Overview

1. Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard Overview

2. A New Kind of Research Institution • Biological science in the 20th century made breathtaking progress in our understanding of life and provided this scientific generation with a historic opportunity and responsibility to transform medicine. • To achieve this goal, we built a new kind of research organization to dramatically accelerate the understanding and treatment of disease by: • Nurturing a deeply collaborative environment and bringing together key thought leaders across labs and scientific disciplines • Unleashing the creativity and ambition of a new generation of scientists by giving them a nimble, supportive and vibrant environment and access to novel cutting edge technologies • Complementing individual creativity with the power of industrial strength professional platforms • Tackling bold transformational projects at that cannot be undertaken in traditional setting

3. A Brief Organizational History 2002: Two major research groups come together • Whitehead/MIT Center for Genome Research • Harvard Institute of Chemistry and Cell Biology 2004: Broad Institute launched • Initial $100M gift from Broad Foundations • A 10-year “experiment” in collaborative science 2004 – 2009: Broad doubles in size • Governed by MIT-Harvard leadership • Administratively managed within MIT 2006: Broads double initial gift to $200M • Unrestricted for Broad research and operations 2007: Creation of new Stanley Center • Founding $100M (increase to $150M), 10-year gift from Stanley Medical Research Institute 2008: “Experiment” declared a success • Broads announce new endowment of $400 million • Combined $600M Current Use + Endowment Gift 2009: Broad Institute, Inc. established • 501(c)3 formed 9/08; Operations begin 7/09 2010: Carlos Slim foundation provides $65M • New initiative in genomic disease research • 1st U.S. collaboration to receive funding From left: Eric Lander, Susan Hockfield, Drew Faust, Eli Broad, Edythe Broad, Deval Patrick, David Baltimore

4. Board of Directors: Leaders in Academia Susan Hockfield President, MIT Former Provost, Yale University Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Drew Gilpin Faust President, Harvard University Former Dean, Radcliff Institute of Advanced Study Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences David Baltimore President emeritus, Cal Tech Nobel Laureate Former President, Rockefeller University Founding Director, Whitehead Institute National Medal of Science recipient Member, National Academy of Sciences Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Diana Chapman Walsh President emerita, Wellesley College Former Chair, Health and Social Behavior HSPH Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Phillip Sharp Institute Professor, MIT Nobel LaureateNational Medal of Science recipient Member, National Academy of Sciences Member, U.S. Institute of Medicine Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Eric Lander President and Director, Broad Institute Professor ,MIT Professor, Harvard Medical School Member, National Academy of Sciences Member, U.S. Institute of Medicine Dennis Ausiello Chief of Medicine, MGH Jackson Professor Clinical Medicine, HMSMember U.S. Institute of Medicine Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Jeffrey Flier Dean, Harvard Medical School Former Chief Academic Officer , BI-DMC Member, U.S. Institute of Medicine Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

5. Board of Directors: Leaders in Industry Eli Broad Founder, The Broad Foundations Founder, SunAmerica Founder, KB Homes Life Trustee, Cal Tech Louis Gerstner Retired Chairman and CEO, IBM Corporation Former Chairman and CEO, RJR Nabisco Former CEO and Chairman, American Express Ratan Tata Chairman, Tata Sons Former Chairman,Tata Industries Chair, Government of India Investment Commission International advisory board member, Mitsubishi Advisory board member, JP Morgan Chase Arthur Levinson Chairman of Genentech, Inc. Former CEO, Genentech Director, Apple, Inc. Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences Seth Klarman President and Founder, The Baupost Group Board of Managers, CareGroup/CJP Partnership William Lee Co-managing partner, WilmerHale Former managing partner Hale and Dorr Member, Harvard University Board of Overseers Former trustee, Boston Medical Center Patty Stonesifer Chair, Board of Regents, Smithsonian Institution Founding CEO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Former SVP, Microsoft Corporation Member, Council on Foreign Relations Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

