II. Apps Contract Overview (Catherine Camillone, Julienne VanDerZiel)

Transcription

1 ARCHITECTURE & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA FRIDAY, July 13, :00 10:30 AM FAC 228D I. Campus Online Survey Tool - Qualtrics (David Burns) II. Apps Contract Overview (Catherine Camillone, Julienne VanDerZiel) III. Administrative Systems Master Plan Technical Architecture (Brad Englert, Pei Chen) IV. Administrative Systems Master Plan Roadmapping (Brad Englert, Julienne VanDerZeil) V. IT Inventory Control Processes (Cam Beasley) VI. Mobile Strategy Update (Angela Newell)

2 Campus On-line Survey Tool Replacement Based on a review of the use of SurveyStation, the service offered by Qualtrics would be a suitable and generally superior alternative for the campus. ITS, Engineering, and Business recommend the adoption of Qualtrics through a University-wide site license to replace SurveyStation for use by faculty, staff, and students for creating basic surveys, forms, and polls. Why Qualtrics? Significantly better set of tools for creating and managing online surveys and polls compared to SurveyStation. Unlimited user accounts for faculty, staff, and students w/ site license Unlimited usage SSO with EID authentication already in use One campus account can be divided into various Divisions to provide departments with more local support and management options Phone and support provided by the vendor Unlimited web training sessions provided by the vendor Already in use by a number of areas on UT Campus (Business, Natural Sciences, Education, Communications, and Social Work) and other campuses in the UT System Widely used in education throughout the United States (potential for collaboration with peers at other institutions) Leverage existing license fees already being paid to Qualtrics to expand the service to all of campus Operations Qualtrics is a hosted solution so no hardware, software, or database support will need to be provided by UT staff. The on-going operational costs would be limited to user support (authorization, group maintenance, etc.), which could be provided through the existing ITS HelpDesk personnel after appropriate training. Departments can also provide additional assistance with administration and user support through the creation of Divisions within the UT license. Qualtrics provides phone, online, and support, has an extensive online training library, and will provide live web-based training on demand at no cost. Qualtrics also provides additional professional services for survey design, implementation, and management on a for fee basis. Responsibilities for setting up, running, and administrating the service would break down something close to the following: ITS Applications Manage authentication via Shiboleth. Serve as the overall administrator for the UT Austin instance of Qualtrics, creating Divisions as needed, and providing appropriate admin rights to Division managers. ITS Help Desk Provide tier-1 support and supporting documentation to help users access the service and, where necessary, support from Qualtrics. This would require a few (3-5) days for

3 work to establish the service and then, based on current usage on campus, 3-5 support calls per week. Division Manager Person(s) within a department which is setup as a Division within Qualtrics can manage user rights and permissions, create specific groups within that Division to share resources, and create and manage resources specific to the division (templates, images, question and survey libraries, etc). Depending on how the Division choose to use the tool it could require 1-3 hours of work / month. ISO evaluation of Qualtrics The ISO has reviewed the Qualtrics application with no major findings. The application is used by other institutions to collect and store HIPPA, FERPA, and other CAT 1 data types. Cost Qualtrics proposal for a University-wide license is $40,000 for the first year and then increase to $50,000 over 3 years. Currently, various areas of UT are paying Qualtrics $25,500 in annual fees to utilize the service. We propose to supplement the existing fees to cooperatively fund the annual fees for the first year as follows: Qualtrics Client Initial Fees School of Business $5000 College of Communications $5000 College of Education $5000 College of Natural Sciences $5000 School of Social Work (10-users) $2500 Population Research Center (3-users) $1500 Three single users $1500 School of Engineering* $5000 ITS* $9500 UT Total $40,000 *- Proposed new funding Steering Committee Form a steering committee comprised of appointees from the groups participating in the cooperative funding of the annual fees. The purpose of the steering committee will be to: Direct the implementation of the University-Wide Solution Provide governance on the use of the system (Acceptable Use Policy, eligible users, etc.) Determine the future course of the Campus On-Line Survey Tool

