1. TF-MSP AMSTERDAM - 18 MARCH 2015 Procurement process & benefits at SURFmarket Jan Bakker

2. New SURF  SURF changed its structure from a foundation to a cooperation (28th January)  Members are now owners  More futureproof structure, also from the perspective of insourcing activities from the members to SURF  Important role for the SURF subsidiaries SURFnet, SURFsara and SURFmarket concerning the innovation agenda (multi year plan 2015 – 2018)

3. SURFmarket: Mission SURFmarket, as the ICT marketplace of SURF, wants to deliver software, content and cloud services to higher and vocational education at the best possible terms and conditions, in a legitimate and easy accessible way

4. How it works for software & cloud services  Demand inspired, based on wish lists of ICT-management of institutions  SURFmarket responsible for legitimate procurement of consortia agreements with big vendors, as part of the core package of services (f.e. Microsoft, Adobe, IBM/SPSS, Blackboard, Symantec)  SURFmarket more and more involved in the process of legitimate procurement of non-consortia agreements, as part of the optional package of services

5. How it works for content  Demand driven, based on short list of university librarians and their colleagues at universities of applied sciences  No concerns about legitimacy  Main challenge is how to embed Open Access in big deal arrangements with scientific publishers

6. SURFmarket structure

7. Economies of scale (1)  Working with local partners to aggregate total Dutch education buying volume for software & cloud services, from primary to higher ed  Best example is nationwide framework agreement for education with Microsoft, with more than 9.000 participants  Joining forces within GEANT especially for cloud services (e.g. IaaS)

8. Economies of scale (2)  Total of 209 agreements with 127 ICT vendors and 44 publishers  Volume of license fees in 2014= 61M EUR  Estimated additional discount through joint procurement (effect of economies of scale) = 15% Savings in license fees due to collective agreements = 9,1M EUR Minus: Cost of operation = 5.3M EUR Net savings = 3.8M EUR (Figures 2014)

9. European tendering: approach  Bringing ICT and purchase departments together  Focus on a joint calender  Share mutual knowledge to deliver better quality  Cost sharing of the process itself  Less financial risk at the institutions side, “centralize” it at the SURFmarket level  Work more and more with framework agreements combined with a mini tender procedure

10. European tendering: examples & challenges  KUBUS:  Six universities for applied sciences cooperate with SURF for an IaaS offering  Institutions demands will be clear at the end of this month  SURF to decide about the scenario/delivery model of “make” or “buy” (or combination) in line with the SURF Cloud Approach  Model must be scalable to all SURF-members  LMS:  Blackboard agreement is expiring  Tender process will be started in short notice  Focus on framework agreements and mini tenders

11. SURF Cloud Approach Phase-1: 1.Institutions initiate an “Early Adopters Group” for a new cloud service 1.Requirements are defined jointly by EAG & SURF 2.Delivery models are explored 3.Choice of deliverymodel is made Phase-2: 5.Depending on the type of deliverymodel commitment will be confirmed 6.Start acquisition (‘buy’) or joint service development (‘make’) Phase-3: 7. Service available for all SURF members

12. THANK YOU