1. Video CIO Council Update October 31, 2016Monday2:45-3:15Smith 561

2. Purpose and Intended Outcome Review Purpose Examine current funding models for HUIT’s Video services and discuss model adjustments to ensure transparency, simplicity and sustainability Intended Outcome Validation of and buy-in for the proposed financing approaches for Video for FY’18 or feedback on recommendations Agenda Financial Model Proposal Review: Fixed vs. Variable School Contribution Next Steps, Feedback and Close 2

3. As a reminder, there are two areas of the video service funding model we are discussing 3

4. One area relates to the HILT subsidy for Mediasite usage and we have reached out to affected schools to discuss impact 4

5. Today we will discuss potential fee structures for the school’s portion of the shared expenses 5 We are proposing models to recover total costs equivalent to approximately 0.5 FTEs

6. The October 3 rd Proposal suggested moving to a cost-plus model which allows HUIT to offer a sustainable set of video services 6 1.Eliminate school contribution model as part of fixed funding – No longer have schools contribute a fixed sum of $11,000 annually 2.Transition Pure Pass-Through Model to a Cost-Plus Model for Mediasite and Kaltura Usage – Develop a cost-plus model for Kaltura and Mediasite that calculates fees based on actual usage and accounts for the HUIT shared services required to deliver those platforms – Move from $11k per school to a cost + 20% model Schools currently usage is $376,556 $376,556*0.2 = $75,311 (approximately revenue neutral) 3.Address immediate and emerging Storage Trends and Risks – Establish Retention Policy Work Group The CIO Council asked that we explored blended models as well as fixed and completely usage based.

7. Options for Fee Structure 7 Schools pay a standard, set fixed rate to cover non-vendor costs related to service in addition to pass through for vendor costs Schools pay $11K annually in addition to vendor pass through FIXEDBLENDED RATECOST-PLUS Fee structure is entirely built upon usage. Schools pay vendor costs plus 20% School’s payment for non- vendor costs ranges from $900 to $20K A portion of the service costs are fixed, as they are not driven by usage, and the remainder are charged as a percentage of vendor costs Schools pay a fixed amount oF $5.5k for certain element of service and 10% of vendor costs for usage-based overhead

8. Service Components Assessment 8 Service ComponentFixed/Usage-BasedEstimate of HUIT Time StrategyFixed5% PolicyFixed5% Vendor ManagementFixed5% Contract ManagementFixed10% ConfigurationUsage-Based20% IntegrationFixed15% CommunityFixed10% SupportUsage-Based30% The math works out to a 50 / 50 split

9. Estimated Non-Vendor Cost Per School - Decision 9 FixedBlendedUsage-Base GSD$11,000$8,827$6,653 GSE$11,000$14,568$18,136 HBS$11,000$11,700$12,400 HDS$11,000$5,940$879 HKS$11,000$10,876$10,752 HLS$11,000$7,580$4,160 HMS$11,000$7,221$3,442 HSPH$11,000$15,589$20,177

10. Appendix

11. Demand for Video Services continues to grow, resulting in a CIO Council Strategic Initiative and HUIT Top 10 Goal 11 CIO Council Strategic InitiativeHUIT Top 10 Goal

12. Our community is leveraging the CIO Council endorsed Mediasite platform as well as Kaltura 12 Video ServicesService Components Video Management Systems Service Provide solutions to enable video delivery, live streaming, content management, and analytics Strategy Policy Vendor Management Contract Management Configuration Integration Community Support Video Storage Service Provide video file storage solutions including near-line and archive Video Accessibility Provide solutions to meet our community accessibility needs Platform Usage MediasiteFAS, GSE, GSD, HSPH, HDS, HMS, HKS KalturaSEAS, GSE, GSD, HSPH, HBS, HLS, HKS (also IOP, HPAC, HBSP)

13. In FY17, the HILT Grant was used to pay for much of the school’s Mediasite usage ($248,000) 13

14. With the current model and trends in video usage, we will see over $1 million in annual operating losses by the end of FY22 14

15. Strategic Objectives Provide a centrally managed service to create, manage, retain, and distribute Harvard’s video content Incorporate ability to search, identify, and retrieve video content wherever and however it is created Establish a group of University archivists and library experts to help define standards and guidelines for managing Harvard’s video content Provide a solution that enables long term retention of Harvard’s video and multimedia assets Guiding PrinciplesKey Performance Indicators Increase the number of users/groups using the video storage service Reduce video content transfer time Standardize naming and tagging conventions Reduce overall video storage costs Increase the amount of video content stored in the cloud Leverage local and cloud storage that provides the performance and flexibility required to support the wide range of video use cases Define naming standards and metadata tagging to improve the ability to search and share video content Establish a communities of practice working group to provide governance and support for video content management Utilize cloud storage and archive technology to support long term retention of video content Provide a cost-effective service to manage and store video content that will optimize efficiencies, support defined retention policies, and leverage, where appropriate, cloud storage to ensure Harvard’s video assets remain accessible and usable. Our Vision for Video Storage Video Storage Vision [ DRAFT] 15

16. AT | Video Services | Proposing a Retention Policy Workgroup We need to look to, at least, bend the storage growth curve 16 Proposed Objective: Publish retention guidelines for defined categories of video assets along dimensions including time to store, quality, storage locations, and number of versions and define Mediasite and Kaltura automation solutions to aid in the policy implementation Mediasite Storage Growth