Collaboration at the Core of Change: Lake Forest College & Kalamazoo College

Commonalities between LFC and K o Small schools with small endowments o Merged organizations with similar philosophies o Libraries in Oberlin Group o Jenzabar (ERP) schools o Both working on new library building projects at time o Both struggling with small staff size and inadequate budgets o MITC/NITLE members

Where We Were

What We Are Not

Where We Wished to Be

Getting to Where We Wished to Be o Executive level discussion at LFC o Improve IT services o Add staff expertise o Temporarily fund through grant? o Conclusion: collaborative approach best chance of grant support o Contacted Kalamazoo o They said yes (the fools) o Applied to Mellon - received $200,000 grant for collaboration

What Were We Thinking? Donnelly and Lee Library Lake Forest College May 2003 – September 2004 Upjohn Library Commons Kalamazoo College June 2004 – December 2005 Both Colleges were undertaking major library renovations during collaboration.

Morphing of The Concept o Idea changes through further discussions (or, just what is it we really need, anyway?) o Difficult to find the ideal candidate o NITLE Conference in Lisle, IL provided more fodder for this crazy idea

Using IT for Competitive Advantage 4. Training 1. Administrative 8. Student 6. Hardware Installation 3. Desktop Repair 2. Helpline 9. Network 7. Web 5. Curricular

Decision to Hire Consultant o Dynamic Campus Solutions (DCS) selected to advise us on collaboration opportunities and prepare us to collaborate

o A solid technology foundation o Reliable systems and network connectivity o Sufficient/spare Internet bandwidth o Integrated networks and systems o Directed, knowledgeable, committed staff Successful Collaboration Needs

Opportunities for Collaboration o DCS recommendations for possible collaboration : o Network Services o Shared network maintenance & support o Shared Groupware system o Help Desk Services o Shared phone operators o Shared Help Desk system o Phone Service o New Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) phone system o Shared PBX administration o Web Services o Shared Liquid Matrix o Shared Content Management o Administrative Computing (ERP)

Selection of Projects o Shared Help Desk environment-Help Desk software o Shared Groupware – ( , calendar/scheduling system) o VoIP analysis and deployment o Install campus-wide shared network monitoring o Upgrade Internet connectivity o Review administrative shadow systems o Consolidate and optimize servers

Evaluation & Implementation o Groupware evaluated o Novell Groupwise o LotusNotes o Microsoft Exchange o Help Desk systems evaluated o Track-It o FrontRange HEAT o RT (open source)

And the Winners Were o Groupware selected o Microsoft Exchange o Help Desk system selected o Track-IT

History of Collaboration 2003 SpringLFC and K decide to collaborate on a Mellon Grant August$200,000 Grant received Fall Meeting in Kalamazoo, Jim and Lisa discuss approaches

History of Collaboration 2004 Feb LFC and K meet potential consultants for the first time—still thinking about ERP collaboration Winter Discussions with GLCA Director resulted in suggestion to hire consultants for project rather than hire a shared project manager Spring Negotiations with consultants Summer Consultant campus Visit to Kalamazoo College Fall Consultant campus Visit to Lake Forest College Nov Technology Improvement Plan received results in staffing changes at K and LFC Nov NITLE conference in Lisle, Illinois-further discussions ensued with Presidents and CIOs Dec Meeting at LFC to discuss specifics of collaboration after both reviews – “Preparation for Collaboration”

History of Collaboration 2005 Jan Signed implementation agreement with consultants Feb-Dec Implementation April Demos of Groupware and Help Desk systems May - August Implementation of Groupware and Help Desk systems SeptemberFall Semester roll out Dec Wrote second grant to Mellon for training

Political issues (or now the fun begins) o System architecture o What architecture do you use? 1.UNIX 2.Microsoft 3.Novell 4.HPux

CLAC Survey Results

What Were We Thinking?

Data Center o Evaluation of our current centers led to decision to contract with a data center in Chicago to house servers o Redundant power, multiple access to multiple ISPs o Expansion if collaboration grows

Outcomes o All servers in Chicago data center o Separate server farms for groupware and network file storage o Shared server for Help Desk systems

Data Center Schematic

Where We Are Now

Immediate Savings o Not as significant as could be o Negotiated for DS-3’s together o Better pricing on Microsoft software than if negotiated separately o Some savings on purchase of hardware o Definite savings on purchase of Track-IT software and hardware

Where We are Now o Informal sharing of resources o Staff expertise o Staff assistance o Track-IT o Running on same server o Can see each other’s tickets o Poised for further collaboration o Groupware o Separate servers, but sharing back-up strategy o Poised for further collaboration

Where We Hope to Be o Positioned for sharing staff o Systems administration o.NET programming expertise o VoIP implementation o Help Desk — deeper collaboration o Sharing tools and best practices o Adding additional partners

What Are We Thinking?

Where We Wish to Be