CSG UCLA Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

Transcription

1 CSG UCLA Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) May 28, 2013 Draft Information Technology Services

2 Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) The UCLA Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) is an application middleware solution designed to provide a robust, scalable and adaptable campus information integration hub This hub provides a common platform to securely and efficiently route, transform and deliver information flowing across UCLA s information systems A common hub vastly improves UCLA s ability to monitor and manage information processing across the university Routing services through a service bus also enables more gradual systems evolution by encouraging adoption a standard, modular and loosely coupled systems integration strategy An early iteration of the service bus is being deployed to support data integration requirements for the UC Path project UCLA Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) UCLA ODS UCLA UCLA Business Business Applications Applications Dimensional Data Warehouse 2 Information Technology Services

3 Current State of UCLA Data Exchange Legacy data exchange across a broad spectrum of UCLA information systems has evolved organically over the past 40 years Interfaces are generally developed to solve specific needs and designed to exchange information two systems at a time While the approach is expedient and effective on a smaller scale, it becomes problematic as the number of systems grow As point to point connections increase, it becomes increasingly costly to manage the tangled web of data loading/transfer processes As business processes and systems evolve, managing changes to the data transfer processes become major projects in and of themselves Point to point data exchange is difficult to manage at scale and change over time Current data processes are also largely built around daily or weekly batch updates and lack the infrastructure to support real time data exchange 3 Information Technology Services

4 The proposed UCPath approach perpetuates interface sprawl Original Oracle approach was to capture as is state and build replacement interfaces Alarge number of tier 1 interfaces would be required, many of them independently developed and maintained legacy connections Implementation would mean conversion work at each end point with little progress toward better management of enterprise information flow Oracle Service Bus UC Interface Path Files Files 20+ inbound (to UC Path) 50+ outbound (from UC Path) UCLA ODS File Transform File Transform File Transform File Transform UCLA Business Application UCLA Business Application UCLA Business Application UCLA Business Application UCLA Business Application 200+ tier 2 interface Dimensional Data Warehouse Information Technology Services 4

5 UCLA s Integration Architecture for UCPath UC Path 4 5 UCLA Enterprise Service Bus Security Workflow Routing Transform Enrichment Queuing Orchestrate Monitoring Transport 1 5 Managed Secured FTP 2 UCLA ODS UCLA Information Hub Identity Management (IAMUCLA) Applications Tier 1 Applications Applications Tier 1 Applications Applications Tier 1 Applications Applications Tier 2 Applications Informatica UCLA Data Warehouse 8 1. All information routes through ESB single point of data transformation / orchestration 2. Integrate Managed FTP with ESB to handle batch data transfer 3. Use ODS as UCLA s UCPath staging data store 4. Expose all real time interfaces, including IDM interfaces, via ESB 5. All batch interfaces, including ODS data, flow through ESB; minimize redundant batch tier 1 interfaces 6. Whenever possible, meet campus applications need for UCPath data by deploying ODSquerying service components 7. Allow database pull from ODS to support legacy tier 2 interfaces 8. Transform data in Data Warehouse to support analytical reporting Real time data interfaces Tier 1 batch data interfaces ODS driven data interfaces * Arrow indicates direction of data flow Information Technology Services 5

6 UCLA Enterprise Service Bus Funding Estimate Phase I: Develop the ESB architecture, infrastructure and basic hosting services Phase II: Deploy the ESB for UCPath and subsequently for: Phase I Cost Funding Source FY12 13 FY13 14 FY14 15 Hardware / Infrastructure UCPath 54,840 ESB Software Support UCPath 20,000 ESB Technical Training UCPath 30,000 Consulting Services UCPath 15,000 Staffing IAMUCLA 230,500 Total Phase I 350,340 On Going Funding PAMS (Research Administration Post Audit Management System) IAMUCLA (Identity and Access Management) BruinBill (Student Consolidated Bill) Integrated Web Experience (Student Web Applications) OPUS (Faculty Information System) Financial System Replacement Other enterprise solutions Phase II Cost Funding Source FY12 13 FY13 14 FY14 15 On Going Funding Hardware / Infrastructure TBD 112, , ,657 ESB Software Support TBD 40,000 40,000 40,000 ESB Management Tooling TBD 40,000 40,000 40,000 ESB Technical Training TBD 30, Consulting Services TBD 15,000 15,000 15,000 Staffing UCPath 317, Staffing TBD 457, , ,920 Total Phase I 1,012,291 1,078,577 1,078,577 Funding Source FY12 13 FY13 14 FY14 15 Three Year Funding IAMUCLA 230, ,500 UCPath 119, , ,051 TBD 695,080 1,078,577 1,773,657 Three Year Funding 350,340 1,012,291 1,078,577 2,441,208 Information Technology Services 6

