Collaborative Cloud Computing HES11


Published on

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.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Collaborative Cloud Computing HES11

  1. 1. How Five Colleges (and a System Office) Arrived at a Decision to Go to Hosting/Cloud Computing<br />April 11, 2:15 – 3:00p<br />Tim Carroll<br />Roane State Community College<br />Rick Cumby<br />Cleveland State Community College<br />Dana Nails<br />Jackson state Community College<br />Emily Siciensky<br />Columbia State Community College<br />Eddie Stone<br />Motlow State Community College<br />Thomas Danford<br />Tennessee Board of Regents<br />
  2. 2. AGENDA<br /><ul><li>Introductions
  3. 3. Overview – Timeline, Including RFI Process
  4. 4. Pros/Cons
  5. 5. Costing
  6. 6. Tangibles/Intangibles
  7. 7. Lessons Learned
  8. 8. Q&A</li></ul>2<br />
  9. 9. Emily Siciensky, Associate Vice President for Information TechnologyColumbia State Community College<br />Overview – Timeline, Including RFI Process<br />3<br />
  10. 10. Why did we want the “journey” ?<br />4<br />H<br />O<br />S<br />T<br />I <br />N<br />G<br />Virtual<br />Resources<br />Servers<br />High Speed ?<br />Disk Space<br />Disaster Recovery<br />Backup<br />Banner<br />Linux<br />RFI/RFP<br />
  11. 11. Historical Perspective – Timelines and RFI<br />5<br />Jan 2005 <br /> Banner Implementations start<br /> Regional /centralized hardware discussions occur<br /> Connectivity costs were considered prohibitive<br />Feb 2009 <br /> Discussions on hosting begin again because of <br /> hardware retirements<br />September 2009 <br /> Call for an exploratory committee made up <br /> of several community colleges and universities;<br /> Motlow and University of Memphis share information<br /> on services outline they developed<br />October 2009 <br /> Some potential hosting partners are identified<br />
  12. 12. Timelines and RFI <br />6<br />October – November 2009<br />Chancellor Manning calls for presidential level steering committee a working group with membership to include CFO’s and CIO’s 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<br />
  13. 13. The Banner Hosting RFI Group<br />7<br />Hosting RFI Development Group:<br />Ken Horner, VP for Finance and Administrative Services (COSCC)<br />Emily Siciensky, Associate VP for Information Technology (COSCC)<br />Dana Nails, Director of Information Technology (JSCC)<br />Hilda Tunstill, Vice President for Business Affairs (MSCC)<br />Dr. Eddie Stone, VP for Information Technology (MSCC)<br />Danny Gibbs, VP for Finance and Administrative Services (RSCC)<br />Tim Carroll, Assistant VP for Information Technology (RSCC)<br />Rick Cumby, Director of IT (CLSCC)<br />Assist – Vice Chancellor Sims & CIO Danford<br /> <br />
  14. 14. RFI and Responders<br />8<br />January 2010 <br /> Final draft of hosting RFI is completed<br />March 2010<br /> Responses are received, 11 vendors responding <br />CedarCrestone<br /> CIBER<br />Connectria<br /> Dell/Perot Systems<br /> Northwest Regional Data Center – Florida State<br /> OIR – State of Tennessee<br /> Oracle<br /> Secure-24<br />Sungard<br /> Systems Alliance<br /> University of Memphis<br />
  15. 15. Eddie Stone, Vice President for Information TechnologyMotlow State Community CollegeRick Cumby, Director of Information TechnologyCleveland State Community College<br />Pros/Cons<br />9<br />
  16. 16. Pros<br /><ul><li>Access to better standardized computing infrastructure without large capital expenditures and overall lower hardware costs by pooling of resources (15-30%)
  17. 17. Normalization of budget costs for Banner hardware - reoccurring cost vs. large purchase approximately every 5 years
  18. 18. No longer directly responsible for Banner physical hardware procurement nor maintenance contracts</li></ul>10<br />
  19. 19. Pros <br /><ul><li>A more robust disaster recovery (DR) strategy
  20. 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. 21. Leverage OIR Enterprise services including storage, virtual servers, redundant network, and 7/24/365 support and scheduled maintenance
  22. 22. On site (OIR) 24/7/365 proactive monitoring of servers and network</li></ul>11<br />
  23. 23. Pros<br /><ul><li>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. 24. Host (OIR) provided hardware refresh support to maintain current computing technology and up-to-date hardware
  25. 25. Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) configuration allows expansion of capacity and replacement of old hardware with little impact to Banner
  26. 26. Successfully transition from existing near end-of-life, out-dated platform to new virtual server technology</li></ul>12<br />
