How To Write A System Replacement Plan

Transcription

1 BUSINESS SERVICES COMMITTEE (BSC) Meeting Agenda May 11, :00 pm to 3:30 pm FAC 228D I. Identity Management Strategy (C.W. Belcher) II. imodules (John McCall) III. Administrative System Master Plan Roadmaps (Brad Englert, Mary Knight, and Kristi Bradford) IV. My Edu (Shelby Stanfield) V. UT System IT Roadmap (Brad Englert) VI. Life Cycle Management (Huapei Chen) VII. Cloud File Sharing Service (Joe Howe)

2 IDENTITY & ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Purpose The Identity & Access Management (IAM) strategy will provide a roadmap for implementing a comprehensive and full-featured set of IAM services to encourage collaboration, facilitate stakeholder engagement, and support online interactions with a variety of users, while maintaining the security and integrity of the university s digital assets. Approach Create project charter and customer steering committee Identify key IAM business requirements and drivers Research IAM solutions and best practices, benchmark with peer institutions Define the IAM strategy o Map out the desired future state o Specify the sequence of solution implementation (addressing key priorities and interdependencies) o Provide guidelines for solution selection (integrated suite versus best-of-breed; hosted, commercial package, open source, or custom-coded solution; etc.) Define long-term IAM governance structure Current Status AIC accepted the approach and scope on 4/13/2012 Project Charter being reviewed now we will need both AIC and BSC input on project steering committee membership IAM Scope Areas Group & Role Management Identity Lifecycle Management Authentication Service Provisioning Orchestration Identity & Access Management Federation Auditing & Reporting Authorization Directory Services ID Card Services 5/11/2012 1

3 Implementing, Using, Supporting, and Funding

4 Marketing Background Convio contracted by Texas Exes in late 2001 with costs shared by Development and Texas Exes. Technical support and training conducted by Development. Convio did not allow for more than one branded URL or segmentation of the data. ( Multiple Convio contracts existed on campus and still exist; McCombs, HRC, KUT, Athletics. Other products in use on campus.

5 August 2009 February Marketing review undertaken. Marketing Review Focus and feedback sessions with representatives from academic and administrative units. requirements were recorded and ranked. Vendors including imodules, Convio, and Blackbaud were brought in for demonstrations. Participants were allowed to score and rank vendors based on demos and ability to meet requirements. Pricing solicited from vendors for /events/community components. imodules selected as vendor for /events/community platform.

6 Higher Education imodules Clients

7 imodules Overview Current Functionality Marketing Community Directory (website) Planned Functionality Events (McCombs/Development beta testing) Other Functionality (non-licensed) Volunteer Management Peer to Peer Fundraising Membership Management Online Giving

8 imodules Overview Benefits of Centralized /Community/Events system Authoritative repository of user unsubscribes: Consolidating user unsubscribes in one central database improves the experience for off-campus users by preventing unwanted solicitations. Granular permissions: imodules allows the creation of separate instances of the tool (called "sub-communities") which all share the same database. This capability alleviates political issues caused by a large diverse campus sharing the same tool. Each College, School, or Unit has their own copy of the tool. (30 but expandable) Each instance of the tool ("sub-community") has access only to their user-base (configurable per instance). Users of each instance of the tool see only their data and s. Unsubscribes are available at multiple levels: Per Category, Per "Sub-Community, and University-wide Improves the web capabilities of units across campus: In addition to Marketing functionality, imodules includes functionality for creating an online directory of alumni and other constituents. This online directory can match existing web designs, allowing it to be added onto existing campus websites. This effectively allows Colleges, Schools, and Units to enhance their websites, providing a turn-key solution that improves interactions with Alumni and other constituents. LBJ School had a custom-built Alumni Directory website that was shut down due to security concerns. imodules has allowed the LBJ School to replace this functionality, enhancing their Alumni Relations efforts. imodules has been vetted and approved by the Information Security Office (ISO) Improves our Alumni and Donor database: imodules synchronizes it's data with our VIP database. As users update their information in the aforementioned online directory, that information is sent back to our VIP database. This greatly enhances our data collection efforts and will benefit the over 796 VIP users across campus. Event RSVPs and Ticket Sales: Holding events for off-campus constituents is challenging and Colleges, Schools, and Units routinely turn to unsanctioned outside vendors to manage their events. In addition to the Marketing and Online Directory functionality, imodules also provides functionality for creating web pages where constituents can register for events, including allowing ticket sales if needed.

