WORKING DRAFT
Response to Chancellor’s Cost Reduction Memo – Strategy/Action Plan
FY 03/04 and Early FY 04/05 Impact
/ Recommendation / Potential Savings / Coordinator/Lead/
Committee / OIT
Facilitation / Actions / Timeframe / Policy
Implications / Suggestions/ Issues /
Microsoft Software
(MCCA current enrollment 36,818) / 1. Goal to increase UCLA usage of the contract by 2000 FTE (increasing to 33% of eligible participation) / § $600K/yr / § Marsha Smith
§ Tom Trappler / § Jim Davis with ITLC
§ Marsha Smith with TRC / § SWC: campus –wide marketing strategy to maintain current enrollment and reach 2000 FTE target (Attachment 1)
§ SWC to investigate ASUCLA sales / § April/May 2004 for campaign / § Another strategy is to look at non MS options. Irvine is currently doing a study to make this option visible. We should investigate ways of joining in or doing something similar.
2. Goal to increase total UC usage to 50,000 FTE (increasing to 25% of eligible participation) / § SWC to work with UC and TRC to increase UC wide enrollments / § 6/30/04 deadline to reach 50,000 FTE; 40,373 reached as of 6/11/04
IT Staffing / 3. Establish an internal posting process to bid temporary assignments internally before pursuing outside vendors / § unknown / § Steve Wesson
§ OIT in advisory role
§ CSG is project sponsor / § Marsha Smith
§ Rose Rocchio
§ Margo Reveil / § Scope and provide high level requirements / § Summer 04 / § Quality control – “customer beware clause”
§ Arbitration
§ Bidder competency
§ Confidential response / § Experimental
§ Opportunity to influence culture change
§ Encourage project to be open standards based
§ Authentication and Authorization will require greater complexity in the design
§ Send out “mini RFP” to CCC and CSG (Attachment 2) / §
4. Strategic sourcing contract for temporary IT ($3M/yr spending) / § $275K/yr / § Purchasing
§ CSG key client base / § Steve Wesson / § Departments were advised to use the contracted vendors / § Lab space
§ Audit review meeting scheduled / § June 2004
5. On campus training / § $125K/yr / § Steve Wesson
§ CSG as Sponsor / § / § Broker partnerships with vendors / § Ongoing / § New employee IT Orientation
§ Create opportunities for internal “seminar based” training / § Ongoing
§ Created & distributed MS training survey to campus / §
§ 6 training classes developed & scheduled / § 6/04 – 8/04
Remote Access Services
($2.7M/yr) / 6. Review the use of distributed modem pools; potential to reduce the BOL modem line service costs / § $62K/yr / § Michael Schilling
§ ITPB for policy and impact
§ CITI for business
§ CSG for campus impact / § Jim Davis / § Discuss at ITMG
§ Understand who is using
§ Understand how being used
§ Understand academic usage / § Should BOL dial-in retain its current structure of no-cost access with a liberal connectivity time? / § Underlying model for service definition needs to be re-evaluated
§ Confusion about the differences between remote access, accounts, and email
7. Review the potential for more favorable contracts or alternative delivery approaches for cell phone and pager services / § $300K/yr / § Michael Schilling / § Jim Davis / § Develop contract for faculty & staff / § Is University allowed to purchase & resell phone sets/service for personal use & student use?
