1 / 13

Email Evaluation Final Report

Email Evaluation Final Report. Michelle Belton Harry Flowers Danita Macon. Steering Committee. Charged with providing guidance on key issues such as policy, legal, technical and compliance Team: Ellen Watson Danita Macon Steve Terry Michelle Belton Jeff Clayton Pat Prahalathan

gzifa
Télécharger la présentation

Email Evaluation Final Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Email Evaluation Final Report Michelle Belton Harry Flowers Danita Macon

  2. Steering Committee • Charged with providing guidance on key issues such as policy, legal, technical and compliance • Team: • Ellen Watson • Danita Macon • Steve Terry • Michelle Belton • Jeff Clayton • Pat Prahalathan • Lavaire Lockhart • Melanie Murry • Tarit Limpornpugdee

  3. Faculty/Staff Team • Charged with researching and evaluating the email options to ensure minimal or no loss of current email and calendar functionality from an employee’s perspective • Team: • Lavaire Lockhart, Functional Lead • Thomas Stafford (Alternates: Thomas Banning & Charles Biggers), Faculty Senate • MJ Garrett, Dan Phillips, Staff Senate • Kim Josh, BFSS • Harry Flowers, SSST • Sar Haidar, CSS • Bill Spencer, LSP • Kelly Drozd, Athletics • Mary Marr, ALC • Patrick Hood, Meta

  4. Student Team • Charged with researching and evaluating the email options to ensure minimal or no loss of current email and calendar functionality from a student’s perspective • Team: • Pat Prahalathan, Functional Lead • Joseph Michael Casey, Student Affairs, Undergraduate • Renita L. Russell, Graduate • Zachary Glaser, Law • Gregory Arsenault, A K Robinson, Adult & Commuter Services • Robert Jackson, Meri Williams, Academic Affairs • James McMurry, SSST • Shundra White, Cedric Burgess, CSS • Teresa Davis, Advancement • Tom Zeller, Meta

  5. Requirements Gathering • Created a list of criteria that was used to evaluate each vendor product • Included items such as mobile device support, calendar sharing, restricted groups, ability to manage another users’ mailbox, send on behalf of permissions, etc. A complete list can be found here

  6. Surveys • Emailed to all faculty/staff, and students, yielding 1,569 responses • 61% Students • 38% Faculty/Staff • Most respondents are either very satisfied or satisfied with the current email service (87.4%) • The majority of respondents already use another email service (91.7%) • Google/Gmail (51.9%) • Hotmail/Live/MSN (21.5%) • Yahoo (44.8%) • Of those not currently using their UM mail account • 52.3% already have an email address known by others, • 46.2% don’t use the use their UM mail account because it becomes invalid after leaving • 30.6% think the mailbox size is too small

  7. Surveys • Faculty/staff respondents thought: • The amount of storage space available for email was very important (78.0%) • The ability to manage another person’s email or calendar was of little importance (27.3%) • Similarity between the desktop and web-based clients was important (29.1%) • The ability to send an email on a mobile device was very important (41.5%) • The ability to work with email offline was important (23.3%) • Student respondents thought: • The amount of storage space available was very important (44.6%) • Similarity between the desktop and web-based clients was moderately important (24.2%) • The ability to send an email on a mobile device was very important (47.0%) • Retention of their email address after graduating was very important (40.3%) • Most students use the web client as their primary email and calendar client (45.3%)

  8. Product Evaluation/Results • Based on Gartner research, the leading hosted email solutions are Google Apps, Microsoft Live@edu and Zimbra • Product evaluations rankings: • Faculty/Staff - Microsoft Live@edu • Student - Google Apps and Microsoft Live@edu • All of the products met the technical requirements except: • Zimbra cannot limit access to group email, such as course groups (HMSE2102001.2011S) • Microsoft Live@edu requires a third-party product for Blackberry services

  9. Cost Analysis • Options • Stay with Exchange 2007 • Upgrade to Exchange 2010 • Migrate to Google Apps • Migrate to an 3rd party Zimbra provider • Migrate all faculty/staff and students to Microsoft Live@edu • Provide a hybrid approach • Migrate student email to Microsoft Live@edu • Upgrade faculty/staff email to Exchange 2010

  10. Cost Analysis • With an initial investment of $7,721.84 and $70,502 in recurring costs, the best option is the migration of faculty/staff and student email to Microsoft Live@edu

  11. Recommendation • Familiarity, Ease of Use • Teams ranked Microsoft Live@edu (Faculty/Staff) and Microsoft Live@edu/Google Apps (Students) higher than Zimbra based on familiarity with the product and ease of use • Requirements • Microsoft and Google meet requirements • Current version of Zimbra does not support the ability to restrict access to group distribution lists • Security • Google Apps may store data outside of the U.S. • Microsoft Live@edu and Zimbra solutions house data in U.S.

  12. Recommendation • Cost • Significant savings by migrating to Microsoft Live@edu • Storage • All solutions allow an increase in email quota  • Email for Life • If email remains internal, our storage costs will go up • Google and Microsoft offer email for life • Bandwidth • Email traffic transferred to Microsoft via Internet2

More Related