Description
DoIT's Services, Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for SF State Email System, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Payback Period, Net Present Value, Cost Management and Budgeting, Project Scheduling, Critical Path, Resource Management, Risk Management, Financial risk, Execution risk, Safety risk
DS 856
Analysis of Outsourcing Options for SFSU Email
Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 DoIT's mission ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Services ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Problem Definition ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Scope Management ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Scope Statement ................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for SF State Email System.............................................................. 6 Responsibility Matrix ............................................................................................................................ 7 Project Selection ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Checklist Model..................................................................................................................................... 9 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): .................................................................................................... 10 Payback Period .................................................................................................................................... 11 Net Present Value ............................................................................................................................... 12 Cost Management and Budgeting .............................................................................................................. 13 Project Scheduling ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Critical Path ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Resource Management ............................................................................................................................... 15 Risk Management ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Financial risk........................................................................................................................................ 15 Execution risk ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Safety risk ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
1
Executive Summary
This project addresses a detailed and selected key execution plan to help San Francisco State University’s (SFSU) Division of Information Technology (DoIT) choose an email system for San Francisco State University on the basis of reliability and availability. DoIT through a culture of efficiency, continuous improvement and reliability, strives to provide technology leadership and deliver campus-wide, customer-focused information technology services and solutions to support the mission, effective operation and academic excellence of the University1 Since SFSU has been facing problems with the reliability and supportability of its current email system, the aim of this project is not only to help DoIT choose the best outsourcing option that helps solve its email system, but also to provide time estimates, effort estimates, and cost budgets needed to implement the selected choice. Firstly, we started by narrowing down the scope of the project by stating the deliverables and milestones to be produced throughout the project plan. Then, our team, created a Work Breakdown Structure to give direction to our project. Secondly, to find the best email solution, we applied various project management techniques, such as the Checklist Model, NPV, Payback Period, and Analytical Hierarchy Model (AHP). After considering the results of various project selection tools, we determined that Zimbra is the best option for DoIT. Thirdly, to ensure a successful implementation of Zimbra, we created a project schedule and resource management. Furthermore, we also anticipated the potential risks related to the overall project execution. We came up with a detailed response plan to these issues.
1
Retrieved from http://www.sfsu.edu/~doit/whatwedo.htm
2
Introduction
DoIT provides services to the University community to support the mission, effective operation and academic excellence of the University.2
DoIT's mission
Through a culture of efficiency, continuous improvement, and reliability, the Division of Information Technology strives to provide technology leadership and deliver campus-wide, customer-focused information technology services and solutions to support the mission, effective operation and academic excellence of the University.3
Services
The DoIT department offers various services to achieve the mission of San Francisco State University. The services offered are as follows: 4 1. Self-service applications: These services provide the students, faculty and staff members of the university a community access to manage their personal information. The self-service applications are provided through role-based single sign-on services which provide anytime anyplace access. 2. Communication and collaboration: These services help in developing, deploying and promoting tools to support communication, collaboration, information sharing, and project management. 3. Support: The support services provide customer-oriented support to members of the university’s community to make use of technology on and off-campus. 4. Enterprise systems: These services develop, support, manage and protect enterprise information assets and systems to meet campus enterprise data needs and advance informed decision-making for the University. The organization has various functional units (See Appendix-1 Organization Chart) and works in different teams to provide the above services.
2 3
Retrieved from http://www.sfsu.edu/~doit/about/supportinguniv.html Retrieved from http://www.sfsu.edu/~doit/about/supportinguniv.html 4 Retrieved from http://www.sfsu.edu/~doit/about/supportinguniv.html
3
Problem Definition
In 2007, San Francisco State University was experiencing significant issues with the availability and reliability of its email system, Sendmail. The Division of IT (DoIT) announced early in 2007 that it would be implementing a new email and collaboration solution, Lotus Domino, as the long-term solution to address SF State email problems. Lotus Domino had been selected for a large set of enterprise IT solutions that included portal, identity management, collaboration, and email. In April of 2007, the issues with Sendmail increased, causing DoIT to implement a short-term solution and to escalate the implementation of Lotus Domino to a high priority. Significant email outages and data loss continued both with the short-term solution and after the implementation of Lotus Domino in late 2007. In fact, as more users migrated to the Lotus Domino solution, the frequency and severity of email problems grew. The SF State community reported poor performance, client time outs, corrupt email, and the loss of email. Since the implementation of Lotus Domino, the DoIT technical staff has worked closely with IBM Lotus consultants to resolve these issues. In fact, IBM consultants led the design and implementation of Lotus Domino. Despite continued attempts to debug issues, apply hot-fixes, and re-architect parts of the email environment, DoIT and IBM have been only marginally successful in improving campus email and attaining a stable and reliable Domino infrastructure. Thus, the problem is the existing e-mail system of the university which has not been performing efficiently. The DoIT department needs to find the right solution among the various outsourcing options that are being presented to them. We offer our consulting expertise by applying the various project management techniques and methods learned in the class.
4
Scope Management
Scope management is the function of controlling a project in terms of its goals and objectives through the processes of conceptual development, full definition, execution and termination5. We created a project scope for SFSU’s DoIT department so that they could be clear of what the deliverables and milestones are and can then plan accordingly. It helps DoIT to look at all the needed tasks at a glance and also helps in estimation of costs, budget and resources.
Scope Statement
To create time estimates, effort estimation and cost budgeting for SFSU’s DoIT department so that they can choose the best outsourcing option that can fix the current e-mail issues and then carry forward to implement the selected choice.
Project Scope
Deliverables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Business plan Project financial & technical feasibility analysis Project selection Construction execution Technical Analysis Plan Promotion plan Project scheduling Risk assessment and response plan Contracts with service providers
Milestones 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Email Services provider selection Email Solution/Platform Selection Application of IT Governance Implementation and Migration Hiring staff Going live
Technical Requirements 1. System Administration knowledge
5
Pinto, J. (2007). Project management- achieving competitive advantage.
