Strategic IT Governance for Productivity Enhancement at Cal Poly Pomona

IT Governance Purpose: Information technology is a catalyst for productivity, creativity and community that enhances learning opportunities in an environment of unlimited demands and limited resources. Executive Committee Meeting Action Items Presentation May 29, 2015 Adopting a strategic approach to information technology planning, budgeting and implementation at Cal Poly Pomona.

Administrative Technology Working Group Presenters: Glendy Yeh & Kathleen Street

Administrative Technology Working Group IT Code Freeze Current IT and functional staff and resources are responsible for the: Development, maintenance, testing & integration of all PeopleSoft-related programs, functionalities, business processes, reports/dashboards and modifications Integration with third-party and other campus applications Development of other new IT initiatives that involve IT and functional resources needed for semester conversion

Administrative Technology Working Group IT Code Freeze Semester conversion will require a substantial commitment of these same staff and resources Work on the initiatives that are in progress will continue through completion A code freeze is needed to shift IT and functional staff and resources to the semester conversion implementation and will impact PeopleSoft modifications, custom enhancements, new initiatives (PeopleSoft and non- PeopleSoft) An exception request process will be in place

Administrative Technology Working Group IT Code Freeze August 1, 2015 Initiate code freeze (or 1 month following the appointment of the PeopleSoft consultant) June15, 2015 Initiate exception request process June 30, 2015 Finalize priorities and timelines for PeopleSoft/other milestones through Fall, 2018 April 30 ,2017 Determine if extension of freeze is needed July 31, 2017 End code freeze (unless extended)

Administrative Technology Working Group IT Code Freeze Semester Conversion Implementation cannot be completed successfully in the mandated timeframe unless it is given top priority over other IT projects Current IT and functional staffing levels and resources are limited and business cannot continue as usual New technologies and initiatives (PeopleSoft and Other) will be delayed or deferred until after the code freeze, postponing the realization of desired improvements or enhancements (unless exception is approved by IT Governance)

Emerging Technology Working Group Presenters: Gabriel Kuri & David Drivdahl

Emerging Technology Working Group Mass Email Guideline Recommendation Background/Findings Presently no guideline on what is considered mass email, and no defined approval process for using it. Delivery is problematic due to variety of cloud services Goal should be to improve delivery rates of mass mailing Excludes academic related communications References Public Affairs guideline for content

Emerging Technology Working Group Mass Email Guideline Recommendation Background/Findings Three types of mass email Email Mass Marketing (EMM) solutions Constant Contact Identity Management groups Manual and automatically populated it_staff, cis_faculty, itservicedesk Mailman lists Ad-hoc mail lists

Emerging Technology Working Group Mass Email Guideline Recommendation New Guideline Standardize on email mass marketing systems One approved system for sending to campus users One approved system for sending to external users Approval process for establishing mass mailing lists Requires VP approval for lists of 50 or more people College dean approval for lists where users contained within a single college or for student clubs Additionally requires CIO approval if users span divisions or contain off campus users Annual renewal process for lists

Emerging Technology Working Group Email Forwarding Recommendation - Background/Findings Students provided forwarding email address as applicants Not automatically changed to deliver to campus email system Presently there is a large number of users forwarding mail 70% of students Less than 10% of employees Previous email solutions were lacking Quotas for employees Authentication for students

Emerging Technology Working Group Email Forwarding Recommendation - Background/Findings Email is official communication for students No way to track delivery of disputed messages Emails are being sent from third party accounts Instructors and advisors may not be confident of who they are communicating with

Emerging Technology Working Group Email Forwarding Recommendation No longer support forwarding of email Office 365 deployment addresses email system concerns Large email quotas Uses campus credentials for logging in Many new integrated features (OneDrive, Skype for Business, etc) Email delivery can be validated and tracked Provide a higher degree of certainty for faculty and advisors of who they are communicating with

Emerging Technology Working Group Email Forwarding Recommendation Schedule & Milestones June 2015: Begin communications to users and no longer allow forwarding changes July 2015: Change forwarding for employees to Office 365 June 2016: Change forwarding for remaining users to Office 365

Emerging Technology Working Group Simplified Mail Flow Recommendation Background/Findings Mail systems have been changed and migrated over time Overall mail system has not been redesigned Prior versions of Exchange were lacking in features Complex mail flow that is difficult to track mail flow problems and validate delivery of messages Email is official mode of communication for students

Emerging Technology Working Group Simplified Mail Flow Recommendation Background/Findings Extended features are processed on campus Auto response, forwarding, group expansion, moderation, aliases Campus is a single point of failure for some mail Messages can take up to 16 steps to ultimately be delivered Office 365 is presently only used for mail storage

