Calendaring and Strategy Recommendation Summary

Transcription

1 Calendaring and Strategy Recommendation Summary AIC Calendaring and Strategy Version 1.0 Prepared by Connie Lobb, ITS Approved by AIC, December 12, 2014 Last Edited January 8, 2015 Executive Summary After almost a year of research, interviews, surveys and deliberation, the Architecture and Infrastructure Committee (AIC) approved the and calendaring strategy recommended by the AIC subcommittee, to pursue a strategy of a single cloud-based platform for and calendaring for business class users across the University of Texas at Austin, in order to deliver the functional requirements desired and needed by those users. Governance The AIC subcommittee was composed of volunteer representatives from AIC and the campus community, including the School of Law, College of Liberal Arts, College of Natural Sciences, McCombs School of Business, Cockrell School of Engineering, Information Technology Services, and members of the student body. Sandra Germenis served as the committee chair. A full list of committee members can be found in the Project Charter. 1 Background During the 2013 rollout of Microsoft s Office 365 cloud service, it became clear that the wide variety in the UT Austin and calendaring environment was contributing to the complexity of the service deployment. In addition, there were service stability and product problems which required hands on Microsoft engineering intervention on the campus. As a result, the project was placed on hold in summer 2013, and then resumed months later on a limited basis for some Colleges, Schools and Units. This split the campus into an on-premise and cloud-based operational state, which was not ideal. The campus IT community wanted a solution. It was at this point that the AIC formed a subcommittee to review the current and calendaring needs on campus, and determine the best long-term approach for this vital service moving forward. Research Nine months of research was conducted including product testing, end user requirements, peer institution reviews, faculty, staff and student surveys, and compiling support criteria. Functional Requirements and calendaring requirements for both the Basic and Business/Collaborative users of the university were defined. The stipulations for Basic users were that the service must be highly reliable, secure, and compatible with Mac and PC platforms. Also defined was that the primary function of basic was to send and receive 1 Project Charter Appendix A Page 1 of 20

2 messages. 2 The specifications for Business users was that the service must meet all the requirements of Basic users, and additionally be feature rich, able to work across business functions, have a global address list, and be able to interface with common offerings that rely on a common and calendaring product for delivery of services. Peer Interviews Fourteen peer institutions were interviewed in order to gauge the and calendaring used, policies, major changes and requirements, and roadmaps and barriers to a single campus offering. Four institutions did not respond and the majority (nine) had either moved or were moving to Office 365 (Boston University, Colorado State University, Duke, Emory, Iowa State, UCLA, University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Nebraska and University of Washington). 3 Campus Survey Results Approximately 1,400 faculty and staff responded to the and calendaring survey, concluding that the majority used Outlook, followed by Google and UT Mail. Common requests for improvements included a uniform system (one platform) and calendar integration. The majority of respondents said that their current service met their needs (83%). 4 The student body returned an almost equal amount of responses, totaling nearly 1,300. Findings showed that the majority of students had a university provided account (88%), but almost half did not schedule meetings (44%). Students who did schedule meetings, used Canvas, or other methods such as or Google calendar. Standards and Support Criteria In order to provide the campus community with optimum support for and calendaring, the subcommittee agreed that a product compatibility grid would be published and updated annually to provide detail on the supported patch levels, operating systems, and platforms for both Windows and Mac, that users needed for best product/service performance. Client Comparison Grid. 5 2 Detailed and calendaring user descriptions Appendix B 3 Full summary of peer interviews Appendix C 4 Faculty/staff survey questions and responses Appendix D 5 Client Comparison Grid Page 2 of 20