5
2. E-mail service configuration handling knowledge 3. E-mail support 4. Programming knowledge Limits and exclusions 1. Business license 2. Budget Reviews with Customer (investors and other shareholders) 1. Students 2. Faculty
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for SF State Email System
The work breakdown structure we created for DoIT consists of three major events: email services provider selection, application of IT governance structure, and finally implementation and migration to the new system. The first step towards moving to a new email platform is to select and to evaluate various vendors’ offerings. We considered several available competitive offerings in the market and concluded that the two most highly attractive offerings are Microsoft Exchange and Zimbra. DoIT has an option of choosing between these two options by applying various project management tools. The next step in the selection process is to review the current IT governance structure of implementing new systems. This is a stage where executives should take a leadership role to establish solid governance rules for implementing the new system. Following the selection phase is the application of IT governance to the new email service platform. The purpose of establishing IT governance is to assign responsibility to individuals and hold them accountable for their decisions. Hence, application of IT governance ensures a successful implementation and migration to the new system. IT governance is applied to email solutions, email policies and standards, and email communication strategy. After the email platform is selected and IT governance is established, migration to the new system can be initiated. This is the most complex stage of implementing the new email system platform. It is also the longest stage in implementing the project because it is critical to the success of the project. Following is the detailed WBS we created for DoIT:
6
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 1.0 New Email Platform 1.1 Email Services provider selection 1.1.1 Executive and stakeholder review of vendors offering 1.1.2 Review and modify the current IT Governance structure to Email Strategic Planning 1.2 Application of IT Governance structure to: 1.2.1 Email Solution/Platform Selection 1.2.2 Email Policies and Standards 1.2.3 Email Communications Strategy 1.2.3.1 Clearly defined Service Level Agreement 1.2.3.2 Reported performance metrics 1.2.3.3 Timely and useful communications regarding system status and service disruptions 1.2.3.4 A central online location for email support information 1.3 Implementation and Migration 1.3.1 Requirements Gathering and Planning 1.3.2 Design 1.3.3 Hardware Acquisition 1.3.4 Build and Configure Email Architecture 1.3.5 Migration Testing 1.3.5.1 Legacy (Sendmail) 1.3.5.2 Domino POP, IMAP, and Notes users 1.3.5.3 Integration with Identity and provisioning tools 1.3.5.4 Migration of departmental Exchange calendaring data 1.3.6 Pilot Migration 1.3.7 Migration
Responsibility Matrix
Next, we created a Responsibility Assignment Matrix (Table 1) to identify the team members who will be responsible for the various tasks in the project’s development. Based on our workbreakdown structure, we assigned tasks to members depending on their expertise and knowledge. Furthermore, we also considered hiring consultants to take charge in areas that need special professional knowledge. Following is the RAM we developed for DoIT:
7
Table 1 Task Resource Responsible Executive and stakeholder review of Project Manager vendors offering Review and modify the current IT Project Manager Governance structure to Email Strategic Planning Email Solution/Platform Selection Email Communications Strategy Clearly defined Service Level Agreement Reported performance metrics Messaging Resource 1, System Administrator-1 Messaging Resource 2 Project Manager, System Administrator-2 Support-1
Timely and useful communications Tester-1, Support-2 regarding system status and service disruptions A central online location for email support Support-1, Support-2 information Requirements Gathering and Planning System Administrator-1 , System Administrator-2 Design Build and Configure Email Architecture Migration Testing Pilot Migration Migration System Administrator-1 , System Administrator-2 Messaging Resource-2, System Administrator-1, System Administrator-2 Tester-1, Tester -2 Messaging Resource-1, Messaging Resource-2, System Administrator-1, System Administrator-2 Messaging Resource-1, Messaging Resource-2, System Administrator-1, System Administrator-2
8
Project Selection
In order to get the best outcome to facilitate our choice among the three email systems, we applied the Checklist Model, Analytical Hierarchy Model (AHP), Payback Period and NPV. By using these techniques, we helped DoIT choose the most suitable email system that provides reliability and availability.