7 UCLA Enterprise Service Bus Funding Principles Consideration Critical to business and operational needs Economies of scale / cost savings Rationale Enterprise integration standards will enable real time information flow to support business process improvements and real time execution; constraints of the current batch oriented legacy applications will be eliminated over time A modern and coherent information delivery solutions for service integration, data provisioning, reporting and enterprise analytics will speed web based system development and help improve organizational agility The ESB will provide a more cost efficient way to manage, integrate, transform and route information flowing between UCLA administrative system using a common solution than if many disparate approaches are used Future enterprise systems will be deployed with consideration for longer term evolution rather than tactical, uncoordinated approaches that are difficult to maintain, hard to change and costly to support Network effects The Enterprise Service Bus is common infrastructure that derives most of its value from ubiquitous adoption, similar to UCLA s Single Sign On service The advantages of a common integration architecture 7 Information Technology Services

8 UCLA Enterprise Service Bus Funding Principles Consideration Mandatory for enterprise systems Rationale Establishing standard governance, architecture, infrastructure and support for an enterprise integration strategy will provide a foundation for enabling real time, modular and efficient information exchange for future enterprise systems Departments will also benefit from a standards based method, tools and services for accessing and consuming enterprise data Exceptions to standard enterprise integration solutions can be proposed; requests for exceptions will be reviewed and approved based on their merits Adoption of the ESB for non enterprise integration requirements is encouraged but not mandated Central funding Initial development and deployment of the ESB are funded by the UCLA UCPath Project Ongoing support, maintenance and enhancement of the ESB should be centrally funded to encourage widespread adoption and avoid a complex allocation or tracking of middleware usage that would be associated with a fee for use approach Conversion of larger application systems to leverage the ESB should be funded through central and/or department projects; support for ESB adoption by small departments should be provided the by centrally funded support team The ESB meets the high bar for a mandatory, centrally funded solution 8 Information Technology Services

9 FORM A: UCLA IT Investment Request Form (FY ) Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Project Name: Project Sponsor(s): Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Administrative VC Jack Powazek and Associate VC Andrew Wissmiller. System: ESB Project Owner(s): ITS Project Manager(s): Dattathreya Sharma, Program Manager; Albert Wu, Senior Director Information Management Services; and Anet Avanessian, Senior Director Application Services Prepared by: Dattathreya Sharma Date: May 28, Project Profile / Background 1a) Describe the overall objective and importance of this project. The UCLA Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) is an application middleware solution designed to provide a robust, scalable and adaptable campus information integration hub. A common hub vastly improves UCLA's ability to monitor and manage information processing across the university. Routing services through a service bus also enables more gradual systems evolution by encouraging applications to enforce a standard, modular and loosely coupled systems integration strategy. 1b) Is this project related or dependent on any other project or recent request? X Yes (Please specify) No An early iteration of the service bus is being deployed to support data integration requirements for the UCPath project. 1c) Describe the proposed project management structure The program management team will provide operational leadership and coordinate with other related campus initiatives. The team consists of Dattathreya Sharma, Program Manager; Albert Wu, Senior Director of Information Management Services; and Anet Avanessian, Senior Director of Application Services. In addition, we will create a functional oversight group representing the broader campus for guidance and direction. The project team will provide regular status updates to the program management team and the executive sponsors. The program management team will review major changes in scope, schedule or assumptions with key stakeholders. 1d) What type of project is this? 1e) When will this project be fully implemented? X Implementation of new technology system Less than one year Implementation of emerging technology system Between one to two years Replacement of legacy system X Between two to five years Other: More than five years 2. Key Stakeholders 2a) List the major stakeholders of this project and the importance of this project to each. Users, system owners and application developers of UCLA administrative, faculty and student systems (e.g., UCPath, PAMS IAMUCLA, BruinBill, IWE, Opus, Financial System replacement, etc.) will benefit from a more modern integration architecture, accelerated system development cycles and business process improvements resulting from realtime data exchange. 2b) Does the project have the full support of key stakeholders? If so, who are they? If not, please explain. X Yes The project has consulted members of all the above stakeholder groups. UCPath and IAMUCLA have also funded part of the project and are fully onboard with the benefits of a common ESB infrastructure. No (Please explain) Version Page 1 of 8