4 SurveyStation Utilization: Usage Statsistics: o 4815 total surveys 2068 "open" 2151 "closed" 267 "archived" 329 in "design" status Over 261,000 survey responses 1142 unique admin addresses for surveys 1656 unique survey owners o ~1250 current employees 55,000 + users defined in the system, 14,000+ defined as survey "creators" role

5 Qualtrics Use in the UT System University of Texas-Dallas: University-wide (all faculty, staff, and students) University of Texas-El Paso: University-wide (all faculty, staff, and students) University of Texas-Tyler: University-wide (all faculty, staff, and students) University of Texas-Pan American: Limited University-wide (50 users, one-year trial basis) University of Texas-Austin: o McCombs School of Business (all faculty, staff, and students) o College of Natural Sciences (all faculty, staff, and students) o School of Education (all faculty, staff, and students) o School of Communication (all faculty, staff, and students) o Department of Sociology (3-user) o Population Research Center (3-user) o Department of Social Work (10-user) University of Texas-San Antonio: o Department of Marketing (10-user) o Department of Educational Psychology (10-user) o Academy for Teacher Excellence (10-user) University of Texas Houston Health Science Center o School of Public Health (all faculty, staff, and students) University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center o Two-user license

6

7 ITS Applications Contracts Team July 2012

8 What is the Contracts Team? ITS Application s for-hire team of developers, web designers, project managers. We support the UT Austin community by providing software development solutions for departments with limited internal resources. We work on a cost recovery model with a rate of $65/hour. 2 7/11/2012

9 What does the Contracts Team do? We provide the following services: Requirements gathering Systems analysis and planning Custom software development and testing Database analysis, design, migration and integration Application maintenance and support Graphic design User Experience & Usability evaluations Application accessibility and security assistance 3 7/11/2012

10 What technologies do the Contracts Team use? We work with the following technologies: PHP Python CodeIgniter Django Java JavaScript Natural Drupal WordPress Oracle MySQL 4 7/11/2012

11 Most Common Requests Automation around School and Scholarship Applications Migrating sites to Drupal Faculty/Research web sites 5 7/11/2012

12 An Example 6 7/11/2012

13 The Process After receiving a request we Meet to understand requirements/constraints Write up a Statement of Work Get funding approvals Schedule and work the project Work with user to test and accept the solution Transition support to the department or enter into a maintenance agreement 7 7/11/2012

14 Contact Information Contract Software and Web Development website: Catherine Camillone Project Manager, Contracts Team /11/2012

15 Enterprise Architecture Overview AIC 07/13/2012 "Enterprise" is commonly defined as any collection of organizations that has a common set of goals. For example, an enterprise could be a government agency, a whole corporation, a division of a corporation, a single department, or a chain of geographically distant organizations linked together by common ownership. The term "enterprise" in the context of "enterprise architecture" can be used to denote both an entire enterprise - encompassing all of its information and technology services, processes, and infrastructure - and a specific domain within the enterprise. In both cases, the architecture crosses multiple systems, and multiple functional groups within the enterprise. Why do we need enterprise architecture? The purpose of enterprise architecture is to optimize across the enterprise the often fragmented legacy of processes (both manual and automated) into an integrated environment that is responsive to change and supportive of the delivery of the business strategy. Good enterprise architecture enables an entity to achieve the right balance between IT efficiency and business innovation. It allows individual business units to innovate safely in their pursuit of competitive advantage. At the same time, it ensures the needs of the organization for an integrated IT strategy are met, permitting the closest possible synergy across the extended enterprise. The advantages that result from a good enterprise architecture bring important business benefits, which are clearly visible and measurable: A more efficient business operation: o More agile organization, improve productivity o Business capabilities shared across the organization o Lower change management costs o More flexible workforce o Reduced complexity o Reduced risks A more efficient IT operation: o Lower software development, support, and maintenance costs o Increased portability of applications o Improved interoperability and easier system and network management o Improved ability to address critical enterprise-wide issues like security o Easier upgrade and exchange of system components o Reduced complexity o Reduced risks Faster, simpler, and cheaper procurement: o Buying decisions are simpler and faster, because the information governing procurement is readily available in a coherent plan o The ability to procure heterogeneous, multi-vendor open systems o The ability to secure more economic capabilities o The flexibility to make, buy, or out-source business and IT solutions What is an enterprise architecture framework? An architecture framework is a foundational structure, or set of structures, which can be used for developing a broad range of different architectures. It should describe a method for designing a target Page 1 of 2