Checklist Model
We used six vital criteria for the checklist model to evaluate the performance of different projects. The criteria used are Reliability, Simplicity, Flexibility, Accessibility, Supportability, and Virus/spam Filtering. We evaluated each email system option by rating it high, medium, or low according to its performance under the given criterion6. The option that got the most positive checks was considered the best choice (Table 2). The results of the checklist model are explained below: Reliability Reliability refers to the likelihood of each solution to meet the technical requirements (scale, protocols, mailbox sizes, etc.) reliably. Both Exchange and Zimbra (High Performance) outscore Domino (Medium Performance) in this category. Simplicity Simplicity indicates that the web platform should be user-friendly and not overly complex due to unnecessary functionality. We rated Domino ‘Low Performance’ because users don’t like its Notes or DWA client interfaces. Exchange and Zimbra have a Medium score because users are happier with their client interfaces. Flexibility Flexibility is about how a user accesses the email service from multiple platforms. Besides Windows system, students are using Mac OS, Linux or other systems. Zimbra outperforms both of the other vendors with regards to supporting multiple client OS platforms. Hence, we rated Zimbra High Performance, Microsoft Medium because it has the most user population; Domino is Low due to it is relatively less popular. Accessibility
6
As per interview with DoIT’s Project Management Specialist, Kshitij Kabra
9
It is important that the selected email platform be Americans with Disabilities Act. Section 508 (ADA) 7 compliant. Scoring has been based upon vendor’s reported support for ADA/508 requirements. All three vendors score Medium Performance on this criterion because each supports ADA. Supportability It is critical that the SF State email solution be easily supportable by the administrator in the case that an issue arises. We rated Microsoft Exchange highest in this category, because of the large and relatively affordable labor pool of Microsoft administrators. Zimbra and Domino have a Medium score due to their relatively lower supportability. Virus/spam filtering This is the ability of the three services to filter viruses and spam. While the email solution will not be the primary filtering solution, vendor products that integrate with existing SF State filtering solutions or provide additional filtering services achieve higher score. We rated both Microsoft and Zimbra High Performance because they provide their own filtering solution and provide a second level of filtering. Domino is rated Medium due to its lower level of filtering solution. Table 2 Project Exchange Zimbra Domino
Reliability H H M
Simplicity Flexibility Accessibility M M L M H L M M M
Supporta bility H M M
Virus/spam Filtering H H M
H High Performance M Medium Performance L Low Performance
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP):
After conducting the scoring model, our team was skeptical if the scale used was accurate, so we performed the Analytical Hierarchy Analysis to better rank our alternatives (See Appendix 2
7
ADA requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. (S Walker, 2011) Retrieved from: http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Community/Blogs/tabid/825/EntryId/86/ADA-508.aspx
10
Calculations for AHP). The three important criteria for evaluating the project alternatives used were: (1) Reliability, (2) Supportability, and (3) Flexibility. After conducting research on the three product options, we determined the following verbal statement of preference: Reliability is moderately to strongly preferred to flexibility; Reliability is moderately preferred to supportability; Supportability is equally to moderately preferred to Flexibility. The pairwise comparison of criteria shows that reliability is the most important criteria for deciding the optimal email system (Table 3). Supportability takes the second place and flexibility is the least important criteria. According to the final result of the AHP, Zimbra, which scored 0.5532, is more than two times better than Exchange which scored 0.2874. Domino is the least favorable of the three with a score of 0.1595. Therefore, Zimbra is the best alternative (Table 4). Table 3 Criteria Weights Criteria Score Average Reliability 0.624 Flexibility 0.137 Supportability 0.239
Table 4 Average Weights Zimbra 0.7071 Zimbra 0.2014 Exchange 0.0915 Domino
Exchange 0.6080 0.1199 0.2721
Domino 0.1199 0.6080 0.2721
Score 0.5532 0.2874 0.1595
Payback Period
According to the payback period, we are able to measure the amount of time the cash flow of each email solution takes to return the initial investment. (Pinto, 2007) We made assumptions for the initial investment by taking all the start-up costs8 (e.g. support costs, hardware costs and software costs) into consideration. Based on our calculation, we found that Zimbra has the shortest payback period of 5 years while Domino and Exchange have a 7 and 8 years payback period respectively. Thus, Zimbra is more favorable compared to Domino and Exchange (See Appendix-3 Payback period calculation).
8
As per interview with DoIT’s Project Management Specialist, Kshitij Kabra
11
Net Present Value
We used net present value (NPV) to measure the feasibility of solution. We forecast the cash flows for coming 10 years based on the cost and revenues estimation for each option. Then, we discounted the cash inflow and outflow for a 10 year period. After summing up all the cash flows, the net present values for Zimbra was positive and for Domino and exchange was negative meaning only investing in Zimbra would bring value. From our calculation, Zimbra has the highest net present value of $198,463 while Domino and exchange have second and third highest respectively. Thus, we are able to conclude that Zimbra is more preferred (See Appendix-4 NPV calculation).
12
Cost Management and Budgeting
In order to create a reasonable budget baseline for implementing the new email service platform, we are providing a rough cost estimate of the acquisition, support, and administration cost of implementing Zimbra. We used a top-down budgeting strategy to estimate cost on a high level perspective. Specifically, we used the ratio (or parametric) method to come up with a close estimate of the cost. We are estimating the cost of implementing Zimbra email platform by multiplying the average cost per user by the number of SFSU email service users. According to Zimbra vendor, the estimated average total cost per user is 43 per year over five years. The expected SFSU email service users are 32,100 per year. Therefore, the expected total cost of implementing Zimbra over five years is 6,901,500 including acquisition, support, and administration cost.9
Project Scheduling
To ensure that the project will be completed on time, we have developed a timeline for implementing the new email system based on our WBS. To find out the total duration of the project, we assigned predecessors for activities. We used the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) scheduling method to incorporate uncertainty in our time scheduling (See Appendix-5: Program Evaluation & Review Technique (PERT)). Following is the project scheduling: Project Scheduling for SF State Email system: Task 1 New Email Platform 1.1 Email Services provider selection 1.1.1 Executives and stakeholders review of vendors offering (A) 1.1.2 Review and modify the current IT Governance structure to Email Strategic Planning (B) 1.2 Application of IT Governance structure to: 1.2.1 Email Solution/Platform Selection (C) 1.2.2 Email Policies and Standards (D) 1.2.3 Email Communications Strategy 1.2.3.1 Clearly defined Service Level Agreement (E)
9
Duration(weeks) Predecessors 45 weeks 4 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks
15 weeks 3 weeks 6 weeks 8 weeks 2 weeks
A,B C C
Kadakia, V. (2011). ZimbraTM Collaboration Suite &Microsoft Exchange 2007: cost-Benefit Session. Retrieved May 2 nd, 2011
13
1.2.3.2 1.2.3.3
1.2.3.4
1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.3.5.1 1.3.5.2 1.3.5.3 1.3.5.4 1.3.6 1.3.7
Critical Path
Reported performance 3 weeks metrics (F) Timely and useful 2 weeks communications regarding system status and service disruptions (G) A central online location for 3 weeks email support information (H) Implementation and Migration 30 weeks Requirements Gathering and 3 weeks Planning (I) Design (J) 3 weeks Hardware Acquisition (K) 4 weeks Build and Configure Email 5 weeks Architecture (L) Migration Testing 6 weeks Legacy (Sendmail) (M) 2 weeks Domino POP, IMAP, and 3 weeks Notes users (N) Integration with Identity and 3 weeks provisioning tools (O) Migration of departmental 3 weeks Exchange calendaring data (P) Pilot Migration (Q) 3 weeks Migration (R) 6 weeks
C F
E,F,G
H I J K
K,L K,L K,L O M,N,O,P Q
The critical path of the project is: B-C-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-O-P-Q-R. By summing up the duration of all the activities on the critical path, we determined that the project will be completed in 45 weeks. We assumed that our project will begin on Monday May 23th 2011 and finish on Friday March 30th, 2011. (See Appendix 6: Critical path)
14
Resource Management
Since the number of people working for DoIT is limited, this project is a resource-constraint project. Therefore, even though the date of completion is important, the ultimate goal is to minimize resource usage. For the purposes of this project the primary resource is labor; therefore, it important that this resource is not over used. We started off by allocating labor resources to the tasks on our project schedule (See Appendix 7 Resource Allocation). When this was done, we noticed that there was a huge labor overloading for certain members according to the resource sheet of MS Project (See Appendix 8 Resource Over-allocation). Given the nature of our project, this was a critical issue and in order to deal with this problem, we used resources leveling method of MS Project. While leveling technique fixed the problem of over allocation of resources, there will be a delay in the project. The duration of the project went up from 45 weeks to 54 weeks. The new project completion date is anticipated to be June 1, 2012 (See Appendix 9 After resource leveling). The critical path also gets affected by the leveling and the new critical path now is A-C-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-O-P-Q-R.
