Liberty Mutual & WebSphere Portal

1. Liberty Mutual & WebSphere Portal Infrastructure Assessment April 3, 2006

2. Project Status • Employee portal performance environment migration (3/24 - late) • Employee portal QA environment migration (3/24 - late) • Consumer portal production environment • Not expected to be OS-complete until at least 4/5, risks production target 5/13 • Consumer portal production mirror environment 4/14 • Agent portal production environment software complete 4/23, production 5/20 • Employee portal (5 environments through production environment) • Software-Complete 6/1, Production 6/24 • IBM observes risk in schedule, skills and execution

3. IBM Findings: Best Practices Gaps • Project Staffing / Leadership / Skills – Most Critical • IT Process • IT Architecture

4. Leadership / Staffing / Skills • No infrastructure staff tech lead for Portal • High Risk • Confusion and delays in execution • IBM Recommendation: Identify resource with a high level of proficiency for whom Portal is #1 concern • Portal Skills Competency • No focus on developing expert level Portal competency (Center of Excellence) • High Risk • Unstable team resources, mentoring and focus gaps, overhead on training new resources, insufficient number of highly skilled resources available to meet project milestones • IBM Recommendation: staff augmentation

5. Staffing / Leadership / Skills • Project Management • Resource pool sizing and skill set not managed in project plan • Scoped as "environment build" instead of new-product "technology introduction“ • Infrastructure project management is split across Infrastructure and PMIS organizations. • High Risk • Important aspects of new technology introduction are not addressed • Confusion in ownership. Risks and tasks go unmanaged under assumption they've been addressed elsewhere • IBM Recommendation: Centralize PM & reporting efforts and revise plan to mitigate above issues • General lack of understanding about how portals will be deployed and who will deploy them • High Risk • No clear ownership of portal deployment activities • IBM Recommendation: formalize leadership, task ownership and create detailed deployment plans

6. IT Process • Performance Testing • No focal point for performance testing • Performance test teams are overextended and late to start • High Risk • Critical path to on time delivery of LM apps • Effort to fix performance problems can be high. • IBM Recommendation: Identify testing leader and consider tactical staff augmentation • Limited use of SCM and automation in build and deployment process • High Risk • Repetitive manual work is error prone and inefficient • No automation means no process control • IBM Recommendation: implement process that leverages versioning and automation

7. IT Process • No basic tuning for Portal prior to Performance tests • Medium Risk • Efficiency issue; wasting resources to do performance testing on an untuned portal • IBM Recommendation: complete baseline tuning before initiating testing efforts • Performance Tests not aligned with real world scenarios • Medium Risk • Since current application requirement is one portal page with one portlet, scope of Portal-specific testing is limited. This will impact future scenarios with additional complexity. • IBM Recommendation: Consider expanding scope of testing • Deployment does not use empty portals for new environments • Medium Risk • Deployment Inefficiencies • IBM Recommendation: Follow best practice and deploy to empty portals

8. IT Process • Inconsistent naming conventions • Low Risk • Unnecessary source of management complexity in the long term • IBM Recommendation: Implement consistent naming standards

9. IT Architecture • Performance environment does not mirror Production environment • Medium Risk • Incomparable performance test results • Inconsistent environment may result in troubleshooting and problem determination in production (late problem identification) • IBM Recommendation: Acknowledge testing limitation and mitigate when feasible • Implementing WP 5.1 on WAS 6.0 which is supported but not optimized • Low Risk • Adds complexity to installation • IBM Recommendation: automate installation activities

10. IBM Executive/Lab Involvement • Steve Mills, SVP & Group Executive, Software Group • Quarterly Meetings to discuss synergy between Liberty Mutual IT strategy, and IBM Software direction • Ken Bisconti, VP IBM Workplace & Portal • Since January 2006, working with Dan Eckerson and team on aligning proper resources to support CFIP & CSW projects • Adam Cook, Portal Lead Developer • Lab Advocate assigned to Liberty Mutual to assist in facilitating lab support and influence product direction to reflect customer requirements