Emerging Technology Working Group Simplified Mail Flow Deliver to Internet (includes mailman.csupomona.edu/ mailman.cpp.edu) Deliver to Office 365 for @alumni.cpp.edu/ @alumni.csupomona.edu Office Office 365 365 MX: @livecsupomona.mail.onmicrosoft.com MX: @alumni.cpp.edu MX: @alumni.csupomona.edu Deliver to Office 365 for @cpp.edu (including deliver AND forward to *) Internet Internet Spam/Virus Scanning for @cpp.edu/ @csupomona.edu/ o365internal.cpp.edu Forwarding to o365internal.cpp.edu for anything other than Deliver ONLY McAfee SaaS McAfee SaaS MX: @cpp.edu MX: @csupomona.edu MX: @o365internal.cpp.edu Deliver to Office 365 for @livecsupomona.mail.on microsoft.com for Office 365 mailboxes Deliver to Internet Deliver to mailman server for mailman.cpp.edu/ mailman.csupomona.edu All @cpp.edu addresses not recognized in Office 365 forward to internal exchange servers (Exchange Hybrid) Deliver to internal SMTP server for @csupomona.edu/ @o365internal.cpp.edu Deliver to @cpp.edu/ @csupomona.edu Deliver to Internet Moderation & Mailman Server All @cpp.edu addresses not recognized in Office 365 forward on to internal SMTP servers ironport01-2.csupomona.edu Deliver to smtp.csupomona.edu smtp.cpp.edu (load balanced) adler.unx. tweak.unx. sparky.unx. exchange.cpp.edu (load balanced) itexch01.ad. itexch02.ad. C360 @mailman.cpp.edu/ @mailman.csupomona.edu and group moderation vanilla.unx.cpp.edu (mailman.cpp.edu) stuart.unx.csupomona.edu (mailman.csupomona.edu) ironport02-2.csupomona.edu C360 Anti-Virus (AMaViS) Group options * User options * Deliver to External Addresses (Spam Scanning) Deliver to all addresses Designated services/ devices All Authenticated Users CPP On CPP On- -Premises Mail Servers Premises Mail Servers

Emerging Technology Working Group Simplified Mail Flow Recommendation Simplify mail flow All mail functions will be processed by Office 365 Auto response, group expansion, moderation, aliases Some features will be different New moderation engine Auto response works different Simple mail flow Reduces the number of steps from 16 to 4 or fewer

Emerging Technology Working Group Simplified Mail Flow Deliver to Internet Deliver to Office 365 for @alumni.cpp.edu Internet Internet Deliver to Office 365 for @cpp.edu Office Office 365 365 Spam/Virus Scanning for @cpp.edu and @mailman.cpp.edu MX: @alumni.cpp.edu Group Options including moderation * User Options * McAfee SaaS McAfee SaaS MX: @cpp.edu MX: @mailman.cpp.edu Deliver to @cpp.edu and @mailman.cpp.edu for: Designated services/ devices permitted Authenticated users from login UNX servers ONLY Deliver to mailman server for @mailman.cpp.edu Deliver to Internet Deliver to @cpp.edu (NO Spam Scanning) Moderation & Mailman Server Deliver to all addresses Only designated services/devices permitted (NO Users) NO Spam Scanning smtp.cpp.edu (load balanced) adler.unx. tweak.unx. sparky.unx. Designated services/ devices Authenticated Users from login UNX servers ONLY vanilla.unx.cpp.edu (mailman.cpp.edu) Anti-Virus (AMaViS) CPP On CPP On- -Premises Mail Servers Premises Mail Servers

Emerging Technology Working Group Simplified Mail Flow Recommendation Schedule & Milestones Summer 2015: Develop management scripts, migrate low- impact mail services to Office 365, and begin communicating changes where there is user impact Winter 2016: Complete migration of mail features to Office 365

Emerging Technology Working Group Simplified Mail Flow Recommendation Risks Feature differences Identified 41 groups currently using features that are not supported in Office 365 IT will work with group administrators to identify the appropriate configuration going forward

Instructional Technology Working Group Presenters: Kevin Morningstar

Instructional Technology Working Group SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline Recommendation - Background/Findings March 2015 - $459,000 approved to upgrade college labs Two approved labs required a funding supplement of $95,690 IT worked with two colleges in an effort to secure additional financial resources funds were not available Additional funding from IT Division enabled two rooms to be fully upgraded

Instructional Technology Working Group SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline Recommendation - Background/Findings Performance Labs Highlight a Challenge Providing the broadest funding support, balanced investment of resources, and purchasing a sufficient number of computers to support timely replacement Actual Costs for Current Computers: Dell Standard PC $ 911.24 Dell Performance PC $1,117.93 Mac Standard 27 $1,960.01 + 75% Mac Performance 27 $3,285.99 +194%

Instructional Technology Working Group SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline Recommendation Guidelines SSF should fund the computers appropriate to course and faculty requirements Balanced model for the utilization of fiscal resources Funding per computer should be sufficient to purchase Windows and Mac standard computers Additional funding should be supplemented by the department, college or other resources

Instructional Technology Working Group SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline Recommendation Risks SSF Funding may not be sufficient in some cases Additional funding may not be available from colleges Computer platform preferences may result in higher costs Lab computer replacement data does not accurately estimate the problem Recommendation was based upon only one purchase cycle; cost differences may be exaggerated

Instructional Technology Working Group SSF Lab Computer Funding Guideline Recommendation The Student Success Fee will fund up to two times (2x) the current price of a designated Windows Performance Personal Computer. The ceiling will be set each year based upon the current cost for the campus standard Windows Performance Personal Computer purchased for deployment in computer labs. This ceiling amount is intended to fully fund the purchase of a Windows Standard PC, Windows Performance PC, and Mac Standard computers. Colleges will be responsible for funding the incremental cost above the ceiling amount.