6. Broad’s Mission Transform the Understanding and Treatment of Disease • To achieve this mission we are: • Creating powerful systematic methods, tools and datasets for: • Understanding human biology and disease • Testing therapeutics hypotheses • Developing novel therapeutics Applying them to leading-edge medical challenges Disseminating them to enable the scientific community in academia and industry

7. Broad Programs Scientific communities across multiple labs and institutions, working to address major challenges in specific diseases or disciplines Cell Circuits – deciphering the functions and interactions of critical molecular components in cells Cancer – understanding the basic molecular mechanisms of cancer and applying this knowledge to transform the practice of cancer medicine Medical and Population Genetics – understanding how genomic variation contributes to susceptibility to human disease and to an individual’s response to therapy Infectious Disease – understand the mechanisms behind infectious diseases and apply the knowledge to transform prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases Chemical Biology – Integrates chemical biology and genome biology to provide powerful new ways of creating therapies to treat human diseases Psychiatric Disease – unravel the molecular basis of psychiatric disease, with the ultimate aim of improving diagnosis, treatment, and, prevention Genome Biology – uses genomic technologies to identify and understand the function, regulation, and evolution of elements encoded in the human and related genomes Metabolism – Understand both normal metabolism and disease, including diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular, with the goal of developing new therapeutics

8. Broad Platforms Professionally led and managed groups that create and maintain industrial-strength capabilities and provide the Broad community with unparalleled infrastructure • Biological Samples • 32 professional staff • 600K samples from 20 different species • Chemical Biology & Novel Therapeutics • 100 professional staff • 120K novel compounds, 24M wells screened per year • RNAi • 35 professional staff • 300K shRNAs, 16K ORFs • Genome Sequencing • 150 professional staff • >200 T bases sequenced • Imaging • 12 professional staff • 24M images analyzed, CellProfiler used 50K times last year • Genetic Analysis • 36 professional staff • 200B genotypes, 235K whole genome scans • Proteomics • 22 professional staff • Functionalization of the genome • Metabolite Profiling • 5 professional staff • Characterization of model systems to clinical studies with thousands of patient samples

9. Genome Sequencing Platform In collaboration with the Broad community we generate genomic data sets to advance discoveries in biology and medicine. Sequencing Technologies 454 FLX+ Titanium Illumina HiSeq IonTorrent PGM Illumina MiSeq SOLiD 5500XL PacBio RS ABI 3730XL HUMAN WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING SUPPLIED LIBRARIES MAMMALIAN DENOVO ASSEMBLY 16S & AMPLICON HUMAN EXOME Applications MICROBIAL & FUNGAL WHOLE GENOME CUSTOM EXOME MOUSE EXOME ANYTHING ELSE? JUST ASK! VIRAL GENOMES RNA-SEQ

10. Plummeting cost of data acquisition $20,000/Mb ~100,000X $0.20/Mb $0.1 Slide courtesy Chad Nusbaum

11. Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard IT Overview

12. Alarming Statistics

13. User Community • Large user community (2,071 users as of today): • Employees (864) • Appointments (509) • Associated Personnel (446) • Associate Members (118) • Consultants (45) • Sr. Associate Members (37) • Temporary Employees (28) • Core Members (9) • Contractors (8) • Agency/Temps (7)

14. User Community • Distributed user community (6 locations + off-site): • 301B (197) • 320C (251) • 5CC (61) • 7CC (644) • 190F (0) • 12O (2) • Off-site (926)

15. IT Vision Statement Create the best collaboration experience to accelerate ground-breaking science that transforms medicine

16. Admin Collaboration Experience Research Non-Broad Research Admin Partnering Collaboration Spaces Applications Security & Integrity Systems Support Compute & Servers Storage Networking & Comms.