3 Final Recommendations Summary Guiding Principles (see Summary Detail) The university should pursue a strategy of a single cloud-based platform for calendaring and for business class users (primarily faculty and staff) across the university in order to deliver the functional requirements desired and needed by those users. The service must meet the following functional requirements: 1. Individual user mailbox and enterprise calendaring services 2. Shared resource capabilities 3. Feature end user experience parity across major operating systems and clients 4. Interoperability with other user populations (e.g., students, alumni, outside entities) and technology services 5. Individual accounts provisioned for all newly affiliated staff and faculty and deprovisioned as affiliations end (some exceptions may apply) Timeline It is estimated that meeting all functional requirements with a single cloud-based platform for calendaring and may take up to 3 to 5 years. In the interim, the timeline has been divided into short and medium term steps to assist with meeting the goal. Short Term 12 to 18 months Medium Term 18 months to 3 years Long Term 3 to 5 years Two cloud offerings will continue to be offered to CSUs through the Summer of These are Office 365 and UT Mail. In addition to this, an on-premise Exchange service will continue to be maintained through the summer of No later than May 2016, it will be determined if a cloud-based platform for calendaring and meets all of the functional requirements for business class users. The service owners will define a cycle of migration windows that will allow each CSU an opportunity to migrate their constituents from one of the three platform to another as needed. The decision will be left to the CSU, however the service owners will make recommendations based on the CSUs specific environment and functionality requirements. The service owners will pursue adding interoperability tools between the supported systems. Retire existing on premise Exchange. If a cloud-based solution does not meet all functional requirements pick either a new on-premise or in a private cloud Exchange service for the subset of users whose functional requirements are not met. By May 2016, the service owners will have begun the implementation of interoperability tools between the supported systems if it was determined to be feasible. The official calendaring and service for conducting university business will be a single cloudbased (e.g., hosted) platform. The university will continue to offer students UTMail which also can be an option for individual choice by faculty and staff. Page 3 of 20

4 Action Items In order to accomplish the strategy set forth in this document, the below items will need to be completed in the time frames suggested. Short Term 12 to 18 months Medium Term 18 months to 3 years Long Term 3 to 5 years AIC to approve the strategy New task force issue findings on if either To be determined by upcoming recommended by this subcommittee current cloud solution meets all functional Task Force. Extend short-term on-premise Exchange maintenance agreement. This is already funded through April 2015 and the expected cost is ~$18,000/year to renew with the understanding extended maintenance ends April 2017 for current hardware. Governance to approve funding interoperability project to include $27,000 for tool to show Google calendar free/busy to Office 365 users and offer tools to better manage resource calendars. requirements. Governance to approve funding refresh of on-premise Exchange if all functional requirements are not met and or revisit functional requirements. Governance to approve funding professional services required to move final on-premise Exchange customers to a long-term and calendaring solution (estimated $70/mailbox based on previous work). CSUs still on-premise need to determine which cloud solution they prefer for calendaring and , with service owner s assistance, no later than May Service owner to create a communication plan for campus communication outlining the findings and action items recommended by this subcommittee. AIC to convene task for no later than January 2016 to review functional capabilities of cloud products and determine if all functional requirements are met. Make decision to fund (or table) a migration tool to UTMail based on CSU feedback and demand, with the December 2014 estimated cost being $60k. Page 4 of 20

5 Summary Detail Individual User Functionality There are two types of users defined by the subcommittee: business users and basic users. The functionality for both user types will has been documented by and published by the subcommittee. Shared Resource Functionality The calendaring and system will allow for the existence of resources (e.g. rooms or projectors) that are available for reservation. A concerted effort will be made, where possible, to include resources like this within the calendaring and system such that employees who manage the resources can do so within the system s client and that employees who wish to make a reservation may do the same. The system will allow globally visible distribution groups, to which appropriate individual employees can be delegated membership control. If possible, the system will contain a searchable address list that contains the primary contact information for all employees, regardless of whether they use the system for their primary mailbox or not. For room scheduling requirements that prove too complex to accommodate and support, alternative methods and products will be evaluated and pursued. Client Functionality The calendaring and system will allow for parity in functionality across all major operating systems used by employees at the university. Service owners will publish a matrix of supported clients and will update that matrix on a regular basis Interoperability Where opportunities present themselves, efforts will be made to publish relevant calendaring information to external systems used by staff, faculty, and students or to pull in information from those systems. Examples of this might include publishing a room s schedule outside of the system or pulling in faculty or advisor appointments from external appointment systems into the faculty or advisors personal calendar. Where opportunities present themselves, employees individual mailboxes or calendars will allow for integration with other communication services such as instant messaging, telephony, and social media for business purposes. Administration and Support This calendaring and account will be provisioned for all employees as part of the normal onboarding process. The accounts will be updated or deprovisioned as the employee's status changes. Page 5 of 20