10 FORM A: UCLA IT Investment Request Form (FY ) Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 3. Project Costs / Funding Request 3a) Prior Funding: Have you requested funding for this project and/or system before? If so from whom, when and for what purpose? X Yes (Please specify) No UCPath is funding the initial development phase as one time investment. This funding includes hardware, infrastructure services, software support, technical training, consulting and staffing for a program manager and architect for one year. 3b) Summary of Estimated Costs: The following data is derived from the attached Financial Worksheet (Form C). TOTAL PROJECT COSTS / FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Development & Maintenance (OneTime / Temporary) Costs Permanent Main Categories: FY 1213 FY 1314 FY 1415 FY 1516 FY 1617 Total FY xxxx 1 Infrastructure 54, , , , ,657 2 Software Support 20,000 40,000 40, ,000 40,000 3 Software Tools 40,000 40,000 80,000 40,000 4 Technical Training 30,000 30,000 60,000 5 Consulting Services 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 15, , , ,920 1,860, , Total Project Costs 350,340 1,012,292 1,078,577 2,441,209 1,078,577 Less: Funding Offsets 350, , ,551 27% 0% Remaining Balance 695,081 1,078,577 1,773,658 73% 1,078,577 #### 3c) Request for Chancellor's Funds: 695,081 1,078,577 1,773,658 1,078,577 3d) Use of Requested Chancellorial Funds: Explain what the Chancellor's funds will be used for. ESB development and maintenance costs including hardware, infrastructure support, software support, management tools, technical training, consulting services, development and support staff. Version Page 2 of 8

11 FORM B: UCLA IT Investment Request Rating & Justification Form (FY ) Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) May 28, ) Strategic Impact: 1a) Describe the impact this project will have on the overall campus strategic initiative and/or the institutional mission of teaching, research or public service: ESB supports the goals of the IT strategic plan to leverage common infrastructure, replace silos with endtoend service capabilities and processes, and aid the campus in viewing and utilizing data as an institutional asset. The enterprise service bus will: Streamline data exchange between applications both within UCLA and outside, thus avoiding multiple pointtopoint connections Enable data and protocol transformation between data providers and consumers, each choosing a native format that works best for them Enable incremental adoption of a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) with minimal disruption to existing business operations Enable reliable, asynchronous messaging to build highly available and fault tolerant applications Enable real time message exchange to support real time provisioning and deprovisioning of services (e.g., access to university IT resources, physical access to buildings, etc.) Apply standard and consistent authentication, security and monitoring policies across applications Improve auditing of data movement and tracking of service level agreements (SLA) between services Provide nonfunctional capabilities such as applicationtoapplication authentication, security, logging, monitoring, error handling, recovery, auditing, deployment tools and a management dashboard in a manner that alleviates this burden from individual applications 1b) Does this project align with any UC, Statewide or National initiative? X ESB is aligned with the UCPath initiative and will provide basic infrastructure for its success. Yes (Please explain) No 1c) Check the appropriate box. 1. None No strategic impact 3. Moderate Some strategic impact 2. Low Minimal strategic impact X 4. Significant Necessary and significant strategic impact 2) Compliance Requirement: 2a) Is this project a requirement of the campus by any campus, Regental, State or Federal policy and/or regulation? Yes (Please specify) The project support UC objectives to achieve administrative efficiencies and utilize common solutions where feasible. The X No project also support UC security policies in providing secure solutions for data transport and management. 2b) Describe how this project will meet the stated policies and/or regulations requirements and the measureable impacts. ESB will result in more efficient and secure information exchange for enterprise systems, apply consistent and standard authentication and application monitoring in addition to many other benefits. 2c) Describe the existing risk or exposure with the current situation. Legacy data exchange across a broad spectrum of UCLA information systems has evolved organically over the past 40 years. Interfaces are generally developed to solve specific needs and designed to exchange information two systems at a time. While the approach is expedient and effective at a smaller scale, it becomes problematic as the number of systems grow. As pointtopoint connections increase, it becomes increasingly costly to manage the tangled web of data loading/transfer processes. As business processes and systems evolve, managing changes to the data transfer processes become major projects in themselves. Current data processes are also largely built around daily or weekly batch exchange and lack the infrastructure to support realtime data exchange. 2d) Check the appropriate box. 1. None No measurable impact on compliance requirements. 2. Low Small impact on compliance requirements. X 3. Moderate Necessary to maintain current compliance requirements. 4. Significant Demonstrates measurable improvement and necessity for compliance. Version Page 3 of 8