  27. 27. Pros<br /><ul><li>Operating System (OS) and Oracle data base (optionally) are patched and maintained by OIR, lessening local staff workload
  28. 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. 29. In sum, hosting offers benefits
  30. 30. budgetary
  31. 31. disaster recovery / business continuity
  32. 32. high availability
  33. 33. opportunity to repurpose IT staff time</li></ul>13<br />
  34. 34. Cons<br />The situation is new and unknown<br />Staff concerns about exactly how this will work<br />Initial staff concerns that this may result in elimination of positions<br />There will be a learning curve in many areas<br />Although not directly related to hosting, LINUX will be new to many<br />ORACLE RAC software will be new and require a learning curve<br />14<br />
  35. 35. Cons (continued)<br />Necessity to follow OIR maintenance window rather than our own<br />Will be dependent on OIR to schedule special request like backups, restores, upgrades, etc.<br />More dependence on NetTN<br />Perceived loss of control of Banner/data<br />In general, several unknowns about how everything will actually work together <br />15<br />
  36. 36. Tim Carroll, Assistant Vice President for Information TechnologyRoane State Community College<br />Costing<br />16<br />
  37. 37. Costing Model<br /><ul><li>Why?
  38. 38. Establish Baseline
  39. 39. Cost Benefit Analysis
  40. 40. Results</li></ul>17<br />
  41. 41. Why the analysis?<br />To answer the following questions:<br />What was our current operational andadministrative cost <br />Would the move from an on site model to a hosted model be cost effective (affordable)<br />Would the cost of tangible and intangible benefits worth the incremental costs (if incurred)<br />18<br />
  42. 42. Establish Baseline Costs - Hardware<br />19<br />Sun Replacement Cost for all five Community Colleges is$1.49 million <br />
  43. 43. Establish Baseline – Administrative Costs<br />20<br />
  44. 44. Cost Benefit Model<br />21<br />
  45. 45. Cost Benefit Continued<br />22<br />
  46. 46. Results<br />Cost Effective… initially break-even… should drop when others join<br />Gains (Tangible and Intangible) added value that could not be duplicated on campus<br />Will add two more institutions under current hardware configuration at OIR which will further reduce costs<br />Sparked interest from other Community Colleges who may join later<br />Will explore more advanced technology as it comes on line to further reduce costs in the future<br />23<br />
  47. 47. Thomas Danford, Chief Information OfficerTennessee Board of Regents<br />Tangibles/Intangibles<br />24<br />
  48. 48. Tangible & Intangible Benefits<br /><ul><li>Categories of Tangible Benefits</li></ul> Physical Plant <br /> Infrastructure<br /> Service Levels (staff multipliers)<br /><ul><li>Categories of Intangible Benefits</li></ul> Consternation <br /> Opportunity Lost<br /><ul><li>Four Types of Value</li></ul> Latent Value<br /> Market Value<br /> Value Added<br /> Perceived Value<br />25<br />
  49. 49. Tangible Benefits<br />26<br />
  50. 50. Intangible Benefits<br />Consternation<br /> Superiors <br /> Internal clients<br /> External factors (audit, press, etc.)<br />Opportunity Lost<br /> “Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least” – Goethe<br />27<br />
  51. 51. Types of Value<br /><ul><li>Latent Value – Potential but not presently evident or realized (i.e. obvious or explicit)
  52. 52. Market Value – Estimated (highest) price that a product or service will sell for in a competitive market
  53. 53. Value Added – Bundling or packaging features and benefits that leads to greater customer acceptance in order to create a competitive advantage
  54. 54. Perceived Value – Customer's opinion of a product's value to him or her</li></ul>“Collaborative hosting narrows the margin in both the market value, and the value being perceived”<br />28<br />
  55. 55. Tangible & Intangible Value Proposition<br />29<br />
  56. 56. Dana Nails, Director Information TechnologyJackson state Community College<br />Lessons Learned<br />30<br />
  57. 57. What Worked for Us<br /><ul><li>Project lead was not an IT person
  58. 58. Project lead was from a campus not TBR Office
  59. 59. Executive committee consisting of Presidents</li></ul>31<br />Recommendations<br /><ul><li>Define the full scope of your project in the beginning of the process
  60. 60. Campus technical people and hosted facility technical people should work together early on in the project.</li></li></ul><li>Q&A<br />We all greatly appreciate you joining us!<br />32<br />