16 Enterprise Architecture Overview AIC 07/13/2012 state of the enterprise in terms of a set of building blocks, and for showing how the building blocks fit together. It should contain a set of tools and provide a common vocabulary. It should also include a list of recommended standards and compliant products that can be used to implement the building blocks. There are typically 4 major architecture types that constitute an Enterprise Architecture: Business Architecture (ASMP Initiative 1.1) Application Architecture (ASMP phase 2) Data Architecture (ASMP Initiative 1.2) Technology Architecture (ASMP Initiative 2.1) The Business Architecture defines the business strategy, governance, organization, and key business processes. The Application Architecture provides a blueprint for the individual applications to be deployed, their interactions, and their relationships to the core business processes of the organization. This focuses on services. The Data Architecture describes the structure of an organization's logical and physical data assets and data management resources. This focuses on data and information. The Technology Architecture describes the logical software and hardware capabilities that are required to support the deployment of business, data, and application services. This includes IT infrastructure, middleware, networks, communications, processing, standards, etc. There are some best practices in adopting and deploying an EA: 1. Assess the EA practices best meet the institutional needs; 2. Develop a strategy, roadmap, and business case and commit (from the highest level down) to achieving this goal; 3. Build the EA competency: people, processes, and tools; 4. Establish governance to stay focused on benefits and results. For more detailed information, please refer to the following: 1. A comparison of the top four EA 2. A better path to EA 3. TOGAF Framework Page 2 of 2

17 System Replacement Roadmap Project High-Level Timeline Project Initiation Define Pilot Area Roadmap(s) Define Business Area Roadmaps Define Enterpriselevel Roadmap Develop Project Charter Develop Project Plan Develop Project Schedule Develop Communication Plan Develop Roadmap Template(s) Business Area Enterprise-level Gain Template(s) Approval and Sign-off Identify/Collect Business Area Information Assess Business Area(s) Information Draft Pilot Area(s) Roadmap(s) Review Pilot Area(s) Roadmap(s) Revise Templates as Needed Determine Work Effort and Staffing Needs Gain Approval and Signoff Conduct Business Area Kick-Off Identify/Collect Business Area Information Assess Business Area Information Draft Roadmap Gain Approval and Signoff Iterative each area Collect Business Area Roadmaps Draft Enterprise-level Roadmap Identify Synergies Assess and resolve competing priorities Develop Budget Scenarios Finalize Enterprise Roadmap Gain Approval and Sign-off Project Management and Communication April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Review Milestone Current Status