8. Review potential for more favorable contracts or delivery approaches for connectivity / § unknown / § Michael Schilling / § Jim Davis / § Develop contract similar to KST
9. Review policies on payment or reimbursement for essential and non-essential connectivity, cell and pager services / § unknown / § Michael Schilling
§ ITPB if policy implications / § Jim Davis / § OIT to redefine the issue as “guidelines for expectations, with constraints” / § Should there be university policy or guidelines on reimbursed home connectivity? / § Need to differentiate between structure changes (tax issue) and how people are reimbursed
§ The gain in personal productivity needs to be weighed against direct expense
§ Take back to ITPB for discussion
Email Strategy / 10. Overall campus email strategy and articulation of integrated services both distributed and central / § unknown / § Jim Davis / § Jim Davis / § Understand directions of each component & fit into campus strategy / § Is the University positioned for email business? / § Multiple components (BOL upgrade, email name space mgmt, email consolidation, my.ucla, etc.) need to be understood as components of overall strategy
11. Evaluate the potential of MS Exchange email server consolidation within AVC Adm. and AVC IT units / § unknown / § Michael Schilling
§ Michael Van Norman
§ Email Task Force / § Marsha Smith / § Prepare a plan / § Early April 2004 / § Physical consolidation is being evaluated
12. Create strategy and process to evaluate cost/benefits of campus email consolidation / § $200K/yr (staff) / § Michael Van Norman
§ Email Task Force / § Marsha Smith / § Draft report for review by ITMG / § Early April 2004 / § Should there be minimum standards for email systems on campus? / § Task Force to recommend that a non MS option be evaluated in Sandbox with CSG sponsorship
13. Email Task Force operating policy recommenda-tions / § Savings included in #14 / § Don Worth
§ CITI sponsor
§ CSG technical / § Esther Woo-Benjamin / § Policy recommen-dations approved by CITI and ITPB / § End of March 2004 / § (Attachment 3)
§ Draft Project Control Document under broad review; to CSG / § 7/1/04
§ Final implementation / § Q2 2005
§ CSG to develop minimum standards for depts. to do their own email systems / §
14. Electronic Business – As appropriate, identify low investment & high value conversions to email & self service processes / § $50 -100K/ applica-tion / § Jim Davis / § DACSS/ASA / § Completed / § Find examples outside of administration (e.g. student affairs and grades) and in distributed academic units
§ Surepay / § Pending
§ W2s / § Pending
§ BruinDirect / § Completed
§ Ebills for students / § Completed
§ EFT for employees / § Completed
§ Express Travel & Entertainment / § Winter 2004
§ Look across campus for other applications (target next application) / § In review
15. Proceed with Enterprise Directory Services / § Savings included in #14 / § Don Worth
§ CSG sponsor / § Marsha Smith
§ Jim Davis / Proof of Concept Pilots in progress:
§ Implement Common Logon (BOL & AIS) / § Q3 2004
§ Implement Shibboleth system (UCOP & AIS) / § In test
§ Directory (AIS) / § Proceeding
§ Technical Architecture (AIS & Burton Group) / § Complete
§ Final PCD for Project / § 10/1/04
Security / 16. Proceed immediately with actions to address Windows computers: scanning for vulnerability; patch management; and virus detection and prevention / § $100K/yr invest-ment
§ $400K per incident cost avoid-ance
§ eEye knowledge partnership provides software suite ~$1M / § Kent Wada
§ John DeGolyer
§ CSG sponsor / § Marsha Smith / § RFI/RFP process for patch management products is near completion & recommendation is forthcoming / § Expected completion June 2004 / § (see # 17) / § Specific actions are under way. A more formal overall strategy is being developed
§ Rollout plan for eEye software suite in development / § Expected initial plan July 2004
§ Address concerns with Sophos antivirus product & enhance support resources / § Expected completion June 2004
§ Goals are compliance; proactive prevention of lost productivity; campus positioning for collaboration
17. ITPB to form a task force to address the policy requirements, review resource opportunities, and make shared resource recommenda-tions / § Kent Wada
§ John DeGolyer
§ ITPB sponsor
§ CSG operational / § Marsha Smith / § Statement of principles / § Approved by ITPB & CSG 3/04 / § (Attachment 4)
§ Berkeley’s strategy to be reviewed as a potential model for UCLA / § Approved by CSG 3/04, some further work required
§ Specific policies & procedures / § 704
§ Expansion of security incident handling procs / § 7/04
§ New threats / § 7/04
Network Infra-structure / 18. Complete cost and funding analysis of telephone and surcharge services to disaggregate network funding / § unknown / § Michael Schilling / § Jim Davis
19. Examine alternative voice & network deployment & funding models / § unknown / § Michael Schilling
§ CITI sponsor
§ ITPB strategic directions / § Jim Davis
§ Marsha Smith / § Need strategy for funding backbone
§ Need strategy for funding distributed components of network
20. Proceed with pilot scale investment of alternative VoIP & wireless voice strategies / § unknown / § Michael Schilling
§ Robert Konishi / § Jim Davis / § Implement VoIP system for SRB1 / § In production
Data Centers / 21. ITPB and Controller to assess risks associated with UCLA data centers housing campus-critical applications / § unknown / § Chris Foote
§ Sue Abeles
§ ITPB sponsor
§ CSG impact
§ CITI business / § Esther Woo-Benjamin
§ Marsha Smith / § Identify data centers subject to IS-3 requirements / § In planning
Instruction-al Technology & Funding / 22. Evaluate directions for instructional technology and alternative funding models / § Jim Davis
§ Ruth Sabean
§ FCET impact
§ ITPB / § Jim Davis
§ Ruth Sabean / § Build case / § In planning / § This process must include working with schools and divisions at UCLA to define the educational vision and requirements. Minimizing the impact on students’ cost of education should be a key constraint.
