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.

1. How Five Colleges (and a System Office) Arrived at a Decision to Go to Hosting/Cloud Computing April 11, 2:15 – 3:00p Tim Carroll Roane State Community College Rick Cumby Cleveland State Community College Dana Nails Jackson state Community College Emily Siciensky Columbia State Community College Eddie Stone Motlow State Community College Thomas Danford Tennessee Board of Regents

3. Overview – Timeline, Including RFI Process

4. Pros/Cons

5. Costing

6. Tangibles/Intangibles

7. Lessons Learned

8. Q&A2

9. Emily Siciensky, Associate Vice President for Information TechnologyColumbia State Community College Overview – Timeline, Including RFI Process 3

10. Why did we want the “journey” ? 4 H O S T I N G Virtual Resources Servers High Speed ? Disk Space Disaster Recovery Backup Banner Linux RFI/RFP

11. Historical Perspective – Timelines and RFI 5 Jan 2005 Banner Implementations start Regional /centralized hardware discussions occur Connectivity costs were considered prohibitive Feb 2009 Discussions on hosting begin again because of hardware retirements September 2009 Call for an exploratory committee made up of several community colleges and universities; Motlow and University of Memphis share information on services outline they developed October 2009 Some potential hosting partners are identified

12. Timelines and RFI 6 October – November 2009 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

13. The Banner Hosting RFI Group 7 Hosting RFI Development Group: Ken Horner, VP for Finance and Administrative Services (COSCC) Emily Siciensky, Associate VP for Information Technology (COSCC) Dana Nails, Director of Information Technology (JSCC) Hilda Tunstill, Vice President for Business Affairs (MSCC) Dr. Eddie Stone, VP for Information Technology (MSCC) Danny Gibbs, VP for Finance and Administrative Services (RSCC) Tim Carroll, Assistant VP for Information Technology (RSCC) Rick Cumby, Director of IT (CLSCC) Assist – Vice Chancellor Sims & CIO Danford

14. RFI and Responders 8 January 2010 Final draft of hosting RFI is completed March 2010 Responses are received, 11 vendors responding CedarCrestone CIBER Connectria Dell/Perot Systems Northwest Regional Data Center – Florida State OIR – State of Tennessee Oracle Secure-24 Sungard Systems Alliance University of Memphis

15. Eddie Stone, Vice President for Information TechnologyMotlow State Community CollegeRick Cumby, Director of Information TechnologyCleveland State Community College Pros/Cons 9

17. Normalization of budget costs for Banner hardware - reoccurring cost vs. large purchase approximately every 5 years

18. No longer directly responsible for Banner physical hardware procurement nor maintenance contracts10

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. Leverage OIR Enterprise services including storage, virtual servers, redundant network, and 7/24/365 support and scheduled maintenance

22. On site (OIR) 24/7/365 proactive monitoring of servers and network11

24. Host (OIR) provided hardware refresh support to maintain current computing technology and up-to-date hardware

25. Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) configuration allows expansion of capacity and replacement of old hardware with little impact to Banner

26. Successfully transition from existing near end-of-life, out-dated platform to new virtual server technology12

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. In sum, hosting offers benefits

30. budgetary

31. disaster recovery / business continuity

32. high availability

33. opportunity to repurpose IT staff time13

34. Cons The situation is new and unknown Staff concerns about exactly how this will work Initial staff concerns that this may result in elimination of positions There will be a learning curve in many areas Although not directly related to hosting, LINUX will be new to many ORACLE RAC software will be new and require a learning curve 14

35. Cons (continued) Necessity to follow OIR maintenance window rather than our own Will be dependent on OIR to schedule special request like backups, restores, upgrades, etc. More dependence on NetTN Perceived loss of control of Banner/data In general, several unknowns about how everything will actually work together 15

36. Tim Carroll, Assistant Vice President for Information TechnologyRoane State Community College Costing 16

38. Establish Baseline

39. Cost Benefit Analysis

40. Results17

41. Why the analysis? To answer the following questions: What was our current operational andadministrative cost Would the move from an on site model to a hosted model be cost effective (affordable) Would the cost of tangible and intangible benefits worth the incremental costs (if incurred) 18

42. Establish Baseline Costs - Hardware 19 Sun Replacement Cost for all five Community Colleges is$1.49 million

43. Establish Baseline – Administrative Costs 20

44. Cost Benefit Model 21

45. Cost Benefit Continued 22

46. Results Cost Effective… initially break-even… should drop when others join Gains (Tangible and Intangible) added value that could not be duplicated on campus Will add two more institutions under current hardware configuration at OIR which will further reduce costs Sparked interest from other Community Colleges who may join later Will explore more advanced technology as it comes on line to further reduce costs in the future 23

47. Thomas Danford, Chief Information OfficerTennessee Board of Regents Tangibles/Intangibles 24

49. Tangible Benefits 26

50. Intangible Benefits Consternation Superiors Internal clients External factors (audit, press, etc.) Opportunity Lost “Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least” – Goethe 27

52. Market Value – Estimated (highest) price that a product or service will sell for in a competitive market

53. Value Added – Bundling or packaging features and benefits that leads to greater customer acceptance in order to create a competitive advantage

54. Perceived Value – Customer's opinion of a product's value to him or her“Collaborative hosting narrows the margin in both the market value, and the value being perceived” 28

55. Tangible & Intangible Value Proposition 29

56. Dana Nails, Director Information TechnologyJackson state Community College Lessons Learned 30

58. Project lead was from a campus not TBR Office