1 / 22

Roll Your Own

Roll Your Own. Panel Discussion CUMREC 2000 Arlington, Virginia May 2000. Panelists. Bill Shirey Manager of Student Systems University of Washington (UW) Ken Servis Dean of Academic Records & Registrar University of Southern California (USC) Audrey Lindsay

crescent
Download Presentation

Roll Your Own

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. Roll Your Own Panel Discussion CUMREC 2000 Arlington, Virginia May 2000

  2. Panelists • Bill Shirey • Manager of Student Systems • University of Washington (UW) • Ken Servis • Dean of Academic Records & Registrar • University of Southern California (USC) • Audrey Lindsay • Associate Registrar, Director Student Systems • University of British Columbia (UBC)

  3. Purpose of Presentation • Discuss key benefits and issues associated with custom systems • Opportunity for sharing among panel and audience

  4. Project Status - UW • Public; full research; • 3 campuses; enrollment 40,000 • Platform: Unisys mainframe; NT/IIS; Unix • Vendors: Intervoice Brite; DARS; CSS • System / Project Overview: • Mature integrated mainframe/COBOL core • NT/IIS front-end for web • What’s Next: • Web registration; webify everything • Transfer articulation; CAS

  5. Project Status - USC • Public; full research; enrollment 28,000 • Platform: IBM AIX, Sun Solaris, PI/Open, Universe DBMS • Vendors: DARS-TCA, Spectria, DAG, Ad Astra • System / Project Overview: • SIS in PI/Open converted to IBM AIX in 1996 • Download data to server for WWW • Vendor packages integrated(DARS) and peripheral(DAG) • What’s Next: Web registration and schedule builder, Web grade book

  6. Project Status - UBC • Public, full research, 35,500 • Platform: Sun Solaris, Oracle, BEA • Vendors: DAG, Ad Astra • System /Project Overview: • conversion 6/98, custom 6/98 & ongoing • Java, delivered over the Internet • packages totally integrated into the system • Next: publications, scheduling, awards

  7. Key topics • Why Custom? • When does it make sense to go custom? • What do you need? • Costs • Higher, lower or configured differently? • Staffing • Anything special, keeping up-to-date • Vendor Relationships • All of us have some vendor components

  8. 1. Why Custom -UW • The integrated legacy system is working • Client/Server wasn’t viable at UW • No time or money for acquisition

  9. Why Custom -USC • To satisfy special needs. • To better tie into existing legacy system. • Off-the-shelf package does not meet design requirements. • Faster customization and better integration. • Limited time and resources to go through the whole software procurement process.

  10. Why Custom -UBC • Tight timelines • Packages didn’t meet vision • 30 years of successful custom SIS projects • Cost effective to re-use components

  11. 2. Project Costs • Do packages provide more for the money? • Are packages cheaper and easier to install? • Training and roll-out costs • Maintenance costs

  12. Project Costs - USC • Package may not provide more for money. • Vendor package developed on the same platform often cheaper & easily integrated. • Staff buy in not a problem with custom software. • Maintenance cost of vendor packages high.

  13. Project Costs - UBC • $5M budget over 3.5 years • Funded project by borrowing against future operating savings • Combination of consultants & internal technical staff • Decline in the Canadian Dollar • Annual development, support and equipment budget of 1.8M

  14. 3. Staffing • Staffing levels • Staffing skill set • Motivation & retention of current staff • Monetary and non-monetary • Vacancies and hiring new staff • Impact on project timelines, coping • Training

  15. Staffing - UW • 10 programmer/analysts for SIS • Very experienced team core • Retention challenge • Salaries in the shadow of Microsoft, etc. • IS staff not part of user organization • Recognition, personal growth • Hiring challenge • COBOL, Unisys

  16. Staffing - USC • 15 Staff for maintenance and development • Varied programming environment • Motivation • Integration of new technologies • Mentors and challenging projects • Telecommuting and Flexible hours • Very difficult to find experienced programmers in PI/Open platform • Limited time and budget for training

  17. Staffing -UBC • 14 staff for development & maintenance • Research-type IT staff • Small team synergy and communication • Motivation • Salaries well below market • One-time honorarium, Salary increases • Challenge, responsibility, pride, praise • Flex time, tele-commuting

  18. 4. Vendor Relationships • All have some vendor components • Special relationships • Tools versus deliverables

  19. Vendor Relationships - UW • Components • DARS • CSS - INAS, PARS • CollegeNet - Schedule25/Resource25 • Tools • InterVoice Brite: Write-1 IVR

  20. Vendor Relationships - USC • Components • Ad Astra, DARS-TCA, DAG • Project Consulting • Spectria • Development Partners • TouchNet

  21. Vendor Relationships - UBC • Components • DAG, Ad Astra • Tools • SUN, BEA • Development Partners • Sierra Systems Inc. • Ad Astra

  22. Key areas Custom decision Costs Staffing Vendor relationships Or other areas Project scope Integration Risk management Timelines Communication BPR Questions?

More Related