Skip to Content

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting - 8/3/2011

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date and Time: 
August 3, 2011 - 9:00am - 11:00am
Location: 
SAASB 4101WW
Agenda: 

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting - 8/3/2011


1. Input from "Functional Users" - Jamie will report on any input provided from the "advisory group" regarding email or ecalendaring dependencies different than what we typically expect/experience.

2. E'Discovery & Data Retention Details - Jamie can discuss or answer questions about these features/options for MS Office 365 and Google Apps products. (Note: I am hoping to provide, via email and before our meeting, a summary of this area for both products)

3. Review and clarify work group responsibilities regarding enhanced collaboration tools/features.

4. Deliberations - We should discuss how we'll reach our final recommendation (consensus, majority rule, etc.) and begin our deliberations.

4. Other items?

Notes: 

Campus Calendaring Work Group
August 3, 2011

Present
Alan Moses
Andy Satomi
Bill Doering
Bruce Miller
Doug Drury
Jamie Sonsini
Jason Simpson
Jim Woods
Matthew Dunham
Nathan Walter
Randall Ehren
Richard Kip
Ted Cabeen
Thomas Howard

Not Present
Chris Sneathen
Daniel Lloyd
Kip Bates
Polly Bustillos

Input from Functional Users
Jamie reported on the results gathered from the “advisory group” regarding special email or calendaring dependencies.  He had shared these comments via email already.  He mentioned that since sharing the comments gathered he had received one additional response from Deb Karoff (Acad Senate).  She had nothing to add.


In general there seems to be no special dependencies we are not already aware of.

Communication with UC Santa Cruz
Jamie contacted Janine Roeth at UCSC and asked her for information regarding their selection of Google Apps and how they handled the selection of an outsourced solution with the campus.  Janine shared a copy of a set of evaluation criteria used by a group at UCSC to evaluate Google Apps vs UC Berkeley vs current UCSC Email/CorporateTime services.  Jamie and Janine were scheduled to speak later this afternoon.  Jamie will report on their discussion.

E’Discovery and Data Retention Details
Jamie had previously, via email, shared several documents describing Google Apps and MS Office 365 features related to e’discovery and data retention.  We discussed his findings.
 

Jamie presented a brief summary of differences and suggested that, in his opinion, Office 365 had more benefits and features in this area.  Alan reminded us that the additional features offered would likely translate into additional workload (and hence expense) if implemented.  Some features, like the application and implementation of retention policies, would require campus-wide coordination and communication and might be years into our future.  The staffing/workload implications would certainly need to be part of that discussion.
 

Although some of the features/options available might not be “product differentiators” (at this time), we did talk about including some of this information in our report narrative.
 

Jamie will share his findings with Meta Clow and seek her comment/input.


There were some questions about the “real pricing” of the services offered since Jamie’s pricing information differed from what Randall had gotten.  Randall will contact Google.  Jason will speak with Microsoft to see if there are any service offerings which would allow for (only) a 1 year period of retention (so as to compare with Google’s offering).


Both Randall and Ted volunteered that their faculty would absolutely need to have a 1 year period of retention for email files to provide a safety net for inadvertently deleted email.  Jamie mentioned that his customers (almost all administrative folks) only had a 2 week retention period and that this had been discussed and coordinated with his advisory group.
 

It was clear that a requirement of a 1 year retention period would impact the finances of our choice.


Someone suggested that Jamie ask Jody Kaufmann (who had expressed some preference for Office 365 in her contribution regarding “special dependencies”) what she would think of $50/yr/account.  Jamie will contact Jody and report back.
 

Jamie shared that he had asked Microsoft about the state of the UC/Office 365 negotiations.  They had indicated that there had been problems with FRPA and HIPAA issues.  The FRPA issues were resolved, HIPAA was still being discussed but they expected it to be resolved soon.  It was suggested that Jamie ask Stephen Benedict for his “take” on these negotiations.

Deliberations
We spent quite some time discussing our final recommendation; whether it should be a single product or whether we should present information about both products and suggest that the ITB and/or the EO committee select the option that suited their vision best.


Several folks mentioned that any final selection would be based on assumptions about the campus that we could hardly make.  The campus’s commitment of funding is a good example of such an assumption.


Matt suggested that we “nail down” the finances for each of our options and that these pricing models include “everything” (at least everything we can predict).
 

There were some who encouraged us to complete our deliberations and see where we ended up; then to decide how to present that information.  If we all were to agree on a single solution, our recommendation should reflect that fact.  If not, well, then so be it.


Buy-in from various campus segments was discussed.  Richard explained that the College of Engineering was heavily invested in using Google features and that a selection of Office 365 might be culturally problematic for the college.  Ted shared that several of his faculty would be highly “anti-Microsoft”.  Of course, we are all aware of the heavy investment already made by Student Affairs and Housing in the Microsoft area.  This also clearly impacts our selection.


Jamie talked about using a new level of criteria on which to base his preference.  He gave several examples of his “global criteria” which included “Campus culture” i.e. how would the product be accepted/adopted by various segments of the campus.


Matt suggested that folks identify their pros/cons for each of our choices.  It was also suggested that each person list their over-arching criteria (“global criteria”?) implied by their pro/con choices.  These items should be brought to our next meeting and will form the foundation on which we’ll begin building our final report.
 


8/8/2011