Harvard University Information Systems

Evaluating Email/Calendar SolutionsEvaluating Email/Calendar Solutions

Building the “Next Generation” of Collaboration Infrastructure

Susan DeLellis, Project ManagerTim Gleason, Technical ArchitectHarvard University Information SystemsCSG Meeting, September 21, 2004susan_delellis@harvard.eduTim_gleason@harvard.edu

Email……. Calendar …….. Tools ……

Harvard University Information Systems

Harvard’s Email/Calendar Environment Today Drivers Leading up to a New Look at Email/Calendaring Input from our Customers RFP Process & Evaluation Evaluation Criteria What We’ve Learned thus Far & Next Steps

Email/Calendar Evaluation at Harvard Email/Calendar Evaluation at Harvard

What We Plan to Share with You Today:What We Plan to Share with You Today:

Harvard University Information Systems

Decentralized & Locally Managed…Decentralized & Locally Managed…

@ 50,000 managed Email accounts at Harvard today… 60% Students 40% Faculty/Staff

< 5,000 managed Calendar Accounts

Multitude of service providers: Central Administration (CAIT) – ISP Model, Fee for Service Individual Schools (8) Others

Multitude of solutions, offerings & platforms: SendMail, Exchange, Lotus Notes, Communigate Pro, others

No central authentication for Email/Calendaring

Harvard Email/Calendar Environment TodayHarvard Email/Calendar Environment Today

Harvard University Information Systems

CAIT provides:

Centralized University Directory Service (LDAP) – but there is no authentication in LDAP today

Central Email Aliasing Service (first_lastname@harvard.edu)

Integrated Voice-mail to Email Service (EVM)

University-Wide Email Broadcast Application – Presmailer – developed in-house to provide a central communications tool for emergency broadcast and critical University correspondences

Harvard Email/Calendar Environment TodayHarvard Email/Calendar Environment Today

Harvard University Information Systems

IT Efficiency Process at Harvard:

Initiative started 2 yrs. ago to look at ways to achieve IT Initiative started 2 yrs. ago to look at ways to achieve IT efficiencies via centralizing services & aggregating volumeefficiencies via centralizing services & aggregating volume

Email/Calendar identified as an area to be explored & Email/Calendar identified as an area to be explored & measuredmeasured

CAIT had real concerns about the reliability & scalability of our existing calendar system & provider

Recognized the need for a higher level of integration between Email & Calendaring as evidenced by user surveys and focus groups

Drivers Leading up to a New Look at Email/CalendaringDrivers Leading up to a New Look at Email/Calendaring

Concluded to move forward w/a CAIT initiated project to develop & evaluate RFP responses for a commercial Email/Calendar solution w/enterprise level support

Harvard University Information Systems

Input From Our CustomersInput From Our Customers

CAIT User Survey: 13% of 6,300 Email customers responded

97% rated Email as most important communications service Provide better integration between Calendar, Email, IM (single client) Provide more robust web client & remote access Improve reliability of Calendar system Develop a central group Calendar system

CAIT User Forums Reliability of messaging is critical Effectiveness of anti-spam & anti-virus solutions directly impacts day-day

productivity Remote access growing in importance Sensitivity to change & cost

Input from Our CustomersInput from Our Customers

Harvard University Information Systems

RFP Process & EvaluationEvaluation Still in Progress

Project Timeline

J UN JUL AUG SEP

2004

P1 May – June

•User Surveys• User Forums• Develop RFP• RFP Distributed to Vendors• RFPs Received back from 11 Vendors

P2 Jul – Sept.

• Weekly Project Team Meetings• Evaluate RFPs • Develop TCOs• Develop Evaluation Criteria• Conduct Product Testing

• Vendor Presentations• Customer Conference Calls• Evaluation Scorecards• End User Testing

MAY OCT NOV DEC

P3 Oct – Dec

• Fine Tune TCOs• Final Recommendation• Vendor Negotiations

Harvard University Information Systems

RFP Evaluation Criteria

Developed vendor evaluation scorecards – weighted score system – Rating each vendor on specifics w/in 5 primary categories:

Ability to Partner Price & TCO Manageability,Scalability & Security Service & Support Product Performance & Strategy

Project team and end user testing of vendor solutions

Harvard University Information Systems

Emergence of Collaboration Suites

Full featured services including File sharing, Portals, Web Conferencing, Unified Messaging, IM

Competes with existing solutions & tools we have in place - what’s the right infrastructure?

Trend towards Database Architectures

Many vendors moving towards full functioning backend relational DBs as message stores

Value of DB backend and changing role for support?

What We’ve Learned Thus FarWhat We’ve Learned Thus Far

Harvard University Information Systems

Clients

More robust web clients Native thick clients still offer best performance/feature functionality MAPI Connector option for Outlook – Varies

Handhelds

Support still limited for Blackberry RIM devices. Need Exchange, Groupwise or Notes/Domino to fully integrate

Directory

Each vendor “prefers” their own directory for authentication

Raises questions about our directory & authentication strategy – opportunity to consolidate directories?

What We’ve Learned Thus FarWhat We’ve Learned Thus Far

Harvard University Information Systems

Portals

Many of the Collaboration Suite solutions include portal-like functionality

How could these solutions potentially fit w/existing Harvard portal frameworks

Client Licensing & Discount Structures

Strategies differ per vendor Campus agreements w/specific identified subscribers vs. “full

use” unlimited licenses

Given our ISP Model – it introduces a new level of complexity to manage & administer campus license agreements

What We’ve Learned Thus FarWhat We’ve Learned Thus Far

Harvard University Information Systems

Initial TCOs show total solution prices are in the $ 8-12 per user/mo. range

Fully loaded models including hardware,software, maintenance, facilities, monitoring, backups, storage, labor (FTE & Prod.Mgt), disaster recovery, implementation, training, helpdesk srvcs

Need a firm plan around migration/conversion

Approaches: phased vs. flash cut, start clean vs. convert data Realistically, what data converts well Setting user expectations & communication

What We’ve Learned Thus FarWhat We’ve Learned Thus Far

Harvard University Information Systems

Value input from CSG Meeting

Complete & evaluate end user testing, customer conference calls

Further refine TCOs

Project team to make recommendation this fall

Design/Implementation planning & testing to follow

Next StepsNext Steps

ChangeComplexity

Time