1. UW Enterprise Portal Evaluation Report to Sponsors 18 February 2010

2. Project Charter Goal “Evaluate and make a recommendation on a portal platform that could be used for all University populations and to propose a high-level implementation plan that would include research administration as an early pilot.”

3. Project Organization Project Planning/Leads Application Integration Community Expectations InfrastructurePortal Core User Interface Mobility

4. Drivers / Needs Improve the research administration and compliance experience Integrate administrative systems and applications Integrate more UW information and services – leverage the community Provide experience based on UW role(s)

5. An Enterprise Portal An integration platform that securely provides a central point for accessing, personalizing, and configuring information and applications appropriate to your role in the University. A standards-based integration and/or presentation platform.

6. High Level Requirements Consume identities and roles and groups Tailor presentation based on roles Easy to publish content User discovery and choice User layout control Provide themes Display current data, refresh on changes Unified notification system Admin forcing of some content Two factor authentication Display personalization Customizable authentication levels

7. Candidate Platforms Primary Candidates included: – uPortal – Liferay iGoogle and SharePoint were also considered. – Our preliminary investigations quickly revealed neither consistently met our portal definition and criteria.

8. Candidate Platform Comparisons BenefitsChallenges Good product documentation Easier codebase maintenance Better LDAP support Rich user interface Good administration tools Better application integration standards offers a content management system and integration with collaboration tools (MS Office/SharePoint ) Lack of basic support for mobile applications Does not offer desired security options out of box Offers desired security options out of box Larger higher ed usage Lacks overall product documentation Lack of basic support for mobile applications Less user- friendly Harder to administer

9. Platform Recommendation Liferay will require some custom work to integrate Shibboleth.

10. Long-Term Recommendation: Establish an Enterprise Portal Program Develop the foundation to support a long- term, sustainable enterprise portal program. Position the UW to evolve its application and information aggregation strategies.

11. Foundations of a Successful Program Executive sponsorship and management support Community participation and governance Appropriate resource mix and allocation Processes for quality assurance, deploying new content, and content evaluation Data driven decisions on organization and content User interface and technical standards Ongoing technology renewal

12. Proposed Structure UW IT GovernancePortal Working Group User Experience Standards Tech Standards

13. Recommended Next Steps 1.Perform Proof-of-concept IAM Integration – TIMELINE: 2-3 weeks (40-80 hours) – RESOURCES: Software engineer, IAM engineer, test & development infrastructure 2.Complete foundation Setting and Discovery – TIMELINE: 3-6 months – RESOURCES: Program manager, UX designer, database administrator, QA engineer Implement Governance Model Implement Communication Plan Portal Infrastructure Planning and Development 3.Plan for Initial Release – TIMELINE: Unknown at this point – RESOURCES: Additional software engineer, support, production infrastructure, training Develop a migration strategy for current MyUW content Decide on new content to include Implement production system Develop a change management and communications strategy

14. Ongoing Resources (in addition to community participation) 1 FTE Program Manager 2 FTE Software Engineers 1 FTE User Experience Designer 0.25 FTE Quality Assurance Engineer 0.25 Database Administrator.25 -.50 FTE Support (student hourly).2 FTE Identity and Access Management engineering

15. Initial and Ongoing Costs Insert Cost Information when available

16. Discussion Questions about recomendations or evaluation criteria? What resources are required when? OK to proceed with next steps? Who is the portal service manager/owner?

17. Resources Project Report: https://wiki.cac.washington.edu/display/porta l/Report+Draft https://wiki.cac.washington.edu/display/porta l/Report+Draft Project Web Site: https://wiki.cac.washington.edu/display/porta l/Home https://wiki.cac.washington.edu/display/porta l/Home Liferay Portal: http://www.liferay.com/http://www.liferay.com/

18. Acknowledgements Rupert Berk, Leman Chung, Dan Comden, David Cox, Jelena Curless, Jennifer Dobbelaere, Nathan Dors, Frank Fujimoto, Janice Granberg, Brad Greer, Alisa Hata, Chris Heiland, Gina Hills, Marcus Hirsch, Bob Hurt, Bob Jamieson, Jim Kresl, Jim Laney, Tom Lewis, Fang Lin, Ping Lo, Jim Loter, Erik Lundberg, Mark McNair, Todd Mildon, RL (Bob) Morgan, David Morton, Clara Nic Mhathuna, Paul Prestin, Gary Prohaska, Ammy Phuwanartnurak, Oren Sreebny, Mike Seibel, Scott Stephenson, Paul Schurr, Dan Trippel, Ann Testroet, Darcy Van Patten, Jennifer Ward, David Wall, James Werle, Charles Wesley, Sean Vaughan, Bill Yock