The Web Problem

1. The Web Problem • The website as it stands now does not make use of the current available technology, support or security that allows two-way communication or online transactions.

2. Goal • Modern website supporting online transactions and two-way communication with customers.

3. Stakeholders • Board Members, Staff and Management • Licensees • Public • Industry Professionals (Credentialing, etc.) • State Oversight (GITA, SPO, GAO, etc.)

4. Objectives • Define architecture • Obtain new website hosting solution • Prepare business process documentation and in-house design • Partner with outside vendor for online implementation (application development, interfacing with internal systems, etc.)

5. Define Architecture: • Options: • Self-hosting • Co-location • Managed Hosting • Shared Hosting

6. Architecture Options • Self-hosting: Establish web server in our own office, on our own network. • Pros: Complete control – immediate response to agency needs and changes, managed alongside our internal systems. • Cons: Complete responsibility – hardware procurement and maintenance, environmental control, physical and network security, drain on bandwidth and other resources, etc.

7. Architecture Options • Co-location: Provide agency-owned server in an outside vendor’s datacenter. • Pros: Nearly complete control – agency owns and operates hardware and software; vendor provides space, environmental control, physical security, network bandwidth. • Cons: Nearly complete responsibility – little or no vendor monitoring or support; response time increased due to physical distance from server; same procurement and maintenance requirements as self-hosting.

8. Architecture Options • Managed Hosting: Vendor supplies and maintains hardware and basic software at the vendor’s datacenter. • Pros: Flexibility of control – vendor monitors hardware, software and security 24/7; provides bandwidth, environmental controls, backup units; outsourcing expertise available on demand. • Cons: Greater monthly cost, reliance on vendor’s SLA (service level agreement).

9. Architecture Options • Shared Hosting: Vendor provides space on server, shared among several different “tenants.” • Pros: Lower cost, vendor provides all basic server requirements. • Cons: Little control of anything, limited technical capabilities; competition for hardware, software, bandwidth and other resources; 3rd party applications for other customers may reduce our uptime; our growth must also accommodate others on same web server.

10. Recommendation • Managed Hosting provides the best balance between cost, flexibility and maintenance responsibilities.

11. Objective 2 To bring the BOMEX website to a new server that offers us the ability to grow technologically while offering us the service, security and backup that we need.

12. Vendors Considered • IBM • ADOA • STG

13. Vendors Considered • IBM • Pros: Name recognition, reputation for quality, 24/7/365 monitoring and support, highest uptime, capacity for growth, outsourcing expertise, Tier 1 datacenter. • Cons: Price, flexibility.

14. Vendors Considered • ADOA • Pros: Price. • Cons: Incorrect software, can’t use their SQL server, questionable uptime and available resources, have to purchase hardware (would be the same as co-location without the benefits of a real co-location vendor); poor reputation.

15. Vendors Considered • STG • Pros: Price, security, 24/7/365 monitoring and support, high uptime, growth potential, personal service and consulting, small but professionally designed and equipped datacenter (former US West facility). • Cons: Little name recognition, smaller lower-tier vendor.

16. Recommendation • STG currently provides the best balance of cost, quality, and personalized service. A 12-month contract meets immediate needs while providing future flexibility.

17. Design and Implementation • Two “tracks” run in parallel: Design and Implementation. • First phase’s design leads to second phase’s implementation, etc. • Process has been designed in twelve-week (quarterly) increments, to balance workload while closely monitoring progress and adjusting course as necessary.

18. Tracking Progress • Bi-weekly meeting to be held one day before the Executive Staff meeting. • Monthly meeting with the ED to ensure the plan is on the envisioned path. • Coordination with Web Team. • Other meetings to be held as needed.