Collaborative Cloud Computing HES11
out of 32
Post on 13-May-2015
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONPresentation with colleagues on the process we used in a collaborative hosting project. Includes the many decision points, pros/cons, tangibles/intangibles, and lessons learned.
<ul><li>1.How Five Colleges (and a System Office) Arrived at a Decision to Go to Hosting/Cloud Computing<br />April 11, 2:15 3:00p<br />Tim Carroll<br />Roane State Community College<br />Rick Cumby<br />Cleveland State Community College<br />Dana Nails<br />Jackson state Community College<br />Emily Siciensky<br />Columbia State Community College<br />Eddie Stone<br />Motlow State Community College<br />Thomas Danford<br />Tennessee Board of Regents<br /></li></ul> <p>2. AGENDA<br /></p> <ul><li>Introductions </li></ul> <p>3. Overview Timeline, Including RFI Process 4. Pros/Cons 5. Costing 6. Tangibles/Intangibles 7. Lessons Learned 8. Q&A2<br />9. Emily Siciensky, Associate Vice President for Information TechnologyColumbia State Community College<br />Overview Timeline, Including RFI Process<br />3<br />10. Why did we want the journey ?<br />4<br />H<br />O<br />S<br />T<br />I <br />N<br />G<br />Virtual<br />Resources<br />Servers<br />High Speed ?<br />Disk Space<br />Disaster Recovery<br />Backup<br />Banner<br />Linux<br />RFI/RFP<br />11. Historical Perspective Timelines and RFI<br />5<br />Jan 2005 <br />Banner Implementations start<br />Regional /centralized hardware discussions occur<br />Connectivity costs were considered prohibitive<br />Feb 2009 <br />Discussions on hosting begin again because of <br />hardware retirements<br />September 2009 <br /> Call for an exploratory committee made up <br />of several community colleges and universities;<br />Motlow and University of Memphis share information<br />on services outline they developed<br />October 2009 <br /> Some potential hosting partners are identified<br />12. Timelines and RFI <br />6<br />October November2009<br />Chancellor Manning calls forpresidential level steering committee a working group with membership to include CFOs and CIOs from Cleveland, Columbia, Jackson, Motlow, Roane and the TBR; it is decided during this call an RFI is necessary to determine what is possible, and who potential partners could be<br />13. The Banner Hosting RFI Group<br />7<br />Hosting RFI Development Group:<br />Ken Horner, VP for Finance and Administrative Services (COSCC)<br />Emily Siciensky, Associate VP for Information Technology (COSCC)<br />Dana Nails, Director of Information Technology (JSCC)<br />Hilda Tunstill, Vice President for Business Affairs (MSCC)<br />Dr. Eddie Stone, VP for Information Technology (MSCC)<br />Danny Gibbs, VP for Finance and Administrative Services (RSCC)<br />Tim Carroll, Assistant VP for Information Technology (RSCC)<br />Rick Cumby, Director of IT (CLSCC)<br />Assist Vice Chancellor Sims & CIO Danford<br /><br />14. RFI and Responders<br />8<br />January 2010 <br />Final draft of hosting RFI is completed<br />March 2010<br />Responses are received, 11 vendors responding <br />CedarCrestone<br />CIBER<br />Connectria<br />Dell/Perot Systems<br />Northwest Regional Data Center Florida State<br />OIR State of Tennessee<br />Oracle<br />Secure-24<br />Sungard<br />Systems Alliance<br />University of Memphis<br />15. Eddie Stone, Vice President for Information TechnologyMotlow State Community CollegeRick Cumby, Director of Information TechnologyCleveland State Community College<br />Pros/Cons<br />9<br />16. Pros<br /></p> <ul><li>Access to better standardized computing infrastructure without large capital expenditures and overall lower hardware costs by pooling of resources (15-30%) </li></ul> <p>17. Normalization of budget costs for Banner hardware - reoccurring cost vs. large purchase approximately every 5 years 18. No longer directly responsible for Banner physical hardware procurement nor maintenance contracts10<br />19. Pros<br /></p> <ul><li>A more robust disaster recovery (DR) strategy </li></ul> <p>20. Provide high availability of servers with over 99.9% uptime via redundant environmental systems (HVAC and power), virtual technology, two Internet service providers, physical security 21. Leverage OIR Enterprise services including storage, virtual servers, redundant network, and 7/24/365 support and scheduled maintenance 22. On site (OIR) 24/7/365 proactive monitoring of servers and network11<br />23. Pros<br /></p> <ul><li>Provide state-of-the-art Storage Area Network (SAN) providing unlimited expandability to the TBR and the State Community Colleges growing data storage needs </li></ul> <p>24. Host (OIR) provided hardware refresh support to maintain current computing technology and up-to-date hardware 25. Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) configuration allows expansion of capacity and replacement of old hardware with little impact to Banner 26. Successfully transition from existing near end-of-life, out-dated platform to new virtual server technology12<br />27. Pros<br /></p> <ul><li>Operating System (OS) and Oracle data base (optionally) are patched and maintained by OIR, lessening local staff workload </li></ul> <p>28. IT staff utilize freed time from OS/DB patch support for more value added job functions, such as, business & systems analysis or academic computing innovation 29. In sum, hosting offers benefits 30. budgetary 31. disaster recovery / business continuity 32. high availability 33. opportunity to repurpose IT staff time13<br />34. Cons<br />The situation is new and unknown<br />Staff concerns about exactly how this will work<br />Initial staff concerns that this may result in elimination of positions<br />There will be a learning curve in many areas<br />Although not directly related to hosting, LINUX will be new to many<br />ORACLE RAC software will be new and require a learning curve<br />14<br />35. Cons (continued)<br />Necessity to follow OIR maintenance window rather than our own<br />Will be dependent on OIR to schedule special request like backups, restores, upgrades, etc.<br />More dependence on NetTN<br />Perceived loss of control of Banner/data<br />In general, several unknowns about how everything will actually work together <br />15<br />36. Tim Carroll, Assistant Vice President for Information TechnologyRoane State Community College<br />Costing<br />16<br />37. Costing Model<br /></p> <ul><li>Why? </li></ul> <p>38. Establish Baseline 39. Cost Benefit Analysis 40. Results17<br />41. Why the analysis?<br />To answer the following questions:<br />What was our current operational andadministrative cost <br />Would the move from an on site model to a hosted model be cost effective (affordable)<br />Would the cost of tangible and intangible benefits worth the incremental costs (if incurred)<br />18<br />42. Establish Baseline Costs - Hardware<br />19<br />Sun Replacement Cost for all five Community Colleges is$1.49 million <br />43. Establish Baseline Administrative Costs<br />20<br />44. Cost Benefit Model<br />21<br />45. Cost Benefit Continued<br />22<br />46. Results<br />Cost Effective initially break-even should drop when others join<br />Gains (Tangible and Intangible) added value that could not be duplicated on campus<br />Will add two more institutions under current hardware configuration at OIR which will further reduce costs<br />Sparked interest from other Community Colleges who may join later<br />Will explore more advanced technology as it comes on line to further reduce costs in the future<br />23<br />47. Thomas Danford, Chief Information OfficerTennessee Board of Regents<br />Tangibles/Intangibles<br />24<br />48. Tangible & Intangible Benefits<br /></p> <ul><li>Categories of Tangible Benefits</li></ul> <p> Physical Plant <br /> Infrastructure<br /> Service Levels (staff multipliers)<br /></p> <ul><li>Categories of Intangible Benefits</li></ul> <p> Consternation <br /> Opportunity Lost<br /></p> <ul><li>Four Types of Value</li></ul> <p> Latent Value<br /> Market Value<br /> Value Added<br /> Perceived Value<br />25<br />49. Tangible Benefits<br />26<br />50. Intangible Benefits<br />Consternation<br /> Superiors <br /> Internal clients<br /> External factors (audit, press, etc.)<br />Opportunity Lost<br />Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter leastGoethe<br />27<br />51. Types of Value<br /></p> <ul><li>Latent Value Potential but not presently evident or realized (i.e. obvious or explicit) </li></ul> <p>52. Market Value Estimated (highest) price that a product or service will sell for in a competitive market 53. Value Added Bundling or packaging features and benefits that leads to greater customer acceptance in order to create a competitive advantage 54. Perceived Value Customer's opinion of a product's value to him or herCollaborative hosting narrows the margin in both the market value, and the value being perceived<br />28<br />55. Tangible & Intangible Value Proposition<br />29<br />56. Dana Nails, Director Information TechnologyJackson state Community College<br />Lessons Learned<br />30<br />57. What Worked for Us<br /></p> <ul><li>Project lead was not an IT person </li></ul> <p>58. Project lead was from a campus not TBR Office 59. Executive committee consisting of Presidents31<br />Recommendations<br /></p> <ul><li>Define the full scope of your project in the beginning of the process </li></ul> <p>60. Campus technical people and hosted facility technical people should work together early on in the project.</p>