Lotus Notes Replacement Recommendation. May 7, 2013

Transcription

1 May 7, 2013 Prepared by: John Urbanick, Chief Technology Officer, Chair Lotus Notes Replacement Committee Mary Kay MacIver, Associate Director of Advancement Services and Technology, University Advancement & Marketing Jennifer Hegenauer, Director of Marketing, Research and Communication for Extended and International Operations

2 (back of cover / blank)

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... 1 Introduction... 2 Approach... 2 Criteria... 3 Scoring... 5 Concerns... 6 Implementation Recommendations... 7 Estimated Budget... 8 Closing Summary... 9 Appendix...10

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Lotus Notes Replacement Committee recommends Microsoft Office 365 as the next generation collaboration and productivity platform for Ferris State University. The committee performed an extensive side-by-side evaluation of both Google Apps for Education and Microsoft Office 365 features and determined that Office 365 will best meet our needs in the areas of , calendaring, cloud storage/document management, conferencing, instant messaging, Lotus Notes account migration, security, and accessibility for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. To complete an in-depth evaluation of the products, the committee divided into multiple subcommittee based on the above areas of focus. Each subcommittee used a capabilities matrix to evaluate the products and to score them based on University needs. Microsoft Office 365 scored higher in eight out of the ten areas of focus. We then applied a weighting value so that the most important features factored more prominently in the overall score. The final scores are 76.5 for Office, and 60.5 for Google. In addition to evaluating the capabilities of both products, the committee also considered University business processes as they relate to software, user provisioning, user authentication, IT support, additional software products, and mobile device functionality. In addition, external references for both product functionality and vendor support were sought from peer institutions who have converted to either Google or Office 365. The committee did find that neither product exceeded the needs of the institution, finding that each has shortcomings with its collaboration and/or productivity tools. However, the strong positioning of Office 365 s , calendaring, Microsoft Office product integration, and security offered the best solution for both Ferris' academic and administrative environments. The new collaboration tools will provide outstanding flexibility and efficiencies for storing, sharing and accessing critical documents across our campuses, as well as with business partners, vendors and other constituents. The committee has also prepared implementation recommendations for the University leadership that it considers critical for the successful implementation of the new system. Please refer to the "Implementation Recommendations" section. Finally, the full committee and subcommittees have had many lively and rigorous debates while evaluating the collaboration and productivity suites. At this time, we recognize that Office 365 may not meet all faculty and staff needs. However, we feel that Office 365 is the best choice for the faculty and staff of Ferris State University. Page 1

5 INTRODUCTION During the past several years, many employees have voiced concerns related to performance, capability, and mobile accessibility with the current Lotus Notes and calendaring system. In 2011, Information Technology Services conducted a customer feedback survey on Lotus Notes and found that over 50% of the participants indicated that we should begin looking at a replacement solution. In 2012, the University Plan for IT was developed through extensive engagement with all constituencies and the replacement of Lotus Notes emerged as a critical priority. Three cloud-based solutions were pre-selected for evaluation through previous planning discussions, research on market leaders, and by viewing higher education trends. The three vendors selected to provide demonstrations on , calendaring, and new collaboration tools were MeritMail, Google, and Office 365. Some of the advantages of these cloud-based services include a significant increase in mailbox capacity, instant messaging, video conferencing, additional file storage space, and document collaboration. These services, when adopted, will lead to greater productivity for many Ferris employees. APPROACH The Lotus Notes Replacement Committee was formed to advance the University Plan for IT initiative of replacing Lotus Notes. The group was comprised of 38 faculty and staff from across the University. These individuals were selected to ensure a good cross-section of employees both from the main campus and statewide locations and based on their response to a Lotus Notes survey requesting volunteers to serve on a University-wide replacement committee. In addition, others were invited to participate based on perceived lack of representation of identified groups. The list of committee and subcommittee members can be found in Appendix A. The committee charge was to recommend a replacement system for Lotus Notes to the University leadership and to the University at large. The scope of the replacement solution is for faculty and staff with consideration on how the new solution will improve collaboration with students. IT Services, along with the Purchasing department, scheduled three vendor demonstrations in January The demonstrations were held on the Big Rapids campus, broadcast via distance learning technologies to Grand Rapids, and via webinar connectivity for other locations. The demonstrations were recorded for anyone who wished to review them later. Faculty and staff were encouraged to attend the demonstrations through University-Wide Notices, direct s, and by divisional vice president requests. The attendance for the three demonstrations was reasonable given the timing; the vendors demonstrated during the second week of January. The total participation was 323 employees across the three-day event. All participants and University customers at large were given the opportunity to provide feedback via electronic survey. The results of the survey identified Google and Office 365 as the clear front-runners for the committee to focus on as potential solutions. Page 2

