1 / 10

E-Mail/Calendaring Evaluation and Recommendation

E-Mail/Calendaring Evaluation and Recommendation. E-Mail/calendaring Steering Group February 2014. Steering Group Composition. Kim Maier Julie Matuszak Matt Roberts (Chair) Liz Schaal Joe Sigwarth Tonya Stappert Sally Swindall Joanne Wilson. Steering Group Objectives.

xander-riddle
Download Presentation

E-Mail/Calendaring Evaluation and Recommendation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. E-Mail/Calendaring Evaluation and Recommendation E-Mail/calendaring Steering Group February 2014

  2. Steering Group Composition • Kim Maier • Julie Matuszak • Matt Roberts (Chair) • Liz Schaal • Joe Sigwarth • Tonya Stappert • Sally Swindall • Joanne Wilson

  3. Steering Group Objectives • A review of the current market and the contracts already negotiated and available to the University for e-mail and calendaring. • Determination of important criteria and requirements based on campus feedback. • The development of scoring criteria based on University needs for e-mail and calendaring and a fit/gap analysis of e-mail and calendaring solutions available. • The gathering of campus feedback on final potential solutions through surveys, listening sessions and vendor demonstrations. • A recommended solution to the TOPC Committee* by February 2014. * Now IT Prioritization Committee

  4. Technical Group • Valerie Cowling • Dale Johnson • Nate Manwiller • Josh Savoy

  5. Vendors Considered • Google Apps for Education • Microsoft Office 365 • Zimbra on-premises – Status Quo • Zimbra hosted off-site (e.g., Merit.edu) Student e-mail providers (Source: EDUCAUSE 2011 CoreData Services Report)

  6. Process • Campus survey • Campus visits by vendors • Criteria matrices • Focus groups

  7. Recommendation • Zimbra hosted off-site – Our recommendation as the best solution for the campus • Microsoft 365 – Our recommendation if cost is an overriding factor

  8. Zimbra Overview • Strengths • The campus is familiar with it and satisfied (7)(survey & focus groups) • Merit.edu offers unlimited storage (2) • More control – we own the data (2) • Easier transition • Weaknesses • Higher cost (5) • Mobile devices (3) • Company viability (2) • Alumni accounts (2)

  9. Microsoft 365 Overview • Strengths • Cost (2) • Mobile devices (2) • Office 365 and Sharepoint • Most UW Schools are using it • Students get 5 free licenses to Office • Alumni accounts • Desktop integration with Windows • Dominant corporate e-mail provider (for now) • Weaknesses • Limited calendar functionality in the web version (4) • Some data will not transfer/difficult transition (4) • Loss of control/longer to get support (2) • Advanced features only available in outlook client • Upgrade schedules

  10. Other Considerations • Training/Education • Zimbra Features • Using off-campus features (e.g., Google Drive) • Records retention • Storage (J: Drive, S: Drive, etc.) • Zimbra Briefcase • Microsoft SkyDrive • Our current e-mail infrastructure will need to be upgraded by Jan 2015 • Decision will affect costs and integration with other campus systems (e.g., storage, staff time, etc.)

More Related