Collaboration Suites
ITEC Meeting
January 30, 2006
3:00-4:30 PM
201 Administration
How We Got Here

Charge to Calendar Committee May, 2005


Recommend reduced set of solutions for campus
electronic calendaring
Committee findings & recommendations:




“Can’t solve just the calendar issue, it’s a suite
problem”
Recommendation for Students: The Portal suite
Recommendation for Faculty & Staff: MS Exchange
suite
13-3 vote in favor at the October IAC meeting
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
2
Today’s Agenda


Collaboration Suites, definitions & features
The 3 questions from the last ITEC meeting
1.
2.
3.


Is a single solution right for CSU?
If yes, which one?
If yes, what are the implications for those who don’t
wish to convert?
What other schools are doing
Recommendation
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
3
Collaboration Suite
Definition & Features


Email
Calendar






Individual
Groups
Resources (e.g. conference rooms, equipment)
Chat, Instant and Text Messaging (significant
use by students)
On-line self service
Typically also includes: contacts, tasks, mobile
connectivity components
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
4
Rich Media Conferencing - An
Extension to a Collaboration Suite


Web, audio (telephone), video, Instant Messaging (chat)
Registration



Controls


Slides (PowerPoint, PDF), attachments, white boards, etc.
Directory-enabled services



Invite, mute/unmute, roll call, out dial for group conferencing, record a
meeting (video, audio, content), record a message, record an agenda,
breakout sessions, end meeting
Content


Invitations via Instant Messaging, cellular telephone, land line, internet
video
Will ‘find’ conference attendees using active devices (e.g. Morrison in
London)
Audio and video individual and group conferences
Webinars (producer and consumer)
Distance education, self-paced instruction, and public safety
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
5
1. Single Collaboration Suite for CSU
- Pros

Reduces complexity




Automatic interoperability – another big “win”




For Users – a big “win”
For Application Supporters – a modest “win”
For IT Support Staff – a small “win”
Resolves the current calendar conundrum
Streamlines communication on campus
Provides a foundation for additional functionality, e.g. rich media
A single system provides




Lower Costs
Improved functionality & synergies
Improved security
Ability to enhance a single system, rather than just to operate
multiple systems
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
6
Single Collaboration Suite for CSU
– Cons


Are the benefits of change worth the cost
of change?
Are the risks associated with a single
vendor, a “monolithic” environment,
acceptable?

Can the single system be secured?
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
7
The “Bottom Line”

The IT environment is getting far too:




Complex,
Difficult to use, and
Difficult and expensive to operate, secure & maintain
A single collaboration suite would:



Enhance productivity via reduced complexity
Enable better communication
Allow IT staff to focus on delivery, support and
enhancement of a single application

Jan. 30, 2006
Significant effort of cross platform operations and integration
could be devoted to enhancement of a single system, as
opposed to operations of multiple systems
Att. B - Collaboration
8
2. Which Single Suite? –
Evaluation Factors



Functionality
Cost
Integration into current environment



Impact on Users
Impact on Support Staff
Needed enhancements to current environment


Hardware redundancy
Increased capacity/quotas
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
9
Options

Summarily ruled out



Oracle



Unix or Windows backend infrastructure
Portal-like web interface with hooks to MS Outlook as a ‘fat’
client
Communigate



“Build” – due to complexity and performance issues
Freeware – due to integration and support
Unix backend primarily, can run on Windows
Access via standard browsers and MS Outlook
MS Exchange


Windows backend
Access via browsers and ‘fat’ clients
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
10
Functionality

Oracle Collaboration suite



Communigate


Good (on paper), however its new functionality is
relatively untested and evolving rapidly
Oracle themselves not using the full suite in
production (yet)
Good, however, it is focused primarily on VoIP/PBX
space, and not now on rich collaboration
MS Exchange


Robust, including mobile access “out of the box”
Proven and currently available at CSU
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
11
Cost

Server side costs for unix and Windows systems are
essentially identical


Differences are within the range of costs from different
assumptions
Cost differences lie mostly at the application (software,
maintenance and licenses (e.g. CALs))