6 CRITERIA The committee s next steps were to focus on Google and Office 365 features and functionality. The committee analyzed the data from the January 2013 customer surveys to develop a prioritized list of features the university s employees selected as being the most important for a successful replacement solution. The information in Table 1 shows the original information based on the questions asked in the survey. 5.0 Importance by Features Faculty All but faculty Everyone Table 1. Chart of Importance by Features The committee then used the information from the survey on feature importance, along with themes identified in the open text comments, and committee member s feedback to modify the list by combining a few categories. In addition, the committee added a few categories that customers were not asked about in the survey, but deemed important by the committee. Page 3

7 The information in Table 2 identifies the priorities and features used to evaluate the potential solutions. It is important to note that mobile access capabilities was included where appropriate in the feature set evaluation. Priority Features Priority Features Very High Medium Conferencing Very High Calendaring Medium Instant Messaging High Cloud Storage Document Mgt Low Personal Web Space Additional Categories Very High High High Medium Security Account Migration Accessibility (ADA) Time Off Request System Table 2. Priorities and features The committee then decided to divide and conquer by breaking up into subcommittees to allow for specific review of the different product s features. The committee members volunteered to participant in different groups based on their interests, and then chairs were assigned in each group to organize the reviews. The ten groups formed were , Calendaring, Cloud Storage, Conferencing, Instant Messaging, Personal Web Space, Security, Account Migration, Time Off System, and Accessibility for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Each of the subcommittees used an assessment matrix specifically created to help provide a consistent evaluation of the different collaboration tools being reviewed. The initial categories in the assessment matrix were developed from reoccurring themes of interest from our user groups during the demonstrations and through the survey feedback. Each group was instructed to add categories that were found to be important, as well as to remove categories that added little value to the assessment. Each subcommittee s completed assessment matrix can be viewed in Appendix B. Page 4

8 SCORING The information in Table 3 identifies the weighting, scoring and features the committee used to evaluate each product in a side-by-side comparison. The overall score identifies Office 365 as the clear choice based on each subcommittee s assessment of the product s features. Office 365 scored higher in eight out of ten scoring categories. Weighting Factor Weight Description Score 5 Very High Importance 0 4 High Importance 1 3 Medium Importance 2 2 Low Importance 3 1 Very Low Importance 0.5 Scoring Factor Description Does Not Meet Our Needs Can Meet Our Needs With Extra Products Meets Our Needs Exceeds Our Needs Add.5 to the vendors score that has a noted advantage (on your subcommittees Assessment sheet). Example: Both apps meet our needs, but one has some documented advantages = 2.5 Weight Assigned Feature being scored by subcommittees Google App For Education Office 365 Weighted Score Google Weighted Scored Office 365 Feature Being Scored Score Score 5 Mail Calendaring Cloud Environment Instant Messaging Conferencing Personal Web Site Account Migration Security ADA Accessibility Time Off Request System Overall Score Other Factors References Contracting Flexibility Table 3. Scoring Matrix The categories under Other Factors were not weighted or scored per the committee s preference. However, they were discussed and used as additional information in making our recommendation. The following are a few comments of the different subcommittee s findings. The complete assessments are available in Appendix B. Office 365 received the.5 additional score as it was found to be: generally easy to navigate; created for business purposes; the client was seen as a plus; and, Outlook and MS Office serve as industry standards. Page 5