17. IT Mission Statement Partner with the Broad community and provide nimble innovative solutions Automate repetitive work Use Best Practices and Metrics to drive IT excellence Have fun & make this a cool place to do IT

18. Administrative Computing - Lukas Karlsson • provides general IT products, services and support • Research Computing - Matthew Trunnell • provides research-specific IT services and support • large scale computational and storage resources • informatics consulting services • database administration • IT Security & Network Infrastructure – Jason Friemark • provides Broad-wide IT services and support • network and data center operations • Information security and integrity • Business Systems – Rob Damian • Reports into CFO and provides IT services and support for HR, finance, procurement, sponsored research • SAP, ADP, eTime, Coeus, SciQuest, and EARS IT/Systems – Enables Research & Administration

19. Organizational Chart

20. 100% AV/spy/malware protection in Offices Evaluate spam-filtering Execute on security remediation per BOD IT disaster & business continuity plan Security Quick Wins/next 6 months…. Proof of concept on gTalkvid Evaluate personal devices on Broad wireless Identify conference room gaps and a/v needs Evaluate project management software Social networking software review/improve plan Improve, eliminate, or replace eTime Migrate to gTalk & google groups Collaboration Roll-out & implementation of storage as a service model Implementation of i-Rods Data & Storage

21. Recommendations for unix/linux & development environment enhancements Analysis of compute queues & queuing and plan to optimize/improve compute process Compute Quick Wins/next 6 months….

22. Recommendations for unix/linux & development environment enhancements Analysis of compute queues & queuing and plan to optimize/improve compute process Compute Quick Wins/next 6 months…. Evaluate help process and adjust to provide tiered support Define customer satisfaction metrics and survey Maintenance & Operations Proof of concept on PC walk-up clinic Define lab-computing support model Services & Engagement

23. Background Scope In: Broad infrastructure and users that access the Broad infrastructure and systems Out: Security infrastructure outside the Broad campus Starting as early as 1990, with the formation of the Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research (WICGR), then subsequent launching of the Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard in 2004 there has been a constant growth and evolution of the information technology landscape. The Broad later split from being part of the MIT infrastructure in 2009 and has continued to grow rapidly and organically. With nearly 1000 ‘Broadies’ and ~800 associate members, the infrastructure and IT team to support it needs to evolve so that it can sustainable provide quality services back to the Broad community. The current IT model and services focuses on flexibility and a refocus is needed to focus on the IT vision of providing “The ‘Best Collaboration Experience’ to enable ground-breaking science that transforms medicine”. Security Working Group Charter Problem / Goal Statement Interactions / Dependencies Problem: The growth of IT systems at the Broad has increased the complexity of identity provisioning, authentication and authorization. This results in a poorer user experience. Furthermore, growth of the lab environment and increase in sophistication of malicious assaults requires that we have a robust security infrastructure that provides proactive monitoring and prevention of attacks in the office and lab environments. To date, there is minimal protection in the labs from virus and malware management. The agencies that fund our sponsored research are also increasing the requirements to provide consistent, reliable security and continuity of services in case of problems. Goal: Develop set of activities required to provide a reliable, easily accessible, and secure office and lab environment that also addresses federal/commercial/audit recommendations. Storage Working Group Compute Working Group M&O Working Group Collaboration Working Group Timelines Key Deliverables Define by • Management of identity, authentication, authorization, access, and provisioning - Plan, methods and timeline to improve password management and provisioning • Upgrade plan and timeline to raise level of antivirus, spyware and malware protection to 100% in the office environment. Evaluation of spam-filtering capability and options to improve. • Plan and timeline to increase level of antivirus, spyware and malware protection in the lab environment. • Executed plan and completion of security audit remediation items e.g. IPS/IDS, etc.. (per BOD memo) • Phased plan to address FISMA certification needs and other needs pertaining to sponsored research and collaborative research • IT disaster recovery and business continuity plan • Validation of backup methodology/services and communication of data-protection capabilities to the Broad community • Plan and timelines to implement technology and IT policies required to support protection of human subject data • Identification of IT requirements to enable Broad research interest in becoming an ‘NIH trusted partner’ • Consolidated roadmap showing 3 year phased plan of implementing security-related recommendations showing dependencies between projects and a high-level resource and cost estimate. Potential quick-wins highlighted in RED