6 Appendix A Campus Calendaring and Strategy Document Version 3 Prepared by Sandra Germenis, ITS Last Edited January 8, 2015 Project Charter Campus Calendaring and Strategy Executive Summary A task force of volunteer representatives from the campus community and from the Architecture and Infrastructure Committee will be working together to develop an strategy for campus. Representatives from the School of Law, the College of Liberal Arts, the College of Natural Sciences McCombs School of Business, the Cockrell School of Engineering and Information Technology Services as well as student representatives have been assembled to review the current needs for and calendaring on campus and determine the best approach to provision this service moving forward. Business Need and Background The implementation of the Microsoft Office 365 cloud service revealed the wide variety in the UT , calendaring and general office productivity environment. Campus migrations to the cloud were halted after a first phase in the summer of Migrations, both to and from the cloud, resumed in the winter of 2013 and ended January of At this time the campus remains in a multi-platform and calendaring environment including UTMail, Google Calendar, Office 365 and AEMS (on-premise service). The AEMS on-premise service will go out of support in May of This committee has been formed to formulate a strategy for that will better inform decisions made moving forward. The committee will need time to meet with various CSUs on campus to evaluate various needs for and gain consensus for an overall strategy before a final recommendation will be put forward, expected in the fall of An interim strategy recommendation is to allow Colleges, Schools and Units (CSUs) to choose to move during agreed upon windows of opportunity that will maximize use of available project resources to either AEMS 2013 on-premise or Office 365 cloud offering. For others using commodity services, they can continue to schedule ad hoc moves to centrally provided services, specifically AEMS and Office 365. Questions and challenges to consider: What is the benefit to the university? To our customers? To the organization? Benefits include financial savings from an operational and support standpoint, compliance, security, better features and customer experience, and ease of use. The University wants to support fewer servers. An effective /calendaring service for campus should reduce the need for individual Page 6 of 20

7 commodity servers/implementations. Factors to consider are the commodity server policies, compliance with minimum network and information security standards. Solutions must also be enterprise/business class and must support the campus needs for collaboration as well as for legal and accessibility requirements, emergency notification, informational notices and HR payroll needs. In addition the solution must account for the heterogeneity of the campus computing environment. The campus system remains in a multi-platform environment including but not limited to UTMail, Google Calendar, Office 365 and AEMS (on-premise service). With these multiple platforms the user experience is varied and difficult and costly to support. Cross functionality between different calendaring platforms ranges from problematic to impossible so a standard recommendation is needed. The AEMS 2010 on-premise service hardware will go out of support in May of At this time there is an assumption that there will continue to be a need to have an on-premise service, currently AEMS. Scale of the on-premise AEMS service is to be determined. In what ways might this service help our customers be more successful?provide for a more uniform customer experience across campus. Project Description The approach for this project will be customer focused and data driven. Questions to consider: Will an existing service be replaced? Potentially yes on-premise AEMS in its current form will go out of support in the spring of What will guiding principles be for future evaluations and decisions of and calendaring options for campus? Schedule and Milestones List the project s major milestones and deliverables and the target dates for delivery. Milestone/Deliverable Target Date Draft of recommendation for committee review 2/27/2014 AIC review progress check 3/7/2014 Finalize Charter 3/26/2014 AIC Charter review and approval 5/9/2014 Final draft recommendation October 2014 AIC review of final recommendation October 2014 Project Goals In-Scope The output of this subcommittee will be a recommended /calendar strategy for campus. The recommendation shall be able to address the items below: Questions to consider: Page 7 of 20