9 Calendaring: In many areas, Office 365 has many more features that will suit more preferences and add efficiency. Conferencing: more intuitive to share screen, YouTube content, docs, etc. with Google. Advantage Google. Instant Messaging: Office 365 was the stronger product in the key areas of user interface, desktop software, and help. Security: Office 365 allows for administrative granularity of controls, supports complex access control for accounts, groups and users. Microsoft is HIPAA compliant and the will sign a HIPAA Business Associate Agreement (BAA) with Ferris. This is mandatory for future compliance of Ferris health clinics and academic programs. Accessibility: Two U.S. volunteer groups, ATHEN (Access Technology Higher Education Network) and EASI (Equal Access to Software and Information) evaluated MS 365 and Google for accessibility in October 2011 and March 2012 respectively. Both groups determined Office 365 was more accessible. CONCERNS While the overall side-by-side comparisons of the products clearly favors Offices 365 features and functionality, the committee is concerned about faculty collaboration with students. Most of the subcommittees discussed this collaboration issue as part of their overall evaluations. Having faculty in Office 365 and students in Google Apps for Education will pose some initial challenges in the areas of desktop video conferencing and document collaboration. These collaboration activities can be accomplished with Office 365; however, they will not be as seamless as having the faculty and students in the same collaboration suite. To overcome these initial challenges special attention to communications and training will be necessary. Several conferencing subcommittee members shared concerns about choosing Office 365 as the next generation platform for Ferris and their opinions are summarized below. They found it easier to navigate in Google Apps than Office 365 The Office365 Mac client features are different from the PC client Office 365 has limited themes, while Google Apps has many The Outlook 2013 client provides extra functionality some features and IT will have to make sure everyone that needs the functionality has an up to date operating system. The committee discussed the option of moving students over to Office 365 to improve the collaboration between faculty and students. The committee agreed that this is an important issue to be considered as a future initiative. They also agreed that we should move faculty and staff first prior to considering another large migration of services. There is no additional cost for hosting our student population on Office 365. Page 6

10 IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the recommendation of Office 365 as the next generation collaboration and productivity tool for Ferris, we also felt it was important to make a short list of implementation recommendations to help manage the change and customer expectations with the new system. 1. It is critical that the executive leadership be 100% on board with the newly selected system. Without this commitment and support on the decision and subsequent implementation, this change will experience significant challenges and may fail. 2. Tentative implementation start date of January 2014 with a target completion date of August A minimum of six months of implementation planning is recommended after a final decision on the new solution to ensure the best results. 4. Unlimited Archiving - purchase additional archiving of user instant messaging and correspondence for all employees. Re-evaluate this need and/or additional archiving desires and requirements for the University during the following academic year. 5. Hosted Encryption Service - purchase the encryption service to address HIPAA compliance requirement for electronic records transferred via Time Off Request System - replace this system by purchasing or building a replacement system. 7. ADFS and Dir Sync - Implement Active Directory Federated Service and Directory Sync Service to integrate with our existing Ferris systems for consistent account management and user authentication from anywhere. 8. Migration Software - purchase specialized software to help automate the moving of Lotus Notes , contacts, calendars, and archives where possible to the new system. 9. Professional Services - hire certified solutions partners to assist the University with planning, design, configuration and initial implementation of Office Customer Training - provide extensive customer training opportunities for individuals, groups, and departments. 11. IT Services Training - provide IT Services training for Service Desk, Computer Technicians and Systems Administrators to provide the best support possible during and after the migration. 12. Existing Project Funding - the funding identified for this initiative in the University Plan for IT should be rolled over into the next fiscal year to help fund the effort. 13. The Business Policy and other related Business Policy Letters should be reviewed/updated appropriately. This is a preliminary list of recommendations based on our current knowledge of the products and our needs. The planning phase for this initiative will further refine the list above and identify additional recommendations. Page 7