18 AIC Proposal :: Change to Campus IT Inventory Control Processes Cam Beasley, Chief Information Security Officer 2012-JUL-13 Proposal: I would like to propose that all colleges, schools, and units be required to channel all IT procurements (e.g., primarily hardware and large dollar software) and surplussed computing devices through their respective IT support teams. Such a change would ultimately need to support from BSC, OIT, and SITAB. Based on evidence from campus units who have applied such a change, we should expect to see a positive impact on IT system management, inventory management, the University s risk assessment efforts and overall security posture. Background: UT Austin administration and UT System have developed a need for campus units to have more thorough knowledge of their inventory of computing devices (e.g., encryption, patch management). The current processes in use for most campus units are inadequate for them to report on such compliance efforts or to effectively manage their inventory (logically or physically). The following changes to the procedures for procuring, inventorying, and surplussing computing devices will improve the University s ability to provide accurate data in response to compliance questions being asked and will dramatically improve overall visibility and system management practices for many units on campus. Procedural Changes: All units are required to have their local IT support teams process (e.g., inventory, install, secure, etc) all computing devices being purchased. This includes but is not limited to any devices that have the ability to store data or use the wired or wireless networks. Examples of these types of computing devices include but are not limited to: laptops, desktop computers, and tablet computers including ipads. For units were ITS support contracts exist, ITS will be required to provide the local IT support team with a complete inventory of computing devices for the contracted unit. Procurement, Inventory, and Surplus Procedures: All units creating purchase orders for computing device shall specify the destination for delivery as the respective local IT support team and note the EID in the purchase order notes for the individual the system is for. The local IT support team will receive the device once shipment is complete. The local IT support team will then acquire the UT inventory tag for the device either from UT Inventory or the unit that purchased the device if the unit self-tags equipment. All necessary information about the device will be conveyed to self-tagging units so that the required information about the device can be inputted into UT Inventory. The local IT support team will log and track all shipments received. The local IT support team will enter the computing device into the University s NetContacts registration tool and will be configure it per policy requirements. All University and specific unit procedures for configuration will be applied including but not limited to encryption of laptops. Once the computing device is ready for deployment, the person for whom the equipment is designated will be contacted for delivery of the equipment. The unit that purchased the device will be notified that the device has been deployed to the user whose EID was specified on the purchase order. The local IT support team will require signatures for all devices that are delivered. Once a unit no longer has a need for a computing device, the device should be transferred to the local IT support team on the University s inventory. The local IT support team will subsequently either cascade the device to a different unit in need or surplus the equipment and destroy the associated media as required by University policy. Adapted from a memorandum to all reporting units from the Dean of the College of Education, Manuel Justiz (Spring 2012).

19 Mobile Strategy: Preliminary Research Brief To gain an understanding of the components for a mobile strategy from the customer perspective, interviews and focus groups of customers are being conducted. To date, over 60 individual interviews and three focus groups have taken place across multiple units of campus. Individuals include a range of staff, faculty, students, and alums across campus and in Austin. Two of the focus groups were comprised wholly of students (16 in one group, 12 in a second) and one was comprised of faculty (13 participants). A majority of participants were under the age of 40. Participants were asked to address five different questions related to mobile including questions detailing their individual use of mobile devices, useful functionalities, unusable/disruptive functionalities, needs and vision for a mobile University, in addition to use of the UT App and the UT Mobile web. Use of Mobile Device Nearly one hundred percent of those interviewed responded that the three primary uses of their mobile device included: --Calendar and schedule (in addition to contacts) -- --Maps Preliminary results suggest that secondary uses of mobile devices include: --News --Facebook/Twitter/Social Media --Score Updates --YouTube Reading a PDF, book, or news, engaging with social media, and playing games were mostly associated with bored and repetitive users. Useable Mobile Functionalities Preliminary results suggest that users find functionalities that increase efficiency (calendar, , maps, Evernote, workout and exercise tracking, banking and utilities, course and personal information) or that provide entertainment (Yelp, UrbanSpoon, movie times, YouTube, ESPN) are the most used with social functions following in third place (Words with Friends, Scramble, Draw, Instagram). MobileMe was a preferred syncing technology. Users noted that they liked an application experience that offered a visually appealing interface. They also noted that applications that offered multiple functionalities should be as robust as their desktop counterparts like Evernote or work software packages, where the mobile experience is a true representation of the desktop experience (this note applies mostly to tablet users carrying out full desktop functions on mobile devices). Disruptive Mobile Functionalities Preliminary results suggest that the friction point most common for users is access to the network (not specific to the UT network) or slow Internet service. Equally, users were dissatisfied and frustrated when mobile applications did not do what they advertised that they would do primarily the frustrations involved a feeling of wasting time with these applications and subsequently not being able to achieve and efficiency that the user had hoped to achieve with the application. 1 Mobile Strategy: Preliminary Research Brief