9 Governance Council imodules Overview David Burns Caren Troutman Mark Gunn Brenda George Michael Bos John Chambers Carolyn Connerat Cesar De La Garza To Be Determined McCombs School of Business LBJ School of Public Affairs School of Law College of Natural Sciences Intercollegiate Athletics Computer Sciences University Creative Services University Development Office Texas Exes Additional attendees (Project Managers and Support): Jeremy Cumbo University Development Office Sara Somabhatta University Development Office Ryan Beavers University Development Office

10 imodules Overview Current Users of imodules Athletics Center for American History DDCE Dean of Students Development College of Communications (3) College of Engineering (9) College of Fine Arts (4) College of Liberal Arts (6) College of Natural Sciences (6) Continuing and Innovative Education ICES Jackson School of Geosciences LBJ (2) McCombs School of Business McDonald Observatory Office of the President School of Information School of Law School of Nursing School of Pharmacy (2) School of Social Work (2) TACC Texas Exes Undergraduate Studies UT Libraries UT Operations VP Student Affairs (2) admins Communications Admins 62 Authors 143 Member Admins 5 Super Admins 47 Events Admins 3

11 imodules Overview Statistics 2012 Year-to-Date Total number of addresses (good/total) 400,888 / 468,000 Total s sent 6,695,766 April 2012 Total number of s sent 1,314,022 Community Statistics LBJ officially launched May 1 Total User Count in Alumni Directory 3,683 Total number of user logins 421 (219 unique) Total number of profile updates 177 Total number of photo albums 27 Total number logging in w/out EID 156

12 imodules Overview

13 imodules Overview

14 imodules Overview

15 CSU Phases Phase 1 Completed Development connect.utexas.edu McCombs msb.connect.utexas.edu UT Athletics t-association.com Texas Exes community.texasexes.org Law law.connect.utexas.edu LBJ lbj.connect.utexas.edu Liberal Arts cola.connect.utexas.edu Natural Sciences cns.connect.utexas.edu

16 Phase 2 In Progress CSU Phases Computer Sciences cs.connect.utexas.edu DDCE ddce.connect.utexas.edu Engineering engr.connect.utexas.edu Fine Arts cofa.connect.utexas.edu Jackson School jsg.connect.utexas.edu Nursing nursing.connect.utexas.edu Pharmacy pharmacy.connect.utexas.edu I School ischool.connect.utexas.edu

17 imodules Funding & Support Current Texas Exes and Development 50/50 on license Year 1 = $51,000 (Feb 2011 Feb 2012) Year 2 = $53,650 (Feb 2012 Feb 2013) Year 3 = $57,433 (Feb 2013 July 31, 2014) 30 Communities included (Directory, , Events) Additional Communities ($3400, $3700, $3800) All support handled by the Development Office 1 FTE for Marketing (recurring).5 FTE for PM of Community/Events Rollout.5 FTE for Database Synching and Programming

18 imodules Central Funding Request UT-Austin portion of annual license Year 1 = $25,500 (Feb 2011 Feb 2012) Year 2 = $26,825 (Feb 2012 Feb 2013) Year 3 = $28,716 (Feb 2013 July 31, 2014) Marketing / Community / Database Support 2 FTE s = $90,000

19 Business Services Committee THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Information Technology Governance ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps Document Version 1.0 Prepared by Kristi Bradford, ITS Last Edited May 9, 2012 Project Charter ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps Executive Summary In March 2012, the Strategic IT Accountability Board (SITAB) endorsed the Administrative Systems Master Plan (ASMP). This plan provides the direction for aligning future administrative systems investments to the University s mission and goals. Initiative 1.1 of the ASMP includes the development of system replacements roadmaps by each administrative business unit at the University. To ensure consistency across the enterprise, templates will be created for this effort. Each administrative business unit will leverage the templates in the development of their roadmaps. Business Need and Background [From ASMP page 3] UT Austin must take advantage of technical advancements to enhance service delivery, provide the basis for offering new mission-oriented services, mitigate the risk of relying on an aging technology toolset, improve the ability to interface with vendor products, and adopt improvements to IT practices. The University needs a robust IT infrastructure to enable the flexibility required for the University to efficiently conduct business operations. Project Description This project responds to Requirement 1: Create Business Driven Systems and Data Management identified in the ASMP. The first initiative of this requirement, Initiative 1.1, calls for the development of system replacement roadmaps for each administrative business unit. These roadmaps will depict how and when legacy systems will be migrated to the new technical environment. They will take into account unit strategies and Return on Investment (ROI) as well as capture resource requirements, benefits, efficiencies across business functions and systems, and workforce skill requirements. Project Goals The goals of Initiative 1.1: Develop System Replacement Roadmaps are as follows: Develop roadmap templates that create a consistent method to plan for modernization and replacement across business units Assess replacement options based upon unit strategies, ROI, unit and enterprise level benefits and efficiencies, resource requirements and workforce skill and staffing requirements Develop budget scenarios and funding requirements associated with roadmaps Define System Replacement Roadmaps for each administrative area Define Enterprise-level Roadmap *** DRAFT- For Discussion Purposes Only*** 1

