1 / 21

Collaboration Suites

Collaboration Suites. ITEC Meeting January 30, 2006 3:00-4:30 PM 201 Administration. How We Got Here. Charge to Calendar Committee May, 2005 Recommend reduced set of solutions for campus electronic calendaring Committee findings & recommendations:

wandak
Download Presentation

Collaboration Suites

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. Collaboration Suites ITEC Meeting January 30, 2006 3:00-4:30 PM 201 Administration

  2. How We Got Here • Charge to Calendar Committee May, 2005 • Recommend reduced set of solutions for campus electronic calendaring • Committee findings & recommendations: • “Can’t solve just the calendar issue, it’s a suite problem” • Recommendation for Students: The Portal suite • Recommendation for Faculty & Staff: MS Exchange suite • 13-3 vote in favor at the October IAC meeting Att. B - Collaboration

  3. Today’s Agenda • Collaboration Suites, definitions & features • The 3 questions from the last ITEC meeting • Is a single solution right for CSU? • If yes, which one? • If yes, what are the implications for those who don’t wish to convert? • What other schools are doing • Recommendation Att. B - Collaboration

  4. Collaboration Suite Definition & Features • Email • Calendar • Individual • Groups • Resources (e.g. conference rooms, equipment) • Chat, Instant and Text Messaging (significant use by students) • On-line self service • Typically also includes: contacts, tasks, mobile connectivity components Att. B - Collaboration

  5. Rich Media Conferencing - An Extension to a Collaboration Suite • Web, audio (telephone), video, Instant Messaging (chat) • Registration • Invitations via Instant Messaging, cellular telephone, land line, internet video • Will ‘find’ conference attendees using active devices (e.g. Morrison in London) • Controls • Invite, mute/unmute, roll call, out dial for group conferencing, record a meeting (video, audio, content), record a message, record an agenda, breakout sessions, end meeting • Content • Slides (PowerPoint, PDF), attachments, white boards, etc. • Directory-enabled services • Audio and video individual and group conferences • Webinars (producer and consumer) • Distance education, self-paced instruction, and public safety Att. B - Collaboration

  6. 1. Single Collaboration Suite for CSU - Pros • Reduces complexity • For Users – a big “win” • For Application Supporters – a modest “win” • For IT Support Staff – a small “win” • Automatic interoperability – another big “win” • Resolves the current calendar conundrum • Streamlines communication on campus • Provides a foundation for additional functionality, e.g. rich media • A single system provides • Lower Costs • Improved functionality & synergies • Improved security • Ability to enhance a single system, rather than just to operate multiple systems Att. B - Collaboration

  7. Single Collaboration Suite for CSU – Cons • Are the benefits of change worth the cost of change? • Are the risks associated with a single vendor, a “monolithic” environment, acceptable? • Can the single system be secured? Att. B - Collaboration

  8. The “Bottom Line” • The IT environment is getting far too: • Complex, • Difficult to use, and • Difficult and expensive to operate, secure & maintain • A single collaboration suite would: • Enhance productivity via reduced complexity • Enable better communication • Allow IT staff to focus on delivery, support and enhancement of a single application • Significant effort of cross platform operations and integration could be devoted to enhancement of a single system, as opposed to operations of multiple systems Att. B - Collaboration

  9. 2. Which Single Suite? – Evaluation Factors • Functionality • Cost • Integration into current environment • Impact on Users • Impact on Support Staff • Needed enhancements to current environment • Hardware redundancy • Increased capacity/quotas Att. B - Collaboration

  10. Options • Summarily ruled out • “Build” – due to complexity and performance issues • Freeware – due to integration and support • Oracle • Unix or Windows backend infrastructure • Portal-like web interface with hooks to MS Outlook as a ‘fat’ client • Communigate • Unix backend primarily, can run on Windows • Access via standard browsers and MS Outlook • MS Exchange • Windows backend • Access via browsers and ‘fat’ clients Att. B - Collaboration

