling of E'Discovery requests

Data location &

Access/Availability

SLA

Terms



Security/Privacy

Encryption options

Email spam/virus filtering

Capability of Access Controls/Grouping



Campus Infrastructure Interoperability

Camp
us Identity Management infrastructure



Collaboration Features

Video, IM, Shared Documents?

Voice mail integration possibilities

Presence



Future Implications

Long
-
term viability of

this

vendor and product


Suitability for broad campus adoption

Stability of
current and known future pricing



Integration with current & future systems at UCSB, across UC and other
institutions

Standards based API



Migration process and features

Subdomain namespace support



Can it be used for standalone calendaring?



Customer referenc
e checks





12

Appendix
2:
Explanation of
Preference

for Software as a Service Solution


We believe that the quality of service provided by our SaaS vendors exceeds that
achievable by a locally provisioned service.



The SaaS vendors offer fundamental service
s (Email and Ecalendaring) that meet
or exceed our basic requirements.



Unlike the University, they can commit sufficient resources to focus on key
complementary areas such as security and the integration of their offering with
surrounding technologies.



The
y have sufficient, sustainable, staffing so as to have specialists in critical
areas.



Their sheer magnitude introduces redundancy and reliability beyond what the
University has been able, or willing to, achieve.



A SaaS service is not vulnerable to fluctuat
ing campus financial or workload
pressures. Historically, these campus pressures have
subtly
, but surely, degraded
service offerings over time.

This risk would be inappropriate for the ongoing
effectiveness of core campus productivity services.



The outso
urcing of these services is clearly a strong trend in higher education
across the United States. Reports from these institutions are very positive.



A SaaS vendor operated solution provides the most seamless integration of the
applications and features off
ered with the operational environment. This
integration gives us a single source of support and assistance for all aspects of the
service.

A SaaS solution allows us to better utilize our campus IT staff.



Email and escheduling have become commodity service
s. We believe our limited
local IT resources should be used to provide services unique or targeted to local
(non
-
commodity) needs.



Using a SaaS solution
reduces

the challenge of acquiring, training

and retaining
University staff in these areas.

We believe

a SaaS solution will be less expensive for the campus than any locally
provisioned service.



The economy of scale achieved by the SaaS vendors (with millions of customers)
is beyond anything we could accomplish locally (with only thousands of
customers).





Appendix 3:

Service Costs


Staff Expense
Position
Title
FTE
Average
Staff Salary
Overhead
18.5%
Estimated
Benefits
40%
Total
Service Manager
CNT V
0.25
103,151
$

4,771
$

10,315
$

40,874
$

Technical Support - Programmer/Developer
CNT III-IV
0.50
78,500
$

7,261
$

15,700
$

62,211
$

Technical Support - System Management
CNT III-IV
1.00
78,500
$

14,523
$

31,400
$

124,423
$

Tier 2 and 1b: Training, Documentation, Communicate with
Microsoft, Departmental Support and End Users
CNT II
2.00
55,000
$

20,350
$

33,000
$

163,350
$

390,857
$

Equipment Expenses
Server Equipment
Cost
Years
Total
Amortization/Year
7,500
$

5
1,500
$

Computing Infrastructure
1,000
$

2,500
$

Migration of Oracle Calendar
CalMover Estimate for 2,600 Accounts
40,000
$

License Expense
Office 365
Annual
Count
Total
Base Product Licenses
-
$

6,000


-
$

Plan 2 (Includes Litigation Hold)
Note: List price subject to discounts & negotiations
48
$

20
960
$

Additional Microsoft Support Services (year 1 only?)
26,000
$

26,960
$

Office 365
Annual
Count
Total
PlanA3 Licenses (Collaboration + Desktop Office)
Note: List price subject to discounts & negotiations
168
$

6,000


1,008,000
$

1,008,000
$



14

Appendix 4
:
Microsoft Office 365 Options and Pricing






Appendix 5:
Using Office 365 as a Stand
-
Alone Calendar Service


Each individual using this service will have a unique email address associat
ed with their account.
There are, then, several options for those choosing to use Office 365 as a stand
-
alone calendar:


Use the Office 365 Web Access or the Outlook client to manage their calendar and the email
traffic associated with their calendar. Th
is would provide a full
-
fidelity calendaring
experience.

Have email traffic associated with their calendar forwarded to their primary email address.
Their presence at meetings to which they have been invited would be “tentative”, but the
meeting owner wou
ld receive the email reply (if sent) informing them that the individual was
(or was not) attending. They would use the Office 365 Web Access (or Outlook) to directly
interact with or manipulate their Office 365 calendar.