E-Mail/Calendaring Evaluation and Recommendation

E -MA IL /CALENDAR ING STEER ING GROUP

FEBRUARY 2014

Steering Group Composition

Kim MaierJulie MatuszakMatt Roberts (Chair)Liz SchaalJoe SigwarthTonya StappertSally SwindallJoanne Wilson

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

Technical Group

Valerie CowlingDale JohnsonNate ManwillerJosh Savoy

Vendors Considered

Google Apps for EducationMicrosoft Office 365Zimbra on-premises – Status QuoZimbra hosted off-site (e.g., Merit.edu)

Google, 58%

Microsoft, 38%

Other, 4%

Student e-mail providers

(Source: EDUCAUSE 2011 CoreData Services Report)

Process

1. Campus survey2. Campus visits by vendors3. Criteria matrices4. Focus groups

Recommendation

1. Zimbra hosted off-site – Our recommendation as the best solution for the campus

2. Microsoft 365 – Our recommendation if cost is an overriding factor

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)

Microsoft 365 OverviewStrengths

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

Other ConsiderationsTraining/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.)