8 1. Ability for students to get AEMS/o365 accounts. Do we allow lifetime forwarding for students after they graduate (if the answer to question is that students are allowed official addresses in this system)? 2. Require that employees have an account on record 3. Establish policies and procedures for business accounts (AEMS/o365): a. AEMS/o365 is for business use only, accounts are not permanent (but address forward might be, see below) b. All employees by default get a business account (AEMS/o365) as part of the EID process. That account becomes the default address for campus wide communication. c. Ability for students/faculty to get lifetime forwarding service after they left/graduate need a management structure. 4. What are the best practices for the systems and clients we support? What client/server related configuration options (such as protocols, synchronization schedules, etc.) will be fully supported, and what will receive best effort? Will any be deliberately not supported? 5. Do we standardize the way resource mailbox/calendaring is utilized? 6. Do we provide tools to allow (some) people to manage and create resource mailboxes/calendars? (we would need those tools..another project) 7. Training needs? 8. What functionality is required by staff? Faculty? Students? (resource calendars, distribution groups) 9. What client choices should there be? And for whom (faculty, staff, students, alumni, retirees)? 10. What dependencies are there ex. Canvas>>google? 11. What does it mean to have multiple calendaring systems? 12. Student Roles vs employee roles 13. Student discuss recommendations 14. Do we need a separate calendaring solution? 15. Make a recommendation for handling of retaining a university branded Out of Scope Specific product or service recommendation is out of scope for this project. However the recommendations stemming from this effort can be used to inform product/service acquisition. Project Management and Governance Project team members are expected to represent their units unique and broad research and/ or business needs and ensure that the final recommendations encompass those. Questions to consider: Who are the people who are making decisions/stakeholders who need to be involved? Project Team, AIC review, AIC approval, Other TBD. Page 8 of 20

9 Role Name(s)/Title(s) Responsibilities Executive Sponsor(s) Sandra Germenis Committee Chair Project Manager Technical Lead Project Team Information Security Officer Stakeholder(s) Sandra Germenis Sabina Winters, Trice Humpert, Ryan Baldwyn, James Coombes, Angie Newell, Student representatives, Randy Rife, Mark McFarland, Brad Van Schouwen, Brad Johnston, Tim Fackler, Mike Harvey Cam Beasley Registrar, other Administrative units, Other commodity service providers, CSU other. Contributors ISO representation Reviewers and contributors Impact Analysis If recommendations of the sub-committee are accepted by AIC, the need for formal policy adoption should be evaluated. Will there be other Governance approvals required? Assumptions Assumes project stakeholders will meet regularly, contribute to and agree on final recommendation report. Constraints Describe any project constraints being imposed in areas such as schedule, budget, resources, products to be reused, technology to be employed, products to be acquired, etc. Risks Identify the high-level risks for the project. No immediate risks at this time. Revision History Version Date Description V 1 1/15/2014 Initial draft completed V 3 1/28/2014 Scope clarification V 4 3/12/2014 Peer review and functionality requirements V 6 4/9/2014 AIC feedback V 7 5/8/2014 Proposed - Final charter acceptance Page 9 of 20