20 Business Services Committee THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Information Technology Governance ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps Document Version 1.0 Schedule and Milestones Milestone/Deliverable Target Date Project Charter 04/30/12 Project Communication Plan 04/30/12 Project Plan 05/15/12 System Replacement Roadmap Template 05/31/12 Pilot Area(s) System Replacement Roadmap(s) 07/31/12 System Replacement Roadmaps 10/31/12 Enterprise-level System Replacement Roadmap 12/31/12 Project Charter *** DRAFT- For Discussion Purposes Only*** 2

21 Business Services Committee THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Information Technology Governance ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps Document Version 1.0 Scope The scope of this project is to develop system replacement roadmaps for the administrative business units and an enterprise-wide system replacement roadmap. Administrative business units included: Provost Academic Administration- Registrar* Provost-Academic Administration- Admissions Provost-Academic Administration-Student Financial Services* Finance-Controller, Budget/Payroll, Procurement* Student Affairs (scope decision pending) Information Management and Analysis (IMA) University Operations-HR Services University Operations-Campus Operations, CPFM, Safety and Security University Development Library Athletics Research-Office of VP for Research Information Technology Services In order to capture administrative needs of colleges and schools, representatives from the academic areas will participate in the development of roadmaps for applicable administrative areas. *Indicates pilot administrative unit In Scope This effort will: Develop roadmap templates that create a consistent method to plan for modernization and replacement across business units Assess replacement options based upon unit strategies, ROI, unit and enterprise level benefits and efficiencies, resource requirements and workforce skill and staffing requirements Develop budget scenarios and funding requirements associated with roadmaps Define System Replacement Roadmaps for each administrative area Define Enterprise-level Roadmap Out of Scope This effort will not: Develop a detailed list of system(s) requirements Develop a Request for Proposal(s) Select vendor/products for system replacement Project Charter *** DRAFT- For Discussion Purposes Only*** 3

22 Business Services Committee THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Information Technology Governance ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps Document Version 1.0 Project Organization Area Role Name Provost Academic Administration- Student Records Lead Shelby Stanfield Registrar Provost-Academic Administration- Admissions Lead Kedra Ishop Admissions Provost-Academic Administration- Financial Aid Lead Shelby Stanfield Student Financial Services Provost- Faculty Data Faculty Data Lead Renee Wallace Information Management and Analysis IMA Lead Kristi Fisher Finance- Office of Accounting Accounting Lead Mary Knight Finance- Budget/Payroll Budget/Payroll Lead Mary Knight Finance-Procurement Procurement Lead Jerry Fuller Student Affairs Student Affairs Lead Donna Bellinghausen University Operations-HR Services HR Services Lead Debra Kress University Operations-Campus Facilities Lead Steve Kraal Operations-Planning and Facilities Management University Operation- Safety and Security Campus Safety and Bob Harkins Security Lead University Development Development Lead John McCall Library Library Lead Mark MacFarland Athletics Athletics Lead Michael Bos Research-Office of VP for Research Research Lead Susan Sedwick Information Technology Services ITS Lead Julienne VanDerZiel Project Office Project Coordinator Kristi Bradford Governance The project will use the Business Services Committee (BSC) as the executive steering committee. In addition to the BSC monthly meetings, a smaller Steering Group will meet bi-weekly throughout the duration of the project. Steering Group members include: Mary Knight Mark MacFarland Shelby Stanfield Kathy Foster Brad Englert Jamie Southerland Project Charter *** DRAFT- For Discussion Purposes Only*** 4