24. Background Scope Starting as early as 1990, with the formation of the Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research (WICGR), then subsequent launching of the Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard in 2004 there has been a constant growth and evolution of the information technology landscape. The Broad later split from being part of the MIT infrastructure in 2009 and has continued to grow rapidly and organically. With nearly 1000 ‘Broadies’ and ~800 associate members, the infrastructure and IT team to support it needs to evolve so that it can sustainable provide quality services back to the Broad community. The current IT model and services focuses on flexibility and a refocus is needed to focus on the IT vision of providing “The ‘Best Collaboration Experience’ to enable ground-breaking science that transforms medicine”. In: TBD Out: TBD Collaboration Working Group Charter Problem / Goal Statement Interactions / Dependencies Problem: The Broad is a collaboration powerhouse, however, that powerhouse is fueled by people that move information around the institute to feed research. There are many information platforms for storing related information and data that requires individuals to hunt this information down in a non-optimal way. In addition, since growing from several labs to multiple locations, it is not as easy for members of the Broad community to interact and collaborate. This is compounded when individuals are off-campus and need the flexibility of telecommuting. In a number of cases, the variety of technology choices contributes to the inability to share information, in others, gaps exist where solutions are readily available but not implemented at The Broad. Goal: Plan and initiate technology projects to enhance admin:admin, admin:research, research:research and Broad:non-Broad physical, remote, and virtual collaboration. Security Working Group Storage Working Group Strategic Partnering Working Group Communications Group (B2B) Timelines Key Deliverables Define by • Communications • Review and revise audio conferencing capabilities to enhance ease of use of conferencing capabilities (physical communication & conference lines) and quality of audio • Perform POC on communications using technologies such as softIP telephony and/or GoogleTalk • Perform POC on personal video conferencing for 1on1 and 1toMany meetings • Evaluate further need for room-based video conferencing • Evaluate risk and mitigate to enable personal wireless devices (non-computers) on internal network • Collaboration spaces • Assess current state of ‘formal’ collaboration spaces i.e. conference rooms. Update communication material in each, identify gaps in AV technology. Perform POC on easier viewing of/and scheduling of rooms. • Work with Facilities Group to perform POC on enhancing existing ‘breakout’ spaces with AV technology for displaying/sharing of information. Incorporate positive POC outcomes into 75AMES planning. • Perform POC on use of virtual environments for information sharing/meetings • Activity and workspace management • Work with research and admin groups to identify gaps and need for project management capabilities. Perform POC using several project management technologies e.g. Daptiv, MSProject, @Project etc.. • Work with research (and admin?) groups to define plan to either upgrade or replace B2B social networking site with goals to lower barrier to use, increase traffic, increase content flow – automated and manual. Potential quick-wins highlighted in RED

25. Key Deliverables • Search, aggregation and sharing of information • Baseline existing search capabilities that are Broad-wide or specific to informatics platforms and identify gaps and whether there are needs and requirements for a one-stop-shop for information searching across the Broad community. Identify needs for different search modalities e.g. Text-based, people, federated, semantic, multimedia and directed search • Content Delivery and Management • Baseline landscape of existing document management, wiki, and other content management platforms/tools for information sharing. Develop a plan to drive adoption and development of the leading platform for efficient sharing and capability strengthening e.g. collaborative authoring, electronic signatures, document workflows, etc.. • Develop content migration approach to solidify use of leading doc/wiki sharing platform. Facilitate content migration. • Information flow • Define the information flow within the administrative IT capabilities (e.g. operations, facilities, finance, hr etc..) and develop a plan to address gaps and simplify the administrative IT landscape with an eye on improving the collaboration experience and reducing number of silos where possible – (Broad2.1 Administrative Architecture) • Similarly, for the research environment. Map out and identify areas across Broad where information generated could be captured and published/registered internally and shared Broadly. E.g. use-case – project/sample tracking and information generated for projects • Explore use of enterprise information management tools to support democratization of data/information stored in silos e.g. Labmatrix, compositeSW, tibco, etc. as well as approaches for master data and taxonomy management to enable use of constrained vocabularies for data classification and organization Collaboration Working Group Charter

