1. MAIRÉAD MARTIN WINTER CSG MEETING JANUARY 2010 Shared Services Working Group

2. Working Group Membership Asbed Bedrossian Kitty Bridges Steve Cawley Tracy Futhey (co-chair) James Hilton (co-chair) Klara Jelinkova Deborah Keyek-Franssen Tracy Mitrano Kenneth Schuetz Ron Thielen R. David Vernon Shel Waggener

3. Background Initiated at CSG meeting May 2009 Charter: Provide a shared, binding framework to Higher Ed institutions seeking to aggregate demand for or provide shared IT services across multiple institutions in order to achieve economies and efficiencies beyond those available to a single institution.

4. Service Examples Sourcing from a commercial provider: An organized group of universities is interested in buying a petabyte of storage from a commercial provider as a consortium A group of universities wish to buy hosted exchange service from Microsoft, leveraging their collective buying power Several universities wish to use “the cloud” to deliver Virtual Machines, and collaborate to identify common Operating Systems, CPU, storage & network requirements which are used to issue RFP for vendor bids

5. Service Examples Provisioning amongst ourselves: Bilateral agreements to share data center space for disaster recovery Ten universities form a consortium to jointly build and run a large data center One university agrees to provide email service for other universities on a cost recovery basis

6. Benefits of Aggregation Economies of scale Increased efficiency through standardization Enhancing collaboration and sharing of resources Streamlined contracting process

7. Potential Legal Issues Antitrust Data protection and assurance concerns Software code escrow Liability/indemnity State law issues Tax issues Personnel rules Intellectual Property Rights distribution Establishing enforceable service-level Avoiding conflicts with existing agreements

8. Process Followed Discussion at NACUA annual meeting in July ‘09 From October ’09 subset of CSG working group worked with NACUA representatives  NACUA: Henry Cuthbert (Duke); Madelyn Wessel (UV); Beth Cate (IU)  CSG: James Hilton, Tracy Futhey, Kitty Bridges, Mairéad Martin Test cases:  Outsourcing faculty/staff email  Shared data center space

9. Test Case #1: Faculty/staff email Steps:  CSG reps articulated technical issues and aligned existing contractual/RFP statements with those  NACUA reps worked up straw man RFP Technical architecture or functionalities not the focus Not vendor specific

10. Email Test Case: Issues Data Stewardship  Ownership  Security  Retention and disposal  Integrity Privacy and confidentiality Integration & operational issues Support for aggregation and coordination of demand

11. Test Case #2: Data Center Sharing Data center co-location “I have hardware I want to put in a data center.” Data center support services “I have application running on hardware in the data center and need additional services.” Data center fully managed services “I need to have my application running somewhere and managed by someone, but I don’t want to own or manage any of the hardware”

12. Immediate Next Steps Finalizing RFP Fleshing out the data center sharing use case Articulating the value proposition for vendors …………..