Evaluating Email/Calendar Solutions

1. Evaluating Email/Calendar Solutions Building the “Next Generation” of Collaboration Infrastructure Email ……. Calendar …….. Tools…… Susan DeLellis, Project Manager Tim Gleason, Technical Architect Harvard University Information Systems CSG Meeting, September 21, 2004 susan_delellis@harvard.edu Tim_gleason@harvard.edu

2. Email/Calendar Evaluation at Harvard • Harvard’s Email/Calendar Environment Today • Drivers Leading up to a New Look at Email/Calendaring • Input from our Customers • RFP Process & Evaluation • Evaluation Criteria • What We’ve Learned thus Far & Next Steps What We Plan to Share with You Today:

3. Harvard Email/Calendar Environment Today Decentralized & Locally Managed… • @ 50,000 managed Email accounts at Harvard today… • 60% Students • 40% Faculty/Staff < 5,000 managed Calendar Accounts • Multitude of service providers: • Central Administration (CAIT) – ISP Model, Fee for Service • Individual Schools (8) • Others • Multitude of solutions, offerings & platforms: • SendMail, Exchange, Lotus Notes, Communigate Pro, others • No central authentication for Email/Calendaring

4. Harvard Email/Calendar Environment Today • CAIT provides: • Centralized University Directory Service (LDAP) – but there is no authentication in LDAP today • Central Email Aliasing Service (first_lastname@harvard.edu) • Integrated Voice-mail to Email Service (EVM) • University-Wide Email Broadcast Application – Presmailer – developed in-house to provide a central communications tool for emergency broadcast and critical University correspondences

5. Drivers Leading up to a New Look at Email/Calendaring • IT Efficiency Process at Harvard: • Initiative started 2 yrs. ago to look at ways to achieve IT efficiencies via centralizing services & aggregating volume • Email/Calendar identified as an area to be explored & measured • CAIT had real concerns about the reliability & scalability of our existing calendar system & provider • Recognized the need for a higher level of integration between Email & Calendaring as evidenced by user surveys and focus groups Concluded to move forward w/a CAIT initiated project to develop & evaluate RFP responses for a commercial Email/Calendar solution w/enterprise level support

6. Input from Our Customers Input From Our Customers • CAIT User Survey: 13% of 6,300 Email customers responded • 97% rated Email as most important communications service • Provide better integration between Calendar, Email, IM (single client) • Provide more robust web client & remote access • Improve reliability of Calendar system • Develop a central group Calendar system • CAITUser Forums • Reliability of messaging is critical • Effectiveness of anti-spam & anti-virus solutions directly impacts day-day productivity • Remote access growing in importance • Sensitivity to change & cost

7. RFP Process & Evaluation Evaluation Still in Progress

8. RFP Evaluation Criteria • Developed vendor evaluation scorecards – weighted score system – Rating each vendor on specifics w/in 5 primary categories: • Ability to Partner • Price & TCO • Manageability,Scalability & Security • Service & Support • Product Performance & Strategy • Project team and end user testing of vendor solutions

9. What We’ve Learned Thus Far • Emergence of Collaboration Suites • Full featured services including File sharing, Portals, Web Conferencing, Unified Messaging, IM Competes with existing solutions & tools we have in place - what’s the right infrastructure? • Trend towards Database Architectures • Many vendors moving towards full functioning backend relational DBs as message stores Value of DB backend and changing role for support? ? ?

10. What We’ve Learned Thus Far • Clients • More robust web clients • Native thick clients still offer best performance/feature functionality • MAPI Connector option for Outlook – Varies • Handhelds • Support still limited for Blackberry RIM devices. Need Exchange, Groupwise or Notes/Domino to fully integrate • Directory • Each vendor “prefers” their own directory for authentication Raises questions about our directory & authentication strategy – opportunity to consolidate directories? ?

11. What We’ve Learned Thus Far • Portals • Many of the Collaboration Suite solutions include portal-like functionality How could these solutions potentially fit w/existing Harvard portal frameworks • Client Licensing & Discount Structures • Strategies differ per vendor • Campus agreements w/specific identified subscribers vs. “full use” unlimited licenses Given our ISP Model – it introduces a new level of complexity to manage & administer campus license agreements ? ?

12. What We’ve Learned Thus Far • Initial TCOs show total solution prices are in the $ 8-12 per user/mo. range • Fully loaded models including hardware,software, maintenance, facilities, monitoring, backups, storage, labor (FTE & Prod.Mgt), disaster recovery, implementation, training, helpdesk srvcs • Need a firm plan around migration/conversion • Approaches: phased vs. flash cut, start clean vs. convert data • Realistically, what data converts well • Setting user expectations & communication

13. Complexity Change Next Steps Time • Value input from CSG Meeting • Complete & evaluate end user testing, customer conference calls • Further refine TCOs • Project team to make recommendation this fall • Design/Implementation planning & testing to follow