10 Appendix B <blank> This functionality is needs to be fully supported by the product/mail client. This functionality can have limited support in the product/mail client. This functionality will not be supported. This feature is not required in the mail client. Overall /Calendaring Requirements Grid by Audience Statement of guiding principles: and calendaring for Business Users of the University of Texas at Austin must be highly reliable, feature rich, secure, able to work across business functions, have a global address list, compatible with Mac and PC, and able to interface with common offerings that rely on a common /calendaring for delivery of services. and calendaring for Basic Users must be only highly reliable, secure, and compatible with Mac and PC platforms. Audience Type The typical end user needing a UT branded and Calendaring tool Business/ Collaborative User Basic User Send/Receive Composing, sending and receiving messages. Folder Management Rules Sharing Advanced Functions Managing messages (including creating folders and moving items between them). Creating and managing rules for mail messages, including folder/spam rules and out of office auto-replies. Sharing your mailbox folders and accessing folders shared by other users. Viewing mail headers, advanced message forwarding and attachment options, enterprise features, groups, distribution lists, public folders Contacts Global Address List (GAL) Accessing the Global Address List (GAL) on the Exchange server. Page 10 of 20

11 Calendaring Event Management Creating, viewing, and modifying events on your calendar (incuding setting features such as recurrence). Meeting Management Creating and modifying meetings (events with multiple attendees). Scheduling Sharing Resources Tasks Provisioning Permissioning Mac PC Legal holds Encryption Digital Signature Cat. 1 data Responding to meeting invitations, viewing other users' free/busy information, etc. Sharing your calendar and accessing calendars shared by other users. Accessing and managing resources (i.e. rooms), including adding resources as attendees, accepting invitations on their behalf, etc. Creating, viewing, and modifying tasks. Creating new accounts Account Management Controlling for self or others Platform Compatility Outlook Mac 2011, Apple mail ical, ios Vendor supported OWA, Outlook 2010, Outlook 2013, Vendor supported platforms Legal and Compliance Considerations Special licensing needs, special records retention availability, searchable Content protection Page 11 of 20

12 Appendix C University 1. What primary calendaring product/service is used? Secondary? Others Carnegie Mellon University of Colorado at Boulder University On premise Exchange no plans to move Just starting to move from Exchange 2007 to Office 365. Not enough information to date to comment on the migrations. Colorado State University On premise and testing a move to O365. Boston University Deliberately delayed the move to Office 365 so their tenant would be on the 2013 version of Office 365. Testing Lync, SharePoint and Office and there are a number of minor issues with MAC clients. will come after Lync and SharePoint but no time is specified yet. University of Nebraska (see attachment titled "University of Nebraska) Brad Van Schouwen 3/17/14 University of Nebraska Migration Experience.eml All Faculty and Staff use Office 365. Students can get Office 365 accounts, but typically use whatever they want. There is no prohibition preventing faculty staff from using personal accounts, but it is strongly discouraged. UCLA No Response, Brad Van Schouwen 3/17/14 From last contact over the summer of 2013 they were evaluating Office 365 and were in the project planning phase. S. Germenis Emory Moving Faculty Staff and Students to Office 365. Students were completed (16,000) in 2012 and Migrations for faculty and staff will be completed slowly over the next year and handled by internal staff. Iowa State University of Washington Duke Moving to Office 365 beginning this spring. Planning process was about 6 months long. (June 2013) Holding off on Wave 15 because the product was too early in the release for campus. Working on the Lync and SharePoint side of the project/ product. O365 requires a lot of up front planning and post support for campus. (June 2013) They have been testing for quite some time. This is a very complex migration from our current dual environment to a single tenant. This will include campus and the health system. Only a handful of users are in the cloud as of today. Focus has been their internal technical mail routing and trying to optimize for the change to Wave Are university accounts issued to all employees? Required by policy? Any other governing policies? Carnegie Mellon University of Colorado at Boulder Colorado State University Boston University Yes Yes Yes, generally. Yes Page 12 of 20