11 ESTIMATED BUDGET Proper funding is an important part to the success of any project and the implementation of our next generation collaboration suite is no exception. This significant initiative will require integration, additional services for compliance, user and technical training, and professional services to be successful. The estimated budget in Table 3 includes both one time and ongoing costs to support this initiative. Estimated Budget Office 365 Cost First Year Licensing Costs Unlimited Arch 2000 users $ 24,000 Hosted Encryption Service for HIPAA Compliance $ 10,000 Time Off Request System $ 10,000 Subtotal $ 44,000 Contingency 10% $ 4,400 First Year Costs $ 48,400 Implementation One Time Cost ADFS & Dir Sync On Premise Servers $ 20,000 Migration Software $ 25,000 Professional Services $ 75,000 Customer Training $ 100,000 IT Services Training $ 30,000 Table 3: Estimated Budget Subtotal $ 250,000 Contingency 20% $ 50,000 One Time Costs $ 300,000 Total First Year Cost $ 348,400 Existing One Time Project Funding $ 176,625 Professional Services to date $ (5,276) Current Fund Balance $ 171,349 Projected One Time Balance/Deficit $ (177,051) Annual Funding Costs FY15 Licensing Cost $ 48,400 Lotus Notes Licensing (ITS) $ (25,500) Net Annual Increase $ 22,900 The initial estimate for this initiative was $176,625 and one time funding was loaded into the University Plan for IT account. The budget estimate in Table 3 has a significant increase in "Professional Services" and "Customer Training" over the initial estimate in the University Plan for IT. These areas were increased at the request of the senior leadership to help insure a very successful implementation. The project budget needs to be increased by $177,051 based on these estimates. Page 8

12 CLOSING SUMMARY The committee's recommendation is the result of a deliberate, thoughtful and detailed investigation of the capabilities of both products. The committee made every effort to be inclusive of the needs of our faculty and staff, as well as giving their due diligence to the special needs of campus groups who must comply with federal and state regulations for the data security relating to legal and health information. We are confident that Microsoft Office 365 will provide the best functionality to meet the current and future needs of Ferris State University. Page 9

13 APPENDIX Appendix A: Subcommittee Membership Name Title Department Division Laurie Daniels Secretary Level 3 Faulty Center for Academic Affairs Teaching & Learning Roberta (Robin) Executive Assistant Academic Affairs Academic Affairs Hoisington to Provost Leah Monger Academic FLITE Systems & Academic Affairs Department Head Operations Dean Luplow Associate Professor Michigan College of Academic Affairs Optometry Mark DeKoster Associate Professor Automotive Service Academic Affairs Technology Will Gasper Manager of Grounds, Rds & Walk Physical Plant- Grounds Administration & Andrew Rayburn Computer Technician Student Technology Services Administration & Steven Stratton, Chair Director of Labor Relations Governmental Relations & General Counsel Governmental Relations & General Counsel Adam Wetherell Coordinator Admin KCAD Administration Kendall College Mary Kay Maclver Business Affairs Associate Director of Advance Service/Tech & University Advancement & Marketing of Art & Design University Advancement & Marketing Page 10

14 Calendaring Name Title Department Division Jennifer Hegenauer Director of Marketing Research & Communication- EIO Extended & International Operations (EIO) Academic Affairs Rebecca Burgenmeyer Coordinator-Campus & Conferences Extended & International Operations (EIO) Roberta (Robin) Hoisington Executive Assistant to Provost Academic Affairs Laurie Daniels Secretary Level 3 Faculty Center for Teaching & Learning Melinda Isler Professor FLITE Archives & Special Collections Amy Buse Professor Accountancy, & Information Systems Dept. Will Gasper Adam Wetherell, Chair Manger of Grounds, Roads & Walks Coordinator Admin Business Affairs Physical Plant- Grounds KCAD Administration & Academic Affairs Academic Affairs Academic Affairs Academic Affairs Academic Affairs Administration & Kendall College of Art & Design Cloud Storage Name Title Department Division Dean Luplow Associate Professor Michigan College of Academic Affairs Optometry Kathy Wykes Adjunct Faculty- 1 Languages and Academic Affairs Semester FT Literature Mark DeKoster Associate Professor Automotive Service Academic Affairs Technology Michael McKay Manager of Employee Human Resources Administration & Safety/Training Vel Pavlov Technology Services Coordinator Technology Assistance Center Administration & Susan Cherry IT Service Manager IT Services- Administration & Steven Stratton, Chair Director of Labor Relations Administrative Office Governmental Relations & General Counsel Governmental Relations & General Counsel Lindsey Cuddeback Coordinator of Comm Admissions & Student Affairs & Social Media Records Mary Kay MacIver Associate Director of University University Page 11