Risk Management
We then identified some critical potential risk factors that could pose problems in the execution of the project. In addition, we came up with ways to respond to such risks. The potential risks can be categorized into financial, execution, and safety risks.
Financial risk
In this case, financial risks can be the discontinued funding by sponsors, increasing cost of professional technicians and exceeding the estimated total budget. In order to minimize these risks, we will set up a reserve fund (e.g. 5% of the expected overall budget) to solve budget shortage problem. Furthermore, to deal with the hiking labor costs, we recommend that contracts with technicians be formed.
Execution risk
In this project, we are highly relying on the sufficiency of staff resources to complete the task. If any of the required technical staff resigns, the project can be delayed because it is difficult to find substitute technicians immediately. Also, the continued support of DoIT’s senior management is essential for executing the project. If the executives are not able to reach a consensus due to different preferences, the project will be delayed or derailed. The possible solutions for the problems are signing long-term contracts with technicians, appointing back-up technical specialists to assure staff resources, and assigning an external mediation to solve the conflicts among the management.
15
Safety risk
Since it carries large amounts of student data, the DoIT department must be careful with the internet safety when switching the email platform. The project should consider the chance of being attacked by scams and hackers. If this happens, students’ email/identity could be stolen, or the system could be damaged by virus. To handle these risks, the department should invest and install powerful firewall and virus scan software. Meanwhile, it is necessary to assign a safety group to monitor the security of the email system. Table 5 ? Risk Management Plan: Likelihood Consequences Risk Mitigation Low to Insufficient capital for the Set up a reserve fund — 5% Medium project of the estimated overall budget Medium Operating costs going up Enter into long contracts with them term
Risk Factors Discontinued funding by sponsors Increasing technician labor cost
Insufficient staff Medium resources e.g. technical staff resigned Conflicts among Medium DoIT’s management
Project can be delayed or Sign long term contracts and even cancelled identify back-up technical specialist Top management cannot Assign reach consensus and the mediation project is terminated problem an to external solve the
The email system is Medium to Students’ email and Purchase and install attacked High identity are stolen and the powerful firewall and virus system is damaged by scan software; assign a virus safety group for monitoring
16
Table 6 Risk Assessment Matrix : 5 The email system is attacked
4 Increasing technician labor cost Likelihood Insufficient of Conflicts staff resources among DoIT’s e.g. technical management staff resigned Discontinued funding by sponsors
3
2
1
1
2
3 Impact
4
5
Likelihood scale: Probability Score <15% 1 15%-35% 2 35%-65% 3 65%-85% 4 >85% 5
Impact scale: Level Very Low Score 1 Low 2 Medium High Very High 3 4 5
17
Conclusion
Thus, in this report we applied various project management techniques, such as the Checklist Model, NPV, Payback Period, and Analytical Hierarchy Model (AHP). After considering the results of various project selection tools, we conclude that Zimbra is the best option for DoIT to implement as the e-mail system for San Francisco State University. We also propose a project schedule and resource management plan for the DoIT department so that they can successfully carry out the implementation of Zimbra. Also considered were the potential risks related to the overall project execution for which a detailed response plan was created to address the issues.