12 FORM B: UCLA IT Investment Request Rating & Justification Form (FY ) Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) May 28, ) System Lifecycle Necessity: 3a) Is this project a replacement and/or upgrade of an existing enterprise or campus system? Please explain. X ESB is an important component of the UCPath project to replace the systemwide legacy Payroll Personnel System (PPS). Deployment of the ESB will Yes also have significant benefit for the replacement of other enterprise systems such as the Financial System. No 3b) Describe any system lifecycle issues and its impact: The ESB will utilize open source software. The FUSE ServiceMix is a widely deployed and wellregarded product. There is potential that UC will standardize on ServiceMix as a middleware solution. 3c) Is project highly likely to be developed on time and on budget and fulfill functional specifications? Please explain X Yes No Development and deployment of the ESB for UCPath is on schedule. 3d) Check the appropriate box: 1. None No system lifecycle issues exists. 2. Low Minimal system lifecycle needs will be addressed. 3. Moderate Some system lifecycle issues / needs will be addressed. X 4. Significant Necessary and significant system lifecycle issue will be addressed. 4) Customer/User Impact: 4a) Identify the number of individuals in the following four categories that will be affected by the request/proposed project: Make a Menu Selection: Group Quantity Faculty Total Score: Students Departmental Staff Central Admin Staff Other: Specify: Local IT departments 4b) Describe the tangible benefits and how they will measured. Critical to business and operational needs: Enterprise integration standards will enable realtime information flow to support business process improvements and realtime execution; constraints of the current batch oriented legacy applications will be eliminated over time. A modern and coherent information delivery solution for service integration, data provisioning, reporting and enterprise analytics will speed webbased system development and help improve organizational agility. Economies of scale / cost savings: The ESB will provide a more cost efficient way to manage, integrate, transform and route information flowing between UCLA administrative system using a common solution than if many disparate approaches are used. Future enterprise systems will be deployed with consideration for longerterm evolution rather than tactical, uncoordinated approaches that are difficult to maintain, hard to change and costly to support. Network effects: The Enterprise Service Bus is common infrastructure that derives most of its value from ubiquitous adoption, similar to UCLA s Single SignOn service. Enterprise systems architecture: Establishing standard governance, architecture, infrastructure and support for an enterprise integration strategy will provide a foundation for enabling realtime, modular and efficient information exchange for future enterprise systems. Version Page 4 of 8

13 FORM B: UCLA IT Investment Request Rating & Justification Form (FY ) Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) May 28, c) Describe how likely this project will be well embraced and used by the intended users? The UCPath, PAMS, IAMUCLA, BruinBill, IWE and OPUS projects intend to utilize ESB services. It also likely the Financial System replacement project will leverage the ESB. 4d) Describe any likely negative impacts on the intended and unintended users. 5) Workload Impact: 5a) Describe the likely impact of the project on workload (both positive and negative) and how it will be measured. Once the ESB is implemented, it will significantly reduce the development time of new interfaces required for applications. It will also enable business process improvement through realtime data exchange. 5b) Describe the savings produced by the implementation of the project and how it will be measured. Once the ESB is adopted, savings will come from reduced development times by IT staff for new interfaces. 5c) Check the appropriate box: 1. None No measurable impact on workload or too difficult to measure. 2. Low Demonstrates minimal savings / impact on workload. 3. Moderate Demonstrates some measurable savings / impact on workload. X 4. Significant Demonstrates measurable savings / impact on workload. 6) Financial/Fiscal Impact: 6a) Was a costbenefit analysis conducted? Summarize the key points below and attach supporting documentation. Yes X No Version Page 5 of 8