Oracle


Communigate


Up-front $130K, recurring $56K
Up-front $70K, recurring $9K
Exchange


Jan. 30, 2006
Up-front $19K, recurring $0 (for 2 years)
‘Flash’ migration from Oracle product possible, ~$30K
Att. B - Collaboration
12
Integration into Current Environment
- The Landscape


Oracle calendar users: ~2,000
Exchange users: ~2,000



Spread across 10 servers
All use email, many use calendar
Central email:

7,700 faculty/staff accounts on Lamar



Quotas: 80/160Mb Inbox, 30/60Mb file storage
Average use: 45Mb in Inbox, 50Mb in Imap folder
1,000 faculty/staff accounts on Exchange


Jan. 30, 2006
Quotas: 100Mb (includes Inbox, Imap folders, calendar, contacts,
etc.)
Average use: 60Mb
Att. B - Collaboration
13
Integration into current environment
- Impact to End users

In any case, a transition & migration period


Assist users who wish to transition during this period
Keep unix email “up” ad infinitum


In an Oracle world:



Change required for all non-Outlook users
Given ‘new delivery method, change for most everyone
In a Communigate world:




Lamar retained for grad students in any case
Calendar: Oracle users move to Outlook or web interface
Email: Some adjustment for Unix-based mailers (pine, elm, etc.)
Does not address the proliferation of Exchange servers
In an Exchange world:


Calendar: Oracle users move to new fat client or web interface
Email: Little change, some adjustment for Unix-based mailers (pine, elm, etc.)
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
14
Integration into Current Environment
- Support Staff

Oracle





Communigate




Need to expand current deployment to include features beyond calendaring
Next revision will be full-on Oracle DB backend requiring additional expertise (IS)
Effectively, a new product
Transition effort: high
New deployment for CSU
A major initiative
Transition effort: high
Exchange



Currently supported, just need to scale up
Integrates with other Exchange systems at CSU
A central system may provide incentive for consolidation of distributed Exchange
servers


Pending requests to implement additional Exchange servers
Transition effort: relative to other options, low
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
15
Which Collaboration Suite?

Based on:





Features & Functionality
Deliverable and proven product
Cost
Less transition & integration angst
Microsoft Exchange
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
16
3. What About Non-Microsoft
shops?

Use the web interface


Almost equivalent to a “fat client”
Avoids issues of client “churn” or upgrade



A horrible problem
Web interface provides a “huge” simplification
Available on all devices with the same look and feel



Desktops: PC’s, Mac, Linux
Laptop
A simplified interface (small screen) exists for


Jan. 30, 2006
Palmtop, PDA, and Cellular devices
“Push” happens automatically –
 Equivalent to BlackBerry service
 Big simplification on “back end” over the BlackBerry environment
Att. B - Collaboration
17
Local “Fat” Clients
Client
Operating System
Outlook (good)
Microsoft OS’s
Entourage (good)
Mac OS X
Evolution (evolving)
Unix/linux
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
18
Using Web Browsers
Browser
Exchange Support
‘Levels’
Internet Explorer 5.x and
above
Premium
Mozilla, Netscape, Opera,
Safari
Basic
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
19
What Other Institutions are Doing
- Westnet Large Schools

On Exchange – seeing a potential trend





Arizona State University (faculty/staff)
BYU (all)
Denver University (all)
UCDHSC (faculty/staff)
University of Utah (all in February 2006)



University of Wyoming (all)


Jan. 30, 2006
Selected after a very detailed investigation
Even their unix system administrators liked the interface
Faculty/staff for a long time
Students (13,000) transitioned (at their request) overnight in
August 2005, very easy transition
 They developed migration tools they are willing to share
Att. B - Collaboration
20
Recommendation


ITEC endorse Exchange as the central
collaboration suite for faculty and staff
ACNS work with units to plan and effect the
transition



Begin the transition, purchase and install hardware
(using ACNS’ budget)
Define a “sunset” date for Oracle calendar
Keep unix email going, but as a secondary solution
Jan. 30, 2006
Att. B - Collaboration
21