20 Needs and Vision for a Mobile UT Preliminary results suggest that priorities for a mobile campus include: --focusing on increasing wireless capacity and access --developing a threaded identity so that users are recognized as they access sites across campus --creating a common iconography for the entire University --increasing cloud access for sharing and storing files would also like editing capacity --using cloud based software that functions the same across devices and that allows for individual and collaborative creation and editing of files --provision of a video interface for lectures and campus events --provision of training for mobile devices especially in the classroom Two notes: --while there is a move away from traditional textbooks to electronic course packets, students are still printing course materials --students also see a need for computer labs with dummy terminals from which they can print or access a virtual desktop In addition to those priorities, some visioning items for mobile included: Research also suggests that users would like to be able to conduct transactions (including tuition payments), along with accessing personal employee and student information via mobile devices. Several users suggested a mobile dashboard that they could personalize to include the functionalities that they wished to include. The vision for this dashboard includes pre-campus life, campus life, and post campus life with options, services, and applications for inclusion in/with/on the dashboard appearing in each semester or once per year post graduation. The dashboard would include a personalized function that would allow for stored (and editable) user profile and preferences. The dashboard would grow with students and faculty and staff as they conducted their lives at/with UT. The video interface was mentioned in a variety of contexts in classroom use for lecture and examples, in development efforts, to connect alumni with UT events and special lectures, to promote current events, to support training, and a variety of other uses. Video is the trend for mobile. Equally, a portal for applications, best practices, and policies that have been vetted and/or created by the University has been requested multiple times, along with a centralized developer training, information and resources. It was also suggested that mobile include UT specific items as well as UT in the world items. This was a nascent idea among many. Prompted comments that helped illuminate the idea related to identifying UT alums who were looking for reverse mentors or mentees, offering internships, or doing something really cool that could be captured on video and relayed back to the University and communicated broadly, making available short talks and lifetime learning activities as well as sports and events on and off campus, offer insight into in the world experiences of younger alumni, students, and researchers especially with service and filed work captured and communicated back to campus. A comment relating the idea was the stuff that builds relationships and isn t just a news flow that puts tractions to the research and student/alumni experience. 2 Mobile Strategy: Preliminary Research Brief

21 In addition to the on campus research, the task force is also investigating the mobile strategies of our peer and other Universities. Trends lean toward a mobile web environment where collaboration and screen adaptability are high priority concerns. Industry and campus trends echo current findings and point toward the development of data use policies the centralization of mobile resources and training or at least a centralized portal for mobile resources and training. They also suggest that mobile web is more the trend with apps being developed for limited and specific purposes and that screen adaptation and accessibility are high priority concerns. UT App and Mobile Web Specifics Specific to the UT App --the UT app is used primarily on the go when users are searching for something specific about their schedule, class or work life --the UT app is used primarily to access the directory and to access campus maps and to course schedules (the mobile version of Blackboard is only minimally useful) --more complete and expanded and interactive information was requested for the map function --it was also suggested that optional push notification for news and course news items be available on the app Specific to the UT Mobile Web --only three participants in the survey had actively used the mobile web. Most participants did not know that the mobile web existed. --of those that had used the mobile web, they used the mobile web primarily for the directory and maps Participants suggested that for dealing with the University on day-to-day items like accessing schedules and staff/faculty/student information that a mobile web option was anticipated to be more useful. For larger and more specific items (like games and video downloads) and app was expected to be more useful as the download times were expected to be faster. It was commented that both the mobile web and the application should include an option to connect with the other and with the larger UT website. It was also noted that for apps and mobile in general that the beta world is over. If an app or mobile site is published, it should be fully tested and de-bugged before launch to a wide audience because it is too easy to lose interest and move away from the application to something else. 3 Mobile Strategy: Preliminary Research Brief