15 Advancement Services Services/Tech Advancement & Marketing Advancement & Marketing Conferencing Name Title Department Division Daniel P deregnier, Chair Associate Professor Clinical Lab Sciences Academic Affairs Melinda Isler Professor FLITE Archives & Special Collections Academic Affairs Andrew Peterson Instructional Technologist Faculty Center for Teaching & Learning Academic Affairs Mike (Fred) Ennis Associate Professor School of Education- Teacher Education Academic Affairs Debbra Curtis Director- Northern Region Extended & International Academic Affairs Operations (EIO) Michael McKay Mgr. of Empl Safety/Training Human Resources Admin & Vel Pavlov Technology Services Technology Administration & Lindsey Cuddeback Coordinator Coordinator of Comm & Social Media Assistance Center Admissions & Records Student Affairs Instant Messaging Name Title Department Division Jennifer Hegenauer, Director of Marketing Extended & Academic Affairs Chair Research & Communication- EIO International Operations (EIO) Daniel P deregnier Associate Professor Clinical Lab Academic Affairs Vel Pavlov Technology Services Coordinator Sciences Technology Assistance Center Administration & Personal Web Page Name Title Department Division Ralph Williams, Director of IT Services- Administration & Chair Enterprise & App Administrative Terri Aldrich Services Web Systems Administrator Office IT Services- Enterprise & Applications Services Page 12 Administration & Andrew Peterson Instructional Faculty Center for Academic Affairs

16 Technologist Teaching & Learning Account Migration Name Title Department Division Jim Cook, Chair IT Project Manager IT Services Administration & Lynn Lewis Administrator IT Services- Enterprise & Applications Services Andrew Rayburn Computer Technician Student Technology Services Administration & Administration & Time Off Processing Name Title Department Division Ralph Williams, Director of IT Services- Administration & Chair Enterprise & App Administrative Office Service Steven Lampe Disbursements Supervisor Payroll Office Administration & Amy Parks Lead Payroll Clerk Payroll Office Administration & Marlene Mohnke Secretary Level 3 IT Services- Telecommunications Administration & Jonathan Dean Senior Appl DB Analyst IT Services- Enterprise & Applications Services Administration & Security & Accessibility Name Title Department Division Tom Behler Interim Department Social Sciences Academic Affairs Head Deb Cox Academic Educational Academic Affairs Department Head Counseling & Disabilities Services Julie Jerome, Chair Buyer Purchasing Administration & John Urbanick Chief Technology IT Services- Administration & Officer Lynn Lewis Administrator IT Services- Enterprise & Administrative Office Administration & Page 13

17 Applications Services Lori Henderson Data Security Administrator IT Services- Administrative Office James Furstenberg IT Security Analyst IT Services- Administrative Office Vel Pavlov Technology Services Technology Coordinator Assistance Center Administration & Administration & Administration & Page 14

18 Appendix B: Subcommittee Assessments Assessment Account Capacity 25gb 25gb Draw. Security and Storage Location Retrieval/Retention of Deleted Mail FSU data is mixed w/ other clients. Data is stored all over the world so if one area is corrupted, others are not. Need third party for encryption. FSU data is housed separate from other clients. Data stored only in U.S. Data loss prevention w/ MS 365 is a plus. 30 seconds to recall. 30 day retrieval. Full archiving capability. Advantage MS 365. Both apps have good security measures with MS 365 having better out of the box capability. Subcommittee feels security experts are better able to answer this concern. Mobile Access Most devices. Most devices. Draw. Archiving Address Book Google Vault does not support Lotus Notes. Recall if not read. Delay send function. Standard 30 day retrieval + additional 30. Advantage MS 365. Draw. File attachment size Draw. Search Capabilities Draw. Templates Draw. Mail Management & Filters Draw. Auto Reply/Out of Office Sending HTML Standard w/ auto disable. Yes but need to create html code in another product and copy into Google mail. Auto disable and can differentiate between FSU and outsiders for different messages. Yes, html format can be selected within client. Advantage MS 365. Advantage MS 365. Page 15