26. Scope Background Starting as early as 1990, with the formation of the Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research (WICGR), then subsequent launching of the Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard in 2004 there has been a constant growth and evolution of the information technology landscape. The Broad later split from being part of the MIT infrastructure in 2009 and has continued to grow rapidly and organically. With nearly 1000 ‘Broadies’ and ~800 associate members, the infrastructure and IT team to support it needs to evolve so that it can sustainable provide quality services back to the Broad community. The current IT model and services focuses on flexibility and a refocus is needed to focus on the IT vision of providing “The ‘Best Collaboration Experience’ to enable ground-breaking science that transforms medicine”. In: Storage of data/information on the storage infrastructure and database platforms. Out: Storage of data/information on computer desktops Storage Working Group Charter Problem / Goal Statement Interactions / Dependencies Problem: The Broad knows how to generate data and fill storage media faster than most research institutes. After several months, most data has been analyzed but is rarely deleted or archived. Being able to provide storage for new data and recall past experiments is a constant challenge and usually requires experts intervening. In addition, storage of information and results in relational databases requires constant management. With growing volume and complexity the Broad community has a need to optimize the variety of databases and repositories. Finally, with evolving models of archiving sponsored research data, there is a growing desire for The Broad to host and serve major data repositories and we have not yet developed the methodologies, processes and capabilities to do this effectively yet. Goal: Provide a flexible and logical way of data management through filers and database platforms that meet the performance needs of the community Security Working Group Compute Working Group Collaboration Working Group Timelines Key Deliverables Define by • Communication and Implementation Plan to role out storage as a service model • Develop/enhance demand planning and monitoring of filer utilization • Develop plan to increase archival of unused data/information • Plan to increase outreach and refinement of database services • Identification tools and resources required to improve database optimization and query tuning • Implementation plan for easier logical data/file management (e.g. i-rods) • Identification of areas and plans for where we can increase ‘self-service’ for the provisioning and management of database and filer capabilities to the Broad community • Plan to move storage infrastructure to 1SS/other location and elimination/reduction of dependency on 7CC data center Potential quick-wins highlighted in RED

27. Background Scope Starting as early as 1990, with the formation of the Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research (WICGR), then subsequent launching of the Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard in 2004 there has been a constant growth and evolution of the information technology landscape. The Broad later split from being part of the MIT infrastructure in 2009 and has continued to grow rapidly and organically. With nearly 1000 ‘Broadies’ and ~800 associate members, the infrastructure and IT team to support it needs to evolve so that it can sustainable provide quality services back to the Broad community. The current IT model and services focuses on flexibility and a refocus is needed to focus on the IT vision of providing “The ‘Best Collaboration Experience’ to enable ground-breaking science that transforms medicine”. In: Compute farm clusters managed by Broad IT. Access to cloud compute. Out: Desktop compute. Non-Broad IT managed compute. E.g. Harvard Orchestra Compute Working Group Charter Problem / Goal Statement Interactions / Dependencies Problem: Access to the Broad compute platform is granted according to ‘contributions’ that each group make to the total compute platform in hardware. However, some groups require additional compute cycles and others groups/individuals contribute nothing to the platform and take resources away from potentially more important projects. In addition, the maturity of the compute users varies greatly and more naïve users do not optimally use this resource. Finally, it is difficult for compute users to predict how much compute is available or how long their processing will take, as well as properly debug when jobs ‘fail’. Goal: Enhance existing compute services that increase ease-of-use, flexibility in compute choice and transparency that will scale to the needs of the Broad community Storage Working Group Security Working Group Collaboration Working Group M&O Working Group Support Working Group Timelines Key Deliverables Define by • Development of plan/identification of tools that will allow more transparency to available compute capabilities including estimation tools on compute time required for a given tool/process/application • Recommendations and implementation plan from a joint team of infx/se/IT on unix/linux infrastructure/OS improvements • Data-driven analysis of queue usage and recommendations on queue optimization for computational jobs – to include prioritization process factoring in proficiency/maturity of users, Broad/non-Broad users etc.. • Technology evaluation plan for additional compute capabilities e.g. gpgpu, high memory, cloud, etc.. • Review of development environment and develop joint set of recommendations on development environment improvements • Development of systematic demand planning approach to provide better predictability in compute demands and distribution • Develop set of recommendations to improve fair-share model of compute allocation • Evaluation of current method of compute procurement ‘condo approach’ and options/possibility to move to ‘pooled purchase’ model • Plan to move compute infrastructure to 1SS/other location and elimination/reduction of dependency on 7CC data center Potential quick-wins highlighted in RED