13 University of Nebraska UCLA Emory Iowa State University of Washington Duke University Anyone affiliated with UNL can get an Office 365 account (including campus volunteers and alumni (managed through the alumni office)). I should add that all but on University campus moved in this direction - the medical center implemented local Exchange due to HIPPA concerns. 3. Are any major changes to current and calendaring products/services being contemplated? What are they? Carnegie Mellon University of Colorado at Boulder Colorado State University Boston University University of Nebraska UCLA Emory Iowa State University of Washington Duke University Other than the move to the cloud, no. Move to cloud No. We moved to Office years ago and don't envision any changes in the near future. 4. If you were to make a change what would the major requirements be for and calendaring for faculty, staff, students? Carnegie Mellon University of Colorado at Boulder Colorado State University Boston University University of Nebraska UCLA Emory Iowa State University of Washington Duke Need the ability to perform all business functions and needs to be reliable. No. We moved to Office years ago and don't envision any changes in the near future. Page 13 of 20

14 University 5. Is there a campus roadmap for on-premise vs. cloud offerings for faculty, staff, students? Carnegie Mellon University of Colorado at Boulder Colorado State University Boston University University of Nebraska UCLA Emory Iowa State University of Washington Duke University Not officially. Yes. Cloud has already been adopted. 6. What are the barriers if any, for a single campus and calendaring offering? Carnegie Mellon University of Colorado at Boulder Colorado State University Boston University University of Nebraska UCLA Emory Iowa State University of Washington Duke Still in testing stage - no real information. I don't know I would call them barriers, but there are hurdles. Faculty and staff preference is a large hurdle. Many departments were used to running their own e- mail systems, and it took a lot of effort to convince them of the benefits of having their own IT staff being available to support other functions within their units (like helping professors get or implement grants). No response: Cornell - per Brad Van Schouwen 3/17/14 University of Florida - per Brad Van Schouwen 3/17/14 Tulane - University of Wisconsin - per Sandra Germenis 3/19/14 Page 14 of 20

15 Appendix D AIC Calendaring and Subcommittee Survey Questions (Refer to Excel spreadsheets for metadata summary) Please share your current experiences with calendaring at UT: What is your primary UT affiliation? 1. Faculty 2. Staff 3. Student 4. Other (please specify) Which of the calendaring services do you use? Please check all that apply 1. Google 2. UTMail 3. Outlook 4. Outlook Web Access 5. Canvas 6. ical 7. Other (Text Box) Does it meet your needs - y/n Check all of the following features you currently use for calendaring: Checking availability of invitees Room reservations Manage someone else s calendar View multiple calendars Share your calendar with at least one other person Book meetings with other UT personnel (any other enterprise features) Within your application, how do you share your calendar or access calendars other than your own? Please check all that apply 1. Within my immediate work group only 2. Within my college, school or unit 3. Within UT - people from other colleges, schools and units 4. With people outside of UT 5. With students Page 15 of 20

16 6. I do not share my calendar with other people or access other calendars within my application Do you book meetings with people via ? Yes, No Within your or calendaring application, how much do you use meeting requests (check all that apply)? 1. I use them rarely or not at all 2. I prefer to use them when I schedule meetings with other people 3. When I receive them I use them to update my calendar 4. When applicable, I use them to propose new meeting times and send updates to other invitees 5. I use them to book meeting rooms Do you book meetings with other people via ? Yes, No If so, how do you determine their availability to meet? Check all that apply (in order of importance) 1. I check the person's availability (free/busy time) within my application 2. I check the person's availability using some other calendaring system 3. I send an asking when they are available 4. I call them 5. Other (please specify) How would you like to determine their availability to meet? Check all that apply (in order of importance) 1. I check the person's availability (free/busy time) within my application 2. I check the person's availability using some other calendaring system 3. I send an asking when they are available 4. I call them 5. Other (please specify) Other than your own calendar, how many faculty/staff calendars do you regularly open at the same time? 1. None I only open my own calendar > 15 If any of these are resource/room calendars, how many do you regularly manage? Page 16 of 20