18
Appendix
Appendix 1: Organization Chart
19
Appendix 5 : Program Evaluation & Review Technique (PERT) PERT Incorporating Uncertainty Task A M B TE 1 2 4 2.166667 A 2 3 7 3.5 B 2 3 6 3.333333 C 4 5 10 5.666667 D 1 2 5 2.333333 E 1 2 7 2.666667 F 1 2 5 2.333333 G 1 2 6 2.5 H 1 2 6 2.5 I 1 2 6 2.5 J 2 3 7 3.5 K 3 4 10 4.833333 L 1 2 4 2.166667 M 1 2 6 2.5 N 1 2 6 2.5 O 1 2 7 2.666667 P 1 2 6 2.5 Q 4 5 12 6 R
Var 0.25 0.694444 0.444444 1 0.444444 1 0.444444 0.694444 0.694444 0.694444 0.694444 1.361111 0.25 0.694444 0.694444 1 0.694444 1.777778
Duration 2 4 3 6 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 5 2 3 3 3 3 6
20
Appendix 6: Critical Path
21
Appendix 7: Resource Allocation
22
Appendix 8: Resource Over Allocation
Appendix 9: After Resource Leveling
23
doc_432004101.docx
DoIT's Services, Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for SF State Email System, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Payback Period, Net Present Value, Cost Management and Budgeting, Project Scheduling, Critical Path, Resource Management, Risk Management, Financial risk, Execution risk, Safety risk
DS 856
Analysis of Outsourcing Options for SFSU Email
Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 DoIT's mission ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Services ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Problem Definition ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Scope Management ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Scope Statement ................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for SF State Email System.............................................................. 6 Responsibility Matrix ............................................................................................................................ 7 Project Selection ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Checklist Model..................................................................................................................................... 9 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): .................................................................................................... 10 Payback Period .................................................................................................................................... 11 Net Present Value ............................................................................................................................... 12 Cost Management and Budgeting .............................................................................................................. 13 Project Scheduling ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Critical Path ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Resource Management ............................................................................................................................... 15 Risk Management ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Financial risk........................................................................................................................................ 15 Execution risk ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Safety risk ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
1
Executive Summary
This project addresses a detailed and selected key execution plan to help San Francisco State University’s (SFSU) Division of Information Technology (DoIT) choose an email system for San Francisco State University on the basis of reliability and availability. DoIT through a culture of efficiency, continuous improvement and reliability, strives to provide technology leadership and deliver campus-wide, customer-focused information technology services and solutions to support the mission, effective operation and academic excellence of the University1 Since SFSU has been facing problems with the reliability and supportability of its current email system, the aim of this project is not only to help DoIT choose the best outsourcing option that helps solve its email system, but also to provide time estimates, effort estimates, and cost budgets needed to implement the selected choice. Firstly, we started by narrowing down the scope of the project by stating the deliverables and milestones to be produced throughout the project plan. Then, our team, created a Work Breakdown Structure to give direction to our project. Secondly, to find the best email solution, we applied various project management techniques, such as the Checklist Model, NPV, Payback Period, and Analytical Hierarchy Model (AHP). After considering the results of various project selection tools, we determined that Zimbra is the best option for DoIT. Thirdly, to ensure a successful implementation of Zimbra, we created a project schedule and resource management. Furthermore, we also anticipated the potential risks related to the overall project execution. We came up with a detailed response plan to these issues.
1
Retrieved from http://www.sfsu.edu/~doit/whatwedo.htm
2
Introduction
DoIT provides services to the University community to support the mission, effective operation and academic excellence of the University.2
DoIT's mission
Through a culture of efficiency, continuous improvement, and reliability, the Division of Information Technology strives to provide technology leadership and deliver campus-wide, customer-focused information technology services and solutions to support the mission, effective operation and academic excellence of the University.3
Services
The DoIT department offers various services to achieve the mission of San Francisco State University. The services offered are as follows: 4 1. Self-service applications: These services provide the students, faculty and staff members of the university a community access to manage their personal information. The self-service applications are provided through role-based single sign-on services which provide anytime anyplace access. 2. Communication and collaboration: These services help in developing, deploying and promoting tools to support communication, collaboration, information sharing, and project management. 3. Support: The support services provide customer-oriented support to members of the university’s community to make use of technology on and off-campus. 4. Enterprise systems: These services develop, support, manage and protect enterprise information assets and systems to meet campus enterprise data needs and advance informed decision-making for the University. The organization has various functional units (See Appendix-1 Organization Chart) and works in different teams to provide the above services.
2 3
Retrieved from http://www.sfsu.edu/~doit/about/supportinguniv.html Retrieved from http://www.sfsu.edu/~doit/about/supportinguniv.html 4 Retrieved from http://www.sfsu.edu/~doit/about/supportinguniv.html
3
Problem Definition
In 2007, San Francisco State University was experiencing significant issues with the availability and reliability of its email system, Sendmail. The Division of IT (DoIT) announced early in 2007 that it would be implementing a new email and collaboration solution, Lotus Domino, as the long-term solution to address SF State email problems. Lotus Domino had been selected for a large set of enterprise IT solutions that included portal, identity management, collaboration, and email. In April of 2007, the issues with Sendmail increased, causing DoIT to implement a short-term solution and to escalate the implementation of Lotus Domino to a high priority. Significant email outages and data loss continued both with the short-term solution and after the implementation of Lotus Domino in late 2007. In fact, as more users migrated to the Lotus Domino solution, the frequency and severity of email problems grew. The SF State community reported poor performance, client time outs, corrupt email, and the loss of email. Since the implementation of Lotus Domino, the DoIT technical staff has worked closely with IBM Lotus consultants to resolve these issues. In fact, IBM consultants led the design and implementation of Lotus Domino. Despite continued attempts to debug issues, apply hot-fixes, and re-architect parts of the email environment, DoIT and IBM have been only marginally successful in improving campus email and attaining a stable and reliable Domino infrastructure. Thus, the problem is the existing e-mail system of the university which has not been performing efficiently. The DoIT department needs to find the right solution among the various outsourcing options that are being presented to them. We offer our consulting expertise by applying the various project management techniques and methods learned in the class.
4
Scope Management
Scope management is the function of controlling a project in terms of its goals and objectives through the processes of conceptual development, full definition, execution and termination5. We created a project scope for SFSU’s DoIT department so that they could be clear of what the deliverables and milestones are and can then plan accordingly. It helps DoIT to look at all the needed tasks at a glance and also helps in estimation of costs, budget and resources.
Scope Statement
To create time estimates, effort estimation and cost budgeting for SFSU’s DoIT department so that they can choose the best outsourcing option that can fix the current e-mail issues and then carry forward to implement the selected choice.
Project Scope
Deliverables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Business plan Project financial & technical feasibility analysis Project selection Construction execution Technical Analysis Plan Promotion plan Project scheduling Risk assessment and response plan Contracts with service providers
Milestones 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Email Services provider selection Email Solution/Platform Selection Application of IT Governance Implementation and Migration Hiring staff Going live
Technical Requirements 1. System Administration knowledge
5
Pinto, J. (2007). Project management- achieving competitive advantage.
