1. E-Mail/Calendaring Evaluation and Recommendation E-MAIL/CALENDARING STEERING GROUP FEBRUARY 2014

2. Steering Group Composition Kim Maier Julie Matuszak Matt Roberts (Chair) Liz Schaal Joe Sigwarth Tonya Stappert Sally Swindall Joanne Wilson

3. Steering Group Objectives A review of the current market and the contracts already negotiated and available to the University for e-mail and calendaring. Determination of important criteria and requirements based on campus feedback. The development of scoring criteria based on University needs for e-mail and calendaring and a fit/gap analysis of e-mail and calendaring solutions available. The gathering of campus feedback on final potential solutions through surveys, listening sessions and vendor demonstrations. A recommended solution to the TOPC Committee* by February 2014. * Now IT Prioritization Committee

4. Technical Group Valerie Cowling Dale Johnson Nate Manwiller Josh Savoy

5. Vendors Considered Google Apps for Education Microsoft Office 365 Zimbra on-premises – Status Quo Zimbra hosted off-site (e.g., Merit.edu) Student e-mail providers (Source: EDUCAUSE 2011 Core Data Services Report)

6. Process 1. Campus survey 2. Campus visits by vendors 3. Criteria matrices 4. Focus groups

7. Recommendation 1. Zimbra hosted off-site – Our recommendation as the best solution for the campus 2. Microsoft 365 – Our recommendation if cost is an overriding factor

8. Zimbra Overview Strengths  The campus is familiar with it and satisfied (7) (survey & focus groups)  Merit.edu offers unlimited storage (2)  More control – we own the data (2)  Easier transition Weaknesses  Higher cost (5)  Mobile devices (3)  Company viability (2)  Alumni accounts (2)

9. Microsoft 365 Overview Strengths  Cost (2)  Mobile devices (2)  Office 365 and Sharepoint  Most UW Schools are using it  Students get 5 free licenses to Office  Alumni accounts  Desktop integration with Windows  Dominant corporate e-mail provider (for now) Weaknesses  Limited calendar functionality in the web version (4)  Some data will not transfer/difficult transition (4)  Loss of control/longer to get support (2)  Advanced features only available in outlook client  Upgrade schedules

10. Other Considerations Training/Education  Zimbra Features  Using off-campus features (e.g., Google Drive)  Records retention Storage (J: Drive, S: Drive, etc.)  Zimbra Briefcase  Microsoft SkyDrive Our current e-mail infrastructure will need to be upgraded by Jan 2015 Decision will affect costs and integration with other campus systems (e.g., storage, staff time, etc.)