14 FORM B: UCLA IT Investment Request Rating & Justification Form (FY ) Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) May 28, b) What is the financial impact of this project on the campus and department? Please explain. X Potential source of revenue Financial savings Once the ESB is adopted, savings will come from reduce system development time and business process improvements enabled by realtime data exchange. Other 6b) Specify the potential for generating revenue and/or cash savings for the departments and campus. Once the ESB is adopted, savings will come from reduce system development time and business process improvements enabled by realtime data exchange. 6c) Check the appropriate box: 1. None No significant financial savings nor revenue. 2. Low Demonstrates minimal financial savings and/or revenue. X 3. Moderate Demonstrates some measurable financial savings and/or revenue. 4. Significant Demonstrates measurable financial savings and/or revenue. 7) Additional Information 7a) What are the consequences of NOT doing this project? UCPath is dependent on ESB. The absence of a common hub for information exchange will continue to perpetuate interface sprawl. 7b) Describe any issues / constraints / barriers that impact the successful implementation of this project. Full value of the ESB is realized when multiple systems adopt and leverage its capabilities. This requires agreement on architecture, technology, messaging approaches and governance across a service domain. Welldesigned ESBs can deliver service interoperability but data integration and interoperability require agreed data models, which can prove difficult to establish. 7c) Describe any additional justification and/or rationale for this request / project not reflected in the criteria listed above. Version Page 6 of 8

15 FORM C: UCLA IT Investment Project Financial Worksheet Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Date: Prepared by: May 28, 2013 Dattathreya Sharma Summary of Costs and Available Funding Offsets Estimated Total Project Costs Estimated Five Year Development & Maintenance (Onetime Investment) Costs Permanent Costs Categories: FY 1213 FY 1314 FY 1415 FY 1516 FY 1617 Total FY xxxx 1 Infrastructure 54, , , , ,657 2 Software Support 20,000 40,000 40, ,000 40,000 3 Software Tools 40,000 40,000 80,000 40,000 4 Technical Training 30,000 30,000 60,000 5 Consulting Services 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 15, , , ,920 1,860, , TOTAL Costs: 350,340 1,012,292 1,078,577 2,441,209 1,078,577 Funding Offsets Estimated Five Year Development & Maintenance (Onetime Investment) Costs Permanent Costs Funding Source FY 1213 FY 1314 FY 1415 FY 1516 FY 1617 Total FY xxxx A IAMUCLA 230, ,500 B UCPath 119, , ,051 C D E F G TOTALS: 350, , ,551 Remaining (Unfunded) Balance: 695,081 1,078,577 1,773,658 1,078,577 Version Page 7 of 8

16 Details of Estimated Project Costs Estimated Five Year Development & Maintenance (Onetime Investment) Costs Permanent Costs Category / Items FY 1213 FY 1314 FY 1415 FY 1516 FY 1617 Total FY xxxx 1.0 Infrastructure 1.1 Infrastructure Services 54, , , , ,657 Subtotal: 54, , , , , Software Support 2.1 Developer Subscription 20,000 10,000 10,000 40,000 10, Production Subscription 30,000 30,000 60,000 30,000 Subtotal: 20,000 40,000 40, ,000 40, Software Tools 3.1 ESB Management Tools 40,000 40,000 80,000 40,000 Subtotal: 40,000 40,000 80,000 40, Technical Training 4.1 ESB Technical Training 30,000 30,000 60,000 Subtotal: 30,000 30,000 60, Consulting Services 5.1 ESB Consulting Services 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 15,000 Subtotal: 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 15, Staffing 6.1 Program Manager 77, , , , , Architect 153, , , , , Developer 132, , , , Integration Consultant 132, , , , Quality Assurance Engineer 132, , , , Support Engineer 60, , , ,635 Subtotal: 230, , ,920 1,860, ,920 TOTALS: 350,340 1,012,292 1,078,577 2,441,209 1,078,577 Financial Assumptions: Describe any particular assumptions that have been made to impact the financial estimates (such as annual inflationary rates, benefits, FTE average salary, etc.). Ref. Notes Infrastructure Services reflects partial year prorated hardware cost for September 2012 to June 2013 Infrastructure Services reflects an annual 3% adjustment to account for inflation 1.0 Infrastructure Services reflects an annual 10% increase in capacity growth starting from FY to accommodate additional applications coming on board each year 6.0 Staffing reflects an annual 3% salary adjustment to account for merits and inflation Version Page 8 of 8