5
2. E-mail service configuration handling knowledge 3. E-mail support 4. Programming knowledge Limits and exclusions 1. Business license 2. Budget Reviews with Customer (investors and other shareholders) 1. Students 2. Faculty
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for SF State Email System
The work breakdown structure we created for DoIT consists of three major events: email services provider selection, application of IT governance structure, and finally implementation and migration to the new system. The first step towards moving to a new email platform is to select and to evaluate various vendors’ offerings. We considered several available competitive offerings in the market and concluded that the two most highly attractive offerings are Microsoft Exchange and Zimbra. DoIT has an option of choosing between these two options by applying various project management tools. The next step in the selection process is to review the current IT governance structure of implementing new systems. This is a stage where executives should take a leadership role to establish solid governance rules for implementing the new system. Following the selection phase is the application of IT governance to the new email service platform. The purpose of establishing IT governance is to assign responsibility to individuals and hold them accountable for their decisions. Hence, application of IT governance ensures a successful implementation and migration to the new system. IT governance is applied to email solutions, email policies and standards, and email communication strategy. After the email platform is selected and IT governance is established, migration to the new system can be initiated. This is the most complex stage of implementing the new email system platform. It is also the longest stage in implementing the project because it is critical to the success of the project. Following is the detailed WBS we created for DoIT:
6
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 1.0 New Email Platform 1.1 Email Services provider selection 1.1.1 Executive and stakeholder review of vendors offering 1.1.2 Review and modify the current IT Governance structure to Email Strategic Planning 1.2 Application of IT Governance structure to: 1.2.1 Email Solution/Platform Selection 1.2.2 Email Policies and Standards 1.2.3 Email Communications Strategy 1.2.3.1 Clearly defined Service Level Agreement 1.2.3.2 Reported performance metrics 1.2.3.3 Timely and useful communications regarding system status and service disruptions 1.2.3.4 A central online location for email support information 1.3 Implementation and Migration 1.3.1 Requirements Gathering and Planning 1.3.2 Design 1.3.3 Hardware Acquisition 1.3.4 Build and Configure Email Architecture 1.3.5 Migration Testing 1.3.5.1 Legacy (Sendmail) 1.3.5.2 Domino POP, IMAP, and Notes users 1.3.5.3 Integration with Identity and provisioning tools 1.3.5.4 Migration of departmental Exchange calendaring data 1.3.6 Pilot Migration 1.3.7 Migration
Responsibility Matrix
Next, we created a Responsibility Assignment Matrix (Table 1) to identify the team members who will be responsible for the various tasks in the project’s development. Based on our workbreakdown structure, we assigned tasks to members depending on their expertise and knowledge. Furthermore, we also considered hiring consultants to take charge in areas that need special professional knowledge. Following is the RAM we developed for DoIT:
7
Table 1 Task Resource Responsible Executive and stakeholder review of Project Manager vendors offering Review and modify the current IT Project Manager Governance structure to Email Strategic Planning Email Solution/Platform Selection Email Communications Strategy Clearly defined Service Level Agreement Reported performance metrics Messaging Resource 1, System Administrator-1 Messaging Resource 2 Project Manager, System Administrator-2 Support-1
Timely and useful communications Tester-1, Support-2 regarding system status and service disruptions A central online location for email support Support-1, Support-2 information Requirements Gathering and Planning System Administrator-1 , System Administrator-2 Design Build and Configure Email Architecture Migration Testing Pilot Migration Migration System Administrator-1 , System Administrator-2 Messaging Resource-2, System Administrator-1, System Administrator-2 Tester-1, Tester -2 Messaging Resource-1, Messaging Resource-2, System Administrator-1, System Administrator-2 Messaging Resource-1, Messaging Resource-2, System Administrator-1, System Administrator-2
8
Project Selection
In order to get the best outcome to facilitate our choice among the three email systems, we applied the Checklist Model, Analytical Hierarchy Model (AHP), Payback Period and NPV. By using these techniques, we helped DoIT choose the most suitable email system that provides reliability and availability.