19 Overview Both apps were judged as able to meet our needs and received a 2 rating. MS 365 received the.5 additional score as it was found to be: generally easy to navigate; created for business purposes; the client was seen as a plus; and, Outlook and MS Office serve as industry standards. Calendar Assessment Matrix Function Google Apps MS Office 365 Pro/Con/Advantage Viewing/Printing Individual View Day at a glance/summary view Printing options Daily, weekly, monthly views - Clicking through calendar brings up pop up appointment blocks. Negative - Available as a lab called Calendar gadget. Negative that it is in lab. - Can save as a PDF. Positive - Calendar prints on whole page - very clean and easy to read. Positive - Can print portrait or landscape. Positive - Print icon is buried in More. Negative - 4 day view but no work week view without some detailed setting changes. Negative - Web version: displays current and next month calendar on side (web version). Positive - Shades out areas not in work week (web version). Positive - Month view does not show all meetings (web version). Negative - Can customize views in settings (client). Positive - Can print all view options (web). Positive - Can print agenda view or calendar view (web). Positive - Other layout options are very clean printed (web). Positive - Includes small calendars for current and next month on top (web). Positive - Print icon on calendar page. Positive - Includes a work week view. Positive - Can jump to future weeks or Page 16 Advantage Microsoft Advantage Microsoft Advantage Microsoft The print features make the printed calendar look nicer than Google's. Easier to print agenda view or calendar view from print screen than Google. Microsoft client version has several more options for printing. Advantage Microsoft Work week view is an advantage. Maneuverability from week to week using

20 Viewing multiple calendars at one time Formatting and Preferences Notification/alarm options - Viewing multiple calendars side by side will take some getting used to. Negative - Can hide or unhide easily. Positive - Can view more than 5 calendars at once. Positive - Can only add reminders by event, do not see that you can set a default for all. Negative - When creating an event it defaults to a 10 minute reminder, you have to delete it. Negative - No snooze options. Negative - Cannot send by text. Negative past weeks using icons at top (web). Positive - Calendar views too many to see what you are looking for (web). Negative - Viewing multiple calendars side by side will take some getting used to. Negative - Can hide or unhide easily. Positive - Can only view 5 calendars at once on web app. Negative - On client, able to create a group with multiple calendars that can open/close with click of the group name (10 tested). Positive - Can automatically switch to vertical layout to schedule view and customize # of viewed calendars. Positive - Client version has overlay feature to compare calendars and offers another way to view multiple calendars a little easier. Positive - Can add reminders by event or as default for all in settings. Positive - Can send calendar reminders as text. Positive - Alarm snooze options. Positive - Do not see that we can send reminders via . Negative Page 17 icons at top is more efficient than the arrows in Google. Advantage Microsoft There are several options and features in Microsoft that were found to provide value and efficiency. Advantage Microsoft Although not being able to get a reminder by is a disadvantage, the other pluses outweigh it.

21 Display preferences (colors, etc.) Importing holidays Out of office function Department/Shared calendars Are there formatting/viewing options different than individual calendar? Room calendars - separate or attached to a person? Delegation, Access, & Privacy Delegating access to calendar View vs. update capabilities - Can send by . Positive - Red line denoting current time makes it difficult to read event detail. Negative - time slots listed in 30 minute increments with no option to change. Negative - There are no solid lines between days (web). Negative - Changing themes does not change text color or meeting colors (web). Negatiave - Can show hours in 15 min. increments. Positive - yes - Yes in Client. Positive - Not able to load holidays if using web version. Negative - Very basic vacation setting. Negative - No - No - Separate and assigned an administrator - Unable to have administrator approve room reservation first. Negative - Can send different out of office messages to external and internal s. Positive - Separate and assigned an administrator. - Can be set up so administrator is sent invitation for approval first before a room is reserved. Positive - one step sharing calendar. - Must use client for full delegation Negative preferences. Negative - Two step process for sharing (both parties must agree). Positive - Yes - Yes. More options for delegating update and access rights. Positive Page 18 Draw Both have equal disadvantages. Advantage Google (Based on not being able to do this with Microsoft web version) Advantage Microsoft With Microsoft, you can set it to send only during certain times of the day and there are more features available. Draw Advantage Microsoft Advantage Microsoft Advantage Microsoft