collaborative cloud computing hes11

Download Collaborative Cloud Computing   HES11

Post on 13-May-2015

895 views

Category:

Technology

2 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Presentation with colleagues on the process we used in a collaborative hosting project. Includes the many decision points, pros/cons, tangibles/intangibles, and lessons learned.

TRANSCRIPT

  • 1.How Five Colleges (and a System Office) Arrived at a Decision to Go to Hosting/Cloud Computing
    April 11, 2:15 3:00p
    Tim Carroll
    Roane State Community College
    Rick Cumby
    Cleveland State Community College
    Dana Nails
    Jackson state Community College
    Emily Siciensky
    Columbia State Community College
    Eddie Stone
    Motlow State Community College
    Thomas Danford
    Tennessee Board of Regents

2. AGENDA

  • Introductions

3. Overview Timeline, Including RFI Process 4. Pros/Cons 5. Costing 6. Tangibles/Intangibles 7. Lessons Learned 8. Q&A2
9. Emily Siciensky, Associate Vice President for Information TechnologyColumbia State Community College
Overview Timeline, Including RFI Process
3
10. Why did we want the journey ?
4
H
O
S
T
I
N
G
Virtual
Resources
Servers
High Speed ?
Disk Space
Disaster Recovery
Backup
Banner
Linux
RFI/RFP
11. Historical Perspective Timelines and RFI
5
Jan 2005
Banner Implementations start
Regional /centralized hardware discussions occur
Connectivity costs were considered prohibitive
Feb 2009
Discussions on hosting begin again because of
hardware retirements
September 2009
Call for an exploratory committee made up
of several community colleges and universities;
Motlow and University of Memphis share information
on services outline they developed
October 2009
Some potential hosting partners are identified
12. Timelines and RFI
6
October November2009
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
13. The Banner Hosting RFI Group
7
Hosting RFI Development Group:
Ken Horner, VP for Finance and Administrative Services (COSCC)
Emily Siciensky, Associate VP for Information Technology (COSCC)
Dana Nails, Director of Information Technology (JSCC)
Hilda Tunstill, Vice President for Business Affairs (MSCC)
Dr. Eddie Stone, VP for Information Technology (MSCC)
Danny Gibbs, VP for Finance and Administrative Services (RSCC)
Tim Carroll, Assistant VP for Information Technology (RSCC)
Rick Cumby, Director of IT (CLSCC)
Assist Vice Chancellor Sims & CIO Danford

14. RFI and Responders
8
January 2010
Final draft of hosting RFI is completed
March 2010
Responses are received, 11 vendors responding
CedarCrestone
CIBER
Connectria
Dell/Perot Systems
Northwest Regional Data Center Florida State
OIR State of Tennessee
Oracle
Secure-24
Sungard
Systems Alliance
University of Memphis
15. Eddie Stone, Vice President for Information TechnologyMotlow State Community CollegeRick Cumby, Director of Information TechnologyCleveland State Community College
Pros/Cons
9
16. Pros

  • Access to better standardized computing infrastructure without large capital expenditures and overall lower hardware costs by pooling of resources (15-30%)

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
19. Pros

  • A more robust disaster recovery (DR) strategy

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
23. Pros

  • Provide state-of-the-art Storage Area Network (SAN) providing unlimited expandability to the TBR and the State Community Colleges growing data storage needs

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
27. Pros

  • Operating System (OS) and Oracle data base (optionally) are patched and maintained by OIR, lessening local staff workload

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
34. Cons
The situation is new and unknown
Staff concerns about exactly how this will work
Initial staff concerns that this may result in elimination of positions
There will be a learning curve in many areas
Although not directly related to hosting, LINUX will be new to many
ORACLE RAC software will be new and require a learning curve
14
35. Cons (continued)
Necessity to follow OIR maintenance window rather than our own
Will be dependent on OIR to schedule special request like backups, restores, upgrades, etc.
More dependence on NetTN
Perceived loss of control of Banner/data
In general, several unknowns about how everything will actually work together
15
36. Tim Carroll, Assistant Vice President for Information TechnologyRoane State Community College
Costing
16
37. Costing Model

  • Why?

38. Establish Baseline 39. Cost Benefit Analysis 40. Results17
41. Why the analysis?
To answer the following questions:
What was our current operational andadministrative cost
Would the move from an on site model to a hosted model be cost effective (affordable)
Would the cost of tangible and intangible benefits worth the incremental costs (if incurred)
18
42. Establish Baseline Costs - Hardware
19
Sun Replacement Cost for all five Community Colleges is$1.49 million
43. Establish Baseline Administrative Costs
20
44. Cost Benefit Model
21
45. Cost Benefit Continued
22
46. Results
Cost Effective initially break-even should drop when others join
Gains (Tangible and Intangible) added value that could not be duplicated on campus
Will add two more institutions under current hardware configuration at OIR which will further reduce costs
Sparked interest from other Community Colleges who may join later
Will explore more advanced technology as it comes on line to further reduce costs in the future
23
47. Thomas Danford, Chief Information OfficerTennessee Board of Regents
Tangibles/Intangibles
24
48. Tangible & Intangible Benefits

  • Categories of Tangible Benefits

Physical Plant
Infrastructure
Service Levels (staff multipliers)

  • Categories of Intangible Benefits

Consternation
Opportunity Lost

  • Four Types of Value

Latent Value
Market Value
Value Added
Perceived Value
25
49. Tangible Benefits
26
50. Intangible Benefits
Consternation
Superiors
Internal clients
External factors (audit, press, etc.)
Opportunity Lost
Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter leastGoethe
27
51. Types of Value

  • Latent Value Potential but not presently evident or realized (i.e. obvious or explicit)

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
28
55. Tangible & Intangible Value Proposition
29
56. Dana Nails, Director Information TechnologyJackson state Community College
Lessons Learned
30
57. What Worked for Us

  • Project lead was not an IT person

58. Project lead was from a campus not TBR Office 59. Executive committee consisting of Presidents31
Recommendations

  • Define the full scope of your project in the beginning of the process

60. Campus technical people and hosted facility technical people should work together early on in the project.

Recommended

View more >