23 Business Services Committee THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Information Technology Governance ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps Document Version 1.0 Assumptions Roadmaps will assume that the Open Systems Technical Environment is in place Roadmaps will assume that the UT System academic institutions that share administrative systems will be transitioned off the UT Austin legacy system (published target- April 2013) Risks Selection and implementation of the new systems will be part of later phases UT Share project timeline may impact Roadmapping project assumptions Revision History Version Date Description V 1 4/19/12 Initial draft completed Project Charter *** DRAFT- For Discussion Purposes Only*** 5

24 Business Services Committee THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Information Technology Governance ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps Document Version 1.0 Prepared by Kristi Bradford, ITS Last Edited May 9, 2012 Project Communications Plan This communication plan describes the strategy for keeping project stakeholders informed throughout the ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps project. Executive Summary In March 2012, the Strategic IT Accountability Board (SITAB) endorsed the Administrative Systems Master Plan (ASMP). This plan provides the direction for aligning future administrative systems investments to the University s mission and goals. Initiative 1.1 of the ASMP includes the development of system replacements roadmaps by each administrative business unit at the University. To ensure consistency across the enterprise, templates will be created for this effort. Each administrative business unit will leverage the templates in the development of their roadmaps. Project Stakeholders Key stakeholders include: Business Services Committee (Steering Committee) University Business Officers Council (UBOC) o College Business Officers (TXADMIN) Project Team Communication Vehicles Vehicle Description Executive Message Existing Committees /Councils Communication to campus from executive sponsor informing them of the project, key benefits, timeframe, etc. Provide project overview/status for existing committees Deans Council (quarterly) VP Council (quarterly) Operating IT Council (quarterly) Administrative IT Leaders (monthly) IT Architecture Infrastructure Committee (quarterly) 1

25 ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps Document Version 1.0 ITS Website Progress Report Topic-specific Meetings Business Area Kick-Off Documentation Project Repository A general channel for sharing project information. Focused on providing updates to internal and external stakeholders. Bi-weekly beginning May 18 Progress against plan Decisions, standards, etc As needed to gather information, resolve issues, provide communication Business Area Orientation to review templates, discuss work effort and staffing requirements and gather information from Pilot Areas regarding steps and documentation Standards for documenting roadmaps: templates Document processes and procedures followed by Pilot Areas in completing their roadmaps A project team accessible site (wiki) for the collection and communication of project documentation, issues, action items, progress reports, etc. Stakeholder Communication Strategies Stakeholder Information Needs Vehicle Business Services Committee Schedule Progress Issues Risks Documentation Monthly Meeting Progress Reports University Business Officers Council Schedule Progress Documentation Business Area Kick-Off Progress Reports Existing Committees/Councils ITS Website College Business Officers (TXADMIN) Schedule Progress Documentation Project Team Schedule Progress Issues Risks Decisions Participate in appropriate Progress Reports Existing Committees/Councils ITS Website Weekly Meeting Progress Reports Topic-specific Meetings Project Repository Project Communications Plan 2 ***DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only***

26 ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps Document Version 1.0 activities during all project phases Project Tracking Progress The team will report weekly against the project plan and any outstanding action items. The team will produce a high-level progress report of issues, accomplishments, and ongoing work. The project coordinator will meet weekly with Executive Sponsor and others, as needed to discuss project issues and status. Issue Management As we develop the Administrative System Replacement roadmaps, issues and questions will arise that must be addressed. These issues will be: 1. Captured in the issues log on the project repository. 2. Items will be reviewed weekly and assigned accordingly 3. Resolutions to each issue will be entered in the issues log on the project repository. 4. Resolution will be communicated the requestor and appropriate audience Action Items Action items will be recorded and stored on the project repository Schedule Year-Month Internal Activity External Activity April Project Charter completed and approved Communication Plan completed and approved 2012-May Monthly BSC Meeting Progress Report Roadmap Template Executive Message Update Website AITL Update 2012-June Monthly BSC Meeting Progress Report Project Communications Plan 3 ***DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only***