17 >15 Please share your current experiences with at UT: Check all of the following features you currently use for business 1. send as another address 2. receive as another address 3. out of office 4. forwarding 5. delayed function How important is it to have calendaring features integrated with on a scale of = not important 7. 5= essential When you need to other UT employees or students for the first time, how do you find their address? 1. I look them up in the in my system s address book of all users 2. I look them up in the UT directory (or Canvas/Quest/Blackboard) 3. I look them up in a Department directory (please specify URL) 4. Other (please specify) Do you use a mobile device to access or calendar? Yes, No I use my mobile device to (please check all that apply): check check calendaring create meeting invitations accept meeting invitations What improvements would you like to see in and calendaring services at UT? (Textbox for comments) Students Only: What kind of university service do you use? Page 17 of 20

18 1. I have a university/college/department provided account 2. I have a university/college/department provided address that I forward to a non-university mailbox that I check 3. I do not use any kind of university provided service or address How do you schedule meetings with students, professors, academic advisors or other administrative staff? Please check all that apply. 1. Canvas 2. A university or college system that shows people s free/busy time 3. Other (please specify) 4. I don t use any kind of calendaring/availability system to request such meetings Do you have a UT issued lifetime address? Yes, No, Don t know If so, how would you use it? Please check all that apply 1. I don t want one or don t plan to use one that was already given to me 2. I would use it to keep in touch with potential employers or for other professional purposes 3. I would use it to keep in touch with classmates 4. I would use it retain a sense of community with my school and/or UT Within your application, what is the largest extent to which you share your calendar with other people or access calendars other than your own? 1. Within my immediate work group only 2. Within my college, school or unit 3. With people from other colleges, schools and units 4. With students 5. I do not share my calendar with other people or access other calendars within my application Within your application, what is the largest extent to which you would like to share your calendar with other people or access calendars other than your own? 1. Within my immediate work group only 2. Within my college, school or unit 3. With people from other colleges, schools and units 4. With students 5. I do not share my calendar with other people or access other calendars within my application What improvements would you like to see in and calendaring services at UT? (Textbox for comments) Page 18 of 20

19 Summary of Faculty, Staff and Student Other Responses STUDENTS Question 3 What other ways do you schedule meetings with students, professors, academic supervisors or other administrative staff? 45 Google Calendar 18 Doodle 15 Facebook 9 Other 14 Total Responses 101 Question 7 What improvements would you like to see in calendaring and services at UT? Better integration with Google services such as Google 34 calendars Ability to standardize calendar services, so campus wide 28 events, professors office hours, or other students schedules are accessible Satisfied with services 15 Other (better encryption, only , more 22 storage) Total Responses 99 FACULTY Question 2 Which other calendaring services do you use? Webmail (SharePoint, Outlook, WebEvent, Zimbra, 27 Lightning) Apple Calendar 23 Doodle 17 Paper Calendar 12 Other (Most were none) 22 Total Responses 101 Question 4 Any other enterprise features you currently use for calendaring? Reminders/ Time Management 36 Schedule appointments with students and UT Staff 26 Calendar Request (Vehicles, Rooms) 19 Other (Calendar Integration, None) 19 Total Responses 100 Page 19 of 20

20 Question 8 What other ways would you determine their availability to meet? Doodle 67 Ask them in person, IM, or texting 27 Other 13 Total Responses 107 Question 9 What other ways would you prefer to determine their availability to meet? Doodle 60 In person, IM, or texting 23 Other 19 Total Responses 102 Question 12 Please share your other current experiences with at UT (for business ): Organizing, Archiving, Filtering, Sorting 28 Merging 13 Other (Don t like, Check from mobile/computer ) 16 Total Responses 57 Question 14 Which other ways do you find the addresses for other UT employees? Use combination of Google, UT Directory, and 73 list Ask them in person 9 Total Responses 82 Question 17 What improvements would you like to see in calendaring and services at UT? Uniform system, use of only one platform 35 Better Integration with Google services for 28 scheduling. (Mentioned no Outlook a lot) No complaints 15 Other 22 Total Responses 100 Page 20 of 20