Skip to Content

ITC Meeting Notes - 2015-02-13

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

Date and Time: February 13, 2015 1:00 - 2:00pm
Location:  Phelps 2536


  • Denise Stephens, University Librarian, Interim Chief Information Officer
  • Bruce Bimber, Professor, Political Science
  • Cindy Bumgarner, Director, Summer Sessions
  • Linda Flegal, Assistant Dean, Mathematical, Life & Physical Sciences
  • Jacob Godfrey, Assoc. Director & Chief Procurement Officer, Business & Financial Services
  • Alan Grosenheider, Associate University Librarian, Library
  • Carl Guitierrez-Jones, Acting Dean of Undergraduate Education
  • Chuck Haines, Director, Capital Development, Budget & Planning
  • Karen Hanson, Asst. Vice Chancellor for Research, Office of Research
  • Janowicz Krzysztof, Professor, Geography
  • Mary Lum, Assistant Dean, College of Letters & Science
  • Jeffrey Monteleone, Assoc. Director, Operational Work Systems, Facilities Management
  • Alex Parraga, Chief Digital Officer, News and Communications
  • Lisa Sedgwick, Executive Director for Academic Affairs, Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor
  • Cynthia Seneriz, Acting Director, Human Resources
  • Timothy Sherwood, Associate Professor, Computer Science
  • Robert Silsbee, Planning & Resources Director, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Admin Services
  • Manuel Cintron, Acting Director, Infrastructure, Enterprise Technology Services, Ex-Officio
  • Sam Horowitz, Chief Information Security Officer, Ex-Officio
  • Doug Drury, Enterprise Technology Services
  • Randall Ehren, Enterprise Technology Services

Meeting Agenda:

  1. Review and approve the 1/28/2015 meeting notes.
  2. Connect Project Presentation.
  3. Advisory Group Population. 

Meeting Notes

Review of meeting notes from 1/28/15 meeting.   There was a comment to verify the dates of previous meeting notes to review mentioned in the 1/28 notes.  Denise motioned to accept the notes with the requested change.  Multiple seconds were heard.  The notes from the 1/28/15 meeting were accepted.


Denise Stephens provided an introduction and brief overview of the CONNECT project and introduced Manuel Cintron (Director of Enterprise Technology Service End User Computing) to provide an update on the CONNECT Service Platform Options Report.  The presentation is available in the ITC Documents section as ITC Connect Presentation.pdf and then full reports is available at the same page as Connect Platform Service Options Report.pdf

During the presentation, the following discussions took place. 

  • There was a request for clarification on slide 4 which shows Engineering as hosting 5000 email accounts.  Manny Cintron agreed to seek clarification on the number.
  • There were questions regarding the method by which the assessment of the different platform options was established.  Randall Ehren explained that the assessment criteria were established to reflect existing UCSB use cases for email and calendar tools as well as criteria obtained from outside sources.
  • It was asked if numbers were available that describe the percentages of UCSB desktops which use Microsoft operating systems and percentages of UCSB desktops which use other operating platforms such as Mac.  Manny responded that no actual numbers had been gathered but that estimates indicate that the majority of desktops are Microsoft.  Denise commented that there is no campus “standard” for desktop configuration and that many of the individuals who reported unhappiness with the initial Connect deployment were uses of non-Microsoft desktops or non-Microsoft email/calendar client tools.  There was a suggestion that the campus would benefit from knowledge of desktop numbers.
  • There was a discussion regarding slide 5 of the presentation which presents criteria in green, yellow, and red to indicate where an issue might exist with a given platform.  The question was raised regarding how the reader may differentiate between criteria which were yellow because of an inconvenience or yellow because of a more serious problem (e.g. Thunderbird as an Office 365 client).  Comments to the left of the slide are intended to help provide clarification.
  • There was a clarification that the increase in cost estimate associated with the dual platform solution is due to increased implementation and support complexity inherent with keep a dual implementation in synchronization as versions of each component change.
  • During the discussion of benefits of each platform, it was asked how the potential to leverage existing campus Microsoft knowledge was reflected.  The reply was that it is reflected as part of the operating cost estimate for an Office 365 platform.
  • There was a question regarding other campus experiences had been reflected in the assessment.  Randall Ehren provided an overview of directions being taken by other University of California campuses. 
    • Campus E-Mail Demographics:
    • UC Berkeley: Google Apps (all students, staff & faculty), Law School is still on-premise Exchange
    • UC Davis: Google Apps, On-premise Exchange & Office 365 (all mixed)
    • UC Irvine: Google Apps, On-premise Exchange & Office 365, On-premise IMAP (all mixed)
    • UC Los Angeles:  Google Apps, On-premise Exchange & Office 365, On-premise IMAP (all mixed)
    • UC Merced: Office 365 (all students, staff & faculty)
    • UC Riverside: Google Apps (students), On-premise Exchange 
    • UC San Diego: On-Premise Exchange
    • UC San Francisco: On-Premise Exchange, POC with Office 365
    • UC Santa Cruz: Google Apps (all students, staff & faculty)
  • There was an inquiry regarding whether the selection of platform may require an open bid process.  Manny responded by clarifying that cost estimates reflect UCSB costs.  Since the license costs for each platform are “no cost” or little cost, amount paid to a vendor is below the threshold identified in UC and UCSB procurement policy.  Therefore, no bid process is required.  Denise stated that the costs reflected in the presentation reflect the true cost of “free” products.
  • A question was asked if the cost of Tier-1 support was included in the estimates for each platform. The reply was that Tier-1 costs are not included but will be identified specifically in a project proposal.
  • During the discussion of the O-365 platform analysis, it was stated that many support requests required engagement of high level product engineers to obtain clarification of the situation.  This statement generated a conversation regarding whether the assessment team had gained any useful insights regarding the future direction of the O-365 product that may be useful to UCSB.  Randall Ehren stated that the team was able to obtain information that Microsoft’s roadmap for the product was focused on moving toward the web based client as opposed to the full Outlook product.  There was discussion about UCSB hesitance to adopt a web client across all client platform variants.
  • Denise stated that the goal of the presentation was to provide the ITC members with sufficient understanding of the challenges related to the Connect project.  The next step is to present the same information to the ITB with the hope that a specific project goal can be identified.  At that point, a collaborative effort to develop a project plan will take place.  The ITC will receive the project plan as a proposal.
  • There was discussion that the presentation did a good job of presenting technical information and cost.  However, development of the project plan must take into account not only technical and cost issues but also user experience and usability.  It was agreed that usability and user experience must be included as a major decision factor.


Due to the time required for the Connect presentation, Denise requested that the group table the Advisory Group Population topic until the next meeting.  There as concurrence from the group.  Denise requested that ITC members review the Advisory Group descriptions so that some discussion of population can be accomplished via email.  The Advisory Group descriptions can be found in the ITC Documents section as Enterprise IT Advisory Groups Overview for Governance Model.pdf