ARCHITECTURE & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES
Friday, March 13, 2015
9:00 – 10:30 AM
FAC 228D
I. Administrative Systems Modernizations Program Technical Architecture – Update (Julienne VanDerZiel, Eric Weigel)
Julienne VanDerZiel and Eric Weigel presented the new ASMP 2.0 Technical Architecture. There are 20 new approved selections. Graph on page 7 depicts all of the architecture components -- the selected architecture by TADS, the preexisting UT ones, and parts that do not fall into the scope of TADS. Pages 9-13 show the product mappings for application products. Pages 14-15 are all the key new features of the new products with their benefits and impact. The next steps are to complete the plan to procure, deploy, and transition staff. Implementation should start in May.
Q. Why are some components not circled?
A. Those do not fall into the scope of TADS. It does not mean there are not services for those parts. We will clear up the diagram.
Q. Are you working with ServiceNow?
A. Yes, we are tightly integrated with TAI (Technical Architecture Implementation) to make sure they work well together.
Q. Will services be available for the whole university?
A. Yes, they will be enterprised for campus use.
Q. Are these new selection going through a security review?
A. Yes, we will have ISO compliance involved.
There is documentation on all decisions made in the plan with reasoning on why or why not certain components were selected.
Q. What is the time frame for implementation? Is TADS done?
A. It’s to be determined. Plans will be done in April, and then reviewed in mid-April. There will be overlapping between TAI and TADS.
II. BACS Replacement and Removal Strategies – Update (William Green)
William Green updated the committee on his team’s decision on the BACS Replacement and Removal Strategy. His team recommended that the university take on continuing costs for the outside doors of buildings and have the inside doors will be covered by the units. If doors are no longer wanted to have BACS installed, the university will pay to have them removed. They are now working with contractors for the removal process. Another company bought out the old building security product. The vendor has a different product but it does not currently work with our hardware. They are now in the process of possibly selecting a more cost effective and useful vendor if the current vendor does not work soon. They want to continue to use the hardware already installed rather than paying for new equipment. There will be no gap in service from the current system to the next; there will be some overlap.
Q. Why would the units make the decision to remove doors before a new vendor was selected?
A. We presented the costs of paying for the inside doors to the units and that’s how they determined whether or not they want to keep the BACS door.
Q. Why don’t the units just turn off their doors that they no longer want?
A. By turning off the BACS on the door, it will lock the door, deeming it useable. Also, some doors act as panic buttons. We don’t want them to be there if they are not in use, that could potentially be dangerous.