Background Convincing the Critics Decision to Outsource. Legal Pointers NERCOMP 04/12/12

Transcription

1 Selection and Migration to an Outsourced Exchange NERCOMP SIG 4/12/12 Ellen Gulachenski Director Administrative Project Services SIG Evaluation : bit.ly/nercomp_ NERCOMP 04/12/12 1

2 Agenda Background Convincing the Critics Decision to Outsource Selecting Vendor Legal Pointers NERCOMP 04/12/12 2

3 Background Harvard, HUIT, FAS Harvard is a very distributed environment Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) 9 Professional Schools Various affiliates, Arnold Arboretum, museums, endowed research centers, hospitals, etc. 21,229 students total at Harvard FAS: undergrad 6641, Grad 3942, Extension 1929 HUIT merger of FAS IT + Central IT + others Merger July 2011 NERCOMP 04/12/12 3

4 FAS Solution Started program in 2009, finished early 2012 Present Day 1 Exchange 2007 for faculty, staff, grad students Over 10k mailboxes, 36 domains Hosted externally in a dedicated, highly available, Exchange environment Migration to Exchange 2010 underway hosted in 2 sites Google for undergraduates Replaced 5 Unix systems, 1 Exchange 2003 system, 2 MeetingMaker installations. Primary was Unix. Externally hosted undergraduate Not all systems in FAS replaced NERCOMP 04/12/12 4

5 Decision to Outsource Options Considered Exchange internal Exchange outsource Exchange hosted in another part of Harvard 3 rd party, hosted , not Exchange, e.g. gmail NERCOMP 04/12/12 5

6 Exchange System Comparison Vendor In House Technical Storage per mailbox - 2GB Sufficient networking bandwidth and variety of providers Exchange environment dedicated to FAS IT Redundancy/Failover Redundancy of gateways in a single site included Redundancy of gateways in dual sites included Redundancy of storage in a single site included Redundancy of storage in dual sites included Security Encrypted, protected communications Anti-spam for incoming Anti-virus checking for incoming and outgoing SAS-70 Type II audit without major findings Backups stored off site and encrypted Other Assessment Points Familiar with Meeting Maker Willing to commit to stringent SLA (>99.99%) Complete control of subpoena response Facts about Supplier Years of experience with Exchange Large customer base for Exchange Costs Mailbox/month without handhelds Mobile Device Costs Onetime costs NERCOMP 04/12/12 6

7 Convincing the Critics Portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli by Santi di Tito Meeting with Faculty Outreach to IT legal specialists, IT Committee, intellectual property rights Meeting with staff Align staff champions in departments to advocate for new solution. Focus Groups NERCOMP 04/12/12 7

8 Focus Groups Ran 5 groups, total of 29 participants from 21 depts. Each group listed key features of they wanted and ranked them Final ranking used to guide solution choices NERCOMP 04/12/12 8

9 Focus Groups Feature/Improvement Priority Larger Quota 1 Better Spam Management 2 Shared/Universal Address Book 3 Solution for large file transfer 4 Improved distribution list 5 Secure 6 Client independent Filters and folders 7 Better Archive tool 8 Better web client 9 Support for mobility 10 NERCOMP 04/12/12 9

10 Selecting a Vendor Issued RFP to 3 external vendors 3 rd vendor dropped out after response submitted Criteria for evaluation were: Technical Services Reference Eval /Exchange Experience User Experience/Interface Migration Security Cost Per Mailbox Per Month, one time costs, mobile NERCOMP 04/12/12 10

11 Vendor Selection Comparison Hosted Exchange ,000 accounts 2GB Storage Per Mailbox Secure MAPI, POP3, IMAP4 and RPC Over HTTP Full Collaboration Including Calendar, Global Addressing and Public Folders Spam and Virus Filtering One time charge for migration and for Exchange Setup 99.99% uptime guarantee 24 x 7 support Backups and recovery Dedicated backup tapes, stored off site Secure Outlook Webmail Access BlackBerry Service Costs Exchange 2007 Active Sync Costs Virtual AD server Redundant ISA Servers Compared non redundant, fully redundant, fully redundant with 2 data centers NERCOMP 04/12/12 11

12 Pilot First, then Partner Pilot with 1 st Choice Shared Exchange Pilot was successful = the vendor failed tests Pilot with 2 nd Choice Dedicated Exchange Migrated pilot users from 1 st vendor to 2 nd Defined the settings needed for our Exchange, including using linked mailboxes for AD authentication NERCOMP 04/12/12 12

13 Legal Pointers Know if students using or only faculty & staff Privacy, FERPA, & data protection Change of control/bankruptcy Subpoena rights Termination rights Recovery, backup, DR, Data Deletion Security Scans Location of data NERCOMP 04/12/12 13

14 Get an SLA System Availability* Uptime of 99.99% 99% or higher h (Less than 4.38 minutes of downtime) Uptime of 99.90% % (Between 4.39 and 43.2 minutes of downtime) 2% Uptime of 99.80% % (Between 44 and 86 minutes of downtime) 7% Uptime of 99.70% % (Between 87 and 129 minutes of downtime) 12% Uptime of 99.60% % (Between 130 and 173 minutes of downtime) 20% * Excluded planned outages for maintenance **Set up your own monitoring to check service quality Credit** No Credit NERCOMP 04/12/12 14

15 Defining Partnership Support Emergencies, ticket management, roles/responsibilities Migration Strategy Frequent Communication Weekly implementation & migration calls Quarterly review of service Dedicated vendor team NERCOMP 04/12/12 15

16 QUESTIONS? SIG Evaluation : bit.ly/nercomp p_ Ellen Gulachenski ellen_gulachenski@harvard.edu NERCOMP 04/12/12 16