1 / 17

UC Davis Email Committee

UC Davis Email Committee. Findings & Recommendations. Draft. May 23, 2011. 1. Recap of Email Committee Work. Requirements Sub-Committee (Carl Whithaus , Francois Gygi , Tracy Lade, Jamie Butler, Felix Wu, Gabe Youtsey) Conduct a campus-wide survey on email needs and wants

tavita
Télécharger la présentation

UC Davis Email Committee

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. UC Davis Email Committee Findings & Recommendations Draft May 23, 2011 1

  2. Recap of Email Committee Work • Requirements Sub-Committee (Carl Whithaus, Francois Gygi, Tracy Lade, Jamie Butler, Felix Wu, Gabe Youtsey) • Conduct a campus-wide survey on email needs and wants • Leverage work done by previous email committees to validate and document requirements • ECP Review Sub-Committee(Joe Kiskis, Paul Gepts, Felix Wu, Gabe Youtsey) • Review the ECP to comment on whether outsourcing to vendors is acceptable • Review to determine who has the authority on campus to make decisions about ECP interpretation • Connect with the UCOP ECP initiative • Package Recommendation Sub-Committee(Jamie Butler, Rick Grosberg, Carl Whithaus, Felix, Morna, Gabe) • Review possible email/unified communications solutions that meet requirements • Conduct a cost comparison of current email at UC Davis vs. future costs of a proposed solution 2

  3. Issues • There is no single email solution that delivers all the features desired on campus at the lowest cost. • Many are concerned with the privacy of cloud providers like Gmail, but there are extremely high satisfaction rates among students, faculty, and staff using UCD Gmail or forwarding to personal accounts. • There is much dissatisfaction with Cyrus/Geckomail, and close to 100 email systems around campus that provide their own service. • There is a wide variation in quality of “email” service, from full-featured collaboration and messaging to simple email. • Not all of the email products reviewed are widely used on campus. Some solutions would require hiring different administrators. • Outsourcing all email to a cloud provider would result in a certain loss of control over email and collaboration data 3

  4. Committee Recommendations • Select a small number of complementary cloud/on premises email/unified communications systems to take advantage of the benefits of each and minimize the issues to increase satisfaction and adoption • Retire Cyrus/Geckomail after a transition period • Offer basic email, calendaring, and chat services for “free” to campus to increase adoption and decrease unnecessary email services around campus • Offer additional collaboration and communication services (e.g. SharePoint, VOIP) at an additional cost for departments that need them 4

  5. Committee Recommendations contd. • Collaborate with campus units to enhance the interoperability of the different email/unified communications systems • Form email/unified communication steering and technical committees made up of campus units and IET to provide collaborative oversight • Develop practices for strong contract management and compliance monitoring of cloud providers • Support PC, Mac, Linux/Unix users on campus with a range of supported email clients and Web access to preserve a variety of choices using standards-based protocols • Provide accessible systems to accommodate the needs of the entire campus community 5

  6. Email Package Recommendations • Microsoft Exchange through the on premises uConnect service • 2 GB mailboxes • Chat services through Lync • Optional SharePoint, Office Web App services • Optional VOIP services • Microsoft Office 365 as the cloud component of the uConnect service • 25 GB mailboxes • Optional services provided through uConnect on premises • Google Apps • Provide full range of Gmail and Google Apps for students, other campus units • Provide a Google Apps account, without Gmail, to all faculty and staff on other email services for collaboration purposes 6

  7. Email Package Cost Analysis 7

  8. Requirements Sub-Committee Findings from Campus-Wide Survey • Any “email” offering must contain optional unified communications tools including calendaring, anywhere access, doc sharing, collaboration tools, and chat integration • Large mailbox and attachment sizes are critical • The top privacy concerns regarding outsourcing are vendor mining of data and security breaches • Many faculty and staff are forwarding to personal email addresses, many of them using Google Apps 8

  9. ECP Review Sub-Committee Findings on the UC Electronic Communications Policy • This concerns the narrow question of whether or not the UC Electronic Communications Policy (ECP) prohibits the outsourcing of email services for the campus. • It takes no position on the advisability of such outsourcing in general or to any specific vendor. • The UC Information Security and Privacy Initiative is working to update the ECP in the next two years. • The most consistent interpretation of the policy is that the use of outside vendors to provide communication services is not by itself a violation of the policy. • However, all providers of such services must operate in a manner that is consistent with University policy. • Thus if the campus is to make use of outside vendors, it must develop and maintain a high level of rigor in contracting and compliance monitoring. 9

  10. Package Recommendation Sub-Committee Email Packages Reviewed • Microsoft Exchange (on premises) – currently used extensively around campus for the central uConnect service and by various departments • Microsoft Office 365 (cloud) – a brand new cloud email offering that can be used by itself or “snapped in” with Exchange for a mixed solution. Available in June. • Google Apps for Education (cloud) – Gmail and related applications. Used by students on campus and a number of faculty and staff. • UC Berkeley CalMail (private cloud) – An open source option offered by UCB; similar to existing Cyrus/Geckomail system. • Zimbra (on premises) – A lesser-known competitor to Exchange. Used by 1-2 departments on campus. • IBM Lotus Notes (on premises) – IBM’s competing package to MS Exchange. Currently used by the UCDHS. 10

  11. Package Recommendation Sub-Committee Cloud vs. On Premises Considerations Cloud • Basic cloud email services are free, additional services can be applied on a fee-per-user basis • Contract management, security and privacy become key issues • Administration is generally radically simplified • Performance must be managed by service level agreement On Premises • Must have hardware, software, experienced admins, housing, power, cooling • Administration is complex. Must use products familiar on campus or hire experienced admins • Highly customizable 11

  12. Package Recommendation Sub-Committee Google Apps Details Cost: Software is free, $58k-$106k to administer annually (.5-1 FTE) Where Hosted: In undisclosed Google Data Centers worldwide. Where Used on Campus: By all students, some faculty and staff. Administered by IET. 12

  13. Package Recommendation Sub-Committee Microsoft Office 365 Details Cost: Software is free for basic service, $85k to administer annually (.75 FTE) Where Hosted: In named Microsoft data centers in the United States Where Used on Campus: Is a “cloud” version of Microsoft Exchange, current used widely on campus by many academic and administrative units 13

  14. Package Recommendation Sub-Committee Microsoft Exchange Details Cost: Estimated at $619k annually to house all faculty and staff Where Hosted: UC Davis Where Used on Campus: IET (uConnect), ARM, and a number of Academic Units 14

  15. Package Recommendation Sub-Committee CalMail Details Cost: Estimated at $200k+ annually paid to UC Berkeley, 1 administrator at $106k - $300k+ total estimated Where Hosted: UC Berkeley Where Used on Campus: N/A – although CalMail is a Cyrus product (IET’s older email system that also runs Geckomail) 15

  16. Package Recommendation Sub-Committee Zimbra Details Cost: Estimated at $200k annually for software, and $607k for hardware/administration - $800k+ total estimated Where Hosted: UC Davis Where Used on Campus: Library 16

  17. Package Recommendation Sub-Committee IBM Lotus Notes Details Cost: Estimated at $300k annually for software, and $607k for hardware/administration – over $900k total estimated Where Hosted: UC Davis Where Used on Campus: Health System 17

More Related