28. Background Scope Starting as early as 1990, with the formation of the Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research (WICGR), then subsequent launching of the Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard in 2004 there has been a constant growth and evolution of the information technology landscape. The Broad later split from being part of the MIT infrastructure in 2009 and has continued to grow rapidly and organically. With nearly 1000 ‘Broadies’ and ~800 associate members, the infrastructure and IT team to support it needs to evolve so that it can sustainable provide quality services back to the Broad community. The current IT model and services focuses on flexibility and a refocus is needed to focus on the IT vision of providing “The ‘Best Collaboration Experience’ to enable ground-breaking science that transforms medicine”. In: Support of services within the Broad campus. Broad systems/capabilities. Out: Support in non-Broad facilities. Employee’s personal PC’s/systems Maintenance and Operations Working Group Charter Problem / Goal Statement Interactions / Dependencies Problem: The majority of Administrative Compute resources are focused on the processing of Help Desk tickets with less emphasis on moving forward specific projects to advance Administrative IT services. The current M&O model results in the expert ‘tier3’ resources being brought in to work on tickets vs. the majority of tickets being handled by earlier (tier 1-2) support tiers. There is not a consistent ‘measure of success’ and a stronger emphasis is needed on user experience and elimination of common-recurring issues/requests. There is a lack of service/operating levels agreements and there is a high-degree of stress across IT staff to provide (undocumented/agreed) high-levels of support. Finally, there is no documented/applied SLC for systems management. Goal: Design/enhance a process & metrics-driven model leveraging industry best practices to provide tiered value-based support that focuses on self-improvement. Storage Working Group Support Working Group Compute Working Group Strategic Partnering Working Group Timelines Key Deliverables Define by • Evaluation of maturity of IT service management practices according to industry best practices such as ITIL. Develop set of recommendations and plan to increase ITIL/best practices maturity • Review of effectiveness of current ‘ticketing’ process and analysis of tier 1-3 incident and problem resolution and development of recommendations to provide right balance of incident and problem management to each tier • Develop recommendations and implement to improve ‘self-service’ help to the Broad community • Improve/enhance processes and knowledgebase on incident and problem resolution • Establish surveys and metrics to determine user satisfaction with IT support • Identification of leading/lagging indicators of performance, coordinating across all areas of IT, that can be used for IT operations management • Identification/design of ‘Broad-compatible’ systems development life cycle that is lightweight to provide agile systems development, transition to support, change management, and decommissioning Potential quick-wins highlighted in RED