27 ASMP Initiative 1.1-Develop System Replacement Roadmaps Document Version 1.0 Year-Month Internal Activity External Activity 2012-July Monthly BSC Meeting Progress Report Pilot Roadmaps Business Area Work Effort and Staffing Needs 2012-August Monthly BSC Meeting Progress Report 2012-September Monthly BSC Meeting Progress Report 2012-October Monthly BSC Meeting Progress Report Business Area Roadmaps 2012-November Monthly BSC Meeting Progress Report 2012-December Monthly BSC Meeting Progress Report Enterprise-wide Roadmap Update Website AITL Update Business Area Kick-Off AITL Update Deans Council VP Council Operating IT Committee IT Architecture Infrastructure Committee AITL Update Update Website AITL Update AITL Update Deans Council VP Council Operating IT Committee IT Architecture Infrastructure Committee Update Website AITL Update Assumptions Ongoing project communication efforts may be reassessed during the course of the project and adjustments made to the frequency or format Changes to the Project Schedule will affect the timing of events. Changes in the communications schedule will be adjusted as the Project Schedule is adjusted Project Communications Plan 4 ***DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only***

28 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 Signoff Project Management and Communication April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Review Milestone Current Status Friday, May 04, 2012 v.1

29 Life Cycle Managed (LCM) Project Update BSC, Background: Today: 1. Based on the pilot project on UT in 2010, the task force recommended the following: a. Fund an enterprise level Jira+Natclips+subversion environment for software development need. This is considered the highest priority from administrative development community. b. Implement the short term Mainframe based fix (TXAPPL) AND if funding is available, consider adopting the Innowake s LCM product, which also sits on top of the infrastructure in #a above. The goal is to address the high risk areas as identified by the Audit findings, and eventually deploy campus wide, with units paying for their use of the licenses (Natclips and LCM). 2. BSC approve both recommendations, resulted in the following action items: a. Purchased an enterprise license for LCM, $220K. b. Purchased an enterprise license for Natclip, $70K. c. Purchased one single Jira license, $9K. d. Allocated an FTE ($60K) to manage this one Jira+LCM instance and work with campus for migration. 1. Jira is not enterprise ready!! a. Result is that the existing 3 jira instances, ECS, SIS, and ITS, will need to be upgraded separately to supportable version (2 of them have been end-of-life ed by the vendor). But because of their unique business needs, one single administrative entity will not work for all areas. b. Technical team recommends that ITS do the 3 instance upgrades part ASAP. Our current plan is to complete this by July 2012 at the latest. c. ITS will manage those 3 Jira instances as production services to better support the existing administrative community development need. 2. The need for LCM is not clear!! a. ITS would like to come back to BSC to present further findings.

30 3. Only one high risk area relies on LCM a. At this time, Student Financial Aid is the only group that will need LCM, and there is no other option for them. b. Since Payroll, Accounting, and SIS are all audit compliant with the short term mainframe fix and Jira service. The technical team feels that most the campus units will also be in the same situation as well, and will not need the huge transition cost to LCM. c. Technical team recommends that Innowake be brought back on campus to assist Student Financial Aid and ITS with upgrading the prototype (which Student Financial Aid is currently using as production) to the latest version, and ITS will co-manage this LCM+Jira with Student Financial Aid to meet audit requirement. Any other campus units can participate in this single instance, if they want/need to. Next Steps: 1. Do we want to re-negotiate with Innowake for the LCM product licensing cost? 2. How do we cost share the LCM licenses? 3. How do we cost share Natclipse licenses? 4. How do we manage all the future requests for Jira/Natclips/Subversion service?

31 Cloud File Sharing Document Version 1.1 Joe Howe Cloud File Sharing Task Force Chair Last Edited April 12, 2012 Task Force Charter Cloud File Sharing Executive Summary The purpose of the task force is to accelerate the requirements analysis, review, and large scale pilot implementation of the Box solution provided via the Internet2 Net+ service offering. The task force will also provide requirements and analysis to inform future reviews of cloud file sharing services. Business Need and Background The use of cloud-based file sharing services such as Dropbox has increased significantly over the past 3 years. With features like synchronization of files to multiple computers, sharing files with others via shared folders or web links, and integration with mobile software, it is easy to see why this type of service has grown in popularity so quickly. The use of these services for University business can and in some circumstances does violate existing policies that govern the use and protection of the University s data. In late 2011, Box and internet2 announced plans to offer a hosted cloud file sharing service focused on higher education for the technology, security, and contract language. This effort has continued to progress and will be available very soon. An informal pilot was already underway on the UT campus. Project Description The task force will define the requirements needed to provide a cloud-based file sharing service to the UT campus that also complies with existing University policies. Next, the group will coordinate the evaluation of the Box service for campus, comparing it to the requirements. The final document will also serve as the framework for other cloud file sharing services investigated by campus. The effort will be supported by guidelines and best practices derived from campus, business, research, and teaching use cases and industry trends. The task force will incorporate anticipated resources, budgets, infrastructure, and workforce needs of campus into the process. 1