Checklist Model
We used six vital criteria for the checklist model to evaluate the performance of different projects. The criteria used are Reliability, Simplicity, Flexibility, Accessibility, Supportability, and Virus/spam Filtering. We evaluated each email system option by rating it high, medium, or low according to its performance under the given criterion6. The option that got the most positive checks was considered the best choice (Table 2). The results of the checklist model are explained below: Reliability Reliability refers to the likelihood of each solution to meet the technical requirements (scale, protocols, mailbox sizes, etc.) reliably. Both Exchange and Zimbra (High Performance) outscore Domino (Medium Performance) in this category. Simplicity Simplicity indicates that the web platform should be user-friendly and not overly complex due to unnecessary functionality. We rated Domino ‘Low Performance’ because users don’t like its Notes or DWA client interfaces. Exchange and Zimbra have a Medium score because users are happier with their client interfaces. Flexibility Flexibility is about how a user accesses the email service from multiple platforms. Besides Windows system, students are using Mac OS, Linux or other systems. Zimbra outperforms both of the other vendors with regards to supporting multiple client OS platforms. Hence, we rated Zimbra High Performance, Microsoft Medium because it has the most user population; Domino is Low due to it is relatively less popular. Accessibility
6
As per interview with DoIT’s Project Management Specialist, Kshitij Kabra
9
It is important that the selected email platform be Americans with Disabilities Act. Section 508 (ADA) 7 compliant. Scoring has been based upon vendor’s reported support for ADA/508 requirements. All three vendors score Medium Performance on this criterion because each supports ADA. Supportability It is critical that the SF State email solution be easily supportable by the administrator in the case that an issue arises. We rated Microsoft Exchange highest in this category, because of the large and relatively affordable labor pool of Microsoft administrators. Zimbra and Domino have a Medium score due to their relatively lower supportability. Virus/spam filtering This is the ability of the three services to filter viruses and spam. While the email solution will not be the primary filtering solution, vendor products that integrate with existing SF State filtering solutions or provide additional filtering services achieve higher score. We rated both Microsoft and Zimbra High Performance because they provide their own filtering solution and provide a second level of filtering. Domino is rated Medium due to its lower level of filtering solution. Table 2 Project Exchange Zimbra Domino
Reliability H H M
Simplicity Flexibility Accessibility M M L M H L M M M
Supporta bility H M M
Virus/spam Filtering H H M
H High Performance M Medium Performance L Low Performance
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP):
After conducting the scoring model, our team was skeptical if the scale used was accurate, so we performed the Analytical Hierarchy Analysis to better rank our alternatives (See Appendix 2
7
ADA requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. (S Walker, 2011) Retrieved from: http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Community/Blogs/tabid/825/EntryId/86/ADA-508.aspx
10
Calculations for AHP). The three important criteria for evaluating the project alternatives used were: (1) Reliability, (2) Supportability, and (3) Flexibility. After conducting research on the three product options, we determined the following verbal statement of preference: Reliability is moderately to strongly preferred to flexibility; Reliability is moderately preferred to supportability; Supportability is equally to moderately preferred to Flexibility. The pairwise comparison of criteria shows that reliability is the most important criteria for deciding the optimal email system (Table 3). Supportability takes the second place and flexibility is the least important criteria. According to the final result of the AHP, Zimbra, which scored 0.5532, is more than two times better than Exchange which scored 0.2874. Domino is the least favorable of the three with a score of 0.1595. Therefore, Zimbra is the best alternative (Table 4). Table 3 Criteria Weights Criteria Score Average Reliability 0.624 Flexibility 0.137 Supportability 0.239
Table 4 Average Weights Zimbra 0.7071 Zimbra 0.2014 Exchange 0.0915 Domino
Exchange 0.6080 0.1199 0.2721
Domino 0.1199 0.6080 0.2721
Score 0.5532 0.2874 0.1595
Payback Period
According to the payback period, we are able to measure the amount of time the cash flow of each email solution takes to return the initial investment. (Pinto, 2007) We made assumptions for the initial investment by taking all the start-up costs8 (e.g. support costs, hardware costs and software costs) into consideration. Based on our calculation, we found that Zimbra has the shortest payback period of 5 years while Domino and Exchange have a 7 and 8 years payback period respectively. Thus, Zimbra is more favorable compared to Domino and Exchange (See Appendix-3 Payback period calculation).
8
As per interview with DoIT’s Project Management Specialist, Kshitij Kabra
11
Net Present Value
We used net present value (NPV) to measure the feasibility of solution. We forecast the cash flows for coming 10 years based on the cost and revenues estimation for each option. Then, we discounted the cash inflow and outflow for a 10 year period. After summing up all the cash flows, the net present values for Zimbra was positive and for Domino and exchange was negative meaning only investing in Zimbra would bring value. From our calculation, Zimbra has the highest net present value of $198,463 while Domino and exchange have second and third highest respectively. Thus, we are able to conclude that Zimbra is more preferred (See Appendix-4 NPV calculation).
12
Cost Management and Budgeting
In order to create a reasonable budget baseline for implementing the new email service platform, we are providing a rough cost estimate of the acquisition, support, and administration cost of implementing Zimbra. We used a top-down budgeting strategy to estimate cost on a high level perspective. Specifically, we used the ratio (or parametric) method to come up with a close estimate of the cost. We are estimating the cost of implementing Zimbra email platform by multiplying the average cost per user by the number of SFSU email service users. According to Zimbra vendor, the estimated average total cost per user is 43 per year over five years. The expected SFSU email service users are 32,100 per year. Therefore, the expected total cost of implementing Zimbra over five years is 6,901,500 including acquisition, support, and administration cost.9
Project Scheduling
To ensure that the project will be completed on time, we have developed a timeline for implementing the new email system based on our WBS. To find out the total duration of the project, we assigned predecessors for activities. We used the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) scheduling method to incorporate uncertainty in our time scheduling (See Appendix-5: Program Evaluation & Review Technique (PERT)). Following is the project scheduling: Project Scheduling for SF State Email system: Task 1 New Email Platform 1.1 Email Services provider selection 1.1.1 Executives and stakeholders review of vendors offering (A) 1.1.2 Review and modify the current IT Governance structure to Email Strategic Planning (B) 1.2 Application of IT Governance structure to: 1.2.1 Email Solution/Platform Selection (C) 1.2.2 Email Policies and Standards (D) 1.2.3 Email Communications Strategy 1.2.3.1 Clearly defined Service Level Agreement (E)
9
Duration(weeks) Predecessors 45 weeks 4 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks
15 weeks 3 weeks 6 weeks 8 weeks 2 weeks
A,B C C
Kadakia, V. (2011). ZimbraTM Collaboration Suite &Microsoft Exchange 2007: cost-Benefit Session. Retrieved May 2 nd, 2011
13
1.2.3.2 1.2.3.3
1.2.3.4
1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.3.5.1 1.3.5.2 1.3.5.3 1.3.5.4 1.3.6 1.3.7
Critical Path
Reported performance 3 weeks metrics (F) Timely and useful 2 weeks communications regarding system status and service disruptions (G) A central online location for 3 weeks email support information (H) Implementation and Migration 30 weeks Requirements Gathering and 3 weeks Planning (I) Design (J) 3 weeks Hardware Acquisition (K) 4 weeks Build and Configure Email 5 weeks Architecture (L) Migration Testing 6 weeks Legacy (Sendmail) (M) 2 weeks Domino POP, IMAP, and 3 weeks Notes users (N) Integration with Identity and 3 weeks provisioning tools (O) Migration of departmental 3 weeks Exchange calendaring data (P) Pilot Migration (Q) 3 weeks Migration (R) 6 weeks
C F
E,F,G
H I J K
K,L K,L K,L O M,N,O,P Q
The critical path of the project is: B-C-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-O-P-Q-R. By summing up the duration of all the activities on the critical path, we determined that the project will be completed in 45 weeks. We assumed that our project will begin on Monday May 23th 2011 and finish on Friday March 30th, 2011. (See Appendix 6: Critical path)
14
Resource Management
Since the number of people working for DoIT is limited, this project is a resource-constraint project. Therefore, even though the date of completion is important, the ultimate goal is to minimize resource usage. For the purposes of this project the primary resource is labor; therefore, it important that this resource is not over used. We started off by allocating labor resources to the tasks on our project schedule (See Appendix 7 Resource Allocation). When this was done, we noticed that there was a huge labor overloading for certain members according to the resource sheet of MS Project (See Appendix 8 Resource Over-allocation). Given the nature of our project, this was a critical issue and in order to deal with this problem, we used resources leveling method of MS Project. While leveling technique fixed the problem of over allocation of resources, there will be a delay in the project. The duration of the project went up from 45 weeks to 54 weeks. The new project completion date is anticipated to be June 1, 2012 (See Appendix 9 After resource leveling). The critical path also gets affected by the leveling and the new critical path now is A-C-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-O-P-Q-R.
