Skip to Content

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting - 9/21/2011

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date and Time: 
September 21, 2011 - 9:00am - 10:00am
Location: 
SAASB 4101WW
Agenda: 

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting

September 21, 2011

1. The Decision we are Contemplating - Any further discussion?

2. Items "To be Determined"
Now that we are contemplating a decision, there are many items/issues to be resolved. Here's a starter set from last week (not discussed at our last meeting):

Selection Criteria
To be used by organization in deciding which solution best fits their needs

Support Structure(s)
Implementation/Operation Structure
End user and Tier 2 Support

Cross calendaring support
Understand and explain

Multi-Calendar options
Google/O365 user wants O365/Google calendar

Governance Committee

Campus Implementation Group

Service Costs

Migration from CorporateTime (to either solution)

Customer “models”
What would each product look like for different customers (i.e. those using Outlook, Thunderbird, Web clients, etc.)

Provisioning/Authorization

Calendar-Only Integration
For those not (yet) migrated, using their own email service

3. Additional Items?

Notes: 

Campus Calendaring Work Group
September 21, 2011

Present
Andy Satomi
Bill Koseluk (representing Alan Moses)
Bruce Miller
Chris Sneathen
Doug Drury
Jamie Sonsini
Jason Simpson
Jim Woods
Matthew Dunham
Randall Ehren
Ted Cabeen

Not Present
Alan Moses
Bill Doering
Daniel Lloyd
Kip Bates
Nathan Walter
Polly Bustillos
Richard Kip
Thomas Howard

The Decision we are contemplating - Any further discussion?
Jamie distributed a hard copy of the items included in our previously discussed decision.
 

Jim Woods explained that he had several significant problems with our decision.  His concerns focused on issues related to our “go big” inclination which would include a level of Office 365 with collaboration features beyond the basic (no cost) service.  Jim explained his issues regarding funding (how would the service costs be funded and by whom?) and execution/implementation (could a group within OIST actually deliver support for the service we were recommending).  He was also concerned that our "go big" approach depended on a successful evaluation and, perhaps, a new model for Microsoft campus licensing (which is outside the scope of our group and not entirely a certainty).
 

Jim additionally expressed frustration with the last Work Group meeting. He was unhappy with the fact that Jamie had not included his (Jamie’s) suggestion that we change our decision from a dual-solution decision into our present single-solution decision in the published meeting agenda.  Jamie explained that his suggestion was completely spontaneous (an unusual event for Jamie) and when he prepared the agenda he had no idea that that topic would be discussed.  Jim would have preferred more discussion as to why the dual-solution approach should have been abandoned.
 

Following this discussion the group did decide that we should include language in our report that indicated that several members of our Work Group had serious reservations about the method and amount of funding required for this service to be successful.
 

After more discussion crafting and tweaking our previous decision we came to the following:
 

Recommend MS Office 365 be provided at the Plan 1 level (No cost for Faculty and Staff).


That Office 365 would be recognized as the campus "standard" for calendaring.


A centralized support structure be put in place to provide tier 2 support for this product.


In response to the campus Operational Effectiveness Steering Committee interest in campus-wide collaboration, we recommend that they consider the acquisition of MS Office 365 at the Plan A3 level.


This level of licensing includes advanced collaboration features, which may provide great benefit for campus-wide collaboration, as well as licensing for standard MS desktop software.
 

We further suggest that an analysis of campus-wide expenditures on Microsoft licensing be conducted to determine how the campus may be able to leverage these expenditures for greater campus benefit.


We acknowledge that some on campus will not wish to use (or will decide they will not be well served by) Office 365 but would rather employ Google Apps for Education. We recommend that as part of the governance for the new campus calendaring and email service, those groups interact with and attempt to create viable solutions for cross-calendaring, support structure, and other issues. We recommend that directly supporting Google Apps for Education not be part of the responsibilities of the Campus Calendaring and Email service provider.

Items "To be Determined"
Now that we are contemplating a decision, there are many items/issues to be resolved.  We reviewed each item from the original list suggested by Jamie.  Some items were deleted (no longer needed) and others were assigned to members.  Those assigned are to prepare a “bare bones” description of what our report might contain.  They were asked to vet their description with another member (or two) of the Work Group and to share with the entire group at next week’s meeting.
 

Selection Criteria To be used by organization in deciding which solution best fits their needs – No Longer Needed
 

Support Structure(s) Implementation/Operation Structure End user and Tier 2 Support – Assigned to Jason
 

Cross calendaring support Understand and explain – Not assigned, but still to be understood
 

Multi-Calendar options Google/O365 user wants O365/Google calendar – No Longer Needed
 

Governance Committee – Assigned to Doug
 

Campus Implementation Group – Assigned to Eron
 

Service Costs – To be determined after other items are resolved
 

Migration from CorporateTime (to either solution) – Assigned to Jamie
 

Customer “models” What would each product look like for different customers (i.e. those using Outlook, Thunderbird, Web clients, etc.) – No Longer Needed
 

Provisioning/Authorization – Assigned to Matt
 

Calendar-Only Integration For those not (yet) migrated, using their own email service – Assigned to Jamie
 

Pilot Project Discussion
At the end of the meeting we discussed, briefly, the prospect of conducting a “Pilot Project” with Office 365.  Jamie volunteered his email customers (at least those willing to participate) as “guinea pigs” for this effort.


There were several issues that surfaced including the fact that we have no UC contract (yet) with Microsoft for this product, that we may have issues related to the campus Identity Management service to resolve first, that Office 365 reliability may be questionable (and reliability problems would be disruptive to those testing), etc.


Clearly there will be more discussion on this topic in the future.

 

9/22/2011