32 Cloud File Sharing Document Version 1.1 Task Force Goals The goals of the task force are: Identify Use Cases and Requirements Identify use cases and requirements for UT and cloud-based file sharing on campus Benchmark current efforts at other leading universities focused on early adopters of Box Review of Box and Similar Services Systemic review of the Box service based on UT requirements including gathering specific feedback on Box from key technical and non-technical users Basic review of other leading cloud file sharing services based on UT requirements Provide final report with recommendation including Box assessment and framework for reviewing potential options in the future Resources, Support and Future Options Draft resources, budgets, infrastructure, and support needs to offer a cloud based file sharing service Identify best practices and future trends for use of cloud-based file sharing in the classroom, in research, in business operations, and engaging in campus life Schedule and Milestones Milestone/Deliverable Identify use cases and requirements for cloud-based file sharing on campus Benchmark current efforts at other leading universities, focused on the early adopters of Box Systemic review of the Box service based on UT requirements including gathering specific feedback on Box from key technical and non-technical users Basic review of other leading cloud file sharing services based on UT requirements Provide final report with recommendation including Box assessment and framework for reviewing potential options in the future Draft resources, budgets, infrastructure, and support needs to offer a cloud based file sharing service Identify best practices and future trends for use of cloud-based file sharing in the classroom, in research, in business operations, and engaging in campus life Target Date 3/30/12 4/13/12 4/13/12 4/13/12 4/20/12 4/20/12 5/4/12 Scope The task force will work to quickly assess the UT use cases and requirements for a cloud file sharing service, coordinate a hands-on review of the Box service and identify resources required to pilot the Task Force Charter 2

33 Cloud File Sharing Document Version 1.1 service on a larger scale. This information will also be useful in future reviews of cloud file sharing services In Scope Items that are in scope include multi-year budget projections, anticipated security measures, anticipated infrastructure requirements and resources, anticipated workforce requirements. Existing UT services like Webspace will also be considered in the use case review. Out of Scope Out of scope items include transitioning/decommissioning Webspace, identifying funding options, coordinating the actual implementation of a service and performing in depth reviews of other options besides Box. Some of these may require convening a new group to focus on that issue. In addition, the best practices and guidelines work from the Cloud Computing Best Practices Task Force will be leveraged where possible. The functions already assigned to that group will be out of scope for this task force. Task Force Management and Governance The cloud-based file sharing strategy falls under the auspices of the Architecture and Infrastructure Committee. Role Name(s)/Title(s) Responsibilities Executive Sponsor(s) Brad Englert/Chief Information Officer Project Manager Technical Lead Project Team Information Security Officer Stakeholder(s) Ryan Baldwin/AIC Committee Chair Project Facilities and Resources To develop the cloud-based file sharing strategy, the following resources will be necessary: Meeting and interview space that is available on a regularly scheduled basis Time from faculty, students, and staff for surveys and interviews Time from faculty, students, staff of peer institutions for selected and targeted interviews Survey development tools (e.g. Survey Station UT s survey service) Web posting space for sharing collaboration documents Impact Analysis Impact analysis will be developed in tandem with the work of this task force. Task Force Charter 3

34 Cloud File Sharing Document Version 1.1 Assumptions Assumptions will be developed in conjunction with the work of this task force. Constraints The project will be time bound. Interviews with targeted members of our peer institutions and a survey of the representative population and their uses, and best practices will be used to make a generalized strategy for campus. Risks The largest risk for the project will be getting good data in a limited amount of time. Focus must be maintained on the goals of this task force and not on the numerous other components of the final implementation and endless possibilities. Due to the short time frame, it is critical to have a good information and feedback gathering plan, targeting the right people with the right questions. Revision History Version Date Description V 1 2/8/2012 Initial draft completed V 1.1 3/14/2012 Revised draft, focused on current Box opportunity Signatures Name Role Signature Date Ryan Baldwin AIC Chair and Infrastructure Representative R&E Committee Member AIC Committee Member BSC Committee Member Cam Beasley (or his delegate) William Green (or his delegate) Pei Chen (or her delegate) Undergraduate Student Graduate Student Research Representative Infrastructure Representative Business Representative Information Security Representative Networking Representative Systems Representative Student Representative Student Representative Task Force Charter 4

35