29. Scope Background Starting as early as 1990, with the formation of the Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research (WICGR), then subsequent launching of the Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard in 2004 there has been a constant growth and evolution of the information technology landscape. The Broad later split from being part of the MIT infrastructure in 2009 and has continued to grow rapidly and organically. With nearly 1000 ‘Broadies’ and ~800 associate members, the infrastructure and IT team to support it needs to evolve so that it can sustainable provide quality services back to the Broad community. The current IT model and services focuses on flexibility and a refocus is needed to focus on the IT vision of providing “The ‘Best Collaboration Experience’ to enable ground-breaking science that transforms medicine”. In: Broad community, including associate members. Services currently managed within scope of IT. Out: Non-Broad community. Support Engagement Working Group Charter Problem / Goal Statement Interactions / Dependencies Problem: There is not a consistent support model across IT and it requires having to ‘know the right person’ in IT to effectively receive IT services at a desired level. In addition, there is not a clear articulation of services and corresponding support levels. This has resulted in a multitude of solutions/systems with similar capabilities that does not allow IT to provide sustainable support levels. This stresses the IT work environment, preventing work on strategic projects that would benefit the Broad community. Finally, there are significant gaps such as support of the lab environment that need addressing, capability gaps such as PC walk-up clinics, and a holistic portfolio of IT strategic projects that is jointly prioritized with Broad stakeholders. Goal: Design and implement a community engagement and IT operating model that establishes IT partnerships & demand planning vs. reactive requests and addresses significant service/capability gaps. Storage Working Group Compute Working Group Collaboration Working Group M&O Working Group Work with admin groups that perform IT e.g. Business Systems, HR, Development, Communications. Timelines Key Deliverables Define by • Development/refinement of IT services catalog, identification of where service level and operational level agreements are needed – development of OLA’s and SLA’s • Design and proof of concept of PC walk-up clinics • Analysis of existing communication channels/content e.g. BLOG, other and development of additional communication channels/content e.g. user groups, roadmaps, plans • Development of engagement model to enable effective demand planning, portfolio management and prioritization of IT/Systems activities across research and administration. • Development of support model for lab computing, definition of services and resource planning requirements • Identification of training gaps for IT capability/service utilization e.g. compute, storage, desktop applications – plan for development of training materials and rollout/enhancement timeline • Adoption and implementation of IT innovation process methodology and plan to execute on portfolio of administrative and research ‘problems/areas’ • Development of metrics for user satisfaction and plan to increase satisfaction in areas where needed Potential quick-wins highlighted in RED

30. Background Scope Starting as early as 1990, with the formation of the Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research (WICGR), then subsequent launching of the Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard in 2004 there has been a constant growth and evolution of the information technology landscape. The Broad later split from being part of the MIT infrastructure in 2009 and has continued to grow rapidly and organically. With nearly 1000 ‘Broadies’ and ~800 associate members, the infrastructure and IT team to support it needs to evolve so that it can sustainable provide quality services back to the Broad community. The current IT model and services focuses on flexibility and a refocus is needed to focus on the IT vision of providing “The ‘Best Collaboration Experience’ to enable ground-breaking science that transforms medicine”. In: Information and technology assets developed/created at the Broad. Existing and non-existing vendors/partners Out: TBD Strategic Partnering Working Group Charter Problem / Goal Statement Interactions / Dependencies Problem: The Broad has technology and information assets that are not being fully leveraged to create additional value for the Broad community and exposure to the scientific community. Value is being lost that could be used to offset the cost of performing research at the Broad as well as provide technological advancements that could further accelerate research and collaboration at the Broad. Goal: Identify strategic partners that will enhance the value of information and technology assets at the Broad and leverage value generated to enhance research & collaboration for the Broad community. All working groups Intellectual Property, Business Development, Technology Transfer functions within Broad. Timelines Key Deliverables Define by • Generate base-line of existing IT software and hardware vendors used by the IT department and across Broad. • Identify gaps at the Broad that would benefit from external partnering to enable the IT vision as well as the mission of the Broad • Identify Broad assets that have potential external value e.g. know-how, access to data, software • Working with Broad business development/technology transfer groups, develop go-to-market plan against a prioritize list of existing and ‘competing’ set of vendors/partners • Meet with candidates, assess interest, develop term sheets where applicable

31. Questions….(if we have time) CLAY RAY