Risk Management
We then identified some critical potential risk factors that could pose problems in the execution of the project. In addition, we came up with ways to respond to such risks. The potential risks can be categorized into financial, execution, and safety risks.
Financial risk
In this case, financial risks can be the discontinued funding by sponsors, increasing cost of professional technicians and exceeding the estimated total budget. In order to minimize these risks, we will set up a reserve fund (e.g. 5% of the expected overall budget) to solve budget shortage problem. Furthermore, to deal with the hiking labor costs, we recommend that contracts with technicians be formed.
Execution risk
In this project, we are highly relying on the sufficiency of staff resources to complete the task. If any of the required technical staff resigns, the project can be delayed because it is difficult to find substitute technicians immediately. Also, the continued support of DoIT’s senior management is essential for executing the project. If the executives are not able to reach a consensus due to different preferences, the project will be delayed or derailed. The possible solutions for the problems are signing long-term contracts with technicians, appointing back-up technical specialists to assure staff resources, and assigning an external mediation to solve the conflicts among the management.
15
Safety risk
Since it carries large amounts of student data, the DoIT department must be careful with the internet safety when switching the email platform. The project should consider the chance of being attacked by scams and hackers. If this happens, students’ email/identity could be stolen, or the system could be damaged by virus. To handle these risks, the department should invest and install powerful firewall and virus scan software. Meanwhile, it is necessary to assign a safety group to monitor the security of the email system. Table 5 ? Risk Management Plan: Likelihood Consequences Risk Mitigation Low to Insufficient capital for the Set up a reserve fund — 5% Medium project of the estimated overall budget Medium Operating costs going up Enter into long contracts with them term
Risk Factors Discontinued funding by sponsors Increasing technician labor cost
Insufficient staff Medium resources e.g. technical staff resigned Conflicts among Medium DoIT’s management
Project can be delayed or Sign long term contracts and even cancelled identify back-up technical specialist Top management cannot Assign reach consensus and the mediation project is terminated problem an to external solve the
The email system is Medium to Students’ email and Purchase and install attacked High identity are stolen and the powerful firewall and virus system is damaged by scan software; assign a virus safety group for monitoring
16
Table 6 Risk Assessment Matrix : 5 The email system is attacked
4 Increasing technician labor cost Likelihood Insufficient of Conflicts staff resources among DoIT’s e.g. technical management staff resigned Discontinued funding by sponsors
3
2
1
1
2
3 Impact
4
5
Likelihood scale: Probability Score <15% 1 15%-35% 2 35%-65% 3 65%-85% 4 >85% 5
Impact scale: Level Very Low Score 1 Low 2 Medium High Very High 3 4 5
17
Conclusion
Thus, in this report we applied various project management techniques, such as the Checklist Model, NPV, Payback Period, and Analytical Hierarchy Model (AHP). After considering the results of various project selection tools, we conclude that Zimbra is the best option for DoIT to implement as the e-mail system for San Francisco State University. We also propose a project schedule and resource management plan for the DoIT department so that they can successfully carry out the implementation of Zimbra. Also considered were the potential risks related to the overall project execution for which a detailed response plan was created to address the issues.
18
Appendix
Appendix 1: Organization Chart
19
Appendix 5 : Program Evaluation & Review Technique (PERT) PERT Incorporating Uncertainty Task A M B TE 1 2 4 2.166667 A 2 3 7 3.5 B 2 3 6 3.333333 C 4 5 10 5.666667 D 1 2 5 2.333333 E 1 2 7 2.666667 F 1 2 5 2.333333 G 1 2 6 2.5 H 1 2 6 2.5 I 1 2 6 2.5 J 2 3 7 3.5 K 3 4 10 4.833333 L 1 2 4 2.166667 M 1 2 6 2.5 N 1 2 6 2.5 O 1 2 7 2.666667 P 1 2 6 2.5 Q 4 5 12 6 R
Var 0.25 0.694444 0.444444 1 0.444444 1 0.444444 0.694444 0.694444 0.694444 0.694444 1.361111 0.25 0.694444 0.694444 1 0.694444 1.777778
Duration 2 4 3 6 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 5 2 3 3 3 3 6
20
Appendix 6: Critical Path
21
Appendix 7: Resource Allocation
22
Appendix 8: Resource Over Allocation
Appendix 9: After Resource Leveling
23
doc_432004101.docx