  11. Functionality • Oracle Collaboration suite • Good (on paper), however its new functionality is relatively untested and evolving rapidly • Oracle themselves not using the full suite in production (yet) • Communigate • Good, however, it is focused primarily on VoIP/PBX space, and not now on rich collaboration • MS Exchange • Robust, including mobile access “out of the box” • Proven and currently available at CSU Att. B - Collaboration

  12. Cost • Server side costs for unix and Windows systems are essentially identical • Differences are within the range of costs from different assumptions • Cost differences lie mostly at the application (software, maintenance and licenses (e.g. CALs)) • Oracle • Up-front $130K, recurring $56K • Communigate • Up-front $70K, recurring $9K • Exchange • Up-front $19K, recurring $0 (for 2 years) • ‘Flash’ migration from Oracle product possible, ~$30K Att. B - Collaboration

  13. Integration into Current Environment- The Landscape • Oracle calendar users: ~2,000 • Exchange users: ~2,000 • Spread across 10 servers • All use email, many use calendar • Central email: • 7,700 faculty/staff accounts on Lamar • Quotas: 80/160Mb Inbox, 30/60Mb file storage • Average use: 45Mb in Inbox, 50Mb in Imap folder • 1,000 faculty/staff accounts on Exchange • Quotas: 100Mb (includes Inbox, Imap folders, calendar, contacts, etc.) • Average use: 60Mb Att. B - Collaboration

  14. Integration into current environment- Impact to End users • In any case, a transition & migration period • Assist users who wish to transition during this period • Keep unix email “up” ad infinitum • Lamar retained for grad students in any case • In an Oracle world: • Change required for all non-Outlook users • Given ‘new delivery method, change for most everyone • In a Communigate world: • Calendar: Oracle users move to Outlook or web interface • Email: Some adjustment for Unix-based mailers (pine, elm, etc.) • Does not address the proliferation of Exchange servers • In an Exchange world: • Calendar: Oracle users move to new fat client or web interface • Email: Little change, some adjustment for Unix-based mailers (pine, elm, etc.) Att. B - Collaboration

  15. Integration into Current Environment- Support Staff • Oracle • Need to expand current deployment to include features beyond calendaring • Next revision will be full-on Oracle DB backend requiring additional expertise (IS) • Effectively, a new product • Transition effort: high • Communigate • New deployment for CSU • A major initiative • Transition effort: high • Exchange • Currently supported, just need to scale up • Integrates with other Exchange systems at CSU • A central system may provide incentive for consolidation of distributed Exchange servers • Pending requests to implement additional Exchange servers • Transition effort: relative to other options, low Att. B - Collaboration

  16. Which Collaboration Suite? • Based on: • Features & Functionality • Deliverable and proven product • Cost • Less transition & integration angst • Microsoft Exchange Att. B - Collaboration

  17. 3. What About Non-Microsoft shops? • Use the web interface • Almost equivalent to a “fat client” • Avoids issues of client “churn” or upgrade • A horrible problem • Web interface provides a “huge” simplification • Available on all devices with the same look and feel • Desktops: PC’s, Mac, Linux • Laptop • A simplified interface (small screen) exists for • Palmtop, PDA, and Cellular devices • “Push” happens automatically – • Equivalent to BlackBerry service • Big simplification on “back end” over the BlackBerry environment Att. B - Collaboration

  18. Local “Fat” Clients Att. B - Collaboration

  19. Using Web Browsers Att. B - Collaboration

  20. What Other Institutions are Doing - Westnet Large Schools • On Exchange – seeing a potential trend • Arizona State University (faculty/staff) • BYU (all) • Denver University (all) • UCDHSC (faculty/staff) • University of Utah (all in February 2006) • Selected after a very detailed investigation • Even their unix system administrators liked the interface • University of Wyoming (all) • Faculty/staff for a long time • Students (13,000) transitioned (at their request) overnight in August 2005, very easy transition • They developed migration tools they are willing to share Att. B - Collaboration

  21. Recommendation • ITEC endorse Exchange as the central collaboration suite for faculty and staff • ACNS work with units to plan and effect the transition • Begin the transition, purchase and install hardware (using ACNS’ budget) • Define a “sunset” date for Oracle calendar • Keep unix email going, but as a secondary solution Att. B - Collaboration

More Related