Attachment 1
Current MCCA Enrollment
Campus / FTEBerkeley / 2,028
Davis / 5,618
Irvine / 4,783
UCLA / 13,596
Riverside / 683
San Diego / 2,401
San Francisco / 6,592
Santa Barbara / 849
Santa Cruz / 74
UCOP / 194
Total / 36,818
2004-05 MCCA NEW/RENEWAL OUTREACH PLAN
§ 3/1/04 - Update Software Central web site MCCA pages to reflect details of 2004-05 MCCA new purchases and renewals. All other communications will direct people to this site for details on MCCA.
§ 3/ 2004 – Software Central section of the ATS Newsletter will highlight the MCCA.
§ 3/9/04 – Software Central will have a booth at the UCLA Alliance Supplier/BruinBuy Fair. One of the items we will promote is the MCCA.
§ 3/12/04 – Draft and distribute outreach general announcement, including highlights of the program and the date of main presentation. This should be sent to a wide range of email lists (SC News, MS Licensing, CSC, icompass, Network Coordinators, CAO/CFO, Staff Assembly, ABOG, Deans, Directors, etc.) approximately 3 weeks prior to the date of the main presentation tentatively scheduled for 4/6/04. This announcement should also be used as the basis for all handouts, memos, emails, etc. related to the MCCA renewal.
§ 3/15-3/26/04 - Targeted contact (via phone) to larger UCLA departments not currently enrolled.
§ 3/17/04 - Presentation at ITMG Meeting.
§ 3/19/04 - Presentation at ITPB Meeting.
§ 3/23/04 - Presentation at CSG Meeting.
§ Early April - Inform Purchasing Reps.
§ 4/6/04 – Presentation at CITI Meeting.
§ In addition to, or in lieu of, the four meeting presentations listed above we could send the general announcement to the email lists for each of the four groups.
§ 4/6/04 (tentative) – Main presentation at the Faculty Center Hacienda Room open to campus units either interested in signing up or interested in renewing, with MS and TRC reps present.
§ 4/21/04 – Software Central booth at Purchasing/Staff Assembly Small Business Resource Fair. One of the items we will promote is the MCCA.
§ Late March, early April - Presentation at CSC Meeting.
§ Late March, early April - Presentation at Lab Managers meeting if one will be scheduled during this timeframe.
§ Late March, early April - Presentation at CAO/CFO meeting in early April.
§ Late March, early April - Presentation to Sam Morabito’s direct reports at staff meeting?
§ Presentations at other pertinent pre-existing meetings?
§ Late March, early April - UCLA Today advertisement and icompass articles for publication prior to main presentation.
Attachment 2
Internal posting process to bid temporary assignments internally before pursuing outside vendors
Key questions:
§ What fields are missing from the forms? What additional data should be gathered about a project? Is an hourly or monetary estimate important?
§ Who can post, who can respond, and who can view? Define level of authentication - public, UCLA IP only, or specific payroll titles (Deans & Directors list etc.)
§ Should the application track who has responded to posts or should it pass them directly through to the contact person who posted the project?
§ Should the application track specifically who has visited the site (or is info available from a Webtrends report sufficient)?
Description of Project:
The Office of Information Technology is seeking a programmer analyst to develop a web application. The application will create a virtual campus market place to match a programming request with an available on-campus IT programmer. The application will allow the campus community to post programming projects for which there is no in-house capability. Equally it will allow managers with extra programming capacity to respond to requests.
The basic functions of the system will:
* authenticate campus member to post scope of work, project timeline, work estimate and contact information
* authenticate authorized persons to view and respond to the scope of work with contact information
* allow the system administrator to be notified of project entries and responses, browse and sort entries, and receive various usage reports